Reformed Mafia

So Long for Now

2009-02-07T18:50:00.000-08:00

Well everyone, this is it. The journey has come to an end. There just comes a time when you realize you have too much on your plate. I appreciate everyone who's been a part of this and even those of you who've written against us.

This blog will remain up and Gordan and I will remain co-owners until we decide to recycle it, kill it, or auction it off to the highest bidder.

The only blogging I am doing now is about whips and whipmaking. Come by and see me some time.

I covet your prayers.

Semper Reformanda!

-Rhett

Gordan's Gone

2009-02-02T08:30:00.001-08:00

Hey, just a quick note to let you know that I am begging off of blogging for the foreseeable future. Many of you know (more of you don't) that I had a novel published in 2000. Well, I've been bitten by that bug again and now must pursue the path of writing another. I don't have a lot of control over my own creative juices: you've kinda got to go with the flow on these things, I've learned.

But even before I begin to pursue another book-writing, I'm already stacked to the gills with time constraints and ministry responsibilities, so something's got to give. This time, that something is the internet in general, and the blogosphere in particular.

I believe Rhett is going to come on here shortly and make an announcement along similar lines with regard to the status of this blog, so I will simply sign off with the prayer that our great Sovereign may continue to bless you with an ever-increasing knowledge of the truth, as it is found in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Crazy talk? We'll Soon See

2009-01-19T08:29:00.000-08:00

Four minutes, listen then comment. Is this crazy talk?

Sanctification Question

2009-01-14T15:24:00.000-08:00

Here's the scenario.

A young man comes to you and confesses that he is in bondage to something addictive (whether drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography...whatever.)

He is in distress and near despair because of his lack of victory in this area.

He is a confessing Christian, and aside from this confession, has never seemed to bear the fruit of a false convert. There's nothing you've observed in his life that would've led you to suspect that he's anything other than a growing, though imperfect, sincere believer in Christ.

Now that he's laid bare his soul to you, his desire is freedom from this sin.

What is your counsel?

(The reason I ask is because I was "raised" as a baby Christian with a Pentecostal view of sanctification, and am interested in other ideas. I'm not so much interested in your theology of personal holiness as I am what your specific counsel to a man like this guy above would be. I'm interested in how the rubber meets the road in your theory of sanctification.)

So...play nice and try to keep responses to something less than thesis-length.

More Prophecy Stuff at Incrediblog

2009-01-08T16:20:00.000-08:00

I'm starting a series on allowing the Bible to interpret itself, even on prophetic matters. I think when most of us settle on a prophetic system that seems to work for us, then that's the one we go with, and it becomes a filter through which we look at all prophecies. But what if the Bible itself demonstrates proper interpretation of prophetic dreams and visions? Hmm.

Book Recommendation: RA Torrey's "The Fundamentals"

2009-01-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

I have a confession to make. I hate theological liberalism. Look up all the synonyms for "hatred" in your thesaurus, and if you roll them all up into one mega-hate word, and then smother that hate-word in the hottest red chili sauce known to man (y'know, the stuff you have to handle with rubber gloves), well then, that's how I feel about liberalism. And, coincidentally, most actual theological liberals get on my nerves rather quickly.

Having made that confession, I want to say that I got R.A. Torrey's two volume work, The Fundamentals, for Christmas and I am thoroughly enjoying it. It's four books, actually, and each is a collection of essays from various authors.

These books began to be collected/assembled in 1909, as an obvious frontal assault on the then-fashionable liberalism that was coming out of Germany, and beginning to infect Christianity in North America.

As with any collection of writings, some are more helpful than others, so I'm not offering a blanket endorsement here, but generally speaking these are thoughtful essays written by brilliant, well-educated Christian men who hated liberalism nearly as much as I do. (They might leave off the chili sauce.)

The first book is focused on countering the en vogue Higher Critical method, and the remaining three center around theological topics. Some of the names I recognized before I started reading: James Orr, B.B. Warfield, W.J. Erdman, Thomas Boston, H.C.G. Moule, J.C. Ryle, G. Campbell Morgan, C.T. Studd, and Philip Mauro. (I also recognized C.I. Scofield, but I was trying to list the good ones above...)

I have seen this set for sale many times before, but I have passed over it because I had a suspicion that it would be filled merely with the rantings of snake-handlers and those who believe that holiness has something to do with the length of your shirt sleeves.

I have been pleasantly surprised, and quite edified, by this collection. Did I mention how much I hate liberalism?

But here's the thing, the reason why you really ought to consider getting The Fundamentals by R.A. Torrey for yourself: The current Postmodern fad gets all of its theological legwork from the 19th and early 20th Century liberals. The pomo's haven't hit on something new. They're simply rehashing all the same junk that has destroyed Christianity in Europe and brought down all the mainline denom's here. And smarter men than you and I had 'em pegged a long, long time ago.

RA Torrey's The Fundamentals, a two volume hardcover set, can now be had for about fifteen dollars, which is 85% off the original retail cost. Talk about bang for your buck! Very highly recommended.

The Fundamentals, 2 Volumes

"With Juicy Bits"

2009-01-03T15:47:00.000-08:00

For interested folk, I've published a post on the last third of the Revelation, with juicy bits of wild speculation at the end. Enjoy.

Why?

2008-12-30T10:46:00.000-08:00

When asked why one chooses Christ and another does not the universal answer from the Arminian is because:

When all is said and done your salvation is up to you:

But that is fraught with:

The mystery of human love still baffles minds as unsolvable. Why? What is it that takes the heart and hurls it over a cliff headlong? How is it that such coarse a smith's hand holds a flower's stem and the cold steel voice becomes as soft as petals and as pleasing as lavender in mist?

Just because? It's up to you? We don't know what love is? Nah!

What love is this? It is a love that gives us a new heart which is spread abroad with the love of God:
So it is now my cause to show that this is exactly the same case for those being regenerated. They choose Christ because they have a new heart. I will demonstrate that the choice to believe must spring from a heart and nature that loves Christ if it is to be a faith that is pleasing to Him. Further the prophet Ezekiel said the result of giving the new heart is that is causes his people to walk in His ways. In other words, there is no heat without a fire, there is no sight without an eye; there is no hearing without an ear; and there is no believing without a new heart. Belief is what is required in the New Covenant and belief is what characterizes those who have been born again (1 John 5:1). We believe the gospel because it is now in our nature to love Christ and see his beauty and excellence. Our natural hostility has been disarmed because it was replaced by another affection. Now to all those who choose Christ do so because their new nature compels them to. A regenerate person never resists the desire to believe. He believes because he wants to and cannot do otherwise.

That's what love is.

Universalism Squeezing Arminianism

2008-12-16T12:36:00.000-08:00

This post from Steve Hays at Triablogue presents an interesting question that I think all synergists (not merely Arminians) need to answer. Read his post. It doesn't start out as an attack on Arminianism, but rather winds up posing some sticky questions re: "evangelical" universalism.

If you're too lazy to read the post, here's the point that is interesting. Universalism is on the rise in modern "evangelicalism" (so-called.) The Universalists use a lot of the same texts to prove their case that the Arminians use to combat Calvinism, texts focusing (supposedly) on God's great desire to save each and every individual. And, it seems, it's the Universalists who take these texts at greater "face value." This highlights the oft-made observation that many of the Arminians proof texts, if they prove Arminianism, really prove more than that: Universalism. (e.g. When the Bible tells us that Jesus is the "savior" of the whole world, on the face of it that would seem to support Universalism more naturally than it would Arminianism, especially when Arminians hold such statements up as proof against the idea of decretal election.)

Since we are graced here with the presence of some thoughtful Arminians and other synergists on occassion, I'm curious what your answer is to Hays' post. And, of course, I'd challenge you to answer him directly. I've got my popcorn ready.

A Mediocre Review of a Great Book: "Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices" by Thomas Brooks

2008-12-13T15:15:00.000-08:00

Is there a Reformed view of "spiritual warfare?" And if there is, does it differ significantly from the modern, charismatic rebuking-the-devil sort of thing?

The answer to the first question is Yes. Thankfully, the answer to the second question is also Yes. (In the interest of full disclosure, I write this review as a former charismatic, warfare prayin' demon buster. I could cast devils out of just about anything, including stuff you never knew they'd get into. Those were the days, joining hands in warfare prayer around a pallet-full of demon-possessed ceiling tiles... but I digress.)

For my money, the best treatment of so-called spiritual warfare from a Reformed perspective is Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices, a Puritan classic by Thomas Brooks, published by Banner of Truth.

Here's the shocking, secret weapon of the devil in spiritual warfare, that the typical charismatic completely misses as he's rebuking spirits of hip-hop music in the sound system: The devil wins in spiritual warfare when he can coax God's people into...brace yourselves...into sinning.

Precious Remedies is really like a foot-soldier's field-manual, instructing him thoroughly in the enemy's tactics and how to overcome them. It has spurred me personally to a greater pursuit of holiness. I suspect that was intentional on Brooks's part.

There is one section that some might find controversial, in which Brooks discusses what is often called "besetting sins," or those particular sins, particular to us as individuals, which we seem to struggle with (and lose against) more often than other people do, and more often than we do with regard to other sorts of sin. Mary is known as a gossip, and can't seem to help herself. Joe is famous for his temper, etc. They both hate their "trademark" sin, but seem to be unable to defeat it utterly.

Brooks's somewhat surprising answer to this is that he was unable to find any promise in the Scripture which gave assurance that these sorts of besetting sins could or would be completely annihilated from the Christian life. He goes on to propose some reasons why God may allow the believer to struggle so, reasons that are both thoughtful and redemptive.

The controversy may come as this sort of thinking meets with a currently popular answer to the same topic. This other answer is: "Stop that! Cut it out! You are probably not saved if you continue to struggle with this one thing and can get no lasting victory over it. Etc." Brooks was unwilling to paint things in such stark black-and-white on that one. Whether you wind up agreeing with him or not, the discourse is worth reading.

For my money, the best way to get your hands on Brooks' Precious Remedies is in the first volume of The Works of Thomas Brooks, a six-volume hardcover set that is now on sale for about 4 cents a page. Talk about your treasure troves, aye, mateys. Brooks is widely regarded as one of the most readable, and profitable, of the Puritan authors and this set is a crown jewel in any Reformed theologian's bookshelf. If any of you out there are wondering what to get me for Christmas--hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Works of Thomas Brooks, 6 Volumes

ESV Study Bible

2008-12-10T04:55:00.000-08:00

"Though I still prefer to preach from and memorize the King James, I really enjoy digging into the new ESV translation. Hey, it's the hot thing among the "young, restless, and Reformed" so you know it has to be good. Plus, right now this is a pretty tantalizing price (click the link to check...it was over 40 percent off this morning.)"

-Gordan

ESV Study Bible, Hardcover

The ESV Study Bible includes more than 25,000 notes, written specifically for the ESV Study Bible. These notes focus especially on understanding the meaning of the text, giving answers to frequently raised questions, and providing theological, historical, and archaeological background—all for the purpose of helping readers to understand the Bible in a deeper way.

The ESV Study Bible also provides a wealth of additional resources. Thus the introductions to each book include essential information about the author, date, and place of writing; an extensive chart of key themes; a summary of how the book fits in with the rest of the biblical storyline; a description of literary features; an outline of the book; and a large full-color map showing the setting of the book.

Another unique feature is the inclusion of over 50 helpful articles on topics such as the authority and truthfulness of the Bible, reading the Bible for application, the Bible in worship and prayer, the reliability of the biblical manuscripts, the relationship between archaeology and the Bible, an overview of biblical theology, and many more.

Other key resources include a system of 80,000 cross references and a concordance (which together facilitate easy location of important words, passages, and biblical themes). In addition, over 200 color charts, located throughout the Bible, provide clear, concise presentations of essential information.

View a complete list of editors, contributors, and articles.

Features:

The ESV Bible text is set in highly readable 9-point type, in a single-column, book-text format.
Section summaries are highlighted for easy location throughout the notes. Summaries provide an overview of each main section and correspond to the outline shown in the introduction for each book.
Over 200 full-color maps printed throughout make events and places in the Bible come to life.
Over 25,000 notes focus especially on understanding the Bible text and providing answers to frequently raised issues. Words from the Bible text are printed in bold for easy reference.
Over 80,000 cross-references provide easy access to key words, passages, and themes throughout the Bible.
Numerous diagrams bring fresh understanding to key places and events in the Bible, based on the best, most recent historical and archaeological research.
Over 200 charts provide concise, “at a glance” summaries of important themes and teaching.
Presentation page
Family Record pages

Does A Bad Tree Bear Good Fruit?

2008-12-08T08:11:00.000-08:00

Jesus finishes his discourse in beatitudes by stating the defining difference between the children of the kingdom and the children of the world.

Primary to the entrance into the kingdom is the necessity that one is born again. The term is not found in John 3, there the term is anothen gennao, born from above, or born from the beginning. The term born again is found in 1 Peter , anagennao, again born or born again. The distinction is subtle. The former indicates the origin or the source of the action, the latter, the action itself perfected. That is to say, the cause and effect. Indeed, in the first case what is hidden from view is the monergistic work of the Spirit in bringing about the conditions that will make it possible for one to understand the "beauty" of Truth. In the second, that generating action is found to have been accomplished, what is seen of the wind.

At the end of this article: Regeneration Necessary to Perceive the Beauty and Excellency of Divine Things Charles Hodge quotes J. Edwards

"...It is agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all ages, not only that the fruit of effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself from which that effect proceeds; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good disposition, temper or affection of the mind from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness from the principles whence they proceed; and so the act of choosing that which is good is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good principle or virtuous disposition of mind; which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice; and that therefore it is not necessary that there should first be thought, reflection, and choice before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what signifies that choice? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous principle but from mere self-love, ambition, or some animal appetite." - 140 Jonathan Edwards, Works, vol 1 (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 177.

Hodge says:

It is the motive which gives the moral character to the act. If the motive is good, the act is good; if the motive is bad, the act is bad; if the motive is indifferent, so is the act. The act has no character apart from the motive This, it seems, is admitted with regard to all moral acts excepting the first. But the first act of a holy kind is an act of obedience, as well as all subsequent acts of the same kind. How then is it conceivable that the first act of obedience performed from the mere desire or self-love can be holy, when no other act of the same kind and performed from the same motive, either is or can be? How does its being first alter it very nature? It is still nothing more than as act done for self-gratification, and cannot be a holy act.

In earlier threads and with the eruption of accusations against James White as being both hyper-Calvinistic and freshly developing a new position has come the in house Calvinist debate on the ordo salutis and when regeneration takes place. As Hodge says, there really in no difference between the Arminian position and the defective Calvinistic belief that regeneration proceeds from faith. But, as can be seen, both the logical order and the temporal order must be that a righteous nature is regenerated before the action of faith can be considered a moral act. In other words, as I have argued elsewhere, and as John informs us, without a new nature and the abiding Holy Spirit, no one can believe. Having faith, as righteous act, can only proceed from a regenerated nature. Without a renewed nature, faith in Christ is sin, mere animal sensuality.

For He Who Sanctifies And Those Who Have Been Sanctified Are One

2008-12-04T17:09:00.000-08:00

With the brouhaha over false allegations of heresy hurled at James White came the false claim that Calvin did not teach a limited atonement. Though this might seem a declension from the study of the subject of the atonement in Hebrews, it is not really. In John Calvin's sermon The Call to Witness there are three things to take note of: 1. That there is a definite purchase of an inheritance and the blood of Christ is not shed in vain as David Allen would have us believe. 2. That the object of that purchase has been perfected from before the beginning of time. 3. That the preaching of election is not to be neglected, for it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If I Could Force All Christians to Read....

2008-12-01T09:14:00.000-08:00

Here are some books that would be on the mandatory list:

Five Views on Law and Gospel

The issue of the relationship of the New Testament Christian to the law of God is more complex than most of us have bothered to think about. This "debate" book does a fantastic job of clearly setting forth a handful of options that have historically been proposed. As a theonomist, of course, I think Greg L. Bahnsen carries the day here. But even if you disagree, it's vital that we start thinking about these things Biblically.

Bondage of the Will

This is the first book that taught me that non-fiction can be passionate. Say what you will about the "mad monk," Martin Luther, but his fiery zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ radiates from the pages here. If this book served as the Constitution of all Lutheran churches (which it doesn't, sadly) I'd happily join them.

The Godly Man's Picture

Thomas Watson's portrait of the true Christian, "drawn with a Scripture pencil," was my introduction to the Puritans. I confess that I had, at the time, the popular charicature of this crew firmly lodged in my brain: dour, cold, stern, strict, humorless, severe, etc. If you've got that same picture in your head, please allow this book to blow that vision to Kingdom come. I was moved to weeping (yeah, I can admit it) by the sheer warmth and pastoral compassion of this book. You will never think so meanly of your Puritan brethren again.

The Pursuit of God
AW Tozer is my favorite Christian author. Shocking, I know: He wasn't a Calvinist, wasn't a rigorous theologian, probably would have cut off his own arm rather than pastor a modern SBC church. What he was, though, was a man with fire shut up in his bones. He was a man who heard the Word of God whispered sweetly, and took it and shouted it from the rooftops. Especially, I'd make all my button-down Reformed brethren read this book, because top-heavy brainiacs with their giant craniums could use a strong reminder that a pound of wonderful theology won't help you if you lack an ounce of what the Puritans called "experimental religion."

The Roman Catholic Controversy

One of the greatest needs among modern Protestants, in my view, is that we remember what it is that we're protesting against. It's especially vital in our day, when the battle cries seem to be, "Theology isn't worth fighting about!" and "Can't we all just get along?" Dr. White does an even-handed job of evaluating the Pope's church, by referencing Catholic writings on theology. This is important: He isn't constructing straw-men, but rather allowing Catholicism to speak for itself. Very instructive.

For other great books that come with hearty, Reformed Mafia approval, see here.

Arminianism and Regeneration-Prior-to-Faith

2008-12-01T08:47:00.000-08:00

Article 3 of The Five Arminian Articles of 1610:

That man has not saving grace of himself, not of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);

[A fairly strong statement that fallen man can do nothing, including have faith in the Gospel of Christ, that is anything other than evil. -GR]

but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in his understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John XV.5; 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

-from pages 546-547 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III. (Brackets mine, of course.)

Note well the phrase "it is needful that he be born again of God," and its relation to understanding and doing that which is "truly good"; and, note that the article has specified that faith is included in that true good. This Arminian confession, the foundational Arminian confession, which is the basis of the famed Remonstrance, has clearly specified that being born again must precede, logically, faith in Christ.

What this means is that when synergists of any stripe, even those claiming to be Arminian, argue against regeneration-before-faith, they are not advancing the cause of true Arminianism. Rather, they are denying the doctrine of Total Depravity (which both Calvinists and Arminians affirm) and are siding with teaching of Pelagius. Pelagius, of course, maintained that

a) Adam's fall into sin did not render his posterity incapable of doing Good, and

b) the fact that men are commanded to do Good is proof that they can.

These concepts undergird the position of the mainstream leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is the position that was advanced at the John 3:16 Conference. It is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian in its origin. Classic theologians in both those camps would label the theology of J316C as some form of Pelagianism.

Granted, it is not "hard" Pelagian: it is some greatly softened version, but it maintains the core ideas. Specifically, man's fallen state does not render him incapable of truly doing Good, and the fact that the Gospel commands him to do so is proof that he can.

Again, for those keeping score, Pelagianism is a heresy. Whether or not the J316C version of it is damnable is up to God the Judge; but we can certainly render the verdict that it is a different gospel, and thus anathema (Galatians 1.)

Spurgeon's Battles with the Hyper-Calvinists

2008-12-01T08:18:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of the now infamous ( "In famous?") John 3:16 Conference, a debate that is swirling is over Hyper-Calvinism. What is Hyper-Calvinism? Who is one, and who isn't? Is Dr. James White? (He isn't, but why or why not?)

It has become typical for anti-Calvinists, especially those within the Southern Baptist Convention, to freely apply the epithet, Hyper-Calvinist, to anyone who is

a) more Calvinistic than I am, or
b) holding to all five points of the TULIP, or
c) is fierce in their defense of Calvinism, or
d) is unapologetic about showing where my own home-grown soteriology is not consistently Biblical, and does not respect how good my own system makes me feel about God, etc.

Clearly, it's a good time for all who are concerned about things like Truth, to become more familiar with the issues that are at stake in this argument. To that end, may I humbly recommend the following book to your consideration. It will not make you an expert in Hyper-Calvinism, but it will go a long way toward shedding historical and Biblical light on the current controversy.

Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching

By Iain H. Murray / Banner Of Truth

In the wide coverage given to Spurgeon's ministry since his death in 1892, one controversy in which he was at the centre has been left largely untouched. It concerned what his Autobiography called 'the first serious attack' on his ministry. Fellow Baptists of Hyper-Calvinistic persuasion condemned him for believing that along with 'impassioned appeal to every sinner to come to Christ and be saved'. To this Spurgeon replied that he was not only teaching what was in the old Baptist Confessions, but, more important, his evangelistic preaching was true to the New Testament itself. After a portrait of Spurgeon as a man living for the Word of God, Iain Murray details the furore which his preaching caused among those who opposed his gospel preaching. 176 pgs.

Calvin's Commentaries (at 10% normal retail)

2008-12-01T07:52:00.000-08:00

This morning I checked the price for this set, and my jaw hung open. I got my set of Calvin's Commentaries for several times the price being offered here. It's a 90% savings we're talking about today. Pretty amazing.

Consulting this set has become a regular stop along the way in my weekly sermon preparation. I've noticed that if you have the Matthew Henry commentary and you compare it with Calvin, you'll see where Henry got a lot of his stuff. No plagiarism, mind you; I'm merely saying that you can see where the great American puritan went to be fed and taught himself.

Calvin's Commentaries, 22 Volumes

By John Calvin

A towering figure in the Reformation and prolific scholar and theologian, John Calvin authored not only his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, but commentaries on twenty-four books of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament except for 2 and 3 John and Revelation. These classic commentaries continue to be valued exegetical reference works for pastors and serious students of the Bible today.

Or, if you're one o' them fancy-schmancy hi-tech nerds, there's the CD version, for even a few bucks less.

Calvin's Commentaries on CD-ROM

All 22 volumes of the Baker edition are now available on the Libronix Digital Library System. Always the Renaissance humanist, Calvin offers a clear, forceful exegetical/homiletical treatment of nearly every book in the Old and New Testaments. Many still consult this work for its enduring insights.

Get the "L" Out Of Here

2008-11-29T07:45:00.000-08:00

Of the five points, "L", the central column upon which the other four depend, is the most hated, the most attacked, and really where the war will be won or lost.

This has been the attack point for those of the J316C. As we approach Christmas, the who and why for what to whom, is a question we should look into when contemplating the incarnation.

Follow John's links for some insight-filled listening and reading.

Remember the Arminian/4 Pointers Motto: Just Believe. The Gospel will become real, you are the power behind it, you make it efficacious. As long as you try, you always find it was worth it. Just believe...

Then again, the demons believe.

All Old Testament Laws Cancelled??

2008-10-25T19:44:00.000-07:00

I was mailed a review copy of a New Covenant Theology book by Greg Gibson.

Here's my review.

Closed for Season

2008-10-07T17:13:00.000-07:00

As the only remaining founder of the Reformed Mafia, I'm hereby shutting down the blog until further notice. Due to myriad circumstances, this blog is no longer functioning as it was originally intended. I appreciate the contributions that have been made here. If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact me at rhettswhips at Yahoo dot com.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Rhett

Why I'm A Harrier Guy

2008-10-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

Asked why one with prevenient grace believes and not another, the libertarian answers, “one believed and the other did not”. But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. 'One believed' is no answer at all. It is merely saying the same thing in other words. Our libertarian friend never really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy which he imports into the Scripture, since he believes that it was not the nature of his heart (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.

Harry means:

1. cause distress by repeated attacks: to cause somebody physical, mental, or emotional distress by repeated physical or verbal attacks
2. raid or pillage: to raid or pillage a place, especially during a war

Or: smallest piglet:

the smallest or weakest piglet in a litter

To be harried:

looking or feeling tired and annoyed

A harrier:

1. somebody who harries somebody else: somebody who repeatedly attacks another person or group physically or verbally 2. raider or pillager: somebody who raids or pillages a place

We don't expect a small weak piglet to be a threat, really. It is the squealing that takes on the attribute of another type of harrier:

dog for rabbit hunting: a small hound resembling a foxhound used for hunting hares or rabbits

The only annoyance there is when they're caged and still howl and yip as if they were hunting.

We appreciate it when one shows tireless endurance like:

runner: a cross-country runner

but when the runner loses the race and keeps running anyway and claims victory because no one else is, that's an annoying harrier.

Generally we don't think of one as a sleek or an able hunter with remarkable eyesight and soaring above its prey:

a slender graceful hawk with long wings and a long tail that hunts by flying low over marshland and grassland to catch mice, snakes, frogs, and fish

when being harried. We think of the squealers, instead, used car salesmen, telemarketers, bill collectors and the like.

We think of Paul being harried by what at first was a tolerable follower. And when someone is a harrier of this kind, we can forgive them, but when they are a harrier of this kind we find them a little more than tiring.

Why? Just answer the why. Why or why won't you answer the why oh harrier guy? Could it be? Or, this?

Why, oh, why?

I'm Still Alive

2008-10-01T02:59:00.000-07:00

I couldn't really think of a better title for my post...

I just thought I'd let everyone know that the rumors of my demise at the hands of the Secret 9 are greatly exaggerated. Between family, sports, work, school, and pure old apathy; I hardly have time for more than the occasional political rant over at my other blog. While I hope that sometime in the future I may be able to return to the gang with guns a blazing, I really don't see it happening until December.

Have a good one.

Contextualize This

2008-09-25T17:12:00.000-07:00

Used by Force. All Rights Unnerved.

Pointedgun Publishers Inc.

Condemnation!

2008-09-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

Nice Work Doulogos!

White Horse Inn Selling Jesus American Politics And Pelagius

2008-09-21T21:06:00.000-07:00

It takes all types.

I recently posted on this at Treasures.

If you haven't followed what Michael Horton is doing in this series on the state of evangelicalism today and you are in the market for a few hours of often disturbing but informative listening, then I heartily recommend it. There is plenty of solid theology along with Dr Horton's erudite ability to make it relevant for today.

By Grace God Is The Monergistic Causal Agent

2008-09-05T19:17:00.000-07:00

22Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD," says the Lord GOD, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. 31Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32Not for your sake do I do this," says the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!"

33"Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt. 34The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by. 35So they will say, "This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.' 36Then the nations which are left all around you shall know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted what was desolate. I, the LORD, have spoken it, and I will do it."

37"Thus says the Lord GOD: "I will also let the house of Israel inquire of Me to do this for them: I will increase their men like a flock. 38Like a flock offered as holy sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem on its feast days, so shall the ruined cities be filled with flocks of men. Then they shall know that I am the LORD."'"

In the above passages from Ezekiel 36, a unique thing occurs. Something that the Lord says is not done for anything that man has done. verse 32 The sequencing is familiar:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

What must happen to a man first so that he believes into Christ is the Dividing Line.

As John Hendryx explains:

God does indeed give a prevenient grace to man: According to Scripture, all people are born dead in sin (Eph 2:1). This simply means that, as a result of the Fall, people are born without the Holy Spirit and therefore, (left to themselves) are hostile to Christ and unable to understand to spiritual things (1 Cor 1:21). It does not mean they can do (or think) nothing in their state of common grace, but it means they can do nothing spiritual or redemptive ... that they will always think God's word is foolish (1 Cor 2:14) until the Holy Spirit, who comes from the outside, works grace in their hearts.

Now, what may come as a surprise to many is that even the most hardened Arminian believes this. Semi-pelagians do not believe this, of course, but Classic Arminians along with Calvinists believe, with the Scripture, in the necessity of some kind of prevenient grace prior to belief. And it is important that we make this distinction so we do not misrepresent anyone's views. So to the question: can any person come to faith in Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, both the Arminian and the Calvinist would definitively answer "no".

As is demonstrated in the Ezekiel passage it is not something with which man must in the beginning cooperate. Quite the opposite. Man in his state of rebellion will not. To be able to will to love God and keep the first commandment, God does a miracle, removing the heart of stone and putting in its place a heart of flesh, verse 26. That is not owing to man, not for his sake, verse 32, not that there is anything worthy in man, for he is no different than all the nations around with hearts of stone. Israel profaned the name of the Lord and caused the nations to do likewise. It is not because of some effort on their part, either, that they are caused to obey. For the following verse tells us from where the power which enables them is derived and how it is that power exerts its influence in causing the keeping of the ordinances of God such as the commandment of repentance unto salvation or any other righteous work required for entrance into the kingdom.

The kind of grace that God gives is not the faulty grace of the Arminian which may or may not fulfill the commands of God. It is bound to the very Spirit of God, verse 27. Just as men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, so also the righteous appeal of repentance and the cry for mercy is a gift carried out in vessels of flesh by the Holy Spirit's efficacious power. He causes and He carries His own to do what he commands.

Not only that, but the sanctification is accomplished by Him and Him alone. It is called circumcision of the flesh, or mortification of the flesh, by the Spirit. See Galatians also where Paul is concerned, not with just definitve sanctification but progressive sanctification which he parallels as being of the same type concluding that if one is saved but submits to rules and ordinances for sanctification and perseverance in salvation, the death of Christ avails nothing. A little leaven leavens the whole lump and eventually the doctrine of salvation by grace is abandoned and the Jewish religion of works takes its place. That is what Paul accused Peter of, introducing accursed heresy which usurps the Gospel's rightful place, replacing it with a gospel of bondage again to the law. It is a gospel, which is no gospel, of a god who is no god able to save.

Ezekiel tells us that all that comes before in prevenience is all that will ever be given, and all that is given is all that is necessary, and that it is complete in reference to the glory of God (verses 33-37) which otherwise would be blasphemed if it should fail to fulfill the thing it was sent to do. Jesus summed this glorification up in John 17. And as Hendryx explains, all those that the Father has given to the Son will be given a new nature in regeneration, and it does not fail, of all that the Father has given no one is ever lost.

Hendryx sums up:

To use some biblical imagery, we cast the seed of the gospel indiscriminately because the Holy Spirit alone can “germinate” the word unto life in Christ. The fallow ground of our hearts must first be plowed up by God, for the soil of our heart is not good by nature, but only by grace. The seed will not find good soil until God makes it so. For Ezekiel the prophet says:

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Notice that in order for obedience to take place the Lord must first cleanse our hearts, put a new spirit in us and remove our hardened uncircumcised heart. No one believes and obeys while their heart is still stone. Our blind eyes must be opened, our deaf ears unstopped, and our corrupt nature supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit, before we can begin to have any good thoughts about Christ. The Bible likens the new birth, or regeneration, to the first creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God let light shine into what was darkness. And God breathed life into lifeless man and then man, because of the new principle of life now within him, breathed and walked. Likewise regeneration can be likened to God's first breath in man, and faith, to Adam's first breath. The former is monergistic and the later, while it springs from the principle of grace that now exists within, is participatory. Both the creation and the maintaining are all of grace, but only God's breathing life into us (ex nihilo) is monergistic (that is, it is the work of God alone). When God brings forth something out of nothing, it is monergistic, but when we breathe (or have faith) as a result of God's act, we are now participating, so by definition this is not monergistic, but all springs forth from God's initial monergistic act of giving life from nothing.

"Regeneration is the fountain; sanctification is the river." - J. Sidlow Baxter

This is what I call passive/active sanctification, because as Jesus, Ezekial, Paul explain, except that we abide in Him we can do nothing. Nothing. By definition it is not monergistic if what we are saying is that man acts at all. The import of Hendryx, just as it was with the Council of Orange, and as it has been recognized in the orthodox faith since the patriarchs, is that man is carried along. All that flows from the fountain of monergism is what carries out the work and therefore the glorification of God. It is by grace alone and not the prevenient grace of the Arminian, or of any other form of common grace like that of the Pelagian or semi-pelagian. It is a prevenient grace that is preventive, that will not allow failure to save and that eternally. The grace of Christ, that is the Christian grace, is complete in all that is required of righteousness in man that fits him for salvation. And this all bought by the blood of Christ. His reward given to him by the Father is that we are made to partake in the adoption as sons. It is his righteousness, his deeds, his righteous confession and love of the Father freely given to us grace. It is his drawing, his spinkling of us, his cleansing us. He does it all, even making us active by it.

Our passive/active obedience is well expressed in the Hebrew term in Ezekiel for cause. Like the word receive in 1 Cor 4 it is active but can also be passive, and it can at the same time be both. The one thing that it cannot be is neutral. Like the term in Ezekiel for God santifying Himself in his people, all three are the case. Just as when it is said that his works have been finished from the beginning of the world yet he never stops working. But what always comes first is the activity of God so we also have the Promised One who is in us not by the power resident in us, that is we cannot ascend into heaven to bring Christ down, but by the power resident in Him. We are also in Him by the same power. Likewise we walk by the Spirit, passive/active. But we are at first passive while He takes the active role of causing us to walk according to His commands such that we put to death the deeds of the flesh. Though like Isaiah says he also causes us to walk not according to his statutes for a season, he is always faithful to save his people from utter destruction. His discipline moves us to diligence so we work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it is He who is a work in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. We do not do as we want. Therefore Paul tells us that Christ is our salvation, both our justification and sanctification, in whom alone is the promise, to whom alone belongs the promise, who is alone the promise. He leaves nothing to the chance of our choosing.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Thank God that from these stones he is able to raise up children.

ENJOY!

It's All Grace Unless You Run Out of Will Power

2008-09-02T17:11:00.000-07:00

The condemnations of Arminianism from Dort:

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Who teach that in spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it - or else not to will or choose it.

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

JCT said:

Once again you display your raving ignorance of Christian doctrine, Twitchell. You demonstrate quite succinctly what I pointed out before: you have no clue as to what the word 'Pelagian' even means; you toss the term around heedlessly, using it as a tar-brush to spuriously incriminate Christians who dare to disagree with you.

Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were not condemned for being synergistic, they were condemned as heresy because they denied the necessity of grace (The Canons of the Council of Orange, Canon 5); the very same canons affirmed that men are saved by aid from and cooperation with Christ.

I never mentioned Orange. To disabuse any who think JCT's claims are true:

From the Council of Orange:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

What is evident is that Orange did indeed condemn synergism. So did Dort. The Arminian position is always in some facet of explanation heresy, whether the dishonesty resides in a well respected SBC hero, or in the rantings of bitter internet preachers. And while the Canons of Orange did soften the notions of imputation and exclusivity of God working monergistically in all ways in sanctification, it can plainly be seen that the initiation, source and completion of all things is finally God's work alone:

Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us

My position has always been that it is exclusively a monergistic work of God, but agree, that man is not merely passive. I describe it as passive/active, acknowledging what Paul taught, that he worked harder than all, yet not he, but Christ who was in him. As the White Horse Inn selection explains, the Pelagian error is more than just the particulars of Pelagius' original sin rejection. It goes to the usurpation of God's work of grace as monergistic. In both the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian systems grace is only that assistance to the natural ability of self-attainment, turning grace into works. Pelagius even went so far as to say that man did not need grace at all. And, as I have contended, as RC Sproul and John Hendryx conclude, as the men of WHI conclude, when it comes to Arminianism, the result of their view of grace and man's cooperation with it simply results in Pelagius' Island, that little area, where man does not depend upon the grace of God as sufficient for all things, but is finally on his own to make the choice.

I hope this is enough to convince the readers of this blog just who JCT is. Both Orange and Dort condemned the semi-Pelagian notions of grace. Again, I refer the reader to Canon 5 that JCT referenced and see that what JCT claimed about it was false:

For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers

And also later in Cannon 6:

if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Notice, that JCT does not make faith itself the grace which is given. And notice that the Cannon clearly states that it is a supernatural faith not common to man. In effect the grace of faith is the "conduit" or that which receives and rests in Christ, and not the will of man. It is also clear that it is grace that bends the will towards God and not man, contrary to the assertion of JCT. It is not left to man to will from neutrality, but it is the very gift of grace that kills the resistance and moves the will irresisably to trust in Christ.

Our final authority is not the concils, it is Scripture. We do however look to them as an appeal. What we find is that men before us saw in the Scripture undeniable evidence of the monergistic work of God in all facets of our salvation. It was the impetus of the Reformation. To exalt the humanistic free-will and the power of contrary choice is to embrace Erasmus and to return to Rome and condemn Luther. Our separation from Rome hinges upon the denunciation of the free-will doctrine. As Luther said, this is the hinge pin of all the protestation.

Pelagius' Island

2008-08-22T14:00:00.001-07:00

RC Sproul give us a good account of the refuge of the lost; the prison island of autonomous free will.

John Hendryx defines for us the difference between Classical Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. As has been discussed here before and as R.C. and John make clear, on that little island, no matter how small, the "resetting" of man to neutral, is nonetheless, Pelagianism. Whether it is a neutral beginning, or grace which enables some residual neutrality, or some gift given to reset the neutrality; whether Pelegian, semi-pelagian or semi-semi-pelagian, it results in a return to that little isla de muerta of self-righteousness where the individual is the resolving sacrifical high preist of his own salvation -his own justification and sanctification- and not Jesus Christ, the true God and Savior.

Welcome to the world of the real.

Move Over Nelson Price

2008-08-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

Pastor Price, you've got a legitimate challenger in the competition to put out the most outlandish, unsupported slander against Calvinism.

Worst. Post. Ever.

(Or nearly so. You'd think stuff like this would make me angry. But it just makes me tired.)

ht: Contemporary Calvinist

Bold Face

2008-08-16T12:06:00.000-07:00

Found at Iron Sharpens Iron. It's a nice place to visit.

There's something about Georgia...

2008-08-14T14:24:00.000-07:00

...that seems to attract anti-Calvinists.

The state is already home to The Secret 9, Johny Hunt, William Harrell, Jerry Vines, and Nelson Price.

Now it appears we can add yet another to that list: Emir Caner!

If this keeps up, I'm gonna move back to Florida!

A Nugget from "The Book of Comfort"

2008-08-12T16:08:00.000-07:00

So, who says Reformed confessions are dry, stuffy, impractical? If you memorize only one catechism question this year, or only teach one to your children, this is a great one.

------------------

Question 1: What is thy only comfort in life and in death?

Answer: That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with his precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto him.

- The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563

Evidentally

2008-08-09T22:02:00.000-07:00

Pulpit Mag's Nathan Busenitz has given us a testament of evidentiary proofs that the Bible is reliable. Evidentially the Scripture is truth, no doubt. However, all the evidence in the world is not enough to save anyone:

"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Our primary problem is not that we do not have enough evidence. Our problem is that without the Spirit, we are not equipped to receive it. No matter what evidence is presented it is to no avail. Except a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom. Then what evidence, what signs, will save. Jesus said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and no sign will be given except the resurrection. And who was it that saw that first hand? There was none. Even the disciples did not behold it until after it happened. What then can we present that will ever convince anyone that he has risen? Jesus put it bluntly, "Because you have seen me, you have believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Even for Thomas, Jesus says, that faith is not found in this way. Instead, all that we come to know of evidences only affirms but can never confirm the Christian faith. I do agree with Nathan in this: that as believers we are built up in our faith by such things. I disagree, however, with the review's assertion that it is a good method of evangelism. In some ways the evidentialist approach is dangerous and no different that excitations provided by Finney's burlesque evangelism.

The confirmation of the faith is within. Not without. And though we have a testimony to the Word in print and history none of this can excite the conscience to embrace the faith. Simply it is not something that anyone takes upon themselves. As John said, it is not by man's will and Paul would say that these things are spiritually, not carnally (physically) discerned. Did it matter what God did among the children of Israel? No, it did not. If we were today to discover undeniable evidence of the death of Egypt's firstborn and of the first passover, likewise, it would not impress the dead minds of men that are fixed in repressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Contrary to evidentialism, which is just another form of sacramental instrumentalism, the Scripture assigns the remedy to the willful ignorance of the rebellious:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Problems with Arminian Unlimited Atonement

2008-08-07T10:54:00.000-07:00

Found nailed to the Wittenburg door.

Some Things that TULIP Doesn't Mean

2008-08-04T17:31:00.000-07:00

I'd like to address some things that I've seen as common misunderstandings of the Calvinistic TULIP doctrines. I'm approaching this negatively, in terms of what it doesnt' mean. Hope no one is confused by that.

Total depravity: We don’t believe that

1. TD means that humans are incapable of performing any “good works.” But we’d say that even those are tainted with sin and thus unacceptable on their own; and they certainly will never be enough to purchase salvation.

2. TD means that all people are as bad as they could possibly be. They are as bad as God allows them to be. There is always room for deprovement, as John Gerstner said.

3. TD is contradicted at all by the human being’s ability to hear the gospel with his ears. Yes, you could say that the dead man hears. But that is a non sequitor. We’ve never posited that TD means a natural inability to process sound waves impinging on the ear drum: we’ve said it means that the gospel is rejected.

4. TD means that God forces people to choose evil and will not allow them to choose good. Rather, TD means that men always choose what they love, and reject what they hate. God is not holding a gun to anyone’s head; but the sinner will not choose that which violates his own nature. He will choose what he loves, which is darkness.

Unconditional election: We don’t believe that

1. UE means that salvation is random. That is how UE is often mockingly portrayed, as if God simply goes down a line, pointing at people and saying, “Heaven, hell, heaven, hell, heaven…no wait, hell, hell, hell, heaven.” In fact, there is a condition to election; there is a reason why one is chosen and one is not--but the rub is that that reason does not lie in the person chosen. The reason lies in the mind and will of God, and He hasn’t decided to let us in on those particular thoughts of His. Election is not random. He has chosen in accordance with His own good pleasure. I can’t answer farther than that.

Limited atonement: I don’t believe it means

1. That God is stingy with salvation. I believe with Spurgeon that on the last day it will be manifest that there are overwhelmingly more that are saved than not saved. The tiny remnant will be in hell. LA does not have to mean that few are saved.

2. That anyone is barred from heaven by the Limitations of the Atonement. Meaning, some mock the doctrine by speculating that there will be people who believed in Jesus who will be damned to hell because they were not part of the group chosen for salvation. This is not LA at all. If you believe, then you are one of those to whom the Atonement of Christ is limited. No one goes to hell because they fell outside the limits of LA: they go to hell for their willful sins. Big, big difference there.

3. That there is less grace available in the Calvinistic view than in the Arminian view. I’m convinced that a lot of the hatred of LA is nothing more than an emotional reaction against the terminology itself. It strikes natural ears as somehow curmudgeonly. Rather, we revel in the belief that our Limited Atonement actually accomplishes more for the believer than the Arminian’s supposedly Unlimited version. Specifically, our LA actually saves people, while ULA saves no one, apart from assistance from the sinner.

Irresistable Grace, does not mean

1. That God forces people to be saved. Those who are saved are saved in accordance with their wills, not contrary to them. Nobody’s in heaven now murmuring, “Dang! Y’know, this is really not what I wanted.” Nobody goes to heaven kicking and screaming.

Having said that, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that

2. IG is a quick work, or that resistance is not offered by the sinner. We do often kick and scream. Sometimes we kick and scream for years. But in the end, God wins and we are glad that He does. Some people try to disprove IG by pointing to places in the Scripture where the Gospel is rejected. This misses the point. We are not saying IG means no resistance is offered. We are saying that for the elect, no amount of resistance is ultimately successful. It is a war of attrition: at some point, you give in if you’re elect. And you give in, or surrender, not because your will has been forced somehow or overwhelmed; but because it has been graciously changed. You give in because you begin to love what you once hated.

Star Trek’s villainous monsters, The Borg, have the catch-phrase: “Resistance is futile.”

Okay, that’s not what we’re saying when we speak of IG. For the Borg, they were saying, Resist all you like: we are bigger and badder than you and we will dominate you regardless. For the elect, while it is true that resistance to grace really is ultimately futile, the reason is not overwhelming force. The reason is miraculous mercy, which sweetly and softly changes our affections.

3. That we are fatalistically doomed to whatever has been chosen for us. We don’t believe in fatalism, where it doesn’t matter what you do: your fate will happen anyway. We are determinists, not fatalists: so that your actions matter. Just because we believe in IG does not mean that the human will is unimportant, or that his choices do not matter. You still must repent and believe in order to be saved. If you choose not to, and persist in that decision, your own choice will confirm your unelect status forever. If you want to come to Jesus, then by all means, come to Jesus! Heaven forbid that anything you hear us say should prevent that!!

Perseverance of the Saints, does not mean

1. That once you’re saved, you can live like the devil and be assured of heaven. Without holiness, none will see the Lord. Salvation is not a “Get Out of Jail Free” card that you simply put in your back pocket and whip out when necessary. If, since you’ve been “saved,” your relation to sin has not changed, then your relation to God has not changed either, as Paul Washer has said.

2. That your salvation is dependant upon your faithfulness. I know, darkened minds will think I’ve just contradicted what I wrote in the above paragraph. They’ve got root and fruit mixed up. Your perseverance is not what gets you in the pearly gates. Your perseverance is the result of the saving graces of God being genuinely present in your life. If you are faithful unto death, it is 100 percent a work of God’s free grace, and you get no credit. Sorry.

3. That you can’t really know if you’re saved while you’re alive. Some try to say that the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance destroys the Assurance of salvation, by tossing it all “up in the air” until the time of death. After all, they say, until it’s all over, the possibility of apostasy is real, so you can just never know…

But we believe that real, genuine assurance is in fact possible in this life (though not guaranteed) as the elect exercise genuine, saving faith in the promises of God, and cling to them in all joy and confidence.

I hope this helps.
Gordan

Litenen Up

2008-07-31T22:08:00.000-07:00

The Circus is in town.

Georgia Baptists "Engage the Culture"

2008-07-31T15:07:00.000-07:00

Read all about it here...

Conference Reminder and Thanks to Dusty

2008-07-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd post a quick reminder that a few Mafia dons and readers are planning to attend the 2009 Ligonier National Conference in Orlando. As we get closer to the event, we'll try to work out a way for us meet up and hang-out or something. As far as the Mafia goes, I know that Gordan and myself are planning to attend. From the line-up of speakers, this looks like it's going to be a good one!

I also want to thank the infamous "Dusty McDust" of the Cerebral Dust blog for tweaking our blog header. Dusty, who happens to be the brother of Gordan, was commissioned to handle the task and I think he did a great job. I decided to get it changed because it dawned on me that it looked a bit odd for an exclusively Reformed-Credo blog to have a Paedobaptist on their blog header. Not that we're against Luther, he's cool and all, but it just seems that Spurgeon was a bit more in line with what this blog is all about, theologically speaking anyway.

Have a blessed day!

Transformationally Informal: Submission and Reverence Not Required

2008-07-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

I like turning nouns into adverbs even if there is no such word adverbially speaking. It can often create its own genre of debate, discussionally trying to define what is meant by the speciously new terminology. A new species can become terminal, only if it generates its own life. Like missionally, a word that never before existed until it began to be used. Creative adverbing might be the only proof of evolution, actually. In the case of transformationally, it is an adverb, actually. Culturally, relationally, informally expressing ourselves is not always legitimate. Then again, without some liberty to transform what exists, legitimately, life and language would be communally, impossible.We have, today, an interesting phenomena known as the emergent church. I would not be surprised to find out that emergent was adapted from evolutionally specific auditory utterances, terminologically. Like audial, no one ever observed the use of the noun form. Well then, see, obviously audios have evolved decendantly (ascendantly?) from some unidentified parental line. Where in the case of missionally we can observe its lineage parentally. Phenomenally, emergent churches have descended from the parent churches who were in the ages past, formally organzied according to the prevailing culture. Call it a mutation or a anti-gen(erational) corrective if you will, what the emergent represents is the rejection, not of formality per se, but the exclusivity of it. But informality breeds its own problems. One of those is the lack of definition.Transformationally informal churches go along with such deconstruction and reconstruction permeating, culturally, society, subversively reassigning meanings not germane to the subject. Inch by inch, step by step, slowly we have turned in to a grunge culture. Which I have to admit, being a product of the sixties, that I had a part in said transformation. As is the case with most things subject to the laws of nature, I eventually regressed toward the mean. I no longer grungeally approach society, nor do I maintain a flip attitude toward such formal entities as the organized church that I once, pre-emergentally, loathed and distrusted. Grunge, I have had to recognize, is not just a look, or slovenliness, it is a more generally, diffusely, distributed attitude, impacting demeanor, propriety, correct handling, and sober-mindedness.

Continuing from Mr.(note formal address) Machine Gun's post I offer this program from White Horse Inn. You see I agree to great extent to what Rhett was saying about the necessity of reverence and the otherness of the church, at least in corporate worship as a formal gathering to honor and learn of the Lord. And, I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion. The Hortonites speak to the same issues. Reverence carries certain weight of authority over against the apparent irreverence of informality. There are some things by which we should be identified by the world and by which, we should identify ourselves with one another. Which is why I wear only clean t-shirts without holes, a fresh pair of pants and my best tennis-shoes ;)

To some this will still not make the grade and with others it will be all formally and stuff, by all means something to be avoided. Both those extremes are, however, one, in a self-richly sorta way.

Wisdom does teach us at least this:

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.

There are some requirements. Spiritually speaking, what is the key to reverence, is it not this last phrase?

walk humbly with your God.

James tells us, also, what can happen when reverence becomes showiness, then formalism and formalism a sacramental expression of spirituality. Let us then keep the focus upon what he then says: the poorly dressed may well be the more highly praised in God's estimation. On the other hand, we should be clothed in humility, no matter what state we find ourselves in, showing the proper deference to the King who has invited us into his banquet.

Worship at St. Andrew's Chapel

2008-07-25T08:07:00.000-07:00

The Kelley family spent the July 4th weekend in Florida visiting family. In what has become somewhat of a tradition whenever we go to Florida, we visited St. Andrew's Chapel, where Dr. R.C. Sproul is the "Minister of Preaching and Teaching."

On the cover of the program of St. Andrew's Chapel, these words are written:

"We cross the threshold of the secular to the sacred, from the common to the uncommon, from the profane to the Holy."

If anything, the trend in our day is to make the sacred secular, the uncommon common, and to profane the Holy. Just look around and it won't take you long to find an example. For instance, we have a church in our area who's members wear t-shirts around town that say "These are my church clothes." This, I suppose, is their way of poking a thumb in the eyes of legalists. But I think it also demonstrates how this church might have lost sight of the fact that a worship service (if it truly is one) is something special; something worth changing their clothes to attend.

A worship service at St. Andrew's is truly a wonderful experience. The high liturgy of the service is awe inspiring. Everything is done with purpose and with excellence unto God. The music inspires the mind and moves the soul. The hymns are deeply theological, not happy clappy fluff with no substance. There are no hippies with guitars, nor do they sing 3 mindless lines over and over in order to "pump and prime" the crowd.

The reverence in the room is amazing. Unlike anything I've ever experienced. The exposition of Scripture, verse by verse, is something that is esteemed vitally important and central, not simply a means to an altar call. It's almost like stepping into another world: a world that hasn't been effected by the revivalism, humanism, anti-intellectualism, and pragmatism that has conqured so many Evangelical churches of America.

Another recent visitor to St. Andrew's is Brandon Vallorani of American Vision Ministries. In an article published today, he wrote about his visit:

"We began our week by worshipping at St. Andrew’s Chapel in Orlando, where we heard Pastor R.C. Sproul deliver a striking sermon on Matthew 16:19. The reverence and majesty with which God is worshipped at St. Andrews stands in sharp contrast to much of what passes as “worship” in the contemporary church today. Every detail from the architecture to the liturgy reflects an appropriately high view of our Heavenly King. While there’s still an opportunity, I encourage all of you to make your way to R.C. Sproul’s church on the Lord’s Day and experience this taste of heaven for yourselves."

In closing, I think it's disturbing that Christians in our day want to bee-bop up into church with a "Jesus is my homeboy" attitude. The Lord isn't our "homeboy," He's the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. They forget that the God they claim to worship is the one who struck down Aaron's sons for offering "strange fire" that He did not command.

After each of my visits to St. Andrew's Chapel, I've always left longing for more. I come away with a vivid reminder that worship is all about God. If you ever get a chance to go to the Orlando area, take a ride up I-4 to Sanford on a Sunday morning. Visit St. Andrew's Chapel. You'll be blessed.

(I took this rather poor quality picture of Dr. Sproul preaching with my cell phone camera from inside the "cry room" where I was with my baby boy.)

Breaking the Rules

2008-07-21T04:58:00.000-07:00

I'm kind of breaking Reformed Mafia rules with this post. When we went through the secret and bloody initiation ceremony into this family, it was stressed that the RM exists to promote the principles of Reformed soteriology (Calvinism) and the credo-baptist view of Baptism. We don't dive into denominational squabbles, or spiritual gifts, or eschatology.

Well, okay, I'm not diving in but I would like to dip my toe for a moment in the topic of eschatology. However, it's not my intention at this time to argue for a specific view, so all the guns can be put away.

What I want to mention is simply this idea (on which we here at the Reformed Mafia have proceded) that eschatology is a less-important field of study within the broader realm of theology.

While I agree with that notion, and have no intention to elevate the study of prophecy to a level of primary importance, I would like to balance that common Evangelical understanding. This whole notion that eschatology is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, is that Biblical?

I agree that genuine Christians ought not fight with venom over eschatological matters; and we certainly ought not divide over them, but I think I note on some high-powered Reformed blogs in particular the growing intimation that eschatology can be safely left aside while our focus is more properly placed elsewhere.

My argument on this point comes largely from experience. That is, I know that moving to a postmillennial view has sent ripples of effect throughout my whole practice of the faith. Similar to the manner in which embracing Calvinistic principles caused a thorough-going paradigm-shift which went far beyond soteriology, shifting millennial outlooks has effected more than merely my four-color chart of the End Times.

I've done no scientific survey on this, but here's what I think just from talking to people:

Premillennialists are less likely to be politically active, beyond voting.

Postmillennialists are more likely to homeschool their children.

Postmillennialists are more likely to dive into the realm of cultural reform, through the arts.

Meaning, I don't think it should shock anyone that if you hold to a view which says there is no option to the fact that the whole world will inevitably descend to the depths of unrestrained wickedness before Christ's return, you're going to be less motivated to try and get out there and build something that might actually last for generations.

Personally, the combination of a Gospel that is heavy on God's sovereignty and an eschatology which sees the nations of the world converted to Christ through preaching that Gospel, has made me a much more motivated evangelist than I was when I was synergistic and Dispensational. For me at least, my eschatology has impacted the preaching of The Good News of Jesus Christ.

The Antichrist is another issue where I think that theoretical views on the Bible have concrete, real-world effects on our practice of Christianity. Specifically, consider this: What if you are convinced that the correct interpretation is the one all the Reformers believed, and that the office of the Pope is the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist?

Compared to those who hold to another view, you're going to have far less inclination to work alongside Catholics in any meaningful way. As a concrete example, did you know that the modern Pro-Life movement has become a windfall for Roman Catholicism, in terms of converting Protestants to the Pope's religion? As Protestants join with Catholics in the cause, they start to think maybe these guys ain't so bad, and we're off to the races. See, if your eschatology either has the Antichrist always just around the corner in the future, or, conversely a couple thousand years in the past, you will be more inclined to try and find ways to work together with his followers in a "good cause."

Not saying right now that one view is right or wrong, but merely illustrating how differing views really do effect things.

Okay, I'm done. Back to regular programming. Just some things to think about.

What's Depraved? (Reprise)

2008-07-13T22:49:00.000-07:00

Continuing the discussion from the previous thread and post I thought it might be ripe to reference Edwards more completely concerning the imputation of Adam's guilt as congruent with the depraved nature.

What is evident, as Edwards points out, is the condition of man is that of unrighteousness at conception. Unrighteousness he posits is the negative principle. That is, when God removed the constraining influence of the positive, the righteousness of the will of God, man was then left to his own natural propensity to self-love but without the highest regard in self-love which is the love of God. It then is resolved that evil is no positive influence created by God in man but is rather the result of the negation of righteousness.

Evil in man is still, as Edwards would confirm, a reality, a thing which is created, but through negation. God does not need to place in man evil created ex nihilo, but merely to withhold his favor and evil is without the will of God that which wills its own. His favor is that constraint which is called the righteousness of God, or his will. It is not the will of his creatures, firstly, as derived from them, for what is the clay? Man's nature is as a river, the heart of a king in the hands of God, and water by its nature flows according to the constraint of the course set by the banks. Can man make God to see? Who has been God's counselor? None. It is God who has made man and the eye and given it sight to see. And more than that, he has given all that can be seen. All things, purposes, plans and means are from his hand. The negative principle does not mean that the nature itself is evil created, rather, that by the negation of the positive influence of righteousness in both nature and mind, that which was created good, and fit, does by its own tendency bend toward its own destruction being left without the unifying principle of the law of righteousness. Further, the whole creation was subjected to sin and the like principle known in physics, according to its natural bent, finds its terminus via the law of entropy in chaos.

Adam's action is not alone, nor at first where guilt resides. It cannot be, for even the "good" acts of fallen man are accounted as evil. Guilt was by imputation. It is the judgement of the righteous God who cannot abide with unrighteousness. Indeed, guilt as Edwards describes, is congruent with the nature of unrighteousness. By imputation of guilt, then, we have a legal decree, the finding of God which is assigned, not to the act, but to the individual who acted and that because man who acts is one with his nature which acts in the totality of the being. Adam's sin then is not like ours seeing as he had the righteousness of God constraining his actions and was innocent in the beginning. What we know is that he was deceived into believing that the action that he would take was righteous.

Our first exposure is in Genesis 3, and Paul tells us in Timothy as confirmation that the woman is not allowed to teach the man to reflect the original order of creation, and, to remind us of the deception that was first in Eve, who being in transgression taught her husband. Further, that he was cursed because he both listened to his wife and ate. Genesis says that Adam listened and that it was the woman's voice he heard. Adam was made first and from him is derived the woman whose position is not the dominance of her will over his, but is to be in submission to his headship, i.e., his will as a help fit for the purpose. Adam reversed the order by submitting himself to her in violation of the type which is the order of creation, itself the reflection of God's headship and his will as the primary source of will in man. When Eve fell, the conclusion is that Adam also, being one flesh, fell with her. Even though she ate first, the guilt is imputed to Adam as her head. That is the reality, for in Adam, all sinned, including Eve even though it was she and not he who first sinned. The offense Godward is to make God over into the creatures image, reversing the order or creation, now corrupted by that which opposes the will of God, exalts the will of man, and supresses the truth in unrighteousness. It is to do what Satan intimated, to make God to be unrighteous and ascend to equality with him, even above him.

One must consider that the evil tendency (the negation of righteousness) was not in Adam, nor in Eve from the creation, contrasted to James who locates it in fallen man, and not external. Rather, they were created in holiness in the image of God. The evil resided outside of them in an influential spirit called the Serpent of Old, or Satan, who Scripture declares as being what he was from the beginning. His influence was directed toward the mind and not the nature of man which was righteous. The mind operates under the influence of the nature unless some other influence impinges upon it. Unlike we who have inherited both the guilt and corruption, the faculties of Adam's mind had not yet been infected with thoughts directed only toward self-love to the negation of love of God resulting in chaos. Theirs was a righteous nature and beside it was given a righteous commandment, another influence, to guide the mind. So we have the statement that Adam's sin was not in the similitude of the many sins of his posterity. We sin because the corruption that was introduced into Adam by deception (a contradiction of the commandment) is passed along to us and resides in us. To that effect, God has assigned to man the stature of unrighteousness, removing from him the constraints of God's will which is righteous. The effect of Adam's guilt was sealed to him by God's imputation of guilt and the removal of righteousness which leads to life, simultaneously. The result was that Adam became the condemned according to his nature. We then have the history of Scripture and of all mankind, that the likeness of Adam is now transferred to his posterity rather than the likeness of God. Such that, the unrighteousness that was imaged by Satan in the Garden, Jesus assigns to man. To that end, man is continually attempting to make others over into him own image just as his father the devil did.

I will add this paper also.

As Shedd says, the reality of sin is far deeper than the superficial reality that guilt inheres in actions alone as the Arminian would propose. Guilt inheres in the nature. Nature permeates the entirety of our being. But some will say, then how was Adam accounted guilty? Was it not in the action? Again, I say, no. Guilt has to do with the declaration of God as Judge, just as righteousness has to do with God's declaration of righteousness which is foreign to man, an action outside of himself given to him. Man was not in the beginning neutral having both tendencies, therefore guilt was external to him for unrighteousness was not in him. Guilt inheres in nature precisely because God has declared the nature to be unrighteousness, not merely in an abstract way, but in truth, man has been "unrighteoussed." So also, the guilt is imputed congruently with depravity. "In the day you eat you will die." Not, in the day you eat you will become guilty, then later die. But, at once, simultaneous. "In the day" is colloquial meaning at the point of time. So later, we have Scripture using the term judgement to connote both the passing of the sentence and the execution of it as simultaneous though temporally expressed. To our feeble minds we see things from a temporally bounded perspective. But, the reality is that though man is born with an unrighteous nature and will proceed to actual sins, those sins are nothing more than the expression of one thing, sin. And sin is guilty of offense toward the nature of God by its very nature, whether it acts or not.

Man was created in innocence, but not in moral neutrality. He was created righteous. As righteous he could not sin, but God had left the will to its native freedom, being that which chooses according to the highest regard of the mind (in this sense it means volition where Shedd rightly uses Will to mean essential being or nature and all the attributes of it including its actions). It was there, in the mind, that deception entered,

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

To this Jesus adds, what a man desires in his heart, that is what he is. So that, a man lusting after a woman has already committed adultery. It does not become sin in action but in conception (the woman saw), and conception is accomplished in the inmost place where no one knows. The entrance of the deception was below perception, precisely the definition of deception. Then, it was at the point that Eve saw, that it was concluded that she had already eaten. The corruption though entered in disguised as a beautiful creature. This does not take genius, just attention to the texts. It was by imputation, in other words, by the introduction of the lie, beyond the view of consciousness, that she was corrupted, and obviously that without her consent for no true consent is given to a lie.

The text tells us that their eyes were opened, but what it means is that their eyes were closed, blinded by the darkness that had entered and they had chosen over the light. They saw themselves as naked, where God saw them as he had clothed them. Who said they were naked? Not God. Nakedness to them became shame but it was not so, God had clothed with righteousness and nakedness was what he had clothed them with. As we can see, the doctrine of imputation is demonstrated in Satan's very actions. For it was he who introduced deprivation into Eve and she into Adam. The deception itself is guilty. The corruption itself, at once the judgement, death sentence and execution. Through Adam we have, as Scripture declares, received God's curse, he having concluded that we were all in Adam, the whole of creation, subject to sin. Which is of course the truth even though the action of our birth had not yet occurred. Therefore David says he was conceived in sin. Not his, but his by imputation and that by the negation of righteousness as a result of the curse upon Adam's kind.

Guilt then is at once congruent with and consequent of depravity. That depravity is primarily the deprivation of righteousness. It is deprivation of righteousness in nature, nature being that which permeates the entire being, body, soul and mind. Righteousness itself cannot abide with any kind of sin, whether of nature, or of the actions of mind or body. In the entrance of sin into the world, God withdrew himself by removing the righteousness which constrains the will to love of God alone. Later we see this in the veil. It is not man who has placed the barrier to entrance between God and man, (see the Garden event), but God. In fact by God's action God prevents man from doing so by the unrighteousness of man's own will. In the reconciliation that is in Christ, that veil is removed to the glory of God, through Christ's flesh, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, effectually securing regeneration in the elect so that they can enter. Christ, who has put to death sin in his flesh has reconciled them to God in himself for the benefit of the elect and secured them forever by the vital union of the Spirit. But, no sinful choice can enter and no sin nature would will itself to, either.

As Shedd concludes, this is the great rift between one set of theologians and the other. What was begun in the Reformation was a return to the doctrine of original sin and clearer understanding than that which was held by the Pelagians of all types who rejected the doctrines of the Protestation both before and after Luther. This is what separates us, today. Misunderstanding the doctrines of the fall is the seminal beginning of all errors and offense against the doctrines of grace. The Arminian faction would contend against Shedd's statement:

"The prayer of David is the proper prayer for us to the lay of our death:
"Search me, O Lord, and try me, and see what evil ways are within me; cleanse Thou me from secret faults."
A prayer, it may be remarked, that is utterly unintelligible on the hypothesis that there is no sin deeper than consciousness."

Far then from being that it is only the conscious sin that it under the guilt of condemnation, David is repeating what he had learned by the Law, as well from his own innate sense. We must remember that the Law was added because of transgression not transgression because of the law, even though the law would produce the effect of making sin recognizably, exceedingly sinful through the unavoidable violation of it.

Let's not forget that we wage our war not against flesh and blood but against every lofty thought that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (my compilation). It is not individual Arminians, or Romanists, or any other people of Pelagian persuasions who are the real enemy. And each of us shall give an account of himself to God. Our challenge is to declare the truth and let the sword of his word divide that which is his from that which is not. It is not a new battle and all of the elect at first fight against the kingdom of God until they finally hear, "Do you kick against the goads?" I did, for I did not begin completed with this knowledge, nor have I yet arrived at a full understanding of it. Like the disciples we all believe ourselves the possessors of our own destinies at first self-assured that we have found the way until we hear the Lord say, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."

With Isaiah let's us declare as we come into the presence of God, "Woe to me, for I am undone," recognizing that sin is the un-doing of God's will in man, of which we are all guilty. Humanistic concepts of will as mere volitions of single choices do not go deep enough into the soul well of depravity. Instead, rightly defined, Will is the entire being according to Shedd's usage as expressed by Isaiah's totally coming apart in the presence of the Lord, peirced to the deepest part, divided soul and spirit, searched in the inmost being, where secrets of the hearts of men so desperately wicked that no man can know it, reside. That depravity is not found just in the foaming of the surface waters, nor in the merky deep and darkness below, but issues forth from the very sping of its existence. A Reformation understanding then, is not that of the will as a ready instrument wielded distinct from self, but Will is the wielder, himself. Will is what Shedd says, in concert with Edwards, man is, and man is born bound by a creature's nature, a child of wrath, exhaustively unrighteous, thoroughly.

So we do not speak a common language when speaking of will. For we do not mean mere volition as the Arminian formula would have it. Rather, we speak of that which is reflective of the whole image of God into which we were created. It follows then, we also have a greater appreciation of what it means to love the Lord God with the whole mind, the whole soul, the whole spirit, the entire substance of our being and not just our volitions, and then why it is that total depravity is the only other reality, and being sin, stands guilty of hating God with its entire being and not just the actions that flow from it. Knowing this, we also gain a deeper appreciation for repentance, and forgiveness, for those who love much have been forgiven much by he who has become sin for us. With Isaiah we know our native state, but also who it is that has given us the righteous confession of the lips that comes from the throne of God.

Found At Provocations and Pantings

2008-07-10T23:32:00.001-07:00

That's interesting. Saw it before. And I have heard the argument before. It was set forth by Billy Graham in fact on Larry King as is quoted in Ian Murray's Evangelicalism Divided. And we built a statue commemorating his soteriology! A soteriology, that by the "Biblicist" standard is nothing short of heresy.

Another question that this raises is the obvious ecumenical spirit that tags along with the Arminian/Calvinist divide. Two different soteriologies can be derived from the BFM. Which is all good and fine until the discussion becomes: just how is one saved?

Albert Mohler has said that no one will go to hell for another's sin. Though he equivocates on the matter, the inherited guilt of Adam, again, is a non-negotiable, and absolutely necessary for an orthodox soteriology. He signed and approved in his work on the 2000 BFM, of the reversal of the order of condemnation from the 1925 BFM, to what is now the BFM's definition of the nature of man after the fall since the 1963. (A bit of a culpability factor working there, maybe?) The denial at any level of the doctrine of original sin is foundational to all sorts of error, giving us notable myths like the age of accountability and LFW, as well as a labyrinth of sacramentalist religions.

You can see what I believe is at the heart of the world's confusion here, along with the rest of the series which began here. It is not them, it is we who allow falsehood and will not defend truth from error that gives them the right of dissent. Remove the strictures of total depravity and God's sovereignty in election, his drawing grace will fall, and there will remain only the conditions of man's vain imagination as the means of salvation. What is the difference between the typical SBC'er and an Oprah disciple if it is by synergistic means that people come to the knowledge of God? If in the end salvation requires some measure of man's effort, then the Oprahites or Osteenites for that matter, are justified in any scheme.

Osteen is the son of a former Southern Baptist. But, is that where he got his theology?

Perhaps, just perhaps, as Billy Graham said, "They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven." Oh, we might well say that we are credobaptists and all the while deny that we are a credal people. However, according to some heros of the Southern Baptists, when it comes to the final assessment it might just be that God does judge men in deference to the light that they have and what they did with it,

and not by the standards of the only way. A Southern Baptist and fellow member of Sunnyside Baptist in Cheyenne, told me just that. Wonder's where he learned it?

There are some who do not bow to the hero icons, this one for example:

Nor would such stalwarts as Tom Ascol, or the inimitable James White.

Take notice Billy Graham's position has not changed since 1960. A mere three years before the 1963 BFM was finalized by former President of the SBC, Herschel H. Hobbs, a semi-Pelagian. What should be clear is that the accomodation of such heros while ostensibly forbidden, the BFM cannot exclude. One must question how Billy Graham could be honored by the SBC with a statue,

and reject the central tenant of soteriology in the SBC, salvation in the name of Jesus only.

The final assessment is that it matters what integrity we have in the eyes of the world when we make criticisms and expect credibility. What the world sees is a house doctrinally divided and unsure of its doctrinal foundations and history. What once passed the muster of love of truth in the Conservative Resurgence, must again come to the fore and reestablish the Protestant doctrines upon which the SBC was founded. But, as long as it holds to Romanistic free-will and humanistic goodness inherent in man, as opposed to the great hinge pin of the Protestant Reformation, the bondage of the will, and total human depravity, it will continue to feed the world the excuses it needs to not heed the call of repentance.

The only true revival will come when the truth is once again the SBC signature song. As Spurgeon said and I paraphrase, "These doctrines are the Gospel." Let the Doctrines of Grace be proclaimed and the Gospel will be reclaimed. It will cause hate and division, true enough, even attempts by the Secret 9 to subvert the truth. No matter. Truth is our life, is risen indeed and cannot die again.

Independence Day Odds and Ends

2008-07-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

I won't be blogging anymore this week, so I want wish everyone a Happy Independence Day!

We'll be spending time with the extended family and, Lord willing, we will be sitting under the preaching of the much beloved R.C. Sproul this Sunday.

On a totally unrelated matter, my wife made a very rare "impulse buy" last week. She bought us a copy of When Grace Comes Home: How the Doctrines of Grace Change Your Life. I have looked over it briefly and I think this book will be very profitable for helping people understand how "the Doctrines" effect the lives of those who affirm them. (Might be a good gift for a special Arminian in your life!)

On Getting Back What We Lost

2008-06-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

The Biblical pattern of Receiving, then Losing, then Receiving Again the Word of God, and how this ought to inspire our prayers for Revival and Reformation.

Arminianisms and Hobbs

2008-06-26T01:21:00.000-07:00

Saturday's post brought up one of the more troubling features of modern-day Arminianism - that it is often, especially in its more educated and influential advocates, highly philosophical rather than founded in the Bible.

J.I. Packer wrote an excellent article, originally a paper at the 1968 Puritan Conference, entitled 'Arminianisms' . In it he distinguishes between different strands of Arminian theology, principally the Wesleyan type and the more philosophical and rationalistic type taught by the Remonstrants (those expressly condemned at Dort). It sounds like Hobbs falls into the Remonstrant or rationalistic category - I note how his theology seems a massive logical and philosophical construction rather than being firmly rooted and grounded in the Scripture. It was this sort of Arminianism that led the old English General Baptists into Unitarianism in the eighteenth century, and the Wesleyan or evangelical type was the basis of the formation of the New Connexion of General Baptists by one of Mr. Wesley's converts. These two versions of Arminan theology are significantly different.

Rationalistic Arminianism was the basis of the old English General Baptists, as I have said. This body was always smaller than the Particular or Calvinistic Baptists, and its theology left it wide open to the killing influences of the 18th century enlightenment. The result was all too plain. An example of one of the old General Baptist Churches can be found here, at Chatham in Kent. Another is here, at Godalming in Surrey. Yes, they went Unitarian. A few were saved through the work of evangelical Arminians, but as a rule in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in particular, where the General Baptists were strongest, the old General Baptist churches are now Unitarian where they still exist at all. Presbyterian churches like the Octagon in Norwich had first embraced Arminianism before they abandoned the deity of Christ for Arianism, then Socinianism. It is indeed a form of liberalism and assumes that man as man is able to respond to God of his own ability.

Wesley taught a fairly robust doctrine of total depravity, as will be seen by any who care to read his answer to Dr. Taylor of Norwich on the subject of Original Sin. Taylor was a Socinian, a rationalistic unitarian who was the pastor of the Octagon Chapel, Norwich (indeed the Octagon was built for him). Thus Wesleyanism set itself against the Rationalistic Uniarianism that had captured the English General Baptists. Wesley taught substitutionary atonement (inconsistently), and his theology was in general founded on the Bible, not philosophical speculation. Unfortunately many who followed Wesley fell into the same errors that the Remonstrants had, leading to today's liberal Methodism.

Wesleyan Arminianism, as Packer noted, contained a lot of its own antidote. Hobbs' Arminianism is a long ay down the path that leads to the Octagon Chapel's doors. John Wesley noted that the Octagon was the finest chapel in England: "But who can think that the plain old Gospel should ever enter here?"

"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

Now, as I have criticised Packer elsewhere for his stance on co-operation with ritualists and Romanists, I commend 'Arminianisms' to all our readers.

Musical Interlude featuring Lynyrd Skynyrd

2008-06-25T01:17:00.000-07:00

This song is dedicated to people in church leadership who just cannot seem to tell the truth about much of anything...

The Root of the SBC's Problems

2008-06-22T10:50:00.000-07:00

For more on that, please read:

Southern Baptists, An Unregenerate Denomination, by Jim Elliff

(This might explain why there's so many liars in church leadership positions as well!)

The Image of God in Man According to H. H. Hobbs

2008-06-21T09:11:00.000-07:00

Only of man is it said that he was made in God's image. Since God is Spirit, this image relates to man's spiritual nature. This divine image means that God created man with a rational, emotional, and moral nature. He possesses a will with the freedom of choice. In his original creation, man was in a state of innocence with the possibility that he might choose righteousness or sinfulness, pg.51 TBFAM, c. 1971.

It cannot be mistaken that Hobbs intends in this quote to establish that God's image is being described. Hobbs states three times that it is. He then defines it. So, it is that definition that we will look at. It is actually a single thought. God is moral with will; free to choose good or evil. As I discussed before, the innocence of God in Hobbs finds its establishment in the "first choice" that God made. Hobbs defined virtue as that which must proceed from choice. Innocence is neutrality then; having done neither good nor evil. It was discovered that the first action of God was to establish laws outside himself that he could possibly violate.

It is here that we encounter a problem with Hobbs' Theology. God is transcendent, not just timeless. Time has no reference in God who is eternal. The problem then is how does it eventuate in God that an action happens. Time is bound in creation. In God time is seen as complete just as all that is in God is a simplicity. Each attribute and characteristic of Deity is at once and One, not without the others. He is not a complexity; he is undivided perfection of perfections. Time is complete in the mind of God just as a line does not proceed from point A to point B but is AB. It conjoins logical order. At the same time, however, God does not comprehend it in process moving from A to B. The result of process is time and as I said time is within creation, bound by it, and more specifically, the resultant of an object's (created matter) motion in space.

Then we can see the dilemma. If God is a moral agent in the same way that man is, then God is not Spirit, but has a body which traverses distances. That is not the case as Hobbs himself admits, "God is Spirit." God cannot change and so there never was a "time" when God was merely innocent and by action chose the good, gained virtue and became righteous. But, this is the moral agency that Hobbs has introduced in God's image in man.

I will digress a short bit to examine man again in the original creation. If in God there was no time in which he was not righteous, and he being the perfection of perfections created man in his image, then man was not innocent. Here again I remind the reader what Hobbs' definition of innocence is:

Created in a state of innocence, man was neither righteous nor sinful. Before becoming either he must exercise the right of choice, hence the temptation experience... pg. 51-52

Of God Hobbs' states:

Thus the "righteousness of God" is not an attribute of God, but an activity... pg. 59; This is God's self-affirmation...connotes what God is in his nature, pg. 37; ...God has placed certain limitations upon himself...to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and accordance to his nature as righteousness... pg. 66.

This may seem confusing, and I agree, Hobbs was confused. As was discussed in the last post on this subject and furthered here, Hobbs proffers libertarian freewill in God and by doing so confuses the eternal righteous nature of God with action. He said:

He is active, progressive, free to choose... pg 36.

When put together, eternality becomes something quite different in Hobbs than in Scripture. His image is of a changing God, whose methods change and God is seen in reference to time, viewing the creation as an externality, progressive, because the nature of God is itself internally progressive and time bound in some unexplained way such that God has the power of contrary choice so that he might attain virtue (righteousness). Hobbs' said, "Created in a state" and we do not have to look far in Scripture to see that the "state" was the image of God and is exactly what Hobbs meant.

But, is that the way man was created? Scripture reveals that man was created good and in the image of God who is eternally blessed; the perfection of perfections, the Highest Good. Created with rationality and able to understand right from wrong, man was created without the power of contrary choice. He was created with a nature that was good (righteous) and in the creation each kind produces only after its own kind. His mind was perfect in order that he might bring glory to God. Genesis three tells us that man was deceived. How could that be?

Unlike God, who is Good and the perfection of perfections, man is a created being and all that does not apply to God, applies to man. That is, man is time bound, progressive and changeable. He is changeable by the very nature of what it means to be created. The confessions of the past say things like malleable, unstable and so forth to express the idea that man can change. Being a rational creature, Satan did not approach with contrary choice. He did not present "evil" to Eve, but good. He did contradict God and challenged the veracity of God's Goodness. That is the whole point. What first appeared as right became wrong and wrong became right. Eve chose what she saw to be good, perfectly in keeping with what God had created her to do. In opposition to what libertarian freewill would postulate, Eve's will was bound to choose the good. The natural liberty of the will inheres in the very nature of will, but not in the nature of the mind, for it was founded rationally sound, nor of the righteous nature of man's spirit into which he was created for what fellowship has unrighteousness with righteousness. The power of contrary choice does not enter in until the fall, being the very nature of Satan to contradict what is good by lies. And, again in the new creation, man's will is fixed, not by the inherent nature of the will which naturally is free, but by man's new spiritual nature and mind. And more, those have been sealed by union with Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit and are incorruptible. It was the mind that Satan attacked proposing "good". The spiritual nature of man which was righteous and her perfect mind are what bent the will to chose to eat of that knowledge of the fruit of good and evil when she was convinced that it was good to do so.

Following what Hobbs has said, it is logical but against what Scripture says. Hobbs says on page 52:

In her innocence the woman showed her tendency toward righteousness by protesting on behalf of God's purpose.

Now this would be fine if indeed Hobbs believed that righteousness was the eternal nature of God and that man had been created after that image so that only good flows from it. But, Hobbs furthers his thesis on page 53:

It is when man through selfish ambition seeks to be God in his own life and will that he sins. It was this very thing which snared Eve, which shows that she also had a tendency toward sin. And this tendency overcame her tendency toward righteousness.

There we have it. The image of God in man according to H.H. Hobbs is man created with a nature that possessed innocence and the tendency to do either good or evil. This neutrality is necessary for the preservation of LFW of which H.H. Hobbs was a proponent, solidly; Pelagian in his creation scenario, semi-Pelagian in his post-fall view of man. And, like most Arminians, he contended of necessity that Christ died for all to restore to man that ability to choose righteousness or unrighteousness. Which in effect, through prevenient grace, balances the scales as if to make man innocent once more, the Pelagian man, needing only to choose Christ to be righteous. As before, this inverts the image, placing righteousness as the outcome of choice rather than the cause of it.

According to H.H. Hobbs, God created man in God's image, both good and evil. Such is the basis of the Arminianism among the Southern Baptists. As a SB I studied Hobbs twenty years ago and had no idea what it really meant. Where were those who did and should have taught me? That is a generation and now it has been nearly two since his book was printed. That is not all of it. For a century this theology has dominated the SBC landscape. To wit, my former pastor and his assistant both held that God was both good and evil or at least capable of it for with God all things are possible and you don't want to put God in a box... Adults who sat in Sunday School with me were convinced that Adam and Eve both were endowed with pride-filled lust as Hobbs describes. When challenged, many Southern Baptists will see this as offensive to their own knowledge. The repugnance of the concept of God being anything but Good is revolted against by the Spirit in them. Still, the scope of the influence of Hobbsism is vast. Try mentioning that a heretical view has been taught in the SBC for one hundred years, that a former President wrote the systematic Sunday School materials that indoctrinated tens of millions, and you'll be ananthematized as a heretic yourself. None one touches the icons in the SBC, be they men or myth.

In the long running debate between the Arminianism and Reformed/Calvinism, this is where the Arminian perspective leads. LFW will create the Force, but it cannot reveal the God of Creation. And, it destroys any hope of a righteousness which is revealed from heaven, and given to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

The Whole Enchilada

2008-06-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to a huge debate that went on between the Triabloggers and Victor Reppert.

There's hours and hours of Calvinism vs. Arminianism all on one page.

Enjoy!

Conflict Avoidance: Virtue or Vice?

2008-06-14T16:17:00.000-07:00

Many Christians today are way too obsessed with worrying about offending sinners with the true Gospel. They'll do anything and everything to keep from "offending" sinners. In some churches, the gospel has been transformed into a fairytale that I am convinced the Apostle Paul would call "another gospel."

There are pastors out there who portray God to be some sort of cosmic tooth fairy; or perhaps a divine Santa Clause that bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible. They preach a Jesus who doesn't call men to repentance. Instead, they preach a Jesus who's out to get everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Is the modern obsession with avoiding conflict with the world really a virtue? Or is it a vice?

R.C. Sproul has written:

Martin Luther once remarked that whenever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy. We live in an age that abhors controversy, and we are prone to avoid conflict. How dissimilar this atmosphere is from that which marked the labor of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. The prophets were immersed in conflict and controversy precisely because they would not accommodate the Word of God to the demands of a nation caught up in syncretism. The apostles were engaged in conflict continuously. As much as Paul sought to live peaceably with all men, he found rare moments of peace and little respite from controversy. (Willing to Believe, pp. 19-20)

I know it's common for us to look at the book of Acts and think "oh, if we could just be a church like that," but do we really want to be that kind of church?

Sure, we may desire to see large numbers of conversions and perhaps even a few miracles, but what about the conflict that came along with it?

What about the riots? What about the persecution? The Martyrdom?

Can we really be like the church in Acts and expect everything to be hunky-dory?

Do we honestly believe we're better -or any less expendable- than the prophets and apostles?

I believe that most of the downgrade in American society is mainly due to the fact that the church has lost it's influence. The Church Militant has decided to become a bunch of sissified pacifists. The salt has lost most of its savor. The light has been eclipsed by the bushel of compromise.

Instead of fulfilling it's mandate to preach the gospel to sinners and disciple the nations, the modern church is too busy trying to cater to them. Many churches have only one thing in mind: making the Christian faith more palatable to the sinner in order to grow larger and larger.

To answer the question I posed above: I believe the modern church's obsession with avoiding conflict at expense of the truth is a vice, and certainly not a virtue!

Please understand, I'm not advocating being obnoxious. I'm not calling for Christians to be inhospitable to the lost. Rather, I'm calling for ministers to preach repentance and faith; for Christians to declare the whole council of God in our homes, our local churches, and in the civil sphere. I'm calling for Christians to once again consider what glorifies God in a worship service, instead of what entertains sinners.

If we do these things, we'll probably see some conflict, but with the conflict, we might just see a great revival.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part three)

2008-06-11T06:50:00.000-07:00

In this edition of my personal reflection on the Top Ten Small Church Pastor Challenges, courtesy of LifeWay, I’m taking four all together at once:

3. Lack of commitment from members. Many pastors said they deal with apathy and indifference. Waggoner said it doesn't matter what the size of the church is, but small churches feel it more.

4. Too few workers. If the church's philosophy is that the pastor is a hired gun, the professional, it will wear the pastor out, Waggoner said. He also said most churches do not have a strategy to equip the laity for ministry.

7. Worldliness of the church. Waggoner said he saw in the survey something he called "cultural seepage."

9. Too few people. In the survey, pastors said they couldn't get things done because not enough help was available.

I lump all of these together because in my mind they all fall into the same broad category. In this category, we have problems a pastor faces which (without honest reflection on his own part) can automatically look like what he’s dealing with is unregeneracy and false conversion in the congregation.

The truth is, though, that there may be other, more mundane answers which actually put the problem right in the pastor’s lap.

For instance, a church I attended faithfully some years ago suddenly decided to make a big push to become, first, a Contagious Church ™ and then later, when nobody seemed to “catch” anything from us, it went all Purpose Driven ™. Or, it tried to, anyway.

This was at the urging and behest of the pastor. I found it difficult (to say the least) to get on board with either bandwagon. In fact, at a couple of meetings on the topics, I argued against it.

Eventually, both programs fell by the wayside due to there being too little commitment to them from the laity.

I’m quite certain my pastors at the time felt frustrated over the lack of commitment displayed by us in the whole ordeal (my wife and I in particular.) They thought we evinced a galling inability to “get onboard” with what the Spirit was doing. We showed an appalling lack of zeal for the kingdom, etc. We were worldly, lazy, careless.

Here is my conviction, after having pastored a small congregation for just over a year. I realize, that still makes me a rookie and a novice, so take this for what it’s worth: We occupy ourselves with a lot of extraneous crap in Christian churches. (I use that term soberly, meaning by it what it means: excrement, dung, and so forth.)

We act like our church won’t survive if we can’t muster up a Vacation Bible School in the Summer. Or, horrors, if we can’t field a Sunday School that is thoroughly age-segregated. I mean, what if (gasp) the teenagers have to join in with the Adult class’s Bible Study?

I’m saying this: pastors, let’s make the main thing the main thing, especially on Sundays. The church exists to worship, to teach and guard the Truth of God, to preach the Gospel faithfully, and to love each other.

Building programs, softball and bowling teams, conventions, special events and speakers, committee meetings, block parties, Summer Youth activity schedules…at some point we have to pull back and wonder just how needful any of that is, and maybe God is trying to tell us by the reaction of His people when we try so hard to press those things.

So, when you meet with “lack of commitment” to your ambitious schedule of “stuff,” step back and re-evaluate. Maybe read through the book of Acts again.

Now, having said all of that, I am personally convinced that a very large portion of our typical SBC churches is in fact unregenerate and genuinely worldly.

Happily, both these issues have the same “fix.”

Whether the problem is that you, pastor, have been sucked into focusing on extraneous crap; or that your congregation is largely unsaved, the only solution is that we must repent and believe the Gospel. We must believe it is the power of God, and we must believe this strongly enough to motivate our constant study, and attention and care given to making certain we communicate it in the most Biblical way possible, via careful and prayerful exposition of the Text.

Where Have All The Southern Baptists Gone

2008-06-08T15:34:00.000-07:00

According to a Baptist Press news article from 1950 through 2007 the annual number of baptism bounced between 350 and 450,000 an average of 400,000 per year. If my math serves me right that is almost 23 million baptisms in fifty seven years. The current membership enrollment in the SBC is around 16.3 million. The average worship attendance is 6 million.

The birth rate as reflected by baptism in the SBC is approximately 2.45% if we accept current membership enrollment and baptism reports. Crudely estimating, the death rate among Southern Baptists is approximates 36% if we consider the difference between 23 and 16.3 million over fifty years. About one death for every 3 births. But if we take into account the fact that only 6 million attend and perhaps 2 million others active but not in attendance, the death rate among the Southern Baptists explodes to about 66% or 2 out of every three births. The interesting statistic is a reported decline in membership of .24%. But wait, how can that be if the baptism rate is more than ten times that? Is the SBC baptising and then throwing the baby out with the baptismal water? Is it effectively killing off more of its baptized than it is baptizing?

The difference between 23 million and 6 million is a whopping 17 million souls lost from the ranks of the SBC. Nearly as many as they claim are on membership roles. Even if the shut-in and excusable (travelers, sick, et cetera) are granted, and say the total numbers of active membership is 8 million and not 6 million, the total number of lost souls from the SBC is still nearly 2 times the annual number of its active members. You can kiss the Great Commission good-bye, unless of course all that you consider yourself responsible for is baptisms and not discipleship. And, we might mention doctrinal acuity of active membership, but that is another shame, a digression not altogether unrelated.

The current emphasis in SBC land is how to increase the annual numbers of baptisms so as to stave off declining membership. Wouldn't it be better to try to figure out how to stop the bleeding? Or, is it the case that it really does not matter; who cares if the annual number of baptisms merely maintains a membership of 16 million if the powers that be are comfortable with the income generated by a third or a half of members' active and giving? The renewed interest in regenerate membership must consider the fact that it appears that the SBC does not care about its members. Whether they lose them or not, does not matter as long as enough stay. How contrary to Scripture. Perhaps the disrespect and usury is one reason for the decline in membership. But, again, I digress.

Isn't time the SBC reconsider that new members classes' precede baptism as necessary confirmation of separation from the world and covenantal commitment to the local church? Isn't it time that the revivalist fad be put to death for the earnest Gospel, one that requires a man lay down his life and dedicate it to life-long growth in doctrinal competency? It should be the thrust of the SBC to renew its commitment to its membership by requiring doctrinal foundations be instilled before baptism is offered. And then to insure that the Great Commission if fulfilled in all its parts.

The reason is simple: The disciples were schooled by the Master before they were admitted into his fold. Contrary to the common misunderstanding that baptism is the norm immediately ensuing upon a profession of faith, (the disciples were fond of professing faith they didn't understand), the confession of the faith by the disciples did not occur and could not properly be given, until after the resurrection; after years of discipleship. To confuse John's baptism with Christ's call to discipleship and the baptism in the Spirit that He would grant them upon the completion of their training is to betray the essence of the Baptistic understanding of believers' baptism. Establishment in understanding is the norm. We after all uphold believers baptism- a believer must know what he believes. The disciples did not know what they believed until after Christ had risen, it was then they were baptized in the Spirit as true confessors.

The current practice among the SBC currently is no different than that of the paedobaptist who baptizes before the child has an understanding and thereupon can make a reasoned confession of faith. The SBC would do well if it would reinstitute catechesis as confirmation to the inquiry churches should be performing before admission to membership through baptism and, when necessary, for the admittance of petitioners to membership who have been baptized elsewhere. Or, it can continue condoning aborting two thirds of its children with callous disregard for whether or not they were ever born-again.

A Greek Hupogrammon and A Lesson in Integrity

2008-06-08T06:00:00.000-07:00

If you've read my Rant blog for a while, you're probably already aware that the Kelley children are educated at home with a curriculum that is decidedly Christian and Reformed. Like children educated in government schools, the Kelley children generally have the Summer months off as well.

This year I decided to take on a Summer elective course with my 8 year old son. Just something to keep his mind stimulated during the off months and maybe help me learn something too. I gave him several options to choose from. He picked Greek as the subject he would like to learn about. I was pleased with this choice because some education in the Greek language couldn't hurt me either.

We decided to keep things very basic to start off with. I ordered a consumable workbook entitled A Greek Hupogrammon by Harvey Bluedorn. Because I wanted to do the workbook along with my son, I figured I could make copies of the consumable pages to save from having to purchase a second book.

This past Friday, we decided to do the first lesson and I ran off some copies of the pages. Right before I sat down with my son, I noticed something written inside the front cover that changed my plans.

Unlike some consumable workbooks we have used in the past, the author of this particular book included this notice with his copyright information:

"A Greek Hupogrammon is the private property of Harvey Bluedorn. The right to reproduce or publish any portion of this material, in any manner, by any means, or for any purpose, is reserved as the sole right of the author. This prohibits making duplicate copies of individual pages in any form -on paper, electronic, or otherwise- for home, classroom, e-mail, internet or any other use."

Right after that, the author then invoked these Scriptures:

"You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing grain"

"The worker deserves his just compensation."

"You shall not steal."

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

This stopped me dead in my tracks. I knew I had a choice to make. Either ignore it and proceed, or do the right thing...

I knew what I had to do: I gathered the photocopies and destroyed them.

My son was a bit confused at first. I knew this was a chance to give him a lesson on integrity and how copyrights work. I explained to my son that by printing off pages from this book without the author's permission, we would be stealing from him. I explained that this gentleman's income and standard of living probably depends upon the sale of this book; by not buying a second copy for myself, I would be cheating him out of his income. I further explained these principles by giving him a series of illustrations.

I've shared all that with you to say this:

I've met a few professing Christian's who see nothing wrong with illegally downloading music files or buying pirated movies and computer software. The fact is, if we do these things, we are stealing. Though this matter of copying pages from a workbook may seem like a non-issue to some people, to copy these pages without the permission of the author was stealing from him and cheating him out of income.

Even though I'm going to have to cough up about $20.00 for another workbook for myself, this gave me an great opportunity to set an ethical example for my son to follow. As Christian parents, we must be sure to teach our children integrity by our deeds and not by our words only!

A Call to Repentance

2008-06-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

James Galyon, affectionately rev encourages his readers to check out this message by CHS graciously provided by Phil Johnson who has some great audio teaching. Rev's recent post follows on the heels of his last one on Elmer Towns' feigned irenics.

I was a very bad boy because I dared to swing the sabre that others were only rattling.

The following is a response that I left at rev's with an extension.

“We should prepare men for the communion table, not for the padded room of Bedlam…This is a strange theory, yet many endorse it. According to them, we may preach the redemption of a chosen number of God’s people, but universal redemption must be our doctrine when we speak with the outside world. We are to tell believers that salvation is all of grace, but sinners are to be spoken with as if they were to save themselves.”

Compare:
“We would labor earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth and not upon the sand of imagination. At the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We should bring men to Christ, not to our own peculiar views of Christianity.”

Spurgeon’s balance should be noted and stressed. For some take the second portion I have listed and make it the complete portion and neglect, as he said, the full counsel. Spurgeon did not set aside the DoG in preaching. Quite to the contrary, he made them the warp and woof of the evangel. Interestingly, he does not say that he is not about not stealing sheep, but that he is about raising confessors above false belief. His goal is regenerate membership, not necessarily local church membership, and the means by which he approaches it is by the very doctrines that some cast aside as worthless for that purpose. His means is to:
“proclaim the doctrines of grace rather more than less. Teach gospel doctrines clearly, affectionately, simply, and plainly, and especially those truths which have a present practical bearing upon man’s condition and God’s grace.”

How unfortunate that so much of what we know as evangelicalism has turned away from the DoG as the means of evangelism. For those of us who long for the revival of such in the SBC, we face the majority that has been weened upon the revivalist mentality. What it has produced is two thirds of signatories that cannot be found and those who can so weak in their knowledge of the Gospel to be as Spurgeon would say, people who “have not learned Christ” but continue to seek upon their own account their relief.

Spurgeon contrasted the DoG with the doctrine of free will saying that the second is no Gospel at all, “the sand of imagination.” For all those in the SBC that like to quote CHS in defense of their free will doctrines and the consequent denial of salvation by grace, they really need to repent and confess to having withheld what they have not told the people who they shepherd.

But then, when it is merely a matter of opinion so that both can stand under the same banner, then what we have done to Spurgeon’s teaching, is to cast it aside like yesterday’s newspapers, Good News that today no longer is valid.

Above I had said that for CHS it was not about not stealing sheep so here I must clarify that. CHS said in preface to the above:

"There are sheep-stealers abroad, concerning whom I will say nothing except that they are not "brethren", or, at least, they do not act in a brotherly fashion. To their own Master they must stand or fall. We count it utter meanness to build up our own house with the ruins of our neighbours' mansions; we infinitely prefer to quarry for ourselves."

We are not to be about making ourselves rich by the fits and failings of those church bodies who are floundering:

"There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us!...Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd..."

Building our own churches or the ranks of our own party is not the reason for expounding the doctrines of grace. Our purpose is as CHS said, that those who are still in the darkness because they have been misfed would be strengthened and lifted above the doctrines of free will to the glorious freedom afforded by the finished work of Christ imputed to us, not for anything we will to be done, but by the sheer free gift of faith given. For that glorious gift to be seen we must proclaim the world under the curse due to sin, thowing men down in despair because of their sin so that they will acknowledge their utter inablility to lift themselves and depend wholly and soley upon the grace of God. Should we then be concerned that it causes division, that some are cast out or walk out of the congregations whose doctrines are opposed by the DoG? Only in as much as we are prepared to receive those who need them, and to the extent that we are prepared to defend the DoG against those who oppose them.

My only desire, so that men who accuse me of the other will know, is not to disassemble, but to unite. My aim, however, in never to unite around falsehood. That I might, as Spurgeon did in extending the hand of fellowship to our Paedo brethren, extend my hand in fellowship to those who labor under the burden of self-will, does not in any way mean that I accept, nor condone, the advancement of their doctrine. To the contrary, I oppose it for what it is, no Gospel at all.

When in the exchange media we call fellowship, some soft tongued adders speak, I will not stand to be bit. The sword was given for the behedding of the serpent and I take it up in duty to defend the truth even by that means which will bring the condemnation of brothers in the DoG.

"We are not to try and save men in the dark, but in the power of the Holy Ghost we are to seek to turn them from darkness to light."

If it be those who call themselves Christian, what does it matter? For we are all subjected to that same light of examination. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

Calvinists and Arminians (who don't want to be called that)

2008-06-04T05:41:00.000-07:00

I have noticed at least an apparent difference between the Calvinist and Arminians with whom I have to do. Now, as an examination of my preaching engagements will reveal, many of the churches where I preach are high Calvinists, that is to say, they are of the straitet sect of Calvinism. yet no-where have I come across anyone who would contend earnestly for the damnation of John Wesley, even in churches where suh people might be expected to exist. I have met ONE such person on the internet, and that person was a fully-paid up hypercalvinist. On the other hand, I have dealt with rather a lot of Free-willers (I use the term because they do not like to be called by the name of Jacobus Arminius, a fact that surprises me, since Arminius was undoubtedly a brilliant man, if mistaken on certain points) who seem to be anxious to find that Calvin was an evil man. Not only do they put the worst possible construction on Calvin's actions, but they readily receive all kinds of malicious slander and libel againist him. I have, for example, read one man's postings in which he drew extensively from the writings of a man who was Calvin's personal enemy! yet the same man blasted me for drawing on a wide variety of sources because many of them were Calvinists! I trust he does not use the same method for interpreting the Scriptures, putting more weight behind the writings of despisers of the Gospel than those of its friends!!!

On the other hands the majority even of high Calvinists are more than willing to grant that John Wesley was a true Christian, if misguided and prejudiced unreasonably against the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic. I have actually read, percentage-wise, more of John Wesley's writings than I ahve of John Calvin's. I consult the writings of Wesley and Adam Clarke before criticising a Free-willer interpretation of a passage. Yet I find that most free-willers have not so much as cracked the bindings on Calvin's Institutes.

Please, let us all play fair. Deal with the doctrines, don't just attack the man. And deal with the doctrines as they are, not straw men. I have recommended Adam Clarke to Calvinists. Would Dave Hunt tell his followers to read Calvin for themselves?

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part two)

2008-06-03T04:55:00.000-07:00

Continuing on challenges faced by small church pastors, here is the second installment.

------------------

"2. Resistance. Small-church pastors said their congregation doesn't want to change, which leads to stagnation. Pastors have to deal with individuals who want to usurp authority from the pastor, forgetting that it's God who controls His church."

There are really two issues listed here. One is a reluctance to pursue change; and, the other is individuals in the church who want to stake out “turf” and be in charge of stuff.

I want to focus on the first issue. (The second one is pretty easy to fix, if God shows you mercy in His Providential handling of all things. Pastors, remember well Runyan's First Axiom of Ecclesiology: There are very few local-church problems that would not be instantly and greatly improved by one or two well-placed deaths. Not wishing anything on anyone, or advocating anything evil. Only stating a fact.)

The reluctance to change things in church is the brick wall into which your pastor keeps banging his head. But seeing and meeting that resistance is much easier than diagnosing it. There are several possible causes:

A. Simple inertia. Never underestimate the power of that cosmic force known cryptically as WNDITWB. (“We’ve never done it that way before!”) It’s always been like this, and we’ve gotten along just fine.

Now, don’t go jumping to the conclusion that the blue-haired old ladies who are nervous about change must therefore be unregenerate, and uninterested in being conformed to Christ. Even regenerate folk have a hard time, sometimes, with accepting the mandate to break all their routines, and all their habits (even the good ones.)

One way to tell is this: the regenerate will generally agree to the change in question if you can demonstrate that it is Biblical. Generally. Great patience is key here. Resistance doesn’t always imply they are lost.

B. But sometimes they are…unregenerate, that is. What you’re preaching as a need for repentance and for reformation of action or practice, they see as meddling, change-for-change’s sake. If this is the case…Rejoice. You’re doing something right. Keep it up. And, make sure you keep your resume’ updated.

C. Cultural Conditioning. This is the inertia of A above, inbred through several generations. They’ve been trained to accept that a good, American church does certain things at certain times, like decorate the sanctuary for Christmas, and fly the American flag in a position of superiority in relation to the Christian flag, etc. It becomes part of what it means, in their mind, to be a good church.

Some of these are more grievous to the Biblically-minded pastor than others. You must attack those worse examples, of course, but be forewarned: others have probably already died on the hill you plan on assaulting. So pick your battles wisely.

Personally, though I detest the aforementioned Christmas decoration, I let it slide last year and didn’t oppose it. However, I did manage to keep us from having a scheduled “revival” week this Summer, in which I would’ve had to sit through the infernal preaching of some “Cowboy evangelist,” or perhaps one with a sock puppet. I call that an overall win. I’m saying that it’s going to take some time to turn this wagon-train around, barring an Acts 2 sort of outpouring. So don’t push for everything at once. Prioritize.

We all meet that resistance, in one form or another. I humbly submit that the diagnosis of the source is of grave importance in dealing with it.

Also, to the credit of the referenced article, the suggested solution to Resistance was spot on. That was, patient, consistent expository preaching. I don’t know about you, but it does my soul good to see a Lifeway rep speak in such ways.

You Might Be A Calvinist if...

2008-06-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

Tominthebox News Network - Religious Humor/Satire: You Might Be A Calvinist

The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs

2008-05-31T14:06:00.000-07:00

There is no such thing as "the Baptist faith" or "the historic Baptist faith." These phrases imply a creedal faith, something which Baptists have always avoided...pg 10.

Baptists always have been creedal. As James A. Smith says:

Either the opponents are unaware of Baptist history or they willfully misrepresent our history. In either case, the historical record on this matter is clear and convincing: Baptists are creedal, and we have used confessions of faith as doctrinal measuring tools in employing our denominational servants.

One might ask why Hobbs would make this gaffe. Further, Elmer L. Towns infers that a vote could be taken which would force Calvinists from the fold of the SBC. Which is the same as saying that a vote could be taken forcing Southern Baptists to adhere to the approved creed as interpreted by the party policy police.

My series on the image of God in man and the fall was intended to lead us to this point: Was Herschel Hobbs wrong and did error lead millions of Southern Baptists into the morass of doctrinal ignorance? Well, he was wrong about the Baptists not being a creedal people so there might just be some reason to doubt the dependability of other things he said concerning the faith. My last insertion of conspiracy data indicated that Hx3 was a Freemason. That leads us to even greater speculation as to his ability to discern truth. Whether he was or not a Mason, I will let others confirm. I insinuated that the dualism of Masonic teachings is similar to Hobbs.

I will be quoting out of the 1971 edition of The Baptist Faith and Message which is a commentary on the 1963 BFM, published by Convention Press, Nashville Tennessee, and authored by Herschel H. Hobbs. There have been revisions, but as of now I do not have access to them. If anyone sees where what I quote has been corrected in later editions, please inform me. If anyone has a link to online editions, it would be greatly appreciated.

This commentary was widely distributed and studied. My copy came from my former Adult Sunday School teacher and Senior Deacon who also left the SBC church from which I self-expelled. Just how many over the past half-century were affected by the doctrine contained in it is unsearchable. But, I know this for a fact: adults with whom I interacted in Sunday School and elsewhere, believed as Herschel taught. A half century before this commentary was published, Hx3's theology was the prominent influential teaching base of the SBC. In total, nearly a century worth of Southern Baptists have been indoctrinated into the Hobbsian paradigm. It should be no wonder then that the Founders' doctrines appear an intrusion into the SBC. Let's then examine The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs.

Hx3 quotes on page 17 of his commentary "It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set for certain teachings which we believe" from the 1963 BFM introduction, setting it up as definitional and his own commentary on it as definitional of what it means to be both Christian and Baptist. Of God's omniscience he says:

God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously...immediate...does not necessarily mean that he predetermined them...

Of omnipotence:

The only limits to his power are self-imposed...cannot lie or act contrary to his...laws...

Of miracles:

...acts of God contrary to man's knowledge of natural law, but not contrary to God's knowledge of such...

pg 36-37. Hobbs completes this thought in his section on God's purpose of Grace:

In the abstract, God's sovereignty means that he can act as he will without any outside counsel of permission. But in the concrete, as taught in the Bible, God has placed certain limitations upon himself. In that sense his sovereignty must be viewd as his power to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and according to his naure as righteousness and love, pg. 66.

Hobb's had said earlier that Deut. 6:4 denies dualism, pg. 37.

What can be noted here is that even though Hx3 denies dualism, by stating that God has erected a set of laws that he obeys he has set up a dualism within God that is no different than dualism. More precisely, God, according to this scheme has set laws and has subjugated himself to them such that they are actually outside of God as a god to whom he must give account. This I suppose was necessary for Hobbs to be able to express the image of God in man who has choice. Dualism can also be formulated as alternatives. But, free-choice as was held by Hobbs means more than just alternatives, for law speaks of that which can be violated. Thus, for Hobbs, God's freedom includes the freedom of contrary choice. It is this way: God could choose to violate his own laws but does not because of his nature. However, if it is indeed the case that God has LFW then he could. And in fact, if LFW in God is true, it must be true in all cases. As the perfection of perfections, the infinite goodness of God's nature extends to every aspect of his being. If a choice of God could be made contrary to the infinitude of his goodness, it would be less than that goodness, and consequently other than God. Therefore, laws which might be violated even though erected by God establishes another other than God to which God is subject- a god outside of God. The final analysis is that God making laws to govern himself is contrary to his infinite nature, which is good. Another way to look at this is to say that God has the power of contemplation of alternative choice which includes the ability to conceive of himself as violating the greatest good choice by opting for the lesser. The power of contrary choice in God then would necessitate an inherent ability to contradict himself. That is to say, that God is both good and evil essentially; yin and yang.

Do I actually think that Herschel thought of God having the power of contrary choice? We'll have to see next time as we examine more closely Hx3 view of the image of God in man.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part one)

2008-05-30T15:22:00.000-07:00

Lifeway has done some research lately on the particular issues faced by small-church pastors. This article at Ed Stetzer’s blog reproduces the information that recently appeared in my State’s Baptist newspaper. It lists the Top 10 Challenges that were reported by pastors of smaller SBC congregations.

I’m going to list the ten below and intersperse my comments, as a bivocational pastor of a small, rural SBC church.

1. Time.

There’s never enough of it. I’m sure this is true of all pastors, but it is particularly true for small-church pastors. There aren’t enough hours in the day. (You should hear a little whiny tone as you read the following sentence…) It is even more true for bivocational pastors.

It’s become fashionable and accepted as an axiom among exegetically-minded preachers that you should do one hour of sermon preparation for every minute you intend to preach. I generally shoot for about 30 minutes on a Sunday morning. (I know, that makes me a light-weight to all you hardcore Reformed giants out there.) But then on Sunday evenings, it’s generally closer to 40 minutes or so.

If I’m to follow the axiom here, that adds up to 70 hours worth of sermon prep time during the week, on top of 40 at my “day job,” on top of hoping to be a decent husband and father before all of that.

It’s the first time I’ve actually sat down and put numbers on it, but I’ve got to tell you, now I understand why I’m so sleepy all the time.

To be honest, I’m just an average middle-aged guy, fighting Dunlop’s Disease and watching my hair go away, and I simply can’t do all of that, not all the time. So what gets trimmed back? What suffers, time-wise? Well, sadly, all of it, except my day job, which can demand time and threaten consequences for not meeting the demand.

I don’t spend the time with my family that I’d like to spend. I don’t get enough hours of sleep every night. I don’t get enough “alone” time where it’s just me and the Lord. I don’t get enough book-time in sermon prep. I hardly do any visitation at all. I don’t get enough exercise. Yikes. What I do get is exhausted. Got plenty o’ that, thanks.

That’s the first of the ten challenges, and even as I write about it, I anticipate two responses:

1. If it’s so tough, then quit.

Answer: I’m not doing this because I want to. I’m doing this because I have to. I’m doing this because I’m commanded to. My Lord requires it. All my time is His.

2. If you know you’ve been called to it, then stop whining about it and get to work.

Answer: This hasn’t been intended as a complaint piece. I’ve tried to be humorous as I’ve discussed very real challenges. By doing so, I’m hoping to accomplish two things. One, that my fellow pastors would know they aren’t alone or strange in what they’re experiencing. And two, that we would all be reminded to pray earnestly for those who are our shepherds. They/we/I need it.

Looking for a Theological Term?

2008-05-29T01:15:00.000-07:00

You might want to try these online resources:

Calvinist Dictonary

Arminian Dictonary

Conspiring Theories Breathe The Same Air And Inflame Passion

2008-05-28T11:41:00.000-07:00

Having survived a near death experience hole free though a little singed I received another communication from a rat,

not a mole, but a rodent nonetheless. The information is disturbing and will serve as an appetizer to a review of the subterranean message of the commentary on The Baptist Faith and Message penned by Hx3.

I don't want to fan the flames and spread the fire of conspiracy or nuttin, but it is curious, is it not, that the dualism aspect of Hx3's theology is all so central to this mystical group?

Speaking of the Secret Nine

why is this pamphlet no longer listed as available from the NAMB? Or, is it?

The following is not supported by any evidence, but, just suppose that the CP can be found in this symbol:

Note the handshake, universal symbol of cooperative agents, and what if CP is really code for covert police, hmmmm?

Give the Lord no Rest

2008-05-22T15:51:00.000-07:00

As a pastor whose soteriology is solidly Reformed, I rejoice that I can evangelize without the "pressure" of having to convert anyone. With a view of the Gospel that rightly emphasizes God's sovereignty, a "successful witnessing encounter" is one in which I was able, by grace, to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ clearly. Period. Making someone convert is not my job. That is a spiritual work that only the Spirit of God can perform. I just preach. Wow, y'know, honestly that really narrows the task down to something manageable.

But here's the rub: I still earnestly desire to see conversions. I still long to see people come to Christ in repentant faith.

Let's just be honest: I get sick of merely "planting seeds" and hoping that someday, by and by, I'll see some actual fruit.

Thus the emotional dilemma for the evangelistically-minded man: I know salvation is up to the Lord; but I am impatient to see it happen.

Now, the common way in which I and my fellow Reformed pastors have comforted ourselves and one another as we encounter this dilemma, is to say that we must turn our impatience into submission and contentment. After all, that sort of willful acquiescence to the Lord's will seems quite Biblical, and Reformed. Right?

Well, the famous giant of Christian history, George Muller, says no. Consider this quote from a preacher and pastor who knew more than we ever will about living by faith alone.

The Bible assures us that in everything we do for the Lord...our labor is not in vain. We have to guard against thinking that it does not matter whether we see present fruit or not. On the contrary, we should give the Lord no rest until we see fruit. Therefore, in persevering yet submissive prayer, we should make our requests known to God. (From his autobiography, emphasis mine.)

Muller would suggest that the line of thought we are using to comfort ourselves in our fruitlessness is the very thing we need to vigilantly struggle against. It does matter, what fruit we bear, what things happen as a result of our ministries. If none are being converted, or if we are not being persecuted as our Lord promised we would be if only we were faithful, there can be only one answer.

Let us commit ourselves to fervent, persistent, and as Muller says, still submissive prayer.

On Tolerance

2008-05-20T08:16:00.000-07:00

What is tolerance? When I was a great deal younger, it meant putting up with what you yourself did not actually agree with. For example, you tolerated the neighbour's dog barking at all hours. Or you tolerated the Monkey-Puzzle tree in the neighbours' front garden. That was tolerance. In theological circles it means that we put up with opinions with which we do not agree, in wider circles it means that we believe in religious freedom for the Unitarians, Swedenborgians and so forth.

The post-modern idea of tolerance is different. It means that you are expected to hold that all truth-claims are equally valid. So long as you hold to this, you are yourself 'tolerated'. In other words, postmodern tolerance is conditional on yourself being postmodern. Otherwise you are intolerant, and therefore not to be tolerated.

This is in fact a word-game on the level of those of Orwell's 1984. Instead of being expressly about those with whom we disagree, tolerance now refers to those with whom we in fact agree. But Hitler himself 'tolerated' those who agreed with him. Every totalitarian who is not completely insane grants freedom to those with whom he agrees. So we have gained nothing and lost much by the redefinition of tolerance.

What we plead for is the right to be wrong. THAT is tolerance, everything else is an imitation, Satan masquerading as an angel of light. Otherwise we have committed intellectual suicide and destroyed our very reason for existence.

Brothers, let us reclaim the true meaning of tolerance, before its new definition is usd to wipe us out!

Watch this

2008-05-20T05:15:00.000-07:00

If you've never encountered the writer called Turretinfan in the blog world, you are in for a treat. This guy is a judicious writer, a careful scholar, and a wonderfully capable apologist. Don't tell him I said so, as I don't wish to be guilty of flattery...

Anyway, starting June 1, Turretinfan is going to enter into a pretty formal debate (by blog standards anyway) with a Catholic apologist on the topic of Sola Scriptura.

They've agreed to a pretty ambitious and rigorous schedule which will have them writing and posting at particular times until the end of this year, Lord willing.

Both sides of the debate will be posted at both their blogs. Here is a link to Turretinfan's blog. Do yourself a favor and visit often between now and June 1, because there is a lot to learn over there. Then strap yourself in and plan on following the debate.

Reading Level of the Reformed Mafia

2008-05-19T20:56:00.000-07:00

Look how smart we are!!

Waz Up?

2008-05-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

In the first two parts of this discussion of man we have looked at the creation and at God and God's crowning glory, man.

Don Carson calls the effects of the fall the Great Inversion. (mp3 Download)

The fall positions man in the death of Adam as man who wants what is good for all the wrong reasons.

R.L. Dabney gives us a clue as to the first reality of sin: unbelief.

Unbelief Its First Element. The sin of Adam consisted essentially, not in his bodily act, of course; but in his intentions. Papal theologians usually say that the first element of the sin of his heart was pride, as being awakened by the taunting reference of the Serpent to his dependence and subjection, and as being not unnatural in so exalted a being. The Protestants, with Turrettin, usually say it was unbelief; because pride could not be naturally suggested to the creature’s soul, unless unbelief had gone before to obliterate his recollection of his proper relations to an infinite God; because belief of the mind usually dictates feeling and action in the will; because the temptation seems first aimed (Gen. 3:1) to produce unbelief, through the creature’s heedlessness; and because the initial element of error must have been in the understanding, the will being hitherto holy.

What follows is the antithesis of God's intent.

The purpose of the crucifixion was to take this great reversal and reverse it. It is therefore important to look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith to understand more fully just what happened in the fall. Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God, and it is into Jesus' image that we are being conformed. Then what it was that is displayed in Christ's life and then the crucifixion encompasses all that man was meant to be, and all that happened to the image of God in which man was created.

While the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes,
Beholds his own hereditary skies. (JC's Institutes )

Calvin gives us this as the image of man created, and here I use it in contrast. We get a pericope of this in the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar. The pattern is set; when man makes himself the image of God, a reversal of roles, then God visits upon man the condecension and man becomes the image of his creation. Instead of looking up to the glory of God in whose image man was created, he assumes the posture of the lesser, on all fours; that pattern repeated until what remains is utterly comsumed by self-passion; man turns inward loving himself and committing acts of self love, homosexual, producing no life, receiving in himself the due penalty for sin.

Christ takes upon himself this image that man has created.

No reproduction of the reality ever captures the reality. Even this version has vain worth in transmitting it.

Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand. Isaiah 52:13-15

It is not so much what the fall did to man, as it is what it did to God. This is the great tragedy of the fall, that the glory of God was defaced, marred beyond recognition, and man in sinning was made into that image, an image that in the original was the perfection of perfections of righteousness. But now, that image is the perfection of perfections of evil.

I have not touched upon exactly what was marred, that is like trying to understand exactly what image and likeness mean. If you take the time to read or listen to the links, you will see that the image of God remains, but something has fundamentally changed and that change is systemic.

Some Money Matters

2008-05-16T05:13:00.000-07:00

The bad economy effects everybody, even wiseguys. Here's a helpful article on what a "made man" can do to protect his finances.

ht: Mike H.

Paedobaptist Guest Article

2008-05-13T17:11:00.000-07:00

By the power vested in me as a founding Don of the Reformed Mafia, I hereby dub R.C. Sproul Jr. an honorary member of the Reformed Mafia for the duration of this post. With that, I want to share an article Sproul Jr. has written. It was sent out via email from the Highlands Study Center last month. I hope it is edifying as well as thought provoking. [Edit: the article was written in response to a question from which the title cof the piece also comes.]

(Not to worry, after this post, we shall remain a solidly credobaptist blog! -RK)

"Do Arminians go to Heaven when they Die?"

by Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr.

From one perspective, to even ask this question seems almost ghastly. From another perspective, asking this question seems like surrender. On the one hand, no one believes in justification by having all our theological ducks in a row. On the other hand, many of our fathers saw the divide between Arminian theology and Calvinistic theology as a decisive one. We want to honor our brothers if they are our brothers, and we want to honor our fathers, if they are right on this issue. Better still, we want to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely. What he is getting at, one should not be surprised, is wisdom. First, the problem. Why would we even have to ask? The difficulty is two-fold. First, we are blessed with the atoning work of Christ when we repent for our sins, and trust in His finished work on our behalf. How much of our sin must we repent for? All of it. In the Arminian scheme there remains in man a part of him that is still righteous, that part out of which comes his ability to choose the good as it is offered in the gospel. The Arminian is not, according to his theology, fully repentant. Second, we must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. In the Arminian schema, he trusts a great deal in the finished work of Christ, but trusts some in his own ability to choose the good. If a man believes that God does 99% of the saving, and man 1%, then that man is not truly saved. The Galatian heresy is dealing with just this issue. These were people who believed that Christ’s life, death and resurrection, combined with obedience to the ceremonial law, brings one peace with God. Such a belief will not bring you the work of Christ. It will only bring His judgment.

So they don’t make it, right? Well, have any of us repented fully for all our sins? Of course we say we repent for all our sins, but have we truly? Do we know all our sins? Is it not because of our sin that we look at some of our sins as virtues, that which should be praised rather than condemned? Ought we not, after seeking to enter more fully into our sin, after living in sackcloth and ashes, should we not then repent for our repentance? Won’t we all come woefully short of full repentance on this side of the veil? Did not Jesus die for sins such as these?

In like manner, it is one thing to articulate a doctrine of justification wherein we are utterly dependent on the work of Christ. It is altogether another to actually trust fully in that work. I would suggest that heaven is full of Calvinists who affirmed with great vigor sola fide, but who in the dark recesses of their hearts, subconsciously, believed that God was pleased with them because of their fervor for sola fide, or because of their fidelity in keeping their quiet times, or their passion for honoring the Sabbath. We are all Pelagians at heart, even those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists.

The long and the short of it is that no human is fully consistent with respect to his saying and his doing. No human being is even consistent within his saying. The Arminian says at the same time and in the same relationship, “It’s all Jesus” and “It’s mostly Jesus and partly me.” They are inconsistent, self-contradictory. In the end, those who most fully believe it’s all Jesus will be with Him forever. Those who more fully believe it’s Jesus and them will hear Him say, “Depart from me I never knew you.” To put it another way, we are justified by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, not by articulating a doctrine of justification by faith alone. We too, we Calvinists that is, make it into heaven by a happy inconsistency. That is, we all have error in our thinking. And every error contradicts what is true. Were we to adjust the true things we believed to make them consistent with the false things we believe, we would all end up in damnable heresy.

We have to affirm, at the same time, that Jesus came to save sinners, but not all sinners. He will save those sinners to whom His Spirit gives the gift of faith. That will include those who don’t know where the gift came from, as long as they actually have the gift. We ought also to remember that if we are right on this issue, if Calvinism is true and Arminianism false, we are right by the grace of God, not our own wisdom. What do we have that was not first given to us?

Surprised at the Reformed Resurgence?

2008-05-10T19:55:00.000-07:00

If you do not know by now, the doctrines of grace (a.k.a Calvinism), is on a resurgence among young evangelicals. Many may be surprised that the theology that many great men of faith professed, the greatest reformers, puritans, and evangelists, and the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention professed, is having an appeal to young minds everywhere. Are you surprised? Well you shouldn't be. I have met many young Calvinists and the stories are the same. They knew something was missing. They knew what they had was not enough. They looked around in churches, and in their culture, and neither was giving them the answers they were seeking. So they turned to the scriptures, and to their surprise they discover that God, not man, is Sovereign. They discover that it is God who decides enters his courts. They realize that God has chosen a people for himself before the foundation of the world. It is at this point the young evangelicals begin to ask questions. They have all kinds of questions. They may talk to their pastor, but they begin researching, and begin to find out that the great men of faith held to these doctrines. These men, who believed the doctrines of grace, were the most faithful preachers of the gospel, and most passionate soul winners. Observing their Christianity, and their exposition of the scriptures, and seeing the pragmatic, postmodern, pathetic fluff that poses itself as Christianity today, it is no wonder why young minds are falling in love with these theological truths. It is substance. It is a truth that exalts God and humbles man. It is a truth that drives and motivates their evangelism when understood correctly. Don't be surprised by the reformed resurgence, but rather, be prepared for it. Many in your church may be Calvinists, many in your neighborhood may be Calvinists, you might even have Calvinists in your family. The resurgence is coming. Calvinism is making a comeback. Calvinism is having its struggles right now, especially in the SBC, but in ten to twenty years, the SBC will be predominately reformed. Just wait. The resurgence is coming!!

I recommend two books to you:

By His Grace and For His Glory by Tom Nettles. This book is a book that records the history of the doctrines of grace in Baptist Life.

Young, Restless, and Reformed by Collin Hansen. This book is a book about the reformed resurgence. Collin interviews pastors, students, and others across the nation who are embracing the doctrines of grace and this book is a great treatment of the rise of reformed theology among the young minds in today's church.

*With these two books, you can see where we came from, and where we are returning.

2008 T4G Sermons

2008-05-10T12:55:00.000-07:00

Perhaps many of you are already aware of this, but the sermons from the 2008 Together for the Gospel Conference have been made available free of charge here at the T4G website.

This series of messages shall hereby be considered mandatory listening material for those of you who are aiding and abetting the Reformed Mafia!

Enjoy!

The Long Nineticles of Doom

2008-05-09T17:43:00.000-07:00

This was left at my door, on the back was this:

Of course you recognize the symbol of the Sacred (Secret) Nine. I am concerned about the diagram. It appears there may be counter-intelligence afoot. If you see this man around, be aware, he is Sicilian. Perhaps a....what's that... shh... better run now...

The Secret Nine Exposed!!

2008-05-09T13:40:00.000-07:00

At great personal risk, one of our operatives has come into possession of the following document, apparently written with a quill dipped in blood (eeee-ooooooo, gross.)

------------------

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Secret Nine

Roll Call: Mossad Agent Menachem, Jesuit Representative Gustav, KKK Local Chair Hank T., Illuminati Jim, Trilateral Commissioner Starks, The Oprah, Sheik Abdul, Ryan Seacrest, and FBC Deacon Hope.

Chairman Illuminati Jim called the meeting to order at 7:30. Meeting held in the secret back chamber of IHOP, in an undisclosed town in Georgia.

Opening prayer to Ja-Bul-Lan led by Deacon Hope. Refreshments brought by Gustav, which nobody would eat…again.

Old Business:

Hank T. reported that the Information Committee is continuing its Truth Campaign against two local ministers. Latest rumors include the accusation that pictures of naked men are posted at their website.

TLC Starks reported that the Free Speech Committee has been unsuccessful in shutting down The Reformed Mafia blog.

Not only that, but the RM has added three new members since Operation Sovereign Grace began at the local First Baptist Church. The latest one, we have no information about. He’s just called The Mole. After much discussion about the Mole’s identity, Deacon Hope assured the Nine that this cannot possibly be a member of the FBC in question.

Abdul noted that the minor rebellion at a particular FBC church in town has been effectively crushed. Everyone else seems to be falling in line as expected.

New Business

Erratic behavior has been noted at the accursed Incrediblog. The motif was recently changed, from some dopey super-hero thing, to Star Trek, and now it has apparently changed again. No action was taken, as the consensus is that the author of that blog is insane and harmless.

Also, a recent Reformed Mafia post managed to bring in traffic from several other authors of offensive and dangerous websites. The Oprah will use her considerable resources to track all of these down and ensure their silence.

Ryan unveiled plans to cause a new tsunami off the coast of the Philipines this coming July. Unanimously approved.

Meeting adjourned. Next meeting will be at Hank’s house, where we will BBQ.

Misunderstanding Calvinists

2008-05-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

Throughout the centuries, Calvinists have been misunderstood, misread, misinterpreted. It happened in history, it happens today, and it will continue to happen as long as sinful people live in a fallen world. As Calvinists, we should probably get used to the things said about us, but to those who are not Calvinists, we desire that you try to learn what we really believe. Just because we believe in predestination, doesn't mean we think repentance and believing in Jesus is a waste of time. In fact, we believe the opposite. If one does not repent and believe, he will not be saved, evidence that he or she was never among the elect of God. Scripture teaches this. We aren't a bunch of people who think evangelism is a waste of time. In fact, again, it is the exact opposite. We believe that God ordains all things, including the means of conversion. God ordained that it is through repenting and believing one is saved, and he has also ordained that the preached word is the means of converting a sinner. Evangelism is a high priority for the consistent Calvinist.

In history, the great man John Gill was accused of so many things. Gill was accused of being a Hyper Calvinist and an Antinomian. Gill once said:

The harvest is great and the painful ministers are few. There are scarcely any that naturally care for the estate and souls of men, and who are heartily concerned for their spiritual welfare; all comparatively seek their own things, their honor and applause from men, their ease, reputation, and riches; and none or few the things that are Jesus Christ's, or which relate to his honor, glory, kingdom, and interest in the world.

Gill was passionate about evangelism and lamented the fact that so many ministers are not! Yet people have taken some things Gill said out of context and made him out to look like a monster. Well folks, he isn't a bad guy. Gill was a great theologian and a passionate evangelist. The church may do well in his concern for peoples eternal state. Yet for some reason people always will think Calvinism kills evangelism.....

Reformed Gangsta Rap?

2008-05-07T18:38:00.000-07:00

I am sorry, but Beretta has to be exposed! He actually posted the following. The man has no shame!

I'll probably get banned for even reporting stuff like this.

Is This a Challenge to Your View?

2008-05-06T04:57:00.001-07:00

This is a new thing I'm doing here. I'm posting a guest post. What follows was written by "Martin," who showed up at the Reformed Mafia recently, apparently concerned that we were not preaching the most faithful Calvinism in the world. Our initial interaction with Martin was a little rocky, but I think we've worked that part out. I invited him to supply me with a statement of his belief regarding the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and said I might then post it and use it to get a discussion started. That's what I'm doing here.

For readability, I'm knocking off the first two paragraphs, where Martin took some time to stress that this is not meant as a detailed defense of his view, but only a summary of it. He also stresses that he wants to remain teachable on this.

So, you Reformed folk out there, read this and see if it raises any hackles for you.

Briefly, what I believe is that: Jesus’ redemptive work was primarily for the elect but secondarily for the non-elect. I believe God’s intent was to make salvation certain for the former and possible for the latter, effectively to remove all excuse. Whosoever will may come, but only the elect will do so. We are to hold out the word of life to all men but their refusal to come is their own fault not due to lack of provision (see Cannons of Dort). The sufficiency of this provision, is not hypothetical, as Owen argued but real. Though Christ’s death and resurrection had special reference for the elect it was not exclusively for the elect.

A few scriptures in support:
God so loved the world (i.e wicked, apostate humanity not just the elect) that He gave His only Son (who was lifted up on the cross so) that whoever believes in Him may have everlasting life. (John 3:15-16)The ‘whoever believes’ is manifestly a sub-set of the world.

Jesus is “The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1:29)I think John’s usage of ‘world’, as in ch.3 is sinful, apostate humanity not a euphemism for the elect.

and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Cor 5:15). Those who live are manifestly a subset of those for whom He died.

Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:1-6)

God “is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10)

Jesus “tasted death for everyone” (Heb 2:9)

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

In essence, I can read these scriptures according to their most natural reading, without having to re-interpret them through a limited atonement grid, and yet, at the same time, without undermining the glorious doctrines of predestination and election. However, in coming from a strict particularist position, I do admit it took a while to get my head round how that could be so. Aside from the questionable presuppositions that had to be rooted out, I had to get a better understanding of what scripture teaches about a number of related matters. Anyway, hopefully that is enough to whet the appetite for further exploration!

God is so...

2008-05-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

THERE is but one, and only one, living and true God. He is self-existent and infinite in His being and His perfections. None but He can comprehend or understand His essence. He is pure spirit, invisible, and without body, parts, or the changeable feelings of men. He alone possesses immortality, and dwells amid the light insufferably bright to mortal men. He never changes. He is great beyond all our conceptions, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty and infinite. He is most holy, wise, free and absolute. All that He does is the out-working of His changeless, righteous will, and for His own glory. He is most loving, gracious, merciful and compassionate. He abounds in goodness and truth. He forgives iniquity, transgression and sin. He rewards those who seek Him diligently. But He hates sin. He will not overlook guilt or spare the guilty, and He is perfectly just in executing judgment.

Gen. 17:1; Exod. 3:14; 34:6,7; Deut. 4:15,16; 6:4; 1 Kings 8:27; Neh.9:32,33; Ps. 5:5,6; 90:2; 115:3; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 6:3; 46:10; 48:12; Jer. 10:10; 23:23,24; Nah. 1:2,3; Mal. 3:6; John 4:24; Rom.11:36; 1 Cor. 8:4,6; 1 Tim.1:17; Heb. 11:6.

God is all-sufficient, and all life, glory, goodness and blessedness are found in Him and in Him alone. He does not stand in need of any of the creatures that He has made, nor does He derive any part of His glory from them. On the contrary, He manifests His own glory in and by them. He is the fountain-head of all being, and the origin, channel and end of all things. Over all His creatures He is sovereign. He uses them as He pleases, and does for them or to them all that He wills. His sight penetrates to the heart of all things. His knowledge is infinite and infallible. No single thing is to Him at risk or uncertain, for He is not dependent upon created things. In all His decisions, doings and demands He is most holy. Angels and men owe to Him as their creator all worship, service and obedience, and whatever else He may require at their hands.

Job 22:2,3; Ps. 119:68; 145:17; 148:13; Ezek.11:5; Dan. 4:25,34,35; John 5:26; Acts 15:18; Rom. 11:34-36; Heb. 4:13; Rev. 5:12-14.

Three divine Persons constitute the Godhead-the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit. They are one in substance, in power, and in eternity. Each is fully God, and yet the Godhead is one and indivisible. The Father owes His being to none. He is Father to the Son who is eternally begotten of Him. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. These Persons, one infinite and eternal God not to be divided in being, are distinguished in Scripture by their personal nature or in relations within the Godhead, and by the variety of works which they undertake. Their tri-unity (that is, the doctrine of the Trinity) is the essential basis of all our fellowship with God, and of the comfort we derive from our dependence upon Him.

Exod. 3:14; Matt. 28:19; John 1:14,18; 14:11; 15:26; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; 1 John 5:7.

If God is infinite in all his perfections then the finite is swallowed up in perfection. Moses, Moses what did you see? Only the hind parts, only a little?

As I write we are having a kind of storm that I have only known here in Wyoming. I call it snail with lightening and thunder but we also have slain storms with flashes and booms. Snail is snow and hail mixed while slain is snow, hail and rain. It is weird here, truly, and its not just the people. I've seen it rain across the street while basking in sun and have been rained on with a clear blue ski above. A few nights back there was not a cloud in the sky and it was snowing. Honestly. My boy and I were amazed to watch the snow flakes forming before our eyes. I have been in the Snowy Range in eighty degree weather, watched a cloud come over Long Lake and within an hour experienced every kind of precipitation imaginable, rain, hail, snow, Styrofoam snow (strange stuff; comes in all sizes), fog, sleet, with incredible lightening and wind and then watched the sun come back out to greet me with eighty degree temps again.

None of this wonder compares to the greatness of our God. Look at the description in the confession. Perfections, infinite perfections, that just bakes the noodle. We are used to thinking in terms of the finite; incapable as we are of comprehending infinity except as a vague mist of mind. Not so with God. God sees and knows infinity the way that we know finitude; a discrete package, all tidy and comprehensible. Is it any wonder that he is called light, unapproachable light. Paul writes of it like this: the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge. That we can know this is unspeakable joy. It is a miracle. Why is it then that God is mindful of in man except that in him we have been created, blessed above all blessings; to know what otherwise remains hidden.

What I want you to take away from this is that even though the essence of all Truth is transcendent, abiding only in God, what God has done in his especial creation -man- is to create a perfect image of himself. Though finite, it was perfectly represented for us in Jesus Christ the image bearer into whose likeness we are being transformed, glory to glory. Being a perfect creation though, that image which we will be, remains a creation and unlike the creator does not contain the infinitudinal nature of God; unchanging in all his being, penetrating to every reach of conception of knowledge, space and time.

There is nowhere David said, that he is not. By that he cannot be moved. To the contrary he is the divine mover. By that also, he can make what is described in the 1689 known. Christ who said that the Father always hears his prayers, prayed that they would be in us, and we in them, unmovable. We are made to be like him who cannot be diminished or increased, rock solid. So much like him we have been made to be. Too wonderful is that knowledge that we have been given to know.

At the same time, man can be moved, as all created, finite things can. And that is where we will go next. For now let it suffice to say that man in some form or fashion is in the likeness of God in all his attributes. But, what is particular to God could not be, and cannot be divested and reinvested in another; his essence and being is unique and unmixable and irreducible. Such is his power, and the ability to make man most perfectly like his creator in his infinite perfectons.

Wayne Grudem says of the image that an extensive explanation is unnecessary:

...we realize that a full understanding of man's likeness to God would require a full understanding of who God is in his being and in his action and full understanding of who man is and what he does. The more we know about God and man the more similarities we will recognize...in the image of God. The expression refers to every way in which man is like God.

That image/likeness is as inexahaustible as the knowledge of God. As the confession states:

All that He does is the out-working of His changeless, righteous will, and for His own glory.

All those works prepared in God that we should walk in them, that is the image, and our assurance that when he appears we shall be like him.

Warning: Offensive Blogs

2008-05-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

We are very sad that some have been "offended" by the theme here at the Reformed Mafia. Even though we've tried to explain that the theme is just tounge-in-cheek, some people still insist that this is an offensive theme that glorifies criminal activities and promotes violence.

As a public service, Gordan and I have put our heads together and want to warn our offended guests of some other blogs that they may not want to visit if they are offended by this one. We hope you will heed our warnings and do not venture onto these blogs:

The Pyromaniacs: Here's an offensive blog for you. These guys are glorifying the sin of arson!

Reformed Renegade: Here's a guy who's theme is being a renegade. Being a renegade is certainly un-Christian.
Conservative Reformed Mafia: Another Mafia blog, oh my! Look at that dark and sinister layout! Their canine mascott looks evil too...

Strange Baptist Fire: I don't know how any Christian could make a blog that glorifies "strange fire." Remember Nadab and Abihu? Anyone?

Triablogue: The name's not offensive, but look at the artwork that glorifies warfare right there in the title!

Fide-O: Pronounced like the dog's name. What is it with Calvinists and dogs, anyway? (See 3 above.) The theme of this blog is that they see themselves as guard dogs. How can that honor Christ?

2 Worlds Collide: Again, violent artwork (on a cosmic scale) right in the title. This guy apparently gets some joy out of hoping our planet will run into another one. Probably watches too much unsanctified science fiction. (As opposed to the sanctified kind: Left Behind.)

Comfort Food: Either glorifies the sin of gluttony, or makes fun of people with an emotional disorder that causes them to turn to food for stress-relief. Either way, not good.

Hip and Thigh: This guy just comes right out and says he's "slaughtering" his theological opponents!! He perverts a Bible verse to do it, too!!!!!!!!!

The Red and Black Redneck: This Calvinistic Baptist from Georgia makes several damning admissions right on the front page, aside from using a culturally insensitive name in the first place: he watches football, apparently roots for the Bulldogs, is a lawyer, and (gasp) enjoys bourbon! Just call the cops right now.

Tom in the Box: Well, you'll just have to read this one. It's too messed up to even describe. By the title, we think it has something to do with the kidnapping of some guy named Tom. They've probably got him locked in a trunk. We're calling the FBI on this one!

TheoJunkie: Clever turn of phrase: makes God out to be some kind of narcotic.

D-Dizzle Fo Shizzle: Not sure if she's a Calvinist, but judging by the title, the gal who runs this blog must listen to lots of Snoop Dog. Don't let your teens read this blog unless you want them talking in Snoop Speak!

Mashed Potatoes on the Anvil: The subtitle of this blog is "taking a hammer to weak arguments." Again, what is it with these Calvinists and their violent blog themes? This guy even seems to promote violence against mashed potatoes! Ahhhh!

Well, we hope that this will keep some of you from getting offended anymore than you already have. I've added a new rule to our Mafia Code of Conduct. Please click here and check out line #10.

--------------------------

Gordan's Late Edit: I've decided to go ahead and add a #16, since it's such a good, round number of repeated biblical significance....[crickets chirping uneasily]

16. The Beretta Blog: A great deal about this blog offends the pious Christian conscience. Hat tip to Glenn, who was offended at our lack of offense. The tag line, "Say hello to my little friend" is a clear cultural reference to one of the most senselessly violent movies ever made, for one. For another thing, that movie glorified organized crime, which no Christian would ever make use of in a blog theme. Third, "Beretta" is either a reference to a type of handgun (which is offensive all by itself) or, worse, could be a cryptic reference to the horrid TV cop series from the 70's. But having seen no image of Robert Blake at the blog, I'll think the best of this brother and imagine he's talking about the gun, which is downright wicked, of course. Lastly, the blog is obviously delving into some sort of witchcraft that causes the text to move independantly of the background; and, I am offended by how dizzy that made me.

Have nice day!

(Special thanks to Gordan for his huge contribution to this project!)

We Love God But Not Like We Love Our Freedom

2008-04-28T19:19:00.000-07:00

The 1689 LBC has this to say about the Fall:

Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )

Along with this I will include the 1689 statement on the will.

One of the things that is often breezed by is the nature of the fall, pre and post condition of man. It will take some development to establish what I am going to say later about a notable Southern Baptist whose influence must be widely credited with the establishment of the SBC majoritarian party's doctrinal position, today. Right now I have to establish a framework.

First, we need to discover what the estate of man was prior to the fall. The 1689 states:

After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change...Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

Things that need to be noticed here are: image, fit, immortality, knowledge, righteousness, true holiness. There is much more to the likeness. Let's take a look at these, but briefly, since what I want to establish is that man was created after the image of God. He was not created, god, but after the image of God. Like all things in creation, man shows forth God's glory, Romans 1 and elsewhere. To sum it up man was made perfectly perfect as a expression of God's creation.

The character and attributes of God are developed throughout Scripture, and here we see some as expressed in the make up of man. This immediately throws us upon a dilemma. We know from the commandments that we are not to make images of the likeness of God. We are told that God is not a man. Therefore we need a definition of image that is compatible. The descriptors actually give us that definition, with some qualifications. The qualifications can be summed up in the fact that man is a creature, a product of creation and by definition cannot be what created it. He can be like the maker, but not the maker.

Qualifications:

Immortality is not inherent in man. Eternal life is inherent only in God; 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:20. In him alone is life. Man is made, and being made is mortal. The continuance of the soul of man is established, not in man, but in the power of God to sustain it. In other words if God so chose, he could destroy the soul. And, I for one believe that he does, for believers in the new birth. But I digress.

Knowledge again is not something that is inherent in man. God alone is the ground of all knowledge. What man does know is what God has given him; Job 21:22. That too can be taken or added according to God's good pleasure.

Righteousness and true holiness are again not inherent in man, they have their beginning and terminus in God. The One who alone is good; Luke 18:19, is also the One who alone is righteous; Isaiah 45:24. But here we must pause and question the difference between righteousness and holiness. If we want we might capture the sense of difference as that which Jesus said,

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Holiness we might say is that which does, and righteousness, that which is done. Holiness and righteousness are not without each other. Again, though, what we have is man created who is not inherently these things, but he is made to be this image or likeness.

The beginning quote contains this incredible statement:

God created man upright and perfect

As I have tried to emphasize, what is inherent in God is not inherent in man. But there is an image, or likeness, that was perfect. It was perfect in the reflection of the communicable attributes of God, it was perfectly made, suited, "fit" the word used in the confession, to glorify God in his creation. As the apex, all that was made had been perfected in man, to be the summation of all that God wanted to communicate with man about Himself. We find him upright. Later though we will find him fallen. The NT term for resurrection, anastasis means to stand one again upon his feet. Though man was meant to worship his God in the humility of heart that is fitting a creature of his creator, God had created man to stand in his presence.

That is enough to get us started. We will look next at the nature of God so that we might learn more about man and what really took place and what was the tragedy and extent of the fall.

Distributing the Hooch!

2008-04-26T00:08:00.000-07:00

It's funny how stuff works out sometimes...

Until a few weeks ago, I really didn't overtly (or covertly) push my theological opinions on anyone. I mainly discussed "the Doctrines" with other Calvinists, on my blogs, and with my immediate family.

By God's providence all that has changed in the past few weeks! After much grief and the loss of my position at church, I've now been afforded the opportunity to openly discuss the Doctrines with people I never would've thought possible before! People are now curious. They have questions. And I want to help them find the answers!

Yesterday I launched a small campaign to get the Amazing Grace DVD into the hands of anyone from church who is interested in finding out more about what we Calvinists believe! Prior to this unpleasant turn of events, I would've never even thought of attempting such a thing. The fact is, through the unpleasantness of recent days, we now have people seriously studying their Bibles and interested in learning more about the Doctrines of Grace.

What at first looked to be the tragic "end" of my ministry, I am now growing more and more optimistic that it could be my greatest opportunity yet. I now have the chance to inspire people to think deeply about theological issues they've probably never considered before.

I covet your prayers as I openly and unashamedly distribute our "prohibition hooch" to all who seek to know the truth about what we believe!

Post Tenebras, Lux!

Baptists and Free Will

2008-04-25T03:43:00.000-07:00

It is simply a falsehood to state that all Baptists have always believed that man has a free will that can either accept or reject the gospel.

The Philadelphia Confession (Baptist) of 1742 has this to say on the topic of man's "free will."

Man, by his fall unto a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto.

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone, enables him freely to will, and do that which is spiritually good; yet so that, by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.

Similarly, the Sandy Creek Association (one of the very first and most important Southern Baptist groups) included this statement in their confession:

That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.

(Just so that we're on the same page here, "impotent" means powerless, without strength. The Sandy Creekers believed that fallen man's will was powerless in the realm of salvation.)

Why the Reformed Mafia?

2008-04-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks I have realized that some are upset that some members here were Calvinists, but some are upset simply because of the Mafia theme. However, As I have stated in the past, The Reformed Mafia is no Mafia at all. It is simple a theme built on a statement by J.I. Packer, a prolific Christian author, and author of best seller, Knowing God. But as it has come to my attention that people are offended by this material, and by name being attached, I am resigning as a member of the Mafia. I know this comes as a shock, but as a future minister, I do not believe that persecution for a blog theme is really all that much worth it. As I know two former authors whom this blog has caused problems for regarding job status, I do not believe it is worth it for me. I don't want to seek to offend, only to edify. To some who have found this blog offensive, I apologize, for that is not the intended purpose. I will continue blogging, at www.freegraceministries.blogspot.com.

For new readers, do not be offended at this site. It is simply a theme suppose to be funny, but a place where we deal with issues in the church, and theological issues. In my dealings with these men, I have found them to be godly men who have a desire to know God and His Word. Listen to them, read their writings. Learn from them. Read their writings with an open Bible and open heart.

If you have questions, I can be reached by email at servindalord@hotmail.com

New Muscle

2008-04-23T20:56:00.000-07:00

I want to announce the happy tidings that the Reformed Mafia is welcoming another new writer, Thomas Twitchell (a/k/a Strong Tower).

Things have been hectic here and I haven't had the time to properly introduce him. I have been reading his stuff for many months, and am excited that he's agreed to come on board with us here at the Mafia.

With the recent addition of both Thomas and the Highland Host, the composite I.Q. of the Reformed Mafia has experienced a marked jump upwards.

Thomas seems a bit more willing to "mix it up" than some of us have been in the past. I think that's a good thing.

To the anti-Calvinists, anti-Baptists out there, I say, "Let's you and Twitchell fight."

Welcome, brother!

John 3:21 via Ephesians 2:10

2008-04-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Of this verse John Calvin said:

For we are his work. By setting aside the contrary supposition, he proves his statement, that by grace we are saved, — that we have no remaining works by which we can merit salvation; for all the good works which we possess are the fruit of regeneration. Hence it follows, that works themselves are a part of grace.

When he says, that “we are the work of God,” this does not refer to ordinary creation, by which we are made men. We are declared to be new creatures, because, not by our own power, but by the Spirit of Christ, we have been formed to righteousness. This applies to none but believers. As the descendants of Adam, they were wicked and depraved; but by the grace of Christ, they are spiritually renewed, and become new men. Everything in us, therefore, that is good, is the supernatural gift of God. The context explains his meaning. We are his work, because we have been created, — not in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, — not to every kind of life, but to good works.

What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God? Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostle’s words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are God’s work, and that everything good in us is his creation; by which he means that the whole man is formed by his hand to be good. It is not the mere power of choosing aright, or some indescribable kind of preparation, or even assistance, but the right will itself, which is his workmanship; otherwise Paul’s argument would have no force. He means to prove that man does not in any way procure salvation for himself, but obtains it as a free gift from God. The proof is, that man is nothing but by divine grace. Whoever, then, makes the very smallest claim for man, apart from the grace of God, allows him, to that extent, ability to procure salvation.

Created to good works. They err widely from Paul’s intention, who torture this passage for the purpose of injuring the righteousness of faith. Ashamed to affirm in plain terms, and aware that they could gain nothing by affirming, that we are not justified by faith, they shelter themselves under this kind of subterfuge. “We are justified by faith, because faith, by which we receive the grace of God, is the commencement of righteousness; but we are made righteous by regeneration, because, being renewed by the Spirit of God, we walk in good works.” In this manner they make faith the door by which we enter into righteousness, but imagine that we obtain it by our works, or, at least, they define righteousness to be that uprightness by which a man is formed anew to a holy life. I care not how old this error may be; but they err egregiously who endeavor to support it by this passage.

We must look to Paul’s design. He intends to shew that we have brought nothing to God, by which he might be laid under obligations to us; and he shews that even the good works which we perform have come from God. Hence it follows, that we are nothing, except through the pure exercise of his kindness. Those men, on the other hand, infer that the half of our justification arises from works. But what has this to do with Paul’s intention, or with the subject which he handles? It is one thing to inquire in what righteousness consists, and another thing to follow up the doctrine, that it is not from ourselves, by this argument, that we have no right to claim good works as our own, but have been formed by the Spirit of God, through the grace of Christ, to all that is good. When Paul lays down the cause of justification, he dwells chiefly on this point, that our consciences will never enjoy peace till they rely on the propitiation for sins. Nothing of this sort is even alluded to in the present instance. His whole object is to prove, that,

“by the grace of God, we are all that we are.”
(1 Corinthians 15:10)

Which God hath prepared Beware of applying this, as the Pelagians do, to the instruction of the law; as if Paul’s meaning were, that God commands what is just, and lays down a proper rule of life. Instead of this, he follows up the doctrine which he had begun to illustrate, that salvation does not proceed from ourselves. He says, that, before we were born, the good works were prepared by God; meaning, that in our own strength we are not able to lead a holy life, but only so far as we are formed and adapted by the hand of God. Now, if the grace of God came before our performances, all ground of boasting has been taken away. Let us carefully observe the word prepared. On the simple ground of the order of events, Paul rests the proof that, with respect to good works, God owes us nothing. How so? Because they were drawn out of his treasures, in which they had long before been laid up; for whom he called, them he justifies and regenerates.

John 3:21

"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

Ergazomai, wrought, is from the same root as deeds, ergon. Poieo is the word for practices and is synomynous with deeds. We can add to this that Ephesians begins with predestinational passages and while some would like to argue that it is just the "plan" that was predestined, this verse in John perfectly compliments the fact that the works, that is the fruits of salvation beginning to end, are formed by the potter in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

It is not known exactly where Jesus' words end and John's resume in Chapter 3. But, one thing is clear. The ones able to do the works of faith are only those who can perceive and understand and come into the light. To do that they must have been born from above and given new eyes, ch.1 v.5 & 12-13 c.f. ch.3 v.3. That is consistent, as it is written, everything that is not of faith is sin. And therefore, sin cannot choose in faith and faith cannot choose sin or it would be a contradiction of itself, just as much as it would for the darkness to comprehend the Light, or blindness to see it.

Indeed, as Calvin says, faith cannot will but to do that which it was created in God to do, practice righteousness. And it is not of us, but like all of the new creation, is a gift. It comes down from above, good and perfect. To claim it can do otherwise is to admit that faith can will unfaithfulness, and that is contrary to truth.

Forgetting Spurgeon all over again

2008-04-22T00:48:00.000-07:00

In 1966 Iain H. Murray's book The Forgotten Spurgeon was published by the Banner of Truth Trust. On the back of the book the blurb reads:

"This book seeks to throw light on the reasons which have given rise to the superficial image of Spurgeon as a genial Victorian pulpiteer, a kind of grandfather of modern evangelicalism."

Murray's chapter titles are highly suggestive: 'Arminianism against Scripture', 'Arminianism and Evangelism' stand out in particular. What was forgotten about Spurgeon, Murray says, is his Calvinism. A modern, 'non-doctrinal' evangelicalism is uncomfortable with a man like Spurgeon, who believed a decided doctrine, and a doctrine that is so opposed to the man-centred theology of free-will, a theology that is quite acceptable to the natural man.

Yet Spurgeon is forgotten again. Modern free-willer Baptists, trying to shore up their ahistorical claims that their position is 'the Baptist position', claim Spurgeon for themselves, either ignorant of his true position or, what is worse, they know the truth and choose to pretend that the reverse is true. Yes, Spurgeon opposed hyper-calvinism, but he opposed it as a distortion of true Calvinism, which he held to be the teaching of the Bible.
Spurgeon's Gospel preaching presupposed two things - the total depravity and inability of human nature, and the sovereign power of God to work through the Word preached. That is to say, if Spurgeon called on his congregation and readers to repent and believe the Gospel, he did not call on them to do this because they had the ability to do so in themselves naturally, but because he believed the Holy Spirit was able to regenerate them (we know this statement will give free-willers all kinds of fits, but it happens to be true). Spurgeon liked to quote Dr. Isaac Watts:

Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter while there's room;
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly forced me in;
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.

I hope that any free-willers were paying attention to those words. "But love doesn't force!" Really? The love of God, shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, does not compel us? You see, this is what effectual calling is, it is that God draws us, not by force (except poetically speaking), but by the sweet, strong and irresistible motions of His love. What, when the Holy Spirit teaches me that the Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me, can I do anything but fall at His feet in wonder, love and praise? No! as God says to His people: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee, "No man can come unto me unless the Father which hath sent me draw Him, and all that the FAther hath given me shall come unto me."

Again, I point back to 'All of Grace', Spurgeon's little Gospel presentation book. This is a book that is such a contrast to free-will preaching today that the reader will feel as if he has gone from marshmallow to 70% cocoa dark chocolate, it is so rich.
I have no objection to non-Calvinists quoting Spurgeon. I often quote John Wesley myself, and the only reason I was able to quote Adam Clarke in an earlier post is that I consult his commentary. But please, I would never dream of making Adam Clarke or either of the Wesleys Calvinists. Honour Calvin as I honour those men - don't pretend that he held a theology different from the one he really did hold.

'All of Grace'

2008-04-21T02:50:00.000-07:00

Last week 'Peace and Truth', the magazine of the Sovereign Grace union, sent me the latest edition of Spurgeon's All of Grace to review for the next issue. This book is subtitled 'An earnest word with those seeking Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ'. All I can say after intensively reading the book is "Wow!" It is the exact polar opposite to the sort of man-centred, free-will literature that so often masquerades as evangelistic in this present day and age. Where so much modern 'evangelistic' literature is the equivalent of candyfloss (that's cotton-candy in England), mostly air, with no subtance at all, All of Grace is like a bar of that 70% cocoa dark chocolate, incredibly rich! This is a book that is all substance!
It is very readable, though modern readers may find that reading a chapter gives them the same feelings as imbibing one of those chocolate bars - it makes you feel very full.
'All of Grace' gives the lie to those who say that Calvinism is not evangelistic. It is a whole book written for seekers - real seekers, not pleasure-seekers, or those seeking a palliative for the conviction of sin.
Chapter titles like 'God Justifieth the Ungodly', 'It is God that Justifieth', '\By Grace Through Faith', 'Why Repentance Must go with Forgiveness', and 'Why Saints Persevere', tell the reader all he or she needs to know. Spurgeon is serious about sin, about Christ and about faith.

Calvinists, read this book, find out how the Gospel can be preached to sinners without compromising the holiness of God and the inability of man. Ask yourself, can you present the Gospel like this?

Arminians, go and read this book. Ask yourself, is this book Biblical? Not, does it conform to my tradition? but, is it Biblical? I think you'll find that it is. Then ask yourself, how often have you heard this sort of preaching from any of your so-called evangelists?

Ministers, read this book, ask yourself, is my preaching like this? Is it centred upon Christ? Do I exalt God and abase man? Do I call upon sinners, as sinners, to come to Christ? Am I in earnest as Spurgeon was?

Unbelievers, read this book. This is the way of salvation made plain for you. If you feel your sin, Spurgeon will tell you how to get rid of it. Not how to hide it, to conceal it, but to get rid of it once and for all.

[Note: This review bears little resemblance to the one that will, God willing, appear in 'Grace and Truth'. All of Grace is published by Christian Focus ]

Please Pray

2008-04-20T19:15:00.000-07:00

Everyone:

I request your prayers. Today has been difficult. One of our former authors is especially in need of prayer at this time.

To readers from my church who are now visiting:

Please do not let the "Reformed Mafia" theme scare you. I assure you it's just a theme and meant to be humorous. Most people get the humor, but lately some folks have not.

Honestly, we're not really a mafia at all. We're just a bunch off Baptists from different backgrounds who love the Lord and love to study and discuss theology. This is our forum to discuss and write about things that we have grappled with in our Christian walk.

Above all, please examine the content of this blog with an open Bible and study the scriptures daily to see if these things are so.

No Praise for Predestination

2008-04-19T12:23:00.000-07:00

My wife recently said something that got my attention...

She noted that the Biblical doctrine of Predestination doesn't often invoke praise from the mouths of modern churchmen. Instead of embracing this truth and giving God praise for their unconditional election unto Salvation, the modern Christian will question God's goodness or even worse. I've even read a where a few very misguided individuals have even blasphemed their Creator by saying that such a doctrine, if correct, would make God "worse than the devil."

Thankfully, Paul takes no such view of God's sovereignty in election:

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5. he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6. to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:3-6 ESV) italics added

In light of the inspired writing of Paul, the Calvinist can affirm that God's sovereignty in salvation is a glorious doctrine. Indeed, I wouldn't even be a Christian were it not for God's sovereign Grace! Were it not for God first choosing me, I would've remained steadfast in my sinful obstinacy! I cannot boast in anything whatsoever because I did nothing to merit God's favor.

The truth is, no sinner who's ever came to Christ has done so unless God set His affection upon him/her before the foundation of the world. None of us can boast in any part of our salvation in light of this doctrine. And perhaps that's why so many refuse to praise God for predestination.

Head over to Galyon's Place...

2008-04-17T05:08:00.000-07:00

...and have a look at his article on J.L. Dagg's teaching on Election.

(Especially if you're in the SBC and a non-Calvinist!)

The Lord's Purpose for Absalom

2008-04-12T10:47:00.000-07:00

"So Absalom and all the men of Israel said, "The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel." For the Lord had purposed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring disaster upon Absalom." - 2 Samuel 17:14 (NKJV)

Some background: Absalom is trying to kill David, who has been forced to flee with a few of David's mighty men. Absalom is asking for advice about how to pursue him.

Ahithophel suggested leaving immediately with a relatively small force, while the trail was hot. Hushai thought it better to wait until all of Israel could be summoned to Absalom's aid, and then they could go looking for David, bullying people along the way to help them.

Ahithophel's advice was "good," not in a moral sense. It was good in the sense that it was simple and likely to succeed. Hushai's advice was less good in that it was logistically outlandish and strategically unnecessary.

So, Absalom the leader is confronted with a choice. One is more wise and likely to get him what he wants. The other is ridiculous. He chooses the ridiculous option.

Now, thou faithful student of the whole Bible, a few questions would be in order to make sure that you understand the ultimate reality of the situation, as recorded by the prophet.

What's the reason Absalom chose the rotten advice? (Look at the verse again before you answer, you cheater!) I mean, who's will was really behind his poor decision?

Is it really "possible" that he could've chosen differently?

Wouldn't that have foiled the plan of God?

In light of this text, in what way would you suggest that Absalom exercised an unfettered or libertarian free will?

Monkeying with the Bible

2008-04-10T03:42:00.000-07:00

It never ceases to amaze me how the Arminians wriggle out of obviously Calvinistic passages of Scripture. Reading Dave Hunt's part of Debating Calvinism with James White is physically painful, and Steve Gregg's efforts on his radio debate with the said Dr. White caused a similar reaction.
But there is nothing new about this. Here is a section from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament that I found while preparing a sermon on 1 Thessalonians 5.9. "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Our Lord Jesus Christ." Verse 10 goes on: "Who died for us, that, wheher we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him."

Verse 9. For God hath not appointed us to wrath
"So then it appears that some were appointed to wrath, ειςοργην, to punishment; on this subject there can be no dispute. But who are they? When did this appointment take place? And for what cause? These are supposed to be "very difficult questions, and such as cannot receive a satisfactory answer; and the whole must be referred to the sovereignty of God." If we look carefully at the apostle's words, we shall find all these difficulties vanish. It is very obvious that, in the preceding verses, the apostle refers simply to the destruction of the Jewish polity, and to the terrible judgments which were about to fall on the Jews as a nation; therefore, they are the people who were appointed to wrath; and they were thus appointed, not from eternity, nor from any indefinite or remote time, but from that time in which they utterly rejected the offers of salvation made to them by Jesus Christ and his apostles; the privileges of their election were still continued to them, even after they had crucified the Lord of glory; for, when he gave commandment to his disciples to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, he bade them begin at Jerusalem. They did so, and continued to offer salvation to them, till at last, being everywhere persecuted, and the whole nation appearing with one consent to reject the Gospel, the kingdom of God was wholly taken away from them, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles. Then God appointed them to wrath; and the cause of that appointment was their final and determined rejection of Christ and his Gospel. But even this appointment to wrath does not signify eternal damnation; nothing of the kind is intended in the word. Though we are sure that those who die in their sins can never see God, yet it is possible that many of those wretched Jews, during their calamities, and especially during the siege of their city, did turn unto the Lord who smote them, and found that salvation which he never denies to the sincere penitent.

"When the Jews were rejected, and appointed to wrath, then the Gentiles were elected, and appointed to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Gospel they gladly received, and continue to prize; while the remnant of the Jews continue, in all places of their dispersion, the same irreconcilable and blasphemous opponents of the Gospel of Christ. On these accounts the election of the Gentiles and the reprobation of the Jews still continue."

Note how Clarke does not actually quote any Calvinists at all, but gives what may be seen as his summary of what Calvinists say: " These are supposed to be "very difficult questions, and such as cannot receive a satisfactory answer; and the whole must be referred to the sovereignty of God."
Ah, but, Clarke replies: "If we look carefully at the apostle's words, we shall find all these difficulties vanish."
What is his solution? Very simple, it is the Jews who were appointed to wrath, and the Gentiles to salvation. Really? Dr. Clarke, Paul says 'US', not 'YOU'. What was Paul, Jew or Gentile? Was he not "an Hebrew of the Hebrews", an Israelite? Therefore he CANNOT have in mind a distinction between Jew and Gentile in this passage. In any case, as Paul says in Romans 11, "God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew" (in passing we have to ask how the Arminian fiction of prescient election applies to Israel). The trouble is that Clarke has an Arminian presupposition operating here. He has already concluded that election is always of nations to privilege, so that he takes this verse as saying that the Jews have been appointed to wrath (i.e. AD70), while the Gentiles have been appointed to what? To the possibility of obtaining salvation! But there is nothing here about possibility, it is a real obtaining of salvation. Verse 10 makes it clear that those for whom Christ died (only Gentiles, Dr. Clarke? But that is the implication of his remarks on verse 9!) will certainly live with him. This is not about possibilities, it is about realities and certainties.

This is not some way-out free-will preacher (although some of Clarke's ideas are a little far-out, most notably his belief that the serpent in Genesis 3 was an orangutan, hence the pictures on this post), it is one of the most respected and used Arminian commentaries in existence. Yet the best Clarke can do here is to try to say that elction is of nations to privilege, a common Arminian dodge, popular with Dave hunt in the present day (though Adam Clarke knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, and about a dozen other languages, while Dave Hunt does not). This is not the only passage in the Thessalonian epistles that Clarke uses this method of eisegesis on. In his comment on 2 Thessalonians 2.13 Dr. Clarke maintains that 'God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation' actually means:

" In your calling God has shown the purpose He had formed from the beginning, to call the Gentiles to the same privileges with the Jews."

Really? is that all Paul is saying, that he gives thanks for the Gentiles because God has appointed a plan of Salvation for them? Or that he gives thanks for the Thessalonian Church because God has chosen to save them?

Well, Adam Clarke still has some supporters here, but for myself, I think this is blatant Arminian eisegesis. Not to mention monkeying with Scripture.

For Exploration of the Issues

2008-04-09T14:38:00.000-07:00

Some of our readers may be at the stage of only beginning to explore the issues of Calvinism. If this is you, may I recommend the following list of texts, and what they may have to teach us about the origins of faith and repentance. These are in addition to a few entire chapters of the Bible (Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1) that lay out the doctrine of Election.

My desire is that you would use these texts as launching points for your study and exploration of these issues. Please do not ignore their contexts, either! Take your time through these, maybe print them off and keep them in your Bible for handy reference.

Where does Faith come from?

Ephesians 2:8; 2 Peter 1:1; Luke 17:5; 1 Timothy 1:14; Romans 10:17 and 12:3; Acts 14:27; 2 Timothy 3:15; Galatians 3:22-23; James 2:5; Acts 3:16; Hebrews 12:2; 1 John 5:4

**** In addition, are all men given this gift? See 2 Thessalonians 3:2****

Where does Repentance come from?

Acts 5:31 and 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25; Psalm 80:3, 7, and 19; 1 Samuel 2:25

Where does Belief come from?

John 6:45 and 12:39-40; Romans 6:17 and 11:30; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-13; Acts 13:48; Deuteronomy 29:4 and 30:6; Philippians 1:29

What is the ultimate source of Gospel obedience?

1 Peter 1:2 and 2:8; Jude v.4; Psalm 65:4; 2 Thessalonians 3:13; 2 Peter 1:3; John 15:16, 19

Does God hate anyone?

Psalm 5:5 and 10:3 and 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Romans 9:10-16

Does God actively blind or harden anyone, so that they will not receive the Gospel?

Isaiah 44:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; Matthew 13:10-16; Romans 9:18 and 11:7-10

As a note of caution: Let me stress that the goal in our study of Scripture is not that we should amass a load of proof-texts in the hopes of countering or cancelling out the proof-texts on the other guy's side of the debate. Our goal is to harmonize all of Scripture, and my personal experience was that before I became a Calvinist, I lightly skimmed over all the references I have given above. It's not that there were just as many references that proved Arminianism, but it's that I simply ignored whatever did not seem to fit.

You have to allow your theology to "fit" all these verses! They're inspired too! :)

Please Welcome: The Highland Host!

2008-04-09T06:33:00.000-07:00

I am very excited to announce a new addition to the Reformed Mafia. Coming to us from "across the pond" in the United Kingdom is the formidable "Highland Host!"

If you're not acquainted with him already, please take some time to visit his profile and look at his work on his other blogs. His 13 part series on Nelson Price's misrepresentations of John Calvin is awesome.

The Host has a unique writing style and I'm honored to have him as a part of the Reformed Mafia!

Welcome aboard brother!

Back By Popular Demand

2008-04-08T17:49:00.000-07:00

In case you've been wondering where we've been, one of the fellows set the blog to private over the weekend because of some issues that came up. I just switched it back to public view. Don't panic, we're still here!

Let's just say that the past few days have been very rough for the members of the Reformed Mafia. I have a special message on my blog for some of our newer readers. Please take time to read it.

We at the Reformed Mafia covet your prayers.

The mission continues...

[Late Edit: I just changed the title of this post to "Back by Popular Demand" because we've gotten emails from both our Calvinist and Arminian friends asking what happened to the blog and letting us know they're praying for us. I thank you all for your concern and prayers. ]

(Photo: Luther at the Diet of Worms)

Announcing the "Romans 9:18 Conference"

2008-03-30T14:41:00.000-07:00

Rhett Kelley Ministries Presents:

The Romans 9:18 Conference

Nov 6 and 7, 2008 at location T.B.A.

Did Jesus die on the cross for every person? Was I elected because I selected? Is God really sovereign? Did Calvin really murder Servetus? These and many other questions will be addressed.

This conference is not going to be a "Let's bash the Arminians" conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to the inconsistencies of the "majoritarian" view of soteriology in the SBC and other Baptist movements. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.

$95 for conference only.
$110 for the conference with two meals (dinner Nov. 6; breakfast Nov. 7)

Featuring: (exact schedule to be posted later)

Romans 9:18 -Rhett B. Kelley

Total Depravity - Dr. Tom Ascol

Unconditional Election - Dr. John Piper.

Limited Atonement - Dr. James R. White

Irresistible Grace - Dr. Thomas Nettles

Perseverance of the Saints - Dr. Wayne Grudem

Romans 9:18 and God's Purpose in Grace - Dr. Albert Mohler

- There will be a 60-minute Q & A session following the last speaker -

* There will be no live or archived audio or video of this conference via the Internet.
** If you are interested in being a vendor at this conference, please contact us via email. Space is limited so this will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

This conference is sponsored by: Rhett Kelley Ministries, The Reformed Mafia, and Calvinists everywhere.

If you'd like to be given ministry updates via email, please email us to join our ministry e-mail list.

A. W. Pink on the Modern God

2008-03-29T08:16:00.000-07:00

I recently obtained a copy of A. W. Pink's book The Attributes of God. Yesterday I was skimming through the chapters and I came to the Pink's chapter on the Supremacy of God. The following comes from the beginning of that chapter. It really struck a chord with me because this is the very thing I believe is wrong with the "majoritartian" view of God in the SBC and other movements in our day:

"In one of his letters to Erasmus, Luther said, "Your thoughts of God are too human." Probably that renowned scholar resented such a rebuke, the more so, since it proceeded from a miner’s son; nevertheless, it was thoroughly deserved. We too, though having no standing among the religious leaders of this degenerate age, prefer the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teaching of others. The most dishonoring and degrading conceptions of the rule and reign of the Almighty are now held almost everywhere. To countless thousands, even among those professing to be Christians, the God of the Scriptures is quite unknown.

Of old, God complained to an apostate Israel, Thou thoughtest that I was altogether as thyself. (Ps. 50:21). Such must now be His indictment against an apostate Christendom. Men imagine that the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather than actuated by principle. They suppose that His omnipotency is such an idle fiction that Satan is thwarting His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change.

They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citadel of man’s "free will" and reduce him to a "machine." They lower the all efficacious Atonement, which has actually redeemed everyone for whom it was made, to a mere "remedy," which sin-sick souls may use if they feel disposed to; and they enervate the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an "offer" of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please.

The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind." (A. W. Pink: The Attributes of God. Chapter 5)

Photo Credit: Providence Baptist Ministries website

Armchair Synergism: Don't Try This at Home

2008-03-28T15:58:00.000-07:00

Edit: Matt Shultz has given me permission to link back to the post in question below. He wanted me to remember that he is not the author of the list I'm looking at, but did post it because he agrees with it.

The synergist in question has arranged his Core Beliefs under the familiar TULIP acrostic. This is helpful in one sense (ease of evaluation and comparison) and very unhelpful in another. That is, one of the biggest problems with the whole Calvinistic Resurgence in the SBC is the fact that many on the non-Calvinist side seem to arrogate to themselves willy-nilly the right to re-define theological terms as they please, with no reference to the way those terms have historically been used. That happens here.

Here is his first statement:

"1.Total Depravity

Man is totally depraved. Every facet of man’s nature and faculties is corrupted by the sin nature. There is nothing in man that can enable him to earn or deserve eternal life. God, in grace, draws all men (John 12:32; Titus 2:11), Man is able to receive and respond to the grace of God (Mt 23:37;John 5:24-25; Eph. 2:8-9). Man is a free moral agent with responsibility to respond to God’s grace (John 1:1-9; 3:16-17). Man can respond to God’s grace and come to Christ and he is called to do so (Rev. 22: 17)!"

Calvinists would agree with much in the first three sentences. I would demur and say that it’s not the sin nature that corrupts man’s faculties: it is the judgment upon the Fall of Adam that both corrupts our faculties and gives us a sin nature. One could argue that the sum total of our corrupted faculties is, in fact, our sin nature.

I don’t want this to turn into a huge thing, but let me simply assert that not a single one of his referenced texts actually supports the ideas he has referenced them for. Just as an example, nothing in John 1:1-9 or 3:16-17 teaches that man is a “free moral agent,” especially if by that phrase something like Libertarian Free Will is meant. Those texts simply show some people having faith in Jesus and some rejecting Him. They do not speak at all to the issue of man’s ability to choose righteousness in his fallen condition, or where faith comes from, etc.

But there is in this short statement a very glaring contradiction, apart from the spoof-texting.

After affirming that “There is nothing in man that can enable him to earn or deserve eternal life,” our author then states (three times) that totally depraved man does in fact have the ability to do the one thing that is needful for him to receive eternal life.

He may want to quibble about words like “earn” and “deserve,” but the bottom line is that he has man in his natural state possessing the ability to procure salvation for himself, by making the right choice. This is neither Calvinism, nor Arminianism; it is semi-Pelagianism. Pelagius was a heretic, for those keeping score.

Somewhere, apparently, within this totally depraved man, there still resides the ability to weigh the claims of the Gospel and come to the righteous decision. This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the apostolic teaching.

At the end of his extended discussion of how the Gospel is viewed by the world, in 1 Corinthians 1-2, Paul brings it all to a sum with this statement:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (2:14)

This is a pretty fundamental truth of Scripture: the natural, or fallen man is completely and utterly opposed to the righteousness of God, so the idea that a man in this state could give the glorious Gospel of Christ a fair hearing is frankly laughable.

I hope that is not what our erstwhile author is trying to teach, even though, if he did he’d merely be joining our denomination’s President: that wouldn’t make it right, though.

I am hopeful that I've merely misread some things.

2009 Reformed Mafia National Conference!

2008-03-27T17:19:00.000-07:00

The 2009 Ligonier National Conference will be on March 19-21 2009 in Orlando, Fl.

The Conference topic will be The Holiness of God and will feature the following speakers: Begg, Carson, Dever, Duncan, Ferguson, Godfrey, Anyabwile, Lawson, MacArthur, Mahaney, Mohler, Thomas, the Sprouls Jr. and Sr.

In addition to myself, I know of at least one Mafia reader and one Mafia Don who are planning on attending as well... This would be a great time for the Mafia and some of our comrades in arms to get together.

Thoughts anyone?

Book Giveaway: The Truth of the Cross

2008-03-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

Happy Resurrection Day!

In celebration of our Lord's Resurrection, I will be giving away a brand new copy of Dr. Sproul's book, The Truth of the Cross.

Here's how to enter: Submit your entry in the combox (please leave contact info) or email me at rhettswhips at Yahoo dot com.

On Wednesday, March 26, I will draw a name out of a hat and if I pull your name, the book is yours! No strings attached. I'll pay the postage to any destination where USPS delivers.

Eligibility requirements:

This giveaway is open to anyone who is not already a member of the Reformed Mafia. (Sorry guys)

Theological Liberals, Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Emergents, Osteenians, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and our esteemed leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention are really, really encouraged to enter!

Altar Calls: The New Sacrament

2008-03-20T20:36:00.000-07:00

One of the great controversies about the Reformed resurgence within the SBC is that some Calvinists are questioning the practice of the "old fashioned altar call." In fact, some Calvinists are stopping the practice altogether! Of course, this is looked upon as a travesty by many non-Calvinists. Naturally, they use it to support their claim that "Calvinism kills evangelism."

What may surprise many people is that the "old fashioned altar call," isn't really all that old fashioned at all! As I've studied the Scriptures, I have yet to find this practice taught, yet hardly anyone questions it's validity or tries to correct abuses of the practice. In many churches, the practice has been elevated to such a degree that to question it's validity is nigh unto blasphemy.

I'm not totally against the practice of giving people the opportunity to come forward for prayer or to be saved at the end of a sermon. What I am against is how some men use the altar call to say anything and everything they can think of in order to goad people into walking down the isle. Because some preachers are so persuasive and seem to get great results, modern pragmatic minded churches and denominational leaders (like those that litter the SBC) don't like it when people begin to question the practice on Biblical and theological grounds.

It recently came to my attention that during certain mass evangelism crusades, many of the people we see respond to the altar call are not people needing to be saved, but councilors who are planted in the audience who are there to "prime the pump". They stand and proceed to the "altar" when the call is given. This is supposed to encourage others who are feeling shy to get up and come too..

I once had a pastor in the Church of God of Prophecy who taught that when a person responds to an altar call, that the act of coming forward is a suitable public confession of faith so that water baptism was not necessary! He actually said "the altar replaces water baptism". In another meeting, I heard a preacher confess that he once believed that the only place a person could be saved was during an altar call! I think these examples clearly illustrate how some people have made a sacrament out of this practice!

Some leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention condemn Calvinists for trying to examine the validity of this practice, but I do not. I believe we should be diligent to examine our practices and make reforms where there is a need. With fall-away rates as high as 90%, I think it's high time we take a hard look at our modern evangelistic methodology in light of Scripture and church history.

One interesting thing I want to note:

It's not just Calvinists who question (or do not practice) the invitational system. Many churches in the Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ) do not believe in giving an "altar call." Some ministers in that movement are almost Pelagian in their theology, so questioning (or abandoning) altar calls is not something only Calvinists are guilty of doing.

Here are some links to some articles that examine the topic of altar calls. Please examine their contents with a Berean spirit:

The Dangers of the Invitation System by Jim Ehrhard

Altar Calls and the First 1800 Years of The Church

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones on the Altar Call

The Altar Call: Is It Harmful or Helpful? by Fred G. Zaspel

Altar Calls, by John MacArthur

21 Flaws of The Altar Call, by David Wooten

Semper Reformanda!