bible smack

faith of a father. examining the faith of Bart Ehrman

2011-12-19T09:45:00.000-08:00

My father John Singleton
As I read Ehrman's biography I could not help notticing that He had attended Moody Bible Institute. My father attended school there as did my grandfather and a few other relatives. In fact ehrman, had attended moody at the exact same time period. looking at Ehrman biography he is the father of two. As my father is as well.
John Singleton went to Moody to pursue ministry. Unfortunately while away at school his wife at the time divorced him. Which in those days was unacceptable. He would do some time as a youth minister. He went on to Campbellsville university and met my mother. he considered going to Boyce college but instead married my mother and focused on getting employment. I was born a year later. My father would raise me and later my brother. My mother became a school teacher and they are together to this day. my father got active at church and helps lead in several ministries. Including ministry to the elderly, youth and foreign exchange students. Me and my brother have dedicated our lives to ministry.

What is true saving faith?
One issue that must be addressed here above all is the scriptures teaching concerning the perseverence of the saints. WHile I may deal with Ehrman's liberalism. The largest issue is surroundingthe doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Ehrman claimed he was a believer, yet he left the faith. Did Ehrman truly believe?
If one believes then they will be born again. leading to the fruits of the spirit.
Titus 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Romans 8:9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
So after one is born again faith is a product of the Holy Spirit. So if his faith were the product of God one may assume Ehrman would not lose either faith or salvation.
John 10:28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

This would also lead to spiritual discernment
1Corinthians 2:14But 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. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

"I prayed (lots) about it. I wrestled (strenuously) with it. I resisted it with all my might. But at the same time I thought that if I was truly committed to God, I also had to be committed to the truth. And it became clear to me over a long period of time that my former views of the bible as the innerrant revelation from God were flat out wrong. My choice was to either hold on to views that I had come to realizewere in error or to follow where I believed the truth was leading me. in the end it was no choice. If something was true, it was true; if not, not." preface xi
Now my basic instincts when I read this is "bologna". But I do not read minds. So I must assess his philosophy. Here Ehrman concludes the scriptures to be "flat out wrong". Could this be a sign that he did not possess illumination of the Holy Spirit?

If you hold to sola scriptura then why do you reject the Bible?
If Ehrman was truly a conservative Bible believing Christian. He would hold that the only way to know God was through the scriptures. If this is the case then to reject the Bible is the equivalent to rejecting God altogether. Ehrman eventually does denounce Christ and God. So ehrman never truly understands christ as lord.
If he did, he would know the Bibles teaching on truth and not be decieved.

8:32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
matt 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Here we see in order to have a basic understanding of truth we must understand that god is the truth and this truth is understood through the mediation of jesus Christ. Once He sets up the parameters that the bible is infallible in it's authority, then that is the truth and it is never a lie.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
So If ehrman was a believer he would know that Christ was the truth. That he taught the scriptures to be true and that man's wisdom is inferior to God's Wisdom. So whenever science or philosophy contradict the scriptures science and philosophy are at fault.
But this is not the faith of ehrman. In fact the power of so-called "science" and "rationalism" seem to have a tyrannical rule over his heart. Yet how can man truly have superior information than God? Does man have authority that is infallible, and indeed authoritative than God?

The questioning of God lead to ehrman's apostasy
2 samuel 13:8And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.
9And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
10And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
11And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
12Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
13And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.
14But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
Now what does this passage have to do with Ehrman?
Like Saul, Ehrman had good intentions to question the scriptures in search of truth. Just as Saul performed a good deed of making a sacrifice to the Lord. However, He questioned the authority of the very God He worshipped. Much like Erhman who decided that he would find the truth which would be contrary to God. In the end Saul was really betraying his kingdom and his worship was nothing more than sin. In the end Erhman betrayed his God and his biblical scholarship was nothing more than sin. So while Ehrman partnered with the Holy spirit and likely made a covenant with God in Baptism. He did not have the personal relationship with Christ because he had not recieved the Holy Ghost and would as a result not keep the faith and will not recieve the inheretance of the kingdom that he signed up for.

Now Ehrman does not want his method of skepticism to be seen as an upfront assault on the faith he tries to claim that His apostasy was for different reasons.
"And so I did not leave the christian faith because of the inherent problems of the faith per se, or because I came to realize that the Bible was a human book, or that Christianity was a human religion. All of which are true-but it was not what dismantled my acceptance of the christian myth. I left the faith for what I took to be (and still take to be) an unrelated reason: the problem of suffering in the world."pg.277
The problem with this is he had no christian faith at all. Instead he was an existentialist who became an agnostic. Existentialism has a weakness when it comes to the problem of evil. Not christianity.
Christianity teaches that God is a good God and he created a good world. That sin was an invention collaborated between satan and mankind. that evil is the original cause for all death and suffering That evil will all be dealt with in the end. Not to mention that you could join the cause of christ and make a positive difference in the world. Agnosticism is defeated by the problem of suffering because their is no meaning to it. It must assume that it is only a biological mechanism. The result is the massive amount of wrecked lives that we see as a result of drug abuse. So secularism can not answer the problem of evil, nor does it help it.

The crack started by thomism
What we see early in philosophy is a misunderstanding of biblical belief. Thomas Aquinas divides up two categories upon which to understand belief: reason and faith. This would lead philosophy to become devoid of biblical faith and Faith to become devoid of reason. As an existentialist, Ehrman would agree with a faithless skepticism accompanied by an irrational faith. And so We see Ehrman eventually rejects his irrational faith.

The faith of skepticism
Skepticism ultimately leaves itself in the worldview of nihilism. Most skeptics try not go this far down the road and stay simply evolutionist liberals. But if consistent there is no form of assurance in anything. not even in common sense morals or logic. It desolves into insanity.
Because skepticism is an incomplete mental process. It is the act of denial until there is nothing left to deny. There is no such thing as postitively affirming or believing anything! Only temporarily not denying until doubt is once again obtained.

So we are left again with barth slowly losing ground from fundamentalism all the way to agnosticism. Barth's education is in dealing with the Bible so on a professional level his studies have to stop there. Yet if he were a philosopher he leap into the bottumless pit that we call nihilism.

The flaws of empiricism
ehrman's studies are broadly based on an empiricist epistemology. This theory assumes that we are able to obtain all the assurance and knowledge we need based upon evidence in the world.
Now historically both Rene descarte(father of rationalism) and John locke (the father of empiricism) rested their epistemological theories upon theism. An All knowing God who would allow man to obtain knowledge. But without theism and revelation the assurance of either system simply falls apart.
We see ehrman's worldview fall apart in just this way. after he denies revelation he eventually becomes an agnostic.
Empiricism falls apart because we can not verify reality as ultimately true. How do we know with absolute certainty that what we sense is truth and not illusion?
All we know is what we obtain which is not exhaustive of all the facts that are out there.
You can find doctors in every world view. So you could be well educated or a genius and still incapable of coming to a consensus on the truth.
The data of life is so massive that it is easy to pick and choose what evidence you want to rely on.
Not to mention the fact the are never certain if the data you collect is necessarily accurate. People are misled all the time. maybe you had poor perception, missed a key point. Or mayber their is a conspiracy against you being fully every aware.

The inability to interpret due to skepticism
Because skepticism has an inability to make positive affirmations bart finds descrepencies too easily. Never ceasing to treat the author as a rational human being with a rational theme to deliver. Much less the all-knowing God and Lord breathing out the text. Here is his illustration.
"One of my favorite apparent discrepencies-I read john for years without realizing how strange this one is_comes in Jesus' "Farewell Discourse," the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In john 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, Lord where are you going" (14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal Jesus upbraids his disciples. saying "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, "Where are you going?" (john 16:5) Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect." pg. 9
John 13:36-16:6
john 13:36

36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Peter wants to follow Christ in death. Yet Christ knows Peter will not be faithful and denouces him.

14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Knowing that Christ is the Son of God it is obvious that jesus is speaking about heaven.

John 16
1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
Obviously if you have your Bible open, time has elapsed and more importantly Jesus is speaking ironicly. In otherwords jesus notticed that they stopped asking him. indicating their fear of death. So there is no real contradiction in the discreppancy.
What is amazing is how little effort was requird to explain his favorite apparent discrepency. Ehrman obviously wants to assume the Bible to be irreconcileable. As if the authors were not simply fallible, but incoherent.

How do we stop making more ehrlman's
On one level there will always be those who join the christian faith, yet leave. But church should strive to be more proficient in determining if a new disciple has truly believed. We need to be careful of whom we in the local church baptize. In the early church disciples had to wait at least 3 yrs to join by baptism. Also churches need to reinstate church discipline for those who obviously have not been born again.
As far as schools, schools which teach liberalism as truth should be black listed. Those who are to train in ministry should not go there. If a minister is already well accomplished then he can study under liberals. I took classes in higher criticism and my theology moved to the right. i have a minister freind who did the same. But those who are initialy starting their training need to be brought up in the faith with men with answers. If you should not go to a liberal church why would you go to a liberal school?
Finally schools need to be more consistant. moody though "fundamentalist" taught criticism on a light level denying the preservation of scripture. Once it was agreed that we do not have the original manuscrits then it took ehrman on his down hill slope.
If barth was inculcated with the scriptures concerning preservation. Then shown the agreement of the byzantine manuscripts alongs the 3,000 contradictions among alexandrine manuscripts, could things have been different?

The fruit of my father
My father never desired to be a scholar and never recieved a bachelorette.
My father never acquired Ehrman's fame nor his money. My father has treasure in heaven. And although he probably wishes sometimes that he could borrow some of that treasure to pay off the mortgage, through it all he is a happy man.
Theologically my dad said His views have not fundamentally changed. He said over the years secular systems like evolution have basically fallen apart.
Meanwhile He was exposed to source criticism at campbellsville university. He found that all of the supposed contradictions did not really make the Bible contradict. The variants in the gospels appeared to simply be differences in the style of the authors.

Ultimately Faith though it does not consist of works will produce them. The works of source criticism have led to secularism. It is not a coincidence that Germany"s higher criticism preceded the rise of hitler and his nazis. Indeed

mysticism: The alternative to the evangelical gospel

2011-12-01T10:25:00.000-08:00

Mysticism, the word is one of those words that has a taboo sound. Like mystery. It doesn't sound common. And yet the ideas of mysticims are all too common in religion philosophy and theology. It is not exclusive to pagan or christian circles, it is not well known and yet has pervaded our world system. Let's us understand what is not to be understood.

History:
colossians 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In many ways Mysticism is a philosophy of religion which works itself out in religion as well as philosophy. This article is focused upon it's outworking in Christian living But we must first explore it's pagan origins to truly understand it's nature.

"... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words. and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept" Thomas Merton (The asian journal of Thomas Merton, 1975edit. p. 308)Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

paganism
mysticism is a form of spirituality That pervades the majority of religion.
It is typically irrational or skeptical of logic. It emphasizes emotional experiences.
"Underlying it is a philosophy exemplified by the neo-Platonists and especially Plotinus. God is pure being, one,indivisible, unchangeable, and is utterly opposite to this finite and changing world. There is in man a divine spark, a bit of reason, an "apex" or "fund" or center of the soul opposed to this world in which it is immersed and belonging to God. The mystical experience is "the flight of the alone to the Alone." the soul leaving the world of sense, of time and change, of thought and effort, of human relations, to lose its individual being inunity with God." Harris Franklin Rall Christianity:chapter 9:The way of mysticism pg.167-168
colossians 2:18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

1 corinthians 14:29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Now mysticism is not just a doorway from paganism to christianity but it opens the opposite way as well.
Thomas merton
"Merton had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and vendanta many years prior to his asian journey. Merton was able to uncover the stream where wisdom of East and west merge and flow together beyond Dogma, in the depths of inner experience.... Merton embraced the spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into (hi) own life through direct practice." (Yoga Journal, Jan-Feb. 199. quoted from Lighthouse Trails web site)

gnosticism
gnosticism was basically a form of neo-platonism that infected the religions of the first centuries of christianity.

1 Corinthians 9:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
In other words we are not mix other peoples faiths with our own. An elder at my former church Doug Pope put it this way "Jesus plus anything, just doesn't add up!"

monasticism
"The appellation "Father of Monasticism" might be considered misleading, as Christian monasticism was already being practiced in the deserts of Egypt. Ascetics commonly retired to isolated locations on the outskirts of cities. By the 2nd century there were also famous Christian ascetics, such as Saint Thecla.
Also note that the Therapeutae, pagan ascetic hermits and loosely organized cenobitic communities described by the Hellenized Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century, were long established in the harsh environments by the Lake Mareotis close to Alexandria, and in other less-accessible regions. Philo noted that "this class of persons may be met with in many places, for both Greece and barbarian countries want to enjoy whatever is perfectly good."[9]" Anthony the great Wikipedia

Colossians 2:21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
2:23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Man's worship is very seductive in that it appears moral but is fleeting and artificial.

"Before the emergence of the Western monastic communities, a key contribution to the foundation of Lectio divina came from Origen in the 3rd century, with his view of "Scripture as a sacrament".[6] In a letter to Gregory of Neocaesarea Origen wrote: "when you devote yourself to the divine reading ... seek the meaning of divine words which is hidden from most people".[6]
Origen believed that The Word (i.e. Logos) was incarnate in Scripture and could therefore touch and teach readers and hearers. Origen taught that the reading of Scripture could help move beyond elementary thoughts and discover the higher wisdom hidden in the "Word of God".[6]
In Origen's approach the major interpretive element of Scripture is Christ. In his view all Scriptural texts are secondary to Christ and are only revelations in as much as they refer to Christ as The Word of God.[6] In this view, using Christ as the "interpretive key" unlocks the message in Scriptural texts.[6]
The "primordial role" of Origen in interpreting Scripture was acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI.[7][8] Origen's methods were then learned by Ambrose of Milan, who towards the end of the 4th century taught them to Saint Augustine, thereby introducing them into the monastic traditions of the Western Church thereafter.[7][8]
Early models of Christian monastic life also emerged in the 4th century, as the Desert Fathers began to seek God in the deserts of Palestine and Egypt.[9][10] These early communities gave rise to the tradition of a Christian life of "constant prayer" in a monastic setting.[10]" Wikipedia lectio Divina

Here we see Origen, instituting a mystical prayer and worship and hermeneutic. Origen is well known as a neo-platonist. This idea of not expositing the meaning of the text but instead finding a spiritual meaning is irrational. This a clear example of a philosophy that supports isogesis.(isogesis: basically to isolate a passage and get the meaning from outside of the context.)
Isaiah 28:9-10
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
The Bible teaches in a logical straightforward pattern and must be interpreted literally.

Monasticism borrows from the practices of the gnostics. Who blended platnism with Christianity. The dicotomy between flesh/matter and spirit is emphasized and so the monks will punish there bodies with deprivation of food, and sleep speech shelter etc. Other gnostic practices were incoporated as well with mystic philosophy.
"A "mystikos" was an initiate of a mystery religion. The Eleusinian Mysteries, (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were annual initiation ceremonies in the cults of the goddesses Demeter and Persephone, held in secret at Eleusis (near Athens) in ancient Greece.[1] The mysteries began in about 1600 B.C. in the Mycenean period and continued for two thousand years, becoming a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spreading to Rome.[2]" Wikipedia mysticism

matthew 6:7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

monasticism would dominate the medieval church. The monks and nuns were not only tolerated but a force for the roman catholic empire. All clergy would eventually be forced into monastc vows.
" 1599 In the latin church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celebacy freely and who publicly manifest there intention of staying celibate for the love of God's Kingdom and the service of men." 1996 Catechism of the catholic church
The theology of the church under the monks would enforce a strict sacramentalism.
monasticsm would eventually become one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. also recognized in eastern orthodoxy.

epistemology) mysticism sees a direct yet irrational contact with God
This is a claim of inspiration on the same level of scripture. yet with out logic. purely chaotic. This effectively ruins the whole concept of inspiration and revelation. Now to be clear this is a more intense doctrine than the gifts of the spirit as taught by charasmatics.

"Neither is mysticism to be confounded with the doctrine of spiritual guidance. Evangelical Christians admit that the children of God are led by the Spirit of God, that their convictions as to the truth and duty, their inward character and outward conduct, are moulded by His influence. They are children unable to guide themselves, who are led by an ever present Father of infinite wisdom of love. This guidance is partially providential, ordering their external circumstances; partly through the Word which is a lamp to their feet; and partly by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind. This last, however is also through the Word, making it intelligible and effectual, bringing it suitably to remembrance. God leads his people by the cords of a man i.e., in accordance with the laws of nature. this is very different from the doctrine that the soul, by yielding itself passively to God, is filled with all truth and goodness, or that in special emergencies it is controlled by blind, irrational impulses." Charles Hodge systematic theology abridged edition.pg66
It is important to nottice that this was written prior to the modern pentecostal and charasmatic movements. Which is good as it shows us evangelical understand verses mystical understanding of experiencing God. Now many charasmatics are by nature mystics. But this is not necesarily universal. I am one who holds that the gifts of the spirit even "prophecy" have not ceased. Yet I do not believe in mysticism. This would take place as Hodge defined "the inward influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind". I have no problem accepting the Holy Spirit placing information in our minds as longs it is consistent with the famous solas of the reformation. sola fide and sola scriptura. I will not recieve a doctrine contrary or even alien to the scripture. Also I will not recieve any information if I am not first justified by Faith alone and indwelt by the Holy spirit through regeneration. Also in accordance with Sola Gloria deo I can never acquire any information by any other means than God alone.

justification
The key divide over the gospel in the catholic protestant debate intellectually sola scriptura. But spiritually it is Sola fide.
The Catholic advocates of justification argue for an infusion of Christ's righteousness. While Protestantism and New Testament christianity argues for imputation of Christ righteousness. In other words I am not righteous in and of my self. Nor am I going to become like god in any esoteric sense. I am sinner from my birth to my death. The Holy Spirit is sealed to my spirit and will work with me to live a more holy life. But never the less I am still just a man. In Catholic Justification the sinner still has to become self righteous. Only they have an infusion of Christ's righteousnes To help the process be attainable. Yet ultimately, with the exception of a few saints, this does not work and they are left to burn for possible millions of years in purgatory until they are ready for heaven.

Sacramental worship
In essence sacramental worship argues that grace is aquired through works. Whenever one is worshipping in this pattern they are attempting a form of self-righteousness. Because when they try to be Holy they are doing so to justified as well as sanctified. In evangelical theology we are justified by faith alone. and so we seek sanctification through our gratidude for Christ obtained salvation of our own free will.
This also becomes a form of pantheism. Christ is God. The alexandirne churches who introduced sacramentalism introduced apollinarian christologies which unified the divinity and the humanity so that in a mystical way a person could be deified in the ritual. In Eastern Orthodox Theology we still see this understanding of deification within sacramentalism. The followers are supposedly becoming more godlike in their worship. Thus paganizing their nominal christian faith. Even in the RCC though they stay away from calling their followers gods. Sainthood becomes confused with deification. The follower becomes a statue people would pray to. and they are still deeply connected by means of sacramentalism.

memorial view)
Essential to the memorial view is the idea of a forensic symbol. The scriptures are rational. Jesus was completely human. Therefore his blood never needed his body at this time.
Now the issue of transubstantiation has been dealt with in other articles. And more importantly is not essential to the doctrine of mysticism.
But what if Christ is only spiritually present in the taking of the lords supper?
"But what of the idea that Christ is spiritually present? This view arose from two historical sources. One was the desire of certain theologians to retain something of the traditional belief in Christ presence even as they sought to change it. Their approach to the reformation of the faith leaned more toward retaining whatever is not explicitly rejected by Scripture than toward starting from scratch, preserving only those tenets of the faith that are explicitly taught in scripture. Instead of totally rejecting tradition and constructing a completely new understanding, they chose to modify the old belief. The other source of the view that christ is spiritually present was a disposition towards mysticism. Some believers , having had a profound experience of encounter with Christ as they observed the Lord's Supper concluded that Christ must have been spiritually present. The doctrine served as an explanation of the experience." Christian Theology Millard Erickson Pg. 30

Christ is already spiritual present through faith alone.
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
So what would be the purpose or use of elements? This view of sacramentalism is still mysticism.
If Christ is not in the elements then we must come to him through faith alone. If He is in the elements then he must be acquired through faith plus works. So in mysticism and sacramentalism, we may access the divine through rituals and good works. So the memorial view of the lord's supper is consistent with justification by grace through faith alone.

sancitifcation and worship

We must be justified by grace through faith alone If we are to move forward in sanctification. If our sins are not atoned for there is no way that we can truly please God.
So mystical worship is typically emotional and yet legalistic. This is not the proper way to approach God.
Luke 18:10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Now obviously both these men were emotional and emotions are healthy. But nottice How the pharisee had faith in his works. And also nottice how he was not justified.
New evangelicalism is falling in love with it's worship. It is pursuing God in mystical formats. As a result it is not being sanctified. Because it is not justified.

We use projectors and electric guitars using lyrics with less and less meaning. Sometimes not even giving proper titles to God. Yet even though the doctrinal content is growing less and less. We feel we are closer to God because we are more emotional. Our worship is less focused upon how we are relating to God and more focused upon how God makes us feel. Do we even focus on music that is discussing how we minister? Typically no. Our worship is self centered.
Even when the claim is made to be God centered. One may notice how self returns the subject. Revelation is not considered as much since scripture is less the topic of the worship. Scripture is ultimately rational and mysticism ultimately is not.
Jesus is ultimately the Logos/Word. logos means among other things, logic.
Mysticism is in opposition to logic and ultimately in opposition to Christ.
In Christ,
Matt

van tillian heresy

2011-11-15T10:36:00.000-08:00

intro.
Reformed theology is in evangelical theology known to have the greatest reputation for defending orthodoxy.
In the 20th century Cornelius van til was celebrated as one of it's Greatest apologists.
Yet buried in one of it's heroes teachings was a foundation for real heresy. In fact, if ever there was, this was a march back towards Rome.

The epistemological flaw
As overemphasis upon total depravity van til argued that the mind of man could never understand the mind of God. Although this doctrine went beyond the teaching of depravity but actually creator creature distinction Making God above truth comprehensive to humans. Thus this was a total rejection of the clarity of scripture.
1corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Yet the God of scripture is not against logic. he is not the author of confusion and willing for us to reason with him.

"II. The Subject of our Knowledge in Systematic Theology
God is the ultimate interpreter of the world; man receives knowledge as derivative from God. As Christians we may apprehend the things God has revealed in Word and his world but we look to God only as the one who can comprehend all things. He is the one with absolute knowledge; we are the “re-interpreters” of this knowledge which he has revealed." Outline of Cornelius Van Til- Introduction to Systematic Theology Rev. Charles R. Biggs
com·pre·hend /ˌkɒmprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[kom-pri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: He did not comprehend the significance of the ambassador's remark.
2. to take in or embrace; include; comprise: The course will comprehend all facets of Japanese culture. Dictionary.com
ap·pre·hend /ˌæprɪˈhɛnd/ Show Spelled[ap-ri-hend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority: The police apprehended the burglars.
2. to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.
3. to expect with anxiety, suspicion, or fear; anticipate: apprehending violence.
verb (used without object)
4. to understand.
5. to be apprehensive, suspicious, or fearful; fear.
Dictionary.com
Now the difference of these two words is not very great. But I believe what this is saying is that God understands the truth. Man can can attain truth but not understand it. And remember, this is after you have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost.
Let's see if van til's disciple John Frame will clear this up.
"Van Til's basic concern in the context of the incomprehensibility of God is with our understanding of scripture. Can we say that we have "fully" understood a passage when we have understood it correctly? Van Til says No. for essentially the reason that I noted above. God's knowledge, even of human language, is of a fundamentally different order than from ours. Does that mean that scripture is unclear and even unintelligible? If so we would have to say that God failed in His attempt to communicate! No, Scripture is clear enough, so that we have no excuse for disobedience." pg 34 The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God John M. Frame

So here Frame admits that the Bible being unintelligible would be a crime. He admits that according to van til we can not fully understand revelation from God. His defense is that we have enough ability to understand revelation, to the degree where we are morally accountable. Yet how is that true? If we can not fully understand what God is trying to communicate how can we be fully responsible for our disobediance? We have not even included the factor of our own moral depravity! We are not allowed the ability to make sense of scripture and are not given the moral holiness to follow it, and yet are responsible? Well, that doesn't included Calvinistic predestination! We are not given the ability to understand scripture nor the moral ability to follow it, nor the ability to believe it, and yet we have enough to be held responsible? And that doesn't include the weight of damnation? We are not given the ability to fully understand scripture, the moral ability to follow scripture, The ability to believe scripture and yet it is enough to damn us to Hell for century upon century and all eternity burning in the fires of God's wrath?

"So there you have what appears to be the categories concerning our understanding of divine revelation: univocal (we mean the same thing as God entirely); equivocal (we never mean the same thing); analogical (we mean the same thing only by analogy, but genuine truth is communicated in this form of manner even if incompletely or imperfectly). Clearly, Van Til is with Aquinas on this point. For Clark, analogical knowledge is simply a cover for equivocal knowledge and ultimately suffers from the same problems – skepticism. For Van Til, analogical knowledge is the only way to preserve the Creator-creature distinction and yet have access to genuine communicable knowledge and truth (he went to great pains trying to distance and distinguish himself from Barth’s theology on this point)." Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com

So from an outside analysis does Van Til leaves faith irrational? In "Reason, Religion and revelation" Gordon Clark lays out the history of philosophy. How Thomas Aquinas segregated the concepts of faith and reason. As we see in secular philosophy it is based upon Aquinas understanding of reason without faith. Which falls apart into nihilism. Then from Soren Kierkegaard we see Reason without faith also a by-product of Thomism. Which falls apart into irrational-ism. Here this blogger naturally sees Van til in the same boat as kierkegaard, being that he has followed Aquinas understanding of faith. Although this blogger would not accuse van til of existentialism. Which only makes the case more obvious. How does analogy disprove skepticism?
"This led Clark to accuse Van Til of being a Barthian and an irrationalist or existentialist (since Barth said that divine revelation is essentially inexpressible in human language and totally outside of rational thought)."Troy Gibson thereformedmind.wordpress.com
How can partial certainty lead to absolute certainty? Afterall, we cannot fully understand God. So perhaps He is not the deity we understand from scripture. If so we are ill equipped to handle the challenge of the problem of evil.

1 Corinthians 2:9-16
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But 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.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

There is no doubt that the natural unregenerate man has no access to God knowledge. Yet The believer who has the Holy Spirit is guaranteed this knowledge assurance and certainty.

The effect on scripture
"all teaching of scripture is apparently contradictory." Common Grace and witness bearing pg. 22
So what good is the inspiration of God's Word if it is incomprehensible?

"It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at "stating clearly" any christian doctrine, or the relation of any one christians doctrine to any other christian doctrine. They will not attempt to "solve" the "paradoxes" involved in the relationship of the self contained God to his dependent creatures." Introduction to Systematic theology chapter 13 page 172
van til said these remarks in regards to His students
This is an unbiblical approach.
1Peter 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
We are to show the gospel as rational as well as the rest of the word of God. Which is really the whole point of the word of God in general.

deaut. 30:11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Even in the Old Testament The Word of God has been delivered to us so that we may comprehend it and live by it.

The effect on theology
The confused trinity
Essentially Van til will prove his point by confusing the trinity. For some bizarre reason Van til wants to confuse the words person and being/essence. Thus making the trinity to be possibly 3 beings and also one person.
"We speak of God as a person... the persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another." pg220 Introduction to Systematic theology
"We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead is one person."
"we must maintain that God is numerically one. he is one person." An introduction to Systematic theology chapter 17 page 229

Ultimately this sets up a an argument for modalism as well as other heresies.
Now John M. Frame is noted as Van Til's key and most famous student. When I attended a reformed baptist institution, the professor explained to me that Van Til had an awkward style and thought process and could be easily misinterpreted. Well obviously as Frame teaches the trinity He is not going to confuse the nature of the trinity regarding persons and beings right?
"The Nicene Creed says they are one "being" but three "substances," or differently translated, one "substance" and three "persons," I prefer simply to say "one God, three persons." The technical terms should not be understood in any precise, descriptive sense. the fact is that we do not know how precisely the three are one and the one is three. We do know that since the three are God, they are equal; for there is no superiority or inferiority within God. To be God is to be superior to everything. All three have all the divine attributes. All three are "Lord." All three have the relations to creation that we have earlier ascribed to God. All three are members of the upper circle in Van Till"s drawing."

The scripture is not confusing. No where does the Bible teach that there are three gods. It is consistently monotheistic.
1Corinthians 8:4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
2 corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Ephesians4:4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Whenever it refers to God as one person it is refer to one of the three persons. Which it is almost always referring to god the Father. It points to the Son and spirit as God. Yet only as the same essence and as different persons.
2corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

The effect on ancestors
There is a Presbyterian theologian named Tim Shepherd. Tim shepherd was defrocked from His ministry and found heretical for teaching legalism. By confusing the new and old covenants. Him and several others out of Westminster theological seminary started a theology known as "federal vision". the leaders not only became part of the christian reconstructionist movement but claimed van til as their inspiration.
"They see additional support for their position in the Dutch Reformed tradition, citing, among others, the works of Y.E.P. De Jong, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Klaas Schilder. Kuyper and Bavinck influenced Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, who was also raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition. An influential Christian thinker of the 20th century, Van Til has influenced contemporary evangelical views on such things as apologetics, political theory and philosophy. Van Til particularly influenced R. J. Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, who founded the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Several leaders in the Federal Vision began their theological careers in the Christian Reconstructionist movement until differences in methods and interpretations led to their exodus from Reconstructionism. Peter Leithart and James B. Jordan are two notable examples, as is, to a lesser extent, Jeffrey J. Meyers."Wikipedia

Believing unbelievers?
"In important ways, the unbelivers knowledge is like the believer's. Surveying the outline of the last seection. we can say (1) that god is knowable but incomprehensible to believer and unbeliever alike and (2) that in both cases the knowledge can be described as covenant knowledge. Both believer and unbeliever know about God's control, authority, and presence. The knowledge of the unbeliever, like that of the believer, is a knowledge that God is Lord (cf. passages mentioned earlier)." The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God pg. 50 John M. Frame
So in arguing for the doctrine of general revelation many of this school argue for the unbelivers having some form of belief or as frame puts it knowledge. This does more damage as to the doctrine of salvation and the nature of evangelism. What is a believer?

faith and works!
So Now that knowledge and belief are confused how is faith any different? It has to be through works.
lordship salvation
We see this teaching on the popular level first make waves with the teachings of Johm Macarthur. As time progresses this movement is very obviously coming out from the the teachings of current reformed theology. It involves the question of repentance of sin and it's bearings upon theology
Romans 11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
The effect on salvation
So if the Bible has all these apparent contradictions, then does salvation have apparent contradictions?
"James Jordan has denied that any part of Christ's earthly works are imparted to believers.[40] Norman Shepherd is in agreement with him.[41] Peter Leithart has publicly said in a letter to PCA Pacific Northwest Presbytery that,"

"What the Federal Vision proponents do question is whether Christ's earthly works do us any good. Jordan says:
Merit theology often assumes that Jesus' earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion. It is, in fact, hard to comprehend what is meant by it. What does it have to do with my life that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and this good deed is given to me? The miracles that Jesus did were not required of me to satisfy God's justice. ... There seems to be nothing in the Bible to imply that we receive Jesus' earthly life and then also his death. His earthly life was "for us" in the sense that it was the precondition for his death, but it is not given "to us."[44]"

So here we see questioning regarding the imputation of Christ righteousness. So federal vision proponents end up with a wesleyan version of Justification which denies assurance of salvation. I argue this point more thoroughly in my critique on John Piper. (when the music fades...tuning out John Piper's Christian hedonism hangover)
While I am not necessarily blaming this doctrine on Van til. Hi followers have used his philosophy of confusion to confuse justification and sanctification.

federal vision
"most if not all of the FV proponents would claim either to be followers of the apologetic methodology of Van Til or would other wise not see themselves as not contradicting him." Report on justification, pg. 66, (73rd general assembly of the OPC)
Federal vision is a movement which confuses the categories of justification and sanctification. This is march back towards legalism.
Advocates come out of van til's philosophy of confusion. Applying this haze that vantil applied to the trinity onto the doctrine of justifcation as well. Jon Piper has repackaged this heresy in his book future Grace.

In conclusion. Van til's doctrine may not be understandable to the common pew sitter. But to those who train for ministry it is quite deadly. I have encountered three apostates who started there spiral as disciples of van til. God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is babylon. We must beware of babylon in all her splendour.
Revelation 18:4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

Biblical election (summary)

2011-10-31T06:12:00.000-07:00

This is a summary of my article "the biblical doctrine of election" For those with questions about this doctrine, first study this article for the biblical exegesis. (april 2011)

divine decree duns capp.
Christian theology assumes at the start that election is God"s choice of who will and possibly will not recieve God's mercy.
Since the time of John calvin there has been an ongoing debate over the order of decrees by God in eternity past. whether he chose simply to save some, to save some and damn others or to offer it unto all.
The real problem with establishing an order is that while God existed before there was time. How can we establish a timeline if there was no such thing as time?
To do so makes a pre-existent gospel.

jewish definition
After studying the exhaustive concordance I realized that the terms Chosen and election are synonymous with servanthood. As in the kings chosen men. Or Chosen soldiers or chefs or whatever. So election as it was originally used had nothing to do with who recieves mercy. it is about who is used in God's plan.
So since the new Testament is a jewish written document we should assume the definition until it specifically states that the definition has changed. So the Gospel keeps the meaning.

Paul's jewish roots and his revelation of the age of grace
So I went through and found that it is only in Paul where we have a direct link to salvation. So why does Paul seem to change the definition of a word?
The answer is that Paul does not change the definition. However the Object of god's election is widened. So That God has elected those who are believers.
Thus Paul's revelation is that believers will now be used of God. Israel is still of use To God but they must be faithful to Him through Christ. As prophesied.

salvation predestined upon foreknowledge
Now with the doctrine of election segregated from salvation. Salvation is given to the believer upon their faith in christ. God in eternity past predestined believers with the benefits of salvation upon their faith. election

unconditional for the believer
God then unconditionally elects and calls them to service regardless of their merit He will use them to accomplish his mission.

How can we be perfect?

2011-10-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Many Christians have struggled with the idea of perfection. What is it, and can Christians obtain it?
many in the reformed tradition have notice that sinless perfection is unattainable since mankind is completely depraved. Therefore they argued that this a commandment that was never meant to be fulfilled except by Christ or after glorification. And so it is not as much a commandment as much as a block from trying to obtain self righteousness. However this seems rather illogical. Why would we be ordered things that were incapable for us. It makes it seem as if man is not responsible for imperfection and that God is simply torturing man. Reformers will simply revert to man's pride when the contradiction is located.
That being said Jesus elsewhere teaches that no one is good except for God.(Matthew 19:17) So perfection here can not mean some absolute form of sinlessness. So what is the context?

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Here we see the context of the use of this verse. The discussion is on love. The normal way of love is to love thy neighbor but not those who are considered your enemies. Yet God's love is complete and perfect because he loves those who are evil.
This is the background to the commandment of perfection. Perfection here is speaking of a completeness. It is not an absolute perfection that humans are incapable of.
It is a valid commandment. And a means of being god-like. This is not to invalidate god's obvious perfections and omnipotent powers. But it points us to the Fathers characteristics and personality to be the highest points of greatness and emphasis.
But by the use of the word perfection it is not simply one of thousands of commands. It is the way of completion. If you want complete your faith you must have the ability to love your enemies. Not tolerate or accept, but to truly love.

back track
Isaiah 2
1The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

This is a prophesy of Isaiah. It is about the messiah. I believe this will be fulfilled completely in the millenial reign of Christ and yet it is also fulfilled partially in Christ Sermon on the Mount. here the Messiah shall teach the world and there shall be peace.

3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Here we have the beatitudes. These promises are designed similar to the ten commandments only not as commandments but as blessings. This is a very important concept. Instead of a law in the negative The teachings of christ the Messiah are placed in the positive.
I bring up the beatitudes because this passage on perfection and a perfect love is an extension of the beatitudes as it it included in Christ Sermon on the Mount.
Perfection there fore is not simply a demand of self-righteousness. It is a blessing to be obtained. One of The main goals of Christian discipline is the ability to love our enemies.
Paul goes on to discuss this topic on a different format
1 Corinthians 13

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Here in this famous passage Paul is addressing a different topic concerning the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. That even the maximum effect of the gifts of knowledge, prophecy and tongues are useles without the gift of charity/love.
Charity here is derived from agape just as Jesus sermon was also addressing is also derived from agape. Most translators prefer to translate this word as love.
The translation of charity is fine in the sense that it indicates action as oppose to only feeling.

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
As we look we see the characteristics of love. As I shall paraphrase. Love is patient, it is a kind or gentle thing. It is completely sefless. It is not a rebellious thing. It is not a thing easily shaken.
Essentially Love is entirely oppose to evil. Very important as well is that perfect love is not based upon sin but rest upon the truth.

7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Love can endure, believe, hope and bear all things. perfect Love is infallible. All the most miraculous manifestations of the Holy Ghost are limited and they have a point of expiration. These thing as sensational as they are, are not essential for the christian life, and only necessary for the immature. But when we see the perfect come. (which is ultimately the second coming of christ, but currently manifested in His love, On a side note, I do not believe this is referring to a cessation of spiritaul gifts.) then we will be able to survive on His love alone.

11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Sometimes God works so many things in our immaturity because we are weak and need them. Yet the greatest gift in the Christian life is that which will remain and bring us Home to Glory. This Gift is the love of God.

Being an ambassader of the prince of peace

2011-10-04T14:18:00.000-07:00

The following is my response to a publication by Southern Baptist theological seminary it is called "towers" this is volume 10 September 2011.
The new evangelical movement has made a lot of progress in turning baptist churches from New Testament churches to mainline protestant churches. Especially concerning our religious liberty and how we then feel about peace and war. While it is fine for a christian to serve in the military and theoretically a government could conduct "a just war" It is not the duty or curse of the Church to pick sides in the deadly confrontation. This a hinderance to the true Gospel and has lead to the persecution of christians over the centuries.
Isaiah 2:4(KJV) 4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Dear Towers,
This letter is in response to Michael Haykin and Mark T. Coppenger in the interview “turning the correct cheek”

“pacifism has never been a real option for Baptists”So Haykin makes the declaration, as if we were Catholic that Baptist were NEVER pacifistic.
Question: Why didn’t the Baptist war against the state of Massachusetts? Why didn’t the Baptist war against Virginia?
They WERE oppressed in the pre-colonial era. Why didn’t they start the American Revolution earlier themselves? Instead of waiting for non-new testament churches.
So there were no major Baptist leaders who were pacifistic? Ever heard of Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.?
“Baptist came out of a puritan mindset.”Bologna. Baptist came out of an Anabaptist and separatist mindset. If they did not come out of a separatist mindset they would never have separated from the Anglican church to begin with! That is the puritan mindset!
“By and large the American Baptist Experience was not pacificistic either” XIX. Peace and War 1925 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the pure gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of his teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of his law of love.
We urge Christian people throughout the world to pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace, and to oppose everything likely to provoke war.
Matt. 5:9,13-14,43-46; Heb. 12:14; James 4:1; Matt. 6:33; Rom. 14:17,19.
XVI. Peace and War 1963 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.
Isa. 2:4; Matt. 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Rom. 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Heb.12:14; James 4:1-2.
XVI. Peace and War 2000 Baptist faith and message
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.

Where? Where in any of these editions of the Baptist faith and message is the just war theory propagated?
Let’s make it simpler. Where does Jesus tell the church to start a war?
We know that Jesus refused to be an earthly king.
John 6:15 (KJV)
15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
We kno w that he said his kingdom was not earthly.
John 18:35-36(KJV)
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

We know that Paul said we do not war with carnal weapons.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Yet we hear……
““Baptist came out of a puritan mindset. In that mindset, Christianity was to transform culture, so they sought to impact culture rather than withdraw from it.” So are we to use war to “impact culture”? Are we to not worry about presenting the gospel because we are slicing a fellows head off while we move on to shoot his wife and children?
“They inherited the right of a people to overthrow a government when the government became oppressive and tyrannical, especially vis a vis religion.”Is this compatible with the doctrine of religious liberty?
XVIII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to his Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to the church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Gal. 3:9-14; John 7:38-39; James 4:12; Gal. 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18-21; 1 Cor. 3:5; Rom. 6:1-2; Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Matt. 6:6-7; 24:16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Rom. 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Gal. 5:1,13; Phil. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7, 24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.

I f Southern Seminary were consistent they would terminate Michael Haykin for teaching contrary to the Baptist faith and message. They can terminate liberals over the same issue, yet if one is “conservative” then it doesn’t matter if they contradict Baptist teaching.
What source do they rely upon to establish the just war theory?
St. Augustine, count Boniface and Thomas Aquinas.
All Roman Catholic. Also involved in the Killing of Christians over doctrinal differences. (donatism, cathars etc.)
Yes Luther and Calvin would follow in this philosophy. Which would result in the killing of Anabaptist and other sects.
Even more important is the fact that mainline Protestantism then protects the crimes of the RCC Inquisition and the millions upon millions of murders in the name of Christ. Yes Baptist were separate/holy. The New Testament church did not get involved in violence.
However in America, every war since after WWII, congress has never declared war as stated in the constitution. Thus making them illegal. Yet southern Baptist leaders like Richard land ignore the breaking of law in order to perpetuate these wars in the name of Christ.
So as America stomps overseas like an empire. Baptists like Richard Land lets the muslims know that he is pushing the government to make war and occupy their people. So who is the real loser?
New Testament Christians! Iraqi Christians who have been persecuted, murdered and exiled because the Muslims think the Christians are out to get them! That’s a fine way to impact the culture!
Gee, I wonder why Southern Seminary would be so anxious to speak on this issue? I sure it has nothing to do with the fact that one of their biggest donors is the oil companies. (look it up for yourself, not a lie)
Sure the gospel allows soldiers to be saved. But the church is never to officially take sides in any war accept against the devil.

Incarnational sonship songs: lyrics written by matt Singleton

2011-09-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

my daddy ain't that carpenter

my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary

Papa finally bragged on me< when I hit thirty. Everybody finally heard he is my son and I am well pleased
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.

Daddy had begotten me, but I went to foster care
so that he could adopt other people everywhere
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.

Joseph taught me to ax a tree and tear all it's limbs down
But daddy had me hanging on a tree outside of town
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.

Momma you know who I am. Do you follow what I say?
I was teaching at the temple. What? you thought I ran away!
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.

I wonder wear ole" daddy went has he forsaken me? I must go through hades just to set those captives free.
my daddy ain't that carpenter.He just adopted me.

Well they beat me and tried to dope me. Pierced a spear against my spine. the joke is on those goons cause I will walk right out there fine.
my daddy ain't that carpenter. He just adopted me.
Daddy brought me to this earth to hang on calvary

woe to you
woe to you!(3x)
No one's your daddy but the father up in heaven (3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Who needs a rabbi when you got Jesus Christ(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You won't swear by the temple but you swear by it's gold(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You compass the sea to make a child of the devil(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
You shut up the kingdom from the people and yourselves(3x)
woe to you!(3x)
Woe!!!!!!!!!!

I am the levite
I am your offspring
I am the one who make you evil hide away
If I am so holy
why marry a hooker?
I needed a girl who was well versed in my ways.

I mooched off your father
He gladly gave you over
there was no price too high to save his name from your deeds.

You thought you could break me
That's not your place it's my job.
You were unfaithful to me but I'll never be faithful to you.

They say I am holy
I have God's reputation
But while God may reach to you
You never will reach me.

You don't know jehovah
Well I know him neither
You will worship the God I choose; my slave by ignorance

Look a those chaps dear
They seem rather hungry
They like to devour me but that seems more your thing
Go and have fun dear; I have to run dear
I just can't take the pain
that job more suites you

whose this on my porch? she's beaten quite ugly
Oh what in sheol with her shall I do?

One, two, three, four, five!
I'll rip you limb from limb!
six, seven, eight, nine!
They'll never forget again!
ten eleve twelve!
Post marked Israel! (3x)
I am the Levite! I am your offspring! I am the Law!!!

Fundamentalists follies

2011-07-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years my views on the Bible have become stronger and my desire to be in a church that submits to biblical authority has deepened. As a result I have left the southern Baptists denomination and the ideology of New Evangelicalism for the Independent baptist churches and the ideology of fundamentalism. Now while I am more at peace withe the theological attitude and the confessions of these groups. One thing we must always remember is that all people prior to glorification are sinners. So all Christians need to constantly test there congregations in light of scripture. Now I see the strengths of my former denomination as well as the weaknesses of my current circle. So like i have elsewhere in this blog i want to focus a biblical critiques on the ideology of fundamentalism. I am proud to call myself a fundamentalist but here are some issues that our people need to let scripture correct us on.

cultural separation)
religious fashion
2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
James 2:2-4
It is entirely unbiblical to judge believers according to their fashion. Now this rule does have exceptions and there are certain general guidelines to follow. (no cross-dressing, lascivious(slutty), blasphemous rhetoric etc.)
But the idea that one can become more holy simply by wearing certain clothing or uniforms is very fleshly by nature. Christian spiritaulity is internal and not external.

holy music
Psalm 33:3(KJV)
3Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
It is obvious that the Bible is ok with bringing in new music. In recent years there have been worship wars in churches revolving around hymnal worship and contemporary worship.
Now let us assume that there is one specific style of worship for the congregation. Worship is no restricted to the congregation. music has many styles and many purposes. Even in the Old Testament there where different styles of worship.

Psalm 150
1Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
Different events call for different style and moods. There is a time for celebration and a time for a durge.
amos 5:1Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even a lamentation, O house of Israel.

Ruckmanism
The idea that the very edition of the 1611 kjv was reinspired is a false teaching. It asserts that the word of God was not preserved for every generation.
So it claims the same prospect of new translations that the Gospel was lost to the church of christ. But the church of christ never died, and neither did the word of God.
1Peter 1:23-25
23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

holy hatred
The idea that because another christian or groups have error that we must hate the sinners.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
While we may hate sin. We are all sinners. the gospel of christ is not about cursing others. (They are already cursed.) The gospel of christ is about redeeming sinners. all sinners.
Romans 5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
John 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

ultra separatism)
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Not only should Christians agree on the faith but they should try to agree. There are several imposter forms of christianity both within and without. Yet there are many who agree on not only essential doctrine but important doctrinal content as well. While there is value in orthodoxy and separation from evil.For Some use the doctrine of separation as an excuse not to love there brothers and sisters in Christ. finding excuses not to fellowship with other christians to mask bigotry, hatred, and pride. If we are all saved by grace through faith then we have no right to claim a different group is more sinful than us. but this happens constantly. Someone may say "we must separate from the black church because there music is fleshly and there dancing and groaning is from there pagan african culture" But we could just as easily say "let's separated from the white church because they design there buildings from the pagan greek culture and there pews from the pagan roman culture. and there hush tone emphasizes the roman empire religion."
We are all sinners saved by grace and we need to live according to that grace. The Bible does call for separation in order that we preserve the teaching of the gospel. But the gospel of salvation is simple and it requires the faith of a simple child. by dividing legitamitely regenerate chuches we pervert the doctrine of separation and eventually the gospel.

church schooling)
6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

In terms of educating children it is the responsibility of the parents. Yet many fundamentalist churches have adopted school systems. As a result many fundamentalist churches have used school systems to gain extrabiblical authority over children.
matthew 23
4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
By taking such authority when get in the way of Christ sovereignty over the soul. I have heard many horror stories of how fundamentalist school churches have been used just like catholic churches to enslave children and have scared them away from the gospel.
15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

pastoral sectarianism)
many times the pastor is exalted to the level of a holy man or pseudo messiah. The pastor is thus given a monarchy over the congregation.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
The job of the pastor is almost reversed from that of a lord. We are to lead in service.
1 Peter 5:1-5
King James Version (KJV)
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

promotionalism) This is the idea of promoting certain churches and using various gimmicks to increase the popularity of the church. 2 cor 4:5
5For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

quick prayer evangelism)
The idea of christianity as a one time decision is very deadly in our culture. As if salvation were merchandise to be marketed.
18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
We may recieve salvation but it is not something that we can acquire by our own merit. A quick prayer can never merit salvation. It has to be a humble trust.

Hebrews 4
1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
While we don't want portray faith as if it were a work it is something which will endure. It endures through the power of the Holy SPirit. But if it is not a faith which endures it must therefore be the wrong faith and a faith that is not the saving fof the gospel.

Most fundamentalist care strongly about the faith and the gospel. But your orthodoxy is not going to keep sin from creeping at you door. Only By humbling yourself and letting God take control will you truly be able to grow closer to God. The God wants fundamentalist christians to let there light Shine. Satan desires fundamentalist christians to make there prosylites twice a child of hell as they. the question is will we have revival or wil we have Ichobod?

Questions about Middle Knowledge by randy Everest

2011-04-26T05:24:00.000-07:00

[This is an important discussion for the debate concerning free-will and predestination.It also has many implications for apologetics. Randy Everest is a very gifted apologist and philosopher. So I have decided to let his work speak for itself. In Christ, Matt]

I have found while people have many questions about the teaching of middle knowledge, once explained it turns out to have been intuitively held by these same questioners. What I mean is that something very much like middle knowledge is believed to be true by the majority of Christians not already committed to some form of Calvinism or Arminianism. What is middle knowledge?

Certainly, it is not (directly) concerning predestination and free will (though it has application in that). Primarily, middle knowledge is related to omniscience. The simplest and most agreed-upon definition of omniscience is that “for any true proposition P, God knows and believes P and does not know nor believe not-P.” This means that whatever is true, be it in the future, now, or past, God knows it. Thus, quite literally, God knows what you are going to do before you do![1]

In order to understand middle knowledge in the context of omniscience, we finite beings break down God’s knowledge by logical relationship. First, there is God’s natural knowledge. This contains knowledge of all necessary truths (like “2+2=4” or “there are no married bachelors”) and all logical possibilities. Thus, one could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that could be. Next, there is God’s free knowledge. This is called “free” because the content of this knowledge is what God chose to be so. This includes God’s knowledge of this actual world (i.e. everything that is true in the history of the world up till now, and indeed throughout the potentially-infinite future).[2] One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that will be. Finally, we have God’s middle knowledge. This is knowledge of a counterfactual form. This form is “if Gary were in circumstances C, Gary would freely do X.” One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that would be in any other circumstances. In this way, God’s knowledge spans what could be, what will be, and what would be in every circumstance.

Middle knowledge is actually the conclusion of an argument from counterfactual knowledge. I have already explained the idea of counterfactual knowledge. Is it biblical? Absolutely! 1 Cor. 2:8 states, “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” See the counterfactual? “If the princes of this world knew X, then they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”! Either what Paul is saying is true, false, or meaningless. Since it seems Paul really is conveying a truth by these words (and not a symbolic, deeper truth as in a parable), we can rule out meaningless. It also seems that Paul is teaching rather than relaying some other account, so that to say Paul was wrong is attacking the doctrine of inerrancy (not to mention we don’t have overriding reasons to think Paul was wrong). The only option left is to believe it is the truth. 1 Samuel 23:10-12 relay the story of David asking the Lord the counterfactual question, “If Saul comes down to Keilah, will they deliver me up?” The Lord answered in the affirmative. Since they did not deliver David up, this is a true counterfactual. Yet the Lord knew it! It seems the case for counterfactual knowledge, at least biblically, is quite solid. God knows what would happen in any other circumstance.

However, as some opponents have been quick to point out, counterfactual knowledge does not, in and of itself, mean middle knowledge. What would make it middle knowledge? Either counterfactual knowledge is known to God logically prior or logically posterior to the divine decree to create the world (or what we had called God’s “free” knowledge).[3] Essentially, counterfactuals here boil down to free choices of individuals. So then, either free will exists or God directly causes individuals to act. While much more could be written, it seems intuitive (for those not already committed to a position) and obvious, both biblically and experientially, that mankind has a free will. Just note if God causes individuals to act he causes them to sin.

So, if free creatures freely make choices, then it is not true that they act because God causes them to act. If that is the case, then counterfactual knowledge is known to God prior to the creative decree (logically). This is also very good, since if God does not force people to act and yet lacked counterfactual knowledge until the divine decree, then God would be completely lucky in getting this actual world. It gets worse: without this knowledge, God would have no idea how any of us would act in situations, including this actual one! God must, in order to create sovereignly and omnisciently, have counterfactual knowledge; specifically, he must have middle knowledge.

God’s knowing what any free creature would do in any set of circumstances is both biblically and intuitively held. If you ask most people on the street without using the relevant theological terms, “do you, as a Christian, think God knows what would have happened in any other set of circumstances?” they would say “yes.” If you asked them if they believe in free will, they would say “yes.” As we have seen, this just makes middle knowledge analytically true (that is, true in virtue of both of those prior question’s answers!). If you believe in counterfactual knowledge and free will, you believe in middle knowledge.

[1] While for some the idea that future contingents can be true now is controversial, we shall proceed with the intuitive knowledge that what I will do tomorrow is true as a datum.

[2] A discussion of why the future is potentially, rather than actually, infinite is an interesting one, but not one which ultimately matters. For our purposes, just know that God knows everything that will happen in this actual world.

[3] Please note that the usage of “logically prior and posterior” does not in any way have to do with time, as though God lacked knowledge at any point.

The Biblical doctrine of election

2011-04-23T03:12:00.000-07:00

The theological doctrine
Christian theology defines it as God's decision before the beginning of time to pick certain individuals for the entire process of redemption.
"Doctrine of Election, the doctrine that the salvation of a man depends on the election of God for that end, of which there are two chief phases: one is election to be Christ's, or unconditional election or Doctrine of Free Will, and the other that it is election in Christ, or conditional election." wikipedia
"God's plan to bring salvation to His people and His world...." Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (timothy George)

The doctrine as scripture defines it.
"From the Bible, the fact of when and how God chose Israel seems clear. It all began with Abraham and the choice was God's alone. But why did He do it? Why did he make Isaac His "first born son" (Exodus 4:22)? Moses put it rater simply to Israel: "It was because the LORD loved you" (deuteronomy 7:8. But did that love have a purpose? The purpose of God's election was not salvation ( as if the Lord had some preferential claim to the jews), but His purpose was service." David Larson Jews Gentiles and the church pg. 19 discovery House 1995

election and eschatology
Isaiah 42:1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

The operation of the Kingdom of God is in a developmental stage. Election is not primarily concerned with atonement as much as it is concerned with the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom of God. This is a kingdom of Jews and inclusive of the gentiles.

The OT
Exodus 14:5-7
5And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us? 6And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: 7And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.
Here we seethe term "chosen" applying to a pagan King choosing chariots as the vessel for a mission.

Psalms 78:31The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.
There is absolutely no possible way that the term "chosen" means chosen for salvation here. First they are bearing the wrath of God and not being saved. Secondly this appears to be referring to men chosen for israeli military duty.

Isaiah 41:2Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.
3He pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone with his feet.
4Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
8But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
9Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.
Notice how the concept of being chosen is rooted in being a servant? according to the Old testament election is a concept rooted in works.

The gospels
matthew12:14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
15But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
16And charged them that they should not make him known:
17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
21And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
So fulfillment of being chosen is him a servant going out and healing the multitudes. doing works of God. "chosen" or election is then introduced to the New Testament as a work of service.

Matthew 20:12-16
12Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
So here we have the second mention in the gospels and it is the parable of the laborers. Chosen here is still an employment to work.

Matthew 22:10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14For many are called, but few are chosen.
Here again following the pattern few are chosen because the man was not ready for service and therefore not chosen. It is still a term of employment. Granted there is a mention of condemnation. Yet condemnation does not perfectly parallel salvation. You can be condemned by the law without being saved by grace.

matthew 24:24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Now it is arguable that this passage is neutral. However, if the saints are justified through faith alone. It would be quite compromising if their justifying faith were allowing to the apostasy of the spirit of anti-christ. So the definition still stands.

Matthew 24:31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Now this passage has to deal more in terms of eschatology. but the question is< is this refferring simply to the saved or to the servants. I know the two are unified here. But the specific party is to the jews. (matthew 24:15-16) later revelation reveals that prior to this we had the rapture of the church. Christ will take his bride personally. (luke 12:36,john 14:3, 1thess.4:16,5:9, rev. 3:10,4:4)

Now with john there are particular difficulties with interpreting this passage because although Calvinists have long hailed this as an election passage. John does not use the vocabulary of "election" or "chosen". Another issue to remember when interpreting John is that it was written much later than the synoptic gospel around 80 AD after the death of Paul. So John had Paul's revelations in mind as He wrote this final account of the gospels.

John6:26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
So here we see the natural development of this passage. Jesus had just completed the miracle of feeding the multitudes. So just uses the food as a metaphor. not to work for the perishing meat but to labor for the food which brings everlasting life. the is eternal life brought by the messiah. Vrs. 28 their reply sets the context of the passage. If they are to work towards obtaining eternal life. "what shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" So Jesus lays out the answer "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Now this passage is typically isolated and easily assumed that belief is the a work that God has performed. However, if we are following the context of verse 28 then the work of God is referring to the "work that God" wants us to do.
Now I would argue that the term work is here referring to response and not merit. Because a belief is not naturally a work, though it may produce works.

30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
It is obvious that these men are trying to manipulate Christ for more food. they already saw this sign. Jesus redirects him to his point about the messiah. Notice how the act of God is focused on the giving of Christ in the incarnation. While in Calvinism election is a separate work. Jesus is simply securing salvation and not actually saving. However Christ is the work of salvation.

34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Notice first Jesus gives the promise of salvation upon faith. This is the work of God of God which they must do. verse 36 they have not believed God. Therefore they are not saved. "all that the father giveth me" let us assume that this the elect. shall come to me. Therefore the elect are always believers.

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Notice again, vrs. 40 everlasting life is given only after belief. So if election is after faith as well as salvation then salvation is based upon foreknowledge.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Here we see these Jews argue you with the doctrine of Christ. Claiming that Christ was naturally born. This is a confession of disbelief. Jesus retorts that no man may come unto him. Unless the father takes the initiative to draw him. typically Calvinism will look at the passage and assume that is the drawing of the person of the Holy Spirit. Yet the verse says it is the work of the Father. So we must look into the context to give a deeper understanding of this passage. not all is it that one has to be drawn of God to come to Christ they must also "hath learned of the Father" so being drawn by the father was synonymous with being a disciple of Jehovah.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
We notice again the act of God is not emphasized over what he previously did to the soul of man. It is focused on the incarnation of Christ. Here we see again eternal life being based on the initiative of belief.

48I am that bread of life.
49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Here we see the work of Christ in the atonement is brought forward once again. With as usual language that would be universal (life of the world) and contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine of election.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
This passage is obviously metaphorical speaking of the atonement. Roman Catholics typical want to apply it to the mass. Yet Roman Catholics have all gone threw physical death so far. Here see Christ commanding his atonement necessary for salvation. Notice vs. 56 our connection with Christ is intricately woven into the atonement. But in Calvinism, our election is primary and the atonement is limited to elect. However, if we are only in Christ through the atonement, how elect and yet not in Christ?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Here we see that salvation vrs. 64 is based upon foreknowledge even though he had chosen Judas iscariot.
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
So if being chosen is for a task then this passage makes sense. But if election means salvation then their is a crack in the chain of salvation and we can never be sure God completes his tasks.

Paul
One thing to understand with the apostle Paul is there is an identity shift. Know longer are God's people limited to those of jewish stock. The question is do they fit into God's plan?
Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Many Calvinist such as R.C. Sproul claim this to be an unbroken chain of salvation. Although typically they cut the verse short. They start the thought on verse 29 instead of 28. The subject is them who love God. Those who are called(to ministry) according to his purpose. So this is then reference to people who are already disciples. In other words this does not apply to people who do not love God. Nor does it apply to the same people before they had loved God.
If you are a believer you were not being conformed to the image of Christ before you were a believer. You were not called, you were not justified and you were not on your way to being glorified.
John 5:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Ephesians 2:1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
This is a very important concept. Before your were saved, you were lost. But once you enter salvation God's foreordained plan takes effect. God, then in eternity past may have decided to save you. Yet you were not saved until you placed faith in Christ.
ephesians 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Romans 5:2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

rom. 8:33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Here we see the elect possibly for the first time being connected to salvation. So now that the saved are predestined, we know that they are part of God's chosen plan.
Romans 9:3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
So now that Paul makes the broad statement in 8:33 he must then explain his new application. How could saved gentiles be the elect? Paul knows he has made the new application so he starts off identifying the established orthodoxy The literal born jews are the elect traditionally.

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Now typically Christians have made the mistake of assuming that Israel means christian. However in verse 5 it is very clear that Paul is referring to flesh and blood Jews as Israel. Paul states that not all genetic Jews are not necessarily part of the nation of Israel. he then shows how there were several branched that broke off of Abraham's family line.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
We see the limitations upon the elect. The Jews had become lazy assuming that just because they were born Jewish that God had use for them automatically.

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God's plan for our lives is his plan and not ours he will use us as he sees fit. The elder shall serve the younger. notes the placement in the kingdom is up to God. Also it is important to note the context of the quote that paul is giving regarding moses. exodus 33:19
18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
The context of this verse is concerned with God making his presence felt in the wilderness not concerning how the Lord God's plan for our lives is his plan and not ours he will use us as he sees fit. The elder shall serve the younger. notes the placement in the kingdom is up to God. Also it is important to note the context of the quote that paul is giving regarding moses. exodus 33:19
18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
The context of this verse is concerned with God making his presence felt in the wilderness, not concerning how the Lord will choose certain people to faith.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Here we see the pharaoh used as an example. This is not concerned with whether the pharaoh was saved. It is concerned with the fact that Jehovah used pharaohs hardened heart to Execute his plan for the redemption of the Jewish nation. Now while election is not concerned with salvation specifically. It is indeed unconditional as noted in vrs. 16. God's providence will not be thwarted.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Verse 20 shows a brilliant response to the complaint concerning faulting God. Paul points out that the antagonists has made a freely chosen immoral complaint against God and his sovereignty. Thus eliminating the possibility of determinism by proving the antagonist free will. Yet this passage is perfectly consist if applied to teaching concerning God's providence as opposed to deterministic salvation.

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Here Paul has leveled a massive piece of evidence concerning the saved as part of God's chosen people and plan. They were not his elect and now they are. According to Calvinism this group was always chosen. Thus their doctrine is contradicted.

27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Israel was the chosen race to be used by God in His divine plan. Now Gentiles have become chosen to fulfill his plan as well. because they have righteousness through Christ, which has equipped them for such a purpose through their salvation.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
The Jews whom are unbelieving are no longer of use for the Kingdom of God, since they are not righteous on their on and therefore not saved. Their fault was their disbelief in Christ.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
The Jews are still able to be of use in the Kingdom. After the apostle Paul was a Jew. Those who God foreknew as having faith and thus predestined salvation are still his chosen people. Even in then time of Israel's apostasy God had a remnant of servants.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
So now we see Paul's thesis again. We are God's chosen people and part of his chosen plan through the grace of salvation. We are a part of this plan unconditionally not based on our works. So God will work out his plan through us regardless.

8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
So here we are not looking at God trying to trick the lost out of salvation. Instead we are looking at the power of God's providence that even these apostates will have their deeds prepare the way of the Lord regardless of their evil intentions and their evil hearts will be judge accordingly.

11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Their evil deeds have been used to allowed the Gospel to spread far across the world and God has made it not that they are incapable of salvation. But is trying to provoke the Jews to jealousy and seek salvation themselves.

14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
The gospel is not for the gentiles to spite the Jews. But in God's providential plan He desires the Jews to gain access to salvation as well.

17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
The Jews and gentiles can be grafted into and out of God's chosen plan/people. This is according to faith since the believer is saved. So it is not based upon on our genetic heritage Jew or gentile, but faith.

21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
So membership in God's Kingdom is by faith alone. the true Israel is a faithful Israel. Just as the body of Christ is composed of Jews and Gentiles. The body of the elect is both Jewish and gentile. Israel is the Jewish nation. However it is the believers. So the true Israel.(believing Jews) will all be saved. They mention a partial hardening. Which is why it is hard for the Jewish race to accept Christ.(though not impossible.) and the fullness of the gentiles. When all the gentiles that would come to Christ in fact do. after this there seems to be a jewish revival during the end times.
Zechariah 12:10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
So God anticipating this revival has elected the Jews in this revival for his service.

29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Here we see it again. God will work out his plan through his saints.

30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
The power of God's providence is overwhelming. that God will indeed bring in the maximum number of people too salvation for his glory. (check out the article on "middle knowledge")

Ephesians chapter 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
First we notice that the Father has blessed us. "us" according to the Ephesians 1:1 is the saints. Therefore, those who are already saved. Have received "all spiritual blessings in heaven. In accord with the fact that God has chosen the saints. How did he choose the saints? "in Christ" This connects the election of the saints with the election of Christ. So if election is consistent from the Old Testament onward. Then we were chosen in Christ for a service. does it mention such a service? "that we should be holy and without blame before him in love". So yes.

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
So here we see the subject. "predestinated us" once again referring to those who are currently born-again saints.

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
This was done because God is good and loving.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Being adopted we also have redemption through blood atonement. Notice how there is now sequence of the blood atonement with adoption. (reformers would like to place it there.)

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
"we" "who first trusted in christ" are then predestined to have our salvation(an inheritance vs.11)

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Notice the order. first we heard the gospel. then "after that ye believed". we are sealed with the spirit.
So the work of salvation is predestined to believers.

2Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
This is a key passage used by Calvinists to argue determinism. according to them Paul is in search of those who are predestined to be saved and hoping to lead them to Christ. However the elect are identified as those who indeed are saved.
2Timothy 1:9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
While I may argue that election is distinct from salvation the two concepts are still linked. The elect are saved. more important is to notice the context of the word saved. "In Christ Jesus with eternal glory" this concept is focused on glorification. So when it is talking about the elect obtaining salvation it is referring to glorification in this passage and not justification. I believe Paul is saying elect to indicate That while he can not identify who has faith in their hearts. He identifies the elect because these were people being used by God.
11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
Here he is talking about being an example you can't teach discipleship to unbelievers. Many unbelievers find even see the death of Christ as a bizarre self righteous suicide. this was a lesson for believers.

2thessalonians 2:13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Here we see the phrase "Chosen to salvation" an obvious scripture for Calvinism. however chosen is a more general term than elect. There many different types of choices. also we must note that this is through the work of the holy spirit. Since the spirit proceeds forth from the son we must receive Christ before we can receive the Holy Ghost. and again we see the link of the elect being saved contradicting determinism.
14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Once again the gospel is the essential element of grace. Not a predetermined judgment.

Titus 1:1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
God's elect is faithful. I believe this a reference to Christ.

Peter
1peter1:2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2peter 1:10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Under traditional reform theology, one is to determine whether God had chose them in eternity past. On a practical level this is ridiculous. Because not only do we not know but there is nothing that we can do to change that. Many reformers would based their assurance of salvation based upon their own works.

Jesus as elect
As we look at the initial scriptures regarding election
Isaiah 42:1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
This passage regarding the messiah is a good starting place. If Christ is elect was he chosen to receive mercy or chosen as a servant for a certain task?

Acts 2:22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

election and Christianity

Israel as elect
4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Here Jehovah is speaking toward the gentile Cyrus. He is speaking to the future Cyrus and he is speaking of calling him. So God is using Cyrus even though Cyrus is not the elect Israel. So Israel can not mean the body of the saved. but if the elect Israel is the servant Jacob then it all makes sense.
election and the church.
Here we see that election has been taught as a doctrine of the church. Yet scripture puts it for the as a doctrine of the kingdom and what if the kingdom is not the same as the church?

The Kingdom is invisible
Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
The church is to be visible
Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Determinism verses Biblical election.
The Catholic saint Augustine of Hippo prior to his conversion to Catholicism was a skilled professional platonic philosopher. It is no stretch of the imagination that Augustine would apply his platonic philosophy to his interpretation of scripture and theology. In platonic philosophy there is a down play of the material in favor of the spiritual. Also The spiritual World is a perfect world while the physical world is one of distortion and therefore evil. Augustine was a part of the Roman Empire. In his book City of God, Augustine espouses a perfect spiritual Rome Hidden within the darker fleshly reality. Augustine interprets the true spiritual Christians as the elect.(or the true people of God) Since there is nothing good in the material world It is up to the Spiritual God to elect who will be saved and who will be damned.
Determinism can easily become a rival to the gospel because it is offering a different or alternative means of grace.
In the New testament, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. (romans 1:16) Yet in determinism the gospel becomes secondary to a predetermined election.
Augustine in his commentaries on relevant passages admitted to justification. But in His formal teachings never espoused outrightly justification by grace through faith alone. So his philosophy was designed without the idea of the saving gospel of grace in mind.
Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin were students of Augustine. And as they tried to make there reforms essentially were try to make a reformed Augustinian Catholicism as opposed to the Thomistic Catholicism reigning over Europe. While they desired their Christianity to be more biblical, it was not there intention to have a perfectly literal form of faith. This can be seen in the way that they separated themselves from Anabaptists and Waldensees. Future protestants in a safer era became less inclined towards Catholicism and more tolerant of biblical Christianity.
But the teaching of determinism had a huge impact on protestantism. It has at times challenge the gospel as well. For instance among those known as hyper-Calvinists there was an avowed effort to suppress missions and in fact what would be known as the anti-missions movement. This is all evidence that Determinism had become a rival to the evangelical gospel.
Yet biblical election is service to the lord and our service to the lord is in the proclamation of the gospel.

Implications
election is unconditional yet is not the plan of salvation, instead the plan of the kingdom.

One major problem in this debate has been the fusion of the doctrine of the atonement and election. God has willed to extend his atonement to all since he desires all men to be saved. Yet He has chosen a few. This has caused great controversy through the centuries of Christianity.
Yet The beauty of this new insight is that God unconditionally will use us who are born-again for his purpose. Perhaps some more than others. Yet we we will be his servants. If we have been born-again He will change us and have us to fulfill our calling!

salvation is unconditionally offered but exclusively received.
In the doctrine of imputed righteousness we find that faith is not a work and that the work of salvation belongs entirely to Christ. Thus the new covenant is unconditional.
yet once the hearer has received the grace of the gospel with the power of God unto salvation. It is then the responsibility of the recipient to believe and be saved. This is an exclusive gift.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Is there a difference between synergistic salvation as advocated here. conditional election?
Essentially while they are very similar, The major difference is that this view recognizes election as unconditional. And if the saved are the elect and God will work out his purposes then salvation is stable and can never be lost.
One could argue that Judas Iscariot was unsaved and yet elect. However this was prior to the Age of Grace and the resurrection as was revealed to Paul. So now that we are under the age of Grace God chooses the born again for his purposes as officially his people.

Why limited atonement is indeed an unbiblical doctrine

2011-04-16T15:25:00.000-07:00

The title of this article really speaks for itself. The goal of this article is to deal specifically with the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to reform theology as a whole. Many bible believing Christians subscribe to reform theology. And many of it's teachings are indeed Biblical. Yet when a doctrine is in opposition to the scriptures, our loyalty must not be toward our friends and traditions. Our loyalty is to God and his Word.

What do we mean when we say un-biblical?
Here I refer back to my own confession of faith. The freedom baptist church confession of faith. article 4 C.
"C. The Bible is authoritative for all in what it says and interprets and the Christian is bound to every thing it specifically says to Christians and everything it implies; though the Christian is bound not to add to His divine revelation. The Scriptures must be judged only in light of the whole of scripture. The Bible can be understood using the historical-grammatical method of study in search of the “plain sense meaning”. With this, diligence, a godly desire to learn, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Christian can eventually understand the complete direct meaning of the Bible. The centerpiece of the revelation of God is Christ Jesus.
John10:35, Habakkuk 2:2, Isaiah 28:9-10, 2Tim 2:15, 3:14-17, Matthew 15:9, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19, 1Corinthians 2:5-16, John 5:39"
The Bible is authoritative in it's meaning, in other words what the Bible directly and obviously says. The Bible may also teach something indirectly. Advocates of Limited atonement would argue that it is implied based on the clarity of other doctrines. However scriptures must be judged in light of the whole of scripture. As will be shown the Bible directly and plainly teaches that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. So the meaning far outweighs the implication.
For instance lets ask the question "did Jesus die on the cross?" Now you could make the case that Jesus is alive and that Jesus is the lord God. That God could not die and that Jesus being sinless should not be allowed to die. Therefore it is implied that Jesus did not die on the cross. But when we have dozens if not hundreds of passages declaring that Christ died, then the implication of Christ not dying is void and the doctrine is completely non-biblical. Such is the case with limited atonement it builds a case of implications to try to overcome the direct plain meaning of the scripture.

how do we define this?
Calvinism is no longer strictly the teachings of John Calvin, at least as the term is commonly used in contemporary times. Normally it is a reference to the soteriology put forth by the synod of dordrecht(dort). Calvinism has splintered off into hundreds of directions and the TULIP or five points of Calvinism has been interpreted and reinterpreted dozens of times over. So there has been a lot of time wasted trying to figure what teachings are actually being debated. So here I provide a very basic definition of this doctrine and then I will go on to look at the commentary of the cannons of dordrecht for the proper interpretation of the doctrine.

"Limited atonement (or definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine in Christian theology which is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers." wikipedia

The canons of dordrecht
Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
"For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.:"

Rejection of the Errors
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
"VI
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."
One thing respectable about the design of this document is that it asserts both positive and the negatives of their doctrine and are very clear. In our days we either tell you the positive or the negative depending on our perspective. Now one must notice The intimate connections that this doctrine has with the doctrine of predestination. In fact it has been stated that the doctrine of limited atonement is not incompatible with arminian or free-will theology. Yet no major tradition supporting a synergist/free-will view has included this teaching.

The political nature of Five-point calvinism.
« Sin leading to death?
Temporary Faith is Real Faith »
The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed
January 31, 2008 by Steven Wedgeworth
"One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1st and 2nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century."
So here essentially the nature of Calvinism is political in nature. Calvinist typically are strong believers in proselytizing other Christians into there system in a very militant fashion. Much like a political party they are concerned with bringing everyone over into their platform. The five points are a political platform. They are willing to sacrifice other doctrines if they can gather agreement to the base of the party. Eventually they would like to see agreement under the complete system. Though there are several different visions though as to what that vision is. Typically either one of the previous confessions or the westminster and 1687 London baptist confession.
The reformed tradition was not the center for a separation of church and state. Not only did the reformers wage actual war against the Roman Catholics. (not judging whether the entanglements were justified) But they also persecuted and slaughtered the anabaptist. The early reformers were very theocratic. They would rule their cities very strictly commonly referring back to the Old Testament but not always. While there are reformers who respect the separation of church and state such as many baptist and american presbyterians; The political nature of calvinism is one of top down authority. It is this empirical structure which forces a doctrine like limited atonement on the table.

Passages used to support limited atonement. (The following passages were used as proof text from www.monergism.com)
That God has the intention of redeeming a limited number
1chronicles 17:20-21
20O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
21And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
Here is a classic example of isogesis. Using the language of war and Egypt testifies to the the fact that this discussion is referring back to the nation of Israel. Salvation in the context eschatological justification is not even in the context of the passage.

Matthew 22:14
14For many are called, but few are chosen.

The actions of calling and chosen are usually attributed to other persons of the trinity. So the topic is not in fact directly over the subject of atonement. This isolated verse is not regarding atonement. The passage (22:1-14) is concerned with the kingdom of heaven. It uses the parable of a wedding feast. The king's servants a bid to come and they reject it and are destroyed. The king then has his remaining servants go and find anyone they can and bring them to the feast "and gathered as many as they found" It is afterwords that the king finds a man without a wedding garment and cast him out. For many(every) are called and allowed at the wedding feast of those who have been atoned for. But few(who have made the decision to dress for the wedding) are chosen. So this passage if anything speaks to unlimited atonement.

1peter 2:8-9
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Here again we notice that the act of atonement is still not directly addressed. This passage is used to stress the fact that people are chosen or "appointed" to go to Hell. However if you go to the Dr.'s office, you have to "set up" an appointment. However those who are appointed disbelief have been previously established as disobedient. (vrs. 7) Meanwhile those who are the holy nation were previously not making this a conditional title.
"10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." So it is unnecessary to believe that God had not provided all the opportunity to be saved.

Ezekiel 36
Now this passage is a bit large so you can read it for yourselves. But the jist of it is that God is prophesying about the mountains of Israel. This is concerning the Jewish people and the land. Later in the passage there is talk of the nation being born again. But it is quite frankly not the Christian church because Israel is under the Law of God and the Church is not under the law covenant, also the church is a mix of Jews and gentiles. (romans 7:1-5, Galatians 3:28)

"Jesus has the intention of offering himself up(atoning) for the sins of just a certain people."

Isaiah 53:10-11
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
As will be shown this chapter declared that God laid upon Christ "the iniquity of us all". Since all have iniquity all would be universal. Why is it a contradiction for christ to accomplish salvation for those who accept his offer?

matthew 1:21
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
It never says that Jesus shall desire only to save "his people" without the offer given to the world. It says what most evangelicals who accept general atonement believe, that Jesus accomplished salvation in those who have faith in him. He doesn't accomplish salvation until people put faith in him.

John 6:35-40, 10:3-4,11 14,15,17
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here is yet another passage which teaches predestination and therefore by argument must "limit" the atonement. Yet again, not directly addressing the issue. Two points must first be made. Number Those who belong to the father might be faithful Jews who have convert to be disciples of christ. Number two assuming predestination of salvation is true indeed true. Is universal atonement truly contradictory? The act of election is transcendent or "before the foundations of the earth". Mean while the cross of Christ was historical, emanent "for such a time is this. If God is operating on two differing planes and has use of three much less two persons; then wouldn't it make sense that what appears in only one real as paradox is not contradictory at all?

3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
The sheep have a previously established relationship with the shepherd. I don't think sheep know the voice of the shepherd before they are acquainted.

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Once again no contradiction with unlimited atonement.

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
The idea that God knows who he will save is taught by all evangelicals even the Wesleyans.
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
It is good to note that reference her to "church of God" is referring to local congregations "over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" and of course they have been purchased by christ. Still no contradiction.

Ephesians 5:25
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Now in ancient culture if the Son is obedient He will accept who the Father gives him for his marriage. In this case the father picked the faithful bride which is not an individual but "whosoever believeth". Yet this is prior to the subject of this verse. as we know the eschatological bride is indeed a concept about the united church of the future. So it does not address whether the current offer is universal.

Joh 17:1-2; 6-12; 20-21; 24-26;
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
5-point calvinists are going to try to use this passage out of context. this is easy for the reader 2 thousand years later. But Christ prayer is before the cross. "he should give eternal life" is a future proposition.

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
so here Christ is hoping his disciples "might know thee" that christ has finished his work "on earth" This is not the stage for eternity instead it is in the context of the time and his current roster of disciples.

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
"and now" sticks to the context of the time before crucifixion.

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
"I have manifested thy name unto the men" indicates jesus actual earthly ministry.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Here again he is referring to jesus actually discipling the disciples.

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
So here the Calvinist will argue that christ is praying for the elect and he has limited the atonement. But no word on the atonement. Also the passage has clearly taught that christ was praying for his roster of disciples verses the faithless world that has not followed him.

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
"these are in the world" yet the apostles are now in heaven. this is the context christ is referring to his disciples and is not limiting his atonement.

12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Is judas the one fellow who lost his salvation? Or is he the only faithless apostle.
The Bible teaches that their are many who follow christian religion and are not truly saved.(1john 2:18-19)

13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"speak in the world" is this a reference to unlimited atonement? Regardless Christ is praying for his current disciples. this verse may extend to us but not referring to the subject of atonement.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"they are not of the world" current disciples.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Here christ is showing the context again of his current disciples and extending it to those of us who are believers.

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
They are not currently one yet look forward to it. This unity is referring to the future. Where we have the obvious implication of exclusive salvation. However Christ died at a time and place. His sacrifice was offered to us in a temporal way so that we would give an immanent response. 2Corinthians 6:2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
As christians 2000 years later we know more than this. But this was all the revelation the disciples at that time had.

26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
still no word on limited atonement.

Rom 8:34
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
no, word on limiting the atonement.

"Furthermore, the bible speaks of Christ's death as fully effective in securing justification ( Isa 53:11; Rom. 8:34), redemption and cleansing ( Eph 5:25-27; Tit 2:14), propitiation (that is, the complete satisfaction of the Father's wrath; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10), and resurrection to new life ( 2Co 5:14-15)."
At this point one must ask if faith is a condition for anything in salvation. This leads us to a hyper calvinistic view called "eternal justification". This is the view that one is saved from all eternity. So evangelism is meaningless.
While Christ death accomplished all these things, salvation was conditioned to the believer. Those who are not believers are condemned to hell until they repent and place faith in Christ.

Passages in support of unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 50:2 (King James Version)
2Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.
Here we see a proclamation by God That he indeed has full ability to provide salvation which would put together a case for unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 53:6 (King James Version)
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Here we see what will be a continuous pattern. a link between sin nature and atonement. Here we see all who have gone astray linked with all who Jehovah has laid the iniquity of on Christ.

John 1:7 (King James Version)
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Here we see a purpose of universal atonement. This is in direct contradiction to dort. Calvinism teaches that it was only God's will to make salvation available to the elect. Yet here "all men" though him "might" believe. Here salvation is a conditional offer. Yet limited atonement is unconditional and not truly an offer either.

John 1:29 (King James Version)
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Here we see a direct action described. The lamb of God "taketh away the sin of the world" this is very obvious spelling out unlimited atonement. Jesus forgiveness is being directly applied to the world.

John 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Within the most famous gospel verse we see a pattern that conforms to a worldwide sacrifice with a conditional offer of Salvation. Yet the next verse spells this out in a bolder way. "God sent not his Son into the world" indicates that we are speaking the complete world system, not simply that Christ incarnated in the world of believers. He was seen by unbelievers as well. In fact Jesus grew up in Galilee where few had faith in him. So as the same word will have the same meaning in the same sentence.(supposing the scriptures are not contradictory) The "world" which might be saved must therefore be universal.

John 6:51 (King James Version)
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Here we see again the conditional offer of salvation "if any man eat of this bread" The he states that He will give his flesh "for the life of the world"
Which is symbolically speaking of universal atonement.

Acts 17:30-31 (King James Version)
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Here we see a universal command of God for all men to repent. Also in context this passage is referring to humanity in general as it is to a gentile audience. but God show a desire for the world to change and the cross is an offering of assurance to the world. Yet what assurance would that be if it is only offered to a remnant?

Romans 3:22-24 (King James Version)
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Here we see the Righteousness of God being offered "unto all" then it is imputed to those who believe, making a clear distinction. "For all have sinned", orthodox evangelical are in universal agreement that here that all means all. So why would it not carry the same meaning in the previous sentence when it says "unto all"?

Romans 5:18 (King James Version)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Here we see very obviously the doctrine of universal sinfulness being fused in with the atonement implying if not meaning universal atonement. One clever argument is that these are similar but not identical. all mankind is akin to all believers. however we see a verse that will shine the light on this claim.
Romans5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Here salvation is referred to in particular, yet condemnation is referred to in particular as well. Making it an identical comparison.

Romans 11:32 (King James Version)
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
When thinking of "all" we do not see the saints unified by unbelief. Therefore this verse implies unlimited atonement. This verse also counteracts romans 9:15 "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy."

1 Corinthians 15:22 (King James Version)
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Here we see a parallel comparison. As powerful as Adam's curse just as invasive is Christ blessing.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19 (King James Version)
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
In reference to the death of Christ. All were did; death is universal, so then atonement ought to be as well. "he died for all" If "they which live" is particular then it is extracted from a universal atonement of christ death for all mankind. finally Christ was "reconciling the world to himself" this gives us authority for a ministry of reconciliation. are we to try to reconcile all to christ or just the elect?

Colossians 1:20 (King James Version)
20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
"reconcile all things to himself" is as universal a statement as you will find. also "things in oearth bears this point as well.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 (King James Version)
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Now the context is obvious. We should pray for "all men" many universally all mankind. Keeping that context in mind. So in verse 4 when it says "will have all men to be saved", we know that indeed it is all mankind. We know that there is "one mediator between God and men" not just some men but all. As Jesus Christ is "a ransom for all".

1 Timothy 4:10-11 (King James Version)
10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
11These things command and teach.
Jesus is the "Savior of all men" which is the wide angle compared to "especially those who believe" this implies that Jesus has a way of being recognized as savior to unbelievers. So He atoned for the sins of all mankind potentially and especially particularly saved believers. Notice verse 11< this implies that unlimited atonement is a bible doctrine which should be taught, which in the negative proves that limited atonement is an unbiblical doctrine which should not be taught.

1 Peter 3:18 (King James Version)
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Who are the unjust? just believers? Perhaps Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God's will as previously shown is all to be saved and "repent" also God's Will is not for any to perish. If it were limited atonement then God would will that men perish.

1 John 2:2 (King James Version)
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
This has been a verse that is a thorn in the side of limited atonement advocates. They argue that John's letter is written to a particular audience and that John is saying not just his hearers but the whole world of Christians. 1John 1:4 declares
"4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." Is John only wanting some Christians to get this message or all Christians?
More important is the "whole world" really supposed to be the elect?
"1John 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."
this does not describe those born again.

1 John 4:14 (King James Version)
14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
Here is an apostolic endorsement of the doctrine. Some still say "world of believers". But how does that mesh with 1John 2:15 where we are told to "love not the world"?

Is this universalism?
Universalism is the teaching that all people will eventually be saved. That no one will spend eternity in hell.( maybe the devil and his angels.)
If Jesus died for all then are not all saved? While some forms of reformed theology might conclude this given the strict nature of their beliefs in predestination. Most Christians well into the scholarly level, have no problem understanding a potentially universal atonement received by faith alone. In other words it is not necessarily a contradiction to believe in universal atonement alongside exclusive salvation.

How can anyone"s salvation be definite?
This is a problem posed often to fully fledged Arminians and wesleyan and pelagians. Because belief is a condition which can change. People will claim faith and then deny faith often in life. So perhaps if no one believed then God was incapable of saving anyone. However this doctrine only works in the case of those who believe that faith is a work which must be kept up in order attain salvation.

middle knowledge

Would jesus give mankind a chance? Many advocates of calvinism argue no because there is no such thing as chance. That God foreknows everything because he has designed it like a mechanistic clock. But is this necessarily true and does the Bible ever differ from this popular opinion?

The Bible speaks of God repenting in many situations. While we know that God does not actually himself change He does change what he is doing in interaction with others. (usually in the person of the Holy Spirit)
genesis 6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
This changing not only brings up a case for free will but also sates that there is such a thing as possiblilities. because if God is alknowing then perhaps God knows there are alternatives and God knows then all the alternatives. Then God knows everything independently. God operates in a world of chance offering up people the chance of salvation. For more information see Randy Everest article on Middle knowledge before this article.

Can people make a morally positive decision?
In christian circles there is a poular christians song by a band called "caedmon's call"/ The lyric says it best "I'm so thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own." calvinism argues that this is the universal truth. That man prior to regeneration is incapable of a sincerely positive decision.

Joshua 24:22 (King James Version)
22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
Here is a very interesting a definitive proof that people are capable of a positive decision. This is not a time where God is rewarding His people for Choosing Him. Instead it is an indictment upon them because they are not good by nature so they will not live up to their decision of obedience. The law is Holy,{romans 7:12} So they were making a holy choice to Follow Jehovah. Only they would not stay holy due to their depravity. So while human depravity cause us to be inclined towards sin and away from God it does not deterministicly bar us from any good choice.

Mark 5:34 (King James Version)
34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Here jesus claims the woman's faith has healed her. it is christ faith in the since that he was the object of it. However Christ makes the obvious claim that the faith was hers. Believers need the gospel to produce faith. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Once empowered by the gospel a person has the capability of a positive decision.
6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
God uses his gospel to overcome our depravity to be saved.
1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Waste of blood?
1 Peter 4:6"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

Several Calvinists have asked me. "why would jesus waste his blood for nothing?" If he does not save them then why would jesus die on the cross for them?

While this is a clever argument it makes some distorted assumptions. God has always valued mankind and teaches us to do so.
James 3:8-9
8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
God loves mankind because mankind is in his image.
Psalm 8:4-8 (King James Version)
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

More importantly God is love
1 John 4:7-9
7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

I have become very passionate about this doctrine. Because the only thing that has given me life is the love of God. His love in me through his son and the ability to love others as a result of this. God wants us to love our neighbor. but we could never be as loving as God. I know there are many devout christians who believe in this doctrine, I do not want believers to be seduced by the consistency of worldly wisdom and be robbed of the love of God.

In Christ,
Matt

All apologies for classic Apologetics

2010-12-13T12:25:00.000-08:00

links between classic, evidential-ism and idolatry
Colossians 2:18 (King James Version)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

When a person is committing idolatry, traditionally they are creating their own concept of God.
Traditionally apologists follow secular philosophy in assuming that God must be affirmed by unbelievers through logic. In order to do this there is a tendency to present God in a way that they assume would be to the liking of the audience.
So God is subject to change.
Two typical apologist systems are evidentialism and Thomistic classical apologetics. Evidentialism is a scientific empirical system for determining truth based on evidence. The evidential apologist establishes a scientific case for the likely hood of a transcendent truth like God. But can only speak as to what evidence is given. Thomistic apologetics divorces the concepts of faith and reason. so that only reason is universal and any transcendent concept outside of monotheism and morality is faith which is subjective.
Even if an evidentialists or Thomistic apologists(follower of thomas aquinas) says they believe biblical doctrine they then declare that certain arguments are based upon faith and therefore untenable. Which makes one wonder how they can consistently believe at all.
Yet Faith covers everything to do with God.
Hebrews 11:3 "3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So then these doctrines are not based on reason alone and faith is not to be exiled from reason.

Matthew 7:16-20 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

When we look at these philosophies we judge them by their by-products and not by their foundation. We think as long as this can support our faith in God we think it is good. But if the tree is bad then by necessity the fruit will be bad also. This is the foundation of the modern secularized church. The foundation is meaningless as long as the product is good.
Examples.
A. If lots of people come forward or come to church then you must be a good evangelist.

B. If people sound good then they must be providing good worship.

C. If I can speak with a lot of technical words i must be a good teacher.

If I can argue for the existence of a god I must be a good defender of the faith. Whether it's C.S. Lewis "mere Christianity" or Lee Strobel's "The case for a Creator"

The refusal not to defend parts of the faith is a choice to offend the word of God.
Matthew 5:18-19 (King James Version)
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 8:38 (King James Version)
38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
To argue for a piece of the truth is also to argue the other piece of a lie. For instance I have heard many intelligent design advocates. Many of whom will argue against the idea of a young earth as taught in the bible just as strongly as they argue against biological evolution.

disobedience of sola scriptura
Colossians 2:8 (King James Version)
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 15:9 (King James Version)
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

When we try to establish doctrine based upon another source than scripture. We imply the scripture on some level is unnecessary. Much of Thomas Aquinas arguments were first propounded by Aristotle who was a pagan. So they did not require the Holy spirit to have access to the God of the Bible in Thomism. You may know right from wrong and the existence of God without the scriptures. In fact these things are proven meaning they are obvious to the sinner.
Then Thomism argues that this is true because they can convince some people of their arguments. However they do not convince everyone.
So the validity of God's existence is at the mercy of human opinion.

Also The lordship of Jehovah is undermined and this is against the scriptures.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (King James Version)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

How natural is revelation?
Romans 1:18-22 (King James Version)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Now this passage teaches that God has revealed the truth. Yet this is not universal. It is men who particularly hold the truth in unrighteousness. These men have been revealed the wrath of God. these are not just unbelievers, they are reprobates. Now there is a universal revelation which is.

7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
So all people are not convicted towards monotheism. Instead they are all convicted concerning Christ. They will be convicted over their disbelief in christ, they will be convicted concerning the righteousness of christ,through his resurrection and ascension. They will know judgement because the "prince of this world" is condemned. Which would translate to the fact that satan is the spirit of selfishness and our selfish desires are doomed to failure.
This is not released to people through nature. It is released through the gospel.
Romans 1:16 (King James Version)
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Unbelievers are ignorant.
Jonah 4:11 "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
Unbelievers are indeed ignorant and this is why the gospel is required.

idolatry of knowledge
1 Corinthians 8:1-2 (King James Version)
1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Unbelievers such as the gnostics consider knowledge to be the sacrament of eternal life. Faith is not our ability to attain knowledge, but our humility in receiving truth.

God is greater than the unmoved mover.
By referring to God in limited ways we veer off course of the true doctrine of God.
A classic example of an aspect which matches God but does not give any credence to the rest of God. For instance God is unmoving but he is also a God who has emotions and comforts. the Unmoved mover by itself may not follow this God. But it is essential to understand God is love. So the unmoved mover may be a deity but not believe in the God of the bible.

Is salvation a decision?
When a person becomes a christian is it based upon their giving God permission to save them?
I believe their is a difference between trusting God to save and allowing God to save.
Is my justification the fact that I allowed Christianity to be my religious affiliation, or is justification the fact that salvation was prepared for me by jesus christ and the fact that I have repented of my autonomy and recognized that He is my Lord and capable of providing it to me?
Acts 17
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

In the end I believe our thoughts about God connect to our relationship to him. I know that most people do not make their philosophy this consistent but false teachings still can damage our spirituality. it is not necessarily wrong to point out scientific evidence or a good logic argument for support. At the end of the day though you do not need these arguments to evangelize The gospel and the word of God are sufficient.
In Christ,
Matt

The Biblical case for a church democracy.

2010-11-19T09:03:00.000-08:00

The charge of being unbiblical.) If you look through the Bible and are looking for a passage that says. This is the exact structure for which all Christians are to be organized; Thou shall have so many members so many members, so many meetings so many officers, so many procedures and that God will only bless one type of church organizational structure, then you will probably be sorely disappointed. I know I was!
But while the Bible doesn’t always directly deal with a topic, it is not therefore necessarily silent. The Bible speaks to the direct meaning of it’s passages and also speaks to us to today in what it directly implies.
An implication is when the Bible says a statement but only indirectly. We see the Lord Jesus using this hermeneutic(way of interpreting) when interpreting the law.
Matthew 5:18
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And so Jesus teaches by implication many of his doctrines like adultery
matthew 5:27-28
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Or murder...
Matthew 5:21-23
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

The liberation of Christ)
Galatians 4:28-5:14
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Christians are no longer simply under authority as slaves, but of the authority as the adopted royal family. If this is the understanding concerning God's Highest laws, then why would the man-made authority of the clergy be so binding?

The personal lordship of Christ)
Romans 14:4
4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

One concept which the democratic church advocates have not recently capitalized upon is the greatest biblical reason for democracy. The authority of Christ is a total monarchy. However, human authority is more indirect. But Christ is directly authoritative over us. We are not under the authority of sinners but instead the sinless Son of God.
Colossians 1:18
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
So the highest authority in the local congregation is Christ through the Holy Spirit individually.

The voluntary nature of the New Covenant)
Believers baptism acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Church discipline in the power of the congregation)
Matthew 18:15-20
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Here there is no mention of some superior class of christians involved with the discipline in the church. Instead the local church is given divine authority from God to conduct this act. The congregation is the final human authority for itself.

The initiation of the clergy by the people)
Acts 6:3-6
3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The deacons were elected by the congregation.
13:1-3
1Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Even the Apostle Paul was ordained by the holy Spirit through the congregation

14:21-23
21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Now admittedly this passage is a little loose as to whether the elders were “elected”(Geneva Bible) by the apostle Paul or the congregations. However the congregation is the rational interpetation for the following reasons.
a. The converts are "the disciples" the subject of verse 22.
b. "on whom they had believed" seems to refer to the converts. Mentioning the apostles as believers is a waste of space.
c. The souls of the converts were first confirmed before the elders were commended.

The limitations upon the clergy)
Mark 9:38-41
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
"over the which the Holy Ghost has made you over seers, to feed the Chruch of God" Pastoral authority is over those which the Holy Spirit, and not a manmade organization, has given you the opportunity to feed with the word of God.

1 Peter 5:1-5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Nottice the admonition in verse2 "which is among you" limiting authority to single congregations. "not by constraint, but willingly" this was not authority maintained through force or manipulation.
"Neither as being Lords over God's heretage." The apstor guides the Flock he doe snot own the flock.

The local congregation and the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This is a fact of the local congregation. Paul is writing them and telling them that he is wanting to come to him. (obviously implying that he is not.) and then instructing them on how to behave when they are in the house of God. If this were a catholic or invisible church concept they would already be in the church.
So the local church is the house of God and the pillar of truth. This is why the local church must be autonomous to all human authorities.

Business meetings?)
While the Bible doesn’t actually have business meetings the way they are done according to Robert’s rules of order. They did meet together and issues would have been likely brought up. We see the first business meeeting took place in acts.

13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
So they conducted there business replacing the treasurer and picked the top
candidates. Nottice Peter did not use top down authority to choose the successor? This passage clearly qualifies as the conducting of a NEw Testament Business meeting.

In corinthians we have situations describe where business could be conducted.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40Let all things be done decently and in order.

So the church has a certain order and organization whereby it conducts its business. We see the major emphasis of the New Testament is to determine the will of God. Modern autonomous churches need to return to this model.

Shaky competition)
The offices of the Popes, cardinals, archbishops and priest are not found in the New Testament even though they are the highest authorities in the catholic church. the idea of a college of cardinals and a Pope are more simlar to the government system of the Roman Empire.
We see a similar dilemma in The eastern orthodox church in terms of arch bishops as well as infant baptized national church members.
Other systems like the presbyterian republican model might have some weight in the Old Testament but not in the New. The Anglican church is about even with the eastern orthodox in this regard.
All together congregationalism is the only biblical approach to church government.

In Christ,
Matt

specifically begotton.

2010-09-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

One debate which is not a very well known outside of theological circles is the debate regarding the Son ship of Christ. When we say that Jesus is the Son of God; how does that work? The Arians and jehovah'S Witness take this simply that Jesus is the creation of God the Father. They have trouble reconciling this with passages indicating That Jesus is the Lord God and therefore eternal. Yet even among the trinitarians there is a debate over the nature of his Sonship. Is Jesus the Son of God by means of his human nature or his deified nature?
This debate is obviously a little more technical. However it is still important for the minister in developing a proper systematic theology and handling the Challenges of the cults.
The view that I hold is incarnational sonship, that That the man Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. That while I concede that The logos or deity of Christ may be entitled "Son" The deity was not begotten/generated since he is eternal.
The view which I critique "eternal sonship/eternal generation" denies that Jesus was begotten of God at His incarnation but instead the deity of Christ was generated by the Father in eternity past. Also the nature of this eternal generation is mysterious and not to be questioned.
So one phrase used in this debate "eternal Son of God" is not one that is of necessity biblical thought those who hold to eternal generation will used it as their Banner.

1. eternally begotten) a contradiction
Many modern champions of this view like to change the language of the debate by labeling the position eternal son-ship. However, the historical phrase is that Jesus was "eternally begotten" of the Father in eternity past,present and future.

be·get
/bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Dictionary.com

So essentially if the Father beget the Word, then He produced the Logos. Then the second person of the trinity is not eternal.

e·ter·nal
/ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.Dictionary.com

So here is the obvious contradiction. You can not be caused and have no beginning at the same time.
Yet the Logos is eternal.
John 1:1-3
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians1:16-17
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Revelation
1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

2. the complete history of eternal begotten doctrine
A. Origen
Origen in defending the deity of Christ came up with this doctrine. The problem with this idea is that it is in inherently subordinate. Not surprisingly Origen was openly a subordinationist. (in other words he held that the Son and the spirit were inferior to the Father)
"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110

b. The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87

B. eusibius influence on creed
Eusibius was a primitive catholic and he had a great influence upon the nicene creed much of the creed was based upon his churches confession.
Eusibius theology was not entirely sound. He tried to synthesize the the deity of Christ with ariansim and he rejected the book of revelation in the canon.
“In order to analyze these discrepancies, one must first discern something of Eusebius’ national, personal and theological positions. Although we know little of His life, It is fairly certain that Eusebius was born in Caesarea about 263. This was the city which had ordained Origen and which, when he was condemned by synods in Alexandira and-significantly-Rome, sheltered after his excommunication.
“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Originist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesaria.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd edn. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
I think we must take note that Eusebius had already had the doctrine of eternal generation in His creed which was the product of Origen's theology. Eusebius creed was the foundation of the Nicene creed. So the doctrine of eternal generation was implanted in the creed and made government law. Afterall, the Bishops were focused on Arianism.
Therefore much like in American law where a lobbyist may author a Bill and the senators might not actually even read the bill. The Bishops of Nicene passed this doctrine without necessarily any deep thought on the matter.

3.scriptural support for eternal generation
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Here we see evidence that the Son of God is deity. So the Son was begotton of the Father. But that is not really the issue up for debate. The issue of the debate is whether the deity was or is eternally still being begotten.

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
This is clear evidence that the title Son of God implies the deity of Christ. So therefore according to Eternal sonship advocates christ was begotton in eternity.
However the crux of the Debate is not whether or not the Son of God is deity. That is settled by the fact that there is one christ. The Question is: does this passage say Jesus is eternally begotton. Besides, it was the man claiming that he was the Son of God here. Implying that the man was the Son of God and therefore that Jesus was incarnationally begotten of the father.

5. Explanations for lack of study.
The Nicene Creed was a government enforced document. As a result a minister could be imprisoned, excommunicated and possibly tortured for disagreement with the doctrine of eternal generation. Many of the "Conservative" preachers would emphasize
the mystery of God concerning the contradictions.
The same can be said of Presbyterians under the Westminster confession, though it would not have been persecuted per se.
I don't have the ability to determine why MacArthur would have switched his views, as I don't know His heart. But with as much scholarship as he has put into his views I doubt he completely converted his views. So I think it could be another explanation. It could be acceptance among evangelical elites, intimidation of numbers, fear of a church backlash etc.
However I find it telling in MacArthur's "reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ" Here in this document MacArthur has to successfully refute himself.
One major objection to the eternally begotten doctrine is the fact That the Logos has to Relate to the father as Generated from the Father, yet the Holy Spirit on proceeds from the father and does not relate to the Father as a father at all. MacArthur had held this objection previously. So does he answer this dilemma?
"If Christ's sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as God's Son, do we? Yet isn't He also of the same essence as the Father?
"Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.
"In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply."
So he says it is a mystery! You can not answer irrational-ism with a mystery! How can you claim that Jesus the man can not be the Son of God and that he needs to be subordinate to the Father, when an equal spiritual person doesn't have to at all! If it is a mystery, then it has not been unveiled. If it is revelation it was a mystery; but a mystery no longer. God is not the author of confusion! Perhaps it is a mystery because God did not reveal it! When preachers use such irrational arguments they are not working on the side of God anymore. They are instead comforting the enemy. God is logical. The logos is logical. Yes, they are words which are completely connected.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
God communicates to us rationally. Religious politics is getting old.

6. Scriptural support for the only begotton Son being begotton on the earth

Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So the messiah was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is being begotten. Jesus fulfills the prophesy of being Emmanuel "God with us". So then Jesus is the one person and both natures are being spoken of. So then the Logos is having the verb "begotten" refer to the Incarnation.

Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Nottice How the centurion identifies the man as the son of God. Is he incoorrect. Is the Man not the Son?

John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
First why IS he identified as Word if he was eternally begotten Son? Secondly wouldn't "made flesh" be close enough to begotten to say that if Jesus is the only begotten son it was when the deity/Word was made flesh?

I may have this article edited in the future. But I wanted to get people thinking on this topic now.
In Christ,
Matt

The New Testament trinity verses the catholic trinity

2010-08-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

A. Scripture verses tradition
The very core of catholic verses new Testament Christian theology is irreconcilably different.
Catholicism is ran by human sources. It carries an undefined sacred tradition. It claims authority over the Biblical canon. It claims authority over interpretation. It claims the authority to make new traditions.
The New Testament church is ran by the Bible. The Bible has a fixed canon. Most New Testament Churches understand their regular duty to practice specifically what is taught in scripture.
"Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men." Nicene creed
While I do not necessarily have a problem with teachers of the early church, they are not an absolute source of authority because their teachings were human.
"and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Chalcedonian creed
The scriptures themselves clearly condemn subverting scripture to traditions of men.
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:1-9
The Scriptures are the foundation of our faith.
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2 Peter 3:1-2

B. Unsaved orthodoxy
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
nicene creed
Here we have two major errors in the way of salvation. One is a view of Baptism as the way of salvation; by implication that one must be saved through joining a particular church.
While baptism is a sign of salvation it is not the power of God which brings salvation. This is the Gospel.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 corinthians 1:17
The question is not which group we associate with but in whom we have believed.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

"He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."Athanasian Creed
Here we see that the creed states that God's judgment is constructed as a works based salvation. It is also stated that one's salvation or damnation depend on whether they believe this along with the rest of the creed.
However the gospel states clearly that no man is sinless or good.
16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19. Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. 22. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26. But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Romans 3:10-19

10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: 14. Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: 15. Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: 16. Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: 17. And the way of peace have they not known: 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
The Bible teaches that we are justified god's grace through faith, not of works.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Yet their is only one gospel which is essential to salvation to believe.
Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 3:1-2
1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Since these writers of the creeds have taught false teachings they are not to be viewed as the measurement for truth.
50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psalms 50:16-17

C. Historical development
The concept of the trinity was 1st developed by North African pastor Tertulian. He was in opposition to the doctrines of modalism. Tertulian's doctrine was simple and it would be 200 years before The church became catholic and the creed established. Over the centuries the theologians would stretch the doctrine further past Biblical explanation. This culminated in the creed of "athanasius", which was not written by Athanasius. This creed would effect the Western understanding of the trinity for centuries following.
"In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity
in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from which the doctrine springs. None the less Christ is acknowledged as the eternal Son of God and the supreme revelation of the Father, and the quickening Spirit of life is acknowledged to be derived ' from on high." And so, when the early Christians would describe their conception of God, all the three elements-God, Christ, and the Spirit-enter into the description, and the one God is found to be revealed in a threefold way." (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, Trinity, p 458)
"From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)

It is important when critiquing the catholic trinity that we are aware of the major heretical competitors and distinguish the New Testament trinity for their teachings.

gnosticism/adoption) Gnosticism was a pagan religion which fused itself with pagan concepts and therefore it is more like Mormonism with a view point between tri-theism and polytheism with Jesus being adopted into god-hood. This was one of the first identified heresies.

modalism)This view destroys all the distinctions in the Godhead. The idea that the names of the trinity do not represent persons, instead they are descriptions of the same person.

subordinationism) The idea that the Holy Spirit and the Son are the products of God the Father and therefore inferior in their deified nature.

Arianism) The idea, that though the Holy Spirit and the Son are like God they are not full in deity nor are they the same being as the Father. This also lead's to a practical paganism or Unitarianism depending.

All of these teachings are false. The Simple understanding of the trinity is One almighty God with three persons.
So essentially both Catholic and New Testament church models are trinitarian. The catholic model is simply more complex and less biblical.

D. Simple verses complex trinity
We see in the Athanasian Creed an overstatement of equality.

"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord."
Now here the writers of the creed are focused on pounding out the doctrine of the trinity. But as we will see see they focus more on the principles by means of philosophy as opposed to searching the scriptures.
Here we see terms and concepts that are not directly found in the scripture. For instance "incomprehensible". This term has several applications some Biblical some un-biblical. If we were trying to measure the vastness of God that would be incomprehensible. Yet if, define incomprehensible in terms of God being an illogical/irrational concept, then no that is heresy.
Where does the Bible discuss one verses three eternals? Or one verses three incomprehensibilities? This is not the type of discussion for the layperson and yet this is stated by the creed to be essential to the faith for salvation. Therefore the Creed is Hinting at salvation based on clergy. Since the lay person did not have access to the scriptures and would trouble understanding the concepts fully.
While The Nicene creed has a place for relational subordination, the athanasian creed has no such place which can lure one towards modelism.
As in the Athanasian creed "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal." The Bible doesn't say equality in glory. Instead it has the son and the spirit submitting their glory unto the father.

15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28

E. 3 persons related in submission verses three persons related in subordination.
Now there are different definitions to the word "subordination". Sometimes it is submission; in which case that would be true. Other times it is a rank of inferiority. The persons of the Godhead are equal in terms of power and therefore not subordinate.
Yet one way in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate is in their office both are tied to their descent into the earthly realm. Therefore in this light they were subordinate to the father since the Father was always reigning "in Heaven".
Both the Logos and the Holy Ghost inseparable to the Godhead therefore they have all the power of God behind them. Yet the scriptures will speak, when relating them together, to the Father as God, Jesus as Lord, and the Holy Spirit as Spirit.
However, the problem with traditional subordination is that the Holy Spirit and Christ appear as if they are different entities. This leads to the conclusion of tri-theism. This easily becomes paganism because the names of gods become synonymous.
Typically the scriptures emphasize the distinction in relation by calling the father-God and the Son-Lord.
4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 4:4-6
8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
13:13 \13:14\The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen. <[The second [epistle] to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, [a city] of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>
2 Corinthians 13:14

F. A Holy God who shares His glory with no one. vrs. A God who shares His glory with Mary
"truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union" Chalcedonian Creed
Here is where we see the deification of Mary first spring up. Chalcedon strong emphasizes the unity of Christ and then declares Mary to be the "mother of God". In fact, they rejected and even treated as heresy the idea of calling Mary the Mother of Christ. This insinuates that Christ would be subordinate to Mary. They try to stop this by saying Mary is mother according to the flesh.
However this doctrine is easy to override for the pagans. Catholics believe in "traducianism", in other words that people inherit their souls from their parents. So the one person Christ inherited His soul from His mother.
So then the person of the logos must have received a portion of his person-hood through Mary, This would imply that Christ is subordinate to Mary. Then Christ submits to His Mother and Mary is superior to the Son. But also remember That Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. So therefore, Mary has superior priority to two persons of the trinity!
While Catholic theologians may argue that they do not interpret the doctrine this way, they use icons and statues to convey this message constantly. Erecting statues of Mary in a glorify state by herself. Crowning these statues and calling her queen of Heaven. O have seen pictures in Vatican city displaying Mary in the fashion of a pagan goddess. Having Mary hang on a crucifix behind Jesus. In Chicago, Saint Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church has a statue of Mary over the ark of God. This would place Mary at the center of God's salvation.
44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. 44:27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that [are] in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.
Jeremiah 44:25-27

G. The invisible God vs a God of many idols.
Catholicism is monotheistic in terms profession but is polytheistic in terms of practices.
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
John 1:18

The point of God's invisibility is that God is not limited to the imagination. That God could only be perceived through his direct revelation. We only need to enter the Vatican to find images of God. In the Sistine chapel God the Father is depicted as a large naked man. Also the persons of the Godhead have separate depictions making it appear 3 gods.
In the world of paint and iconic imagery God is humiliated. His power is limited to the artist. Even if He is portrayed as powerful it is only there due to the permission of the artist.
This is the great curse of Catholicism. Man has authority over God. How could God ever approved? It has been said that there are priests who practice but no longer have faith in God. I have not met that many priest, but I have met several Catholics who are atheist. They will still practice their religion, but they have no personal faith in God. I met a fella at work who denied the existence of God, the Bible etc. He said he was raised catholic. He was very liberal and secular; as I tried to witness to him he seemed oblivious to any concerns. But then U had an idea, I became very critical of the pope and the papal system, I argue against the efficiency of the sacramental system. All of the sudden his confidence and calm were gone, He started to argue very passionately and act offended. But why would an atheist be so protective of the papacy? The fact is for a lot of people, the RCC is a back up worldview. They may live as heathens, but in case their is judgment they may find shelter in the papacy. I believe the key to this error is the idea that man somehow has authority over God. As long as we break the commandment.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.1 John 5:21

H. What does this mean?
Now I want to be careful in my judgment here. The doctrine of the trinity is essential to salvation. Yet the requirement for this is consistent with childlike faith. In other words, I believe we are required to understand the simple doctrine of the trinity according to our maturity. In general, I accept the premise that most Catholics are trinitarian. The differences, are minor and I assume that God would not judge the laity over this.
Yet there are theological consequences. By minimizing personal distinctions, I believe this provided a background for Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelian philosophy "thomism". This is the main "classical apologetic" approach. Wherein Aquinas argues for the existence of a Unitarian god. He claims that it is rational to argue for a Unitarian God. But that the trinitarian God requires revelation and faith. I believe that the real reason is because the Athanasian version of the trinity provided Catholic theologians a more modelistic view point which made trinitarianism appear irrational. Also Aquinas is borrowing from the writings of Unitarian Greeks and Muslims. The real problem is that this apologetics can never be of evangelistic use to Christians since it can not defend what is uniquely and essentially Christian.
One main issue, is that this serves us notice of the divorce between New Testament Christianity and Roman Catholicism. As shown in previous articles we have a different history, a different salvation, a different canon, a different worship, a different hierarchy, a different Christ and finally a different God. Roman Catholic is a completely Separate religion from New Testament Christianity. Mainline protestantism may have ties with Catholicism but we do not find this in scripture.

In Christ,
Matt

Gospel cenetered apologetic approach

2010-07-08T11:03:00.000-07:00

Step 1 Materialism disprove by empirical facts

a. The existence of the mind
Materialism assumes that only the physical universe exists. Therefore everything has evolved from our material environment.
However humans do have at least one immaterial organ called the mind. Our minds can process information and develop ideas that do not come to us through the physical environment. Scientist are incapable of refuting this idea, since encountering this argument validates the existence of their own minds.
Some have claimed that while the mind is immaterial, it is the by-product of the brain. This worldview fails to explain why ideas foraign to the environment are still being produced.
The implications of an immaterial substance such as the mind are staggering. The mind being immaterialis not necessarily subject to scientific law. Even the death of the brain doesn't stop the existence of the mind. Theoretically a mind could live in an immaterial plane forever.
b. The existence of otherminds (spirits, God)
Now that we have found evidence of another dimension where these ideas are given out. It stands to reason that if the mind may exist in this realm and all humanity has a mind. Then there is a realm of spirits. This realm may contain not only human spirits but other spiritual beings as well.

c. The science of psychology
While it is true that psychology is not a hard science. Psychology applies the scientific method to the human mind. With nearly two centuries of documentation is that we have enough evidence to show that the the mind and the spiritual/mental worlds are indeed a reality.

Some may look this argument and wonder "why do we have to answer the objections of materialism if only a small population actually hold these views?" We must answer these objections in order that others do not use this scheme as a way of denying the Christians their right to present a truth claim. When in search of truth we must find more than conviction but also authority.

Step 2 Religion proved as an empirical fact
A. regardless of worldview, humanity relates itself to something which is trancsendent.
B. humanity also finds itself inadequate, needing to ascend to a higher plane.

What we are doing here is establishing universally accepted facts. Many people do not nottice just how authoritative their beliefs are. But upon when majority opinions are discovered, they shrink the intellectual oposition drastically. It is the experience of all people that they relation to something higher and they find themselves to be short of it. Humanity is designed as a religious race. There has to be a reason and truth behind it.

Step 3 The Christian Experience has the right to be assumed.
(Christian experience is understood as the sum and universal experience of Christians from gospel presentation through death; also known as Christian testimony)
(as a prerequisite to this arguement a full gospel presentation is advisable.)
A. Christian experience answers the universal needs of religion.
Since religion is empirically true, we now see how that correlates with the christian religious experience. Christianity obviously answers these universal maxims. Qualifying it's existence as a truth claim.
B. Christian experience has a great multitude of witnesses which claim faith as fact.
So essentially as the old argument goes "on the testimony of two witnesses truth is established in a court of law. The millions of christian testimonies is now weigheighed as evidence to the christian truth claim.

C. Christian witness is not just subjective but historical as well.
We need to nottice the wide variety of witnesses. All walks of life, young-old, nationality-skin color, past-future all religious backgrounds, professions etc. This shows the truth and durability of the NT religion.

This method at this point becomes very practical to ministers. Because they not only prepare the lost for the gospel. They also build the gospel presentation into it. Apologetics is now properly assisting evengelism.

Step 4 The Christian experience implies revelation
A. If the effect of Christian experience is true, then the cause of divine revelation is valid.
B. If divine revelation is fact then christianity is no longer subjective, but objective fact. (this is because the divine word teaches such of itself.)

This is a key stage of the apologetic argument. We are now moving from subjective claims to objective facts. Presuppositionalism has always had problems establishing it's authority to those skeptical because their facts are not universally accepted. Classical apologetics has always had trouble using their subjective evidence to make absolute assertions. The combination of both strengths is then reinforced in the gospel presentation which reaches the minds of all and reinforces the convictions of the faithful.
Nottice the law of cause and effect being used to translate the logic.

Step 5 Christianity with authority as presuppositional fact.
A. All alternative worldview religions must pass the test of logical coherence before their criticisms may be rendered valid.
(we know of course all the false religions will fail.)
B. Questions of coherence may be asked by Christians towards the scriptures. Other worldviews will lack authority to criticize since they will be proved to be irrational.
(the Bible is coherent. So at this point we seek answers from the scriptures over any concerns.)
By faith and a lot of experience I understand that the Bible has no contradictions. While we must be prepared to answer objects we are in desparate need to demand answers of the alternative religions. A spoonful of sugar may help the medicine go down. But everybody knows... too much sugar rots out your teeth!

step 6 biblical support for the steps of the argument
a. 2Corinthians4:7, Romans 1:19-20
b. psalm 117, acts 17:22-30
c. 1corinthians 15:1-9, 2 corinthians 3:2-3
d. galatians 1, matthew 5:18-22
e. job 38-40

What do you believe about believing?

2010-07-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

What is faith's nature?
A. faith is belief:In the Greek "pisteuo" is the same word translated "believe" or "faith". So to have faith is synonymous with believe.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23

B. belief is passive: To believe is to receive information. Therefore it is not a work.
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
John 1:12

What is biblical faith?
A. Faith is presuppositional
Belief is subjective for humans. However it understands itself to find origin in revelation. Faith finds it's authority not in a man made means of determining truth, but receives the objective truth in the revelation from the mind of God.
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

B. Faith is not artificial/imaginary
faith in the New testament is referred to as blind. Meaning that it is not developed by the human mind, but instead is delivered by God
2Corinthians 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

What is saving faith?
A. Saving faith is in Christ
Christ is the object of saving faith.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
1 John 5:13-15

B. Saving faith is the by-product of the gospel.
10:17 So belief `cometh' of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Romans 10:9-17

Is saving faith true?
A. Saving faith is rational
If faith were irrational it could not be perceived or verified as true. It may even be a lie.
1 Corinthians 14:33
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

How can Protestants have faith without works?

A. Faith means belief.
As stated earlier the Bible says we will be justified without our own righteousness.
Romans 3:19-23
"19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

B. There are good works, they are imputed by Christ as grace.
Christ was the sinless spotless lamb. Therefore, His good deeds gave him credit in the eyes of God.

C. Regeneration and good works/sanctification come as the by-product of saving faith alone.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10
Good works can only be considered good after justification and regeneration.
Philippians 3:7-8
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Saving faith is without works, yet it will by nature create good works.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23
James 2:18
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

We must remember there is one faith unto salvation.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ephesians 4:4-6

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

When the music fades... Tuning out John Piper's Christian Hedonism hangover

2010-04-19T08:36:00.000-07:00

1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Colossians 1:28
Conservatives have been caught in awe by the teachings of John Piper. Piper is a reformed Theologian and philosopher and pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnasota. Piper is one of the leading conservative evangelicals instrumental in the revival of calvinism. Evangelical colleagues hold Piper in great esteem across the board.
What is interesting is that Piper has labeled himself as a radical and controversial, yet we do not see a great deal of christians openly criticizing or opposing him.
"you can see why this starts to get controversial. It's the seriousness of it all."John Piper Dangerous Duties of Delightpg. 15
Unlike many teachers whom I have examined, Piper's false teachings are very secretive. A person doesn't pick up anything on the first read. So these teachings simply slip into the subconscious. Yet they are there and I am determined here to expose them.
Now I know that in this critique there will be many fans of John Piper who will be angered for their leader being critiqued. I am not saying that Piper is not a saved man. Nor am I saying that he doesn't possess good teachings for Chrisitians today. I think he, like many high level evangelicals can preach the gospel correctly and have in the past. But as Paul said.
5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Galatians 5:9

There are poisonous parts to Piper's teaching that may one day destroy the spiritual lives of Piper's disciple's.
So I want it to be understood that I am not attacking Piper the man, instead I am trying to focus upon the teachings of Piper. I try not to lay
judgement on individual souls, yet even scripture sometimes has to correct people by name.

1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3 John 1:9
A respectable teacher can do much more damage than a noted heretic can, because he has the trust of very devout christian people.

Piper and other sources:

30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:5-6

When we read Piper we find a great deal of reliance upon other preachers in his theology and philosophy. While I beleive that we should respect and listen to the Christian teachers of the past, we must be very careful not to give authority away that was formerly occupied by Christ.
One example of leaning to other sources is in the Book "Brothers, We are Not Professionals". It is common practice for an author to head a chapter with a famous quote, which may summarize a chapter, or give authority to the point of a chapter. Piper practices this obsessively with this particular book. He quotes several scripture passages. (25) The Piper quotes other popular authors. (18) But what is disturbing is the fact that he quotes himself more than the other two, on over 40 occaisions! Why would he need to exalt his own words so much? This just seems bizarre to me. Yet Piper does the same in several publications. This identifies the fact that Piper is a strong advocate of what's called the "Normative Principle". In other words, Piper doesn't use scripture as the only authority. What's more is that neither do the "Christian" leaders whom he relies on.
Piper looked to several theological leaders for instance:
Augustine: Augustine has been a key source of inspiration for calvinist since before calvin, in the writings of Luther. They particularly loves his doctrines of divine sovereignty. However, if taken and appraised by bible believers, even biblical Calvinists will find doctrine which is inherently false. Prior to Augustine's conversion he was popular as professor of platonic philosophy and for a breif time Mannechianism. So Augustine's background was filled with teachings of the Heathen.
He would go to teach many doctrines alongside his better arguments for grace such as.
A. apocrypha
B. Instantaneous creation
C. sex as the original sin
D. federal headship (with imputed guilt)
E. Infant Baptism
F. sacramental salvation
G. theocracy
H. double predestination
I. a form of the ransom theory (like christus victor)
J. justification mixed with works
K. replacement theoogy and amillenialism
L. Purgatory
Here let me breifly explain how these doctrines lead in a different and platonic worldview. The Apocrypha, which augustine championed as canonical, was written by platonic alexandrine Jews. It is this document that contains arguments for purgatory, which augustine accepted.
As a Platonist, augustine felt a rational God would not waste 7 days to create the earth. He also decided the original sin was sex. This implies that man's sinful nature is purely physical. This of course matched platonism. This was decided by Adam and humanity is guilty of adam's sex with eve and that alone. This builds augustine's case for infant baptism that his Roman Catholic culture was free from original sin due to being sprinkled as children. Augustine believed in the papacy and identified it as the Kingdom of God. Therefore all who are catholic are members of the Holy Roman Empire, which is the kingdom of God. the Roman Catholic kingdom was predestined by God to conquer the earth then. Jesus had come to destroy the devil. Jesus death on the cross was not simply to pay for sin, but a way to defeat the devil. Salvation is not directly through Christ but by direct entrance into the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was the true Israel and had a right to take Israel by force. Thoe who are not obedient to the empire but citizens will pay their dues in purgatory.
Although Augustine was more biblical in his commentaries and indeed changed his views with the passage of time. He was a philosophic Platonist with an awkward testimony and a theological bias. For these reasons Piper should not have relied so heavily upon this Catholic teacher.
Many Calvinists have been devoted to Augustine. Yet they should be careful to observe the distinction of John Calvin.
"The only difference betweeon our division and that of Augustine is, that ours (in accordance with the words of our Saviour,'All prophets and the Law prophesied until John,' Matth. Xi.13) distinguishes between gospel light and that more obscure dispensation of the world which proceeded it, while the other division simply distuinguishes between the weakness of the Law and the strength of the gospel." John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion book II chapter XI section 10 pg. 395

C.S Lewis
C.S. Lewis was popular as a skeptic turned Christian. He was known as a brilliant apologist and writer, who wrote the 2oth centuries most popular apologetic work Mere Christianity. Yet though Lewis had left such positive contributions to society. Lewis also taught many heretical teachings and lived a hedonistic lifestyle, which left his salvation in question. (cursing, fornication, adultery, drunkeness etc.)
A. Lewis believed in evolution)As a professor at cambridge, Lewis was indoctrinated withthe naturalistic worldview before professing Christianity. The Anglican church did not provide much of a fight against these doctrines. So Lewis retained these heresies by default. Evolution denies the fact that God had a role in Creation. If God did not have the strength to create the world, how did he perfomr other miracles. This also destroys the doctrine of fall and sinful nature as well.
B. Lewis denied biblical innerrancy) a necessary consequence of evolution is denial of the innerrancy of scripture. This leaves the christian worldview open for criticism on any level. This is the place where the gospel can be tampered with the gospel of salvation in favor of a more catholic
C. Lewis denied penal substitution and New Testament Salvation) Lewis did tamper with the gospel of salvation in favor of a more catholic version. Lewis held that Christ died on the cross as a victory over the devil. Which means that his death was not meant to forgive us specifically for all sins.
D. As an episcopalien Lewis held to sacramental gospel and even considered conversion to the Roman Catholic church.
Lewis is a hero to those who claim tobe evangelicals. Yet it is little known his theological doctrine and immoral lifestyle. Though Lewis had many arguments for "mere Christianity" . His doctrines fall short of "real Christianity".

Jonathon Edwards
Probably the most orthodox of all the above. Edwards was extremely succesful and very conservative. Although Edwards was different from many revivalist of today in the fact that he was an academic success more so than a church success.
Edwards home denomination (congregationalists) went and fell apart today all that is left is the apostate unitarian church. Edwards school (harvard) grew apostate and has for the last century been a strong force openly opposing the gospel of christ as opposed to helping ministers.
What is interesting is that Piper spends a great deal of time covering Edwards accolades since he is the primary source for Piper's philosophy. Yet though Edwards does improve Calvinistic doctrine in an Evangelical direction . Edwards will have the same philosophic influences that were in the theology of Augustine.

In response all, with the obvious exception of Jonathon edwards, these leaders denied the fundamental principle of justification by grace through faith alone. Augustine and Pascal(another influence) were devout Catholics. C.S. Lewis was a liberal Episcopalian who denied penal substitution and exclusive salvation. but according to the Bible there is only one gospel:

1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:6-12
There is no doubt in my mind that this gospel is directly connected to Justification by grace through faith alone.
2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God Forbid. 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Galatians 2:16-19
So Piper, while being conservative in his esteem of the Bible. Fails to practice the regulative principle of the Bible. This is where his philosophy will fall short in his gospel of Glory.
With so many unregenerate influences Piper's theology has got to be flawed at some point.
50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psalms 50:16-17
The Bible clearly says that we should separate ourselves from false teaching.
6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Romans 16:17
Piper and most new Evangelicals will look to the Catholic faith and catholic teachings, which were invented by men who never experienced being born again and practiced various forms of witchcraft in the guise of Christianity. It is fairly obvious that Piper wants not simply to discuss the gospel but points of calvinism instead. In stressing these men his calvinistic writers have introduced him to Roman catholic ideas which he intrudes to Baptists.

God
Double predestination
One major problem with hyper-calvinism is that it has God as responsible for evil. Now regular calvinists argue that man is responsible for evil while God has predestinated good. However in supra-lapsarian hyper-calvinism, God has predestinated evil. He escapes the charge being the auther of evil only on the technicality that he is not directly involved in the evil himself.
This is ultimately heresy. Because the God of the Bible is Holy, and he does not tempt anyone to sin.
1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:13
This fatalistic God is almost Mannichean. A God of good and a god evil dually.
While it is true that God is Sovereign and has given permission for evil to exist, does it then follow that he has to make evil happen?

"So what we are considering here is that God rules the world in such a way that all calamities and all sin remain in His ultimate control and therefore within his ultimate design and purpose." Desiring God pg 338
This also makes the Lord an ammoral God. He appears more distant, after all good is no longer the Lord's single desire.

"Is God the author of Evil?" ibid pg338
"Then there is no reason to believe that Satan is ever out of God's ultimate control." ibid pg.342
Author) noun 1. a.The original writer of an abreviated work. b. one who practices writing as a profession. 2. An originator or creator. 3. to assume responsibility for the content of (a published or unpublished text).
(from the American heretage dictionary)
Obviously we will be concerned with the second definition.
Piper may not want us to see this, but he has implied that God is indeed the creator of evil.
Which would mean God is in fact, according to Piper, the author of evil.

"If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's Holiness in hetred of sin or in showing any preference, in his providence, of Godliness before it."
Desiring God pg.350 (quoting Jonathon Edwards)
I want you to nottice a word slipped in on this argument. In order for God to be holy, not only must He permit sin, but he must decree it as well. What does "decree" mean?

Decree) noun 1. An authoritative order having the force of law. 2. law The judgement of a court of equity. admirality, probate, or divorce. 3. Roman catholic church a. A doctrinal or disciplinary act of an ecumenical council. b. An administrators act applying of canon law.
verb. 1. to ordain establish, or decide by decree (from American heretage dictionary)
So by stating that God decrees moral evil, we see that God has authoritatively created evil. Which is another word for making God the author evil.

"But he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not sin in willing that there be sin." Desiring God pg.347
I am sure Charles Manson and Al Capone wished that Piper would be there lawyer! At this point Piper stops going to the scriptures, but to Edwards who will make a new rule,
"[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult to suppose that one maybe otherwise than the other."
So here we have a doctrine introduced that God has two wills, which may be possibly be able to contradict each other. Where does the Bible say that God has two wills? Not to mention that the trinity declares God to have one being in three persons. Now, itis true that God is sovereign over the universe andthat the world is no longer a good place.
However this would not be a delimma if we would admit to the existence of free-will! God has now been distorted and quite mannichaen appearing just to keep people thought of as robots.
Piper tries to put up a scarecrow argument by bringing up "open theism" as the only alternative to double predestination. This heresy ironically was invented by an ex-calvinist Clark Pinnock. Piper doesn't mention amyrauldians, arminians, wesleyans, or even semi-pelagians who do not hold to this doctrine.

Is the deterministic God the same as the God of the Bible?

19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17

4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:4

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31

7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Ecclesiastes 7:29

The God of the Bible is not only good, but He also created a good world. Death and suffering are a result of the sin of mankind.

5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12
When people argue over the problem of Evil, they do so from an evolutionary standpoint. They see a world with moral evil, death and suffering. Then assume God as responsible for all of it.
Yet the Bible doesn't paint this portrait of it.

13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:24-30

13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 13:37-43
It is important to note that evil in it's origin is attributed to the devil. The action of evil was not actualized until it came from the heart of lucifer.
God created a perfect being named lucifer, and it was Lucifer's free decision to inventevil and tempt Adam.

28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezekiel 28:15
Many double predestinarians get confused over the nature of evil. They assume it is an existing thing and therefore must have been created by God. However the Biblical metaphor of Light and Darkness teaches that evil is not a substance, but is in fact a lack thereof. This was the reason Augustine left the mannichean school. ( in Augustine's confessions.

3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
So evil is not the creation of God, but indeed the descent from God. The God of the Bible is Holy and separate. So now the good God of scripture is dealing with an evil creation that is not His fault. He acts in His providence, not to make moral evil,but to take pre-existing moral evil alongside an evil-spawned curseand manipulate them to His good moral Will. So God;s morality does not contradict providence. Which helps us believers.

8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Romans 8:27-28

The Selfish God
"The ultimate ground for Christian Hedonism is the fact that God is upper most in His own affections. The Chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever." Desiring God pg. 31
In Piper's philosophy God is essentially prideful doing everything for His glory. Now this is an easy concept to confuse. God is all powerful and all-knowing. God is Sovereign over all creation. If you are absolutely objective and all powerful everything should flow in your direction. Plus you can not esteem yourself too highly being onfinite.
However, God declares that pride is a sin. God is Holy and has no sin. Piper and his followers are mocking God to paint Him is such a sinful fashion. Because instead of correcting their error, they merely insist we must be obediant to this perverted notion.

4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1 John 4:8

13:4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Now charity is another word for "Love". (as testified by modern translations)
In First John we see that God is directly indentified as not simply possessing the attribute of love, but actually being Love. In this 1 corinthian passage, first we see a biblical definition of love. If anything love is the opposite of pride. So the God of the Bible is not prideful or selfish. What about the verse "seeketh not her own"? Doesn't Hedonism declare that God seeketh after His own?

5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:48

19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
Matthew 19:21

2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Philippians 2:5-10
Here in Matthew we see a command of perfection. This is another way of commanding Godliness. Part of the definition of Godliness is shown in getting rid of what you have and giving it to the poor. In otherwords to be like God is to be humble and not self-seeking or self-interested.
In Philippians we see proof of this in describing Christ. Christ had all the glory of God. Yet he humbled himself. First,to take the form of a man, where he did not even begin to reveal his deity until the age of 30. Then he truly humiliated himself through the crucifixion.

Power is the key to happiness?
"And if none of his purposes can be frustrated, then he must be the happiest of all beings." pg.32 Desiring God.
What we can deduce from Piper's philosophy, God's morality is quite different from the ethics he demands of us. Though also different from the behavior of Christ who emptied himself.
Is God happy because simply he is the most powerful? Is "what he is" more important than who He is?

2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Philippians 2:5-10
How can Jesus be infallibly happy, when according to Piper, happiness emanates from omnipotence and jesus has temporarily denied himself of those priviledges

Jesus
Piper's Liom/lamb: Nestorianism
"So Christ is a lamb-like Lion and a lion-like lamb. That is his glory-'an admirable conjunction of diverse Excellencies."
Seeing and savoring Christ pg. 31
Many modern catholics have critiqued calvinist as being Nestorians. Claiming that we have split the incarnation up into two categories, human and deity. I defend calvinists and other reformation period writers as holding the Biblical understanding of the incarnation. Yet if we over emphasize a double predestination God we eventually can move toward a nestorian Christ. Piper is sadly illustrating that principle in his devotional.

The Damned Sacrifice: Jesus endured Hell on the Cross
"Jesus Christ perfectly righteous and perfectly damnedon the cross in our place". from audio of John Piper at the 2008 resolved conference "Jesus Christ the damned?" by Coram Deo July 19, 2008. www.defendingcontending.com

12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 12:3
There has been record that Piper, alongside with several other contemporary Calvinists have been preaching at his crusades that Jesus was actually damned on the cross. In other words, while Christ did not burn in the lake of Fire, his spirit bore the wrath of God while he was dying on the cross.
Now this seems very familiar with the fundamental doctrine of Christ propitiation. The major difference is that christ was not simply paying the price of sin but was being convicted guilty of it. Christ paid the price of sin in his physical body by death. But His spirit is unified with the deity of the logos, the second person of the trinity.
To condemn Christ is to condemn God. Some of these sloppy reformers haveeven speculated that there was a division in the Godhead. Yet the Idea of the eternal father convicting the damning the eternal son contradicts the trinity
and is therefore heresy.

Infallible happiness: Jesus was never sad or gloomy, but always happy.
"But the glory and the grace of Jesus is that he is, and always will be indestructably happy. I say it is his glory, because gloom is not glorious." Seeing and Savoring Christ [g. 36]
While it is easy to rationalize this view if you are a pius christian. This cross was not an instrument of joy. Plus, Jesus did not seem joyful in approaching it.

matt. 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
sorrow 1.n. 1. Mental suffering or pain caused by injury, loss, or despair. 2. A source or cause of sorrow; a misfortune. 3. Expression of sorrow, greiving verb. To feel or express sorrow; grieve. (from American heretage dictionary)
Exeedingly sorrowful is not the same as joy or infallibly joyful. The Jesus of John Piper doesn't appear to be one who could be exceedingly sorrowful.

Matt. 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Here Christ, in his humanity, is askng the Father if there is any other way. Yet if christ were simply in a quest acquire joy, why would he step back? It appears to me that Christ would proceed in the crucifixion not out of the pleasure it brings. But out of obedience to the Father and out of faith in Jehovah. (see Romans 4:24-5:1)

26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak.

Christ obediance is implied here as well. As he looks upon the disobedience of his own disciples. Perhaps this motivates the humanity of Christ as he experiences the need for his sacrifice to save his fleshly followers.

26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Matthew 26:38-42
Christ sacrifice was first the will of the "father". Secondly Christ does consent to hus brutal death out of sheer joy, but instead in obediance toward the Father.
Also I find great strength when Christ is not happy. Because as I kook at the world. It comforts me to know that my pain saddens christ and that he was not happy to die and bear the wrath of the father for my sins. It shows us that Christ while eing God was also human. It means he understands us even in weakness. It makes His love an effort which I can adore.

Salvation
Obviously Piper's view of salvation is calvinistic. Piper has always prided himself on being in reformed theology. though there have been recordings of Piper preaching general atonement on the internet, apparently inspired by the teachings of millard Erickson. (although this was most likely a temporary statement) This is closer to my views. however we would still differ on his emphases on election and the doctrine of irresistable grace. (see my article on Calvinism critiqued from an amyrauldian point of view.)
However as we shall explore. It has been reported that Piper has fallen short of calvinistic orthodoxy and that is indeed very perplexing. Is apperas that Piper is in support of "Federal Vision". This doctrine denies the calvinistic view of redemptive history. I myself follow a dispensational view of redemptive history and yet I find the calvinistic model still an essential analogy in understa ding the final judgement and our salvation.
Essentially in covenant theology humanity isdivided up in a covenant of Grace and a covenant of works. Those under Adam are without christ and judged under a covenant of works they shall be found guilty of their sins and condemned undeer this covenant. Those under Christ are under grace since Christ has atoned for all their sins and imputed righteousness through their faith; they will inherit the kingdom.
While I may not hold this proper for a timeline, this is the biblical analogy for salvation. The Bible uses this analogy throughout scripture.

4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 4:23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Galatians 4:22-26

Yet Piper has taken an odd turn rejecting the covenant of works.
"Yet I am hesitant to call Jesus' obediance in life and death a fulfillment of a 'covenant of works'. This term generally implies a that 'works' stand over against 'grace'. and are not the fulfillment of faith in grace. Thus works implies a relationship with God that is more like an employer recieving earned wages than in a son trusting his father's generosity." Future Grace pg.413
So here Piper argues that Jesus never fulfilled the covenant of works. Yet if he did not fulfill the covenant of works, who did?

5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12
All of us are related to Adam, and we are all under the curse of sin and death. If Christ did not fulfill the covenant of works then we are still under the covenant of works.
Piper seems to have a problem with Jesus being under a covenant of works. But the Bible says He was
15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:20-22
The very fact Christ died places him under the covenant of works with Adam. This brings us to the penalty of death.

3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Galatians 3:13
Since Christ paid the penalty of death for us, it is evident that Christ indeed fulfilled the covenant of works.

3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one. 3:21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:15-22
Earlier Piper stated that he did not agree to a covenant of works. Yet Christ had to fulfill a covenant of works, not for his salvation, but for ours. God's justice had to be satisfied. So Christ had to fulfill this coventnant to make his collateral worthy of universal propitiation.

1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Colossians 1:20
You can notmaintain a gift if you are under debt.

Future Grace (payment withheld)

A few years ago, I was blessed by a book that Piper wrote called "Counted Righteous in Christ. It rightly indentified that faith is not a merit na d bravely took on the "new interpretation of Paul". It was honoring Justification by grace through faith alone.
Only now, I have been shocked to find that Piper has in fact attacked the same doctrine on a different front. Could this have been a motivation for writing "counted righteous in Christ"?
Regardless, "Future Grace" redefines faith as well. Faith is seen as a virtue, which fuses Justification and sanctification together.
"The aim of this book is to examine how the Faith that justifies also sanctifies." pg. 21 Future Grace
Here, Piper sees the New Testament as a conditional covenant whereby we must fulfill a life of faith in order to experience justification. While I think the formula may be original, this was a common delimma for the puritans. Salvation was offered by grace and yet assurance of salvation was through works. This nullifies the meaning and effect of justification by grace through faith alone. Because salvation is not yet fully recieved. Since the faith must be produced over a life time.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 5:24
As we see here in the gospel of John everlasting life is a present stage for the Believer. They "hath" everlasting life. They are not lokking forward when they already have it. This is why they shall not fall into condemnation.

5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:10-13
Assurance of salvation is based upon faith in Christ and not upon our actions. this is not just an implication but the message which John has for us today.

New Conditional Covenant
"When the Old Testament says that covenant keeping is the condition for recieving God's lovingkindness, that's what it meant ... All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace-both the old and the new covenant. They offer all sufficient Future Grace for those who keep the covenant. But what it does say is that all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our keeping." Future Grace pg. 249

3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:13-17
Here we see the Baptism of Christ as Jesus literally makes the New Covenant. He insist upon it, though he has nothing to repent of. He says that his act will fulfill all righteousness. He then promises His death buriel and resurrection. In this covenant He is then anointed with the Holy Spirit, and the Father claims him as His Son in whom he is well pleased. What conditions did Christ ask of the people in fulfilling the covenant?

2:2 And 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
The work of Christ, his propitiatory sacrifice was done for the sins of mankind, no conditions are asked of this covenant.

4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 4:11 These things command and teach.
1 Timothy 4:10-11
The Deity Jesus Christ is the savior of all mankind. therefore there is no condition if everyone is involved.

3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Romans 3:21-26
In Theology we refer to the "Righteousness of God" in this passage as alien righteousness. Verse 22 states this righteousness is by the faith of Christ and not of us. It is "unto all" and "upon all them that believe" making this a passive reception of righteousness; and not an act of obedience by us. It is the faithfulness and merit of Christ. Verse 23 reasons the universal sinfulness of man requires this unconditional grace. Verse 24 "Being freely justified by his grace" there are no obligations or duties in justification since it is free. Verse 25 announces that it was the act of God in making a propitiation "through faith in His blood" faith is passive again. Finally verse 26shows that God is the justifier of them "which believe in Jesus" God saving the believers. The believers are not fulfilling duties but instead are passive as God justifies them.

Sanctifying Faith is different from justifying Faith.

5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Galatians 5:16-25
As we begin the passage, we are commanded to walk in the Spirit(16). This is an action of sanctification.
"My point in this book is that the faith which is the occaision of justification, is the same faith through which sanctifying power comes to the justified sinner." Future Grace
Here Piper is bring his faith closer to the Roman Catholic definition.
Catholicism teaches that faith is a gift and that the infusion of righteousness allows us to be sanctified. Also, that if a christian perseveres in faith producing works, they will be saved. You may say that Piper is still saying faith alone; but ultimately Justifying faith is never alone. After all justification depends on faith but faith is dependent on works.
Another problem is that faith is used in two different actions. Trust to recieve forgiveness and faithfulness toward a christian lifestyle are two different things. Just as being strong at weightlifting and having a strong will are not the same. One word can be used two different ways.
"It is faith alone which justifies, but the faith which justifies is never alone." Future Grace pg. 21
Nottice the lack of clarity in the motto. If faith in the sense of justification is never alone, it can not be alone.
The place of Christ in Piper's soteriology is incredibly diminished. It is the works of the Father and the spirit, which allows the sinner to be more righteous. While Christ only offers a conditional covenant by which if they are faithful then they may recieve future forgiveness. the act of salvation is then mixed with the act of man.

"It is sufficient for salvation, for it necessarily produces good worksof love just as a good tree necessarily produces good fruit. Protestants and Catholics agree on this. The Pope even told German Lutheran Bishops so over a decade ago, and they were startled and delighted. the two churches issued a public joint statement on justification, a statement of agreement. Protestants and Catholics do not have essentially different religions, different ways of salvation." Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli Handbooks of Christian Apologetics pg. 32, 33.
Here we see Catholic Apologists have already capitolized on Protestants redefining the faith.
"By Grace I do not merely mean the pardon of God passing over your sins, but also the power and beauty of God to keep you from sinning. By faith I do not merely mean the confidence that Christ died for your sins, but the confidence that God will 'also with him freely give us all things' (Romans8:32). Faith is primarily future orientedassurance of things hoped for' (Hebrews 11:1)." pg.13 Future Grace
Here Piper wants to focus on the evangelistic concepts of grace and faith, he fuses the concepts of Justification and sanctification. This makes salvation a lifelong process just like Catholicism. This desire to redefine terms is a classic strategy of the cults.
Do not be fooled, this is not the traditional protestant concept.
"Because the Holy Spirit is received by faith, and hearts are renewed and put on new affections so that they can accomplish good works. For Ambrose says 'Faith is the mother of good will and righteous action'" Augsburg Confession XX. B.
Justifying faith is first, only then through the Holy Spirit's regeneration and sanctificationare we able to produce good works. Faith being the mother is totally independant of her "good works" children.

Not so sure Assurance(Sure? ? ? Unsure!!!)
"If faith in future grace means believing believing the promises of God, how is it that those promises could be believed and yet the 'believer' not be saved?
"This is impossibly implied in Matthew 7:21-23:'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name did we not cast out many demons, and in your name perform many miracles? and I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me you practice lawlessness.' These folks believed that they were secure. Otherwise they would not have been stunned at Jesus rejection." pg.197 Future Grace
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:21-23
This is a major text used to declare that faith alone cannot save. However we must understand that "justification through faith alone" is a great mystery that was not revealed until the apostleship of te apostle Paul. Christ was operating under the Old Covenant.

15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:
Romans 15:8
3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 3:2-9
Jesus ministry was under the law or Jewish covenant.The same with Peter and the Jerusalem church. Paul was unveiling the dispensation or age of Grace.
Consistent with the gospel to the gentiles was the declaration of justification by grace through faith alone.
Besides, the espoused by the damned was not at all faith alone. This was a religious faith. We nottice that they declare JesusLord, yet there is personal identification to Jesus. This is indeed a lordship faith. There is absolutely no claimed salvation based upon the works and promises of Christ. Instead there is a demand of eternity based upon dead works. There is a false idea of faith for salvation, but it is indeed going in the opposite direction. We should not at all be intimidated by the charge of sin.
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter; 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Galatians 2:7-8
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 2:15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Galatians 2:14-19

For legalists work in sin.
3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:10-11
2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
James 2:10

So it is obvious that these religious folk were stunned by the fact that their good worksfor salvation, were in fact iniquity before the Lord. Remember that we who have placed faith in Christ are righteous before God.
3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
Philippians 3:8

2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
James 2:23
Finally as to the nature of faith. In the book of James, written before God's revelations to Paul, James is using the word "faith" with a different definition. This book is written to address issues of religious practice. Faith here refers to a belief system. Religion is the practice of man;while salvation is the act of God. (see my article "Does James really teach works based salvation?").
Now if religios faith does not save, what faith is saving? Religious faith is something that comes from us. It may involve our imagination. It may acknowledge truth, and yet not ascend to the truth from the heart.

10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:9
This is a passive faith, but it is sincerely at the center of our beings, as a result of hearing the precious gospel.
10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:8
10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10:17

Some may ask of the spiritual gift of faith. This depends on whether we belive that faith is prior to the new birth. I believe that the Holy Spirit will, then regenerate the passive faith we have. This will secure the perseverence of the saints.

Conditional Grace and Merit
"It should be plain from this, that fulfilling conditions does not imply earning anything, Grace is still free even when it is conditional. Do not equate meeting conditions of Grace with earning or meriting grace." pg.234 Future Grace
Here I believe Piper is doing something in theological circles known as "double speak". In the late 1950's when liberals infiltrated the pulpits of Southern Baptist churches: They would argue for the scriptures to the congregations and against the word of God at Seminaries I think Piper is preaching a type pf works based salvation while trying to argue he is not. I think his definitions are lining up more with Rome.
"2006 The term merit refers in general to recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of it's members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving of reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtueof Justice, conformitywith the principle of equality and justicewhich governs it." Catechism of the Catholic Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church pg. 541
The whole point of merit is to meet conditions. If grace is conditional then conditions must be met.
"2007 With regard to God, there is nostrict right to any merit on the part of man. Betweent God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have recieved everything from Him our Creator."ibid.
Honestly Roman Catholic theology is much more sophisticated than we protestants assume. They also can mask works based salve\ationto look as if it were grace.
"2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of His grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for His good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit." ibid.
Piper repeatedly teaches in this book that we are to meet the conditions of the New Covenant. But that is due to the grace of the Holy Spiritthat we are to perform works. The only difference I see from Catholic teaching on this point is that Piper would probably not give secondary credit to man But of course in hedonism he does have a reward systemfor pursuing joy.

"2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace and forgiveness and justification, at the beginningof conversion. Moved by the holy Spirit and by charity, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces of our sanctification,for the increase of grace and charity, and the attainment of eternal life." CCC pg.542

Honestly there is little difference in Piper's teaching on conditional grace and merit. The only distinction Piper makes is that fulfilling conditions is not earning; but the Catholics have defined "merit in a way that is not "earning" either. The catholics may be more candidabout the use of the word "merit". But you find the same religious experience. For in Piper's theology we have God's grace fused to our actions. Our faith and grace become one. The actions which are soley God's, are conditional, upon our faith and eventual works. So who cares whether we use the word merit? I believe this is the reason that "federal Vision" and preachers like John Piper have seen a movement toward Catholicism. You cannot simply order people not to see your contradictions.
"Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous.This is so repugnant to the above that it can no longer be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himselfdoes not previously posess it in himself ." John Calvin Institutes of the Christian religion Book 3 chapter11 section 235:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:6-8

Church
Invisible Church
As a follower of John Calvin, Piper identifies the church as a single spiritual entity. this identityas a single group was gathered from the teachings of Augustine ,who was a catholic. The Catholic Church saw church and state as as a unified system. Therefore the idea of a iniversal churchis rooted in a one world government. Not all calvinist have abandoned this idea either.
"Now let me say right here. I believe in the New World Order of Jesus Christ inaugurated at Calvary and visibly sanctioned in history by the resurrection and ascension of Christ to the right hand of God, where he reigns in power and glory . What I reject is the imitation New World Order of Humanism. But there is a Biblical New World Order." Gary North forward to "The reduction of Christianity" xxvi.
If the Christians are gathered by one unifying invisible church, then they would think in terms of one kingdom or invisible empire. This is the mindset of the Roman Catholic Church. It doesn't take too much progress to think in terms of mobilizing Christians into massive contigencies. Just look at evangelical history... The ecumenical movement formed out of the invisible church idea. Soon afterwards, Christians began mobilizing for political causes. Both from the leftist liberation theology, also later from the pro-life movement. The Roman Catholic Church would capitolize on both movements. Ecumenicizing always leads towards and away from fundamental theology.
Yet the scripture never describes the church as an invisible organization. In faxct the faithful are supposed to be visible.
5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:14-16

Many who hold this doctrine of invisibility use ephesians as a key argument.
4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all. 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Ephesians 4:3-7

Here they argue that the body or church is "one" as in "unified". Yet are all Christ professing churches unified on these issues? Are all the bodies one? Can we say one spirit when churches disagree on how the spirit manifest itself and some deny his personhood? One Lord? Yet many claim Christ is a lord, yet not the Lord. One God? However many claim there are multiple gods and some disagree about God's name.
I believe that the word "one"is being misinterpreted. "one" being misinterpretted. "One" here means "solo" and not "unified". In truth there is just one type of body,just one spirit, just one lord, just one faith, just one baptism and just one God. That while we have sought out our own inventions, God gave us one plan regardless of our fulfilling it.
There are several senses of a universal nature to the saints. The Bride of Christ for instance. The kingdom of Heaven as well, though these groups are not finished congregating. However the body of Christ should not be seen universally but generically. In other words the body of Christ is the church model. Meditating on some invisible construction has only taken away from the local church with the invisible church as an excuse.
But once again, the church of christ is visible since it is confessing.
10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
Unholy Church
"I think we need to teach our peoplethe meaning of Baptismand obey the Lord's command to Baptize converts (matt. 28:19), without elevating the doctrine to a primary one that would unduly cut us off from a shared worship and ministry with others who share more important things with us." Piper, Brothers we are nto professionals pg. 135
A) Loose baptism) Piper staryed away from Baptist theology arguing that paedo-baptist(infant baptism) believers ought to be accepted into fellowship. He tried, but failed, in his own congregation, to have their own confession adjusted to this. However,this simply ignores the teachings of the New Testament.
1. Baptism is mandatory for the fulfillment of the Great Comission.
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16

28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:19-20
2. Baptism is a symbol of Repentance.
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:4

2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
3. Baptism is performed by immersion.
"907 Baptizo def. 1. To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)2. To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water. 3. To overwhelm... not to be confused with 911, bapto." ( from Strong's exhaustive Concordance)

1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Mark 1:9-10

8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 8:36-39

6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:4

4. rebaptism is demanded in the case of errant baptism.

19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:2-5

4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:4-5

5. Baptism is a prerequisite to chruch membership.
2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 2:41-42

6. Baptismis an elementary teaching.
5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Hebrews 5:12-6:2

The Problem is not that John Piper is providingfellowship with other belivers. The Problem is that John Piper is rebelling against the word of God in order to dilute the New Testament Church. Allowing unbaptized believers into the congregation is allowing heretical teachings into the church as well. These people will not see the point of being baptized nor will they see the necessityof a specific point of salvation. While they may be saved, their dotrines will dilute the great comission over the years. Also, with the elementary doctrine dismissed, other teachings will follow. For instance, looseness in interpreting the scriptures. Christian identity becoming more cultural and the standard of holiness being lowered, as well as looseness in morality.
Piper misunderstands the nature of Baptism at it's core. He thinks that it is not a primary doctrine and that it should not be the cause of separation. The entire point of baptism is separation from the world! Joining with God and dying to self,washed from this filthy world covenanting with God to live a new spiritual life, all these meanings convey separation through baptism.
Infant baptism is a covenant of salvation through the flesh.
3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Matthew 3:9
Remember, John the Baptist is saying this in context with his adminsitration of baptism.
As a Baptist minister I do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet baptism is essential for discipleship. As a baptist minister I save no one. My ministry is to disciple. When I preach the gospel I am giving the Holy Spirit room to connect to a sinners heart and be saved. If they get saved, then there heart will change and they will want to talk about it. Then what is essential to me as a minister is to administer proper discipleship. The nature of the church with my ministry begins and ends with discipleship. yet the thing that is essential to discipleship is baptism. This is not foreign to paedo-baptist either.
"The Holy Christian Church is to be found where the gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel." (Augsburg Confession VII 1) Luther's Small Catechism 174 pg. 156 Your practice of Baptism is your confession of faith. It is essential to the practice of your faith, to perform it correctly in order not to teach false doctrines.

Worship
Mystic Jesus
"When I speak of seeing Jesus Christ,I don't mean seeing with the eyes of your head, but the eyes of your heart."

"But the Bible doesn't say we may see Jesus in another sense. It speaks of the eyes of our hearts. (Ephesians 1:18) It speaks of seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4)"
1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Ephesians 1:18
4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2 Corinthians 4:4
First, in the Ephesioans passage, Piper says "eyes of the heart". Yet the Authorized version translates this word "understanding". What does it say in the greek?
" 1271 dianoia
AV_ mind 9, understanding 3, imagination 1
1) The mind as a facultyof understanding, feeling, desiring 2) understanding 3)mind, i.e. spirit, way of thinking and feeling 4)thoughts, either good or bad"
(from Strong's lexicon)
We clearly see no use for the translation"heart". So this is only an idiom or slang for "understaning". Therefore, we are not talking about some mystic form of spiritual sight at all.In 2 cdor. 4;4 Piper uses a translation to put this verse in an odd order. Being interpeted as a new gospel or aspect of the gospel "Gospel of the glory of Christ". When the normal rendering is "glorius gospel". Here the "blindness" is metaphorical of an inability to understanding the good news of Jesus Christ.
Yet it appears Piper interpets these passages as proof that one can spiritually project an image of Christ.
"Jesus himself spoke of two kinds of seeing. He said of the incomprehensibility crowds, 'seeing they do not see' (matthew 13:13) One kind of seeing is with physical eyes, and the other with spiritual eyes."
This reminds me of the hindu and their third spiritual eyes.
So , what would be wrong with that?
The problem is found in the image and imagination. New Testament worship does not create images of worship, even images of Christ.
5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
1 John 5:21
So here we see that are prohibited from idolatry. But what counts as idolatry?
4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day [that] the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deuteronomy 4:15-16
So here we nottice that humans can indeed become idols of which we must be careful not to worship. But would this includeChrist? After all, Christ was fully God and and was worshipped in the New Testament. Why shouldn'twe worship images of our Lord Jesus?

24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:4-5
For one reason is that there are predicted to be many false christ, whom we are not to worship. What if we unwittingly worship a false Christ?

5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
2 Corinthians 5:7
We have hardly determined what Christ truly looked like. His first portrait was graven roughly 500 years after his death.

2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Colossians 2:18
Since we don't know how Christ looked, apparently the early church had no desire to do this; it would be obvious that we should not imagine Jesus in our worship. Paul teaches that we should not worship God with our fleshly mind.

1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15
It should also be recognized that God is invisible strill even if Jesus had a physical body, his deity is invisible.Yet it is his spiritual substance which we worship. Christ is only worshiped through his spiritual substance. (which is God)
We should not then worship Christ through our imagination. We may have spiritual insight but we do not have spiritual eyes. We follow after Christ in a faith that is blind to world opinionand he isnot subject to our interpretation.
Finally it would be proper that any form of "seeing" Christ should not be interpretted as "imagination" but as understanding who he is and looking forward to consumation then we will physically meet.
On this critique I could have misinterpretted Piper. But I think others could have as well, so it was worth bringing up.

Christian Hedonism
"They say things like, 'Don't ppursue joy, pursue obediance.' But Hedonism responds 'that's like saying, 'Don't eat apples, eat fruit' Because joy is an act of obediance.' We are commanded to rejoice in God. If obedience is doing what God commands, then joy is not merely a spinoff of obedience, it is obedience." pg. 13 Desiring God
The main problem with Christian Hedonism is that it brags about being God centered. Yet has God's glory established on the foundation of our subjective feelings/passions. Even in our best spiritual states, we will always be swayed by the flesh.

"The radical implication is that pursuing pleasure in God is our highest calling. It isessential to all virtueand all reverence. Whether you think of your life vertically in relation to God or horizontally in relation to man, the pursuit of pleasure in God is crucial, not optional. We will see shortly that genuine worship toward God hangs on the pursuit of joy." pg. 21 Desiring God

5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Galatians 5:17
Pleasure)n. 1. The state of being pleased or gratified. 2. A source of enjoyment or delight. 3. Amusement, diversion, or worldly enjoyment. 4. Sensual gratification or enjoyment. 5. One's preference or wish. {from American heretage dictionary}
Here we see the first definition of pleasure is to gratify.
gratify)tr. v. 1. To please or to satisfy. 2.To give what is desired to: indulge. 3. to reward.{from American heretage dictionary}
Now in the second definitionof gratify we see the word "to indulge".
Indulge) v. 1. To yield to the desires and whims of to an excessive degree; humor. 2. a. To Yield to; to gratify b. To allow (oneself) unrestrained gratification. 3. To grant an ecclesiastical indulgence or dispensation to.{from American heretage dictionary}
Indulge shows us that this can be an excessive bowing to what is desired.

"... Someone says, 'you really mean that hedonism is not just a trick word to get our attention. It actually says something utterlyand devastatingly true about the way we should live. The pursuit of pleasure really is a necessary part of being a good person.' That's right I mean it." pg. 15 Dangerous Duty of Delight
If you are to pursue your pleasure, even if it is religious pleasure for God, it is still your pleasure and your desires. I think this is the dangerous and more deceptive point of Christian Hedonism. By focusing on your pleasure, even with the best intentions, you can not be focused on God's Will if your attention is focused on yourself. This is the doorway to the flesh.

5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23
When we see the word "fruit", we are speaking metaphorically of a result. In other words, joy is a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. It is not the result of a personal quest for joy.
It has been noted that joy and pleasure according to Piper are commands. As a result, they are our duty to fulfill and we lose fellowship with God when we fail to have this joy. Yet doesn't this turn into legalism?

7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
Romans 7:6
By turning joy into law, one loses the power of the spirit. It is no surprise then that Piper connects his philosophy of Christian Hedonismwith the legalism taught in Future Grace.
"Therefore living by faith in future Grace is Christian Hedonism....
"... Therefore the cry of this book, to fight sin, is a cry to pursue a joy superior to anything sin can offer. It is the cry of Christian Hedonism." Future Grace pg. 386
The problem is our desires for good, will not overcome our desire for evil by the flesh. We need not to ignore the work of Christ in forgiveness; but instead it is through our forgiveness that we can succeed in giving victory in Christ. We do not overcome, but Christ overcomes in us.

Christian Rock Style sanctification
Piper approves of Christian rock as shown by his appearance with popular Christian rock groups on the "passion tour".
Christian rock is in itself neutral; it may be negative or positive depending. However combined with Piper's doctrine of Christian hedonism, it has greater consequences. As a reformed Calvinist, Piper would conclude that religious worship is a form of sanctification. Approval of Christian rock would almost see the music as a means of grace. As we look back upon Piper's Hedonism, our enjoyment of God in worship ( or listening to rock music, here) is identified as a holy instrument of sanctification.
However, Christian rock is a combination of Christian lyrics and secular beats. The secular rock sound is designed in such a way as to manipulate the emotions of the listener in making them experience emotional highs and lows in an unstable way.

2:1 I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also [is] vanity.
Ecclesiastes 2:1
7:2 [It is] better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that [is] the end of all men; and the living will lay [it] to his heart.
Ecclesiastes 7:2
7:5 [It is] better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
The Christian Hedonist will end up confused. This is due to the fact that they believe they will be holier and closer to God if they would enjoy the music.
However, the music will encourage that listener in a more hormonal/fleshly format. The disciple will then have trouble distinguishingbetween godly spirituality and woprldly spiritism. For instance, when the Christian rocker is repeating watered down phrases over and over; doesn't this seem more spiritistic?

6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 6:7
This leads to a positive attitude toward worldliness, which begs the question. Can Christian Hedonism truly distinguish itself from worldly Hedonism? Is the pursuit of pleasure something which can be purely separate from the flesh and be a spiritual desire?

Libertarian wine-bibbing (regular consumption of alcohol)

21:17 He that loveth pleasure [shall be] a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.
Proverbs 21:17

5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Galatians 5:13
the fact that Piper's inspiration for hedonism C.S. Lewis practiced casual drinking speaks volumes. Piper himself confesses not to drinking, yet quickly argues that wine-bibbing is ok. Wine-bibbing is according to scripture fleshly.

5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
"revellings" by the way are drunken riots. Also, Piper has been on several occaisions fellowshipping with "Emergent" Church Pastor Mark Driscoll. Mark originally got a reputation as "the cussing pastor". He is known for being unrepentant and foul, encouraging his church in beer drinking (at church), talking dirty from the pulpit, showing his church rated "R" movies etc.
Yet with a few exceptions Piper has not corrected him, but instead they have preached together at conferences and on tour. In the pursuit of pleasure Piper has not separated his ministry from worldliness. Instead He goes on tour with it.

The final analysis is that a major thrust of John Piper's theology, ministry and philosophy is moving the New Testament chruches back towards a mainstream protestantism and even Catholicism.
The point of the reformation was to create a more biblical catholic church than the medeival one. The point of the radical reformation, and all New Testament Churches is to mimic the church model of the New Testament.
The Piper holds to believer's baptism, He is more a main line protestant, than a New Testament Christian. He is overly dependant on reformed preachers, as opposed to raw exegesis. As a result his doctrine has decayed from the Biblical standard. His overemphasis upon sovereignty will impress followers with a hypocritical God, who wills evil things. His philosophy of Hedonism will leave a lot of rocky soil Christians; who will be on a spiritual highseeking religious pleasure. Yet as soon as they are unsatisfied, they will plummet, as the emotional pendulum condemns them as separate from God. For all of Piper's preaching of justification by grace through faith, his disciples may well be rocked to their core as they read "future Grace". Thus realizing that accordingto their pastor, God does not give themany direct assurance that they are the elect, or that they are Justified in their time of temptation.
Piper's teaching on the New Covenant is heretical. yet due to his normal preaching of the Gospel, the effects of those teachings will be delayed. However, it is quite possible that his followers are ripe targets for the secular new age, as well as the dead religion of Catholicism. OFr futureblessings Piper's errors must be corrected.

In Christ,
Matt

Who is the New Testament Church?

2010-03-24T10:03:00.000-07:00

Is it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints?
It doesn't seem so. The mormon faith came from the teachings of the self proclaimed prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus taught that He would build His Church.

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 16:16-20

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints teaches that the church at some point died.
But Jesus said he would be with us to the end of the world.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:19-20
Has the world ended yet?
The church will remain.
3:21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Ephesians 3:20-23

Is it the Roman Catholic Church?
No because first of all Christ is the head of his church.
1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:18
Peter viewed himself as just a minister of the gospel
5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:1-3

Roman Catholicism was initially headed by Constantine
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[196]

"Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[197] Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (r. 375–83). According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, writing to Christians to make clear that he believed he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[198] Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution.[199] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica."
Wikipedia "Constantine I"

The Pontifex Maximus (Latin, "greatest bridge-maker") was the high priest of the Ancient Roman College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum). This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[1] (reigned 375-383) who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title.[2][3]

Centuries later, after the word "pontifex" had become a term used for Christian bishops,[4] including the Bishop of Rome,[5] the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,[6] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times

"[edit] Origins during the Regal Period
The Collegium Pontificum (College of Pontiffs) was the most important priesthood of ancient Rome. The foundation of this sacred college and the office of Pontifex Maximus is attributed to the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius [7]. It is safe to say that the collegium was tasked to act as advisers of the rex (king) in all matters of religion. The collegium was headed by the pontifex maximus and all the pontifices held their office for life. Prior to its institution, all religious and administrative functions and powers were naturally exercised by the king. Very little is known about this period of Roman history regarding the pontiffs as the main historical sources are lost and some of the events from this period are regarded as semi-legendary or mythical. Most of the records of ancient Rome were destroyed when it was sacked by the Gauls in 387 BC. Accounts from this early period come from excerpts of writings made during the Republican Period."

Wikipedia "pontifex maximus"

It was only later that the Pope's had been given headship over the catholic church. They would then be referred to by this title.

The Popes however do not rightfully have the authority they claim.
A. Because the church at Rome was not founded by Peter
When the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans He did not identify a specific organized church, only those "called to be saints". These were probably the jews and proselytes converted at the day of penticost.(acts 2:10)
Paul states however to the Romans that he would not preach at a place already settled by an apostle.
15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Romans 15:20-21
Also Peter's ministry centered around Jewish believers
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Galatians 2:8
So it is extremely doubtful that Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome. In the last century Archaeologists have questioned the traditional grave of Peter in Rome since it was a pagan cemetery and archaeologists in 1950 found what they claim to be the body of Peter in Caesarea(northern Israel)

Roman Catholicism did not hold to the New Testament as shown by the obvious

a. Because the Apostles taught believers baptism

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:15-16
How on earth could an infant who does not evn know words be baptized if the gospel of Mark be true?

8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Acts 8:35-40
Here we see an extremely portrayal of Believers baptism. Now modern liberal scholars reject vrs.37. However it should be remembered that Roman catholics originally accept this passage since it was printed in two manuscripts under Catholic authority. The Complutesian Polyglot and the Textus Receptus.

10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 10:40-48
So Peter (suposedly the first Pope) preaches a message that would get a priest in trouble (forgiveness by faith with no mention of works). Then the Holy spirit intervenes and they are immersed in the Holy Ghost without water baptism!

3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-21
Here again we see Peter(the 1st Pope!) preaching atonement for the unjust(mankind)He uses the the global flood (an obvious symbol of immersion)and says it is a symbol and that which saves is not some holy water but a cleared conscience. Case Closed.

B. Because the roman church claims superiority over the BiBLE.
The church in the New Testament is the followers of Christ. Not the other way around.
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:1-6

5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
1 Peter 5:1-5

c. Because the Roman Catholic Church supresses the Bible
It has been historically illegal for Roman catholics to read the scriptures for themselves. Only now that there schools teach scepticism of the scriptures will the church allow the congregation to hear it. Throughout the centuries the catholics have had the practice of burning Bibles. They still practice this act in deeply traditional catholic nations to this day.

D. Because the Roman Catholic church anathematizes those who seek Christ independently for salvation
The council of trent declared 115 anathemas against the protestants. (to anethematize someone, declares them to be sentenced in Hell)Many do not realize that Vatican II teaches the doctrines of TRENT are still valid to this day.

3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Ephesians 3:15-17

Was The eastern Orthodox Church the church of the New Testament?

The Orthodox Churches split from the Roman in Church 1096. They also find there ultimate origin in Constantine. Other issues are at stake as well:

The orthodox deny the submission of the Holy SPirit. Yet isn't this what Jesus taught?
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.
Most of the eastern church follows the teachings of origin who openly synthezized the New Testament with Platonic philosophy like the jewish philosopher Philo.

What about the protestant churches; are they the churches of the New Testament?
These churches claim to be catholics with a small "c"
They have several preachers that founded these groups.
Martin luther (lutherans)
John Calvin (presbyterian and reformed)
Henry the 8th (anglican)
John Foxe (quakers)
John Wesley (methodist and wesleyans)
etc.
Therefore these groups do not have their origin in the New Testament. Usually they accept this fact. The problem is that most Protestant preachers are holding onto a mystical catholic church as their starting point and trying to make that more Biblical. They do not start over from scratch.
The word "reformation" implies that they were a church that change or reformed.
Now this does not mean that the Protestants were incapable of teaching through the Bible. Or that they got it wrong on justification by Faith.
It does mean they got it wrong on how to pastor a church and as a result their congregations have been beaten down with the heresy of liberalism quite easily.

1. The New Testament Church was prophesied to perpetuate
4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:14-17
2. The Word of God would also survive
1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:23-25
3. New Testament churches followed the Bible and carried it.
13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. Acts
13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
Mark 13:10
4.The new testament taught salvation by grace through faith.
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Peter 1:1-5
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified Galatians 2:16
5. The New Testament church taught baptism administered after confession of salvation.
19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:1-5

6. The kingdom would continue
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Revelation 11:15
7. Churches would congregate through preaching.
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:22-28
10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Ropmans 10:13-15

8. They would separate themselves from the world.
2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:15-16

9. They would continue not through there own gifts of discipleship but a movement of the spirit.
3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
10. New Testament churches were still subject to Judgement and indeed could have their candles blown out.
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The history of the anabaptist

Origin and history
"The question of the validity of baptism appears in two great phases in ecclesiastical history. The first controversy raged at an early date (third and fourth centuries) and regarded the minister of the sacrament (baptism conferred by heretics)." Catholic Encyclopedia "anabaptist"
So we see that the anabaptist started as protesting the same time as Constantine dominated the church. This is because they could not be anabaptist before constantine they could only be label New Testament Christians.

The name Anabaptists, etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism is, in general historical usage, restricted to those who, denying the validity of infant baptism,Catholic Encyclopedia "anabaptist"
So churches with the label anabaptist is as Old as Catholicism. The difference is these churches would only be labeled Christian prior to the advent of Constantine.

"Manichæism obtained adherents among the highest classes of society. Barsymes the Nestorian prefect of Theodora, was an avowed Manichæan. But this recrudescence of Manichæism was soon suppressed.
Soon, however, whether under the name of Paulicians, or Bogomiles, it again invaded the Byzantine Empire, after having lain hidden for a time on Musselman territory"
The same groups that were labelled "anabaptised" were also called "Manichaen" by the Catholics. However, many of these groups did not have the chance to answer the charges against them and were slaughtered. Yet the ones who were allowed to confess their faith, preached an orthodox confession of faith. (such as the waldenses and the anabaptist/mennonites)

"Though a number of secret societies and dualistic sects may have existed here and there in obscurity, there is apparently no direct and conscious connection with the Prophet of Babylon and his doctrine. Yet when the Paulicians and Bogomili from Bulgaria came in contact with the West in the eleventh century, and eastern missionaries driven out by the Byzantine emperors taught dualist doctrines in the North of Italy and the South of France they found the leaven of Manichæism still so deeply pervading the minds of the many that they could make it ferment and rise into the formidable Catharist heresies. "
Here we see the Catholics admit that there is no direct linkage between the cult of mannichaenism and these persecuted anabaptist. It was just name-calling and propaganda.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Petrobrusians rejected infant baptism and they and many subsequent medieval heretics (Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Bohemian Brethren) held views resembling in some respects the tenets of Anabaptists.
Even Catholic scholars here do admit that these groups do not originate from the Iranian prophet "manni". Yet there is a direct link among these groups with the protestant style preaching anabaptists and waldenses.

What we have to realize is that the New Testament church was not an empire, nor was it a precise theological system. systemaizing christianity many times can put religion of God in the sinful hands of man.

The people of the New Testament church were not perfect in their knowledge nor their holiness. Human nature is evil no matter what faith you claim.

The New Testament church was an organized body of sinners who had been saved by God's grace. They had recieved God in their hearts.
As Jesus said the truth had set them free. So they learned how to be servants to everyone while being slaves to no one.
True New testament christians do not come off as a superior race. If anything they are viewed as inferior and laughed at in the world system.

I am reminded by the anabaptised character in the novel "Candide". He seems to be the nicest character in the novel and is therefore murdered early.
Human history has remarkably little to say about New Testament Christians in history and it almost has less to say about us now.
The more biblical and New Testament a people group is, the more they are ignored an considered insignificant.

From New Testament Christianity we see some of the greatest heroics in the history of the church. Yet the New Testament church is not the source of the great acts of God. The church simply depends on the great God of the Bible(Jehovah) for its existence and perpetuity.

In revelation the antichrist is showns as a King, with a bow without arrows. Signifying that he does not lift a finger as his followers will protect him.
Jesus is shown with the sword of the Lord and his servants only have musical instruments. This is because he will protect them.

The New Testament Churches that existed between the time of Christ and the reformation are as follows:
Early churches, antioch, Montanist, Donatist, Lumbees, Novatians, Italian Waldenses, paulicans, albigenses, french Waldenses, lollards, hussites, moravians, Anabaptists.

Modern New Testament Churches include:
Baptists (most varieties), mennonites, separatist prebyterians(*), plymoth brethren, methodist circuit riders(*), nazarenes(*),assemblies of God,evangelical free church, Christian and missionary alliance, Calvary Chapel, Christian church*.

Baptist have over 5o denomenations in the USA by themselves of many types and varieties. Obviously baptist are not free of heresy and will fall short of the title "New Testament Church" at that time.

The Separatist presbyterians (british separatist and orthodox presbyterians) usually pass the criteria on everything but baptism and church government.

The early methodists circuit riders were focused upon the spreading of the gospel to the point where they were not hindered by the anglican style church government of today. Once this formalism was established so did apostasy grow.

Nazarenes are usually believer's baptists. However they are second only to the quackers in a lazy attitude towards the fulfilment of the great comission.

Many Pentecostal groups had unorthodox doctrines. Yet the assemblies of God had great deal of baptist influence that kept in qualification as a new testament church.

evangelical free church and calvary chapel deviate in the sense of top down government yet are otherwise New Testament Churches.

Many in the "Christian church" or campbellite movement are legalist denying justification by grace through faith alone. However there are many newer congregations which have become evangelical in faith and as a result fit the criteria of a new Testament Church.

Some may think I am too strict or too leniant on whom I identify as churches in the Bride of Christ. The most important issue is not which groups qualify as members of the Bride of Christ, but whether you are born again have settled for a congregation which submits to the New Covenant or traded in the Faith of Christ for freindship with the world.

In Christ, Matt

Waldensian confessions of 1544 and1658 and fuller version of 1120

2010-03-06T07:50:00.000-08:00

Waldenses Confession of 1544
1. We believe that there is but one God, who is a Spirit - the Creator of all things - the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all; who is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth - upon whom we are continually dependent, and to whom we ascribe praise for our life, food, raiment, health, sickness, prosperity, and adversity. We love him as the source of all goodness; and reverence him as that sublime being, who searches the reins and trieth the hearts of the children of men.
2. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son and image of the Father - that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and that by Him alone we know the Father. He is our Mediator and advocate; nor is there any other name given under heaven by which we can be saved. In His name alone we call upon the Father, using no other prayers than those contained in the Holy Scriptures, or such as are in substance agreeable thereunto.
3. We believe in the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, proceeding from the Father, and from the Son; by whose inspiration we are taught to pray; being by Him renewed in the spirit of our minds; who creates us anew unto good works, and from whom we receive the knowledge of the truth.
4. We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head - it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed their could be no salvation.
5. We hold that the ministers of the church ought to be unblameable both in life and doctrine; and if found otherwise, that they ought to be deposed from their office, and others substituted in their stead; and that no person ought to presume to take that honour unto himself but he who is called of God as was Aaron - that the duties of such are to feed the flock of God, not for filthy lucre's sake, or as having dominion over God's heritage, but as being examples to the flock, in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, and in chastity.
6. We acknowledge, that kings, princes, and governors, are the appointed and established ministers of God, whom we are bound to obey [in all lawful and civil concerns]. For they bear the sword for the defence of the innocent, and the punishment of evil doers; for which reason we are bound to honour and pay them tribute. From this power and authority, no man can exempt himself as is manifest from the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who voluntarily paid tribute, not taking upon himself any jurisdiction of temporal power.
7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.
8. We hold that the Lord's supper is a commemoration of, and thanksgiving for, the benefits which we have received by His sufferings and death - and that it is to be received in faith and love - examining ourselves, that so we may eat of that bread and drink of that cup, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures.
9. We maintain that marriage was instituted of God. That it is holy and honourable, and ought to be forbidded to none, provided there be no obstacle from the divine word.
10. We contend, that all those in whom the fear of God dwells, will thereby be led to please him, and to abound in the good works [of the gospel] which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them - which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, sobriety, and the other good works enforced in the Holy Scriptures.
11. On the other hand, we confess that we consider it to be our duty to beware of false teachers, whose object is to divert the minds of men from the true worship of God, and to lead them to place their confidence in the creature, as well as to depart from the good works of the gospel, and to regard the inventions of men.
12. We take the Old and the New Testament for the rule of our life, and we agree with the general confession of faith contained in [what is usually termed] the apostles' creed.

Waldensian Convession (1655 A.D.)
A brief confession of faith of the Reformed Churches of Piedmont
Published with their Manifesto on the occasion of the frightful massacres of the year 1655.
Having understood that our adversaries, not contented to have most cruelly persecuted us, and robbed us of all our goods and estates, have yet an intention to render us odious to the world by spreading abroad many false reports, and so not only to defame our persons, but likewise to asperse with most shameful calumnies that holy and wholesome doctrine which we profess, we feel obliged, for the better information of those whose minds may perhaps be preoccupied by sinister opinions, to make a short declaration of our faith, such as we have heretofore professed as conformable to the Word of God; and so every one may see the falsity of those their calumnies, and also how unjustly we are hated and persecuted for a doctrine so innocent.
I. That there is one only God, who is a spiritual essence, eternal, infinite, all-wise, all merciful, and all-just, in one word, all-perfect; and that there are three persons in that one only and simple essence: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

II. That this God manifested himself to men by his works of Creation and Providence, as also by his Word revealed unto us, first by oracles in divers manners, and afterwards by those written books which are called the Holy Scripture.

III. That we ought to receive this Holy Scripture (as we do) for divine and canonical, that is to say, for the constant rule of our faith and life: as also that the same is fully contained in the Old and New Testament; and that by the Old Testament we must understand only such books as God did entrust the Jewish Church with, and which that Church has always approved and acknowledged to be from God: namely, the five books of Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, I and II of the Kings, I and II of the Chronicles, one of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the four great and twelve minor Prophets: and the New Testament containing the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul - 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians {2 to the Thessalonians, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, 1 to Philemon},
and the Epistle to the Hebrews; 1 of St. James, 2 of St. Peter, 3 of St. John, 1 of St. Jude, and the Revelation.

IV. We acknowledge the divinity of these sacred books, not only from the testimony of the Church, but more especially because of the eternal and indubitable truth of the doctrine therein contained, and of that most divine excellency, sublimity, and majesty which appears therein; and because of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who causes us to receive with reverence the testimony of the Church in that point, who opens our eyes to discover the beams of that celestial light which shines in the Scripture, and correct our taste to discern the divine savor of that spiritual food.
V. That God made all things of nothing by his own free will, and by the infinite power of the Word.

VI. That he governs and rules all by his providence, ordaining and appointing whatsoever happens in this world, without being the author or cause of any evil committed by the creatures, so that the guilt thereof neither can nor ought to be in any way imputed unto him.

VII. That the angels were all in the beginning created pure and holy, but that some of them have fallen into irreparable corruption and perdition; and that the rest have persevered in their first purity by an effect of divine goodness, which has upheld and confirmed them.

VIII. That man, who was created pure and holy, after the image of God, deprived himself through his own fault of that happy condition by giving credit to the deceitful words of the devil.

IX. That man by his transgression lost that righteousness and holiness which he had received, and thus incurring the wrath of God, became subject to death and bondage, under the dominion of him who has the power of death, that is, the devil; insomuch that our free will has become a servant and a slave to sin: and thus all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are, are by nature children of wrath, being all dead in their trespasses and sins, and consequently incapable of the least good motion to any thing which concerns their salvation: yea, incapable of one good thought without God's grace, all their imaginations being wholly evil, and that continually.

X. That all the posterity of Adam is guilty in him of his disobedience, infected by his corruption, and fallen into the same calamity with him, even the very infants from their mother's womb, whence is derived the name of original sin.
XI. That God saves from this corruption and condemnation those whom he has chosen {from the foundation of the world, not for any foreseen disposition, faith, or holiness in them, but} of his mercy in Jesus Christ his Son; passing by all the rest, according to the irreprehensible reason of his freedom and justice.

XII. That Jesus Christ having been ordained by the eternal decree of God to be the only Savior and only head of his body which is the Church, he redeemed it with his own blood in the fullness of time, and communicates unto the same all his benefits by means of the gospel.

XIII. That there are two natures in Jesus Christ, viz., divine and human, truly united in one and the same person, without confusion, division, separation, or alteration; each nature keeping its own distinct proprieties; and that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man.

XIV. That God so loved the world, that is to say, those whom he has chosen out of the world, that he gave his own Son to save us by his most perfect obedience (especially that obedience which he manifested in suffering the cursed death of the cross), and also by his victory over the devil, sin, and death.

XV. That Jesus Christ having made a full expiation for our sins by his most perfect sacrifice once offered on the cross, it neither can nor ought to be repeated upon any pretext whatsoever, as they pretend to do in the mass.

XVI. That the Lord Jesus having fully reconciled us unto God, through the blood of his cross, it is by virtue of his merits only, and not of our works, that we are absolved and justified in his sight.

XVII. That we are united to Jesus Christ and made partakers of his benefits by faith, which rests upon those promises of life which are made to us in his gospel.

XVIII. That this faith is the gracious and efficacious work of the Holy Spirit, who enlightens our souls, and persuades them to lean and rest upon the mercy of God, and so to apply the merits of Jesus Christ.

XIX. That Jesus Christ is our true and only Mediator, not only redeeming us, but also interceding for us, and that by virtue of his merits and intercession we have access unto the Father, to make our supplications unto him, with a holy confidence that he will grant our requests, it being needless to have recourse to any other intercessor besides himself.
XX. That as God promised us regeneration in Jesus Christ, so those who are united to him by a living faith ought to apply, and do really apply themselves, unto good works.

XXI. That good works are so necessary to the faithful that they can not attain the kingdom of heaven without the same, seeing that God has prepared them that we should walk therein; and there fore we ought to flee from vice, and apply ourselves to Christian virtues, making use of fasting, and all other means which may conduce to so holy a thing.

XXII. That, although our good works can not merit any thing, yet the Lord will reward or recompense them with eternal life, through the merciful continuation of his grace, and by virtue of the unchangeable constancy of his promises made unto us.

XXIII. That those who are already in the possession of eternal life in consequence of their faith and good works ought to be considered as saints and glorified persons, and to be praised for their virtue and imitated in all good actions of their life, but neither worshipped nor invoked, for God only is to be prayed unto, and that through Jesus Christ.
XXVIII. That God does not only instruct us by his Word, but has also ordained certain sacraments to be joined with it, as means to unite us to Jesus Christ, and to make us partakers of his benefits; and that there are only two of them belonging in common to all the members of the Church under the New Testament - to wit, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

XXIX. That Christ has instituted the sacrament of Baptism to be a testimony of our adoption, and that therein we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ, and renewed in holiness of life.

XXX. That he has instituted the Holy Supper, or Eucharist, for the nourishment of our souls, to the end that eating effectually the flesh of Christ, and drinking effectually his blood, by a true and living faith, and by the incomprehensible virtue of the Holy Spirit, and so uniting ourselves most closely and inseparably to Christ, we come to enjoy in him and by him the spiritual and eternal life.

Now to the end that every one may clearly see what our belief is as to this point, we here insert the very expressions of that prayer which we make use of before the Communion, as they are written in our Liturgy or form of celebrating the Holy Supper, and likewise in our public Catechism, which are to be seen at the end of our Psalms; these are the words of the prayer:
'Seeing our Lord has not only once offered his body and blood for the remission of our sins, but is willing also to communicate the same unto us as the food of eternal life, we humbly beseech thee to grant us this grace that in true sincerity of heart and with an ardent zeal we may receive from him so great a benefit; that is, that we may be made partakers of his body and blood, or rather of his whole self, by a sure and certain faith.'

The words of the Liturgy are these: 'Let us then believe first of all the promises which Christ (who is the infallible truth) has pronounced with his own mouth, viz., that he will make us truly partakers of his body and blood, that so we may possess him entirely, in such a manner that he may live in us and we in him.'
The words of our Catechism are the same, Nella Dominica 53.
XXXI. That it is necessary the Church should have pastor known by those who are employed for that purpose to be well instructed and of a good life, as well to preach the Word of God as to administer the sacraments, and wait upon the flock of Christ (according to the rules of a good and holy discipline), together with elders and deacons, after the manner of the primitive Church.

XXXII. That God has established kings and magistrates to govern the people, and that the people ought to be subject and obedient unto them, by virtue of that ordination, not only for fear, but also for conscience' sake, in all things that are conformable to the Word of God, who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

XXXIII. Finally, that we ought to receive the symbol of the Apostles, the Lord's Prayer, and the Decalogue as fundamentals of our faith and our devotion.
Conclusion
And for a more ample declaration of our faith we do here reiterate the same protestation which we caused to be printed in 1603, that is to say, that we do agree in sound doctrine with all the Reformed Churches of France, Great Britain, the Low Countries, Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and others, as it is set forth by them in their confessions; as also in the Confession of Augsburg, as it was explained by the author,[1] promising to persevere constantly therein with the help of God, both in life and death, and being ready to subscribe to that eternal truth of God with our own blood, even as our ancestors have done from the days of the Apostles, and especially in these latter ages.
Therefore we humbly entreat all the Evangelical and Protestant Churches, notwithstanding our poverty and lowness, to look upon us as true members of the mystical body of Christ, suffering for his name's sake, and to continue unto us the help of their prayers to God, and all other effects of their charity, as we have heretofore abundantly experienced, for which we return them our most humble thanks, entreating the Lord with all our heart to be their rewarder, and to pour upon them the most precious blessings of grace and glory, both in this life and in that which is to come. Amen.

1. Viz., the editio variata of 1540, which Calvin subscribed at Strasburg.
XXIV. That God has chosen one Church in the world for the salvation of men, and that this Church has one only head and foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

XXV. That this Church is the company of the faithful, who, having been elected by God before the foundation of the world, and called with a holy calling, unite themselves to follow the Word of God, believing whatsoever he teaches them therein, and living in his fear.

XXVI. That this Church can not fail, nor be annihilated, but must endure forever {and that all the elect are upheld and preserved by the power of God in such sort that they all persevere in the faith unto the end, and remain united in the holy Church, as so many living members thereof}.

XXVII. That all men ought to join with that Church, and to continue in the communion thereof.

The Waldensian Confession of Faith
Copied from
The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont
by Samuel Morland (London, 1658), pp. 30-34.
Reprint by CHRAA, 1982.
[Morland was commissioned by Oliver Cromwell to give aid
to the Waldenses and to research their history.
Original spellings have been preserved.]
An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, Copied
out of certain Manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom.
1120. That is to say, near 400 years before the
time of either Calvin or Luther.

We believe and firmly hold all that which is contained in the twelve Articles of the Symbol, which is
called the Apostles’ Creed, accounting for Heresie whatsoever is disagreeing, and not consonant to the
said 12 Articles.
Article 2.
We do believe that there is one God, Father, Son, & Holy Ghost.
Article 3.
We acknowledg for the holy Canonical Scriptures, the Books of the holy Bible. The Books of Moses
called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st Samuel, 2nd
of Samuel, 1st of Kings, 2nd of Kings, 1st Chronicles, 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job,
Psalms. The Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, The Song of Solomon, The Prophesies
of Isaiah, and Jeremiah. The Lamentations of Jeremiah. Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonas, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Here follow the Books Apocryphal, which are not received of the Hebrews. But we reade them (as
saith St. Hierome in his Prologue to the Proverbs) for the instruction of the People, not to confirm the
Authority of the Doctrine of the Church: 2nd Esdras, 3d Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, Esther from the tenth Chapter to the end, The Song of the three
Children in the Fornace, The History of Susanna, The History of the Dragon, 1 Maccabes, 2 Maccabes,
3 Maccabes.
Here follow the Books of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first Epistle of Peter, The
second Epistle of Peter, The first Epistle of John, The second Epistle of John, The third Epistle of John,
The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.
Article 4.
The Books above-said teach this, That there is one God, Almighty, all wise, and all good, who has
made all things by his goodness, For he formed Adam in his own image and likeness, but that by the
envy of the Devil, and the disobedience of the said Adam, sin has entred into the World, and that we are
Sinners in Adam and by Adam.
Article 5.
That Christ was promised to our Fathers who received the Law, that so knowing by the Law their sin,
unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ, to satisfie for their sins, and
accomplish the Law by himself.
Article 6.
That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the Father. That is to say, in the time when all
iniquity abounded, and not for the cause of good works, for all were Sinners; but that he might shew us
grace and mercy, as being faithfull.
Article 7.
That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and righteousness, as also our Pastour, Advocate, Sacrifice, and
Priest, who died for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our justification.
Article 8.
In like manner, we firmly hold, that there is no other Mediatour and Advocate with God the Father,
save onely Jesus Christ. And as for the Virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and
in like manner do we believe concerning all the other Saints, that being in Heaven they wait for the
Resurrection of their Bodies at the Day of Judgment.
Article 9.
We believe that after this life, there are onely two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the
damned, the which two places we call Paradise and Hell, absolutely denying that Purgatory invented by
Antichrist and forged contrary to the truth.
Article 10.
We have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those Inventions of men,
namely, the Feasts and the Vigils of Saints, the Water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from
flesh upon certain Days, and the like; but especially their Masses.
Article 11.
We esteem for an abomination and as Anti-Christian, all those humane Inventions which are a trouble
or prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit.
Article 12.
We do believe that the Sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace,
accounting it good that the faithfull sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done.
However, we believe and hold, that the above-said faithfull may be saved without receiving the signs
aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.
Article 13.
We acknowledg no other Sacrament but Baptism and the Lords Supper.
Article 14.
We ought to honour the secular powers, by subjection, ready obedience, and paying of Tributes

gathered from www.reformedreader.org

a case for the Waldenses ancient origin

2010-03-06T06:51:00.000-08:00

Ephesians 3:21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1. Peter Waldo still preached the evangelical New Testament gospel over a century before Wycliff and Huss; not to mention over 3oo years before Luther!
The roman Catholic and mailine protestant argument always ignores the existence of the waldensees.
Catholics always start off there argument with claiming a 1500 year gap in church history. But in order to do this they lie! They deny the existence of not only the waldenses but multiple churches throughout he centuries. Even if the Waldensees were off the table. You still have the montanist, Donatist,Paulicans, lumbees and several similar sects. The fact is that these people not only existed but were murdered for their faith. I for one will not forget their sacrifice.

2.The Waldensian name is of Italian origin

“Cardinal Peter Damian, one of the able builders of the papal edifice,
in his campaign (A.D. 1059) against these primitive Christians in northern Italy, called
them Subalpini. The word in common parlance to designate these borderers of the Alps
was ‘Vallenses,’ from which in time the V was changed into W; one of the l’s into d,
and they have since the twelfth century generally been called Waldenses.”
To verify that all of this is correct, I would like to refer to the Junior Classic Latin
Dictionary, Latin-English and English-Latin, by Antonio J. Provost, head of the Modern
Language department, University of Notre Dame. Note: the abbreviations used from
this source are: f. = feminine gender; s. = substantive; fig. = figuratively; poet. =
poetically.
In the English-Latin section, p. 203 it says, “ valley, s. vallis, convallis, is f. ” Then
in the Latin-English section it says on p. 154, “ vallis, is f. valley, vale, fig. (poet.)
hallow.” In this same section, p. 27, under “ convallis ” it says: “ convallis is, f. deep
valley.” From these definitions in Latin, it is clear that the term “Waldenses ”
(“ Vallenses ”) meaning “ people of the valley ” has absolutely nothing to do with the
historical character by the name of Peter Waldo. It’s a Roman Catholic lie.
To demonstrate that the Junior Classic Latin Dictionary is correct, we will now go
to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language under “ valley ” which has
the usual English definition. This dictionary goes beyond others as it has an appendix of
Indo-European Roots. Before we go to the appendix, let’s read the origin of the word at
the end of the definition: “ [Middle English, valley from Norman French, from Vulgar
Latin vall.ta (unattested), from Latin vallis, valls. See wel-3 in Appendix] ”, and we will
drop in at #10: “ Perhaps variant wall- in Latin valls, vallis, valley (‘that which is
surrounded by hills ’ ): VAIL1, VALE1, VALLEY.” You will notice the “ variant wall- in Latin ”
suggests a “w” sound in place of the “ v ” sound, and may be the reason why
“ Vallenses ” had evolved into “ Waldenses ”.
Again we will go to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
for a history of the letter “W” in our alphabet: “ The letter W is a descendant of the
letter V. Around 1000 B.C. the Phoenicians and other Semites of Syria and Palestine
began to use a graphic sign in the forms [not able to show here] . They gave it the name
w.w and used it for a semiconsonant w, as in English know, knows. After 900 B.C.,
when the Greeks borrowed the alphabet from the Phoenicians, they developed two
signs from w.w. The first sign, which they called upsilon, ‘ bare u,’ they used for the
vowel u. The Greek form without the tail passed via Etruscan to the Roman alphabet, in
which it was used for two sounds, semiconsonantal w and vocalic u, as in the writing of
VENIO and IVLIVS. In later Roman times the sound w became v. Before the Norman
Conquest of England the Anglo-Saxons used the Latin letter V, as in the Uncial form,
for the sounds u, v, and w. Later the habit developed to use V for u and v, but to write
V doubly for the sound w. Gradually the two separate letters were linked to form a new
character, as in the Cursive form. Our modern printed letters, capital and lower-case,
are formally constructed by analogy with the printed V, while the written forms revert to
the Cursive.”
With this comprehensive explanation, one can now see why the term
“ Vallenses ” developed into “Waldenses ” especially during the Middle Ages around
400 to 1200 A.D."
Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries
E-mail caemahiser@sbcglobal.net

3. The 1120 A.D. confession of faith was uncovered by Samuel moreland in 1658. Moreland was commission by Oliver Cromwell to give aid to the Waldenses and to research their history. The Waldenses were massacred by the Roman Catholic church at that time. just three years earlier they printed there third confession of Faith. So they obviously gave permission. The document found was dated 1120.

Now one can claim that this document was forged by the Waldensees. However, the confession doesn't match the 2nd one. The first is more anabaptist and allows reading from the apocrypha. Yet the second does not. The third is entirely more reformed than anabaptist. Apparently the first is also written in Italian.

4. None of the Waldensees confessions, nor other writings from the ancient church ascribe Waldo to be the founder of the church. Yet this is odd among reformers. When we look at the way protestants honor Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc. It would seem odd that the Waldenses not give respect to their supposed church father.

“This theory sweeps away at a breath not only the apostolic but the Italian origin of the Waldensian church, making it no older than the year 1160, when Peter Waldo began his ministry in france.” Pg. 25
“The Waldenses except a few recently, have never, during these seven centuries, recognized him as their head. Their oldest writings, their confessions of faith, their catechisms and poems, are not his, and make no mention of him.
Hecould not have found a church which by the very confessions of its enemies already existed, and which is well known to have professed in the ninth century evangelical doctrines opposed to those of the Roman Church.” Pg 26
A short history of the Italian Waldenses
Sofia Bompiani
Harvard college Library, from the library of Frank Dyer Chester, class of 1891, The gift of Joseph C. Willey 1939

5. Waldenses were commonly accused to be the same as the albigenses as well as Paulicans. It is obvious that similarity points to the fact that these groups held the same faith. which is much more ancient than Peter Waldo.
Catholic apologists typicaly lump these groups together in the same heresies, but then deny that they were unified and providing an alternative church. The Waldenses confessions of faith show just what faith they are.
The Inquisition was used to destroy all these so-called "heretics" in order to keep an iron grip on their "holy Roman Empire". But if the Waldenses had an evangelical faith then perhaps these other groups did as well. After all why were medeival europeans really so concerned with preserving Iranian doctrine?

6. Waldenses of the past testified to their ancient origin.
Many site Waldensees of this century giviong up on there doctrine. However the waldensees church has grown apostate. it would be comparable to interviewing an anglican Bishop on his views and assuming the same was true in the late 1500's. The waldenses today sadly deny the Bible and salvation. They are only genetic relatives. Yet the Waldenses of that day indeed believed that their church streched back to the apostles.

7. voltaire reveals that there was historical revisionism among french catholics.

“‘Auricular confession was not received as late as the eighth and ninth centuries
in the countries beyond the Loire, in Languedoc and the Alps – Alcuin complains of this
in his letters. The inhabitants of those countries appear to have always had an
inclination to abide by the customs of the primitive church, and to reject the tenets and
customs which the church in its more flourishing state judged convenient to adopt.
“‘Those who were called Manichaeans, and those who were afterward named
Albigenses, Vaudois, Lollards, and who appeared so often under different names, were
remnants of the first Gaulish Christians, who were attached to several ancient customs,
which the Church of Rome thought proper to alter afterward.” (Voltaire, Additions to
Ancient and Modern History, vol. 29, pp. 227, 242.)

The original waldensian confession

2010-02-22T08:17:00.000-08:00

"Waldensian Confessions of Faith
(Reproduced from Jone's Church History)

Waldenses Confession of 1120
1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.

2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)

4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.

5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.

6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.

7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.

8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.

9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.

10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.

11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.

12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.

13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.

14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment. "

Roman Catholics have constantly argued that the ideas of protestantism were never heard of in church history. This is an outright lie. There have been generations of believers free from the papacy who held allegiance to the scriptures and believed doctrines like justifcation by grace through faith alone in every century. As you read this document ask yourselves. Does this document sound protestant. Catholics claim that this group was heretical in that they believe in two Gods. Is that what this confession states? Should the roman church be trusted because they slaughtered all their competition in the inquisition?

By the way, admitting that confessions are indeed human documents with imperfection. this confession does a fine job of conveying the infallible truths of the gospel and I subscribe to it.
In Christ,
Matt

Liberty and traditional marriage

2010-01-02T12:54:00.001-08:00

It has come to my attention that some liberty minded thinkers have assumed to the idea of traditional marriage and/or the idea of constitutional traditional marriage amendment to be discriminatory against gays. While this idea is definitely antagonistic to gay activist; the reality is that amendment is not meant have the government step in against homosexual groups but instead make the government recognize the primitive and original building block of society, the family. So I would like the time to make that case.

A. An imposition of religion?
Some argue that this is a religious values being imposed upon people through the government. However, this is not strictly speaking, a religious debate. It is a debate over family ethics and morality and what role the government plays. While religion takes sides on this issue, it is not simply the idea birthed from one particular religious establishment. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, muslims, hindus, and even Buddhists have in the past denounced homosexuality and supported traditional marriage So it is not based on a particular world view. The issue barely involves a religious establishment. But it does have to do with how the government behaves itself around such matters.

B. the main opposition of the homosexual movement regards a presupposed bias in the tax code.
First of all the reason for this supposed bias is that traditional married couples are more likely to raise children.
Secondly this is an issue that can be easily resolved through limited government. The most pro-traditional marriage candidate Mike Huckabee argued for a fair Tax which would eliminate all bias in the tax code by doing away with the income tax system. Replacing this system with a sales tax. Other systems doing away with the IRS would accomplish the same goal.

C.Arguments about insurance and hospitals is mainly privatized.
Discrimination in insurance is strictly and economic matter. It has been repeatedly statistically proven that the gay lifestyle leads to more health risk, less sanity, and more violent relational situations. This will lead to insurance companies stamping a higher price for the lifestyle.
No major social conservative I know has argued that gays should not have hospital visitation rights. This is strictly a problem with the hospitals themselves.
However these are independent businesses and the private sector should be allotted such freedom whether right or wrong.

D. The homosexual movement has been a source of socialism in this fight.
The homo-sexual movement has been consistently tied to socialist strategies. Besides the obvious notice of the gay influence on democrats; Pro-gay legislation has been put in unconstitutional mean of judicial activism. Whenever put to a vote among the people traditional marriage has won even among the more liberal states.

E. The idea of an Amendment is defensive, not offensive.
The traditional marriage position has been one of defense and not offense. There are no new laws and legislation by traditional marriage advocates besides preserving the definition of marriage.
It is the homosexual lobbyists who demand extra protections, even though many homosexuals are financially well off in upper-class segments of society.
Traditional marriage advocates would like Homosexuality to not be inculcated in public schools and they would like an environment where their underage children are proselytized into a perverse lifestyle which leaves their families barren. Yet the government has stepped in and has already been introducing several methods of teaching our children fornication so that this battle would be easier.
Just so long as we have to pay for these social experiments on our children with our tax dollars.

F. There is no major enforcement of this amendment.

Gay rights groups argue this to be like “prohibition”. They see it as a misuse of the constitution to restrict freedoms that will be impossible to enforce upon gays.
This argument is utterly preposterous. Because it does not restrict they gays from moving together or calling themselves married. It only restricts the government from recognizing it. There is hardly any tax dollar price to use in enforcement.
Also homo-sexuals may not be aware that marriage is asking to give up liberties. First it is saying that the government encourages homosexuals to practices homosexuality all their life with a moral imperative to stay that way at the risk of health(in sickness and in health(even with STD). The government also then gets the right to divide up the gays property upon divorce. (we see this already Massachusetts and California) So this takes gay rights away.

G. the gay concept of Marriage is ludicrous
Gays are not truly asking for basic rights, but to destroy the governments understanding of marriage and family.
If we are discriminating against homosexuals in recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman; then we are obvious discriminating against other perverts.
Polygamists are a major minority group that will have the right to redefine next. Then we have beastility and child molestors and incest couples. There is already a group (N.A.M.B.L.A. North American Man-boy love association) advocating in Canada for rights to have sex with minors.There was already a film festival award for a movie “ZOO” advocating beastility between a man and a horse. You can not say you are not discriminating against these groups while supporting homosexuality.

H. This will lead to a breakdown of sexual ethics within our legal code
The end result of all this is an elimination of all sexual law. Once all these restrictions are annihilated, there will be rape and gang bangs and eventually all forms of violent crime will be accepted. Human sexuality must have controls. If there is no control then we will end in anarchy.
I. The God Factor
This argument may at first seem contradictory to the first argument brought up. However this is a point of probability. Just as many environment laws have been formed because of probable threat (even though global warming has been shown a haux).
The fact is we must deal with probabilities. The majority of the world and especially the united states acknowledges the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is oppose to the practices and will curse a people who blatant accept it. Even when California judges accepted gay marriage the state went up in flames with Forrest fires.(don’t miss the irony that the derogative british term “faggot” originally meant firewood)If God is real and America promotes the homosexual lifestyle then it would be like that the country will be cursed.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
18:28 that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18:22,298

3:6 Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid? shall evil befall a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?
Amos 3:6

Considering these factors support for traditional marriage is not a government attack upon gays, instead it is a defense of traditional American Values, which reiterates our stability and liberties.

Thanks, Matt Singleton

updates with the Biblesmack blog

2009-12-23T12:50:00.000-08:00

Hello readers!

It has been a busy year in 2009.
I do apologize for not writing more often.
I am working on a essay for this blog.
"darwinian naturalism as a religion"
People typically view Darwian theory as simply scientific theory.
Yet many scholars are aware that naturalism is a fully fledged worldview.
It is little known that Charles Darwin was not trained in science but instead a trained theologian from the anglican tradition.
I will use this future essay to jude Darwin's views from a theological perspective.

I have been caught up in many projects however.
I have been focusing on writing some books.
My first book "What would jesus say to Evangelicals?" Is currently available as an e-book. Hope fully soon it will be available in paperback.
Go to www.biblesmack.net if you are interested. The cost is 5$.
I am have writing 3 other books as well.

1. "The Science of Salvation" is a book critiqing all the major christian denominations including catholicism and judaism. It is essentially a compilation of my many articles on this blog. This is not simply an analysis of various religions. It is instead a gauntlet for all Christians to stare inot the double-edge sword of scripture and see whether or not they are being the sheep of Christ or wandering off the pasture.

2. "A New Look at an Old Word" is a book argueing for what I call a "King James mainly" view of scriptures concerning the Bible version debate. I make an argument for the traditional text of the Massoretic text and the textus Receptus being recognized as the perfect canonical text of the word of God. I also make a case for the KJV being the most pragmatic and dominant text for Christian use is we truly desire any interdenominational dialogue. This is a college age book that will present evidence normal censored in the ivory tower bubble. Every preacher should have the oportunity to read it.

3."The Reign of grace: a concise commentary on Paul's epistle to the Romans" This commentary sees Paul's epistle essentially as a constitution of the new reign or age of Grace. As the last apostle "PAul" has recieved revelation concerning the gospel to the gentiles. He is now taking the time in this letter establish the justification of God bring this new and incredible salvation and how it applies to our lives. this will be a must read for Christians who want to ta into God's grace in a way that leaps from black and white doctrine into a new innovative spirit filled life.

God willing these will be published soon and available.

On the net you may have nottice my other projects.
Bible Smack Radio and Kentuckiana Grassroots Radio(KGR)
At the end of last year we start biblesmack radio. It has done fairly successfully and soon would spinoff a political show as well.
Bible Smack Radio was succesful in having over two thousand listeners this year.
Kentuckiana Grassroots Radio has moved very successfully in drawing over 3000 listeners in 6 months. We are also in the process of making rounds both on local radio and television.
Needless to say I have had my hands full! if you would like to listen to either of these shows goto.
www.blogtalkradio.com/Bible-Smack-Radio
www.blogtalkradio.com/KY-GrassRoots-Radio

Also earlier this year I have stepdown as the pastor of Freedom Baptist Church. It was a very difficult decision. However, the ministry that I was doing was not well supported and the strain of time and money had taken it's toll not just on me but one my wife as well. I am thankful that we had accomplished some things with the church we were able to evangelize many and give sacrificially to many causes.
Since then I have joined a local independant baptist church "Grace Tabernacle".
I have found a place filled with healing and ministry. Since I have steped down from the role of Pastor it would probably be better to refer to me as brother Matt. As an ordained minister I still may be called "reverend" though many people find the title offensive so I'll just stick with the title "bro."
"Grace" is an exciting church that is really active in making a difference and spreading the gospel. The head pastor there is Mark Jackson. I have befreind a minister there "J.T." humston who has an incredible homeless ministry. "T.O.R.O." Trees Of Righteousness Outreach, A homeless ministry focused on helping the homeless and helping them be healed of drug and alcohol addiction alongside job training. check out there websight as well.
www.treesofrighteousness.org
If you would like to check out my church goto www.gracetab.net

God Bless,
and have a joyous Christmas