Sovereignty of God Question – “Free” Will, or “Freed” Will?

Which of the two statements below presents a more powerful demonstration of the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of men?

A. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life and die to save those who would make an all on their own, “fee will” decision to receive Christ.

B. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life,  to die and suffer the punishment due those He would have for His own people,  give life to the spiritually dead, supernaturally draw to Christ those He would make His own, and in such a manner that their decision for Christ is indeed their own, but from a “freed” will.

Consider the above a hypothetical question, based on the words on the page, not on preconceived notions.

Postmodernity and Society

This is the third in a series concerning postmodernism, based on articles written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. This material is drawn from the third article in the series, and focuses on postmodernism’s effect on society.

“Postmodernity and Society”

Since absolute truth has been rejected, how does a postmodern society function? There exists a number of identifiable pillars propping up the postmodern vision – each of these pillars depend upon the others to prevent collapse of the system. As we will see, postmodernity is an inconsistent philosophy at best.

Truth Is Communal

We mentioned an earlier that while postmodernity rejects absolute, universal truth, it does not reject all standards of truth. Drawing from the well of existentialism, which championed individualized truth, this newer worldview (which by the way claims to reject worldviews) believes in communal truth. That is, each culture creates its own truth, and the citizens of that culture are expected to adhere to their community’s concept of truth with its attached morals and values.

Of course, it does not take a genius to recognize that such a view is fraught with irresolvable problems. First, if multitudes of communities each have their own version of truth and those versions are at odds on many issues, then “true truth”, as Francis Schaeffer used to say, cannot exist. Postmodernists recognize this little problem which is why they claim there is no true truth, only stories (or narratives). All pronouncements of truth are ultimately fiction. There is no final truth. If this is the case, the next problem to be faced is the dialogue between communities. As Groothuis states, “With these assumptions locked in place, any meaningful communication between, say, Aborigines and white Australians or white Americans and Native Americans would be impossible in principle. This leads to a third problem. What happens when cultures, with their own fictional version of truth, clash? Americans call terrorism murder, but Islamic fundamentalists call it justifiable casualties during time of war. Who is right? Under postmodernism right or wrong can’t be determined because each culture operates under a different system of truth.

Pluralism

It must first be admitted (and postmodern thinkers do so) that Western culture is still deeply dependent upon the borrowed capital of Christianity, along with its moral fiber and handle on truth and values. For example, a consistent postmodernist would have to agree that if a subculture found it morally acceptable to murder babies, gas Jews or enslave Blacks, then no one has the right to object. But of course postmodernists can’t live with such consequences of their own philosophy. They are grateful, for the time being, that they have a backup system such as Christianity, or else total anarchy would reign.

Still, the postmodernists cling gamely to the ideal of pluralism. We are told regularly by the media that we live in a pluralistic society, thus we must live and let live. At all cost, we must not even insinuate that we have the truth, for not only are such pronouncements offensive to others, they are downright arrogant. Carson writes, “Philosophical pluralism has generated many approaches in support of one stance: namely, that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true, and the others false, or even relatively inferior.”

Once again this reduces all of life to the telling of fictional stories. How can people with such an understanding of life make decisions and navigate without extreme frustration? They can do so only because they have accepted the idea of contradictory thinking.

By the way, a new understanding of tolerance is in vogue under postmodernity. Tolerance of people, even while rejecting their ideas was one of the linchpins of early democracy. Tolerance now means we must accept everyone’s ideas as equally valid. To be critical of anyone’s ideas is a sign of intolerance – which cannot be tolerated.

Contradictory Thinking

D. A. Carson gives the following example of the first generation raised in a postmodern age: “It is said that baby busters do not want to be lectured; they expect to be entertained. They prefer videos to books; many of them have not learned to think in a linear fashion; they put more store than they recognize in mere impressions. As a result, they can live with all sorts of logical inconsistencies and be totally unaware of them. How many times have I tried to explain to a university-age young person who has made some profession of faith that it is fundamentally inconsistent to claim to know and love the God of the Bible, while cohabiting with someone?”

The ability to believe contradictory things simultaneously is a hallmark of postmodern thinking. A few years ago Barna Research Group documented that two thirds of Americans do not believe in absolute truth (this number has recently risen to 78%). To claim to believe absolute truth does not exist is a self-contradiction in itself, for that claim must be based on a belief in something that is true – in this case that truth does not exist. So the one absolute allowed in postmodern thought is that absolutes do not exist. But it gets worse, for the same Barna poll showed that 53 percent of evangelical Christians believe there are no absolutes. Veith makes this comment: “This means the majority of those who say that they believe in the authority of the Bible and know Christ as their Savior nevertheless agree that ‘there is no such thing as absolute truth.’ Not Christ? No, although He presumably ‘works for them.’ Not the Bible? Apparently not, although 88 percent of evangelicals believe that ‘The Bible is the written word of God and is totally accurate in all it teaches.’ Bizarrely, 70 percent of all Americans claim to accept this high view of Scripture, which is practically the same number of those who say ‘there are no absolutes.’”

This kind of contradictory thinking would be unacceptable in any other age but is common place today, even among Christians. Only in such an intellectual environment could the very same people embrace scores of competing ideologies. Take the field of psychology, which is almost universally trusted in the West. “If you need psychiatric help, you might be treated by a Freudian, a Jungian, a humanist, or a behaviorist. Your treatment might consist of telling about your childhood, recording your dreams, getting in touch with your feelings, or exposing yourself to operant conditioning. The philosophies behind these psychological theories are incompatible – Freud and the behaviorists cannot both be right – and the methodologies are untestable.” But little contradictions like these do not matter in a postmodern era. It does not matter if competing therapies are mutually exclusive, all can be believed, although rational thinking would tell us that this is impossible.

Postmodernity is a ridiculous and unworkable worldview, but while it moves its way through our society it will leave much carnage in its wake. Its impact on the church will be our next subject.

__________________________________

NOTE: The next article will address postmodernity’s effect on the church.

Postmodernism and Truth

As with the previous article, the following was excerpted from a series of articles written in 2002 concerning postmodern thought and its effect on the church written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. This material is drawn from the second article in the series, and focuses on postmodernism and truth.

“Whatever Happened to Truth?”

Postmodernism has been called the offspring of  the philosophy of existentialism, a leading proponent of which was Jean-Paul Sartre was a leading proponent. Existentialism was a reaction to the materialistic optimism of modernity with its infinite faith in reason and science. The existentialist measured life by other criteria and decided that it really was meaningless and absurd. Truth and purpose could not be found in science or reason, for that matter, it could not even be found in revelation. Truth, if truth exists at all, could only be found within the individual. Truth, then, is a personal matter. It is not something one searches for and finds; it is something one creates for himself. Your truth may not be truth for me and I may therefore reject it, for truth is not universal, it is individualistic. But this fact does not negate that truth for you. You can embrace your truth and I can embrace mine, but we dare not attempt to impose our truth on anyone else. To claim to have found truth is a deceitful tool by which we attempt to manipulate and control one another. It is a power play, pure and simple.

It is from this fountain of existential philosophical thought that postmodernism has sprung. Postmodernity has adjusted and expanded the teachings of existentialism, but its connection is unquestionable, as we will see as we outline some of the basic tenets of the system. The reader might be warned that much within postmodernism is complicated, ridiculous and contradictory. It is a system that makes little sense and is basically unworkable. Nevertheless it is the mood of the moment and has infiltrated the thinking of countless people in our society.

Rejection of Universal Truth

That the rejection of truth lies at the center of postmodernity must be grasped to have any kind of handle on what is being taught. As with existentialism, there is a rejection of absolute truth. As in existentialism, truth is not found. It is created. But unlike existentialism, truth is constructed not individually but socially. That is, individual societies, cultures and subcultures develop their truth to which members of that community must adhere. However, this socially constructed truth is subject to change and is highly subjective.

So what does postmodernity propose? Kruger answers, “What are the postmodernists’ criteria for ‘truth’? Simply what works. Postmodernists are not concerned about absolute truth like the modernist; they define their ‘truth’ by more pragmatic concerns: What makes me feel good? What solves my problems? What is attractive to me?” Os Guinness is therefore right when he observes that due to postmodernism’s assault on truth and reason “objective, experimental, scientific data [has been replaced] with personal, anecdotal experience [as the source of truth in society].” In the Christian world, as we will see next time, things are not a lot better.

Of course, if truth, at the end of the day, is unknowable in any objective sense, and is reduced to what is good for “me,” where does that lead us? To chaos, confusion and the “grand sez who.” Groothuis writes, “If God is not invoked as the ultimate evaluator, the One whose words constitute moral truth… why should a given legal system be endorsed? Why should selves legislate morality…? Why should we seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number? What makes the Constitution the proper glue for our society? Says who?”

Relativism

Postmodern societies seem workable as long as communities, with their individualized brand of truth, stay isolated. But what happens when societies, each packing their own understanding of truth, collide? How is a country like America, with its melting pot of religions, ethnic backgrounds and the like, going to exist? By adopting a relativism mindset, which recognizes everyone’s truth as equal. Since there is no absolute truth anyway, your view is as good as mine. We should all live and let live; and by no means ever impose our understanding of right, wrongs, morals, and ethics on those of another philosophical community. This is the ultimate sin, perhaps the only sin, in a postmodern world. To a postmodernist an individual culture really does not traffic its truth, it tells stories – something they like to call narratives. To these thinkers, claims of truth are fictional, hence stories. When people develop a worldview all they are doing is telling a story (fiction) about stories (fiction), which is called a metanarrative. When all the dust has settled and the fancy words and ideas are reduced to their essence, what we have is a worldview that denies worldviews. In other words a true universal worldview is impossible because absolute truth is impossible. We may have values, morals, and concepts that work for us, or our subculture, but we cannot expect other subcultures to adopt our understandings for they may not work for them. Truth is simply that which works for a particular community and nothing more.

__________________________

NOTE: The next article will address postmodernity’s effect on society and western culture.

Concepts of Truth – Historical Review

The following was excerpted from a series of articles written in 2002 concerning postmodern thought and its effect on the church written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois.This article presented an overview of the three philosophical and religious eras that have dominated Western civilization. It’s a great starting point, if we want to understand our current culture and be effective witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Premodern

During the premodern era, which extended from Medieval times until the French Revolution of 1789, the Western world believed in the supernatural. No one doubted the existence of God (or gods). Spirits, demons and other beings existed beyond the realm of the senses; and this spiritual world somehow controlled and dominated life in the physical world. Of course there were many worldviews thriving under premodernism. Animism, mythology, Greek philosophy and Christianity all flourished and battled during the premodern era, but as diverse as they were all held firmly to a belief in some form of a supernatural spirit world. Biblical Christianity is obviously premodern in this sense. When presenting the gospel it was not necessary to convince people that spiritual beings or gods existed – everyone believed this. The challenge was to persuade individuals that there was only one true God, who sent His Son into the world as the God-man to die for their sins. In many ways the premodern worldview (which still exists in numerous places throughout the world) was a more fertile environment for the spread of the gospel than either modernism or postmodernism.

Modernism

The foundations of premodernism began to shake a bit with the arrival of first the Renaissance and then the Reformation, but it was the Enlightenment that proved to be its undoing. Influential philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) began questioning not only the dogmas of the past but also all sources of authority. By this time the Western world’s authority was to be found primarily either in the church (Roman Catholicism) or in the Scriptures (Protestantism), or in the case of Islam, in the Koran. The architects of the Enlightenment challenged these authorities, including the beliefs founded upon them, and offered in their place human reasoning. “The goal of the ‘Enlightenment project’… was to free humanity from superstition and found a philosophy and civilization on rational inquiry, empirical evidence and scientific discovery. The term ‘modernism’ is often identified with this overall project. The modernist vision presupposed the power of rationality to discover truth.”

The date of modernity’s death has been a matter of much speculation. Some believe it was at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (exactly 200 years after its birth) since, of all social experiments, Marxism most fully attempted to implement the concepts of the Enlightenment. When Communism crumbled so did the last vestiges of the optimism in human ability that for so long propelled modernity. Others believe that, at least in America, modernity died on July 15, 1973, with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing projects in St. Louis. It was at that moment that Americans threw in the towel on their own utopia experiments, recognizing that reason, science, and technology had failed to enhance the lives of the poor and had actually brought more misery.

Whether modernity died in 1973 or 1989 may be debatable, but that it is dead is not. That is not to deny that many aspects of our society still operate under the vestiges of modernistic principles (and premodern for that matter), but an obvious shift has taken place in the mindset and worldview of the Western civilization. The new worldview is called postmodernism.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is born out of the ashes of the failure of modernity. It is the reaction of the disillusioned. If the optimistic projections of the last two hundred years of the best efforts of reason, science and technology has failed; and if the tenets of premodernism with its foundation of revelatory truth is preposterous, then all that is left is the pessimism of nothingness, emptiness and uncertainty.

Postmodernity is relatively complicated, so it is necessary to probe carefully both its worldview and its effect on cultures as well as the church. At this point we simply want to recognize that at the hub of this philosophy, as well as all philosophies, is the issue of truth. To the premodernist, truth was found in revelation. To the modernist, truth can be found in reason and science. To the postmodernist truth is not found (indeed it is not capable of being found), it is created. Absolute truth is a fable. It is possible for me to create my own truth, and for cultures and subcultures to create their truth, but it is not possible to find universal truth that is applicable to all people. Such truth does not exist and should not be sought. Those who claim to possess absolute truth only do so in order to assert power over others.

Seminary professor and author Michael Kruger writes, “Postmodernity, in contrast to modernity, rejects any notion of objective truth and insists that the only absolute in the universe is that there are no absolutes. Tolerance is the supreme virtue and exclusivity the supreme vice. Truth is not grounded in reality or in any sort of authoritative ‘text,’ but is simply constructed by the mind of the individual [or socially constructed].” Professor of philosophy and Christian apologist Doug Groothuis elaborates, “For these postmodernist thinkers, the very idea of truth has decayed and disintegrated. It is no longer something knowable…. At the end of the day, truth is simply what we, as individuals and as communities, make it to be – and nothing more.” If this is so, then how do people make decisions and develop values, or even create their own truth? Kruger answers, “What are the postmodernists’ criteria for ‘truth’? Simply what works. The postmodernist is not concerned about absolute truth like the modernist; he defines his ‘truth’ by more pragmatic concerns: What makes me feel good? What solves my problems? What is attractive to me?”

The reader may properly wonder, is not all of this postmodern philosophy a mere intellectual football being tossed about by the elite? Has this mentality really trickled down to masses? Unfortunately, surveys confirm that while the majority may be unable to define postmodernity they are increasingly becoming products of it. For a number of years Barna Research Group has been telling us that belief in absolute truth hovered at around 38% in America. That means that almost two out of every three adults in America deny the existence of absolute truth. But things have gotten worse. At the end of 2001, just a few months after the infamous 9/11 attacks, an alarming survey was conducted by Barna that found confidence in absolute moral truth had dropped to a mere 22%. Barely one in five Americans claim to believe in absolute truth, which is amazing considering, that according to Barna’s research, one out of every three Americans claim to be an evangelical Christian.

In other words, we not only live in a postmodern era (we can’t help that) but most of us have become postmodernist – even many who claim to be Christians.

______________________________

NOTE: The entire series of articles about postmodernism can be found here by scrolling down the page. You can’t miss them, and they are well worth the read. The next few posts here at The Battle Cry will focus on the issue of postmodernism and the the church.

Mo and PoMo

Modernism and Post-Modernism – John MacArthur

I. Modernism
Consider the record of the past century, for example. A hundred years ago, the church was beset by modernism. Modernism was a world-view based on the notion that only science could explain reality. The modernist in effect began with the presupposition that nothing supernatural is real.

It ought to have been instantly obvious that modernism and Christianity were incompatible at the most fundamental level. If nothing supernatural is real, then much of the Bible is untrue and has no authority; the incarnation of Christ is a myth (nullifying Christ’s authority as well); and all the supernatural elements of Christianity -including God Himself -must be utterly redefined in naturalistic terms. Modernism was anti-Christian at its core.

Nonetheless, the visible church at the beginning of the twentieth century was filled with people who were convinced modernism and Christianity could and should be reconciled. They insisted that if the church did not keep in step with the times by embracing modernism, Christianity would not survive the twentieth century. The church would become increasingly irrelevant to modern people, they said, and soon it would die. So they devised a “social gospel” void of the true gospel of salvation.

Of course, biblical Christianity survived the twentieth century just fine. Wherever Christians remained committed to the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, the church flourished. But ironically, those churches and denominations that embraced modernism were the ones that became increasingly irrelevant and all but died out before the century was over. Many grandiose but nearly empty stone buildings offer mute testimony to the deadliness of compromise with modernism.

II. Post-Modernism

Modernism is now regarded as yesterday’s way of thinking. The dominant world-view in secular and academic circles today is called post-modernism.
Post-modernists have repudiated modernism’s absolute confidence in science as the only pathway to the truth. In fact, post-modernism has completely lost interest in “the truth,” insisting that there is no such thing as absolute, objective, or universal truth.

Modernism was indeed folly and needed to be abandoned. But post-modernism is a tragic step in the wrong direction. Unlike modernism, which was still concerned with whether basic convictions, beliefs, and ideologies are objectively true or false, post-modernism simply denies that any truth can be objectively known.

To the post-modernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is “true” is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to all humanity universally. The post-modernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person’s perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another’s.

Having given up on knowing objective truth, the post-modernist occupies himself instead with the quest for “understanding” the other person’s point of view. So the words truth and understanding take on radical new meanings. Ironically, “understanding” requires that we first of all disavow the possibility of knowing any truth at all. And “truth” becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.

That is the one essential, non-negotiable demand post-modernism makes of everyone: we are not supposed to think we know any objective truth. Post-modernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect. And therefore on the surface, post-modernism seems driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the post-modernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every world-view that makes any universal truth-claims — particularly biblical Christianity.

In other words, post-modernism begins with a presupposition that is irreconcilable with the objective, divinely-revealed truth of Scripture. Like modernism, post-modernism is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

III. Post-Modernism and the Church

The church today is filled with people who are advocating post-modern ideas. Some of them do it self-consciously and deliberately, but most do it unwittingly. (Having imbibed too much of the spirit of the age, they are simply regurgitating worldly opinion.) The evangelical movement as a whole, still recovering from its long battle with modernism, is not prepared for a new and different adversary. Many Christians have therefore not yet recognized the extreme danger posed by post-modernist thought.

Post-modernism’s influence has clearly infected the church already. Evangelicals are toning down their message so that the gospel’s stark truth-claims don’t sound so jarring to the post-modern ear. Many shy away from stating unequivocally that the Bible is true and all other religious systems and world-views are false. Some who call themselves Christians have gone even further, purposefully denying the exclusivity of Christ and openly questioning His claim that He is the only way to God.

The biblical message is clear. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The apostle John wrote, “He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11-12).

Those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of post-modernism. They make exclusive, universal truth-claims declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate post-modern sensitivities.

Instead, many Christians simply pass over the exclusive claims of Christ in embarrassed silence. Even worse, some in the church — including a few of evangelicalism’s best-known leaders — have begin to suggest that perhaps people can be saved apart from knowing Christ.

Christians cannot capitulate to post-modernism without sacrificing the very essence of our faith. The Bible’s claim that Christ is the only way of salvation is certainly out of harmony with the post-modern notion of “tolerance.” But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. And the Bible — not post-modern opinion — is the supreme authority for the Christian. The Bible alone should determine what we believe and proclaim to the world. We cannot waver on this, no matter how much this post-modern world complains that our beliefs make us “intolerant.”

___________

Copyright 2007, Grace to You

Faith is an Act but Not a Work

Romans 4:5: “To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Notice how many different ways (7) this Scripture teaches justification by faith alone in one verse:

1. The justified one does “not work.”

2. The justified one “trusts.”

3. The justified one trusts not in himself but in another: “God.”

4. The justified one confesses himself to be “wicked.”

5. The justified one does not have faith in his faith.

6. The justified one sees his faith only as “credited” to him.

7. The justified one sees his faith credited as “righteousness.”

______________________

From Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine By Which the Church and the Individual Stands of Falls, published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications; Morgan PA, 1995,Chapter 4.

 

Justification – The Center of Religion

It can reasonably be said that ‘justification’ before a ‘god’, or ‘higher being’ of some sort is the center of most, if not all ‘religion’. All we have to do is take a trip through what we know of the history of the human race to conclude, quite logically, that humans are born with a ‘religious bent’, and by nature will attribute to some sort of higher being their creation, and feel the need to satisfy/appease that supreme being. What satisfies the god of any religion, how humans are found righteous  before their god in essence defines their religion and the conduct of their very lives.  This principle applies even to persons who claim no god, because in truth, for those persons, they are their own gods and the conduct of their lives revolves around satisfying themselves – becoming ‘self-actualized’, to borrow a term from Maslow.

Professing atheists aside, we turn our attention to ‘religions’ containing god(s) outside of oneself. Of these, all of them except one are identical in their view of what satisfies their god(s) – what ‘justifies’ their adherents – what makes a person ‘worthy’ of attaining whatever ‘afterlife’ they espouse. Every religion on the face of the earth, except for Christianity, involves human effort, works of human hands, in order for adherents/followers to eventually find eternal happiness.

In fact, the Christian religion, is not a ‘religion’,  if religion is defined as man’s effort to please God! Christianity, as given to us in Holy Scripture is defined by, and revolves around the person for whom it is named, the man Christ Jesus. True Christianity is about what God accomplished in the sinless life and death of His own Son, not about what we humans do, or think we can do ourselves to please God. As we come from the womb, we can do absolutely nothing! (See Psalm 14 and Romans 11, for starters).  For the Christian then, what does it mean to be found righteous, to be considered ‘just’ before a Holy God? Here’s the definition you will find in any good dictionary of biblical terms

Justification — a forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 5:1–10).

It proceeds on the imputing or crediting to the believer by God himself of the perfect righteousness, active and passive, of his Representative and Surety, Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:3–9). Justification is not the forgiveness of a man without righteousness, but a declaration that he possesses a righteousness which perfectly and for ever satisfies the law, namely, Christ’s righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:6–8).

The sole condition on which this righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer is faith in or on the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is called a “condition,” not because it possesses any merit, but only because it is the instrument, the only instrument by which the soul appropriates or apprehends Christ and his righteousness (Rom. 1:17; 3:25, 26; 4:20, 22; Phil. 3:8–11; Gal. 2:16).

The act of faith which thus secures our justification secures also at the same time our sanctification (q.v.); and thus the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness (Rom. 6:2–7). Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence of justification (6:14; 7:6).

Easton, M.G.: Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897

A person is declared justified before God’s court of judgment, once and for all, at the moment faith is placed in Christ as having satisfied the requirement of God’s law, nothing short of sinless perfection will do. No man can, or ever will achieve that state, due to inherent sin. We are by nature sinful, and that nature follows us to the grave, after which comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

In other words, even if a person lives a life without committing an ‘act’ of sin, even if that person has a ‘new nature’ in Christ, a taint of sin remains even at the moment of death, and eternal condemnation is still that person’s ‘just’ reward. It is only because of having placed saving faith in the finished work of Christ as having fulfilled the Law of God, that any person receives eternal salvation. And so that we would not boast in having place ‘our’ faith in Christ, the Apostle Paul tells us that even the faith necessary to save a soul is a gift from our Sovereign God! (Eph. 2:8-9)

To bring this full circle, what does this tell us of religion? Any and all religion that has in its teaching or doctrine, that humans effort can in any way make a person righteous (justify a person) before its god is false.

Any form of ‘Christianity’ that adds works to faith for justification before God is either at worst, entirely false, or at best, apostate Christianity.

That’s not one man’s opinion or personal interpretation of scripture, it’s Bible.

WHY does anyone choose Christ?

Maybe the last question was too deep? I have no idea if it was or wasn’t, actually. Let’s see if this one will result in a comment or question. After all, when anyone makes a decision for/about anything, there are reasons driving the decision, aren’t there?

The Great Salvation Debate

In the end, it’s not Calvin v. Arminius, it’s monergism v. synergism.

Mongergism means that God saved me, from start to finish.

Synergism means that, to borrow a line from an old commercial, “It’s Shake ‘n’ Bake and I Helped” (with my decision).

If I helped in any manner whatsoever wouldn’t that give me cause for boasting?

Isn’t having a cause for boasting in violation of Eph 2:8-9?

Food for thought and discussion, for the brave spirits among us.