tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72835351607659524482024-02-07T16:40:05.335-05:00C-4Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-69777197309893411422014-10-20T18:56:00.000-04:002014-10-20T18:56:30.968-04:00Calvinism and EvangelismA very common objection to the doctrines of Grace is "What's the point of evangelism?"<br />
It seems like a valid argument. If God irresistibly saves sinners without the need for human effort, and if Salvation is all up to Him, then why do we need to spread the Gospel? God does all the work anyway, so what are we here for?<br />
<br />
There are several things I want to look at in regards to this objection.<br />
<br />
First of all, even if there was no point in evangelism, we should do it anyway, just because God tells us to. I've actually met Calvinists who believe that evangelism has no real purpose or use except as a means for believers to show obedience to God's command to spread the Gospel. I do not share this view, but <b><i>if</i></b> there was no point to evangelism, we should do it anyway, for the simple reason that God commands it. <em><b>"</b><b>And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 15:16)</b></em><br />
<br />
Secondly, I believe that God commands us to spread the Gospel because we are the tools that uses to do so. Yes, God does all the work in salvation, and He does it irresistibly, but He does it through the Gospel, which He spreads via the mouths of believers.<br />
<br />
The only thing that galls me more than a believer taking credit for their salvation is when they take credit for the salvation of others. Paul tells us very clearly that when it comes to spreading the Gospel, <i><b>"<span class="text 1Cor-3-6" id="en-NKJV-28417">I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. </span><span class="text 1Cor-3-7" id="en-NKJV-28418">So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase." (1 Corinthians 3:6-7)</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span class="text 1Cor-3-7" id="en-NKJV-28418"><br /></span></b></i>
<span class="text 1Cor-3-7" id="en-NKJV-28418">Paul and Apollos both worked hard to spread the Gospel, but in the end, it was God who brought about the increase. <i><b>"</b></i></span><i><b><span class="chapter-3"><span class="text Ps-127-1">Unless the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> builds the house,</span></span><span class="text Ps-127-1"> They labor in vain who build it;</span><span class="text Ps-127-1"> Unless the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> guards the city,</span><span class="text Ps-127-1"> The watchman stays awake in vain." (Psalm 127:1) </span></b></i><span class="text Ps-127-1">In the same way, I would say that unless God is at work through evangelism, it <b><i>is</i></b> pointless.</span><span class="text Ps-127-1"></span><span class="text Ps-127-1"> No amount of human wisdom and eloquence could ever convert an unbeliever. It takes the power of Christ working within their heart to make that person a "New Creation."</span><br />
<br />
Thirdly, the idea that Calvinism smothers evangelism is simply absurd, and defies history. Many historians and Pastors would agree that Calvinism has done more for evangelism than any other "branch" of Christianity! But don't take my word for it,<a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2013/07/03/does-calvinism-kill-missions/"> take a look at this amazing list</a> of great missionaries and evangelists who were Calvinists. You might be surprised at how many names you know and love, but never knew were Reformed!<br />
<br />
I want to end with a quote from Pastor David Shrock:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>"For Paul, election and evangelism are not at odds. For Paul, election is the motivation that drives him to go share the gospel in all places, the hardest places, because he believes that when the gospel is shared, the voice of Christ will be spoken, the sheep [elect] will hear the voice, and they will follow after Him. He's not saying that they are saved before the foundation of the world. He's not saying that salvation will come without the preaching of the gospel. He is saying that when the gospel is preached, he has absolute confidence that it will be effective, because he knows that there are elect ones out there... in this understanding, election does not hinder evangelism. It energizes it."</b></i></div>
</blockquote>
I highly recommend that you listen to the <a href="https://viaemmaus.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cbc-david-schrock-8-24-14-am.mp3">full sermon</a> this quote is from.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-8378657205744310602014-08-14T16:09:00.002-04:002014-08-14T16:09:53.059-04:00Courtship VS. Dating: It's the People, Not the ModelAfter watching this controversy go on for quite some time, I've finally decided to put in my two cents. I've never written on it before, because it just wasn't my thing. I felt like everything to be said on the subject had already been said, and it seemed like all the other Christian bloggers I knew had this subject covered (which they do!). However, I've been reading a lot of interesting articles from both sides of the debate, and a few recent posts have moved me to speak.<br />
<br />
I grew up thinking that dating, along with the whole
boyfriend/girlfriend thing was just weird. It didn't look right, it
didn't feel right, and I told myself I'd never do it. And so I haven't.<br />
<br />
When I was about 17, I decided that I needed to start preparing for marriage. I really had no idea what I was doing. If I wasn't going to go the way of dating, what way was I going to go? So I read about courtship. I read <i>I Kissed Dating Gooodbye</i>, and I've since read many good articles and blog posts supporting and promoting courtship. I've also witnessed friends go through successful courtships that led to happy marriages. Courtship seemed like the best and only option.<br />
<br />
However, I've also watched courtship fail. And I've watched dating succeed. And I've read blog posts and stories and articles saying the same thing. More and more people are saying that courtship is fundamentally flawed, much the same way that we would say dating is fundamentally flawed. And they make some really good points, some of which I agree with.<br />
<br />
So what's my stance on the two now? Well, I don't think that courtship is the only way to go, and I don't think dating is as bad as we make it out to be. I'm a total heretic, right? But hear me out.<br />
<br />
I agree with both sides of the dating/courtship controversy when they say that there are fundamental flaws. But those flaws are not within the models of courtship or dating. Both models have their pros and cons, both can lead to God-honoring marriages, and both can lead to heartbreak and bitterness. How is this possible?<br />
<br />
<b>The models aren't flawed. People are.</b><br />
<br />
To prove my point, let's look at dating's "fundamental flaw," as outlined by many pro-courtship sources. The fundamental flaw with dating, as I've read and have been lead to believe, is that it puts all the focus on self. That it's all about seeing how much pleasure you can extract from the other person. It's all about you, and not the person you're dating. Indeed, this is often how it's done, and I observed this first-hand.<br />
<br />
But what is a date? Typically, a guy asks a girl out, they go out (typically to a restaurant or movie), and the guy pays for everything (typically). I see nothing inherently self-centered with that model, do you? Why not? Because <b>whether or not you act self-centered does not lie within the model: it lies within your character. </b><br />
<br />
The main argument against dating is that a lot of the people doing it become self-focused, and the relationship ends up bitterly failing as a result. So we do away with the model. <br />
<br />
But what if I told that the same is true of marriage? "a lot of the people doing it become self-focused, and the relationship ends up bitterly failing as a result." You're probably familiar with America's divorce rate. So should we do away with the model of marriage? Of course not! Because the problem is not with the model. It's with the people.<br />
<br />
The reasons so many dating relationships fail, so many marriages end in divorce, and even some courtships end in bitterness, is not because the models are inherently flawed. It's because people are inherently flawed.<br />
<br />
<b>You can be self-centered on a date, and you can be self-centered in courtship.</b> The fundamental flaw is not with dating, nor with courtship; it's with you. You are self-centered. I am self-centered. Humans are all, by nature, fundamentally self-centered, and that effects everything we do. That's the fundamental flaw.<br />
<br />
The only solution to this flaw is to make Christ --not ourselves-- the center of our lives and our relationships.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it." -- 2 John 1:6</b></i><span class="text 2John-1-6" id="en-NKJV-30652"><br /></span></blockquote>
</div>
If you make it your goal to please God rather than yourself in your relationship, then things will go a lot better for you. That doesn't mean your relationship will work out the way you want it to-- sometimes God has other plans, and if He does, you need to bow to His will. Pleasing God might mean "breaking up" with someone who does not have Christ-like character. Pleasing God, obeying His commandments, and following Him is not easy, and often painful (Matthew 24:9). But it is worth it.<br />
<br />
Here's the bottom line: what matters in a relationship is not the model you follow (courtship vs. dating). What matters is the character of the individuals involved, as that will dictate the outcome of the relationship. And if the goal of both people in the relationship is to please God, then as long as they meet that goal in the way they interact with each other, then the outcome of that relationship will always be for the best.<br />
<br />
Whether you date, court, or follow some other model, I pray that you put Christ first, and make pleasing Him the focus of your relationship.<br />
<br />
So what about me? What model will I follow? I'm really not sure yet. I may not follow either. My parents didn't court, but technically, they didn't date either. I might do the same thing. I might even stay single; as much as I dislike the idea, it might be God's Will for my life. I don't know. But here's what I do know: I will seek to please the Lord in all that I do. And I hope you'll do the same.<br />
<br />Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-40584630189868738912014-08-01T10:38:00.003-04:002014-08-01T19:03:33.389-04:00Satanic Sidebar?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimZivzcnx7LFPoFJxtO7dW9bSt6ub7E7qREUs-wn4LF0kJCYzLr3dAEViGELZkHfeVr2bwD6j2kbOpZerXYmBEfRDXpw5BA84IclQKGje8qsLP4-T4yRIQYUO55ueiy9xsWC_8Xob_kg/s1600/%231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimZivzcnx7LFPoFJxtO7dW9bSt6ub7E7qREUs-wn4LF0kJCYzLr3dAEViGELZkHfeVr2bwD6j2kbOpZerXYmBEfRDXpw5BA84IclQKGje8qsLP4-T4yRIQYUO55ueiy9xsWC_8Xob_kg/s1600/%231.jpg" height="400" width="320" /></a></div>
You may not know this, but I am an aspiring webcartoonist. I used to publish a single-panel strip called <a href="http://www.theboehlkes.net/Comic/">Chubby Yellow Van</a>, and I am currently doing a sci-fi webcomic called <a href="http://starbountycomic.com/">Star Bounty</a>.<br />
<br />
Well, I was thinking about what else I could use my cartooning skills for, and C-4 came to mind. All that to say, future posts will most likely feature comics that will help illustrate the points I am trying to make. Should be fun!<br />
<br />
This comic was really just a random idea that came into my head... I was thinking about how scams, conspiracy theories, and even some religions try to draw us in with the promise of inside information that someone powerful doesn't want us to know. Well, I realized that's exactly what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.<br />
<br />
We shouldn't accept beliefs simply because they make us unique or smarter than others (snob appeal), or because someone supposedly doesn't want us to know. We should accept beliefs based on the merits of evidence, logic, and most importantly: whether or not they're biblical.<br />
<br />
Now just because someone uses the same tactics as Satan to try to get us to believe something doesn't necessarily mean that belief is false, but at the same time... <i>when someone is using the same tactics as Satan</i> to try to get you to believe something, well, you would probably do best to take everything they say with a grain of salt. In fact, use the whole shaker. Be a Berean, and <span class="text Acts-17-11" id="en-NKJV-27535">"search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things are so." </span>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-63484124748897030412014-05-31T16:41:00.002-04:002014-05-31T16:56:42.994-04:00In Defense of Christian RapI've been thinking about this subject for some time now. There are people out there, some of them perhaps reading this, that believe Christin rap is sinful.<br />
<br />
Christian rap and it's fanbase is growing and gaining popularity. So if Christian rap is sinful, then we should be doing something to stop it. So today I'd like to present some of the main arguments against Christian rap, and we'll weigh each one. And these aren't just arguments made by crazy old grannies: many come from well-established pastors and well-meaning friends of mine. So don't think I'm misrepresenting the anti-rap side.<br />
<br />
But before I begin, I want to just share a little bit about my personal experience... When I first heard about the existence of "Christian Rappers," I thought the term was an oxymoron. I scoffed at the idea, and rolled my eyes whenever I heard my friends talking about them. That is, until some friends had me <i>actually listen</i> to some Christian Rap. I loved the lyrics, since they were so full of good theology, and in time, I've grown to love the music style as well. So while reading this, if you are like I was before I heard Christian rap, then keep in mind: I was just like you.<br />
<br />
So I did some research, and these were the four main, recurring arguments that I found in support of the idea that Christian Rap is sinful:<br />
<br />
<b>It's the Beat</b><br />
Many argue that Rap (as well as rock, metal, Dubstep, even jazz, and essentially any "beaty" music) is inherently evil. Why? Because of the often fast-paced beat and the drums. The main claim is that the accelerated beat makes people violent, or that it has some sort of sexual element to it. Now, there is a grain of truth to this claim: A fast-paced beat <i>will</i> up your heart-rate, and <i>can</i> make you want to move around to use up that energy. Sex and violence <i>are</i> two ways to expel that energy (it should be noted that sex and violence aren't inherently sinful). And, admittedly, sex and violence are things we see promoted in secular rap. But when we look at Christian rap... Where's the sensuality? Where's the violence? It's not there. Why? Because, as the proponents of this argument seem to miss, there are thousands of completely innocent ways one can move around and expel energy without being sensual or violent.<br />
Four other things must be noted under this argument: First, that not all Christian Rap songs are "beaty". Second, that Christian rappers preach <i>against</i> (sinful forms of) sex and violence in their songs. Third, that the desire to move around and expel energy can be resisted, and quite easily. Fourth, that "more acceptable" forms of music (such as hymns, worship, and classical music-- which I love, by the way) can, even without a fast-paced beat, have the same energizing effect and make you want to move. Are those forms of music inherently sinful as well?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Rap's Origins</b><br />
Like the last argument, this one claims that rap music is inherently sinful, godly lyrics or not. The reason why is different, though. In this argument, Rap music is evil because of its sinful origins and history. Now, I won't contest the fact that rap's origins are sinful. But to say that its origin makes it evil... well, <i>that</i> I have to disagree with. Mainly, because that is what's known as a genetic fallacy: <i>"The <b>genetic</b> fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of
virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested
based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current
meaning or context."</i><br />
The second reason I reject this argument is because of the Cross. Do you know why and how the cross originated? Pretty evil, huh? And yet, what does the cross mean to us now? <i>One of mankind's vilest inventions was used for God's greatest purpose</i>. <a href="http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-can-god-use-depraved-genre.html">Can the same not be done with rap?</a> I don't know about you, but I find that to be pretty profound.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Look at the Rappers</b><br />
The anti-rap crowd will sometimes point to the rappers themselves to prove that Christian Rap is worldly and sinful. They point to the hoodies, the cocked-back hats, the bling, and the baggy pants worn by some Christian rappers. They point to the attitudes, mannerisms, accents, and vocabulary used by some Christian rappers. "See?" they say. "They look JUST like the worldly, sinful, secular rappers!" However, this is also a fallacy: the <i>ad Hominem</i> or Personal Attack fallacy. Instead of judging Christian rap based on its merits, they judge it based on the merits of the rappers.<br />
Wait, did I say merits? I should've said <i>appearances</i>, because this is really what's going on, and it's very unbiblical. Do some Christian rappers dress just like they do in the hood? Yes. See for yourself:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5QsZn-AF7v2HDnvi04L4qLMxmZJecrzZZH1Mn3-CTWSB6RSEyEkEYQeHzXvbbgGrf2ydzcYc-2DP5LRyVmZRjnw-dt4aXQT88yWosp94e5kbDBtSs2VUMTjdMVW3fXEEkxws-sDGB5Q/s1600/Rappers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5QsZn-AF7v2HDnvi04L4qLMxmZJecrzZZH1Mn3-CTWSB6RSEyEkEYQeHzXvbbgGrf2ydzcYc-2DP5LRyVmZRjnw-dt4aXQT88yWosp94e5kbDBtSs2VUMTjdMVW3fXEEkxws-sDGB5Q/s1600/Rappers.jpg" height="161" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From left to right: Christian Rappers Trip Lee, Lecrae, Shai Linne, and This'l.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Eww! Yucky!" You might say. But I bet that's what people said about John the Baptist, in his long beard and camel hide. Long story short, Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). <br />
As for the mannerisms and vocabulary used by Christian Rappers... well, that's just how most African Americans living in the hood talk. It just makes sense that if that's where you came from, and that's who you're witnessing to, then that's how you should talk. Saying that's sinful could be considered racist, besides being unbiblical and completely unhelpful.<br />
The one thing I do like about this argument is that it can be turned around so easily. If you're going to judge Christan rap based on the merits of the rappers, then look at their fruits (Matthew 7:20), not their appearances. And what are their fruits? Well, most Christian rappers lead missions efforts in urban areas, preaching on the streets, feeding the poor, planting, pastoring, and supporting churches... the list goes on. Through these men, God has saved many people from lives of addiction, abuse, drugs, alcoholism, gang violence, prostitution, and more. I honestly have a really hard time arguing with those kinds of fruits. What about you?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Giving in to the Culture?</b><br />
This argument makes me kind of sad. Like the last argument, it's not really an argument against rap, but against the rappers themselves: another personal attack fallacy. Those who oppose Christian rap accuse Christian rappers of cowardice, caving in to the culture, and compromising with the world. Wow. If only these people actually knew a thing or two about the people they're making these accusations about. It puts their ignorance on display, in a way. Though --and I will touch on this later-- this is the case with most arguments against Christian rap.<br />
<u>Christian rappers are not caving to the culture</u>. Most of them were raised in the culture of drugs, rape, murder, and gangs. Now that they've been saved by Christ, they're on an all-out war to fundamentally change that culture for Christ, using Christian rap as part of their ministry.<br />
<u>Christian rappers are not cowards</u>. Many of these brave men and women are spearheading missions to the deepest, darkest and most violent hoods, where other Christians --the REAL cowards-- dare not go.<br />
<u>Christian Rappers are not compromising with the world</u>. Instead, they've taken something from the world and have turned it to good use, like the cross mentioned earlier. They have, essentially, <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/04/repost-plundering-egyptians.html">plundered the Egyptians</a>. Besides: if these rappers DID compromise with the world, then the world would love them. But that's not the case: the world hates them (John 15:9). As a recent example, Christian Rapper Bizzle made a song that preached against homosexuality. As a result, he has received loads of criticism, hatred, and even many death threats. Doesn't sound like a compromiser or a coward to me.<br />
<br />
Now, there are a few common factors visible in each of these arguments, and I'd like to talk about them.<br />
<br />
The first is cultural elitism of sorts.<br />
If you're going to make a case that something is sinful, then you should bring up Bible verses, or at least biblical principles, and apply them to the subject. Instead, we talk about music styles, sideways hats, and the use of ebonics to praise God. In other words, the best people can come up with is that Christian rap is evil because it's <i>different</i>. Different from the white, western, civilized, classical culture that we've been raised in. Different from what we're used to. I'm sorry, but if you go around the world and visit Christians in other cultures, guess what? You're going to find a LOT of differences, cultural differences. The Christians you meet will eat differently, speak differently, and have different artistic and musical tastes. Being different doesn't automatically make them all evil.<br />
<br />
The second common thread is ignorance. <br />
Many of the people making these arguments have never listened to Christian rap, and (as shown by some of their arguments) know next to nothing about the rappers themselves. Now, that doesn't make them wrong, and I'm not saying they have to meet the rappers and listen to their music before they can make any arguments against them. I mean, I don't need to engage in cannibalism to know that it's wrong. But I should <i>at least</i> know a thing or two about cannibalism (like that it involves the murder and consumption of human beings), so that I can use biblical principles to refute it (like the commandment not to murder). Most people opposing Christian rap do neither of these things, as is clear by their most popular arguments.<br />
<br />
The third common factor is a lack of scripture. I've touched on this a little bit already, but the common arguments against Christian rap contain little to no scriptural support. In light of this, I suppose it makes sense that they have to fall back on ignorance and cultural elitism to condemn Christian rap.<br />
"Now now" you say "just because there's no verse against rap doesn't mean rap is okay! The Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion, and yet, you yourself oppose abortion." and you're right, totally. The Bible doesn't specifically address some of these issues. BUT, we should be able to apply <i>basic biblical principles</i> to these things. The Bible doesn't say abortion is wrong, but it does say that murder is wrong, and abortion involves murder, so I can logically conclude that abortion is sinful. No such Biblical principles can be put in a similar logical progression to show that Christian rap is sinful. I challenge you to prove otherwise.<br />
<br />
As this long post comes to a close, I want to make a few things clear.<br />
Rap, Christian or otherwise, is not inherently sinful. That should be clear already. However, we should also be careful about making blanket statements. You can't say that ALL rap is sinful, but in the same way, I can't say that ALL Christian rap is gold. I'm sure you could find some that isn't all that great.<br />
But my purpose in this post is not to say that all Christian Rap is great. Nor am I saying that you should all become fans of Christian rap, or that you're a sinner for not doing so. My goal is to show that the arguments against Christian rap fall apart, and like the cross, rap --though created for evil-- can be effectively used for God's Glory. <br />
<br />
I'd like to close with a quote from<a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/01/thinking-about-thinking-about-rap-unexpected-thoughts-over-thanksgiving/"> an article</a> by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"...I have made many of the same arguments [against Christian Rap] myself. In my head. Thankfully not in public. Am I holding back?</b></i>
<br />
<i><b>No, I allow myself those arguments in my head when I want to
absolutize my preferences and satisfy myself in the righteousness and
superiority of my own musical taste and theology. The problem for me is
that my theology of music will not allow me to stay self-satisfied on
the matter, and by God’s grace I have not made arguments out loud that
would violate that theology.</b></i><br />
<i><b>Rap music is not my music. I do not come from a culture in which rap
music is the medium of communication and I do not have the ear for it
that I have for other forms of music. But I do admire its virtuosity and
the hold that is has on so many, for whom it is a first and dominant
musical language. I want that language taken for the cause of the Gospel
and I pray to see a generation of young Gospel-driven rappers take
dominion of that music for the glory of God. I see that happening now,
and I rejoice in it. I want to see them grow even more in influence,
reaching people I cannot reach with music that will reach millions who
desperately need the Gospel."</b></i></blockquote>
Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-29555051958342052102014-05-27T14:20:00.000-04:002014-05-27T14:28:33.621-04:00The Language of SalvationThe nature of salvation, how it is accomplished, and the roles played in it are hotly debated. Scriptures are scoured and finely examined to try and produce a verdict, some conclusion that we can all agree on and that fully explains everything.<br />
<br />
Why does it matter? Well, what you believe about salvation effects what you believe about God and His relationship with man, and your conclusions will (or at least, should) determine your entire worldview and the way you live your life. The implications are enormous.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, I am of the opinion that we will never fully understand every aspect of salvation and how it works until we reach heaven. How does God change a black and sinful heart of stone into one of flesh? How does God's sovereignty work together with man's will? We don't know how. We just know that it does, and that it works, because we see and feel the effects.<br />
<br />
However, there are some basic truths that we can infer about salvation just by looking at the words, examples, metaphors, and analogies that the Bible uses to describe the salvation process. And, not surprisingly, they favor a Reformed view of Salvation. Take a look:<br />
<br />
<b>Adopted:</b> Romans 8:15, 8:23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5.<br />
Who does the work in the process of adoption? The adopted, or he adopters? We don't adopt God, He adopts us. God is the one who works salvation, and thus He deserves the glory.<br />
<br />
<b>Bought/Purchased</b>: Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Revelation 5:9.<br />
What role does an item play in being purchased? Christ purchased us with His blood. What part did we play in that? None.<br />
<br />
<b>Inherited</b>: Acts 20:32, 26:18; Ephesians 1:11, 1:14, 1:18, 5:5, Colossians 1:12, 3:24; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Peter 1:4.<br />
The
Kingdom of heaven is referred to as our inheritance. An inheritance is
something that is given to you whether you want it or not, and is not
something you earn. It is bequeathed to you, typically by your parents.
In the same way, our heavenly Father who has adopted us, has prepared an
inheritance for us.<br />
<br />
<b>Made Alive/Raised</b>: 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 2:1, 2:5-6; Colossians 2:12-13, 3:1.<br />
What can a dead man do to raise himself up? What choice can he make to be raised up? And can He resist being made alive? No, he can do nothing, for He is dead. Who raises Him up? Who does the work? God, of course. Look at the raising of Lazarus or the raising of Jairus' daughter. Jesus says "Come forth" and "Arise" (respectively) and the corpses, made alive, obey. They don't sit and say "You know, it's my choice, I'll make it when I'm good and ready." They <i>come</i>. A dead man cannot choose to be made alive, a dead man cannot make himself alive or play any active part in doing so, and a dead man cannot resist being made alive. It's the same when God goes to make us spiritually alive in Him.<br />
<br />
<b>Born:</b> John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:18.<br />
A baby does not give birth to itself, nor does his birth hinge upon his decision to be born or not. The same is true of our new birth in Christ.<br />
<br />
The list goes on. The scripture is bursting with examples like these. The words used in the Bible to describe the salvation process and man's relationship with God constantly affirm the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism: specifically, that salvation is of God, and not of man.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"The only thing of our very own which we contribute to our salvation is the sin which makes it necessary." --William Temple</b></i></blockquote>
Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-39888933234722830862014-05-12T22:01:00.000-04:002014-05-13T06:35:50.532-04:00Using the Bible to Defend Life<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijlXNuC41Gr84Ws93d4CwTwmOAHcTztjXRlrww0vZQyIFhROKYH7Zi-AOpZKHxxG7FtTAofLS8U0wvF2FJBTxfZc1IJnVoU3wVeyOnuAKo17rESdD0eTHRrT51po19OT-uuVpnGcUUQA/s1600/Abortion+Heroes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijlXNuC41Gr84Ws93d4CwTwmOAHcTztjXRlrww0vZQyIFhROKYH7Zi-AOpZKHxxG7FtTAofLS8U0wvF2FJBTxfZc1IJnVoU3wVeyOnuAKo17rESdD0eTHRrT51po19OT-uuVpnGcUUQA/s1600/Abortion+Heroes.jpg" height="125" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">John Barros (left) and Scott Klusendorf (right)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
My stomach churned. It always does in situations like that. The donuts I'd had for breakfast weren't helping. Even though it was early December, the light of the sun was warm on my shoulders. But such is Florida.<br />
<br />
I was with a group of other homeschooled Christian teens -- all close friends of mine -- helping pastor John Barros to convince people not to kill their babies at an abortion clinic in Downtown Orlando. John Barros had been doing this about six days a week for years now. He had experience. Me? This was my first time.<br />
<br />
John Barros uses an interesting method. He reads and quotes scripture, a lot. It's very normal for Pastor Barros
to take a megaphone, turn to the book of Revelation, and preach
judgement upon those inside the clinic (he let my friend Jacob do the reading on that day). And it gets results: people walk
out of there, convicted of their sin, too scared of hell to follow
through with killing their baby.<br />
<br />
To be honest, I felt uneasy about this method. However, I bowed to Pastor Barros' authority and experience, and went along with it. I mean, come on:
He'd been doing this six days a week for years, and this was my first
time. He knows what he's doing, I don't.<br />
<br />
But one thing
Pastor Barros said really stood out to me. My friend Jacob and I had
just failed to convince a Haitian man to let his baby live. What had we
done wrong? John Barros old us this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"You can't reason with them. You just need to keep giving them scriptures."</blockquote>
Several months later, I was at a homsechool convention in Cincinatti, Ohio. Scott Klusendorf, pro-life advocate and president of Life Training Institute, gave several talks on how to engage people on the topic of abortion and present a water-tight case for life.<br />
<br />
His approach was totally different from Pastor Barros'.<br />
<br />
Mr. Klusendorf's argument for life does not involve ANY scripture verses. Instead, he relies almost exclusively on science and logic to make his case. You can see for yourself <a href="http://prolifetraining.com/resources/five-minute-1/">on his website</a>.<br />
<br />
Mr. Klusendorf's method, like John Barros' method, also gets results. He speaks at schools, churches, and conventions, and also debates leading "pro-choice" advocates. Many people are convinced by his flawless logic.<br />
<br />
These two prominent pro-life heroes use completely different methods to combat the same evil. Who uses the correct method?<br />
<br />
This blog hasn't seen any lively discussion in a while (the forums have been silent for almost a year), and so I'd like for people to post their opinions in the comments and let me know what they think.<br />
<br />
Which man has the better method? Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Should we use scripture only and not try to reason with people, or should we reason with them using science and logic and leave the Bible out of things? What do you think?<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I think both men are right, but I think Scott's method is more sound. Why? Well, the Bible has little to no weight with the unbeliever. They couldn't care less what a 2,000 year old book says about how they should live their lives. Trying to use the Bible to convince them abortion is wrong would be a waste of time.<br />
<br />
Should we still use the Bible? Yes. And Scott does use it to present the gospel --as we always should when engaging unbelievers-- he simply doesn't use it when making his case for life. <br />
<br />
I'm still forming my own opinion on the matter, but I would like to hear yours. What part does the Bible play in making the case for life?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-49293392445114149702014-04-26T21:21:00.002-04:002014-04-26T21:21:29.658-04:00Warning: Incoming PassionI just finished attending the great Midwest homeschool convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. After listening to speakers such as Alex McFarland, Scott Klusendorf, and Ben Carson, I can say that I have a burning passion to go out and do whatever I can to advance Christ's kingdom on this earth and stamp out evil wherever it show its face, which, sadly, is everywhere.<br />
<br />
I may not be special and I may not have a special education, but I can write and I can speak and I am a special child of God with a special mission, just like every other Christian. I'm going to use that to the best of my ability to serve His purposes.<br />
<br />
And so I'm bringing this blog back up. And I am going to be making a few changes. But mainly, I'm just going to start posting regularly again. And I have a lot of cool stuff planned, and be forewarned: I am going to try to involve at least a few of you in it. You'll see how in the coming weeks.<br />
<br />
I've been praying lately for God to show me what He wants me to do, and I've been asking Him to use me. I think that He has begun to answer those prayers. I feel like a plan, a purpose, a mission is being written out and put together, piece by piece, in my heart. So I would appreciate your prayers for me in the following weeks.<br />
<br />
So get ready. I have an obligation and an ability to serve Christ which I have not been fulfilling to the bet of my ability. That's all about to change.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-85275474553906902732014-02-27T08:23:00.001-05:002014-02-27T08:25:13.681-05:00Soli Deo GloriaFinally, we come to the last of the Five Solas: Soli Deo Gloria, "The Glory of God Alone."<br />
<br />
The first thing I want to do is get a supposed contradiction out of the way. "Sola" means "Alone," and yet, we have five of them? Five "alones"? How can they be alone if there are five of them? Here's how it works. According to Scripture Alone, we are justified <i>by</i> Grace Alone, <i>through</i> Faith alone, <i>in</i> Christ alone, for the Glory of God alone. They are each alone in doing what they do, but together there are five of them.<br />
<br />
In a way, Soli Deo Gloria is the single doctrine that sits behind, flows through, and is affirmed by all of the other Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism. Some would say it is the heart of reformed theology. When God's word is the only authority, God gets all the glory. When salvation is by Grace through Faith and not of works (or anything else man does), then God gets all the glory. If saving power belongs to Christ alone, then God gets all the glory when an individual is saved. The five points of Calvinism also follow this theme (but we'll see that some other time).<br />
<br />
The Reformers put forth Soli Deo Gloria as the <i>reason</i> why God does what He does. Why did He create the universe? Why did He create humans? Why did He send His Son? The answer is "for His glory." All things that exist (especially humans), exist for the purpose of bringing God glory, and all things that happen (yes, even bad things), happen for the purpose of bringing God glory.<br />
<br />
Now, most Christians would agree with Soli Deo Gloria, to some extent. Non-Reformed Christians say it all the time. They don't have a problem with giving God glory. So I'm not going to go into all of the verses throughout the Bible that
talk about giving God glory (I couldn't fit the book of Psalms in a single blog
post, haha). Despite the agreement most Christians have with this doctrine, there are parts that they (sometimes unconsciously) disagree with. Specifically, in regards to salvation.<br />
<br />
I'll give it to you straight: only the Reformed model of salvation ensures that God gets all the glory. All other models, some way or another, steal some of God's glory. This is why I am as passionate about Reformed Theology as I am. It's not because I like to argue, and this isn't just nit-picking or hairsplitting. This is <i>God's Glory</i> we're talking about. Our sole purpose here on earth. This is big. This is worth division.<br />
<br />
So how do other models of salvation "steal" God's glory? The main reason is that they are conditional. God saves you based on something you do. Whether your good works (Catholicism), or your future faith (Conditional Election, from Arminianism), They teach that God looks at you and sees that you have done or will do something to earn, merit, or deserve salvation, even if it's faith. And then, based on this thing we do, He saves us. In that way, we get credit. We earned it. It was us. We had to add to Christ's work on the cross in order for us to be saved. God couldn't have done it without us. We get the glory for what God has done. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as theft. <br />
<br />
The Reformed model is not like this at all (I want to say "the Biblical model" but I think that's laying it on a little thick). God doesn't save us based on anything we do or will do (Unconditional Election). Why does God save people? Not because He's obligated to, or because we deserve it, or because we asked Him to, etc.. God saves people <i>for the sole purpose of His glory</i>, and therefore, God should receive all the glory when somebody is saved.<br />
<br />
This idea is affirmed throughout scripture.<br />
<br />
Ephesians 1:3-12 says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, <u>to the praise of the glory of His grace</u>, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. </i></b><i><b>In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory."</b></i></blockquote>
Here we see over and over that God does what He does according to <i>His</i> will, according to the riches of <i>His</i> Grace, according to <i>His</i> good pleasure, according to <i>His</i> purpose, according to the counsel of <i>His</i> will. Not based on anything we do or will do. It should be clear then who it is that deserves all the glory:<br />
<br />
God. <br />
<br />
Soli Deo Gloria!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-20948855946093152052014-01-25T10:49:00.000-05:002014-01-25T10:49:09.621-05:00How Can I Know I'm saved? Part 3: I Still Sin!<div class="tr_bq">
In <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2014/01/how-can-i-know-im-saved-part-2-how-can.html">the last post</a> I mentioned Godly desires that produce Godly actions. Well, sometimes, we have desires that produce actions that aren't exactly Godly. Very much the opposite, in fact. We sin.</div>
<br />
One of the big reasons people doubt whether or not they're saved is because they still have sin in their life. It's a huge problem, and it has kept many awake at night (myself included). Because, if we have been made new, have been given new hearts, new desires, a new will, than it should be reflected in our actions, right? We should be seeing good works, and not sin, right?<br />
<br />
That is the main question we'll be answering, and we'll be doing it by looking at a lot of smaller questions.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>If I truly am a Christian, why do I still struggle with sin? </b><br />
Let's face it: Being a Christian doesn't mean you won't sin. Everyone struggles with sin, and that includes Christians. The Apostle Paul himself struggled with sin after salvation, as he tells us in Romans 7:13-25. We just aren't sinless, and will continue to be that way until we are united with Jesus in heaven. But if Christians still sin, then what's the real difference between a believing sinner and an unbelieving sinner? The unbeliever loves his sin and looks for ways to continue in it, the believer hates his sin and looks for ways to try to stop sinning. The life of an unbeliever is defined by giving in to sin, whereas the life of a believer is defined by fighting against sin, even if that fight is sometimes lost. Nowhere does the Bible say that you can lose or nullify your salvation by sinning. But the Bible does tell us time and time again that God can forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9). <br />
<br />
<b>I committed a HUGE sin! How can I still be a Christian? </b><br />
Some denominations teach that there are "mortal" sins that can cause you to lose your salvation, such as murder or adultery. I deny such teaching, and so does the Bible (but that's another blog post). The truth is, no sin is too great for God to forgive. King David committed both murder and adultery in the Bathsheba incident (2 Samuel 11). But his relationship with God was not severed. Does that mean his sin was okay? Far from it! He was punished for what he did, and most importantly, he still needed to repent of his sin and ask God to forgive him.<br />
No matter how large a sin you have committed, God still loves you and can forgive you. But you must still be repentant.<br />
<br />
<b>I have a sinful habit/addiction that I can't seem to break.</b><br />
Let's get one thing straight: If you've been saved, it doesn't matter how large <i>or</i> how numerous your sins are. No power can separate you from the love of Christ (Romans 8:38-39), including your sins, which he can forgive you of. However, that doesn't mean that a sinful habit or addiction is 'okay.' It's still a horrible thing, and should be attacked vigorously. With God's help, even the most powerful addictions can be broken (Philippians 4:13). However, there are some habits or addictions that you may never be able to break. The key is that even though you may never break 100% free, you must keep fighting it. Keep hating your sin. Resist it with all you have. Keep asking for God's help. That is the difference between a saved addict and an unsaved addict: The unbeliever gives up and gives in to addiction, but the believer knows that God is helping him, so he keeps on fighting addiction, no matter how many times he may lose. <br />
<br />
There are two important things to remember, and the first is this:<br />
Jesus tells us that a tree is known by it's fruit (Matthew 7:16-20). A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Paul tells us what good fruit looks like (Galatians 5:22-23). If you are not bearing any of these fruit, but instead continue willfully in sins, whether small or big, many or few, and do not repent of them, then the cold truth is this: <i><b>You have not been saved</b></i>.<br />
<br />
The second thing to remember is this: for those of us that have been saved, God can forgive any number or size of sins. BUT: <span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>God's Grace IS NOT A LICENSE TO SIN. </b></i></span><br />
Paul puts it this way in Romans 6:1-14:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. </b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. </b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."</b></i> </blockquote>
So yes, God can and will forgive us of the sins we commit after we've been saved, but that doesn't mean we're free to do what we want. We should not walk in sins. On the contrary, we should walk "worthy of our calling" to "Make our election sure" (Ephesians 4:1; 2 Peter 1:10).<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. </b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. </b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him </b></i><b>(Colossians 3:1-10. I recommend reading the whole chapter)</b></blockquote>
<br />
If you are saved, then no sin you commit can separate you form Christ. You cannot lose your salvation. However, you must continue to battle against sin. No temptation is too strong to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13). We must keep fighting, and praying for God's help. And when we do fall, as sometimes we will, then we must always ask God to forgive us. He can, and He will, no matter what. Then get back up and keep fighting!<br />
<br />
But if you're not saved, then you are in dire straights. Whether your sins are little, big, many, or few, they are still sin, and you deserve death and hell as punishment. But that's not the end of the story. God can forgive your sins if only you repent and believe. No matter how horrible a life you've lead, there is hope for you. Repent, believe, and you will be saved!<br />
<br />
As we reach the end of this series, you may be examining your life. You
may still be uncertain as to whether or not you're saved. Well, if you
still aren't sure, then there's no harm in re-dedicating your life to
Christ, and there is no better time to do that, than right now.<br />
<br />
I hope God has used this series in your life to bring Glory to Him. If you're still usure about some things, or have any questions about salvation or anything else, I am here and willing to listen to you and help you in any way I can. I urge you to take advantage of the comment, forum, or private contact features. God bless.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-83897326435395309152014-01-18T17:32:00.000-05:002014-01-25T10:50:03.908-05:00How Can I know I'm Saved? Part 2 +How Can I Get Saved?<div class="tr_bq">
In the last <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-can-i-know-im-saved.html">"How Can I Know I'm saved?"</a> post, we listed some sources of false assurance in respect to salvation. Some of my readers may have put their hope in some of the things I listed (I know I used to), and you may now be wondering "If X doesn't mean I'm saved, then how <i>can</i> I tell if I'm saved? Is there <i>any</i> way of knowing?"</div>
<br />
You may recall that I believe that you <i>can</i> know whether or not you're saved. You <i>can</i> have assurance of salvation. But you can't just blindly accept my opinion on that, you need some proof. Is it possible to know you are saved? Let's look at what Peter and Paul had to say:<br />
<br />
2 Peter 1:10 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>“Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you” </b></i></blockquote>
In 2 Corinthians 13:5, Paul tells us:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified."</b></i></blockquote>
Peter and Paul wouldn't urge us to try to find out whether or not we're saved unless there actually is a way of knowing, and that knowing is important. With that in mind, let's move on to <i>how</i> we can know if we're saved.<br />
<br />
The first thing to ask is if you've had an actual salvation experience. Most people can point to a time in their life where they walked the aisle, said the sinner's prayer, or even got baptized. A point where one could say "If I really got saved at any time in my life, it would've been then."<br />
<br />
If you've had one of those experiences, but are doubting whether you're saved or not, then what you're really wondering is if your salvation experience was genuine. Did I really become a Christian that time I walked the aisle? Did I really become a Christian when I said that prayer? Am I really saved because of that time I got baptized? <br />
<br />
Maybe you already know the answer. Maybe you know that your experience wasn't genuine. Or maybe you never had such an experience to begin with. Maybe you read one of the means of false assurance we talked about and thought "That's me! I'm not saved!"<br />
<br />
I have listed below what I believe are the necessary elements of a genuine salvation experience. If you are not saved or not sure, this next part is for you.<br />
<br />
<b>1: Recognition of sin. </b>You can't get saved unless there is something to save you from. You must realize and admit, both to yourself and to God, that you are a sinner, and that you have sinned against God. You know what it is you've done, whether something "small" like lying or stealing, or "big" like adultery or murder, you have sinned (Romans 3:23), and you deserve to go to hell for it (Romans 6:23). Recognizing this is the first step.<br />
<br />
<b>2: Willingness to repent</b>. So you know that what you've done is wrong. But do you care? Are you sorry? Do you feel remorse for what you've done? A lot of people don't. Some people look back on their sin and think "Yeah, that was wrong... but who cares? It was fun! I'd do it again in a heartbeat!" Your attitude needs to be the opposite of this. The dictionary defines "repent" as "to feel or show that you are sorry for something bad or wrong that you did and that you want to do what is right." This is the attitude you need to have.<br />
<br />
<b>3: Submission to Jesus.</b> You know you've sinned, and you regret your sin. Now you want to make it right, and fix things. But you can't. Only Jesus can. So what's the next step? The Bible has the answer, and it repeats it over and over, time and time again, for our benefit:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)</b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered" (Joel 2:32)</b> </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe with your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)</b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text John-3-16" id="en-NKJV-26137"><span class="woj"><i><b>"For
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)</b></i></span></span></blockquote>
These three elements -- a recognition of your sin, a willingness to repent of your sin, and a submission to Christ as the only one who can take away that sin -- comprise a genuine salvation experience. If you have experienced true salvation, then you are "a new creation, old things have passed away; behold, all things have become <a data-resourcename=""nkjv"" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2Co5.17#footnote3" rel="popup"><span style="font-size: 80%; line-height: 0; vertical-align: super;"></span></a>new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).<br />
<br />
As a result of being made new, you will have new desires, Godly desires; like an appetite for scripture, prayer, fellowship with other believers, and Godly teaching.<br />
Your desires will be followed by actions. If you've truly been changed on the inside, then it will be manifested on the outside, in the way you act, the way you speak, and the way you treat others. As Jesus says, "The tree is known by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33).<br />
<br />
So based on this information, would you say that you are saved? Have you recognized your sin and repented of it? Do you believe in Christ and submit to Him as your Lord and Savior? Are your desires Godly ones, and do you bear good fruit? I hope the answer is yes.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” </b><b>(1 John 5:13)</b></i></blockquote>
But if the answer is no, then what are you waiting for? You have everything you need<i> right here</i>. If you haven't had a genuine conversion, then you can have one <u>right now</u>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)</b></i></blockquote>
<br />
Please read the next post, which deals with a very important issue: <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2014/01/how-can-i-know-im-saved-part-3-i-still.html">Sin in the life of a Christian </a>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com50tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-31375682352198030042014-01-11T17:54:00.001-05:002014-01-11T19:26:07.223-05:00Solus Christus, Part 1<div class="tr_bq">
Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I've been very busy of late, having gone on a road trip to Montana and back for Christmas, and now absorbed with the challenges of the new year. Excuses aside, it's high time I finished our journey through the Five Solas. </div>
<br />
Today we'll be taking a look at Solus Christus (AKA Solo Christo), which means "Christ Alone."<br />
<br />
The Reformers denied any form of salvation or absolution of sins that was given or accomplished by any person other than Christ alone. At the time, the Catholics taught the Church could grant you absolution from your sins (via indulgences, for example), and that the Virgin Mary could intercede on our behalf, acting as a mediator between us and God, and other similar ideas. The reformers responded with the doctrine of Solus Christus, Christ Alone: salvation is accomplished
through the work of Christ, not by the intercession of the Church,
Saints, or the Virgin Mary, and certainly not by our own works.<br />
<br />
Catholic ideas are not the only ones challenged by Solus Christus. Some people believe that you're automatically saved if your parents are saved. Some people believe that you can be saved by trusting in other gods. Some people believe that salvation is all up to yourself and your works. The Reformers denied all these beliefs, affirming that Salvation lies in the person and actions of Christ Alone: not in your parentage, not in other gods, not in your actions.<br />
<br />
Clearly, this doctrine ruffles a lot of feathers. But we'll deal with ruffled feathers later. The important question to ask is this: is Solus Christus biblical? You already know I'm going to say 'yes,' but don't take my word for it. Look at the verses for yourselves!<br />
<br />
John 14:6 says:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<i><b>Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.</b></i></div>
</blockquote>
Acts 4:12 says:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”</b></i> </blockquote>
1 Timothy 2:5-6 says: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all..."</b></i></blockquote>
1 John 5:12 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. </b></i></blockquote>
These are only 4 passages, but I shouldn't need more. They make things crystal clear. Nobody else can save you, nobody else can intercede between God and man, nobody else can absolve your sins, nobody but Jesus. And if you think about it, that just makes sense, since nobody else took on the sins of the world but Christ, and therefore, nobody can save but<b> <i>Christ alone</i></b><i>.</i><br />
<br />
Stay tuned for the next post, which will take on the arguments against the doctrine of Solus Christus.<i> </i>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-43500338757860501002013-12-23T08:49:00.000-05:002013-12-23T08:53:59.055-05:00How can I Know I'm Saved?I got a bit of feedback on my testimony (both publicly and privately) in regards to false conversions/salvation. Some people have noticed similarities between their conversions and one or more of my false conversions, leading them to ask themselves: "Am I really saved?" <br />
<br />
This is likely one of the most important questions you can ever ask yourself. "Am I really, truly, a Christian?" The answer is vital, and it's one you need to know.<br />
<br />
Is it possible to know if you're saved or not? Some say that you won't find out until you die, and that there's no way of knowing. My position is that you <i>can</i> know whether you're saved or not, and that finding out is one of the most important things you'll ever do.<br />
<br />
But before I talk about assurance of salvation, I want to talk about<i> false</i> assurance. I touched on this slightly in my testimony. Here I am going to list some common sources of false assurance.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"My parents/pastor/friends say I'm a Christian"</b> A lot of people thought I was a Christian when I really wasn't. The truth is, the state of your soul can only be known by two people: You, and God. This is between you and Him. The only people who can see inside your heart are God and yourself, so you two are the only ones who can know your heart's condition. "Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart."<br />
Now if you truly are a Christian, other people should be able to tell by watching you. Your faith should be evident in the way you act and talk. However, this can be faked. I know, because I've done it.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"God has worked in and/or through my life. He wouldn't do that if I weren't saved"</b> Some people say that God "can't use you" unless you're saved, and others conclude that if God has worked in or through their lives, then it must be because they're saved. Sorry, but that's just not true. You don't need to be saved for God to use you. Remember Pharaoh? The Bible is littered with examples of people who were not saved, and yet were used by God in His plan. Just because God is accomplishing good things in or through your life does not mean you are saved.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"I'm a good person; I've never killed anybody."</b> No offense, but you're not a good person. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and that includes you. Sure, you may not have killed somebody, but "He who keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point is guilty of all" (James 2:10). And the wages of sin is death, regardless of how "big" or "little" that sin is.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"I go to church every Sunday and I read my Bible and pray and give money to missions and evangelize and engage atheists in online debates and stand outside abortion clinics and..."</b> This does not make you a Christian. I did all of these things pre-salvation. Sure, these are all very Christian activities, but they do not <i>make</i> you a Christian. Nothing you do makes you a Christian. The actions of God upon your heart are what make you a Christian. The things you do are only a by-product, the evidence of the work Christ has done within you. But as I said before, this can be faked.<br />
<br />
There are many sources of false assurance for the false believer, but these were just the more popular ones I've heard (as well as used). <br />
<br />
Now, don't get me wrong. If you <i>are</i> a Christian, than your parents/pastor/friends should be able to tell, God should be working in and through your life, you shouldn't murder people, and should go to church and all that other stuff. My point is that you can't be sure of your salvation because of any of those things.<br />
<br />
How <i>can</i> you be sure of your salvation? I'll talk about that in the next post.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-1817749464194740102013-11-19T07:59:00.000-05:002013-11-19T08:06:08.814-05:00My TestimonyToday is my rebirthday, meaning that Christ has been my Lord for an entire year. Some may think I've been saved longer than that, but hey, that's what I used to think as well, and you'll see why in a minute. In any case, I promised some friends almost a year ago that I would blog my testimony, but never got around to it (and there are actually some good reasons for that). So today, being my first whole year as a true Christian, I thought it would be fitting to finally post it. So here goes nothing.<br />
<br />
They say that every testimony has a central theme to it, a defining and recurring subject which is core to the story. The recurring theme of my testimony is that of false conversion.<br />
<br />
Depending on your definition of "saved," I've been saved several times. However, it is my opinion that I was never truly saved during any of my many "conversions." Why would God allow me to go through multiple false conversions? My opinion is that God wanted to make me an example. An example to myself, as well as to others, to show what false conversion looks like, in many of its forms. Why do I think this? Because every one of my false conversions was different. <br />
<br />
My first false conversion was when I was really little. I can barely remember it at all, I was so young (probably between 3 and 5). When you're the age I was, you want to be just like your parents and siblings. You try to take over their chores, You walk around in your dad's shoes, you might even play around with your mother's makeup. And that's how my first "conversion" was. I was just doing it to be like my family. We were in the car going somewhere, and my brother, who was two years older than me, was telling me bout Jesus. Well, I ended up "saying the prayer," and thus I was falsely converted for the first time.<br />
I like to call this the "Go with the flow" conversion. Let me tell you, it is no conversion at all. People do it out of peer pressure, or a desire to be like the people around them, to go with the flow. But as soon as the 'flow' changes directions, they change directions too. Luckily, my family never changed direction, so I was still a pretending Christian, but a pretending Christian is still not a Christian.<br />
<br />
My second false conversion was what you might call a "crisis conversion." The way it works is during a crisis, when you feel like everything is falling apart, you call on God. But once the crisis has passed, you go right back to living the way you always did. Nothing has changed. This kind of conversion happens all the time and to lots of people, from soldiers on the battlefield, to gangsters on the streets, to folks going through a tough marriage. What was my crisis? Cleaning my room. It may not sound like much of a crisis, but at my young age, it was. I was mad at my parents, mad at my siblings, felt like everyone was against me and that everything was falling apart. So I turned to God. But sure enough, after the "crisis" had passed, I showed no signs of change. Clearly, this conversion was false.<br />
<br />
My next "conversion" happened years later, when I was twelve. This time, I was getting what they call "fire insurance." At this point in my life, I had been thinking about hell, and was really afraid of going there. I knew that at any time, Jesus could come back or something bad could happen, and I would die and go to hell. The thought scared me so much, that I got up and went to my parents to "get saved." I was, simply put, a fear convert. This also happens to a lot of people. They hear the shouting of the sign-toting "Christian" on the sidewalk who preaches doom and destruction, they read the words of judgement in the book of revelation, some have nightmares, and some just want to be covered "just in case."<br />
So they "buy the insurance," "put on the parachute," or "come to the front;" they say "the prayer" and maybe even get baptized. But their hearts aren't in it. And neither was mine. We want to reap the benefits of being a Christian without having to live like one. But let me tell you, this is not fire <i>in</i>surance. This is fire <i>a</i>ssurance.<br />
<br />
I was still not saved, but nobody knew it. Three years later some events began to happen which would make it very apparent.<br />
<br />
First, my family moved. We moved over 900 miles from our home in Florida to come live in Indiana. Needless to say, I was not happy about this decision. I was angry at my parents, and became exceedingly bitter about the move. Not only did I rebel against my parents' decision, but I rebelled against the will of God. Now this means two things: One, I wasn't a Christian and two: my rebellion was completely and utterly ineffective, because God's Will always wins. And eventually, His will for me would come to fruition, but for now, I was stuck in my sins.<br />
<br />
The next thing that happened was that my Grandfather got pancreatic cancer, which practically nobody survives. Our family made two trips to Montana to spend as much time as we could with Grandpa. It was during our second trip, a several-month stay, that my Grandpa died. I was in the room when he passed. It's something I never want to experience again.<br />
<br />
My grief for Grandpa's death mixed with my anger from the Indiana move and served to totally crush my spirit. Another result of the move was that I had very few friends, and so I had nobody to turn to (or at least, that I was willing to turn to) for comfort. I felt depressed and friendless, so what did I do? I turned to the internet to cure both. Not a good idea.<br />
<br />
I started commenting on blogs and forums and spending time in Chat rooms, and through this I made many new "friends." Let's just say the internet isn't the safest place to immerse yourself, and the bad crowd got me into some bad things. My life became full of secret sins that nobody knew about... except God.<br />
<br />
The year or so after Grandpa's death became a bad time for me. The majority of my time was spent laying in bed or on a couch with a computer or my tablet, watching videos, playing games, reading comics, or conversing with my various "friends." During this time, I still maintained my false allegiance to God. I knew he existed, and I claimed to be His child, even defending His existence and goodness in many internet debates. But I wasn't devoted to Him. I didn't live like one of His children. We had no personal relationship.<br />
<br />
But all of that began to change around October of last year. My father led a Bible study for the guys in our church out of the book <i>Thoughts for Young Men</i> by J.C. Ryle. If you're a young man and haven't read this book, read it now. If you <i>have</i> read it, read it <i>again</i>. It was through my father and this convicting 100 year old book that God worked in me. He showed me my sinful state, revealing to me what I had denied for years: I was not His.<br />
<br />
And then today came. November 19th, 2012. I had just finished writing 50,000 words for National Novel Writing Month, and I was surfing the blogs of some of my Christian friends (none of whom are associated with the internet 'friends' I mentioned earlier), when I came under great conviction. I got out of my chair, and jumped into bed with my e-reader tablet, and opened up my ebook Bible. I opened randomly to Colossians 3: "<span class="text Col-3-1">If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God." I realized that I was not seeking those things above, and that my heart was not set on them, </span>which was clear by all of the sin in my life. Thus, I concluded, I had never truly been raised with Christ. With tears in my eyes, I got out of bed and fell on my knees before God.<br />
<br />
What did I do? Did I go once more through the "sinner's prayer," ineffective all those other times? No. Salvation isn't something that happens when you decide to recite a few lines. Salvation is something that happens when God opens your eyes, showing you just what kind of person you are and just what kind of state you're in: blind, dead, enslaved to sin. Nobody, when these facts are revealed to him by God, can then decide "I wanna stay this way." And neither could I. God's Grace was irresistible, and the only choice I could then make was to surrender. What exactly I said then is lost to my memory, but I do know that I asked forgiveness of my sins and devoted the entirety of my being to Christ, and meant it for the first time in my life.<br />
<br />
Several thing happened. First, I felt the massive load fall off of my shoulders. Something many have described but which I had never felt before during any of my false conversions.<br />
<br />
Next, I was overcome with a desire for scripture. I had always tried to make it a habit of mine to read the Bible, but for the first time in my life, it became something I looked forward to.<br />
<br />
Many other things happened. I almost completely stopped going to those forums and chat rooms. There is only a small remnant of those internet 'friends' whom I still visit, but my intention is to spread the gospel to them rather than be pulled down by them (though I admit this is really hard). I almost completely lost the great passion I once had for computer games, now only really playing with my siblings now and then, compared to the hours spent daily in pulverizing enemy zombies, robots, aliens, and orcs. The many other destructive, sinful, and lazy habits I had were either defeated by Christ, relegated to a position where they're no longer harmful, or are still being fought against today. Whatever the case, it was made clear that my life had been changed forever by Christ. We have a relationship now. I don't just know <i>about</i> God anymore, I know God <i>personally</i>.<br />
<br />
All that happened exactly a year ago. And though I've stumbled and fallen many times, and experienced low spots throughout my Christian walk, I can say with certainty that I am truly saved now and that Christ continues to work within my heart.<br />
<br />
But what about you? What's your testimony? How were you converted? Does your story match up with any of my false conversions? I sure hope not. If so, then I pray that God will work in you to bring you to true repentance. If you have no testimony because you have not been converted, falsely or otherwise, then I urge you to repent and believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
Amen.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-54287912690005286962013-10-23T22:24:00.000-04:002013-10-23T22:24:10.755-04:00Sola Gratia: Submit Your Objections!After many Google searches, I was unable to find any objections to the doctrine of Sola Gratia! Apparently, the Catholics affirmed Sola Gratia during the Council of Orange around 530.<br />
<br />
So our biggest supplier of anti-Sola arguments, the Catholics, really have nothing to say on the issue. I couldn't find arguments from anyone else, so I'm afraid I have no material for my usual "Common arguments against..." post.<br />
<br />
...Unless YOU have an argument against Sola Gratia! If you have a question about, objection to, or argument against Sola Gratia, the doctrine of Grace Alone, then please share it! Otherwise, I'll just move right on to Solus Christus.<br />
<br />
Well? Anyone? It doesn't matter whether the objection is one you've heard from someone else or if you believe it yourself, any argument will do! Leave it in the comments and I'll do my best to address it!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-89190149783759867652013-10-22T19:54:00.001-04:002013-10-23T10:12:17.400-04:00Sola Gratia, part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmbDnOdIJI-bGlUu2rLnIoSizEt37fr6TowZtFdWvs-x0Ccv4i1JscvK0gOboUQkH8d-HfKo9QOincQakSRIZ9rR0ctcVHv7BHoygrfiZn0FB_zsX8gNa-JFk1az4jBqJ27fT8zT6jvw/s1600/Sola+Gratia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="80" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmbDnOdIJI-bGlUu2rLnIoSizEt37fr6TowZtFdWvs-x0Ccv4i1JscvK0gOboUQkH8d-HfKo9QOincQakSRIZ9rR0ctcVHv7BHoygrfiZn0FB_zsX8gNa-JFk1az4jBqJ27fT8zT6jvw/s320/Sola+Gratia.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
Getting back on track, we'll now take a look at Sola Gratia, the third of the Five Solas of the Reformation.</div>
<br />
Sola Gratia means simply "Grace Alone," and the doctrine teaches that we are saved by God's Grace (alone), and not by anything we do. Grace, by definition, is unearned.<br />
<br />
This is where some confusion might arise, specifically between Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. "Wait a minute" you might say. "I thought we were saved by our faith, and isn't faith something we do?"<br />
The answer is in Ephesians 2:8-9, one of the most popular proof-texts for Sola Gratia:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast"</b></i></blockquote>
As we see in the passage, we are saved <i>by</i> grace alone, <i>through</i> faith alone. Faith has been described as the pipes or conduits through which God's Grace flows into us. In this way, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia work together, in harmony.<br />
<br />
But that still leaves the question: "Isn't faith something we do?" because if it is, then we should get some of the credit for salvation, since faith was on our part. Right? Well, looking back at the previous passage, we see that this saving faith (along with the Grace preceding it) is "not of ourselves; it is the gift of God." Yes, faith is something we do, but the ability to have that faith is given to us by God as part of the salvation process. So we see that every aspect of our salvation, including faith, is a gift of God's grace.<br />
<br />
Why is it this way? Why don't we contribute to our own salvation? Because we couldn't even if we wanted to. Sola Gratia goes hand in hand with Total Depravity: if we are dead in our sins and trespasses, and enslaved to sin, and don't seek God, then clearly we are unable to save ourselves, much less worthy of being saved. Thus, it is not only logical, but necessary that God do all the work of salvation in us.<br />
<br />
Now the question is: what does the scripture say? Does scripture support the doctrine of Sola Gratia? The answer is yes.<br />
<br />
Ephesians 2:1-10 says:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." </b></i></blockquote>
This passage shows clearly how we, before salvation, were unable to save ourselves or to contribute to our salvation in any way, and therefore, that salvation is by Grace. This will be repeated over and over as we look at the following passages.<br />
<br />
Acts 15:11 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."</b></i></blockquote>
Acts 18:27 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace;"</b></i></blockquote>
Romans 3:23-24 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"</i></b></blockquote>
Romans 5 verses 15 & 21 say:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many... </b></i><b><i>so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."</i></b></blockquote>
Romans 11:6 says:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."</b></i></blockquote>
Ephesians 1:7 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace"</b></i></blockquote>
2 Thessalonians 2:16 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace,"</b></i></blockquote>
2 Timothy 1:9 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,"</b></i></blockquote>
Titus 2:11 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"</b></i></blockquote>
Titus 3:7 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."</b></i></blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
These are just a few of the many verses which tell us that salvation is a gift of God's grace, and of His grace alone. It should be clear by now that Sola Gratia is a doctrine founded firmly in scripture, and one which no Christian could reasonably object to. However, as we will find out in part two of this post, there are objections to Sola Gratia, and we'll see what we can do to deal with them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until then, God's Grace be with you!</div>
</div>
</div>
Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-6773587837354093732013-10-18T18:49:00.001-04:002013-10-18T19:15:13.632-04:00Noah vs. Calvin: The Flood, the Ark, and Reformed Theology<div class="tr_bq">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://www.lloydpulley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/background-construction-wide_sm1.png" height="250" src="http://www.lloydpulley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/background-construction-wide_sm1.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Artist's rendition of the replica ark that's being built. Honestly, I liked the boxy one better than this new curvy one.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I had the privilege of visiting the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio this past Thursday. While at the museum, I was exposed to a lot of information about the Flood, Ark, and Noah. I already knew most of what I read there, but I got to thinking: How does the flood and the ark fit with reformed theology?</div>
<br />
Noah's faithfulness in building the Ark to be saved from the flood is often pointed to as a metaphor for Christian salvation, and I think we can all agree that it is a good one. However, different denominations have different views of how salvation works, and as such, they have different ways of applying those views to the flood account.<br />
<br />
How does Calvinism (which, BTW, technically isn't a denomination) hold up in comparison? Today I wanted to look at two objections involving the flood which are raised against Reformed Theology, one by Catholics and one by Arminians.<br />
<br />
We'll start with the Catholic one first.<br />
<br />
Like with Abraham, Catholics like to use Noah's example to try to <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/09/sola-fide-part-2.html">refute the doctrine of Sola Fide</a>, which we covered recently. Noah had to work to build the ark to be saved, and so the Catholics say that we too must work to be saved. This seems reasonable at first. Noah and his family would not have survived if they hadn't built the ark, and so it seems that their salvation would not have been possible without their works... right?<br />
<br />
My position on Noah is the same as my position on Abraham. Noah's faith, like Abraham's, is what saved him, and his works, also like Abraham's, were the evidence of that faith. Indeed, Just like Abraham, Noah is listed in the "faith hall of fame" in Hebrews 11.<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith." </b></i></blockquote>
Though Noah's works did play an important part, we must remember that his works are not what saved him, and that those works were a result of his faith. This same faithfulness to God was the whole reason God had chosen to save Noah in the first place!<br />
<br />
Consider: If Noah had works, but not faith, would he have been saved? Nope. He would've been a goner. But could Noah have been saved if he had faith, but not works? Well, if he didn't obey God and work to build the ark, it would be clear that he didn't have any faith at all. However, Noah was saved because if his faith, which produced works.<br />
<br />
Now, let's move on to the Arminian objection.<br />
<br />
The Arminians try to make the case that Salvation hinges upon man's "free will" because those who perished in the flood did so because they chose, of their own free will, not to get on the ark. This of course flies in the face of election. The Arminians add that, according to recent evidence, there even would've been extra room for these sinners on the ark! But the question is... How much room? Enough to fit every single living human on the ark? This is the glaring problem with this argument. The ark was not big enough to save every single human being, but was only intended to hold a select number, regardless of any "extra room." If the flood account truly is an example of how salvation works, then the Ark serves to bolster rather than refute the doctrines of Election and especilly Limited Atonement. And as we're about to see, God intended for these ungodly to be destroyed, regardless of their "free will."<br />
<br />
Arminians will, as is their custom, quote the 2 Peter verse that says God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), to say that God wanted the pre-flood sinners to be saved, but God's will was thwarted by their free will. However, it's clear that this verse does not apply, and for two reasons.<br />
The first is that it contradicts with the flood account in Genesis 6, which says this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created'" (Verse 7)</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"<span class="text Gen-6-13" id="en-NIV-151">So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.'" (Verse 13)</span></b></i> </blockquote>
It's clear. God's intention was to judge the wicked for their sins. He didn't say "I'm gonna send a flood, and any humans that don't get on the ark will die." His purpose was to destroy mankind for their sins. Noah was an exception, and God made a provision for him and his family, but the rest of the world had been condemned, like a global version of Sodom and Gomorrah.<br />
<br />
The second reason the 2 Peter verse doesn't apply is that "any" doesn't really mean "any," which should be clear in light of the previous point. So what is meant by "any" in the verse? The answer is in the first part of the verse. Let's look at what it says:<br />
<blockquote>
<b><i>"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."</i></b></blockquote>
The keywords are "promise" and "us." "Us" refers to the elect, to whom this "Promise" is directed at. If you read the whole chapter, you'll see that the promise being referred to is the promise of Christ's second coming, and of the "<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513">day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (verse 7)</span><br />
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"><br /></span>
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513">Peter is basically saying that the reason it seems like God is taking long to fulfill the promise of his second coming is because all of the elect haven't been brought in yet, and until they are, He's holding off his destruction because He doesn't want them to be included in it. He's not willing that any of the elect should perish, but the ungodly, on the other hand, He intends to destroy</span><span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"><span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"> (according to verse 7)</span>.</span><br />
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"><br /></span>
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513">Once again, this strengthens Calvinism rather than weakening it. It's clear in the case of God's first as well as second judgement of the world, that God has condemned mankind because of their sins, and that He chose his elect (in the case of the first judgement, Noah and his family) for salvation. </span><br />
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"><br /></span>
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513">In conclusion, neither argument puts a dent in the tough, biblical, armor of Reformed theology. Both miss the true meaning of the texts they're based out of, texts which actually support a reformed, Calvinistic view of salvation.</span><br />
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513"><br /></span>
<span class="text 2Pet-3-7" id="en-ESV-30513">Do you think I did justice to these objections? Do you have anything you would add to any of the arguments made in this post? If so, I'd love it if you left a comment!</span>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-47329026004547930522013-09-30T09:59:00.000-04:002013-09-30T09:59:19.616-04:00Sola Fide: Part 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjdoffjToxifnTqVGgiAqbqXwLFr0DH3VPYAw5DPx6V9wuDGUOCWfBZ0GrJFDc0dK4ukTKScoJN9FSYVJqkoeT5wmX0Mr4OpMCUz5NwjoddrOYBB3UYUbWKs7iHAXCUOsuAgQwSkwaLA/s1600/Sola+Fide2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjdoffjToxifnTqVGgiAqbqXwLFr0DH3VPYAw5DPx6V9wuDGUOCWfBZ0GrJFDc0dK4ukTKScoJN9FSYVJqkoeT5wmX0Mr4OpMCUz5NwjoddrOYBB3UYUbWKs7iHAXCUOsuAgQwSkwaLA/s320/Sola+Fide2.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
Sorry this post is a little late. Today we'll be dealing with common arguments against Sola Fide.<br />
<br />
Martin Luther said that Sola Fide <span class="st">was the "</span>doctrine by which the church stands or falls<span class="st">." But can it stand up to the opposing arguments? Let's take a look.</span><br />
<br />
<b>James 2:14-26</b><br />
James 2 seems to be the go-to passage for Catholics who want to promote Salvation by faith+works. Here's what the passage says in full context:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. </b></i><br />
<i><b>But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'</b></i></blockquote>
By this passage alone, it may seem like Salvation is by a combination of faith and works. But you have to understand what James is talking about here. The key verses are 17 and 18: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. </b></i><br />
<i><b>But
someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your
faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.</b></i></blockquote>
James is not saying that salvation is a combination of faith and works. He's saying that true faith will produce good works, and that faith that does not produce works is no faith at all. Works are a result of salvation, not the other way around.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Abraham</b><br />
After James 2, those trying to promote justification by works like to point to Abraham. Abraham is mentioned in the above passage, reproduced below:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered
Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together
with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture
was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see
then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."</b></i></blockquote>
This passage refers to Genesis 22, where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Genesis 22:1 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="text Gen-22-1">"Some time later God tested Abraham."</span></b></i></blockquote>
What was this a test of? When we read the chapter, it becomes clear that it was a test of Abraham's loyalty, his trust, his <b>faith</b> in God. Abraham's works are not what saved him. He had a covenant with God long before God brought along this test, and was already saved by his faith. Abraham's obedience to God was an outward manifestation of hi faith. His faith produced his works, and his works bore evidence of his faith. In Genesis 22 verse 12, God says to Abraham:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="text Gen-22-12" id="en-NIV-560">"Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."</span></b></i></blockquote>
Abraham proved he was faithful to God by his actions. That's what James is talking about when he says <i><b>"Do you see that faith was working together
with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" </b></i><br />
<br />
"Now wait a minute" you say. "That sounds like salvation by faith+works." Well, it's not. Do faith and works work together? Absolutely. One without the other, as James tells us, is dead. But do works contribute to our salvation? No. If that were the case, then Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient for salvation, because we must work to earn it. Faith is what saves, works are the natural by-product.<br />
<br />
<b>Sola Fide creates false converts who continue in sin</b><br />
A variation of this argument is also used against Perseverance of the Saints, the doctrine represented by the "P" in TULIP. It basically says that people who believe Sola Fide (or Perseverance of the Saints) take a "once saved, always saved" approach to salvation, thinking that since they're saved by faith, that they don't need to do any good works. They think that they can just say a prayer, maybe get baptized, and then live a sin-filled life doing whatever they want because they're saved by faith. But this is not the case.<br />
<br />
As we discussed above, true faith will produce good works. If someone claims to be a Christian but lives a sinful life, then it's clear that they don't have true faith. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:17-20). Sola Fide does not produce false converts who continue in sin. People continue in sin because they do not have true faith. If they had true faith, they would produce good works naturally.<br />
<br />
<b>Matthew 21</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"<span class="woj">Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, <u>but he who does the will of My Father in heaven</u>." (emphasis added)</span></b></i></blockquote>
Does this mean that we're saved by works and not faith? Not really. Catholics often overlook or leave out the following verses:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"<span class="text Matt-7-22" id="en-NKJV-23339"><span class="woj">Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’"</span></span></b></i></blockquote>
Sounds like good works, doesn't it? But what does Jesus say? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="woj">"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"</span></b></i></blockquote>
This passage does not advocate salvation by works+faith. These people had good works, didn't they? But Jesus says they practice lawlessness. Their works had no faith behind them, and thus, were dead.<br />
<br />
There are other verses like this which seem to indicate that works contribute to salvation. But on closer inspection, we find the same thing: Salvation is by faith, and good works are the result. Not the other way around. Hebrews eleven rams this point home quite nicely.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="text Heb-11-4">"By faith Abel offered to God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he
was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being
dead still speaks.</span></b></i> <br />
<i><b><span class="text Heb-11-5" id="en-NKJV-30178">By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, <span class="oblique">“and was not found, because God had taken him”</span>; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. </span></b></i><i><b><span class="text Heb-11-6" id="en-NKJV-30179">But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.</span></b></i><br />
<i><b> </b></i><i><b><span class="text Heb-11-7" id="en-NKJV-30180">By
faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with
godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he
condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is
according to faith.</span></b></i><br />
<i><b> </b></i><h3>
<i><span class="text Heb-11-8" id="en-NKJV-30181"></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="text Heb-11-8">By
faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he
would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he
was going. </span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span class="text Heb-11-9" id="en-NKJV-30182">By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; </span></i><i><span class="text Heb-11-10" id="en-NKJV-30183">for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.</span></i></span></h3>
<i><b> </b></i><i><b><span class="text Heb-11-11" id="en-NKJV-30184">By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised."</span></b></i></blockquote>
This passage lists the many good works done by these Bible heroes, but the repeated phrase is always this: <i><b>"By faith." </b></i><br />
<br />
Well, that's what I could find. I recommend that you do your own research on the subject, you're bound to learn some really good stuff. As last time, if you think I didn't do justice to a certain objection, or have heard of another argument that you want to see addressed, leave a comment! I'll see what I can do for you. :)<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for the next post, which is on Sola Gratia!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-51766460881379239922013-09-18T15:53:00.001-04:002013-09-18T15:53:56.615-04:00Sola Fide, Part One<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRXZg9qUy9wmjpXMSXqH-ZRRsSesm-ATWvyBOHqGzrVkvmdBOyotrKGshlLqUZuo2woo8YaoYTo_5MbJ1GguBBTX3M273GItLpbHqaGvVXvf2WV0wkBluOvzyLAALQ5cjUINZ7zYMNpw/s1600/Sola+Fide.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRXZg9qUy9wmjpXMSXqH-ZRRsSesm-ATWvyBOHqGzrVkvmdBOyotrKGshlLqUZuo2woo8YaoYTo_5MbJ1GguBBTX3M273GItLpbHqaGvVXvf2WV0wkBluOvzyLAALQ5cjUINZ7zYMNpw/s200/Sola+Fide.png" width="200" /></a></div>
Our journey through the Five Solas continues, and today we're looking at Sola Fide: Faith alone. <br />
<br />
The Catholic Church taught that Salvation is gained by a combination of faith and works, and that you must have both to be able to be saved. The Protestants objected to this teaching with Sola Fide, which said that salvation is by faith alone, not by works or by faith+works. <br />
<br />
Some of us don't realize (and others forget) just how important Sola Fide is. The doctrine is what separates not only the Protestants from the Catholics, but it's what separates Christianity from almost all other religions and cults. Most other belief systems emphasize works, and that you can only gain your salvation by completing certain deeds, living a certain way, or by doing certain things. Christianity is the only belief system that recognizes the fact that mankind can never achieve salvation through his own accomplishments, because "<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-64-6">all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).</span></span><br />
<br />
But is Sola Fide biblical? Does the Bible really teach that salvation is by faith alone? The answer is yes. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="woj">"For
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)</span> </b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span class="text John-5-24"><span class="woj">“Most assuredly, I say to
you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has
everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from
death into life." (John 5:14)</span></span> </i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"<span class="text John-6-29" id="en-NKJV-26287">Jesus answered and said to them, <span class="woj">'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.'" (John 6:29)</span></span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b> "<span class="text Acts-10-43" id="en-NIV-27303">All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10:43)</span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)</b></i></blockquote>
These are just a few verses that serve to prove that we are justified by faith, and not by our works. However, I'm going to go a step further and say that if good works were required for salvation, then nobody would get saved, because of our sinful nature.<br />
<br />
Isaiah 64:6 says that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-64-6">all our righteous acts are like filthy rags." </span></span></b></i></blockquote>
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-64-6">Psalm 53:1-3 says: </span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="line">
<i><b><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-64-6">"</span></span><span class="chapter-2"><span class="text Ps-53-1">The fool has said in his heart,</span></span><span class="text Ps-53-1">'There is no God.'</span><span class="text Ps-53-1"> They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;</span><span class="text Ps-53-1"> There is none who does good.</span><span class="text Ps-53-2" id="en-NKJV-14722"> </span><span class="text Ps-53-2" id="en-NKJV-14722">God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,</span><span class="text Ps-53-2"> To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.</span><span class="text Ps-53-3" id="en-NKJV-14723"> </span><span class="text Ps-53-3" id="en-NKJV-14723">Every one of them has turned aside;</span><span class="text Ps-53-3"> They have together become corrupt;</span><span class="text Ps-53-3"> There is none who does good,</span><span class="text Ps-53-3"> No, not one."</span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
Psalm 14 and Romans both echo the same thing. It's clear that man cannot do good works apart from God's grace (and I'll talk more about this when we get back to Total Depravity). If man can't do good works outside of salvation, then he can't save himself by said works.<br />
<br />
In summary, Sola Fide s a Biblical doctrine, and the Reformers were right to challenge the Catholic Church's false teaching that works contribute to salvation. We are justified by faith alone!<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for the next post, which will deal with common objections to Sola Fide.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-15420832222533713772013-09-12T08:39:00.000-04:002013-09-13T09:02:48.593-04:00Sola Scriptura: Part Two<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFlTNwM3h70qvH5yCV6fiJOUnx2GOqiatk6dIO7YrXMU9kbBhP8AXaK5aBc7oeyz2gYh1pMgFgMbSQWUemaPJmXJ1ZEKhOkpA5vuQdr9S4yWxrrf3ZV8Xn-YB3WRWYqYlKMBFmByhXw/s1600/phoenix-wright-objection.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFlTNwM3h70qvH5yCV6fiJOUnx2GOqiatk6dIO7YrXMU9kbBhP8AXaK5aBc7oeyz2gYh1pMgFgMbSQWUemaPJmXJ1ZEKhOkpA5vuQdr9S4yWxrrf3ZV8Xn-YB3WRWYqYlKMBFmByhXw/s200/phoenix-wright-objection.jpg" width="200" /></a> </div>
Now we come to the second part of our two-part series on Sola Scriptura, as we make our way through the Five Solas of the Reformation. In this post, we will be tackling the most common objections, arguments, and scripture verses used to try to debunk Sola Scriptura. Let's get right to it.<br />
<br />
<b>Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible!</b><br />
We already dealt with this in the last <a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/09/sola-scriptura-part-one.html">Sola Scriptura</a> post, but I thought it would be good to mention it again. Though Sola Scriptura isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it can be logically inferred from what is taught in the scriptures.<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Until the invention of the printing press, the Bible was not readily available for most Christians. How could they possibly have applied Sola Scriptura?</b><br />
This argument is usually brought up by Catholics, in an attempt to justify tradition. If the Bible isn't available, than tradition is necessary, and Sola Scriptura is impractical at best. But here's the problem: the Bible's authority is not based on it's availability. The Bible is the word of God, and thus, its authority is universal, regardless of its whether or not you have access to it. <br />
<br />
<b>If it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even <i>have</i> the Bible!</b><br />
This argument basically says that we Protestants are shooting ourselves in the foot when we challenge the Catholic Church with Sola Scriptura, since the Catholics are the ones who decided upon and compiled the canon of scripture. Essentially, they say we have the Catholics to thank for the Bible, because we wouldn't have it without them. But that's not quite how it is. We don't have the Bible <i>because of</i> the Catholic Church. On the contrary, we have the Bible<i> in spite of</i> the Catholic Church! Let me explain. For a long time, the Catholic Church didn't want the common person to have access to the Bible, but instead wanted them to rely on the Church to get their daily dose of Biblical truth. The Bible was stuck in Latin, and was not translated into other languages until around the time of the reformation. In this way, the Catholic Church maintained a "monopoly" of sorts on scripture and it's meaning, forcing everyone to accept their interpretation of the scriptures, since the common people of the Middle Ages couldn't read (much less read Latin). It wasn't until the reformers came along that the Bible began getting translated into common languages, and even then the Catholics did everything they could to stop it, by persecuting and excommunicating people such as William Tyndale, John Wycliff, and Martin Luther. If we have anyone to thank for the Bible, it's not the Catholics. It's the Reformers and the printing press.<br />
<br />
<b>There are thousands of Protestant denominations! How's Sola Scriptura workin' out for ya?</b><br />
Catholics argue that Sola Scriptura is a dangerous doctrine, and creates disunity between Christians. Most Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but how many Protestants agree on what the Bible means? Not many, as is evidenced by the many different Protestant denominations which exist throughout the world. Thus, Catholics say that interpretation of the Bible should be left to the Catholic Church authority and none else. Otherwise, we get the divided mess that Protestantism is.<br />
But this argument doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or bad, it just proves that mankind is fallible and tainted by sin, as we pointed out in the last post. And for the record, there is division in the Catholic Church as well. This argument only reinforces the fact that there is no human can infallibly interpret the scriptures, and that includes the Pope.<br />
<br />
<b>The Bible says we should follow tradition!</b><br />
Yet another Catholic argument, used in the defense of the traditions that Sola Scriptura attempts to tear down. I Corinthians 11:2 and II Thessalonians 2:15 are some of the verses Catholics cite. However, we must remember, Sola Scriptura is not an argument against <b>all</b> tradition. It is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical traditions.The traditions Paul was referring to in those passages were not in disagreement with scripture. Traditions that <i>do</i> disagree with scripture should be discarded, which is the whole point of Sola Scriptura.<br />
<br />
<b>Protestants are being hypocritical when they preach Sola Scriptura. They claim to follow the Bible only, but in reality, they follow the teachings of <i>men</i> such as Calvin and Luther!</b><br />
Not exactly an argument against Sola Scriptura, but still an argument that I thought was worthy of mention, seeing as I'm a Calvinist and hear this a lot. Here's my answer: Men like Calvin and Luther didn't <i>add</i> their own separate teaching to the Bible, the way the Catholic Church has done. They simply <i>interpreted </i>what the Bible says to get their teachings. Whether their interpretations were correct or not is up for debate, since, as I've said, all men are fallible (including Luther and Calvin). So yes, a lot of Protestants follow the teaching of Luther and Calvin, but said teachings are derived from scripture, not added to it, and thus we are not being hypocritical when we claim Sola Scriptura while following said teachings.<br />
<br />
Well, that's it. Six of the most common arguments I could find against Sola Scriptura, refuted. However, this is by no meas an extensive or exhaustive list. There are many more, but it would take a much larger post to address them all. If you think I didn't do a good job refuting these objections, or you know of a specific objection that you haven't heard a good rebuttal to, let me know in a comment, and I'll see what I can do!<br />
<br />
Thus concludes our brief look at Sola Scriptura. Next up is Sola Fide!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-53889974447829307932013-09-10T21:23:00.000-04:002013-09-13T07:57:23.622-04:00Sola Scriptura: Part One<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6nw2uO4RyPcAP4IIJJFpvxHWGib7AC2ARWdRMAciURBskZViCRQbMXjrx_bjNyI3_rED_GJeUgsKyzQr-IMuZnlBLyeCMKu5pJZG4Fw5BhEFQkVjRGEOcqX6KphfiiMSAdQTHLpICw/s1600/Image-837022590.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6nw2uO4RyPcAP4IIJJFpvxHWGib7AC2ARWdRMAciURBskZViCRQbMXjrx_bjNyI3_rED_GJeUgsKyzQr-IMuZnlBLyeCMKu5pJZG4Fw5BhEFQkVjRGEOcqX6KphfiiMSAdQTHLpICw/s200/Image-837022590.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image courtesy of myself</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I've been waaay too lazy about getting back into the five points of Calvinism, and so, I will finally be re-booting the series I started a while back. This time though, I'll be starting with the Five Solas of the Reformation first, and then I'll do the five points of Calvinism after that. This posts will be shorter, hopefully sweeter, and Lord-willing, daily. Let's start out with a little history of the Five Solas.<br />
<br />
The Five Solas were essentially a theological outline of were the early Protestants stood; specifically, where they believed the then-dominant Catholic Church had gone wrong.<br />
<br />
'Sola' means 'Alone' in Latin.The five Solas are as follows:<br />
Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone<br />
Sola Fide: Faith alone<br />
Sola Gratia: Grace alone<br />
Solus Christus/Solo Christo: Christ Alone<br />
Soli Deo Gloria: For the glory of God alone<br />
<br />
Today we'll be looking at Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone."<br />
<br />
What the Protestants meant by Sola Scriptura was that the Bible is the ultimate and infallible authority for Christian doctrine, and as such, that all Christian teachings and practices should be in line with or derived from the Bible, rather than from Papal decree or from tradition.<br />
<br />
It's important to point out that Sola Sciptura isn't necessarily an
attack on Popes and traditions, as many Catholics portray it. Sola
Scriptura is an attack on unbiblical and anti-biblical traditions, where
the teaching of man contradicts the Word of God. Purgatory,
Indulgences, Praying to Mary/Saints, and divine papal authority are all examples
of unbiblical teachings and traditions, which the Protestants disagreed
with. <br />
<br />
When the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther was told to recant his beliefs, his reply to the Catholic Church was this: <span itemprop="articleBody">“Unless therefore I am convinced by the
testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am
persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus
render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not
retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his
conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”</span><br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">This was the Protestant stance. The Bible, not Popes or tradition, was the ultimate authority by which Christians should live.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">But for all the emphasis on scripture, what does the Bible say about Sola Scriptura? Is it taught in the Bible or not? Because if "scripture alone" is not in scripture, then we have a serious logical problem. Let's take a look.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">Catholics will be quick to point out that the Bible does not explicitly teach or command Sola Scriptura. So is Sola Sciptura not scriptural then? Someone should make that last sentence into a tongue-twister.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">Though the Bible doesn't <i>explicitly</i> teach Sola Scriptura, it does teach it <i>implicitly.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">Here's what the Bible says: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span itemprop="articleBody"><span itemprop="articleBody">“</span></span>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work</b></i>.<span itemprop="articleBody"><i><span itemprop="articleBody"><b>" </b></span></i><span itemprop="articleBody"><b>2 Timothy 3:16</b></span></span><span itemprop="articleBody"><span itemprop="articleBody"></span><i><span itemprop="articleBody">-</span></i><span itemprop="articleBody"><b>17</b></span></span></blockquote>
If scripture is God-breathed, then it is infallible and without error, just as God is. Secondly, all that one needs in order to live a life devoted to Christ can be found in the Bible. With the Bible, we are "Complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Peter 1:3 also supports this fact.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him <a data-resourcename=""esv"" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Peter%201.3#footnote0" rel="popup"><span style="font-size: 80%; line-height: 0; vertical-align: super;"></span></a>who called us to<a data-resourcename=""esv"" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Peter%201.3#footnote1" rel="popup"><span style="font-size: 80%; line-height: 0; vertical-align: super;"></span></a> his own glory and excellence"</i></b> </blockquote>
If we have all things that pertain to life and Godliness, and are equipped for every good work through the Bible, then tacking on extra-biblical teachings and practices and saying that they MUST be observed is wrong.<br />
<br />
There are two other facts, things the Bible talks about, which support Sola Scriptura. The first one is Man's sin. We are fallible creatures, and as a result of the fall, none of us are righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10). We are often wrong, and just as often, we lie. This is true of all mankind, including Popes, Cardinals, Priests, everyone (Romans 3:23).<br />
<br />
The second fact is God's Righteousness. I shouldn't need to point out that God is perfect. He cannot make an error or a contradiction, and He cannot tell a lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19). He is infallible.<br />
<br />
What do these two fact tell us? If God is infallible, and Man is fallible, then the situation should be clear. God's Word will always trump man's word. If the two contradict, then God's Word wins all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.<br />
<br />
So even though Sola Scriptura is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it is perfectly in line with what the Bible <i>does</i> say.<br />
<br />
In summary, Sola Scriptura is biblical, and the Bible is the only basis for Christian doctrine. As such, all Man-made tradition and teachings should be lined up with and tested by Scripture, and if found to be unbiblical, should be abandoned.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/09/sola-scriptura-part-two.html">Click here</a> to read the next post on Sola Scriptura, which deals with the objections and arguments against it (which, as we'll see, are quite numerous!)Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-44449137937818369672013-08-19T17:10:00.002-04:002013-08-19T17:14:51.937-04:00Science Vs. ReligionI've decided that instead of jumping back into my series on the Doctrines of Grace, I'm going to be making a post or two about more general Christian issues and maybe Creationism. You know, to add a little variety, since I've been harping solely on Calvinism for the last ten posts or so. I hate postponing it farther than it already has been, but I figured you guys are kind of getting tired Reformed posts.<br />
<br />
Anyway, in this post I'll be tackling a common argument (usually used in defense of the theory of Evolution) that I've seen in a lot of places, primarily online. The topic? Science Vs. Religion.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="320" id="irc_mi" src="http://dayofthejedi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/27.jpg" style="margin-top: 10px;" width="246" /></div>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>It's a trap!</b></span><br />
The first thing you need to realize when someone starts talking about "Science vs. Religion" is that basically, it's a trap. Don't fall for it. I did in several debates, and it made things a lot harder for me.<br />
<br />
So how is it a trap? It's simple. By agreeing to debate "Science Vs. Religion," you basically put yourself in a position where <b>you have to defend all religions, as whole</b>. Which is impossible, and not something a Christian should be doing anyway.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins takes advantage of this trick in his book <i>The God Delusion</i>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"... To forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise -- as sure as night follows day -- turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either'... I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented"</i></blockquote>
In essence, you'd have to defend all gods (and the religions built upon them) to reply to Dawkins. <br />
By letting him (or whoever) decree the terms of the debate, you allow yourself to be put in an indefensible position. Unless you're up against an incompetent opponent (which, when I fell for this trap, I was), then you will lose such a debate. The key is to redefine the debate so that you're not defending all religions, but rather, just Christianity.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Faith Vs. Facts</b></span><br />
Usually the people pushing this argument will point out that, among other numerous differences, Science is built on facts while Religion is built on (usually blind) faith.<br />
<br />
Again, the first thing to do is to redefine the terms of the debate so that you're defending just Christianity. Because in reality, some if not most other religions <i>are</i> built solely on blind faith, with no factual backing... Unlike Christianity.<br />
<br />
Christianity is actually built upon lots of facts. Archeology, time and time again, has affirmed the Bible. I won't go over any examples, since you should already know them (though I will probably go over them in future posts, eventually).<br />
<br />
Science, on the other hand, relies heavily on faith. Evolution has never been witnessed, all we can do is look at the fossil record and other sources and <i>have faith</i> that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This is the case with all theories: we look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on it. We're not 100% sure that our conclusion is a correct one, but we <i>have faith</i> that it is.<br />
<br />
So in reality, Science and Christianity both deal with facts, and both require faith.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>So What?</b></span><br />
People claiming "Science Vs. Religion" in the Evolution/Creation debate will often do their best to point out all the differences between science and religion. The previous point (faith vs. facts) is a example of this.<br />
<br />
But so what if science and religion are different? Math and history are different too, but does that mean we should keep one and do away with the other? Of course not! Both are important. And in the case of science and religion, we can have both.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not saying we should <i>combine</i> science and religion, any more than I think we should combine math and history into one subject. But they should be and are connected, just like math and history. Where would history, with all its important dates and figures, be without math? Similar to how math and history work together, science and religion (should) work together. If scientific evidence points to the existence of a God (which I believe it does), we shouldn't dismiss such evidence as being outside of the realm of science and inside the realm of religion. The two work together, and flow into each other.<br />
<br />
In any case, just because science and religion are different, doesn't mean we should discard one of the two. Which brings us to the main problem of the "Science vs. Religion" topic.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Logically Fallacious</b></span><br />
Why am I suddenly craving Lucky Charms? Never mind.<br />
The main problem with "Science vs. Religion" is that it's a logical fallacy. Specifically, the "false dilemma" AKA "either-or" fallacy, which fools us into thinking that we have to choose between (usually) two things. When in reality, there may be more options to choose from, including "neither" or "both." And, as mentioned above, my position is that we can have both. In fact, we <i>do</i> have both (or at least, I and many others do).<br />
<br />
"Science vs. Religion" is a fallacy. We don't have to choose one or the other: we can have both.<br />
<br />
So that's the problem with "Science vs. Religion." It's a tricky argument meant to trap believers, and it's logically unsound to boot.<br />
<br />
But that's not the end of the story! All we've done is defended from the attack. You can, if you want to, switch from defensive to offensive mode and turn the tables on your opponent. That's what we'll be doing in the next few points.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Who's the Bad Guy Here?</b></span><br />
This first one also comes in handy when going up against the "Religion is
violent because the Crusades/Inquisition/HitlerWasAChristian" argument.<br />
Vox Day uses this argument in his book <i>The Irrational Atheist</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The five major religions of the world…have approximately 4.85 billion
adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s
population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600
years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has
not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has
the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution,
global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries
filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all
competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not
merely survived, it has thrived…In the last sixty years, science has
provided a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human
race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic
modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste…"</i></blockquote>
In essence: between science and
religion, science (if anyone) is the bad guy. However, you need to be careful not to
go off the deep end and become anti-science. Science and religion are both amoral. It's when bad people use them for immoral purposes that they become forces for evil ("Religion/Science doesn't kill people; people do!").<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Where Would You Be Without Me?</b></span><br />
One thing you can point out is that, believe it or not, modern-day science owes its existence to Christianity. Indeed, most of the great founders of science as we know it, such as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Isaac Newton were Christians! Even Charles Darwin was a practicing Christian (though he later renounced his faith).<br />
<br />
But that's not all. Dr. Melvin Calvin, a no-religious scientist and a winner of the Nobel Prize for his explanation of Calvin Cycle "dark reactions," says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and
strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I
seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and
enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely
that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of
the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to
his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical
foundation of modern science"</i></blockquote>
As Nuclear Physicist and Creationist Dr. Jay L. Wile puts it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"...early Christians understood that the world was created by a single God
who is a Lawgiver, it made sense to them that the universe should run
according to specific laws, and those laws should be the same everywhere
in the universe. In addition, because they believed they had been
given the image of God, they thought it was possible to understand those
laws. That’s what prompted the revolution that produced science as we
know it today."</i></blockquote>
So science <i>owes</i> religion. Big time!<br />
<br />
<br />
So there you have it. "Science vs. Religion." Well, this post has gone on long enough! If you didn't already, you now have the proper tools to counter the "Science vs. Religion" fallacy.<br />
<br />
Just remember: the purpose of a debate like this is not to "win" or to be right. You are not trying to destroy the other person. You are trying to convert them, to <span class="text 1Pet-3-15" id="en-NKJV-30440"></span>"give<span class="text 1Pet-3-15" id="en-NKJV-30440"> a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"</span> (1 Peter 3:15), and to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). They are not our enemy.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>Author's note: Jonny has never actually craved lucky Charms in his lifetime. Ever.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-14344316480321865102013-07-22T11:38:00.003-04:002013-09-14T17:50:36.952-04:00Double-Predestination: Does God Elect People to Hell?This will (hopefully) be my last post before getting back into the "Speak up" and "What I believe" series which I left hanging.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Predestination.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Predestination.jpg" border="0" class="decoded" src="http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Predestination.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Believe it or not, the internet abounds with anti-Calvinist memes and pictures like this one</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
In this post I'll be talking about the notion of <b>double-predestination</b>: that God elects some people to heaven, and some people to hell. We'll specifically be looking at it from the point of view that it is an attack on Calvinism, since Calvinists are often charged with holding this view. Perhaps a later post will go over why the idea is unbiblical.<br />
<br />
This objection has several problems in common with the claim that "<a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/07/calvinists-hate-babies.html">Calvinists believe that babies go to hell,</a>" which we went over in a previous post:<br />
<br />
First of all, it is an emotional attack, meant to discredit rather than to disprove the Doctrines of Grace. It makes you go "Whoa, Calvinists believe <i>that</i>? I don't want to have anything to do with Calvinism!" Instead of pointing to scripture and saying "Here's how Calvinism is unbiblical, and therefore, wrong." This is a problem for those pushing this particular objection.<br />
<br />
Secondly, it once again unfairly paints all Calvinists with the same brush. Yes, some Calvinists do believe in double-predestination (if I'm not mistaken, my old pastor in Florida is among them), but some don't (such as my family and many others). This is because...<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the doctrine of double-predestination is NOT a specifically Calvinistic idea. Like last time, when we see a claim such as "X Calvinist believes X doctrine" we need to ask ourselves if X doctrine really comes from TULIP or from somewhere else. Double-predestination is not found in TULIP, though it can be made to fit with it.<br />
<br />
Those are the three flaws that this argument shares with the last one (<a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/07/calvinists-hate-babies.html">Calvinists hate babies</a>), and I will not go into them in any more detail here since I already did there.<br />
<br />
On to the argument itself. As is the case with many objections to Calvinism, the claim that Calvinism teaches double-predestination stems from misunderstanding. In this case, a misunderstanding of the Calvinistic Doctrine of Unconditional Election, as well as a misunderstanding of how God judges man.<br />
<br />
The doctrine of Unconditional Election does not teach that God elects some people to hell and some people to heaven. UE deals specifically with God Electing people to Salvation, not Damnation.<br />
<br />
But some would argue that God <i>not</i> electing people to heaven is basically the same as God electing those people to hell, and that on Judgement day, the condemned sinner cold use the excuse "But God, you didn't elect me!" But that's just not how it works.<br />
<br />
God does not predestine people to hell. People destine <i>themselves</i> to hell by sinning. We had our chance in the garden, and we screwed up (Genesis 3). Adam's fall brought sin into the world, and all men, being descendants of Adam, are part of that sin (Romans 5:12). The wages of sin is death (romans 6:23), and thus, ALL men are condemned to Hell, not by any of God's doing, but by Adam's and by their own.<br />
<br />
As for the "you didn't elect me" excuse, the reason it fails
is that it misunderstands how judgement and atonement works. On
Judgement day, God won't choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell based on whether a person has been elected or not. Revelation 20:12-13 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span class="text Rev-20-12" id="en-NKJV-31051">"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. <u>And the dead were judged according to their works</u>, by the things which were written in the books.</span></i></b><b><i><span class="text Rev-20-13" id="en-NKJV-31052"> The
sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up
the dead who were in them. <u>And they were judged, each one according to
his works</u>." (Emphasis mine)</span></i></b></blockquote>
It is our works by which we will be judged and condemned. And if that's the case, then we all deserve to go to hell because we're all sinners. <i>This</i> is where election comes in. I like the way the Baptist Catechism puts it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question 24: Did God leave all mankind to perish in the condition of sin and misery? <br /><br />Answer: God, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, having chosen a people to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the condition of sin and misery, and to bring them into a condition of salvation, by a Redeemer. (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%201.3-4">Ephesians 1:3-4</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Thessalonians%202.13">2 Thessalonians 2:13</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%205.21">Romans 5:21</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.29-30">8:29-30</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%209.11-12">9:11-12</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%2011.5-7">11:5-7</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2013.48">Acts 13:48</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jeremiah%2031.33">Jeremiah 31:33</a>)</i></b></blockquote>
So let's look at that non-elect sinner's excuse in light of what we know about judgment day. Yes, it is true that God didn't elect the person, but they couldn't use that as an excuse to get out of the punishment of hell. Why? Because they sinned, and the wages of sin is death.<br />
<br />
As for the elect person, he has sinned too, and so is condemned to hell as well... BUT! <span class="text Rom-8-30" id="en-NKJV-28147">"Moreover whom He
<i>predestined</i>, these He also called; whom He called, these He also<i>
justified</i>..." Because Jesus took their sin and punishment upon Himself, the elect man has been Justified.</span><br />
<span class="text Rom-8-30" id="en-NKJV-28147">"...</span><span class="text Rom-8-30" id="en-NKJV-28147">and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Romans 8:30, emphasis mine) Such will be the case for all of God's elect on Judgement day, and I hope by His Grace that you are among them, dear reader.</span> Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-5255884261665964252013-07-09T13:14:00.002-04:002013-07-10T08:49:17.896-04:00Calvinists Hate Babies?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33433764.jpg" class="decoded" height="200" src="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33433764.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="170" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I can't believe this meme even exists.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Ahhh, now that I've graduated, I have more time to spend blogging. This means that all of my blogs (which have gotten a little stale) will enjoy constant updates from now on. </div>
<br />
One thing that I've read recently about blogging (and writing in general) is that if you don't know what to write about, find something that you're passionate about, that you get worked up over, and write about that. So before I jump back into the numerous blog series I've left hanging (<a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-i-believe-what-is-unconditional.html">this</a> and<a href="http://ceefourjonny.blogspot.com/2013/04/speak-up-part-1.html"> this</a>), that's what I'll be doing. Posting about things that, for lack of a better expression, get my blood up. <br />
<br />
Most will probably have to do with objections to Calvinism. I usually don't get emotional or worked up about most arguments, but some of the "arguments" against Calvinism are just so outrageous (like Irresistible Grace being "spiritual Rape"), that I think you'll understand my position. <br />
<br />
So today I'd like to dive into one of the more emotionally-charged claims that is often leveled at the proponents of the Doctrines of Grace.<br />
<br />
Here it is: "Calvinists believe that babies go to hell" Just hearing it makes me angry. However, I'll do my best not to let my emotions take control. Speaking of emotions, this argument is what's called an emotional attack, which, if you didn't know, is a fallacy (a mistake in logic or thinking).<br />
The argument fails to disprove any one of the five points of Calvinism, but rather, it serves to discredit Calvinism and those who hold to it. Instead of using scripture to try to show us that Calvinism is unbibical, it uses our emotions to turn us against Calvinism. Doesn't sound very Christ-like, does it?<br />
<br />
But let's deal with the claim. Do Calvinists believe that babies go to hell? The answer is that some do, some don't, and some aren't sure! If you listen to John MacArthur's (a well-known Calvinist) sermon series on the "Campaign for Immorality" (which deals with Homosexuality and Abortion) we see that he believes that babies go to heaven if they die. However, there are Calvinists that do believe that babies go to hell when they die. But then there are also Calvinists, like Stephen Gambill, who believe that we can't know for sure where a baby's soul goes when it dies. Then there are some Calvinists who believe that some babies go to hell and others go to heaven.<br />
<br />
What should this tell us? It tells us, first of all, that NOT all Calvinists believe babies go to hell, and thus that the argument is false, but it also reveals another fallacy in the argument. The fallacy of composition, or the "Part-to-whole" fallacy, which basically goes "Some Calvinists believe babies go to hell, therefore, all Calvinists believe babies go to hell." Another mistake in logic, and not the last. Moving on...<br />
<br />
I don't know how many times I've heard the claim "Calvinist X believes in weird doctrine X!" but the main problem with that claim is the main problem with this one. The question that needs to be asked dealing with this claim is this: "Does weird doctrine X flow from Calvinism, or somewhere else?" <br />
<br />
Let me give an example. R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, but he's also a Presbyterian. As we know, Presbyterians believe in infant baptism, and so does R.C. Sproul. Now I'm Baptist, and disagree with Dr. Sproul on the issue of infant baptism. So I could look at R.C. Sproul and say "Hey, R.C. is a Calvinist, and he believes in infant baptism! Calvinists must believe in infant baptism!" and now all my baptist friends and I are backing away from Calvinism. But let's ask that question: "Does R.C. Sproul's believe in Infant baptism flow from his belief in Calvinism?" the answer is no, it flows from the fact that he's a Presbyterian.<br />
<br />
So when we hear that "X Calvinist believes that babies go to hell" what question should we ask? "Does X Calvinist's belief that babies go to hell flow from his belief in the Doctrines of Grace?" The answer will most likely be "No," and upon closer examination, we would probably find that such a belief comes from somewhere else in X Calvinist's worldview.<br />
<br />
So we've looked over the three major logical problems with this argument. First, it's an emotional attack, and does nothing to disprove Calvinism. Second, it's a faulty generalization/blanket statement, saying that ALL Calvinists agree on something which they clearly don't; and thirdly, it assumes that just because a Calvinist believes babies go to hell means that the believe that because they're a Calvinist (when the belief very well could come from somewhere else).<br />
<br />
"Okay, so not all Calvinists believe babies go to hell. But what if they're just being logically inconsistent? What if Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell, but those people are just ignoring it?"<br />
<br />
Now we're getting somewhere! The argument has changed from "Calvinists believe babies go to hell" to "Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell." Most of the fallacious content has been removed, but the argument still has problems. Let's take it head on.<br />
<br />
Nowhere in the five points of Calvinism (the Doctrines of Grace) will you find anything about babies going to hell. The fact is, Calvinism doesn't specifically say where babies go when they die. That's why we have Calvinists who do not agree on the whole issue. Only when Calvinism is combined with other outside beliefs do we get a verdict on where babies go when they die.<br />
<br />
But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Calvinism does teach that babies go to hell when they die. Now, let me ask a seemingly heartless question: What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die? I know! I sound like such a bad guy, don't I? But let's answer the question. What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die?<br />
<br />
"Isn't it obvious?" we cry. "Babies are so helpless and cute and fragile and innocent, a loving God would never let them go to hell!"<br />
<br />
But where's the logic? More importantly, where's the scripture? All I see is emotions. Now I probably sound really heartless.<br />
<br />
The truth is, bad things happen. Things that we don't want to happen.Things that we have a hard time believing a loving God would allow. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters kill millions of people. Serial killers, murderers, and evil dictators kill millions more. Does God intervene? Not always. He allows us to suffer the curse of sin we've brought upon ourselves by disobedience to Him. Why would God let babies go to hell, you ask? For the same reason He lets anything bad happen: our sin. The real question we should ask is, why shouldn't God send everyone--not just babies--to hell, because of sin?<br />
<br />
If you've read this far, I highly admire you. You've most likely read through some stuff you disagree with, and you probably don't have a very good opinion of me right now. Which is why I think it's high time that I shared my stance on this issue.<br />
<br />
What's my stance? Do babies go to heaven or hell when they die? My answer is that I do not know. The truth is, I love babies. A lot. I want to have as many babies as I can when I'm married, and when I can't have any more, I'll try to adopt some. I really wish my family could have another baby around the house right now, because I love babies so much.<br />
<br />
Obviously, my emotions lie with babies. But my emotions don't decide truth. Scripture, on the other hand, does. And what do I see when I look at scripture?<br />
I see verses which tell us that all of mankind, which include babies, is sinful (Romans 3:23). I see verses that tell us we are sinners from birth (Psalm 51:5). I see verses that tell us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Putting two and two together will get me four. However, there are other verses such as Matthew 18:3 which make it seem like babies are innocent. There's also 2 Samuel 12:21-23, <span itemprop="articleBody">which suggests that David's dead son by Bathsheba went to heaven.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">So in my opinion, it could go one way or another. My emotions tell me that babies who die do not go to heaven, but I think there is insufficient scripture to prove or disprove such a belief. </span><br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">In conclusion: Do babies go to heaven when they die, or to hell? Do some go to hell and some to heaven? The Bible doesn't clearly say so. And since the five points of Calvinism are built upon the Bible, they don't say so either. Therefore, we would be wrong to say that "Calvinism teaches that all babies who die go to hell," or to claim that all Calvinists cling to such a notion.</span>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-16410911190752948952013-04-02T17:08:00.004-04:002013-04-02T17:17:45.005-04:00Repost: Plundering the Egyptians<i>Sorry I haven't been posting regularly. I could make numerous excuses about being busy with other stuff such as school, but I won't. However, I do want to mention one of the things I've been working on lately which you may have already noticed. It's a<a href="http://deskandstageforjesus.blogspot.com/"> new blog</a> focused on helping other Christians utilize their talents for God's Glory. I thought I'd share one of the posts here, because it's relevant to this blog's purpose and content.</i><br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
<a href="http://deskandstageforjesus.blogspot.com/2013/04/plundering-egyptians.html">Plundering the Egyptians</a>
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
Last month I read a very good book by Nancy Pearcey entitled <i>Saving Leonardo: a Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning</i>
(I highly recommend the book... if you're a Christian, you should
probably read it!). One of the cool things that the book talked about
is what's known as "plundering the Egyptians," something I had never
heard of before. The term refers to Exodus 3:19-22, which says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span class="text Exod-3-19" id="en-NIV-1599">"But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him.</span> <span class="text Exod-3-20" id="en-NIV-1600">So
I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the
wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.</span><span class="text Exod-3-21" id="en-NIV-1601"> And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed.</span><span class="text Exod-3-22" id="en-NIV-1602">
Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house
for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on
your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians."</span></b></i></blockquote>
So what does it mean to "Plunder the Egyptians?" Basically, it means to
take anything non-Christian and convert it for Christian purposes. But
that's kind of oversimplifying it, so I'll let Saint Augustine explain
it to you. He says this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>"For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens
which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and
ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when
going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a
better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of
God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with
things which they themselves, were not making a good use of; in the same
way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and
superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every
one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the
fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain
also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the
truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in
regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now
these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create
themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are
everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully
prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian,
when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of
these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper
use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also,—that is, human
institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is
indispensable in this life,—we must take and turn to a Christian use."</i></b></blockquote>
Hopefully that made sense. So even though the Egyptian culture was bad
and the Egyptians worshiped false Gods, there was still some good stuff
in Egypt -- namely, gold and silver. At God's command, the Israelites
"plundered" the Egyptians of some of this Gold and Silver, and used it
for better purposes (some of it may have even ended up on the Ark of the
Covenant!). In the same way, we Christians should realize that there
are little grains of truth, good things, gold, scattered within secular
and non-Christian teachings, art, and media. We need to see the value
of this gold, and then use it for the advancement of Christ's kingdom.<br />
<br />
Let me give a few examples.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://beatdrop.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lecrae_gravityseventy.jpeg" class="decoded" height="200" src="http://beatdrop.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lecrae_gravityseventy.jpeg" width="320" /></div>
Lecrae is a Christian Rapper. When first heard that, I rolled my eyes
too. However, Lecrae has done a good job of plundering the Egyptians.
He has taken the rap/hip-hop medium, refined it to take out the worldly
dross, and is now using the gold for Christ's glory. When my friends
first introduced me to Lecrae's music, I silently scoffed at the idea of
a 'Christian rapper' ("isn't that an oxymoron?" I thought) and was
expecting the worst from his music. But when I heard the lyrics, I was
pleasantly surprised. They're really good! I especially like his song <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4EKftry0LY">Truth</a>. Lecrae has done a good job of using the rap/hip-hop platform to spread the truth of the gospel.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lewis-cs.jpg" class="decoded" height="196" src="http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lewis-cs.jpg" width="200" /> </div>
Another example would be C.S. Lewis.<br />
C.S. Lewis read a lot of mythology in his younger years, and displayed
an interest in folklore and the like. Though most myths and folklore,
such as that of the Greeks and Norse, often promote false gods, C.S.
Lewis still saw the power that these stories had. He wrote his own
series of fantasy books known as the <i>Chronicles of Narnia</i>. His books are not only inspiring and entertaining to read, but they also communicate biblical truths. For example, the book <i>The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe</i>
presents a wonderful allegory of the way Christ conquered sin through
death. C.S. Lewis plundered the fantasy genre from the Egyptians and
used it to promote biblical truths.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Science Fiction, Others" border="0" class="imagen-fondo" height="240" id="changeme" src="http://en.fonditos.com/includes/imagen.php?ruta=/wallpapers/1024x768/02541.jpg&nombre=future-1024x768.jpg" title="Future" width="320" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
And then there's me! Just kidding. Kind of. Now I like C.S. Lewis,
because I'm trying to do something similar to what he did. You see, I
really like science fiction. Sadly though, the messages behind most
science fiction books aren't very Christian, and are often very
anti-Christian. Most either promote man or nature. If it's not man
triumphing over nature with his amazing technological advancements
(think <i>Star Trek</i> and almost anything writen by H.G. Wells) it's nature turning the tables on that technology and triumphing over man (think <i>Jurassic Park</i> and Jame's Cameron's <i>Avatar</i>).
However, I think there are some good elements in science fiction. The
amazing locations, the cool technology... I think it can be plundered
from the Egyptians and used for Christ's glory. Which is why I'm
writing a <a href="http://deskandstageforjesus2.blogspot.com/p/written-works-in-progress.html">Christian sci-fi series of novels.</a><br />
<br />
I think this is important to us Christians today. We need to be
plundering the Egyptians. If we don't, we not only miss out on some good
gold and wonderful Gospel-sharing opportunities, but we end up like the
Amish. And we all know how good they are at evangelizing.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://theredpillguide.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gold-bullion-bars-silver-1.gif" class="decoded" height="188" src="http://theredpillguide.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gold-bullion-bars-silver-1.gif" width="320" /></div>
However, it is very <b>very</b> <u><i><b>VERY</b></i></u> important not
to go off the other end and absorb every worldly thing out there. We
are to be in the world, and not of the world. Not every non-Christian
thing out there has gold in it. Some of the stuff out there has too
little gold in it to be worth refining. We don't want to plunder the
Egyptians of their garbage! And when we do plunder them, we need to
make sure that we're taking just the gold, and not all of the worldly
dross with it. To sum up, we need to be careful of <i>how</i> we plunder the Egyptians and <i>what</i> we plunder from them. What should we plunder from them? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>"<span class="text Phil-4-8" id="en-NIV-29451">whatever is true,
whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is
lovely, whatever is admirable..."-- Philippians 4:8</span></i></b></blockquote>
You'll know the gold when you see it.<br />
<br />
Are you plundering the Egyptians? Let me know how in the comments! :)
Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283535160765952448.post-59766792130297411432013-03-29T15:52:00.000-04:002013-03-29T15:52:02.377-04:00Good Friday<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmK1P9XJ4vEZNoEKyoFj79ejleim1MPIVu8dKlFwbRCkp7Vlu7tkf7Wq33nXj3HhL1MojHZeuOSRz_IpZMXhJ7mD8exYJ7w-23C7kOqIiPBOWvnZdtqcWb3Uk_9nnOIcNKkDtWzKdwjQ/s1600/cross.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmK1P9XJ4vEZNoEKyoFj79ejleim1MPIVu8dKlFwbRCkp7Vlu7tkf7Wq33nXj3HhL1MojHZeuOSRz_IpZMXhJ7mD8exYJ7w-23C7kOqIiPBOWvnZdtqcWb3Uk_9nnOIcNKkDtWzKdwjQ/s1600/cross.jpg" border="0" class="decoded" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmK1P9XJ4vEZNoEKyoFj79ejleim1MPIVu8dKlFwbRCkp7Vlu7tkf7Wq33nXj3HhL1MojHZeuOSRz_IpZMXhJ7mD8exYJ7w-23C7kOqIiPBOWvnZdtqcWb3Uk_9nnOIcNKkDtWzKdwjQ/s200/cross.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."-- 2 Corinthians 5:21</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"...and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." -- Hebrews 9:22-b</b></i></blockquote>
Take some time today to remember the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. On that day so many years ago, Jesus offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice to pay for sin once and for all. He took the punishment of our crimes upon Himself in the ultimate display of love and humility.<br />
<br />
If you haven’t read the complete story of the crucifixion recently,
today’s a perfect day to revisit it. Here are the four Gospel accounts
of the story: <br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:14-Matthew%2027">Matthew 26:14-27:66</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:12-Mark%2015">Mark 14:12-15:47</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022-23">Luke 22-23</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018-19">John 18-19</a></li>
</ul>
Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12156219526438230605noreply@blogger.com0