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

A New Design for a New Year

Well? ... What do you think? Figured two years is time enough to put the old design to rest.

Some of you will want to know that I finished Mark Driscoll's "Vintage Church." I'm presently mulling over my thoughts on the book; once I've made some headway you can bet I'll be putting together a few words on the subject =). It's not everything I thought it would be. He did surprise me some.

I'm amused that the previous paragraph - if you can call it a proper paragraph - both begin and end with the word "some." Or maybe it's just that it's 1 AM and I'm a little slap-happy before bed.

Before my start date with Schwab I hope to work through a number of interesting reads, including former President Bush's new book.

Goodnight my friends, and Happy New Year's Eve!

rustypth

Word Travels Really Fast - Part 2

"¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16, NASB)

The anticipation for my next appointment was growing. I had been preparing throughout the week for possible counter-responses and objections, if for no other reason than to be capable of accurately presenting the gospel to them.

Finally the day came, and they were on time (they usually are - which is a good quality). After catching up for a few minutes, we jumped right into where we left off. I asked if they had a response to Isaiah 45? They were clearly stunned. One looked to the other, who replied silently with an awkward glance towards me. The senior missionary shrugged his shoulders and tried to explain why they hadn't had time to discover an interpretation that supports their beliefs.

"Does it bother you that this passage seems to contradict the Eternal Law of Progression?" I asked.

Sadly, the conversation could have been repeated by any number of missionaries I've met with before them. They began by attacking the Bible's inerancy, then moved onto attacking my sincerity ... because if I was sincerely seeking the truth the Holy Spirit would have revealed to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only true Church today.

As they tried to end our meeting early, I asked for one more moment of their time and explained how this conversation looks from my perspective. "Even though you doubt the sincerity of my faith, I don't doubt yours. I believe you are sincere in your conviction that the LDS Church is the true Church, but I believe that you are sincerely wrong. You see that the Bible contradicts your beliefs and so you attack the Bible's authenticity. But you do so based on a Church and prophets that disagree with the Bible. This is classic anachronism: interpreting what comes before by something afterwards. This is backwards; rather, the Bible ought to be the test for the Mormon faith because it came before. I urge you to re-read the passage in Isaiah and strongly consider what the Lord is saying to you in Scripture."

They smiled, we shook hands, and they were on their way. Like so many missionaries I have spoken with, this conversation was very typical. It saddens me to my very core that they are so deceived with a false gospel, but I also need to remind myself that the power of salvation is the gospel. I pray that the Holy Spirit does reveal Himself to those two gentlemen, through the Scriptures so that they might see the lies they were taught. My God can save anybody, so I know there is hope. I will continue to pray for their salvation, and trust that the Lord's will will be done.

Thanks for reading,
Case of Base

Word Travels Fast

Word travels fast, or so it seemed to me when the second pair of Latter-day Saint missionaries I met "had heard of me." I suppose I should take that as a compliment? =). I did.

They came knocking on my door after I requested a new copy of the Book of Mormon after my brother-in-law told me there were recently some minor grammatical changes. Of course, I invited them inside so that we might have a beneficial conversation. It has been my custom for some time to be very up front with Mormons so that they know my agenda right away. I'd rather be up front about my intentions so that there is no confusion on their part as to whether I am seeking to convert or not. Most often this is received well and will allow for at least a lengthy discussion or two.

Our time together began with brief introductions followed by an explanation of what I hoped to accomplish by our meeting. Right off the bat I find it important to set some ground rules: (1) They know I am not interested in becoming a Latter-day Saint, (2) I put myself on the same level with them by explaining that I am likewise a missionary for my gospel, (3) I explain that though we use similar terminology we mean completely different things by them, (4) It is my intention to use persuasive arguments while not becoming argumentative - a polite but passionate discussion is what I'm after.

Setting the stage helps immensely in avoiding LDS-taught tactics to avoid conversations with people not ready and willing to convert immediately.

So I began by suggesting the Trinity as a starting point because it would force us to focus on many of our essential differences. It was at this point that these missionaries asked me if I recently met with another pair of missionaries. I told them I had, to which they informed me they had heard of me. Apparently, what they were told is that I was passionate but a lost cause. The missionaries sitting before me couldn't understand why they were told that because I was "such a nice guy." There was some nervous laughter as they realized the awkwardness of my hearing that I was a lost cause ... =).

In any case, we moved on from there to discuss the first tenet of the doctrine of the Trinity: absolute monotheism. I stuck to one passage throughout our dialogue: Isaiah 45:18-21,

"18For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else. ¹⁹"I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek Me in a waste place'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright. ²⁰"Gather yourselves and come; Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; They have no knowledge, Who carry about their wooden idol And pray to a god who cannot save. ²¹"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior, There is none except Me."

Many familiar with discussions with the Latter-day Saints would wonder how they continue to believe in polytheism in light of passages like this. The truth is that it takes a great deal of effort to suppress the truth contained in this passage. Comparing the Mormon doctrine of the Eternal Law of Progression ("As man is God once was; as God is man may become") with the Bible demonstrates the utter falsehood of this Mormon doctrine.

Rather than interacting with the text of Scripture, these missionaries accused the Bible of being corrupt, and it is only because of latter-day revelation through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the gospel has been recovered. I quickly took them to Matthew 24:35, "³⁵"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." And asked them if Jesus' prophecy contained in the New Testament passed away? Not wanting to accuse Christ of being a false prophet (for which I am thankful), we were able to agree for the moment that the Bible is reliable.

I brought them back to the text of Isaiah 45 and asked them how the Eternal Law of Progression could be true in light of Scripture?

The senior of the two admitted they did not have an answer, but agreed to prepare a response for our next meeting, which I will blog about in my next entry.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

August 14 to Present Recap

Have you ever stopped long enough to catch your breath and wonder where the time went? Beyond any doubt my blog is representative of this, or rather, there is a lack of representation *grin*.

For any casual readers who still meander their way through my corner of cyberspace I'll recap some personal updates so you don't feel left out. Most significantly, my wife and I were married August 14 of this year, and what a marvelous occasion that was. She was stunningly beautiful, and I ... well, I was made to look good standing next to her.

Within a few weeks I was offered my own store at Starbucks! But, another opportunity came knocking on my door. The 9th was my last day with the Starbucks Coffee Company, and I am now employed with Charles Schwab as a stock broker.

Emily and I bought our first home together in a nice part of Gilbert. We are thrilled to have this 1500 square foot blessing so early in our life together. Every day that passes our house looks more and more like a home.

2010 was a year the Lord was especially merciful to me and my wife of four months. We are settling into our lifelong adventure and couldn't be happier with where God has brought us.

Please expect regular updates from here on out. My new job means I now have a consistent work schedule with less stress, thus freeing up mental energy to spend on the things that I love.

You'll be hearing from me soon, Lord willing,

Rusty

Freedom from Porn

Avid Apple users, you will do well to skip the first two paragraphs. Kkthxforplaying.

For YEARS I have criticized and poked fun at Apple for striving to be different than personal computers. In fact, I remember when my family purchased our first PC. I was in the seventh grade, and I was strongly motivated to encourage my parents to get one after experiencing my first real-time strategy game: Warcraft 2. Many a conversation was to be had with my best friend, Scott, about why PC’s were superior to Macintosh, including that Mac’s were not compatible with most computer games. For whatever reason, Apple has worn as a banner of pride that they aren’t compatible with PC’s.

[One quick comment before I continue – it has been overly amusing to me to see Mac’s, for all intents and purposes, recently turn into expensive PC’s. They use intel processors, incorporate Microsoft Office, and can run a Windows OS! What’s the difference between Mac’s and PC’s? Mac’s are four times as expensive. You are essentially paying for their operating system].

There. I got it out of my system, lollerbeamz go pew pew =).

Even though Apple and Mac users annoy me to no end with their mind numbing claims of superiority, I was so proud after reading an exchange between Steve Jobs and a blogger at “Valleywag.” Apple’s CEO received an email criticizing them for standing in the way of freedom to look at internet pornography on the iphone, itouch and ipad. “Is Apple about freedom?” he was asked. Steve had this to say in response:

“Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t think I can even recall another CEO who has taken a firm stance against the pornography industry. Consider the position a man like Steve Jobs is in, then consider the above statement. I mean, wow. That took some serious nerve. I honestly had no idea he had these kinds of convictions. He goes on to talk about how he wants Apple to help introduce new technologies that aren’t developed first by and for the porn industry. Gotta be honest here, this is a wonderful thing, and Steve Jobs has earned my respect

*glances over his shoulder for the Doc, or Jamie, or any other deceived #prosapologian Mac user*

I was even more surprised that Apple’s app store won’t distribute pornographic applications either! The news just keeps getting better and better. Macintosh will probably never be the right fit for a guy like me – mainly because I like hardware and software choices, aaand because I prefer to pay one quarter of the price of Macintosh for the same thing – but Jobs takes a good stance. For that, I give him mad props.

Does anyone know anything about Steve Jobs’ religious background?

Thanks for reading,
Rusty