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 not 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! 

"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. 

The Word of God Against Abortion Exceptions for Rape and Incest

In Ezekiel 18, that prophet gives us this rebuke to Israel from her God: "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine: the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). This verse is often taken out of context to mean that sin causes spiritual death. While that doctrine is true, it has nothing to do with the prophet's message here. As the rest of the chapter goes on to tell us, this verse is about God's justice. The soul that sins shall die for its own sins, not the sins of another person. 

"If a man is righteous and does what is just and right -... he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:5, 9). "[Then] if he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood... Shall this son live? He shall not live. he has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18: 10, 13). So the prophet gives a hypothetical case of a righteous man with a wicked son. Shall the righteousness of the father preserve the wicked son from the just consequences of his wicked acts? No, it shall not. 

Now we are given the case the other way: "Now suppose that this man [i. e., the wicked son] fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise... He shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity" (Ezekiel 18:14, 17-18). So now the wicked man has a godly son, the grandson of the earlier righteous man. Shall this son die for his father's wickedness? No. In fact, the wicked son, even though he is between two generations of godly men, is also not excused thereby, but is required still to receive justice. 

"Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all My statures, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:19-20). This was a remarkable statement at the time! It was the common practice to kill whole extended families for the crime of one member. God declares that the common system was not His standard of justice. 

We have moved beyond such primitive concepts as described here, haven't we? We like to tell ourselves that, but it just isn't so. Do not most prolife Americans take for granted that exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest must always be allowed? Why is that? Has the preborn child committed a crime worthy of death? I would say that he obviously has not. Rather, in either case, it was his father who committed the crime. So why do we grant that killing the innocent baby is a just response? 

I think that this passage from Ezekiel shows that God does not grant such injustice. 

Ezekiel and the Preaching of the Gospel

In the second chapter of Ezekiel, we have God's commissioning of the prophet to Israel in exile in Babylon. God's plan is not like men's plans for today's evangelistic crusades: "Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against Me. They and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. The descendants also are impudent and stubborn; I send you to them, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God.' And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that a prophet has been among them" (Ezekiel 2:3-5).  Ezekiel's commission is not to someone that God has prepared to hear his message. He warns His messenger that his audience is rebellious. Yet that is his calling. On the other hand, God does promise Ezekiel one thing, that Israel will know that a prophet of God was among them. 

We see this with the best of today's street preachers. If they speak the word of God, they get a response. Whether it is hecklers (or worse) or converts, often both, men know that there has been a preacher among them. Does this make the hearts of such preachers hesitate to continue their work? Of course it does! And God addresses that fear. 

"You, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. And you shall speak My words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house" (Ezekiel 2:6-7). Does God deny that Ezekiel's audience will be a rough crowd? Not at all. On the contrary, He explicitly warns the prophet of their negativity. Yet He does not, as a result, let him off the hook. Rather, He redoubles the command to preach the word, regardless of the response of his audience. 

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from My mouth, you shall give them warning from Me. If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:17-18). Notice that God doesn't make Ezekiel responsible for the response of his audience. On the contrary, Ezekiel's responsibility is to deliver the message. There will be no judgment of the messenger for the response to the message, but there will be severe judgment for failing to obey. Yet God's mercy is evident, even in the midst of His warnings. "But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul" (Ezekiel 3:19).

The Spiritual Consequences of Abortion

"They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds" (Psalm 106:36-39). 

Mothers, and sometimes fathers, are told that they will experience greater happiness and prosperity by killing their preborn babies through abortion. Whether it is because of poverty or fetal anomalies, or even mere convenience, a child will supposedly bring them down, while killing the child will bring them up. 

It is all a lie. 

Ancient Israel tried the same thing, sacrificing their own children to pagan deities, Moloch and Baal, and expecting greater prosperity in response. However, the only thing they found was judgment from the real God, the triune God of the Bible, who judged them and their land, polluted by the blood of innocents exterminated by their own parents. 

Even those who encouraged them, whether government officials or apostate religious leaders, are condemned by Scripture: "I will make a stormy wind break out in My wrath, and there shall be a deluge of rain in My anger, and great hailstones in wrath to make a full end... Thus will I spend My wrath upon the wall and upon those who have smeared it with whitewash, and I will say to you, The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it, the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her, when there was no peace, declares the Lord God... Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life... I will deliver My people out of your hand, and you shall know that I am the Lord" (Ezekiel 13:13, 15-16, 22). 

Infant Baptism, the Covenant, and the Reformed View

"Upon You have I leaned from before my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of You"(Psalm 71:6). 

When discussing the baptism of infants with Baptists, they often tell me that a little baby can't know anything about God. We should, they claim, wait until a person grows to an age of accountability or moral awareness. It is phrased in different ways. 

Yet, look at the words above from Scripture. Is that not to be our authority? We are not to look to pop psychology or secular educational assumptions. 

Unlike other psalms, Psalm 71 includes no superscription with its authorship. I think it sounds like David. Whether or not it is, is obviously the words of a covenant child, i. e., one born to a believing home. He professes even a preborn experience of the promise of God: "All your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Note that He doesn't say all children; rather, He says your children. Why the distinction? Because God claims the children of believers as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). Not that He promises that they are or will ever be regenerate, but that He distinguishes them covenantally from the children of pagans. We see it in His discrimination between the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. While Ishmael is the heir of the promise, He also blesses Ishmael because of his covenantal status (Genesis 17:18-21). Both sons are members of the visible church, while only Isaac is a member of the invisible church, a proviso that Baptists consistently fail to consider. 

That is why the Reformed baptize the children of our members. God has claimed them as His own, a great privilege! Therefore, they have a right to His covenant sign, baptism. I am not attempting here to explain the Catholic or Lutheran views of baptism; that is for them to do. But the Reformed do not assume the regeneration of our infants, contrary to the oft-repeated strawman argument of Baptists. We just give them the status that God has declared of them. 

The Covenant and the Children of Believers

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Spiritual Resurrection of the Believer from Death to Life

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

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

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

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

God's Judgment on Christendom for Child Sacrifice

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Happens to Children When They Die?

This is a hard topic on which to write. I anticipate some negative reaction. However, it is a question I have been asked repeatedly by anti-Calvinists.

First, let us look at the confessional standard: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Westminster Confession of Faith X:3). The divines described what happens to elect infants who die. Of course, since they are elect, that would be God's plan for them. What about non-elect infants? On that the divines were silent. Charles Hodge and his son, A. A. Hodge, took that to mean that all infants who die are elect. I think that is presumptuous, taking an argument from silence where it does not lead.

For the Christian, there is extensive biblical justification to believe that his dead child is in Heaven. First, God claims the children of believers for Himself in Ezekiel 16:20-21: "You took your sons and daughters, whom you had borne to Me, and these you sacrificed to them [i. e., idols] to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered My children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" When the Israelites had become so given over to idolatry that they even practiced human sacrifice, God's anger was directed at the theft of what belonged to Him by covenant.

And second, what does God promise to these children who are His? "Your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Also in Acts 2:39: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." So, in both Testaments, we have a promise from God to be covenantally faithful to the children of believers. Is this a promise that every child of believers will be saved? No, it isn't, as we know both from personal experience and from the biblical examples of Esau and Ishmael.

However, we also have a biblical example of the comfort that covenantal promise is to the believer. When David's first son with Bathsheba died (II Samuel 12:15-23), David took comfort in his assurance that his son would be waiting for him is Heaven: "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (verse 23).

I think that the most-important verse on this issue is I Corinthians 7:14: "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Paul tells us that the children of at least one Christian parent are holy. He doesn't say saved. Rather, he speaks of the covenantal connection between the believing parent and the child, such that the child is federally holy on the basis of the parent's faith.

However, we should notice his exact words. Paul speaks negatively. He doesn't just say, "The child with a believing parent is holy." Instead, he adds, that the child would otherwise be "unclean." And this is logical because we know there is no neutral moral state. But what are the consequences to the unbelieving parents regarding their own children?

"Nothing unclean will ever enter it [i. e., the New Jerusalem, v. 10], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life" (Revelation 21:27). Here is where the unbeliever must consider his standing with God, because it affects not just himself but also his children. If he decides that the pleasures of this life outweigh the eternal consequences, can he also say that they outweigh the eternal consequences for his child? Of course, this doesn't mean that every child of an unbeliever will himself be an unbeliever. We know from experience that the Holy Spirit often breaks into the families of unbelievers to bring one to Himself. I myself was such a convert. But the generality can be predicted, just as above with the children of believers.

This is my personal interpretation. Though I consider it a rational conclusion from the relevant Scriptures, I am aware that it goes beyond the confession. Therefore, other Calvinists should not be blamed for my personal opinion. I am especially conscious that I am going against some theological giants when I disagree with the Hodges. All I can say is that the Scriptures compel me.

Annihilationism, Eternity, and the Consequences of Truth

In our day, there is a growing movement to deny that the Bible teaches an eternal judgment in Hell. Rather, these people say, the spirit of the wicked is destroyed. This doctrine, annihilationism, was formerly limited to the cults, namely the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it is now becoming increasingly popular among professing evangelicals, at least in America.

In contrast, Scripture describes the suffering of the wicked in this way: "The fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them" (Revelation 9:1-6).

What John reveals here is that the wicked, in the face of their just suffering for that wickedness, will seek escape from their suffering through death, but death will be denied to them.

Annihilationists will often portray themselves as morally superior to those of us who hold the traditional view of Hell. In addition, they claim that unbelievers are more open to the "Gospel" if they remove the stumblingblock of eternal Hell. It is supposedly contrary to modern sentiments.

I have several problems with that perspective. For one thing, one doesn't tailor truth to suit the preferences of an enemy of that truth. Reformulating Christianity to suit unbelievers - the same problem I have with many megachurches - is to move it from suiting the preferences of God to suiting His enemies. How can that be considered  a good thing? Furthermore, by failing to give the unbeliever the biblical judgment on his unbelief, you deny that unbeliever the necessary information for weighing his situation. Many unbelievers are perfectly content to live as heathens now, just to puff into smoke at death. And that is exactly the pseudo-Gospel that the annihilationist gives him. If he never learns better, then that unbeliever will spend eternity in Hell, but his blood will be on the hands of the annihilationist (Ezekiel 3:18).

Colossians 2:16: Did Paul Abolish the Fourth Commandment?

In my dealings with anti-sabbatarians, i. e., those who claim that there is no Christian Sabbath, they almost always bring up Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The claim is that Paul here says that there is no binding requirement for Christians to honor the Sabbath. In general, my response is twofold, first, that it is not at all Pauline to dismiss one of the Ten Commandments so flippantly, and second, that the reference to food, drink, festivals, and new moons, all indicate that Paul is addressing the Jewish ceremonies, not the Sabbath per se. Unless someone wants to claim that Paul also intends to tell us that we don't need to eat food or drink fluids. Anyone want to try that?

However, I also want to add a biblical argument to my logic.

Look at Ezekiel 45:17: "It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel." That prophet uses exactly the same wording in regard to temple ceremonies as Paul uses to the Colossians. Paul's word choices are not random. Rather, by using specific Mosaic terminology, the Apostle expects his readers to understand the same Mosaic ceremonies.

Therefore, I cannot accept the use of Colossians by the anti-sabbatarian, because it is inconsistent with the word usage of Scripture.

Spiritual Corpses, the Gospel, and the Logical Necessity of Calvinism

Part of the basis of Calvinism is not just its biblical consistency, but also the practical necessity from the human perspective.

The Bible says, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2). Not sick, not swooning, but dead. Even Jesus makes the same point: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). Not from sickness or weakness, but from death. And to emphasize the importance of that fact, He precedes it by His signature "truly, truly." It is a fact that He wanted us to take to heart.

The thing about death is the helplessness of the person. A dead person cannot revive himself, bury himself, or in any way act for his own welfare.

The prophet Ezekiel used the same analogy: "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And He led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And He said to me, 'Son of man, can these bones live?' And I answered, 'O Lord God, You know.' Then He said to me, 'Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.' So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then He said to me, 'Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.' So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army" (Ezekiel 37:1-10). The prophet receives a vision of a valley full of dead bones, and he is commanded to prophesy to the bones. As he does so, God joins the bones together, clothes them in flesh, and gives them life. This is an image of regeneration, in which the dead soul of the unbeliever is transformed into a living soul by the Holy Spirit (see Ezekiel 36:25-27).

What these passages indicate is the absolute helplessness of the unbeliever to regenerate himself or to believe unto salvation. It can happen only as the sovereign, monergistic work of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why Arminianism, in addition to being unbiblical, is impossible. It describes a man, a spiritual corpse, who can choose to believe in Jesus, only then to be brought to new life by the Holy Spirit. Try that at your next funeral: "C'mon, corpse, if you try hard enough you can become alive again!" That is the gospel of Arminianism.

The Golden Chain to Eternal Life

We find what the Puritans called "The Golden Chain of Salvation" in Romans 8:29-30: "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."


One thing evident in that process is that each step is done by God. No man predestines himself, calls himself, justifies himself, or glorifies himself.

One thing that Paul doesn't include in his list is regeneration. Why? I have no idea. But it would fall between the steps of calling and justifying. At that point, in response to the external call of the Gospel (Romans 10:14), the elect sinner is given a new heart: "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey My rules" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Notice that, while we experience regeneration as our response, it is actually the work of the Holy Spirit. Every step to belief and sanctification is done by God (Romans 9:16, Philippians 2:13, etc.). That is why the chain can never fail to achieve its purpose (Romans 8:38-39, John 6:39, 10:27-29, 17:2, etc.)

"That life which is implanted in the soul in regeneration, which is developed in sanctification, and completed in glory, is what the Scriptures call 'eternal life,' and it is called 'eternal' because, by the grace of God, it is absolutely imperishable" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Canons of Dort versus the Haters of God's Sovereign Grace

In the Canons of Dort (First Head of Doctrine, Article 7), the Synod, the first and only universal council of the Reformed Protestant churches, defines election in this way: "Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath, out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally, to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace..."

I love the doctrine of election. I know my own wayward heard (Jeremiah 17:9), so I am conscious of the fact that I would never have submitted to God out of any original motion of my heart. It took the sovereign intervention of God to change my heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and will (Philippians 2:13) to save me from the dominion of sin and Satan. "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

Yet, there are men who hate the doctrine of election. They hate it so much that they make up evil caricatures of it, because their biblical arguments are so unconvincing. I have had anti-Calvinists tell me that the doctrine of election means that people can plead with God to save them, but He will shut them away because they aren't elect. Really? Where does the Bible describe any such person? Rather, the Bible asserts just the opposite: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10-12). So, the Bible says that not even one person, of himself, seeks after God. Jesus also addressed this subject: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So, this hypothetical situation invented by the anti-Calvinist is something that the Bible says is impossible. Yet, the same caricature is repeated ad nauseum.

However, what these verses do tell us is that there would be no one saved without election. That is the world preferred by the anti-Calvinist. Better that no one be saved than that God choose those who will be saved. 

To my mind, that makes the anti-Calvinist evil, not the sovereign God described by the Canons.

The Synod of Dort

Know the Bad News, then Recognize the Good News

"The law must be applied with power to the conscience, or the preciousness of grace will be very inadequately known. The superficial piety of the present day is owing, in a large degree, to feeble impressions of the malignity of sin" (James Henley Thornwell, "The necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The comment above was part of a long article in the Southern Presbyterian Review in 1849, but would be even more properly written in our current days. If anything, American evangelicalism has degenerated far past that described by Thornwell in his own time. What would he say about "churches" with female ministers, gay marriages, and that serve as laughingstocks to the world.

His diagnosis is correct. As the church has come to despise God's law, she has lost sight of the sinfulness of sin and its insult to the God she claims to serve. If the word is used at all, "sin" is left undefined, and only in occasions of unfortunate poverty and ignorance. Never is any person called a "sinner," because that is harsh and unloving.

A false Gospel that says only that "God loves you" to everyone leaves everyone satisfied with sin. God loves everyone unconditionally, so there is no need to repent. Church discipline is unheard of in our day.

The result is to use Thornwell's words, a feeble church, and people with a superficial piety.

That wasn't the way Jesus lived: "I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). And His cousin and favorite Apostle tells us: "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). When was the last time a minister called out sin as being the influence of the devil, rather than ignorance or poor economic conditions? And what does the Bible say about that silence? "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18).

Rather, this is how the Bible defines sin: "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). And this brings us back to the problem identified by Thornwell. If minsters do not preach on the Law, then their congregants never learn God's standard of right and wrong. And if Christians have no standard, then we have no standard to present to our world: "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:8-10).

Paul the Apostle

No Cover for Sin

Americans have come to loathe the concept of sin. The popular  preachers, such as Joel Osteen, refuse to use the word. Even the supposedly-great Billy Graham, while he used the word, did not define it, or point out the sins of unbelievers, and even allowed unrepentant apostates to share his podium. So, when I say Americans, I don't have to limit my intent to professed unbelievers, but include even professing Evangelicals, a word that comes from the Greek word for "gospel."

Sin has come to mean, not wickedness, but error or even social injustice. We no longer think of it as it is presented in Genesis 3, rebellion against God and a despising of His word. We no longer talk about it as something which brings God's proper judgment: "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine: the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). Rather, we expect God to put our sins in a balance, with the acts that are good, in our own eyes, on the other side. And every person believes that his good deeds will outweigh his bad deeds. While that is the view of Islam, it is not the biblical view: "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (James 2:10), and, "No one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:12, quoting Psalm 53:3).

That is the problem with the objection of atheists, that God is supposedly unjust to send people to Hell just for not believing in Him; since Christians have taught a false view of sin, atheists have taken refuge in a false sense of their goodness. To the atheist, or any non-Christian, I give this warning: at the Judgment, you will not be excused by what men have told you, but rather you will be judged by what God has told you, even if you have refused to hear. To the supposed Christian who fails to warn of sin, I have these words from God: "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18).

To both groups of people, I give my own warning: There is no salvation in excuses. There is only salvation in the blood of Jesus, received by grace through faith alone.

"The penalty of the law was no vulgar ill, to be appeased by a few groans and tears, by agony, sweat, and blood. It was the wrath of God, which, when it falls upon a creature, crushes him under the burden of eternal death. It is a blackness of darkness through which no ray of light or hope can ever penetrate the soul of a finite being; to all such it must be the blackness of darkness forever. But Jesus endured it, Jesus satisfied it, Jesus bowed beneath that death which the law demanded, and which sinks angels and men to everlasting ruin, and came victorious from the conflict" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity," emphasis in the original).

Apostasy and Its Leaders

We live in a time where the culture has returned to a pre-Christian stage, in which every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). Things which were considered too shameful for polite company within the lifetimes of man of us living today are now common fare in entertainment or taught to our children in government schools.

While it is true that the American government has been on a crusade to scrub the Christian presence from public society, I don't blame government. And while it is true that there are influencers in government and the media who hate the Gospel and seek to silence it, I don't blame them. Unbelievers must be expected to hate the Gospel (Romans 1:18). That's what makes them unbelievers.

However, when I see the church complacent in its own suppression, then I find cause for blame.

We have public religious figures - I don't call them Christians - such as Joel Osteen, who refuse to talk about sin because they don't want to offend anyone. That is who deserves the blame.

In 586 BC, Judah, the Southern Kingdom, was conquered by Babylon and carried away into exile. Why? Because they had abandoned the faith on which their kingdom was established, and turned to pagan deities and practice.

What did their religious leaders say about that apostasy? Did they denounce the sin of the people, and fight against that apostasy?

"Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading" (Lamentations 2:14). No, no denunciations; no warnings of judgment. Rather, the religious leaders joined in that apostasy, soothing the apostates with assurance that God was happy with their perverted worship and lives. Does that sound like today's religious world? I think so.

But what does God say? Is he bound by the soothing words of apostate preachers? "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). Not in the smallest bit. Rather, He promises that judgment of sin will come, but it will begin with false teachers who failed to preach a warning about the consequences of sin.

Contending for the Faith Against False Teachers

I have regular apologetic and evangelistic interactions with pseudo-Christian cults, mainly Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. In each case, someone always says something like this: "Why do you judge us? Why can't you just go practice your beliefs, and leave us to practice ours?" It's a form of guilt manipulation, trying to make it seem as if I am just a big meanie.

Yet, their repeated "why's" have an answer: the commandment of Scripture.

First, we have the warning against false teachers: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you'" (Jeremiah 23:16-17). The danger of false teachers is that they leave their followers under the wrath of God, while blithely imagining their safety. That is why false teachers are so popular. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (I Thessalonians 5:3). And it isn't just the cults which are the danger here. The popular TV preachers, such as Joel Osteen, are equally dangerous. They promise peace and prosperity, but never mention sin or the wrath of God. So their followers march, grinning and satisfied, into the waiting maw of Hell. 

In the face of such deceivers, the Scriptures give me a stark warning: "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). If I see the false teacher and those deceived by him, and I make no effort to warn them of God's judgment, then God holds me guilty of their death! 

That's why the New Testament also gives every true Christian this commandment: "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). I do not face accounting to cultists or other false teachers for challenging their errors; I face the wrath of God if I fail to do so.

Free Grace Justification versus the Cults

The Pelagian cults - by which I mean primarily the Church of Rome, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals - hate the doctrine of salvation by free grace, apart from works. They hate it because it liberates the believer from dependency on their organizational hierarchy. However, their stated reason for opposing it is that it supposedly results in antinomianism, a freedom to sin without the expectation of spiritual consequences.

They will always cite in this regard James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." I have addressed their perversion of that verse here. Mormonism even makes it more explicit in their own scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 76:52): "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power."

However, the truth is the opposite of their assertion. True good works can only be the result of free grace. That is because the natural man is incapable of doing meritorious works: "No one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:12). The Pelagian puts the effect for the cause, and thus puts the supposed righteousness of the sinner in the place of the real righteousness of Christ (Mark 10:18), which is imputed to the repentant sinner by grace through faith alone, to make him righteous (II Corinthians 5:21). In other words, by teaching a doctrine of salvation that is impossible, the Pelagian blocks men from knowing true salvation! Surely there can be no greater sin (Matthew 23:13).

Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell explains the difference: "A penitent sinner is one who has been a transgressor, but is now just; the laws of God are now put within his mind and written on his heart, and his moral condition is evidently one which renders the supposition of punishment incongruous and contradictory. Such a man is as unfit for the atmosphere of Hell as an impenitent transgressor is unfit for the atmosphere of Heaven. There is obviously, therefore, no principle of reason or nature, as there is, unquestionably, none of revelation, which teaches that a man may be penitent and [yet] perish - that he may be driven into final punishment with the love of God in his heart and the praise of God upon his tongue" ("The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

He is expressing the same idea that God does in Ezekiel 33:12: "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins."