Author Archives: Dan C.

"What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?"

Posted by Dan C. on

Who cares and why does it matter?

I’m glad you asked that question. If you attend many of today’s evangelical churches days, you might recognize either one, or both of those concepts of the ‘natural’ human condition being presented as the truth. We report, you decide.

Answer: Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 300s and early 400s A.D. Pelagius taught that human beings were born innocent, without the stain of original or inherited sin. He believed that God created every human soul directly and therefore every human soul was originally free from sin. Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin did not affect future generations of humanity. This view became known as Pelagianism.

Pelagianism contradicts many Scriptures and scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that we are sinful from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). Further, the Bible teaches that all human beings die as a result of sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 6:23). While Pelagianism says that human beings are not born with a natural inclination towards sin, the Bible says the opposite (Romans 3:10-18). Romans 5:12 clearly states that Adam’s sin is the reason sin infects the rest of humanity. Anyone who has raised children can attest to the fact that infants must be taught to behave; they do not have to be taught how to sin. Pelagianism, therefore, is clearly unscriptural and should be rejected.

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. The same Scripture passages that refute Pelagianism will also refute Semi-Pelagianism. Romans 3:10-18 definitely does not describe humanity as only being partially tainted by sin. The Bible clearly teaches that without God “drawing” us, we are incapable of cooperating with God’s grace. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Like Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism is unbiblical and should be rejected.

NOTE 1: the above brief definitions of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism were found online at the GotQuestions? website. There are other, more detailed definitions out there. If this short post piqued your interest, go for it.The recommended source for the information was taken from The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns.

NOTE 2: The above citation from John 6:44 is the first half of the complete passage which reads “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Sinners come to Christ and He raises them up. I know ‘arguing from silence’ never proves a point, but the fact that there is no ‘if’, between ‘coming’ and being ‘raised up’, might have something to say about the eternal security of the believer. But that’s another discussion entirely.

The Nature of Human Regeneration (Being Born Again)

Posted by Dan C. on

The following article found at Reformationtheology.com gets to the heart of debates that have gone on for centuries within the Christian community.

Monergism v. Synergism (Quote) by R. C. Sproul

The doctrine of justification by faith alone was debated during the Reformation on the deeper level of monergistic regeneration. This technical term must be explained. Monergism is derived from a combination of a prefix and a root. The prefix mono is used frequently in English to indicate that which is single or alone. The root comes from the verb “to work.” The erg of monergy comes into our language to indicate a unit of work or energy. When we put the prefix and root together, we get monergy or monergism. Monergism is something that operates by itself or works alone as the sole active party. Monergism is the opposite of synergism. Synergism shares a common root with monergism, but it has a different prefix. The prefix syn comes from a Greek word meaning “with.” Synergism is a cooperative venture, a working together of two or more parties.

When the term monergism is linked with the word regeneration, the phrase describes an action by which God the Holy Spirit works on a human being without this person’s assistance or cooperation. This grace of regeneration may be called operative grace. Cooperative grace, on the other hand, is grace that God offers to sinners and that they may accept or reject, depending on the sinner’s disposition.

Monergistic regeneration is exclusively a divine act. Man does not have the creative power God has. To quicken a person who is spiritually dead is something only God can do. A corpse cannot revive itself. It cannot even assist in the effort. It can only respond after receiving new life. Not only can it respond then, it most certainly will respond. In regeneration the soul of man is utterly passive until it has been made alive. It offers no help in reviving itself, though once revived it is empowered to act and respond.

Here we reach the ultimate point of separation between semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism, between Arminianism and Calvinism, between Rome and the Reformation. Here we discover whether we are utterly dependent on grace for our salvation or if, while still in the flesh, still in bondage to sin, and still dead in sin, we can cooperate with grace in such a way that affects our eternal destiny.

Arminianism reverses the order of salvation. It has faith preceding regeneration. The sinner, who is dead in sin and in bondage to sin, must somehow shed his chains, revive his spiritual vitality, and exercise faith so that he or she may be born again. In a very real sense regeneration is not so much a gift in this schema as it is a reward for responding to the offer of grace. The Arminian argues that in this universal prevenient grace is primary, in that God first offers grace for regeneration. God takes the initiative. He makes the first move and takes the first step. But this step is not decisive. This step may be thwarted by the sinner. If the sinner refuses to cooperate with or assent to this proffered grace, then grace is to no avail.

[excerpts from R. C. Sproul – What is Reformed Theology?]

Eisegesis Unplugged – Romans 8:38-39 & John 10:27-29

Posted by Dan C. on

We have three passages to consider today, all of which are familiar to many of us, that are commonly used to oppose the doctrine of the Eternal Security of the believer. In fact, they were all used recently in another online forum thread in a single comment.

Passage 1:

”For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:38-39

Quote 1:

“ ‘Anything else’ refers to powers other than one’s own will.”

It actually says, “…anything else in all creation…” It begs the question: “Did God create human will?”

Passage 2:

”My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” – John 10:27-29

Quote 2:

“Being ‘unsnatchable’ does not disallow a person from choosing to jump out of the ‘Father’s hand’.”

According to Strong’s, ‘snatch’ (KJV uses ‘pluck’) means “to seize (in various applications): – catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).”

Voluntary ‘jumping’ is not in the text. “…no one can snatch them…” What does ‘no one’ mean?

Passage 3:

”In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” Eph 1:11-14

Quote 3:

”what is “predestined” is God’s plan to choose or elect anyone who desires to be “in him” or to satisfy GRS.  Thus, being “marked in him with a seal” does not abrogate MFW”

A ‘therefore’ or ‘thus’ needs to follow a correct statement. The ‘predestination reference is probably to:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—“ Eph 1:4-5

In the above, it states clearly that God chose and predestined ‘people’ and not a ‘plan’.

_______________________

The author of the above post makes no claim to absolute truth and also realizes that there is another implied doctrine underlying the above alleged refutations of the Eternal Security of the believer. That however, is another discussion for another time. For now, just focus on the question “What does the Bible really SAY?

Worldviews and Conversations

Posted by Dan C. on

“In its simplest terms, a worldview is a set of beliefs about the most important issues in life. The philosophical systems of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle were worldviews. Every mature rational human being…has his or her own worldview just as surely as Plato did.” – Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict

One’s worldview contains thoughts about God (a spiritual element), along with concepts about ultimate reality, knowledge, ethics, and humankind in general. Many deny that they are completely non-spiritual, or non-theists, but that is still a thought about spirituality, and therefore represents a ‘worldview’.

Understanding the concept of worldviews and applying that concept to the art of conversation can be very beneficial to the dialogue, whatever the subject under consideration. With certain topics (God, for instance), discussing in terms of ‘wordviews’ can take the conversation out of the personal opinion arena and place it on a completely non-personal playing field. In fact, two people with opposite worldviews can assume the other’s worldview, much like a debater being assigned a position he or she does not actually agree with.

Making a claim that all men know of the existence of God, with reference to a passage of scripture that says exactly that, is not a personal accusation that the atheist is a liar, but a statement about the knowledge of God from a Christian worldview. It’s like saying, ‘According to Richard Dawkins, religious people are stupid idiots.’ That is not necessarily a personal accusation. A Christian, who obviously wouldn’t believe that, could even make the statement!

Unfortunately, many atheists/non-theists, if not most of them, accuse Christians of proselytizing for just talking about God. Some Christians might bring up the topic of God in order to proselytize, or to try and convert someone, but we are also capable of objective conversation about God – of expressing the ‘Christian’ worldview without trying to convert anyone. Some of us even believe that we can’t actually convert anyone, but we can only present the God ‘option’ and the gospel message of the Bible and leave the rest in God’s capable hands.

So why are so many atheists convinced that we are intentionally proselytizing when we talk about God?

‘Eisegesis’ Unplugged – Revelation 3:20

Posted by Dan C. on

Revelation 3:20

Might as well begin with an “oldie but a goodie’, and possibly a ‘greatest hit’ and future member of the Eisegesis Hall of Fame (EHF). It used to be one of my favorites!

The passage:

“Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.“ (NIV)

This single passage might just be the inaugural member of the EHF! It has been used in gospel presentations for years, most often after the “Romans Road” is travelled. If you are unfamiliar with it, The Romans Road to Salvation consists of 6 6-10 passages from the Book of Romans that accurately present the problem we all face (sin) and God’s solution to the problem. Once the prospective convert knows the problem and God’s solution, all that is left is how to appropriate the solution. Rev 3:20 is the perfect verse! The explanation goes like this:

clip_image002‘Jesus is standing forlornly at the door of your heart, wanting to come in and dine with you, but you must open the door! There is but one door latch and it’s on the inside, where you live, and Jesus can’t enter no matter how desperately He wants to!

I even heard a local pastor, whose sermon was about Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall and city gates, tell the congregation of several hundred that there was one gate that God could not open, the door to the human heart. I also cannot dispute that there have been many genuine decisions for Christ after hearing about the ‘one-way door’.  But we still ask the question:

“Is that what the passage really means? Lets take a look.

Revelation Chapter 3 is a continuation of Chapters 1 & 2, in which the Apostle John, in a vision on the Lords day, was commanded to record what he saw and write letters to seven churches of what he saw about each of them. Our passage is from one of those letters to a Christian church:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and he with me. (vv 14-20, NIV)

The text immediately preceding ‘The Greatest Invitation for Salvation Ever Written’ clearly depicts Christ standing at the door of a church that appears to have shut Him out. Jesus plea is that if even one member of that church would open the door, He would enter and dine with him.

The picture we paint in our ‘invitation’ is not the picture painted in the context of the passage of scripture from which it was extracted. I have no idea who first changed the meaning of this passage or when it happened. But I do know that the picture of Jesus standing at a one-way door and asking to be let in supports the idea that after all God has done to make salvation possible through the death of His Son, human decision is the ‘determining’ factor in anyone’s actual salvation.

I won’t jump into ‘that’ particular debate here. Nor will I begin a discussion about ‘evangelical ethics’. I’ll just say that there was a time when I thought it was a really great invitation, and if the passage really meant what we would like it to mean in our zeal to see souls saved, I would still be using it! At some point though, the fact that the a passage of scripture was often ‘quoted’ and given meaning not in the original text. That bothered me.

Will it bother you who read this, or will it seem like this is an ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” moment? I don’t know. Am I saying that it should bother you? Nope. But it should say ‘something’. What exactly it does say  is between you and God.

‘Eisegesis’ Unplugged – Introduction

Posted by Dan C. on

Does the Bible really SAY that?

A definition is is in order before anything else is said, so this from our friend, Merriam Webster:

eis·ege·sis

noun \ˌī-sə-ˈjē-səs, ˈī-sə-ˌ\

plural eis·ege·ses\-ˌsēz\

Definition of EISEGESIS

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas

Origin of EISEGESIS

Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis — more at in

First Known Use: 1892

Another source offers us this:

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

Eisegesis isn’t always a bad, because one’s own ideas might be a reasonable interpretation, or logical and otherwise biblically sound inference. Eiesegis, when what is ‘read into’ scripture is completely foreign to the actual text, is in contradiction with the larger context(s) of scripture (section, chapter, book, etc.), or otherwise changes the actual meaning of what has been written (even subtly), is just plain ‘bad, on several levels.

So What?

What does it matter if we ‘fudge’ a little if our motives are to lead people to Christ, help others feel better about themselves, or encourage Christians in their walk? Well, hopefully that will become self-evident as we provide some examples in subsequent “Eisegesis Unplugged” episodes.

The purpose of ‘Eisegesis Unplugged’ is to encourage readers and lovers of scripture to focus first and foremost on what it actually says and means, as written by those whom God inspired. And since the Holy Spirit is the actual author, ultimately we are talking about the authority and integrity of God’s Book, and the Honor of His Name .

The practical, here and now benefit?

When we know what scripture really says and means, we can recognize what might be ‘questionable’ and as a result apply the Berean principle and test what we are being told or taught (if we are not doing so already). For those of us who engage in ‘scriptural gymnastics‘ now and then, even with the ‘purest’ (in our minds) motives, perhaps there will be a realization that it is absolutely not necessary to engage in such God-dishonoring activity!

Enough for a short introduction to “Eisegesis Unplugged”. Subsequent posts will deal with actual examples of uses of scripture that should cause us to ask “Did the Bible REALLY say that?”

Disclaimer: The author of this, and subsequent blog posts with the same theme, makes no personal claim to having all truth. There is nothing ‘personal’ intended by contained herein, although statements made by persons known to the author might be included (even his own).

Partial Knowledge Can Still Be True Knowledge

Posted by Dan C. on

Stand to Reason Blog, 10 Dec 2010

Sometimes, when arguing that the universe requires a self-existent first cause, I’m told by Christians that I ought not argue the way Aristotle did because his god, the Unmoved Mover, was an idol and not the true God.

 
Here are some words from R.C. Sproul responding to this charge (transcribed from Sproul’s lecture, “God of the Bible vs. God of Philosophy“):

What I hear from people objecting to our labors to construct the self-existent, eternal being is that that only gets us to the First Cause, and to the God of the philosophers, and it doesn’t get us to the God of the Bible, therefore the approach is false, and what we come out with is false because it is not the complete picture. It’s only a partial picture of the true God.

 
Now, the question is this: Do we have to have a comprehensive knowledge of God in order to have true knowledge of God?…If indeed we would have to have a total, comprehensive picture of God in order to have a true understanding of God, then this would only mean…that we have no true knowledge of God. Because we certainly don’t have a comprehensive knowledge of God. In other words, what I’m saying is, even if our knowledge of God is partial, that does not mean that it’s untrue. It is true as far as it goes, and even though we grant that what we’ve achieved so far in our reasoning process is only to get to a self-existent, eternal being, that that certainly is part of what the Bible reveals to us about the character of God. Because whatever else the Bible reveals about the nature of God, the Bible certainly teaches that He is eternal, that He is self-existent, and He is the One who is the Creator of all things.

Now at that point, Aristotle says “yea, and amen.” Is Aristotle wrong? No. And the fact that a pagan philosopher agrees that there has to be a self-existent, eternal being does not vitiate the truth of the Christian claim. In fact, it agrees with it. And we’re saying, yes, we agree with Aristotle in the sense that there has to be a first cause, and that that first cause has to be self-existent, and that that first cause has to be pure actuality, and that first cause has to be pure being, and that that first cause has to be eternal. We say, thank you very much, Aristotle–you agree with us, we agree with you, on this cardinal point, which is only a partial point of our knowledge of God. But it is a crucial portion of our knowledge of God because, ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely this aspect of the Christian understanding of God that is constantly under attack by atheistic systems of thought…And so I think there’s great value in establishing that not only faith but reason, as well, demonstrates the logical necessity of having a self-existent, eternal being.

Posted by Amy Hall at 03:30 AM in AA:Amy, Apologetics | Permalink