Today is a Sad Day for Us All

With a winning vote of 33 to 29, the Republican-led New York state legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage. Today is a sad day for us all. New York joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Washington D.C. as having legalized same-sex marriage, which according to the Wall Street Journal amounts to more than 10% of the U.S. population.

I called my best friend to chat and the news about New York was bound to come up. Here’s his reaction: “That’s sad, but I’m not at all surprised.” You know what, I happen to agree with him. We all saw this coming: with Cali’s Prop 8 overturned, a recent Gallup poll indicating for the first time a majority of Americans now support gay-marriage, and now rumors President Obama may officially lend his support, we saw this coming from a mile away.

Homosexual rights advocates claim legalizing same-sex marriage boils down to an issue of equality. They make the case that they are treated as sub-class citizens, lacking basic human rights … natural rights … and now compare their struggle to blacks in the 1960’s who fought to defend their civil liberties. But is this what’s really going on here?

Dr. Michael Brown rightly answers this question when he pointed out that there is a huge difference between blacks being denied access to public water fountains and forced to sit at the back of a bus, with the situation homosexuals find themselves in. Homosexuals have all the same rights before the law as heterosexuals have. What’s more, it is commonly accepted in businesses around our nation that sexual-orientation not be a means of discrimination. Finally, no respectable person is advocating for gays and lesbians to be mistreated on any level. So what “natural rights” do homosexuals claim they are denied? They would say they are denied the right to legally marry.

It is here that we have to take a step back and ask: what is marriage? Well, historically and before the law (I suppose I now need to say: the law in most states), marriage is a union between one man and one woman. How is it that the homosexual community claims they are denied equality before the law? Because they don’t have the right to get married? Actually, homosexuals have the right to marry – they can marry a member of the opposite sex. The homosexual advocate might respond, “Well that’s not what I want marriage to mean.” Oh, I see. Isn’t what you’re really after a redefinition of marriage? You want marriage to be whatever you want it to be, isn’t that right?

Though they, and other liberals, will adamantly deny it they know what kind of slippery slope this is. Because once you allow one group to redefine marriage to fit new parameters, whose to say another group doesn’t also have the right to redefine marriage into something else (i.e. polygamy, incest, bestiality)? If you think I’m off my rocker, consider that 30 years ago no one seriously considered a day when marriage could mean anything other than one man and one woman. What’s more, there are current court cases in Europe involving each of the aforementioned cases. It’s not that far of a stretch.

Please don’t misunderstand me, however, because the reason I and many other conservatives stand firmly in defense of “traditional” marriage has nothing to do with the fact that it is historical. Rather, it has everything to do with the true and living God of Biblical Christianity. The Creator of the universe also defined how human beings ought to live, including the institution of marriage:

⁴ And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, ⁵ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6, NASB).

As Christians we believe marriage to be between one man and one woman for life. To deny God’s view of marriage is to deny the Christian faith; there is no middle ground on this one.

For all the rigamaroo of how Christians really view homosexuals, please know that we do not hate them. We do strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and especially a redefining of marriage. Though it is uncommon in this day and age to disagree with someone and not hate them, nevertheless, this is the truth. We are able to separate the beliefs and behaviors from the individual, and we are required by our faith to love the individual.

Our message is an all inclusive message that everyone everywhere is born having offended the one true God, the Creator of all things. This God is all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging, and eternal (which means there was never a time when He did not exist, in fact, He existed before time itself). Unlike human beings, who only have one personality sharing one being, God’s one Being is shared by 3 distinct Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each of these divine Persons are distinct from one another so that each can say of Himself: “I,” and of the other two, “You.” These Persons share some functions – such as Creating the Universe – and also have unique functions, which you will how they play out in what follows.

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, broke God’s law and every person after them has been born bearing their guilt. To make it even worse, each of us continues to commit our own personal offenses against the Lord as we disobey His commands (sin). The consequences of this are extremely severe because God is a perfectly just and righteous Judge. He must punish sin. This includes all kinds of sin … including the sin of homosexuality. The punishment for sin is death, both physical and spiritual. This means that not only do we die physically, but we deserve to stand before God’s throne and face judgment and sent to Hell forever. Hell is described as the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is filled with sorrow upon sorrow as God removes His restraint from all sent there to suffer the mental and physical ramifications of sin. It is a terrible terrible punishment, but it is a just punishment.

For those who might argue that they weren’t aware of God’s requirements, the Bible also tells us that God wrote His law on our hearts, to be an integral part of humankind. Therefore we have no excuse before Him because we know what is right and what is wrong.

One final note of clarification before I move on: Why is homosexuality considered an offense to God? Because God has defined human sexuality and how it is to be lawfully expressed: between one man and one woman in marriage.

Thankfully, the message of Christians doesn’t end there. In eternity past, the Father chose from the mass of sinful humanity a particular group to demonstrate His grace and mercy upon. There was nothing in this group, no work or foreseen faith, that caused the Father to choose them, but is based solely upon His good pleasure. At the predetermined time, He sent His one and only Son (Jesus Christ) to earth in the form of a baby. This is an amazing moment in history 2,000 years ago because we have the Creator entering into His Creation. The Maker of all things entering into time and space. He humbled Himself and added the nature of humanity to Himself – so now He has 2 natures: divinity and humanity. He is fully God and fully man; one divine Person with 2 natures. The Holy Spirit miraculously caused the virgin Mary to conceive Jesus as a baby. Jesus was born sinless, and perfectly obeyed God’s law for the entirety of His life without sinning.

Around the age of 30 years old, Jesus began His earthly ministry lasting 3 years. He performed miracles, healing the sick, the lame and the blind – even raising the dead (a feat he would soon overcome Himself). Jesus also proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God, which plainly meant that He would open up the doors to the forgiveness of sins. At the end of His ministry, Jesus was betrayed over to the Jewish authorities and crucified on a cross. Though he was innocent of all crimes he was murdered by His own creatures.

Jesus Christ’s death was no accident, however. In fact, it was predestined by God (Acts 4:27-28) to accomplish a specific purpose. What Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross was breathtaking: He acted as a substitute for the guilty sinners the Father chose in eternity past. This means that all the past, present and future sins of these particular sinners were paid in full in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). The beautiful thing about this is that rather than these sinners being found guilty before God (which they would in-and-of-themselves) and cast into Hell for all eternity, they had their sins paid for by a perfect substitute: Jesus Christ.

How does this deliverance from sin become applied to sinners? The Scriptures are clear that it is not obtained by works of any kind. It is also clear that salvation is not achieved by outweighing your bad deeds with good deeds. Forgiveness of sins is found by trusting and believing solely in the work of Jesus Christ; it is by faith alone that sinners are saved from their sins. But there is another problem: sinners cannot even believe in God. The Bible actually states that sin has affected us so much that we lack the ability to have faith in (trust) God and His truth. “Dead in our trespasses and sin” is a Biblical description of how we are born into this world. What this means is that we are spiritually dead to the things of God because of our sinful nature – which is how all of us are naturally born. While it is fairly obvious, I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: dead people can’t believe in anything. Dead people can’t do much of anything =). Therefore it is necessary for God to spiritually resurrect us, also called being “born again.” This is a work of God, and indeed, must be a work of God because dead people can’t raise themselves from the dead.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise then to say that just as God resurrects sinners to newness of spiritual life that He also grants the ability to believe in Him. After being raised to spiritual life we then have faith in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. This faith is the passive mechanism by which God imputes (or “considers to be ours”) the righteousness (goodness) of Christ to the sinner. The result is that the sinner is no longer standing before God with His own supposed righteousness, but rather as having considered to have Jesus’ righteousness as his own. The sinner is not made righteous, but is declared and considered to be righteous because of Christ. This again leaves salvation to be a work of God alone.

This declaration of God happens at a moment in time as God has predetermined for His elect people, by which He then secures and seals them with the Holy Spirit to be a guarantee of their salvation. The Holy Spirit is with believers in Christ until He returns to earth on the Last Day where He will destroy the universe with fire in judgment. On this day, every person who has ever lived will stand before the great throne of God and bow before Him, acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. It is then that sinners are divided: the righteous from the unrighteous. The unrighteous stand before God with their own works, and woefully fall short of God’s just standard. They are sent to Hell to pay for their own sins forever in the pit of darkness. The righteous are considered righteous, not because of works they had done, but because they trusted in Christ to deliver them from their sins, by which Christ’s righteousness was imputed to them. They are ushered into the new heaven and new earth where they will worship and serve God forever and ever, fellowshipping with the saints, and will always shine as trophies of God’s grace.

My message to the homosexual community is this: today is the day of salvation. Your Creator made you in such a way that the natural and lawful expression of your sexuality is in the sacred bond of marriage between one man and one woman. Turn (repent) of your wicked ways, including your homosexuality, to the true God who alone has a way of salvation. He is the Creator and He knows what is best for you; He knows you even better than you know you. He has the right to do as He wishes, because the Lord is God.

This is not a hateful message, but it is one I believe, and it is the truth. As passionate as you are of your homosexual lifestyle, I am of my Christian lifestyle. We can agree to disagree, and we can peaceably live together. But please know that if you want to talk with me further about any of this, it would be my privilege and honor to discuss these important life-changing topics with you. For these issues are nothing short of matters of life and death.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

If You’re Going to Believe in Predestination…

Back when I was first converted to belief in Calvinism, I didn’t have anyone good enough in my life to lock me up during my cage-stage (by “cage-stage” I mean the period of time when new Calvinists ought to be locked in a cage because they go nuts =)). It was a topsy-turvy time for me because of how drastic Calvinism was beginning to change my life. I needed to find a more theo-centric (God-centered) church, figure out how to preach the gospel Biblically, and how to worship God in a way that was honoring to Him.
One of my dear friends, who was along for the ride but still on the fence wanted to know why I thought Calvinism was important. I reiterated some of the points above, but also added that I knew if I was going to believe in predestination I was going to believe in it completely. What I meant by that was that I’m not like those who give God the ultimate credit for good in the world but don’t also attribute to Him as the ultimate reason for the existence of evil.

As an Arminian I grew accustomed to hearing (and wound up believing) arguments that God was involved in the world but that He created human beings in such a way that He allows us to have “free will.” Now, whatever was meant by “free will” was never made clear to me, but was clear is that our decisions were free in the sense that God was not forcing us to make them. This to me was the end-all-be-all argument against Calvinism because I reasoned to myself: how can a decision be free if you are predestined to do it? And therefore God cannot ultimately be responsible for our decisions, or the existence of evil.

Why the Arminian version of me didn’t likewise conclude that God was not then responsible for good things in the world due to free will, I can only attribute to my being terribly inconsistent. But the beautiful and utterly opposite quality of Calvinism is that it is so wonderfully consistent with itself and with the Bible.
What do the Scriptures teach with regard to man’s will in relation to God’s sovereignty? For starters, man does have a real will and he makes real decisions and choices. However, man’s decisions are not autonomously made outside of the will of God, but are instead subject to His sovereign decree. Naturally this brings us to a discussion of primary and secondary causes. The Arminian says of election, for example, that God chose us by looking down through the corridors of time, and based on foreseeing who would choose Him then reacts by electing them unto salvation. For the Arminian, the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected unto salvation must be as a direct result of man’s will. The Calvinist recognizes that God alone is the Creator, and when He created time itself this includes all the actions that occur in time. Therefore the reason God has knowledge of future events is not because He is passively receiving information, but because of His eternal decree of future events. For the Calvinist the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected must be attributed to God’s will and sovereign decree.

Fundamentally, Arminianism is lacking a Biblical understanding of precisely how sin has affected mankind. Since the Fall of Adam, the whole of a man is affected by sin, most notably the will of man. The Bible describes our will as being dead, and corpses … well, they don’t decide much of anything. This is why if God left the end result up to us we would all end up apart from Him because we are unable to make positive advancements in the gospel.

Since man’s will is not autonomous, it must be subject to God’s will. One or the other must be the case. A helpful example in the Scriptures is Acts 4:27-28: “²⁷ For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB). Here we see the choices of many people having been predestined by God. God’s decree is the first cause; man’s choices are the secondary cause that actualizes the events. Let me ask you: according to the text what is the ultimate cause of Jesus dying on the cross? Well, God’s predestined purpose. Here’s another question for you: were Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Jews all responsible for their involvement? Well, yes absolutely.

This is referred to as Compatibilist Freedom. God’s decree is the ultimate cause of everything with our choices being a part of that decree. God’s will predestined man’s decisions.

The Arminian might object: well doesn’t this mean our decisions aren’t real decisions since they’ve been predetermined? Only if for a decision to be considered a “real decision” it must be completely autonomous apart from God’s sovereignty – which is clearly not what the Bible teaches.

Doesn’t this make God the author of evil? Well, man is the one who authors, or actualizes, sin. Man is the secondary cause of human decisions. God’s decree for what would happen is the first cause.
My favorite part about this Biblical truth is that when evil things happen in the world, we know that they have meaning. We know this because God predestined them to occur, just like the death of His Son – which is the worst thing that has happened since the Creation of the world. Sometimes, God predestines things that He hates, but it is always for a purpose. While we don’t always know the full extent of why God predestines something, we know that it is for the good of those who love Him: “²⁸ And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB).

And that is a comforting thought.
rustypth

Action and Paction this Summer

“I’m just doing the best I can to save you.” So goes my favorite line from my favorite movie of the summer (so far). Spielberg and JJ Abram’s “Super 8” went far beyond super in what they were able to deliver. The trailers I caught beforehand left me with suspicions about what the plot was going to be, and my guess was aliens/monsters. While I won’t provide any spoilers I will say that the plot was pretty much what you’d expect from Steven Spielberg. What made this movie was the phenomenal acting, done primarily from youthful actors and actresses.

Within minutes of the opening I found myself with a strong connection to the main character, his situation, and his family. As the scope enveloped new characters the connection expanded to include his best friend, amongst his larger circle of friends. Next arrived on scene the girl, and the beginnings of young romance.

There was action, paction, humor, serious reflection, family trials, times of bonding, love, and oppression. Things that make up the world in which we live; things that we all know and care about. This is the quality that makes Spielberg and Abrams brilliant at what they do. They understand what it is to make a human connection and they communicate that connection through film in a way that make other directors downright jealous.

Other movies are at the top of my list this summer, including Thor and X-Men, but neither of these movies compare to the strong connection one feels toward the heroes of Super 8.

Thor was more enjoyable overall for me, and much more relaxing to watch. At points it had me sincerely laughing aloud – although what I found even more humorous than the movie was the woman behind me who propelled over-the-top laughter at each and every funny moment. I was laughing at the movie then at the overly involved fan sitting behind me =). It was also a surprise to me how well Natalie Portman pulled off her character. She may have bumped herself back to the top of my favorite actresses list (at least tied for first). Be warned, the plot is slightly lacking, but if you go into it looking for an easy-going experience you’re bound to love it.

X-Men was fantastic. But would you expect to hear anything else from someone who grew up watching the cartoons? Compared to Thor, it took a lot more work for me to watch this film, probably because I am so familiar with all the characters and plotline. The choice of James McElroy as Xavier was a terrific match. Professor X and Magneto’s friendship was portrayed extraordinarily, which made their inevitable separation that much more meaningful. The movie left me wanting more, and I am counting down the years until the next installment to this X-Men reboot series.

Do yourself a favor though, if you have yet to see Super 8, see this before the rest of the summer blockbusters. You won’t regret it.

Thanks for reading,

rustypth

All So One Person Isn’t Offended

My gorgeous wife pointed me to THIS article yesterday and we were both stunned. It’s graduation season for high schools across the country and one set of parents decided to file a lawsuit against a Texas school district to prohibit public mention by students of any religious discussion. The Judge, to my utter dismay, ruled that students are forbidden from using religious words including “prayer,” “amen” and “bow their heads.”

Why did the Schultz family go to such great lengths to make this fuss? In the words of the judge: so the parents and their son would avoid “irreparable harm.”

I would ask the reader to please open up the faculties of your mind and examine the goal of the Schultz family, the ruling of this federal judge, and then ask yourself: does this make sense? What is it the Schultz’s are trying to accomplish in actuality? Isn’t it the suppression of any public expression of religious belief and conviction? Do they believe they have a unique right to not be offended? Why suppress the rights of others to express themselves? The answer to the last question, ladies and gentlemen, is the core of this debate.

There have always been people who wish to silence religious opinions, especially those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior of sinners. In fact, rather than be surprised by this reaction, we should be prepared for it. Doesn’t the Bible describe dead sinners as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, NASB)? Their suppression … their holding down of God’s truth is not done innocently. They know full well that which is known about God because He made it plain to them (Romans 1:19). Therefore we are left with only one possible conclusion: their suppression of the gospel is purposeful and forceful.

Because people like the Schultz’s exist I can’t help myself but give constant thanks to the triune God in heaven for allowing us the privilege of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which makes clear our right to say things people disagree with. No doubt there are creative and gifted minds at work to undermine the First Amendment – as evidenced by the Schultz family and various unjust judges – but it will take a lot of effort to explain away this powerful right granted to us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What has amazed me in all of this is the arrogance and pride that is naturally associated with the Schultz’s lawsuit. The only way they can justify taking away the God-given right of freedom of speech is if they truly believe they have a special right not to be offended. It is as though they believe they are superior in some way to religious people – especially towards Christians. How else can they make a case forbidding student citizens from freely expressing their own beliefs?

One wonderful thing the Enlightenment brought about was the recognition that since all people are created in the image of God and are equal to one another, they therefore have basic rights before one another [although I consent this idea was not always expressed or defended the way I now do].

Knowing the evil intent that exists within many in our own free nation, we need to be prepared for the reality that our rights may be taken away from us. On that day we will then answer the Schultz family and the unjust judge, like Peter and the Apostles: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the meantime, may the Lord grant to us grace to act as salt and light to preach the gospel to a lost and dying world.

Thanks for reading,

Case

Grammar. And verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)

Have you ever begun reading a book expecting it to be about one specific topic only to quickly discover that it was about … dare I use this word … a plethora of topics? I’m currently reading through Opening Scripture by Patrick Fairbairn, and well, I guess I thought it was going to be a simple (?) book about Biblical hermeneutics. Boy o boy was I mistaken. The subtitle should have given it away, had I bothered to read it: “A Hermeneutical Manual Introducing the Exegetical Study of the New Testament.” I promise you the first thought to enter my head was along the lines of: “Whoa baby, what exactly did I get myself into here?” *grin* But, even after cutting my way through the forest of information within the first 60 pages, I find myself paying special attention to things on every page.

For example, page 1 has this fantastic comment: “[The Reformers] proceeded on the sound maxim of Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it has been already understood grammatically.” I paused reading, as I frequently do, and had to share this with my wife. We talked about this for a couple of minutes, and I have continued to think on this throughout the week. It ended up being more profound than I initially realized – this is the kind of statement that seems obvious but needs to be stated nonetheless. Without a proper handling of the grammar of Scripture theology cannot be properly determined.

I know that throwing around terms like “grammar” and how it leads to proper “theology” aren’t attractive terms to most people. And I can almost hear opponents making their case: “Come on, Case. Are you telling me that when I study God’s Word I need to consider things like grammar and … syntax to rightly interpret???” I respond: “Absolutely, yes.”

One pet verse that I began to cherish more and more as I encountered Calvinists and their arguments was 2 Peter 3:9b, “…not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (NASB). “See,” I said, “God doesn’t wish for any to perish. God loves everyone, sent Jesus to die for everyone, and it is up to us to accept the free gift…” Or so goes the argument I presented as an Arminian. The problem with this is that I paid no attention to the grammar of the text. Rather than trying to figure out who the “any” and “all” are, I inserted my own conclusions onto the text.

A simple reading of the entire chapter will answer the question of who the “any” and “all” are that Peter refers to. It’s a matter of following the pronouns. What the reader will notice is that Peter is talking about two groups in this chapter. The first group are Christians referred to as: “beloved” (verse 1), “you” (verse 1), “your” (verse 1), “you” (verse 2), “your” (verse 2). The second group is introduced in verse 3 and following: “mockers” (verse 3), “their” (verse 3), “their” (verse 3), “they” (verse 5), “their” (verse 5), “ungodly men” (verse 7).

Peter transitions back to the first group in verse 8, and you will also notice the pronouns change as well: “your” (verse 8), “beloved” (verse 8), “you” (verse 9).

Why go through all this work of following the pronouns and other descriptive terms to discover which group Peter is talking about? Because in verse 9 we are trying to rightly understand who the “any” and “all” refer to. The chapter begins by addressing Christians, then switches to mockers/unbelievers, and then switches back to Christians by the time we arrive at verses 8 and 9. To be more specific, verse 9 couldn’t be more clear by referring to the “you” of this chapter: “⁹The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (NASB). Who are the “any” and “all”? They are the “you” of verse 9, and in verses 1 and 2.

As an Arminian I was able to rip this verse out of its context. Without looking at the grammar and syntax I carelessly abused this text and applied a meaning foreign to the text. Grammar really does matter.Words really do have meaning. Pronouns too.

Thanks for reading,

Casey of Basey

Jesus taught us to pray this way

The moment I know of a book that sounds remotely interesting to me I want to buy it and put it on my bookshelf. It takes active restraint to be patient enough to finish what I am currently reading (or at least getting close to finishing) before I purchase the next book in my never-ending que. But sometimes I am not always able to resist the urge and therefore some books have sat on the shelf for years without being opened. One of these books I was finally able to get to: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – Relationships, Roles, and Relevance by Bruce A. Ware. After The Forgotten Trinity I figured this book would be a walk in the park, but I took away quite a few points especially in practically applying the Trinity to my life.

In fact, I didn’t make it too far in the read before I came face to face with something I hadn’t really considered before in-depth. I’d like to provide a lengthier-than-usual citation, but it is well-worth the read:

“Recall for a moment the opening line of Jesus’ instruction regarding how we should pray. “Pray then like this,” he said. “Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name.” May I suggest something both clear and radical? If Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, then we ought to do this. For one reason or another, we sometimes follow a different practice. We may encourage our children, especially to open their prayers with, “Dear Jesus,” despite the fact that Jesus said to pray “Our Father in heaven…” Perhaps we do not think about prayer as we should because we do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. As Jesus taught us, we should pray to the Father through the Son. Jesus Christ is the mediator. He is the one through whom we address the Father. He is the one who brings us access to the Father. He is the one who brings us access to the Father. Our prayers bring spiritual benefit only when we pray in his name. And prayers that bring fruit in the kingdom are those offered in the power of the Spirit. We pray as the Spirit prompts and urges us to pray. So prayer rightly understood-Christian prayer-is prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. To pray aright, we need a deep appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Pg. 18).

My experience growing up was filled with Christians I looked up to who many of the time would begin prayer by first addressing Jesus. I quickly adopted the same practice. What I found for myself was that this practice allows one to easily forget about the Father – at least in remembering to address Him first, or at all. Looking back, I did vividly remember when a good friend of mine would pray a little differently: “Father, we come to You through Jesus, …” I thought this was the strangest thing I had ever heard because everyone I knew prayed primarily to the Son.

Bruce Ware makes an excellent point in his book that since Jesus taught us to begin our prayers by addressing the Father, we ought to first address the Father in our prayers. By this, I don’t think he means that we can’t address Jesus and the Holy Spirit in prayer because they are both divine Persons, sharing the one Being of God. What Ware is getting at is that the relationships and roles of the three divine Persons of God help us in how we ought to pray to each of the Persons and in what order. Scripture instructs us that the Father receives ultimate glory and is at the forefront of our attention. This is expressed even in prayer, by which we gain access to Him through the Son. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and men, especially in prayer. Finally, we do this through the power of the Holy Spirit who guarantees our salvation and keeps us until the Day of Christ Jesus.

One would only come to this understanding by recognizing the truths of the Trinity as taught in the New Testament. The Apostles and prophets of the New Testament wrote about the one true God, who made Himself known as three distinct Persons. Three Persons, yet one true Being … and this not to be self-contradictory. The Trinity was one of the presuppositions plainly written throughout the New Testament. So many Christians know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, and yet are distinct Persons. But they could not explain the Trinity to a non-Trinitarian to save their life. And that’s okay – we’re all a work in progress. But, one of the wonderful blessings of knowing the doctrine of the Trinity is that this is how God has revealed Himself, and God wants His people to know Him. Accurate information about the true and living God has direct impact on all of life, even on every day things like prayer.

Wrapping up, if you find yourself unfamiliar with what the Trinity really is I would like to purposefully recommend the two books I previously mentioned to help you in your understanding of God. I didn’t feel like I had a good understanding of the Trinity until I read James White’s The Forgotten Trinity. Please read this book. Next, I would recommend Bruce Ware’s book as well.

²⁵Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, ²⁶but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; ²⁷to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:26-27, NASB).

As always, thanks for visiting my little corner of cyberspace,

Casey

God is Love

“Doesn’t the Bible say that God is love? Wouldn’t this mean that God must love everybody equally?”

Or so the philosophy of Arminianism would have us believe. The short response is that while God is love (1 John 4:8) this is not His only attribute. God is also a God of justice, holiness and wrath. The Arminian arrives at his conclusion by over-emphasizing the love of God to the exclusion of His other characteristics.

“⁹For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9, NASB). These words really hit home for me when I consider my upbringing in an Arminian and very anti-Calvinistic church environment. Now looking back, I see some of God’s wisdom in allowing me to have that experience. For one thing, I am better able to approach my Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ to help them understand more of God’s truth. Second, I now recognize the Lord’s complete rulership over all things, including salvation, and the great impact this can have on the Christian life. For this reason I believe it is important to address even the concerns raised by our Arminian friends.

Starting off, is God required to love everybody exactly the same? The Scriptures say this, “¹³Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:13, NASB). God loved Jacob but hated Esau. My initial question to the Arminian is this: In light of the fact that God loved Jacob but hated Esau how can you say God is required to love everyone equally?

On another level, let’s consider ourselves – God’s creatures – who are made in the image of God. We have the ability to express different kinds of love. For example, I love my wife differently than I love my friends. And I love my parent’s dogs differently than I love my computer. I also love the triune God above everyone and everything else. Are we really to believe that God’s love is less expressive than His own creatures’ ability to love people/things differently? If so, doesn’t this reduce God to a level below His own creatures?

But the Scriptures seem to also express that the Lord is not only a God of love. He is also a God of hate. God hates sin, yes, but the Bible also says that God hates sinners. I’ve already cited the Lord hating Esau, but think on Psalm 5:5, “ ⁵The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” (NASB). At this point a question naturally arises in the heart of man: is God unjust? Paul actually addresses this subject immediately after stating that God loved Jacob but hated Esau: “¹⁴What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14, NASB). Even though the Lord loves some and hates others He is not unjust.

I was reminded recently that God is not described as “love, love, love” – three times in a row – in the Scriptures. Rather, He is called “holy, holy, holy” (Isaiah 6:3). The reason this is important is because the author is emphatically making a point about one of the Lord’s attributes: His holiness; His other-ness. God is utterly unique in His divine majesty, and nothing can be compared to Him. This is why when we consider our own sinfulness in light of God’s holiness we are left with despair like the prophet Isaiah, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5, NASB). Our sin and our guilt has offended God infinitely beyond our understanding because we have sinned against an infinite Being, and therefore, our punishment must be terrible indeed.

Therefore, to say that God is required to love everybody the same is altogether the wrong starting point. God is not under any obligation to love anyone, and it is for this reason that we ought to be AMAZED that He has decided to love any at all. We ought not to be distressed that He did not love Esau, but rather our breath should be taken away that He decided to love Jacob! Especially in light of the fact that God’s decision to love one and hate the other was not based on anything in them! “¹⁰And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,” (Romans 9:10-11, NASB). This is a humbling truth, but it also magnifies the triumphant grace of our God who does not depend on the will of man (Romans 9:16).

Thanks for reading,

Case of Base

The Greatest Compliment I Have Ever Received

After two unreturned phone calls from a week ago I decided to leave a final message explaining that this would be my last attempt to get in touch with him. Right as the beep to the voicemail clicked over I began receiving a call. It was Josh … the Jehovah’s Witness I met with three times over the past couple weeks. We said our awkward “hello’s” and I quickly moved on to explain that I wasn’t intending to call for the third time in a row, but first wanted to make sure he was okay, and second to give him a way out in case he didn’t want to continue meeting/talking.

Being the polite guy that he is, he told me he thought it would be best if we stopped meeting because we are both firmly set in our beliefs. I tried to respond graciously and told him that I only want to continue our discussions if he is comfortable. But I couldn’t resist adding how much I appreciated talking with him, and the respect that I have for him for the willingness to examine his beliefs in light of Scripture. I also mentioned that our discussions were the highlight of my week each week, and that he has been the topic of discussion with my family and friends.

He responded by giving me similar feedback, and chuckled as he told me he thinks I would make a great Jehovah’s Witness. We both laughed. “Seriously though,” he said, “half of being a Witness is door to door work, and you are already so passionate about your faith that you are precisely the kind of laborer we need.”

Because I didn’t want to keep him I tried to wrap up the convo by leaving an open invitation if he ever wanted to stop by. “You are always welcome in my house,” I told him, “just gimme a call and I will make time for you.” At this point in the phone call I could honestly tell that he did want to continue meeting, which leaves me to wonder what’s going on behind the scenes – there could be any number of factors involved: his wife, friends at church, his church leadership.

Somehow I felt comfortable enough to throw in a quick challenge to him (especially if I may not see him again) to look into some of the examples I showed him in the New Testament that refer to Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah. Specifically I brought up Hebrews 1:10-12, where the author attributes the text from Psalm 102 to Jesus, and also John 12 where John says that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in his Isaiah 6 vision. “Both of these are good points,” Josh said, “and I promise I will research these and all the issues we talked about … you know what, I do want to meet with you at some point in the future.”

And that settled that. Praise be to God. We don’t have a date, but I told him to call me when he is available to meet and we’ll make it happen.

Josh then said something that I really took to heart, “No one has ever explained the Trinity to me like you have. I really appreciate the time we’ve already spent talking about who Jehovah is.” This is by far the greatest compliment I have ever received. I told him that the reason I care so much about the Trinity is the same reason he cares about his perspective that Jehovah is a unipersonal being. I then added, “Like I said when we met, the reason I want to share my faith is primarily because I believe God is honored in the proclamation of His truth, and also because I care about unbelievers. I want you, Josh, to believe the truth because I care about you and want you to come to the true Christ in faith so that you will not pay for your sins in Hell for all eternity.”

Definitely caught him off-guard with that one. But he sincerely told me he appreciated my heartfelt emotions towards him. My wife suggested that we spend extra time praying for Josh, that the triune Lord of majesty might open up his heart to the truth and that He would be granted repentance unto life. My God can save anyone. Please, Lord, show mercy to my friend Josh – if it be Your will.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Calvinism: An Introduction to an Introduction

I grew up in a church environment where Calvinism was only whispered about. It was a deeply frowned upon doctrine in my circle, and the pastors would quickly pay you too much attention if you even expressed interest in researching the subject. It didn’t take too long before I developed a staunch and fervent attitude against Calvinism. There was only one Calvinistic church that I was aware of, and I honestly hated that people were flocking there in droves once they embraced the teachings of Calvinism. Already in this paragraph there are more mentions of the term “Calvinism” than I had heard unashamedly and openly at church by the time I was 18 =).

For those who knew me between the ages of 16 and 19 must think it is the irony of ironies that I am now a firm believer in the doctrine of Calvinism because I was once utterly opposed to it. Whenever I meet someone who is an Arminian and reacts a little too surprised at my Calvinistic beliefs I am able to sympathize with them because I was once there in their shoes. I know what it is wonder how anyone could believe something so different. I know what questions pop into your mind: “Doesn’t God love the whole world?” … “What about free will?” … “Why would God not choose to save everyone?” … “If God has ordained all things why bother preaching the gospel?” … and other deserving questions. What I want to say to folks when I am asked these kinds of questions is this: These are excellent questions, and there are excellent answers.

One of my favorite things about the Christian faith is the clarity of the truths of Scripture. Predestination, God’s sovereignty, His rulership over all things – including salvation, God’s freedom to do as He pleases, His holiness and justice, and how He always accomplishes His ordained will are many of the subjects that need to be addressed while entering into a study of Calvinism. The idea that there are only “five points” is a bit misleading, and in fact the reason there were five points of Calvinism produced was to respond to the Arminians making their case in the seventeenth century to the churches in England with their five points.

This entry will not attempt to respond to key verses believed to teach Arminianism (some of which include: John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37). You can bet that I will write a lil’ somethin on these in the near future =). What I will attempt to do is briefly introduce what Calvinism is accompanied by some Scriptural support. This will not be exhaustive and will not respond to all questions that may arise. But please ask if you have a particular question and I’d be happy to address it.

Even though it is overly simplistic, but because this is really an introduction I will utilize the “TULIP” acronym to summarize Calvinism, followed by a compare/contrast with Arminianism which will include some Scriptural support.

T – Total Depravity. Man is so affected by sin that he is unable to make positive advancements towards God in faith. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, because God’s common grace restrains the evil that we want to do. However, sin reaches to all aspects of man, even touching his will. In fact, Scripture refers to men as being “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), and their “mind set on the flesh [being] hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:7). Our Lord Christ also says of man’s will, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Men are dead in sin, unable to subject themselves to the law of God, and unable to come to Christ in faith.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that men have libertarian free will. Sin has not affected men to the extent that they are unable to come to Christ in faith. Men are born with an inherent ability to accept or reject God’s truth.

U – Unconditional Election. God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rests solely on His sovereign will. This was not based on anything within men, including any foreseen response or act on their part. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation (Steele and Thomas). The Apostle Paul wrote, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). Jesus also says, ”All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27). God choice of the elect before the foundation of the world is solely based upon the Father’s choosing. There is no mention of God responding to foreseen knowledge of men choosing Him.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s choice was based upon God’s foreseeing who would freely respond to the gospel in faith.

L – Limited Atonement (also referred to as “Definite Atonement” and “Particular Redemption”). Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary atonement for all their sins in which he paid for particular sins and particular sinners on the cross (Steele and Thomas). Peter says that Christ actually “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). The angel said to Joseph, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus ,for He will save His people from their sins.” Jesus actually bore the sins of His people on the cross. They were paid for in full, and therefore will save His people from their sins.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save every individual, but did not actually save anyone. His death was not a substitutionary atonement but is theoretical, being applied only when men choose to receive it.

I – Irresistible Grace (also called “Efficacious grace”). In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to all men individually, the Holy Spirit extends to God’s elect a special inward call that will result in their coming to Christ in faith. When the Holy Spirit draws someone to the Lord he always comes. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended (Steele and Thomas). Paul in Ephesians writes this, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-6). Earlier in this chapter the Apostle calls them dead sinners, but here explains why it is that some come to Christ in faith: God made us alive with Christ. We were dead, but God made us alive.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s inward call is given to all who outwardly hear the gospel. The Spirit’s call can be resisted by the will of man. Therefore, the Spirit’s call is often overpowered by man, and is not invincible (Steele and Thomas).

P – Perseverance of the Saints (also referred to as “Preservation of the Saints”). All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end (Steele and Thomas). God began the work of salvation and He is the one that finishes it. Sometimes called the Golden Chain of Redemption, the beautiful text of Romans 8:28-30 shows the work of God in the life of the believer linked together in an unbroken chain of events, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called; He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Those whom He foreknew (which, throughout the Bible, the verb ‘to know’ always refers to God’s special love directed towards His people) He predestined, called, justified and … glorified. It is an unbroken chain of events that will take place. As you continue to the end of the chapter, Paul says we are more than conquerors because of God’s power in salvation. What a great God we have to provide such a secure salvation! Truly, salvation is of the Lord!

By contract, Arminianism teaches that since salvation is contingent upon man choosing or rejecting salvation he may lose his salvation. I should say that not all present-day Arminians believe this – I didn’t when I was one. But the question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if you enter salvation by your choice, why would you not have the choice to abandon that salvation?

Because this is a lot of information to get started in a study on the subject of Calvinism, I’ll try to wrap this up. For further study, I would highly recommend The Five Points of Calvinism by Steele and Thomas, and The Sovereign Grace of God by Dr. James R. White. Both are excellent reads and are simple enough to understand and work through.

If you are wondering if the study of Calvinism versus Arminianism is a worthwhile endeavor, please allow me to offer a few thoughts. I believe that while it is not essential to salvation, it is nevertheless extremely important to the believer. What is at stake is a theocentric (God-centered) gospel versus a anthropocentric (man-centered) gospel. Is God able to save? Or does God require the cooperation of man? And to the Arminian who may challenge my line of questioning by asking me: “Well, why can’t God choose to give man free will?” I would respond by pointing out that were that the case God’s ordained will is not accomplished as the Bible declares that it is and will be.

The Lord is a mighty God, and He accomplishes His purpose. And again I point to that beautiful text in Romans 8, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. All things. What things? Paul later mentions those powers who are against Christians, and then concludes the chapter by including literally everything. The gospel is good news because sinners are so corrupted by sin that we will not and cannot choose to believe in Christ. But He has mercy on some and chose them before the foundation of the world – not based on anything in them – it is by grace alone. Christ secured their salvation by accomplishing salvation on the cross. The Lord draws His people unto Himself at the appointed time, and then He continues to work within them so that they will not fall away from the truth.

From beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. He is the author and finisher of our faith. Praise be to such a triune God as ours!

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Should you believe in the Trinity?

There are moments that forever stand out in your mind. For me, they are a bunch of “firsts.” I remember the first time I saw my wife, the first time I went swing dancing, and my first real cup of coffee – courtesy of Eli. Last night was another one of these stand-alone moments as I read the Watchtower publication Should You Believe in the Trinity?, given to me by the Jehovah’s Witness I’m talking with.

I had just finished doing up my usual cup of coffee – a tall, half inch of non-fat milk, one equal, well stirred – and claimed a comfy seat outside Starbucks. I managed to complete the magazine in that sitting, and I’m certain I scared the little old ladies sitting nearby as I furiously annotated in the margins with a look of concern on my face. What I discovered within the brief 31 page magazine were a series of poorly constructed arguments, misrepresentations and falsehoods in an attempt to disprove the Trinity.

“Why should a subject like this be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy. Therefore, why not examine it for yourself?” (Page 3). My annotation here summarizes exactly what I was thinking as I finished this: “Amen!” Truly, there is no greater subject of difference between Christianity and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Oddly enough, the Watchtower publication attempts to unravel the foundation of the Trinity by claiming it is too confusing to understand, and since God is not a God of confusion it must be untrue. “However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”” (Page 5). Aside from the fact that the citation of 1 Corinthians 14:33 is about proper use of spiritual gifts in the church, the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible. Josh (my Jehovah’s witness friend) has argued that he thinks it is confusing because he can’t imagine what it is like to exist as a trinity. My response to him was that simply because we can’t relate to God in all of His attributes – especially about His very nature – does not disprove that this is how God actually exists. There are many attributes about God that we cannot fully relate to: his omnipresence, omniscience, and his complete power. Nevertheless, these unrelatable attributes are true of God. So then, if the Lord has revealed that He is only one Being, shared by three distinct coequal and coeternal Persons, then the Trinity is true … even though we can’t relate to God in this way.

When and how the doctrine of the Trinity developed becomes the next focus. In a nut shell, it is argued that early Christians borrowed from pagan religious sources to shape their understanding of God. Examples include the Egyptian gods Horus, Osiris and Isis and the Babylonian gods Ishtar, Sin and Shamash. It was at this point that I set the magazine down on the table and had to try not to look as angry as I felt. The reason I was so bothered is because the idea that the polytheistic world was adopted by Christians flies in the face of the absolute monotheism of the Bible. The most essential truth of Judaism and Christianity is the firm belief in the existence of one true God. If I may add one further point, because other polytheistic religions had a “set” of three gods does not even begin to compare with the absolute monotheism of Christianity.

“When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to “remove this cup.” (Page 18). Words like this sound entirely strange to Trinitarian ears because we recognize that the Father and the Son are different persons. What is surprising is that here the Watchtower does not seem to understand that Trinitarians do believe that. When I read the question, “To whom was he praying? To a part of himself?” I thought to myself: this is either a dishonest question or one made out of ignorance. One or the other.

Dishonesty or ignorance? The entire magazine could be easily refuted by a Trinitarian familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. The simple understanding that difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature. In other words, because the Father and the Son have some distinct roles does not mean one has an inferior nature. All three of the divine Persons share the one Being of God.

If you have could use some help in further understanding and explaining the Trinity I would highly recommend Dr. James R. White’s The Forgotten Trinity, purchasable through http://www.aomin.org. Speaking of “firsts,” the first time I read James’ book I remember thinking to myself, “Oh that’s what the Trinity is…”

=)

Thanks for reading,

Casey

My God can save anybody

“It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.” (1 Timothy 1:15, NASB).

I’m still getting used to the fact that on Tuesday nights the Lord has brought some close friends back into my life. These are guys that I spent years with studying the Scriptures, praying, worshipping at church, evangelizing the lost, and having a good time. I spent (and still spend) a lot of time praying for them on my own, and thinking about their spiritual well-being. Which is why I was delighted the night I received a text from Brett inviting me to a Bible study they were having, and I’ve been joining them ever since.

We’re now working through 1 Timothy, and this verse in chapter one seems especially relevant to me in light of the week-long Easter Pageant put on by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Mesa, AZ. Not only is the pageant Monday through Friday the week of Easter, but also in Spanish the week prior! While I don’t have current statistics about how many Latter-day Saints will attend during Easter week, in years past it was estimated to be around 80,000. That’s a lot of folks each night at the Pageant!

If you’ve spent more than a few years witnessing to the LDS people you have noticed some not so subtle changes in their knowledge (rather, their lack of knowledge) of their own Church’s theology and doctrine. Many people have become apathetic in their approach towards non-Mormons, even to the point where they have no desire to engage in a discussion of our differences.

By God’s grace, the King James Onlyist sign-holders haven’t made a huge appearance for the past two or three years, probably because it isn’t as “exciting” for them. I see this as a direct answer to prayer because frankly, they were nothing but a horrible distraction – even though they opened up many opportunities with the Latter-day Saints along the lines of: “I’m not one of the hateful sign-holders yelling at you…”

… lol …

Around this time of year I usually re-read my elder James’ book Is the Mormon My Brother? If you have not had a chance to read it, please do. Also, his Letters to a Mormon Elder is another must-read – please take this as my official recommendation to the reader. I have read many of the prolific authors about Mormonism, but these two works by Dr. James White offers one of the most succinct and balanced presentations I have come across thus far. “Letters” is a compilation of fictitious letters between James and two Mormon elders, and is most useful to use as a reference for specific topics that will come up in conversations with the Latter-day Saints. Is the Mormon My Brother? is a systematic presentation meant to fairly explain Mormon theology using their own sources. What I love about this book is the explanation about how Mormons prioritize their sources of authority.

Why do I spend time each year at the Mormon Easter pageant trying to talk with the Latter-day Saints? When I was in high school one of my pastors said to me, “I don’t know why you bother witnessing to Mormons when there are so many people who are ready and willing to believe in Jesus…” This bothered me. This bothered me a lot. I remember replying to him, “My God can save anybody.” At the root of my thinking was theology. I know that at the core of man he is unwilling and unable to believe in the gospel: “⁴⁴No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44, NASB). No one can come; no one is able to come. Man actually lacks the ability to come to Christ in faith. It takes the drawing of the Father for one’s heart to be changed. To those who might argue that Christ draws everyone equally, I will point out to you the result of the drawing of the father: they are raised up on the last day. In other words, no one can come unless they are drawn; and those who are drawn will be raised on the last day.

Keeping this text in mind, how does this apply to the Latter-day Saints? Straightforwardly (is that even a word? It is now! LOL), since no one is able to come to Christ because of their deadness in sin, and salvation is a result of the Father’s drawing to Christ, I preach the gospel trusting that God will save whom He wills to save.

The ruler of all universe can even save those who happen to agree with Joseph Smith: “Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” 

My God can save anybody. He does not just save those who appear to be more likely to convert to the truth. He can even deliver polytheists like the Latter-day Saints. The Spirit goes where He wills, and no one knows who the Lord will choose to save. This is why I preach the gospel to all men. And so we will proclaim the gospel to the Mormon people, with love and respect, and pray that while we plant and water seeds, it is God who makes it grow – if He wills to do so.

Alpha and Omega Ministries would appreciate your prayers as we go out there Easter week. Thanks for reading,

Rusty

God desires all men to be saved

All faithful Christians agree with this. The question then becomes: who is the “all men” that God desires to be saved? Is it every person who ever lived or ever will live individually, or is it God’s elect people? The answer is an important difference between Calvinists and Arminians. I recently had the opportunity to teach through this passage at a Bible study and decided it would be worthwhile to address this issue. But first, here is the text:

“¹First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ²for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” (1 Timothy 2:1-6, NASB).

Starting off, I think it is important to notice that the purpose of this passage was not to respond to the Calvinism versus Arminianism controversy. However, clarification is needed because of the oft-misunderstood verse 4. The Arminian understanding of the text goes something like this: “God desires all men individually to be saved. What else could be meant by ‘all men’?” Honestly, I know exactly where the Arminian is coming from, having once held this belief myself.

Taking a closer look at the context, the “all men” of verse 4 is previously defined for us when Paul urges that prayers be made on behalf of “all men” in verses 1-2. But as Dr. James White points out in his book, The Potter’s Freedom, it wasn’t the Apostle’s point to have the Christians open up the phone book and begin praying for each individual listed. For as you continue reading in the very next clause he defines who the “all men” refers to: “for kings and all who are in authority.” Not only is God a Savior of the slave, the poor and destitute, but also of rulers. The point of Paul is that God saves all classes of men, which is precisely what kings and those in authority are.

Now wait just a minute … couldn’t Paul be referring to two separate groups here? The “all men” could refer to every individual, and then a second group made up of kings and those in authority. Is this a possibility? Well, apart from the fact that Paul defines who the “all men” are in the following clause, he then provides us with the reason for offering up prayers for this group: “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Remember that the Christians at that time were living under intense persecution from the Jews and Roman authorities. For one thing, they needed urging to pray for those who were persecuting them so they might be saved, but also so they might be able to live peacefully.

Paul continues his discussion in verse 4: “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Who are the “all men” of verse 4? The same group in verses 1-2: different kinds and classes of men. This also makes perfect sense with the theology of Paul as we finish up this section where Christ’s mediatorship is connected to the “all men” along with Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Along the same lines, John writes in Revelation that Christ purchased with His blood “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

The question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if the “all men” of verse 4 refers to all men individually, does this mean that Christ’s ransom and mediatorship are only theoretical in nature, or did Christ accomplish His work on the cross? In other words, was Christ’s work on the cross a substitutionary atonement for all kinds and classes of men – whereby He actually bore the sins of His people in His body on the cross – or was it only a theoretical atonement?

Right off the bat, two key passages come to mind that address the purpose and accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work. 1 Peter 2:24, “²⁴and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Did Christ really bear sins in His body on the cross, or was this theoretical depending on the future acceptance or rejection of Him? Next, Matthew 1:21, “²¹"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."” Will Jesus save His people from their sins, or is His work dependent upon the will of the creature? Or again, will or won’t Jesus save His people from their sins? I would submit to the Arminian that Christ really did bear particular sins in His body on the cross, that those sins were atoned for, and that there is no doubt that Christ will accomplish the mission He set out to do – as is plainly taught here in the Scriptures.

Someone might be wondering to himself if it is beneficial to spend time over a controversial interpretation of Scripture like 1 Timothy 2:4. The reason I do believe this is vital is because the real issue is over God’s freedom in salvation over against a man-centered perspective of the gospel with God’s work being dependent on the will of the creature. Said another way, Jesus Christ is either a powerful Savior who accomplishes His will, or one who tries but fails to save and is left eternally disappointed with the outcome.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

An Unexpected Turn of Events

Eleven o’clock came and went. Eleven fifteen. By eleven thirty I was beginning to think they weren’t coming. Scott and I made plans to meet up with the ladies and head out to lunch, but first I decided to give Josh, the Jehovah’s Witness, a call. Turns out he was on his way to a funeral and forgot to give me a call, which was a relief because rather than purposefully blowing us off he apologized for forgetting to call me to reschedule. He’ll be following up with me sometime in the next few days for our rescheduled third meeting.

My plan is still relatively the same: again go over Hebrews 1:10-12 (and hopefully hear some sort of response), a verse they will present that allegedly shows the “inferiority” of Christ to the Father – and our response, and if there’s time I’d like to visit John 12:34-41.

This is another important text because a citation from Isaiah 6 is provided by John followed by an apostolic interpretation that the glory of the one Isaiah saw in his vision was Christ’s glory: “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of him” (John 12:41, NASB). The other reason this is a great verse to show these two JW’s is because they will likely not have a prepared response to it, which is an added bonus in dealing with anyone a part of a religious system bent on controlling what information is reaching her membership.

What I am aiming for in all this is that while they are not allowed to take and read anything I give to them (though it is the irony of ironies that they go door to door distributing the Watchtower’s literature) they will have with them always one or two texts that clearly refer to Jesus as Yahweh (Jehovah). I pray that this troubles their hearts often until they find rest in the triune Lord found in the Scriptures.

May the true and living God be pleased to grant to them saving grace,

Rusty

Everything I have seen confirms my worst fears

So reads the back cover of Sean Williams’ Star Wars: The Old Republic – Fatal Alliance … I’ll let the reader discover by whom this was said and when =). This is the first in a book series meant to lead up to the highly anticipated mmorpg, Star Wars: The Old Republic, being developed by BioWare. I believe it was back in 2008 sometime while looking around the Interwebz’ landscape that I stumbled across an announcement for a new Star Wars mmo. There was no release date, but I immediately told my best bud, along with some other buddies. Well, we are presently in 2011 and while we don’t have a precise release date we have been told it will be sometime in the year.

To make things even more exciting, this year has seen the release of the game trailer and a whole host of actual gameplay videos. Check out the site if you’re interested: http://www.swtor.com.

Getting back to Fatal Alliance it really was an enjoyable read. As I usually do, I switch it up between fiction and non-fiction to keep things interesting. This was a typical Star Wars novel filled with some decent character development involving Jedi, Sith, Smugglers, troopers, space battles, ground assaults and everything else you’d come to expect in a galaxy a long time ago, far, far away. Already on order is the sequel in this series titled, Deceived, and will bring me one step closer to the storyline of SWTOR. Cannot wait. Simply cannot wait.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

8 “But of the Son He says,” … 10 “And,” …

"Without any disrespect, some of the more important areas we differ in our views about God are that we believe only the Father is Jehovah, Jesus was created and is inferior to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force used by Jehovah” Josh, a Jehovah’s Witness, explained. This was our second meeting, and things were interesting from the moment I answered my door.

Instead of his wife, another guy was standing with Josh – both wearing button down shirts and ties, which made Scott and I feel *slightly* underdressed. After a brief recap from our previous encounter two weeks prior, we dove into a discussion about the Trinity and focused primarily on Jesus. Knowing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are prepared to hear many common arguments and verses defending the divinity of Christ, I decided to use two passages they would not have a ready response to.

I had them turn to Psalm 102 and read verses 25-27. We also did a quick rundown of the chapter by pointing out that verses 1, 12, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22 and 24 are all addressing Yahweh (or “Jehovah”). This made it easy to prove that verses 25-27 were also addressed to Yahweh. I then turned to Hebrews 1 and showed them that the author of Hebrews attributed Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son in verses 10-12. To leave them without any doubt I made reference to verse 8 which begins, “But of the Son He says,…” and then quotes from the Old Testament, then continues on in verse 10, “And,…” and cites from Psalm 102:25-27.

For the sake of clarity I offered, “Here is the author of Hebrews attributing to the Son a passage that describes Yahweh/Jehovah. So then, the Son is also called Yahweh in the scriptures. Now if Jesus were not truly Yahweh then applying Psalm 102:25-27 would be incredibly inappropriate, and even blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews has no problem making direct application of this text from the Psalms to Christ because he is Yahweh.”

To their credit they did try to offer an explanation or two from Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1, but later admitted that they didn’t have a working answer at this point and asked for time to properly address it. I told them I completely respect them for waiting to look into it further. We are scheduled to meet next Saturday around the same time.

Please pray that the triune God might cause them to turn from falsehood unto the true and living God.

Thanks for reading,

Case

What to do with Christians in name-only?

Have you ever noticed that there are plenty of people around who openly call themselves Christians? Usually at work I'll make a passing reference to "my church" which many times will be followed up asking which church, and then they profess to likewise be Christians. But I'll tell ya, there wasn't any indication from their behavior up to that point that caused me to even think they might be a Christian on a bad day (or a series of bad days).

Even more troublesome to me are the professing Christians who attend gospel-preaching churches on a regular basis who, outside of church, act just like any non-Christian person. I have spent a lot of time recently trying to decide what to make of these church-going so-called Christians who act just like those in the world. This last group is the group that really bothers me, and I think the reason is because the world generally understands that real Christians go to church. Which is why I can understand how easy it would be to confuse a non-Christian who attends church regularly or semi-regularly with an authentic Christian.

True Christianity and true Christians produce a life of good works who agree with God's written word. I will add to this, for those who might be wondering (if I were a reader I would be one wondering), that Christians are sinners - redeemed sinners - but sinners nonetheless. We know our hearts and we know how terrible we are. Some of the thoughts we think, the words we speak, and the actions we take are many times wretched sins. But, Christians are a work in progress and we strive to please God above all else. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Church, "⁸for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light ⁹(for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), ¹⁰trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord." (NASB). This is not something that we are able to conjure up within ourselves, and for some reason that analogy of a man pulling himself up by his boot straps is fixed in my mind, but rather we need God to do this work in us. He must cause our behavior to change or it will never change. Sinners will go on sinning unless the Lord does a work in their heart.

Now that we have that out of the way, what are we to do with these ... so-called Christians? Or pseudo-Christians? Christians in name-only, but who are only putting on a show some of the time. The same Apostle wrote the following about such "Christians," "⁹I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; ¹⁰I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. ¹¹But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. ¹²For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?" (1 Corinthians 5:9-12, NASB). There is a careful distinction made by Paul between (1) immoral people of this world, and (2) any so-called brother. We are granted the freedom to associate with ungodly non-Christians but not with false-professors of Christianity who live like the ungodly. This passage goes on to quote from the Old Testament which reads, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." We ought to be careful the company we keep, especially when it comes to those who claim the name of Christ. I believe one of the reasons for this strict rule about not associating with Christians in name-only is because of the affect it can have on us as individuals and on our reputation.

Personally, when I meet a professing Christian who doesn't act like a Christian I will do one of two things. First, I usually try to discern if there is a possibility of him actually being a true follower of Christ. If he is, then I will do my best to encourage him in his walk with the Lord. If I am led to believe he is not a believer I will treat him like an unbeliever in the sense that I will preach the gospel to him and focus on the radical requirements of repentance God talks about in His word.

It wasn't only the Corinthian Christians who were concerned about this issue - many faithful today have the same concern, which is why I am so thankful for the God-breathed Scriptures and the clarity they offer on such topics.

Rusty

When you judge others do you also judge yourself?

My pastor is working his way through Paul's letter to the Romans during Sunday morning worship, and I walk away each week incredibly challenged. Last week he preached on Romans 2:1-3 and I found myself convicted and knew by the end of the sermon that the Apostle's problem with the Jews was one that I sometimes do myself. Here is the text:

^"1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. ²And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. ³But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?" (NASB).

What exactly were the Jews guilty of? Judging non-Jews for sinning. Is this wrong? Well, not necessarily. It is good for a person to be able to discern right from wrong according to God's holy standard of living. What then were the Jews guilty of? Their sin was hypocrisy. While judging the Gentiles for their sins they themselves were doing the very same things! Isn't it easy to quickly pass judgment on another person? Your co-worker, your friend, your fellow brother or sister in the faith.

Funny that when you yourself commit the very same sin ... weeeeell you have a good excuse for doing it. There are reasons for why you did what you did and that makes it not as bad for you. Or so the excusing might go in your mind. But in reality, there is no excuse for the one who breaks God's law. The Lord of heaven and earth cares very much about His creatures obeying His commands.

In the case of the Jews, I believe they would face a harsher judgment of God because of the immense amount of light they received from the Old Testament Law and prophets. Now in my case, and your case (if you are one who has heard the truth), we have even less excuse than those around us who don't profess to be Christians and go to a gospel-believing church every Sunday. More light has been given to us and therefore we are expected to live in that light.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

This is Not a Review, I Say!

"This book is about the church of Jesus Christ." So reads the first sentence in Mark Driscoll's most recent explanation of his ecclesiology in Vintage Church. My wife and I attended his church, Mars Hill, in Seattle last year and knew I needed a copy the moment I laid eyes on it. Immediately after finishing it I knew I would need a few days to sort out my thoughts. Rather than posting my official review on the book, I've decided to begin by writing out my initial impressions. There are two reasons: first, I needed to buy myself some time *grin*; and second, to more accurately represent what Driscoll has to say.

Mr. Driscoll explains in the introduction the general format for the book will be to define 3 functions of the church: "The result will be a church that is biblically rooted (prophetic/confessional), grace centered (priestly/experiential), and culturally connected (king/missional)" (Driscoll 11). I found myself pleasantly surprised by many of the things he writes, including recognizing some of the errors he made in the Emerging Church Movement. He provides a number of strong hints suggesting he no longer wants to be considered a part of the Emerging Church, and has evolved into something entirely new. Now Driscoll writes about "gospel contextualization" and "missional" ... terms that The Acts 29 Network is well-known for.

While I can honestly say that Mark Driscoll has matured in some of his theological and moral beliefs, his views about the purpose and function of the church have remained relatively the same. What do I mean? "Gospel contextualization" and "missional" are what I mean. He continues to believe that the primary gathering for local churches (the meeting that includes the sermon) should be overly focused upon unbelievers. Now what do I mean? He really does believe that the local church's culture and style ought to change to match the ever-changing culture of the world.

"Not far from my home is a small church that has struggled for years. Every time I drive by that church I pray for it because I love the church, in general, and I know that this church, in particular, has a long history of loving Jesus and believing in the Bible. But it got stuck in a cultural cul de sac, so it couldn't adapt as culture changed. Younger people couldn't connect so they didn't' come. The people died off so that virtually no one was left. The pastor was discouraged and struggled to know what to do. So I decided to try to meet the pastor to see what I could do to encourage and serve him. Thus far I have had no success, despite repeated efforts. Their lack of technology is part of the problem." (Driscoll 267).

Are we seriously expected to believe that the lack of technology within a church service will hinder the Holy Spirit's ability to save lost sinners, encourage the members of this congregation or connect young people to the church? As an example, my concern is not that a church decides to include the use of PowerPoint presentations (or lack thereof - as Driscoll now believes only the Baby Boomer generation enjoys PowerPoint) to aid in a pastor's sermon, but that this use of technology is an attempt to attract people to the church.

Yesterday I was reading in 1 Corinthians 2 and thought of Vintage Church as I read the first 5 verses: "¹And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ²For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ³I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, ⁴and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (NASB). Paul, a tentmaker Pharisee, did not have the resources to put on a contemporary technological marvel for his audiences ... and I'm willing to bet that was the last of his concerns. He trusted in the power of the gospel to save through the foolishness of the message preached. It is not through our cleverness that saves sinners.

All this energy is spent in making the gospel more relevant for various cultures, when the gospel is already relevant for every person. All we need to do is clearly proclaim its message to every tribe, tongue and nation. The church is to go out into the world to proclaim the gospel as our primary means of evangelism. Yes, preach the gospel during the sermon-meeting of the local church, but most evangelism is done outside of the sermon-gatherings. This ... this is where Mark's focus is slightly off-focus.

Thanks for bearing with me in the introduction to Casey's thoughts on Mark Driscoll's latest,

Casey