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! 

Apostle Peter on the Perseverance of the Saints: Trinitarian and Gracious

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

What a blessed passage, promising to us that God the Father has reserved for us a salvation in Christ that can never be lost. Among the Reformed, this is called "perseverance of the saints" (not identical to "once saved always saved," the Arminian version). 

First, let us consider to whom Peter is speaking. Lazy Christians often ignore the audience in determining the meaning of a passage, but it is essential here. We see it in verses 1-2: "To those who are elect... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling with His blood." So, Peter is not speaking to men in general, but specifically to believers. And notice how he marks believers, as the elect! 

Peter is making  a logical argument. He assures God's people of our eternal security, not from anything found in ourselves, but as a logical conclusion from his prior assumption of gracious election, bringing all three Persons of the Trinity into the activation and sustaining of the salvation of the church. He starts with election, to effectual calling, to perseverance. 

Sovereign Grace as the Only Rational Basis for Assurance

"Let your souls be filled and enlarged with everlasting admirings [sic] of that grace (that sovereign grace) which has so impregnably secured the salvation of His chosen, that no manner of thing, whether within them or without them, shall be able to defeat it or hinder them of it. No, not the gates of hell. Nay, not so much as one of the stakes thereof shall be removed, and that forever. Shaken you may be, and tossed with a tempest, but not overturned, because ye have an eternal root. Electing love is of that sovereignty that it rules and overrules all, both in heaven and in earth." -Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

In this paragraph, Coles paraphrases and summarizes several passages of Scripture, primary of which is Romans 8:38-39: "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present,nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

The point of both Apostle Paul and Coles is that the assurance of the Christian is secure, not because of the power of the believer to maintain his spiritual condition, but because he is sustained by the same sovereign grace which saved him in the beginning. For, as Paul also says, "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6: see also 2:13). 

Does any Christian believe that God is unaware of our weakness, of our frailty, of the strength of the opposition (I Peter 5:8)? If He weren't, then we could have no rational basis for our assurance of eternal life. When Satan assails us with accusations of our unworthiness, he merely throws in our faces what is absolutely correct! However, Satan will never go to the next step, telling us of the grace and power of God the Son, our Redeemer Jesus Christ, because that would defeat all of Satan's designs against us. It is only in the Word of God that we are blessed with this promise: "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, emphasis added). Our security is assured, not by any strength that we have, for we have none. Rather, it is guaranteed by the strength of the One who holds us.

When Are the "Last Days"?

Among those of a certain eschatological bent, the 'last days" of the New testament have been identified repeatedly with events current at that time. Most recently, the covid crisis and the war in Ukraine are cited as evidence that we are now in the last days, and that the rapture will occur any day. 

The problem is that none of those declarations ever give/gave proper consideration to how the phrase is used in the New Testament. "The last days" is treated as if it is disconnected from the rest of Scripture, with no meaning to those who used it, or as if it could be meaningful to its audience, even if it would occur two-thousand years (so far) in their future. 

Consider Hebrews 2:1-2: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." To the author of the epistle, the last days were "these last days," not "those last days," as assumed by the dispensationalist. He considered the phrase to describe the time in which he wrote, not some far future time. He reinforces this intent by relating the last days to the coming of Jesus, i. e., His first coming, not the second. 

The Apostle Peter said something similar in I Peter 1:19-20: "But with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." Peter is referring to two events that were past tense at the time he wrote, the plan for the Son from before the foundation of the world and His manifestation. When did that happen? At his incarnation, which is why Peter uses the past tense of the verb. To him, the last times were past (or continuing), not two-thousand years in the future. 

The Apostle John, the only writer to mention an antichrist, mentions antichrists in I John 2:18: "Children, it is the las hour, and, as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour." This one verse gives us two key pieces of information. First is that he refers to a belief among Christians of a coming antichrist. He corrects them in two ways, one that the word is plural, not singular, and the second that some of the antichrists had already come. Therefore, he concluded, the time in which he wrote was the last hour. His statements preclude a future Antichrist or last day, yet dispensationalists pass right over it. 

In Hebrews 9:26, that writer again describes the end of the ages: "For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But, as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Again, He identifies the last days not just with the coming of Jesus, as in the verse at the top, but specifically with His working of redemption. Again, that necessarily happened two-thousand years ago, past tense even when Hebrews was written, not in his or our future. To the same effect is Peter in I Peter 1:20: "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." 

Together, these references are infallible evidence that a future "last day" is unbiblical, the invention of men, not just apart from scriptural support, but in contradiction to the biblical testimony. 

The Unpopular Biblical Doctrine of Reprobation

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." 

-Proverbs 16:4 

I think that the least-popular doctrine of Calvinism is that of reprobation, the biblical teaching that God has not only elected some to salvation, but has also chosen the rest for damnation. In biblical language, it is said that God has made the reprobate from the same lump of clay, but as "vessels for dishonorable use" (Romans 9:21; see same phrase in II Timothy 2:20). Both Peter (I Peter 2:8) and Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:4), tell us that false teachers were anciently purposed for condemnation. 

Yet, though Scripture is explicit on the matter, Christians hate it, deny it, and turn a blind eye to such verses. Even Reformed Christians soften the teaching by saying that it is merely God's passive passing by those whom He has not decided to elect unto salvation. In other words, God, they say, did not decree that the reprobate would die in unbelief; rather, He simply decided not to ordain their salvation. Yet Scripture tells us, "He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). Paul certainly showed no hesitancy in declaring that unbelief is as much the decree of God as is belief. 

So, why are Christians of today hesitant, where our forefathers showed no hesitation to speak plainly? 

I think that it is because of the infiltration of the worldview of autonomy into the Christian mentality that has created this backpedaling. American evangelicals have adopted the American cultural view of autonomy, of personal sovereignty, against which the sovereignty of God is a distasteful atavism. Yes, the Puritans held to God's absolute kingship over the creature, but we have outgrown that. 

We have? 

Not really. Rather, that absolute personal autonomy falls back to a time far earlier than that of Paul, Peter, or Jude. It hearkens back to the words of Satan in Genesis 3:5, when he deceitfully tempted Adam and Eve with the myth of independence of the creature from the Creator. 

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.

The Limited Atonement of Arminianism

Arminians often accuse Calvinists of denying the atonement to some people by our biblical claim that it was particular. That is, we Calvinists follow the words of Jesus that He would die for those whom  the Father had given Him, His friends, His sheep (John 6:37-39, etc.), or, in the words of Paul, for His Church (Ephesians 5:25). Yes, we believe that the Groom had the right and responsibility to love His Bride, not strange women (Proverbs 5:15).

However, in denying that biblical truth, the Arminian replaces it with an assertion that the atonement was universal, but only partial. That is, Jesus didn't necessarily die to save anyone. Rather, He died merely to make salvation possible.

So, for what purpose did Jesus die: "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Or, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25, cp. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). There are two things evident in these verses. First, that the blood of Jesus was intended to cleanse its objects from sins. And notice the pronouns that Peter uses, "our," "you," and "your." Those are particular pronouns, referring his comment to the audience of his epistle. Who was that? "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1:1-3). Peter was speaking to Christians, not to non-Christians. And second, notice that there is no conditionality in these verses. There is no hemming and hawing about what men must do to make the atonement effectual. In fact, the Apostle even says that it is God who causes us to be born again.

However, the Arminian reads those same verses and blanks out the parts that refute him

So, I will ask these questions of the Arminian. Jesus tells us of men who will "die in their sins" (John 8:21). Then He mentions those whose "sin remains" (John 9:41). If Jesus died for the sins of all men, then why do these men still have sin when they die? Then the Arminian is forced to answer, "because they don't respond in faith." Ah, there it is: the Arminian limited atonement! Jesus died somewhat for all men, but that atonement is insufficient, until the man adds his assent.

So, when the Arminian thinks that he is morally superior because the Calvinist says that Jesus fully and effectually redeemed particular people, he is really suppressing his tacit claim that the atonement of his version of Jesus is so limited that it cannot save anyone without a little help from sinful men.

I deny that the Arminian doctrine is moral at all, much less more so that is the doctrine of Calvinism.

A Washed Conscience from a Baby in a Manger

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Sovereign Grace, the Trinity, and the Christian Life

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

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

- I Peter 1:1-2 

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

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

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

Calvinist Peter on Election and Perseverance

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

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

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

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

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

Peter and Paul Against Annihilationism: What of Judgment?

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

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

The problem is that Scriptures say the opposite.

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

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

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

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

Perseverance Four Ways

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

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

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

Apostle Peter Preaches

No Hierarchical Bishops in Scripture

In Acts 20, Luke gives us an account of a trip by Paul to Miletus. From there, he calls for the elders from the church in nearby Ephesus to come to meet with him: "Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him." In today's parlance, we would call it a strategy meeting.

Then, when he is speaking to them, we find this interesting comment: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (Acts 20:28).

What makes such a seemingly-mundane statement interesting? Notice the title "elders" in verse 17. That is a translation of the Greek word "presbuteros." From it, we get the English word "priest." However, its basic meaning is "an older person," from which it has been adapted to designate the church office of "elder."

However, in verse 28, the same men get addressed, not by their title, but by their job, "overseers." That English word is used to translate the Greek word "episkopos," from which we get the English word, "bishop." But it simply means "one who oversees," or a manager (see also I Peter 5:1-2).

The significance of that is that it eliminates any claim by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Anglican Church, that their office of monarchical bishop is derived from Scripture. The word is there, of course, but of a kind completely different from the extravagant powers and privileges associated with that title, especially those blasphemous claims to the pope to be the Universal Bishop, with authority over all Christians in the world.

Reprobation Across the Scriptures: Moses to Jesus

In a brief pericope, Jesus says something shocking: "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matthew 12:33-37). The shocking thing is to see the Lord Jesus calling people "brood of vipers," not at all the kind of language which we would expect from the effeminate Jesus of popular Christianity. The same phrase is used for the same people by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7, and a second time by Jesus in Matthew 23:33. 
 

John the Baptist Preaches

When certain words are repeated by two different biblical figures, especially when one is Jesus, and in different circumstances, it should be taken as an indication that they have special significance. What might it be here?

I think the key is the very first declaration of the Gospel in the Bible (Genesis 3:15): "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." While lacking the clarity that would come with later revelation, we see the distinction between the elect, "the seed of the woman," and the reprobate, "the seed of the serpent." 

Look at that second phrase. Do you see the parallel? Are not "brood of vipers" and "seed of the serpent" equivalent? I think that they are. 

Jesus is demonstrating His omniscience in declaring some of those around Him to be reprobates, to be destined from prehistory to follow Satan, and to be under the judgment of God (compare I Peter 2:8). John the Baptist was not omniscient, of course, but appears to have received special insight to recognize the same thing. They both borrow an image from Moses to address a similar spiritual situation, in which wicked people are demonstrating to which division of humanity they belong.

Can Baptism Save When There Is No Water?

In various conversations, I have dealt with Oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Church of Christ members who claimed that I Peter 3:21 teaches Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

." That is all they quote, and trumpet, "See! Baptism saves you!" And those words look pretty definite. However there is more to the passage than that one sentence.

Notice what Peter says: "which corresponds to this." Ah, now the obvious question should be, corresponds to what? Yet no one ever asks that question.

In the immediately preceding verse, Peter says, "when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water." 

Ah, so the comparison that Peter is making is to Noah, his wife, three sons, and three daughters-in-law, who were preserved during the Flood. Where were Noah and his family during the Flood? "Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood" (Genesis 7:7). Noah and his family weren't in the water. In fact, everyone in the water died. Noah and his family remained dry.

So, Peter is comparing a situation in which people remained dry to water baptism! If his point were that baptism is salvific, then Noah and his family would have been the only people not saved during the Flood! And such an absurdity proves that baptismal regeneration is not what is taught in I Peter 3:21.

Rather, continuing in that verse, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." So, not the baptism per se, but rather what it represents, "a good conscience," a synonym for "faith." Peter is actually teaching the opposite of what the sacerdotalists claim for him, justification by faith alone, not by the addition of any ritual.

Transubstantiation and Eating Blood

Before I start, I wanted to mention that this is my 600th post!

In the Old Testament, God makes clear the point that He didn't want His people to consume blood.

It started when men first started eating meat, after the Flood: "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Genesis 9:4). Thus, it wasn't part of the Mosaic laws of ceremonial cleanness.

It did, however, continue under the Mosaic ceremonies: "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people" (Leviticus 17:10). And, "Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23).

It is also found in the New Testament: "You [shall] abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" (Acts 15:29).

I bring this up because of the Catholic doctrine of the eucharist, according to which Rome claims that the wine and bread of communion literally become the blood and flesh of Jesus. Their official statement on the matter comes form the Council of Trent: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). 

Do you see the conflict? While the scriptures repeatedly condemn consuming blood, the Church of Rome claims that her members do literally that in the eucharist! That shows, first, that Rome's eucharist, in spite of the name, is no act of thanksgiving, but is, instead, a rite of superstition; and second, that the words of Jesus, "This is My blood," cannot be taken literally.

Why did God forbid the consuming of blood? Because it is life. The animal cannot live if it loses its blood. And, more importantly, it is the blood of Christ that is ultimate life, because it alone is the basis of eternal life. While Rome is correct in pointing to the blood of Jesus for salvation (John 6:54), she is wrong in how it is applied. There is no salvation in ceremonies. It is only by faith that the benefits of Christ's blood are received: "We are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:24-25, see also Ephesians 2:13, Hebrews 9:14, and I Peter 1:19). While talking about the blood of Christ, Rome makes her priests the conduits of salvation, in place of faith. that is one of the reasons that the Catholic eucharist is a blasphemy, in which no true Christian should participate.

Pride and the Burden of Sin

Martin Luther said something with which I agree completely: "For as long as he [i. e., man] is persuaded that he himself can do even the least thing toward his salvation, he retains some self-confidence and does not altogether despair of himself, and therefore he is not humbled before God, but presumes that there is - or at least hopes or desires that there may be - some place, time, and work for him, by which he may at length attain salvation."

He is putting into his own words the principle of I Peter 5:5 (quoting in turn from Proverbs 3:34): "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 

This is the same fault with which Jesus charged the Pharisees in the parable of Luke 18:9-14: "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 'Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.'" The Pharisee erroneously believed that sin is a problem that other people have. Jesus said that His ministry isn't directed to such people, because "God opposes the proud." Rather, He would give grace, His attention, to those who understand their sinfulness and need for salvation: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick" (Luke 5:31). I am writing this because I run into people, mainly Catholics and Mormons, who say they believe in the atoning work of Jesus, but not as salvation itself. They see it, instead, as as the completion of their own works. Mormons even have a phrase for it, "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (II Nephi 25:23, in the Book of Mormon). 
It is only when the Holy Spirit, through the Law, exposes to such people the true wickedness of their hearts, as in the case of the tax-collector above, that they are then enabled to look to Jesus alone for salvation.

Moral Accountability: What is Atheism's Standard?

Is morality objective? By that, I mean, are there certain things which are wrong by nature, not because of some normative standard, regardless of the worldview or circumstances of the person committing the act? Most people, including atheists, would say so. The Holocaust was just wrong, for example. There is even a philosophy called Objectivism, based on that idea. I don't agree.

Logically, the concept of objective morality is self-destructive. It cannot be sustained by the worldview which advocates it.

In order to hold to a morality, we must assume accountability for our actions. Without accountability, we relapse back to subjectivism, every man doing what is right in his own eyes. But is accountability to something personal? Or to something impersonal? We must say to something personal, because the impersonal substance merely continues to function according to its physical laws, without regard to how some particles within it conceive their actions. What is the nature of the universe? Impersonal. Therefore, there can be no accountability to it. Yet, the accountability must still be to a universal, personal being, lest, again, we slip into subjectivism.

Therefore, we are, indeed, accountable to a universal, personal being, who is apart from the physical universe. Can there be any more-basic definition of deity? But that cannot be just any deity. Allah is completely independent of, and disconnected from, the physical creation. So is the god of modern Judaism. It is, in contrast, only the triune God of the Bible who can meet the definition of this logic. Why? Because He alone, though distinct from the physical universe, has entered it in the incarnation. He alone has united His transcendence with a true human nature, so that He has bridged that inherent gap between Himself and us.

In spite of the claims of the Objectivists, there is no morality apart from God. He defines it, and it is to Him that we are accountable for our actions, giving both objectivity and universality. And it is Him that we have offended by our moral failures: "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:2). But He is merciful, and has provided a way to bridge that gap again, through His incarnation in Jesus Christ: "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25).

Proving God: God Blesses His Word Alone

As I write this, I am working through the reading list for an apologetics course. The books mention several bible verses on the topic, such as II Corinthians 10:4-5 and I Peter 3:15. And I fully understand why those verses get a lot of attention. They are of obvious importance.

However, two other verses come to my mind that don't appear in apologetics texts.

The first is Luke 16:31. it comes at the end of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. In the story, impoverished, suffering Lazarus goes to Heaven, while the unnamed rich man, who had ignored Lazarus on his doorstep during life, goes to Hell. From there, the rich man begs the Patriarch Abraham to send someone to warn his brothers of the reality of judgment and Hell. Then Jesus, in the voice of Abraham, answers, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." The rich man represents the atheist in modern America, who claims that he would believe in God, if He just gave whatever evidence the atheist happens to demand. but no, says Jesus, that's a lie. Any man who rejects the evidence of the Bible, in which God has spoken to all men, has rejected the principle of evidence. What evidence can there be above God's personal testimonial, not just to His existence, but to His nature, His will, and His provision for the salvation of His people?

The other verse is Isaiah 55:11: "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." This is the flip-side of the verse from Luke. Where that verse said that no evidence will avail apart from God's Word, this one promises that His Word will succeed where He has purposed it.

Nowhere in Scripture does any preacher, including Jesus Himself, ever seek to prove the existence of God. Rather, they all take it for granted, and then proceed to apply His truth to their respective audiences.

The Error of Baptismal Regeneration

"Baptismal regeneration" is the doctrine regarding baptism that claims that it is essential to salvation. The details vary. Some, such as the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and some Lutherans and Anglicans, believe that baptism carries the power to cleanse sins and to make the person a Christian. Others, such as Oneness Pentecostals and the Church of Christ merely teach that it is required for salvation, but not that it gives salvation.

What I say here will apply to both forms.

There is no place in Scripture that says, "No one is saved by baptism." That isn't because Jesus and the Apostles didn't believe that. Rather, it was considered so obvious that no such statement was necessary. Why? Because it is faith which is the means of regeneration, not baptism: "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38). By saying what does justify, they eliminated the need to specify what did not.

But we can go further.

Paul said of his ministry, "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (I Corinthians 1:17). How did Paul join his hearers to the cross work of Jesus? If baptism did so, then that is what he would have done. But it's not! Rather, instead of baptism, Paul's calling was to preach! See also his description of all ministers in Romans 10:14-15: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" Since it is by faith that men are justified, the ministry requires, not baptizing, but preaching!

By this, I do not mean to imply that baptism is unimportant. We have the explicit ordinance of Christ Himself (Matthew 28:19-20): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." But even here, He tells us to disciple the nations - that is the preaching part - and then to baptize them. Baptismal regeneration reverses that order.

The one verse that is sometimes claimed to demonstrate baptismal regeneration is I Peter 3:21: "Baptism now saves you." Sounds ironclad, doesn't it? Except that the sentence continues: "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." So, not the washing but the good conscience is our appeal to God. "A good conscience" is another way of saying "faith." The verse actually teaches the opposite of "baptismal regeneration," when read in completion.