Can a Christian Lose His or Her Salvation?

What follows is an excerpt from an article that bears the same title as this post. You can read it here.

Scripture teaches that believers must persevere until the end, but also that believers will persevere until the end by God’s grace. As the Westminster Assembly concluded, Christians might temporarily yield to Satan’s temptations, even to excess, but like Peter when he denied Christ three times, God will still restore and preserve the faith of the Christian, a faith which God gave in the first place! Peter went on to be chief among the apostles! Two biblical principles must be held side-by-side:

1. You Must Persevere until the End: God’s Requirement of His People

God does not merely command us to begin to believe for a time, and then fall away. He requires us to continue to believe until the end, living lives of repentance and covenant faithfulness. Granted, He does not ask for a perfect faith, but He does ask for a real faith, one that produces real, lasting change.

• Colossians 1:21-23

• 1 John 1:5-10; 3:3-6

• Hebrews 10:26-31

• Hebrews 12:1

2. You Will Persevere Until the End: God’s Preservation of His People

We will persevere because God preserves us. God will keep us from falling—not one will be lost of all those who belong to the Son. True believers are not able to leave Christ, for Christ is at work within them.

• John 6:38-40

• John 10:28-29

• Romans 8:28-39

• Philippians 1:4-6

• Philippians 2:12-13

• 1 John 2:19

This first set of texts cannot be used to refute the second; nor can the second set of texts be used to refute the first (cheap grace). The point that makes the two compatible is the biblical teaching that faith (while commanded of everyone) is a gift from God to His elect. If faith is simply a human action of a free will, then it can be lost. But if saving faith is God’s gift, then it cannot be lost. Can professing Christians fall away? Yes, and they will perish. Can true Christians fall away? No, for they are kept by the invincible power of God in Christ. The Bible teaches us that professing Christians who leave the faith were never truly believers (1 John 2:19; and notice the qualification even in Hebrews 10:39).

_______________________________

Dan’s question: If we agree that we are saved by faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross, but also assert that if we commit sin(s), or fail to repent of every single one, are we not saying that our works contribute, at least in part, to our ultimate salvation?

As the above article excerpt states, if one is saved by an act of human free will, then one must necessarily be able to leave the faith by another act of human free will to be logically consistent. Also, to believe that God alone saves AND preserves in faith those who have trusted in Christ for their salvation is also logically consistent. However to say that God alone saves initially (grants eternal life) but by human effort one must remain saved, is theological schizophrenia.

Have a great day, everyone!

More, More, More?

Our 1 & 1/5-year-old grandson Michael uses those words (with the question mark) a lot at mealtimes whenever he is eating something he likes, until he is full and then exclaims “Done now!”

“What’s that got to do with Christian faith?”, you ask. Thanks for asking! First of all, it reminds me of me in the late 70’s after God drew this prodigal home. I didn’t want just a little of what God had for me, I wanted all of what he had for me. Wanting more was a genuine cry of my heart and a good thing! On the other hand, Every time someone or something (read Christian TV, radio, books, & even family members) offered ‘more’ I was all over it. After all, the offers of ‘more’ were being made by professing Christians who were older and wiser than this young Army Sergeant with his young family.

Moreover, I just knew my motives in wanting ‘more’ were pure as the driven snow. How could they NOT be? So, like most young believers I was drawn off into teachings that I now question. Well, the 3M syndrome is alive and well 40 years down the road. Young, new to the faith believers are still drawn towards the ‘more’ that offers emotional excitement, ecstatic worship, ‘new’ special revelation, and even training in the ‘supernatural’.

Know that in no way am I saying that God does not want to bless us mightily, or that He no longer operates in certain ways in his church. I am not saying that God doesn’t provide ‘more’ to us as we engage in the renewing of our minds and the Holy Spirit brings the beautiful truths of scripture home to the deepest center of our new hearts.

I’m suggesting that we need to be cautious of offers and promises of ‘more’. Some of them are found nowhere in scripture, but in its twisting. Lives, both physical and spiritual, have been devastated by chasing after some of those promises. I would add that Satan is the master counterfeiter who loves to provide fake answers to fake promises.

One might also ask, “When is ‘more’ enough? Are we as smart as little Michael?

Personally, I’ve found that in reading and studying God’s word, fellowshipping with the saints, and sharing Christ with the lost around me keeps me busy enough. Nothing extraordinary, just the ordinary activities of a blood bought sinner.

Some might say that being just an ‘ordinary’ Christian a pretty high calling!

Be blessed in your high calling this Lord’s Day!

Does God Still Give Revelation?

Adapted from: Master’s Seminary Journal Volume 14
Exodus 4:12; Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Jeremiah 1:7-9; Ezekiel 3:4; Ezekiel 13:9; Matthew 5:18; 1 Coritnhians 14:29; Ephesians 5:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Jude 3-4; Revelation 22:18–19

Strange private prophecies have been a noted characteristic of the Charismatic Movement, prophecies such as those received by Oral Roberts, Linda Fehl, Jack Hayford, Larry Lea, and Kenneth Hagin. J. Rodman Williams endorses such experiences, but Edward N. Gross correctly dismisses such special revelations as erroneous and limits such revelations to those resulting in the writing of the Bible. According to 2 Tim 3:16, inspired means that Scripture is God-breathed, i.e., God Himself speaking. Some modern theologians such as Dewey Beegel support the charismatic agenda by teaching that the canon of Scripture is not closed and that God is still giving special revelation. Such teaching of progressive revelation, supported also by J. Rodman Williams and Kenneth Copeland, creates great turmoil in the church and is tantamount to violating the scriptural injunctions not to add prophecies to what has been written in its pages. The biblical canon closed after the writing of Revelation and was popularly recognized soon after in the ancient church. Jude 3 speaks of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” and warns repeatedly against tolerating false prophets. The early church applied tests of apostolic authorship, content, and responses by the churches to determine which books met the criteria of inspiration, resulting in a uniquely inspired and authoritative set of books.

“God told me . . . “ has become the anthem of the Charismatic Movement. Strange private prophecies are proclaimed by all kinds of people who evidently believe God speaks to them. Surely the most infamous is Oral Roberts’ preposterous death-threat prophecy. In 1987 Roberts told his nationwide audience that God had threatened to “call him home” if he couldn’t raise eight million dollars by his creditors’ deadline. Whether and how that threat might have been carried out, the world will never know; Roberts received a last-minute reprieve in the form of a large check from a Florida dog-track owner.

Two years later, when Roberts was forced to close his multimillion-dollar, Tulsa-based City of Faith medical center anyway, he asked God why. Roberts maintains that God gave him an answer:

God said in my spirit, “I had you build the City of Faith large enough to capture the imagination of the entire world about the merging of My healing streams of prayer and medicine. I did not want this revelation localized in Tulsa, however. And the time has come when I want this concept of merging My healing streams to be known to all people and to go into all future generations.”

As clearly in my spirit as I’ve ever heard Him, the Lord gave me an impression. “You and your partners have merged prayer and medicine for the entire world, for the church world and for all generations,” He said. “It is done.”

I then asked, “Is that why after eight years you’re having us close the hospital and after 11 years the medical school?”

He said, “Yes, the mission has been accomplished in the same way that after the three years of public ministry My Son said on the cross, ‘Father, it is finished.’”1

We may gasp at Oral Roberts’ hubris, but he is not the only charismatic who thinks he is receiving private revelation from God. Most Charismatics, at one time or another, feel that God speaks to them in some specific manner, either through an audible voice, an internal impression, a vision, or simply by using them as a vehicle to write a song, compose a poem, or utter a prophecy.

Linda Fehl, founder of Rapha Ranch, sells a tape with a song titled, “The Holy Ghost.” She says the song was given to her by the Holy Spirit as she was being healed of cancer.2 An editor for a Christian publisher once told me he receives submissions every week from charismatics who claim God inspired them to write their book, article, song, or poem.3 My editor friend noted that the manuscripts are often poorly written, filled with bad grammar, marred by factual and logical errors, or full of poems that either mutilate the language or attempt to rhyme but just miss.

Lest you think cranks, obscure eccentrics, or naive charismatic believers are the only ones who would make such claims, listen to Jack Hayford, internationally known author, media minister, and pastor of The Church on the Way in Van Nuys, California. Hayford told the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America that God has told him a new era is coming:

Hayford then related a vision in which he had seen Jesus seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father. In Hayford’s vision, Jesus began to lean forward and rise from his seat. As the anointing caught in the folds of His garments, it began to splash out and fall over the church. Jesus said, “I am beginning to rise now in preparation for my second coming. Those who will rise with Me will share in this double portion of anointing.”4

And Larry Lea, popular charismatic author and pastor, wrote,

Recently, when I was in Chicago preparing to preach, the Lord’s Spirit came upon me. He spoke in my heart: “I’m going to tell you now the name of the strongman over this nation.”

I listened intently.

“The spiritual strongman you are facing—the demonic strongman that has your nation under his control—is the strongman of greed.”

We certainly don’t have to look very long to find evidence to back up this Word of the Lord.5

Kenneth Hagin surely has the most unusual story of all. He says that when he was younger and still single, God led him to break off a relationship with a girl by revealing to him that she was morally unfit. How did that happen? In a most unconventional way. Hagin claims God miraculously transported him out of church one Sunday, right in the middle of the sermon. Worst of all, Hagin was the preacher delivering the sermon!

Suddenly I was gone! Right in the middle of my sermon, I found myself standing along a street in a little town fifteen miles away—and I knew it was Saturday night. I was leaning against a building, and I saw this young lady come walking down the street. About the time she got to where I was standing, a car came down the street. The driver pulled up to the curb, sounded the horn, and she got into his car. He backed out, turned the other direction, and started out of town—and suddenly I was sitting in the back seat!

They went out in the country and committed adultery. And I watched them. I was still in the cloud. Suddenly I heard the sound of my voice, and the cloud lifted. I was standing behind my pulpit. I didn’t know what to say, because I didn’t know what I had been saying, so I just said, “Everyone bow your head,” and we prayed. I looked at my watch, and . . . I’d been gone about fifteen minutes in the cloud.

While I was shaking hands with people as they went out the door, this young lady came by. I said, “We missed you last night.” She said, “Yes, I was over in ___________” (and she named the little town). I said, “Yes, I know.”6

On the basis of that questionable experience, Hagin determined that the girl was promiscuous and assumes to this day that she was guilty of adultery. He follows that report with a similar one, where he was suddenly transported into a car where another young girl was supposedly engaged in moral compromise.7 Ironically, immediately after telling those two tales, he writes, “You’ve got to realize, friends, that there is a fine line between fanaticism and reality. Many people get off into error seeking experiences.”8 Hagin has never drawn a truer application from his anecdotes.

Would God really transport Hagin miraculously into cars so he could witness acts of adultery? Did God talk to Oral Roberts? Did he write a song for Linda Fehl? Did Jack Hayford actually see Christ rise from His seat next to God? Was Larry Lea’s prophecy really a “Word of the Lord”? Are Christians still receiving, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, direct revelation from God? Can people today—writing songs or books, preaching or teaching, or making decisions—legitimately claim that they are under divine inspiration?

Many charismatics answer a loud “Yes!” For example, J. Rodman Williams wrote:

The Bible truly has become a fellow witness to God’s present activity. . . . If someone today perhaps has a vision of God, of Christ, it is good to know that it has happened before; if one has a revelation from God, to know that for the early Christians revelation also occurred in the community; if one speaks a “Thus says the Lord,” and dares to address the fellowship in the first person—even going beyond the words of Scripture—that this was happening long ago. How strange and remarkable it is! If one speaks in the fellowship of the Spirit the Word of truth, it is neither his own thoughts and reflections (e.g., on some topic of the day) nor simply some exposition of Scripture, for the Spirit transcends personal observations, however interesting or profound they may be. The Spirit as the living God moves through and beyond the records of past witness, however valuable such records are as a model for what happens today.9

What is Williams saying? He is alleging that the Bible is not our final source of God’s revelation but simply a “witness” to additional revelation that God is giving today. Williams is declaring that Christians can add to the Bible—and that they can accept others’ additions to Scripture as normal and conventional. He believes the Bible is a “model” for what the Holy Spirit is doing today to inspire believers.

That is a frighteningly relativistic view, but it is growing in popularity as the Charismatic Movement expands. Edward N. Gross, noting this deadly trend in the church today, observes:

The age of models has come. A model takes the place of a law. Models are human perceptions of truth. They are tentative and thus subject to change as new data becomes available. These models are open and constantly tested. No scientist dares claim any longer that one model is the way to explain all known phenomena for fear that some newly discovered data will prove that scientist to be a precipitous old fool. The world of science has progressed from the old approach (closed systems) to the new approach (open systems). . . .

If the Bible is a closed system of truth, with no new revelation being given through inspired prophets or apostles, then the “model approach” is an erroneous and dangerous tool in hermeneutics.

There should be no confusion in this area. The orthodox teaching of Christianity has always affirmed that God’s special, saving revelation to mankind is restricted to the teachings of the Scriptures. . . .

This is the issue. If the Bible is complete, then it represents a closed system of truth. If it entails a fixed and absolute standard of truth, then the teachings of Scripture may be ascertained and dogmatically asserted. If God is still granting new revelation, then the truth of God is still being progressively revealed, and if this were the case, our duty would be to faithfully listen to today’s prophets as they unravel God’s truth in new and clearer representations than we find in Scripture. Few Christians really consider the subtleties of today’s “prophets” as an improvement upon the sanctifying truths given in the Word. I certainly do not.10

Nor do I. Scripture is a closed system of truth, complete, sufficient, and not to be added to (Revelation 22:18–19). It contains all the spiritual truth God intended to reveal.

What Does Inspiration Mean?

Our word inspired comes from a Latin root meaning, “to breathe in.”

Unfortunately, that does not convey the true meaning of the Greek term used in Scripture. Actually the concept of breathing in is not found in 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is inspired by God”). Reading it in has misled many people about the meaning of inspiration. They have assumed that God breathed some kind of divine life into the words of those who penned the original documents of Scripture. But the Greek term for inspiration is theopneustos, which means “God-breathed.” Literally the verse says, “All Scripture is God-breathed”—that is, Scripture is not the words of men into which God puffed divine life. It is the very breath of God! Scripture is God Himself speaking.

That truth is one many people seem prone to misunderstand. Inspiration does not mean the Bible contains God’s revelation. It does not mean gems of revealed truth are concealed in Scripture. It does not mean men wrote God’s truth in their own words. It does not mean God merely assisted the writers. It means that the words of the Bible are the words of God Himself. Every word of Scripture was breathed out by God.

At the burning bush, God said to Moses, “Go, and I, even I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say” (Exodus 4:12). Jeremiah, the weeping prophet of Judah, received this charge from God: “All that I command you, you shall speak. . . . Behold, I have put My words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:7, 9). And God said to Ezekiel, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel. . . . Take into your heart all my words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely . . . and speak to them” (Ezek 3:4, 10–11).

A key passage describing how God speaks through Scripture is 2 Peter 1:21. Literally it says “No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The most important word here is “moved,” which speaks of being carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Theologian Thomas A. Thomas recalls that as a boy he would play in the little streams that ran down the mountainside near his home.

We boys liked to play what we called “boats.” Our “boat” would be any little stick which was placed in the water, and then we would run along beside it and follow it as it was washed downstream. When the water would run rapidly over some rocks the little stick would move rapidly as well. . . . In other words, that little stick which served as my boyhood “boat” was carried along, borne along, under the complete control and direction of the water. It moved as the water moved it. So it is with reference to the writers of the Scriptures. They were carried along, borne along, under the control and direction of the Holy Spirit of God. They wrote as the Spirit directed them to write. They were borne along by Him so that what they wrote was exactly that which the Holy Spirit intended should be there. What they wrote was, in a very real sense, not their words; it was the very Word of God.11

Modern Views of Inspiration

What, then, is the contemporary approach to Scripture? Some modern theologians want to allow for continued inspiration or updated revelation. At least one, Dewey Beegle, believes that some of the classic anthems of the church are inspired in the same way as Scripture. He has written, “Some of the great hymns are practically on a par with the Psalms, and one can be sure that if Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, Augustus Toplady, and Reginald Heber had lived in the time of David and Solomon, and been no more inspired than they were in their own day, some of their hymns of praise to God would have found their way into the Hebrew canon.”12

Beegle refers in particular to the experience of George Matheson, a blind Scottish pastor who wrote “Oh Love That Will Not Let Me Go” during a time of great personal distress. On the evening of his younger sister’s wedding, Matheson was reminded vividly of the agony he had suffered twenty years before when his fiancé had rejected him because she had learned he was going blind. Matheson wrote the hymn in just a few minutes, though he claimed he had no natural sense of rhythm. According to Matheson, he did no changing or correcting of “Oh Love That Will Not Let Me Go”; it came “like a dayspring from on high.”

Beegle believes George Matheson’s experience was

. . . the kind of inspiration of which the Psalms were made. There is no difference in kind. If there is any difference, it was a matter of degree. When the Biblical writers served as channels of God’s revelation they needed more divine help, but the inspiration was not distinct in kind from that given to all the messengers of God down through history. What distinguishes the Bible is its record of special revelation, not a distinctive kind of inspiration.13

Beegle believes the canon of Scripture has never been closed.14 He has written, “The revelation and inspiration of God’s Spirit continues. . . . For this reason there is no basis in considering all of the biblical writers and editors as qualitatively different from postcanonical interpreters.”15 He continues,

If the church had a more dynamic sense of God’s inspiration in the twentieth century, it would be more effective in its witness and outreach. It is well and good to protect the distinctiveness of the Bible, but to think only in terms of its inspiration as absolutely different in kind from inspiration in our time is too high a price to pay. Christians today need to have the same sense of being God-motivated and God-sent as did the biblical writers and interpreters. In a genuine sense, the difficulty of interpreting God’s record of revelation to this complex age requires as much of God’s inbreathing and wisdom as did the process of interpretation in the biblical periods.16

In effect, that is precisely what charismatics believe. The truth, however, is that there is no way to “protect the distinctiveness of the Bible” if God is inspiring new revelation today. If the canon is still open, and if God is still giving new prophecies, new songs, and new words of wisdom, we should be earnestly seeking to compile and study these most recent revelations along with Scripture—and maybe even more diligently, since they speak expressly to our time and culture.

Some Charismatics actually reason that way.17 But it is error of the worst kind. The canon is not still open. God’s Word, made of the Old and New Testaments, is one unique miracle. It came together over a period of 1, 500 years. More than forty men of God, prophets and apostles, wrote God’s words—every jot and tittle—without error and in perfect harmony. No hymn is worthy to be compared to Scripture. No modern prophecy or word of wisdom is even in the same realm with God’s eternal Word. Heaven and earth will pass away; God’s Word will abide (Matthew 5:18).

Progressive Revelation?

Charismatics struggle to explain how the supposed revelation they receive through tongues, prophecies, and visions fits with Scripture. J. Rodman Williams, as we have seen, claims these charismatic phenomena are simply new manifestations of what was happening in biblical times: “It is good to know . . . if one speaks a ‘Thus says the Lord,’ and dares to address the fellowship in the first person—even going beyond the words of Scripture—that this was happening long ago.”18 His explanation of the charismata amounts to an argument for “progressive” or “continuing” revelation: “In the Spirit the present fellowship is as much the arena of God’s vital presence as anything in the Biblical account. Indeed, in the light of what we may learn from this past witness, and take to heart, we may expect new things to occur in our day and days to come.”19 Williams went on to describe just how new revelation occurs. He put great emphasis on the “gift of prophecy”:

In prophecy God speaks. It is as simple, and profound, and startling as that! What happens in the fellowship is that the Word may suddenly be spoken by anyone present, and so, variously, a “Thus says the Lord” breaks forth in the fellowship. It is usually in the first person (though not always), such as “I am with you to bless you . . .” and has the directness of an “I—Thou” encounter. It comes not in a “heavenly language,” but in the native tongue of the person speaking and with his accustomed inflections, cadences, and manners. Indeed, the speech may even be coarse and ungrammatical; it may be a mixture of “King James” and modern; it may falter as well as flow—such really does not matter. For in prophecy God uses what He finds, and through frail human instruments the Spirit speaks the Word of the Lord. . . .

All of this—to repeat—is quite surprising and startling. Most of us of course were familiar with prophetic utterance as recorded in the Bible, and willing to accept it as the Word of God. Isaiah’s or Jeremiah’s “Thus says the Lord . . .” we were accustomed to, but to hear a Tom or a Mary today, in the twentieth century, speak the same way . . . ! Many of us also had convinced ourselves that prophecy ended with the New Testament period (despite all the New Testament evidence to the contrary), until suddenly through the dynamic thrust of the Holy Spirit prophecy comes alive again. Now we wonder how we could have misread the New Testament for so long!20

That is tantamount to saying that current instances of charismatic prophecy are divine revelation equal to Scripture. Such a claim is disturbing because the possibilities of fraud and error by present-day “prophets” are obvious. Williams recognized that danger and wrote:

Prophecy can by no means be taken casually. Since it is verily God’s message to His people, there must be quite serious and careful consideration given to each word spoken, and application made within the life of the fellowship. Also because of the ever present danger of prophecy being abused—the pretense of having a word from God—there is need for spiritual discernment.21

Though Williams admitted the risks, nowhere in his book did he spell out how “careful consideration” and “spiritual discernment” are to be employed to distinguish the false from the true.

Perhaps Williams later realized the problems he raised, because he attempted to clarify his thinking in the Logos Journal:

I do not intend in any way to place contemporary experience on the same level of authority as the Bible. Rather do I vigorously affirm the decisive authority of Scripture; hence, God does not speak just as authoritatively today as He spoke to the biblical authors. But he does continue to speak (He did not stop with the close of the New Testament canon); thus, he “moves through and beyond the records of past witness,” for he is the living God who still speaks and acts among His people.22

That explanation fails to resolve the issue. The distinction between biblical authority and additional revelation seems to be artificial. Are some of God’s words less authoritative than others?

The fact is, Williams’s view is indistinguishable from the neoorthodox position espoused by Dewey Beegle. If evangelicalism allows that view to gain a foothold, the uniqueness of Scripture will be sacrificed, and the basis for all we believe will be compromised. That is precisely what is happening today. Because of the growing influence of charismatic teaching, much of the church may mistakenly abandon its cornerstone: Sola Scriptura, the principle that God’s Word is the only basis for divine authority.

Once a congregation sees Scripture as less than the final, complete, infallible authority for faith and practice, it has opened the doors to theological chaos. Anyone can claim to be speaking God’s revelation—and almost anything can be passed off as divinely revealed truth. And make no mistake, some of the best-known charismatic leaders have abused their people’s trust by claiming they are receiving new truth from God, when what they are really teaching are lies and fabrications.

Perhaps the most brazen example of that is a widely publicized “prophecy” delivered by Kenneth Copeland. He claims Jesus gave him a message “during a three-day Victory Campaign held in Dallas, Texas.”23 Judge for yourself whether this could be a message from the Christ of Scripture:

It’s time for these things to happen, saith the Lord. It’s time for spiritual activity to increase. Oh, yes, demonic activity will increase along at the same time. But don’t let that disturb you.

Don’t be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you’re God. Don’t be disturbed when people accuse you of a fanatical way of life. Don’t be disturbed when people put you down and speak harshly and roughly of you. They spoke that way of Me, should they not speak that way of you?

The more you get to be like Me, the more they’re going to think that way of you. They crucified me for claiming that I was God. But I didn’t claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in Me. Hallelujah. That’s what you’re doing.24

Copeland’s “prophecy” is clearly false. The real Jesus—the Jesus of the NT—did claim He was God; using the covenant name of God, He told the Jewish leaders, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

Is Copeland genuinely a prophet, or is he one of whom Peter spoke when he warned, “False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (2 Peter 2:1)? The obvious answer to that question is clouded only to those who aren’t sure whether modern “prophecies” might supersede God’s Word.

Not all charismatic prophecies and visions are so clearly in conflict with Scripture. Some are merely frivolous. Larry Lea wrote,

Several years ago one of my dear pastor friends said, “Larry, when I was praying for you the other day, I had a vision. I saw you with great big ‘Mickey Mouse’ ears. Everything else about you looked normal except for those elephant-sized ears. When I asked the Lord to tell me what the vision meant, the Spirit of the Lord spoke back to me and said: ‘Larry Lea has developed his hearing. He has developed his spiritual ears.’”25

Charismatics have abandoned the uniqueness of Scripture as the only Word of God, and the result is a spiritual free-for-all. A longing for something new and esoteric has replaced historic Christianity’s settled confidence in the Word of God—and that is an invitation to Satan’s counterfeit. Confusion, error, and even satanic deception are the inescapable results.

Melvin Hodges is a charismatic pastor who has admitted his strong reservations about “new” revelations:

Today, some people tend to magnify the gifts of prophecy and revelation out of their proper proportion. Instances have occurred in which a church has allowed itself to be governed by gifts of inspiration. Deacons have been appointed and pastors removed or installed by prophecy. Chaos has resulted. The cause is obvious. Prophecy was never intended to usurp the place of ministries of government or of a gift of a word of wisdom. Paul teaches us that the body is not made up of one member but of many, and if prophecy usurps the role of the word of wisdom or the word of knowledge, the whole body is dominated by one ministry, that is, prophecy. In other words, the whole body becomes ruled by the prophetic member. . . .

The idea that the voice of prophecy is infallible has confused many people. Some have felt that it is a sin to question what they consider to be the voice of the Spirit. However, in the ministry of all gifts there is a cooperation between the divine and the human.26

Note that Hodges speaks of “the gifts of prophecy and revelation.” It is evident that he believes God is giving new revelation today. At the same time, he is obviously well aware that so-called prophetic utterances create problems in the church. Throughout, he assiduously avoids concluding that the charismatic “gift of prophecy” is in any way less authoritative than Scripture. Yet he still wants to warn charismatics against taking modern prophecies too seriously or placing too much emphasis on them. He is seeking a way to resolve the confusion, but there is no way. When “prophetic utterance” is equated in any degree with “divine revelation,” the result is a hopeless muddle. Scripture loses its uniqueness, and all the damaging results Hodges describes are sure to occur.

Not all charismatics would agree that the problem of prophetic abuses is one of overemphasis. Some blame it on ignorant misuse of the gift. Their answer to the problem is to offer training. One group has started a “School of the Prophets.” Their appeal for students says, in part,

Perhaps you feel that you have been called to be an oracle of the Lord and have had difficulty explaining your experiences or finding someone that you could relate to and learn from. The School of the Prophets is designed to help bring grounding and clarity to the myriad of dreams and visions that are the hallmark of the prophet and seer ministries and to assist in the restoration of the prophetic ministry within the Body of Christ. There are many that have become disillusioned and disenchanted with the prophetic ministry because of abuses and ignorant usage of the gifting. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, for if you’ve had the bitter experience of the counterfeit, know that there is a reality to discover. . . . Abuses and misrepresentations occur simply because of the abomination of ignorance. Come and be trained at the School of the Prophets so that you will be properly prepared to fulfill the destiny that God has chosen for you!27

That strikes me as a peculiar approach to the problem of false prophecy. Can a school teach neophyte prophets how to use their “gift”? Can people be taught to give their dreams and visions “grounding and clarity”? Is the distinction between true and false prophecy simply a matter of education?

I think not. False prophecy is hardly a peccadillo. God told the Israelites, “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord God” (Ezekiel 13:9).

The law prescribed a stern remedy for false prophets:

The prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?” When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:20–22; cf. 3:1–5).

No second chance was offered. A false prophet—anyone who prophesied something that did not come to pass—was to be put to death. It is a serious matter to claim to speak for the Lord.

Nevertheless, some charismatics believe any believer who wants to can get revelation from God. The same issue of Charisma that carried the above ad also featured one touting a cassette tape album promising to teach believers “How you can hear the voice of God.” The ad asserts, “It is the inheritance of every believer to hear God’s voice for every need and every situation.” Jerry Hester, the speaker on the tapes, features “Listening Seminars,” which he claims “instruct you how to talk with God on an intimate conversational level 24 hours a day!”28

Evidently, if you want to declare a private revelation from God, you can go to the School of the Prophets; if you only want to receive private revelation from God, you can go to a Listening Seminar.

That all has the unfortunate effect of pointing Christians away from Scripture, which is trustworthy, and teaching them to seek truth through subjective means—private conversation with God, prophecies, dreams, and visions. It depreciates God’s eternal, inspired Word and causes people to look beyond the Bible for fresher, more intimate forms of revelation from God. It is perhaps the Charismatic Movement’s most unwholesome and destructive tendency, as René Pache has noted:

The excessive preeminence given to the Holy Spirit in their devotions and their preoccupation with gifts, ecstacies, and “prophecies” has tended to neglect of the Scriptures. Why be tied to a Book out of the past when one can communicate every day with the living God? But this is exactly the danger point. Apart from the constant control of the written revelation, we soon find ourselves engulfed in subjectivity; and the believer, even if he has the best intentions, can sink rapidly into deviations, illuminism or exaltation. Let each remind himself of the prohibition of taking anything away from Scripture or adding anything to it (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18–19). Almost every heresy and sect has originated in a supposed revelation or a new experience on the part of its founder, something outside the strictly biblical framework.29

The Canon Is Closed

The truth is, there is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God does not need to give private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, emphasis added). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work.

Christians on both sides of the charismatic fence must realize a vital truth: God’s revelation is complete for now. The canon of Scripture is closed. As the apostle John penned the final words of the last book of the NT, he recorded this warning: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18–19). Then the Holy Spirit added a doxology and closed the canon.

When the canon closed on the OT after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there followed four hundred “silent years” when no prophet spoke God’s revelation in any form.

That silence was broken by John the Baptist as God spoke once more prior to the NT age. God then moved various men to record the books of the NT, and the last of these was Revelation, also the last book in our Bibles. By the second century A.D., the complete canon exactly as we have it today was popularly recognized. Church councils in the fourth century verified and made official what the church has universally affirmed: that the sixty-six books in our Bibles are the only true Scripture inspired by God. The canon is complete.

Just as the close of the OT canon was followed by silence, so the close of the NT has been followed by the utter absence of new revelation in any form. Since the book of Revelation was completed, no new written or verbal prophecy has ever been universally recognized by Christians as divine truth from God.

How the Biblical Canon Was Chosen and Closed

Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the NT was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that we should earnestly contend for the faith which was once [literally, ‘once for all’] delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). In the Greek text the definite article preceding “faith” points to the one and only faith. There is no other. Such passages as Galatians 1:23 (“He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith”) and 1 Timothy 4:1 (“In latter times some will fall away from the faith”) indicate this objective use of the expression “the faith” was common in apostolic times.

Greek scholar Henry Alford wrote that the faith is “objective here: the sum of that which Christians believe.”30

Note also the crucial phrase “once for all” in Jude 3 (KJV). The Greek word here is hapax, which refers to something done for all time, with lasting results, never needing repetition. Nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been delivered “once for all.”

George Lawlor, who has written an excellent work on Jude, made the following comment:

The Christian faith is unchangeable, which is not to say that men and women of every generation do not need to find it, experience it, and live it; but it does mean that every new doctrine that arises, even though its legitimacy may be plausibly asserted, is a false doctrine. All claims to convey some additional revelation to that which has been given by God in this body of truth are false claims and must be rejected.31

Also important in Jude 3 is the word “delivered.” In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God.

And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. Our Christian faith rests on historical, objective revelation. That rules out all prophecies, seers, and other forms of new revelation until God speaks again at the return of Christ (cf. Acts 2:16–21; Revelation 11:1–13).

In the meantime, Scripture warns us to be wary of false prophets. Jesus said that in our age “false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt 24:24). Signs and wonders are no proof that a person speaks for God. John wrote, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Ultimately, Scripture is the test of everything; it is the Christian’s standard. In fact, the word canon means “a rule, standard, or measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the measuring rod of the Christian faith, and it is complete.

Of course, throughout history spurious books have been offered as genuine Scripture. For example, the Roman Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic Church accepts those books as Scripture, but it is clear that they are not.32 They contain errors in history, geography, and theology.

Although Jerome (345–419) clearly was a spokesman for excluding the apocryphal books, some of the early church fathers (most notably Augustine) did accept them, though not necessarily on a par with the Hebrew OT. Finally, in the sixteenth century, the Reformers affirmed Sola Scriptura, the truth that the Bible alone is authoritative revelation, and thus denied the Apocrypha a place among the inspired writings. The Roman church reacted against the Reformers in the Council of Trent (1545–63) by stating that all the Apocrypha was canonical. Protestants and Catholics have maintained the disparity to the present time.

The OT canon was generally agreed upon by the people of God from the time the last OT book was written. How did the Jewish people know which books were inspired? They chose the books written by those known as spokesmen for God. They studied those books carefully and found no errors in history, geography, or theology.

Christians in the early church applied similar tests to prove which NT books were authentic and which were not. A key test was apostolic authorship. Every New Testament book had to be written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostles. For example, Mark, who was not an apostle, was a companion of Peter. Luke, who was not an apostle, worked closely with the apostle Paul.

A second test used by the early church was content. Acts 2:42 tells us that the first time the church met, they gave themselves to prayer, fellowship, breaking of bread, and the apostles’ doctrine. Later, in considering which writings were to be revered as Scripture, they asked, “Does it agree with apostolic doctrine?” This test was very important because of all the heretics that tried to worm their way into the church. But their doctrinal errors were easily spotted because they contradicted the apostles’ teaching.

A third test was the response of the churches. If God’s people accepted it, used it for worship, and made it part of their lives, and if Christians were universally being taught and blessed by the book, that was another important stamp of approval.

By A.D. 404 the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was complete. It was the earliest known translation of all sixty-six books of the Bible. They were the same books we still have in our modern English Bibles. God spoke once for all, and His Word has been preserved through the ages.33

From the time of the apostles until the present, the true church has always believed that the Bible is complete. God has given His revelation, and now Scripture is finished. God has spoken. What He gave is complete, efficacious, sufficient, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. Attempts to add to the Bible, and claims of further revelation from God have always been characteristic of heretics and cultists, not the true people of God.

Although charismatics deny that they are trying to add to Scripture, their views on prophetic utterance, gifts of prophecy, and revelation really do just that. As they add—however unwittingly—to God’s final revelation, they undermine the uniqueness and authority of the Bible. New revelation, dreams, and visions are considered as binding on the believer’s conscience as the book of Romans or the gospel of John.

Some charismatics would say that people misunderstand what they mean by prophetic utterance and new revelation. They would say that no effort is being made to change Scripture or even equal it. What is happening, they assume, is the clarifying of Scripture as it is applied or directed to a contemporary setting, such as the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 11:28.34

The line between clarifying Scripture and adding to it is indeed a thin one. Besides, Scripture is not clarified by listening to someone who thinks he has the gift of prophecy. Scripture is clarified as it is carefully and diligently studied. (See the account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:28–35.) There are no shortcuts to interpreting God’s Word accurately (cf. Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15).

Christians must not play fast and loose with the issues of inspiration and revelation. An accurate understanding of those doctrines is essential for distinguishing between the voice of God and the voice of man. As we have seen, men who professed to speak for God but spoke their own opinions were to be executed under the OT law (Deut 13:1–5). New Testament believers are also urged to test the spirits and judge all supposed prophecies, shunning false prophets and heretics (1 John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 14:29).

It has always been important to be able to separate God’s Word from that which is false. God worked through a historical process to establish the authenticity of the canon so that the whole church might have a clear standard. If we now throw out that historical standard and redefine inspiration and revelation, we undermine our own ability to receive God’s truth. If we subvert the uniqueness of the Bible, we will have no way of distinguishing God’s voice from man’s. Eventually, anyone could say anything and claim it is God’s Word, and no one would have the right to deny it. We are perilously close to that situation even now.

The Holy Spirit is working mightily in the church today, but not in the way most charismatics think. The Holy Spirit’s role is to empower us as we preach, teach, write, talk, witness, think, serve, and live. He does lead us into God’s truth and direct us into God’s will for our lives. But He does it through God’s Word, never apart from it. To refer to the Holy Spirit’s leading and empowering ministry as inspiration or revelation is a mistake. To use phrases such as “God spoke to me,” or “This wasn’t my idea; the Lord gave it to me,” or “These aren’t my words, but a message I received from the Lord” confuses the issue of the Spirit’s direction in believers’ lives today.

Inviting that kind of confusion plays into the hands of the error that denies the uniqueness and absolute authority of Scripture. The terms and concepts of Ephesians 5:18–19 and 2 Peter 1:21 are not to be mixed. Being filled with the Spirit and speaking to one another in psalms and hymns is not the same as being moved by the Holy Spirit to write inspired Scripture.


1 1. Stephen Strang, “Oral Roberts: Victory Out of Defeat,” Charisma and Christian Life 15/5 (December 1989) 88.

2 2. “The Tapes That Are Healing the Nations” (advertisement), Charisma and Christian Life (October 1988):69.

3 3. Occasionally, one of the “inspired” books finds a publisher. David Wilkerson, The Vision (Old Tappan, N.J.: Spire, 1974) is one such example. The book was subtitled A Thrilling Prophecy of the Coming of Armageddon. “Deep in my heart I am convinced that this vision is from God, that it is true, and that it will come to pass,” Wilkerson wrote (12). It didn’t. Wilkerson predicted, “Nature will release its fury with increasing intensity over the next decade. There will be short periods of relief, but almost every day mankind will witness the wrath of nature somewhere in the world” (36). Wilkerson predicted a cataclysmic earthquake that would start a panic somewhere in the United States—“the biggest, most disastrous in its history” (32). He foresaw many cataclysms, including worldwide financial calamity. Perhaps most ironic of all, Wilkerson predicted a decline of the “positive thinking” doctrines (25).
I recently received another supposedly inspired book by mail. An endorsement on the book’s back cover, written by Dr. T. L. Lowery, senior pastor of the National Church of God in Washington, D.C., says, “Unlike other books, I believe that the Holy Spirit has brought this writing into being for time and eternity. The experiences and the message are of utmost importance to the body of Christ. I believe that God’s anointing will rest upon this book and minister to every person who reads these contents.” Clearly, Pastor Lowery believes the book is on par with Scripture. But I thumbed through the 171-page book and found it to be filled with speculation, bizarre fantasy, and much teaching that is inconsistent with Scripture (Mary Kathryn Baxter, A Divine Revelation of Hell [Washington: National Church of God, n.d.]).”

4 4. Jack Hayford, “Pentecostals Set Priorities,” Charisma and Christian Life (January 1991):44.

5 5. “The Strongman of Greed,” Charisma (March 1991):40 (emphasis in original).

6 6. Kenneth E. Hagin, The Glory of God (Tulsa, Okla.: Faith Library, 1987) 14-15 (emphasis added).

7 7. Ibid., 15-16.

8 8. Ibid., 16.

9 9. J. Rodman Williams, The Era of the Spirit (Plainfield, N.J: Logos, 1971) 16.

10 10. Edward N. Gross, Miracles, Demons, & Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) 150-52.

11 11. Thomas A. Thomas, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972) 8-9.

12 12. Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 140 (emphasis in original).

13 13. Ibid., 141.

14 14. Dewey Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 308.

15 15. Ibid.

16 16. Ibid., 309.

17 17. This, strangely enough, is exactly what a recent Charisma article recommended:
To meditate on our personal prophecies, we should record them if at all possible. If someone approaches us saying he or she has a word from God, we should ask the person to wait a moment until we can get an audio recorder, or else ask the person to write it down. If the word comes from someone on the platform during a meeting that is not being recorded, we must try to write down as much as possible, getting at least the main points (Bill Hamon, “How to Receive a Personal Prophecy,” Charisma and Christian Life 16/9 [April 1991]:66).

18 18. Williams, Era of the Spirit 16 (emphasis added).

19 19. Ibid. (emphasis in original).

20 20. Ibid., 27-28.

21 21. Ibid., 29.

22 22. J. Rodman Williams, “The Authority of Scripture and the Charismatic Movement,” Logos Journal (May-June 1977):35.

23 23. Kenneth Copeland, “Take Time to Pray,” Believer’s Voice of Victory (Feb. 1987):9.

24 24. Ibid.

25 25. Larry Lea, “Are You a Mousekateer?” [sic], Charisma and Christian Life 14/1 (August 1988):9.

26 26. Melvin L. Hodges, Spiritual Gifts (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1964) 19-20.

27 27. “Bernard Jordan Presents the Monthly School of the Prophet” (advertisement), Charisma and Christian Life 16/5 (December 1990):31.

28 28. “Do Only Prophets Hear God’s Voice? No!” (advertisement), Charisma and Christian Life 16/5 (December 1990):112.

29 29. René Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody, 1969) 319.

30 30. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek New Testament (London: Longmans and Company, 1894; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 4:530.

31 31. George L. Lawlor, Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972) 45.

32 32. For a helpful discussion of the Apocrypha, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986) chaps. 15, 17.

33 33. For a more detailed treatment of the canon, see Geisler and Nix, Introduction; and F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988).

34 34. It is not accurate to use Agabus or Philip’s daughters to support theories of continuing revelation, however, because they spoke while prophecies were still being given and the canon was still open.

[1]The Master’s Seminary. (2003; 2006). Master’s Seminary Journal Volume 14 (vnp.14.2.217-14.2.234). The Master’s Seminary.


Available online at: http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A366
COPYRIGHT ©2016 Grace to You

5 Reasons I’m not a ‘Christ follower’

Now that I have your attention, let me clarify that. I don’t mean that I don’t ‘follow’ Christ. What I do mean is that I don’t ‘self-identify’ as a ‘Christ follower’. I don’t get upset when people ask me if I’m a ‘Christ follower’, I just don’t like to call myself a ‘Christ follower’.

Here are my 5 reasons::

1. Anyone can be a ‘Christ follower’. One need not even have met and embraced Christ as Savior to be one. Think about it.

2. Although claiming to be a Christ ‘follower’ means more than just being a ‘fan’; meaning that I ‘do’ something rather than just hit the ‘Like’ button on Jesus’ Facebook page, it also tends to tickle the ‘boast’ button attached to my flesh.

3. It tends toward a sense of ‘works’ righteousness. See number 2.

4. It misses the gospel, in that it’s about what I ‘do’ and says nothing about what God has done on my behalf. In all fairness, it does have the name of Christ, and that could lead to a discussion about what God has done through Christ. Also, the label ‘Christ follower’ is a safe term for those who want to avoid the tough discussion(s) that address things like the gospel themes of sin and repentance.

5. The term ‘Christ follower’ falls woefully short of all that it means to be a Christian. It just doesn’t say enough about who I am as a believer.

So what should I call myself? What term/label could I use that might best identify who I am as a Christian and that also speaks to what God has done? Well, after considering about a dozen possibilities, I decided to just go ‘old school’ and tell folks that I am a ‘Christian’.

Yes, I know that it’s not P.C. in today’s evangelical environment and that we’ve been told over and over again to avoid ‘cristianese’ (I read another article a couple of days ago), but I’m going with it. ‘Christian’ says more about who/what I am as a repentant believer in Christ than any other label I could come up with!

So whenever I’m asked if I’m a ‘Christ follower’, I’ll just say “No, I’m a ‘Christian’ in anticipation of an opportunity to talk about what it means.

“The Bible is NOT the WORD OF GOD: A Polemic Against Christendom”

That’s the title of a blog post, in two parts, that was published in the ‘Emergent Village’ subsection of the Progressive Christianity section at Patheos.com. You can read it here.

If you are unfamiliar with what is called emergent/progressive Christianity it’s basically a movement dedicated to destroying orthodox Christianity. The above title, ‘A Polemic Against Christendom’ should be a clue. Here are two small portions of the original article:

Is the bible the Word of God?

What are we saying when we make this statement (the Bible is the Word of God)? Two things really: first, God’s word is limited to the text itself and nothing else. . . Second, it places the writer’s intentions secondary to “God’s intentions” (I have also heard it said “God’s intentions trumps the authors intentions”) – though it’s not entirely clear how one has the ability to know “God’s intentions”.

As to the first contention, that in saying that the Bible is the Word of God we are limiting God’s word to words on a page is patently absurd. I know of no Christian, past or present that would make that claim. As to the second contention, I really have not figured out what he is trying to say, other than we cannot know God’s intentions. While we cannot know everything God has planned, we can know quite a bit of it. It’s in the Bible, the written word of God.

A major objective of the Emergent cause is to destroy the credibility of the Bible, much like the Serpent in the Garden. The author of the article says:

“The bible is not the WORD OF GOD. The WORD OF GOD is Jesus Christ.”

He also says:

The WORD OF GOD is a moment that a human being encounters. It is Jesus Christ in his full glory and revelation. The WORD OF GOD occurs through a compilation of acts that bring forth the WORD OF GOD within the individual– prayer, reading and meditating on sacred scripture, fellowship, and worship.

If Jesus is the Word of God (and he is) how is it that the Word of God is also a ‘moment’? Is Jesus a ‘moment’ or is he the Son of God? Is he both? If the author’s Jesus a ‘moment’ is his Jesus the Jesus of the Bible?

There is nothing I could find in the article that recognized Jesus Christ as the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Jesus is reduced to a ‘moment that ‘occurs’ when we ‘do’ certain things. Of course no self-respecting Emergent would say Christ died for our sins. God sending his son to die was cosmic child abuse, according to some of the major players in the movement. That, my friends is not the gospel message of the Bible and not true Christianity. But then again, the Bible is not the word of God and Paul was just a man who wrote a good book, so Paul’s definition if the gospel could be flawed, so maintains the author.

That’s all I have time for at the moment. I mentioned the referenced article to a friend of our and she asked me to post it. Rather than posting the entire article and cause your brains to explode, I just posted a small portion and the link to the original, here.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/04/the-bible-is-not-the-word-of-god-a-polemic-against-christendom/

Hearing God and Sharing With Others

When I want to hear God speak, I open the Bible and read it. If I want to hear God speak audibly, I read it out loud. B. B. Warfield, eminent Princeton theologian of the 19th and 20th centuries, is known for saying “When the Bible speaks, God speaks!” I agree.

If God’s revelation of himself in the Bible is everything we need to live a godly life and equip us for every good work, I have the best possible standard by which to order my life; ALL of my life within it’s pages. If my God spoke the universe into existence, he is more than capable of ‘breathing out’ scripture (writings) into the minds and hearts of men and ensure his infallible and inerrant truths are transmitted to us. Compared to speaking the universe into existence, transmitting his inerrant word to us is probably on the order of ‘chump change’.

And if the Bible is completely sufficient for my life, I don’t need ‘private revelations’ whispered into my ear. What I do need is the ‘illumination’ of God’s word to my heart. Isn’t that the role of the indwelling Holy Spirit? If it is, then we DO receive ‘revelation’ from God as the Holy Spirit illumines (sheds light upon) God’s word and sends it straight into our hearts.

At the same time, I need to choose my words carefully when I share what God is teaching me. We hear a lot of people say to us “God spoke to me…”, or “I had a revelation…” followed by the details. While both statements might be ‘technically’ true when the Holy Spirit teaches us, using those phrases might might not be wise. Here are a few reasons.

For one thing, most, if not all of the big name televangelists use them often and frequently to mean they have a special private communication link to The Divine – a virtual private network (VPN) to God, so to speak. And we are to receive what they say as the direct word of God, no matter how outlandish or theologically vacuous are their pronouncements.

Both phrases are also often used by ordinary, everyday believers. And because they are used so much by spurious televangelists and various false teachers peddling their snake oil, I feel the need to ask the “what do you mean” question and am suddenly hit with some version of the “why are you questioning me” demon.

Also, why would I use words that cause “issues” when I can just talk about what I believe God is teaching me? Am I trying to communicate that I am somehow special or am a more mature spiritual Christian? Maybe or maybe not, but why take a chance on there being any confusion because of how I express myself. I might not have evil intentions, but Satan sure does and he loves to pounce.

Lastly for now, claiming to have a VPN to God leads to the tendency to be declarative and assert as gospel truth what we share with others. I know some who will hardly ever say “I think”, “I believe”, or “it’s my opinion”, if they begin the conversation with “God told me” or “I had a revelation”, or if they are just convinced in their minds of same.

Am not judging (please stay off of that horse) but I’m old, sometimes tired, have listened to, read, and watched much in the last 40 years. It is was it is. And please note the frequent use of the hypothetical “if” in the above.

I pray you all have a blessed Lord’s day!

Spurgeon on the Holy Spirit

FROM A SERMON DELIVERED ON LORD’S-DAY MORNING, OCTOBER 6, 1872,

BY C. H. SPURGEON,

AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON. (NO. 1074)

“I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,

that He may abide with you forever.”

John 14:16

Dear Brothers and Sisters, honor the Spirit of God as you would honor Jesus Christ if He were present! If Jesus Christ were dwelling in your house you would not ignore Him, you would not go about your business as if He were not there! Do not ignore the Presence of the Holy Spirit in your soul! I beseech you, do not live as if you had not heard whether there were a Holy Spirit. To Him pay your constant adorations. Reverence the august Guest who has been pleased to make your body His sacred abode. Love Him, obey Him, worship Him!

Take care never to impute the vain imaginings of your fancy to Him. I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored by persons—I hope they were insane—who have said that they have had this and that revealed to them. There has not, for some years, passed over my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites or maniacs. Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with messages from the Lord to me and it may save them some trouble if I tell them once and for all that I will have none of their stupid messages. When my Lord and Master has any message to me He knows where I am and He will send it to me direct, and not by mad-caps!

Never dream that events are revealed to you by Heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant follies to the Holy Spirit. If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense, trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God! Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to any of us is in the Word of God already—He adds nothing to the Bible, and never will. Let persons who have revelations of this, that, and the other, go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and no longer insult the Holy Spirit by laying their nonsense at His door.

At the same time, since the Holy Spirit is with you, Beloved, in all your learning ask Him to teach you. In all your suffering ask Him to sustain you. In all your teaching ask Him to give you the right words. In all your witness-bearing ask Him to give you constant wisdom and in all service depend upon Him for His help. Believingly reckon upon the Holy Spirit. We do not continually take Him into our calculations as we should. We reckon up so many missionaries, so much money and so many schools—and so conclude the list of our forces. The Holy Spirit is our great need, not learning or culture! Little knowledge or great knowledge shall answer almost as well if the Spirit of God is there—but all your knowledge shall be worthless without Him.

___________________________

The entire sermon can be found in PDF format and downloaded here.

Lies and Pretty Horses

It’s been said that a lie will ride in on the horseback of truth. It won’t charge in, all sweaty and frothing, but it will ride in gently, maybe even prancing a little for you, like in a circus ring, decorated with plumes and feathers; dressed up with a fine saddle and glittering bridle.

1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 1 Peter 2:1-3

In the above passage, the Apostle Peter tells us that just like false prophets arose from among the children of Israel, false teachers would arise from within the church, secretly bringing in destructive heresies. In order to bring in their heresies, they have to look like us, talk like us, and for all appearances, they are one of us. They’ll use scriptural language and quote the Bible. They’ll smile and nod approvingly at agreed upon truth. Then they’ll slip in the lie. Consider the following example, an actual comment on a blog post:

“I totally agree with you on the point that the Bible has been miraculously preserved!! It is also authoritative to instruct and to convict. But it is not the Word of God. You don’t need to believe it’s the Word of God to hold it as sacred, as I do.”

“This is important for us to understand and accept because it is partly for the infallible claim we have attached to the Bible that makes those who know even a little about its origin disregard everything it says! The Bible doesn’t need us to defend it. God defends it. It is God who has preserved it. But by saying it is the Word of God, when Jesus is the Word of God, we make an idol out of what is sacred.

There are kind words of agreement concerning God’s hand in preserving the Bible through the ages. The Bible is acknowledged to be authoritative and useful for teaching us; and excellent guide for growing as believers.

Then comes the lie. “But it is not the Word of God.” But by saying it is the Word of God, when Jesus is the Word of God, we make an idol out of what is sacred.” The Bible is not the Word of God and if we call the Bible the Word of God we are guilty of idolatry.

Jesus is the Word of God but not the Bible, we are told, and somewhat ‘authoritatively’ at that. It’s not offered as an opinion or theological viewpoint. It’s presented as fact. The Bible is not the Word of God. Period. The Word of God cannot be both Jesus and the Bible. The reasoning is somewhat interesting, I must say, and unique among the large amount of material available attacking the inerrancy of scripture.

Well, in my opinion this particular false teacher could use a bit of mentoring in the art of ‘secretly’ bringing in a destructive heresy. Kind of like an ‘Uncle Screwtape’, if you’re a C.S. Lewis fan. The clever heretics don’t just barge in the front door and announce that the Bible isn’t the Word of God. They use the back door or a side door and cast a smidgen of doubt, they attack it little by little. They’ll suggest something to cause just a tiny bit of doubt and then water the poisonous seed, not from a bucket but a teaspoon. Kind of like the serpent in the Garden who asked the question “Did God really say…..?”

Enough has already been posted here concerning the Bible, its inerrancy, its infallibility, and the importance of holding such beliefs. There’s not much I could to what’s been said.

I just want us to be aware of a universal tactic of false teachers and their lies. The most dangerous ones, in my opinion, rise up from ‘among us’. And they ride ‘pretty horses’.

May God bless all who read this and take it to heart!

Monergism v. Synergism

This post is an FYI posted under ‘apologetics’. It is called ‘Monergism v. Synergism’ because someone just told me that the Bible teaches BOTH ‘isms’ which is not possible. It’s important because which side we come down on defines how we share Jesus with the lost. Either we merely proclaim that Christ died for our sins (offensive to the unbeliever) and trust God to open hearts to the message, or we try and ‘attract’ people to Christ because they have a natural, came into this world with ability to ‘accept’ Christ. That I happen to agree with the author is purely incidental.

 

Monergism vs. Synergism
by John Hendryx

If anyone makes the assistance of grace [to believe the gospel] depend on the humility or obedience of man
and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble,
he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and,
“But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). – Council of Orange

My aim in this essay is to show from Scripture that faith is the result of regeneration, not the cause of it. A corresponding aim is to show that the opposite view is unscriptural and harmful to our understanding of the Gospel. Monergism and synergism are terms that may or may not be familiar to you but are of immense importance to evangelicals if we hope to maintain fidelity to the Scriptures as we enter the new millennium. This God-honoring but largely forgotten truth is critical to the blessing and renewal of the Church and key to understand if we are to successfully reform our thinking along biblical lines. These words describe two very distinct views of God’s saving grace – the process wherein God changes a person from “dead in sin” to “alive in Christ.”

To introduce you to this Scriptural doctrine let me begin by asking some questions that should help us begin to think about this issue: (1) What is man’s part and God’s part in the work of the new birth? (2) Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another? Does one make better use of God’s grace? (3) Apart from the grace of God, is there any fallen person who is naturally willing to submit in faith to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? (4) In light of God’s word, is our new birth in Christ an unconditional work of God’s mercy alone or does man cooperate in some way with God in the work of regeneration (making it conditional)? Your answer to these questions will reveal where you stand on this issue. In the following paragraphs I hope to convince you of the deep importance of a biblical understanding of this issue to the health of our churches. This is because, for various reasons, a majority of modern evangelicals have abandoned the biblical position and thus thrown out the most important Scriptural truth that was recovered in the Reformation of the sixteenth century.

Synergism

Before defining monergism, we should start on more familiar ground to 21st century man by explaining the more familiar “synergism”, which the majority of our churches teach today. Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace. (From Greek sunergos, working together : sun-, syn- + ergon, work). The Century Dictionary defines synergism as

“…the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.”

Synergism: A Belief That Faith Arises Out of An Inherent Capacity of the Natural Man.

In other words, synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God’s action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation. Unregenerate man, in this scheme, is left to his freewill and natural ability to believe or reject God. Synergists teach that God’s grace takes us part of the way to salvation but that the [fallen, rebellious] human will must determine the final outcome. It does this by reaching down into an autonomous principle within in its fallen unrenewed nature in order to either produce a right thought or create a right volition toward God. But, the Scriptures are clear that as long as the natural man hates God he will not come to Him. In this system, then, grace is merely an offer or a help but does not do anything to change man’s heart of stone or natural hostility to God. This means that God will only look favorably upon and reward those natural men who are able to produce or contribute faith, independent of God’s inward gracious call or spiritual renewal. This is a subtle, but serious, error that is plaguing the church of the 21st century. It is a misapprehension of the biblical teaching concerning the depth of our fallen nature and the radical grace needed to restore us. This leads me to believe that one of the greatest challenges facing the church today is its re-evangelization. While many evangelicals may understand the doctrine of “sola fide” (faith alone), that we must place our faith in Christ to be saved, it seems many have abandoned the biblical concept of “sola gratia” (grace alone). The Synergistic Conception of “Sola Fide” therefore must, by definition, draw on nature to cooperate with God’s grace as the human fulfillment of a condition. Why do people believe this? I can only guess it is because by nature we want to maintain an island of righteousness, a last bastion of pride in thinking that he can still contribute something, be it ever so small, to our own salvation. It would involve great humility on our part to admit this. If the Church took more efforts to search the Scriptures and reform her doctrine on this point, I am convinced that a great deal of blessing would be restored and God would remove much of the current worldliness in our midst.

How is Monergism Different?

In contrast, historic Christianity, as best explained by Augustine and the Reformers, would reject the above position and honor the more biblical position of monergism. This position teaches that salvation is entirely a work of God; That man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith. That faith itself is a gift of God (Eph 2:8, John 1:13, 2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, Hebrews 12:2, 1 John 5:1, Rom 3:24, Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27) which is not the cause, but the witness of God’s regenerative grace having worked faith in the inner man. This gracious act of God was based on nothing meritorious in the individual, but rather, entirely on God’s sovereign good pleasure (Eph 1:5). It was not because God knew which persons would believe of their own free will, for there are no persons which fit that description. This is because apart from grace their is no delight or inclination to seek God (in man’s unregenerate nature). And since those dead in sin will not seek God (Rom 3:11), regenerative grace precedes justifying faith. God must, in effect, raise them from the dead- (see Eph 2:5, Col 2:13).

Regeneration is the Work of God Alone

To get a better hold on this concept we should first define the meaning of the term “monergism” and then explore how it relates to the doctrine of regeneration (new birth). The word “monergism” consists of two main parts. The prefix “mono” signifies “one”, “single”, or “alone” while “ergon” means “to work”. Taken together it means “the work of one”. The Century Dictionary’s definition of monergism is helpful here:

“In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.”

Very simply, then, monergism is the doctrine that our new birth (or “quickening”) is the work of God, the Holy Spirit alone, with no contribution of man toward Christ’s work, since the natural man, of himself, has no desire for God or holiness (ROM 3:11,12; ROM 8:7; John 3:19, 20). The unregenerate man, in his bondage, desires sin more than he desires God so as to always choose according to the corrupt desires of his fallen nature. Due to the unspiritual man’s natural love of sin, and inability to save himself out of his love of sin, the Holy Spirit, in light of Christ’s work of redemption, must act independently of the human will in His merciful work of regeneration, or none would be saved. Thus, monergism is just another way of more fully understanding the doctrine of “salvation by grace alone” (sola gratia). It must be stressed that the grace of God is the only efficient cause in initiating and effecting the renewal of our fallen will leading to conversion (John 1:13).

Monergistic regeneration is God’s merciful response to the consequences of our fall in Adam which has resulted in natural man’s moral inability. We must be clear that it does not apply to the entire process of salvation, but only to the first step in bringing a person to faith in Christ. It is only in God’s power to bring to life a person who is spiritually dead. This means that a man’s soul is utterly passive (if not hostile) until it has been regenerated. But when regenerated the disposition of his heart which once loved darkness is changed. He willingly turns to embrace the Savior since his hatred of God has been transformed to a love for Him (Ezekiel 11:19-20). In other words, God doesn’t do the believing for us but empowers and restores us by the Holy Spirit to delightfully respond in faith and obedience. Man will not and cannot offer any help in renewing himself spiritually without this grace. We can do nothing spiritual, including turning to Christ in faith, apart from God’s grace which is grounded in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Later in this essay I will answer how this relates to preaching repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Note, I would like to clear up a common confusion about regeneration and justification. Regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit which brings us into a living union with Christ, only refers to the first step in the work of God in our salvation. It is universally agreed among evangelicals, myself included, that the second step, faith in Christ, must be exercized by the sinner if one is to to be justified (saved). Therefore, justification is conditional (on our faith) … but our regeneration (or spiritual birth) is unconditional; an expression of God’s grace freely bestowed, for it is unconstrained and not merited by anything God sees in those who are its subjects. Regeneration and Justification, although occurring almost simultaneously are, therefore, not the same. Regeneration, has a causal priority over the other aspects of the process of salvation. The new birth (regeneration), therefore, is what brings about a restored disposition of heart which is then willing to exercize faith in Christ unto justification (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26).

The Counsel of Orange (529) was held to deal with a controversy in the church that had to do with degree to which a human being is able to contribute to his/her own salvation. The clarity of its expression on this matter would have me reproduce one of its articles here. Canon 7 states:

“If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, or that we can be saved by assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit, who makes all whom He calls gladly and willingly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray from the plain teaching of Scripture by exalting the natural ability of man, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).”

Are There Any Biblical Examples of Monergism?

As you read the following texts that convey the illumining, regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in our salvation, keep in mind the general principle that “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). This means that only the Spirit can illumine our darkened mind since the “natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

When the church was in its infancy, Luke records in Acts that when Lydia was taught the gospel by Paul (Acts 16:14b): “the Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul“. What happened to Lydia (and Paul on the Road to Damascus) is what happens to everyone who comes to faith in Christ. If the Lord “opens our heart”, the Holy Spirit is doing a supernatural work upon our closed heart, so that we “will give heed“. The passage makes clear that resistance is no longer thinkable because the desire now is to give heed since the Spirit has taken what was once a dark heart and illumined the understanding. If the Lord “opened Lydia’s heart to give heed” and then the Bible recorded that she still resisted, it would be a contradictory and nonsensical statement, yet this is what synergists would have us believe. If God overcame the will in the example of Lydia then there should be no further debate as to whether He does this in everyone who comes to faith in Christ. If hostile sinners are to believe, God must initiate the making our heart of stone into a heart of flesh:

“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Ezekiel 36:26-27

If God takes away our heart of stone, as this passage underscores, and then gives us a heart of flesh, we will infallibly come to believe and obey. There is no possibility or thought of resistance after the fact. Indeed fallen humans resist the Holy Spirit every day they live in unbelief, but God can sovereignly make His influences irresistible by changing the disposition of our hardened hearts which transfers us from death to life. The following passage even goes further by showing a unity between God’s granting ability to come to Him with the work of the Spirit who alone gives life:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. “But there are some of you who do not believe.” …65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:63-65

This gift of life is what we speak of in the inaugural work of God in regeneration. This verse clearly unites the Spirit, who gives life, and God who grants His people to come to Him. The words, “for this reason” point us back to the previous text. The flesh alone, without the life of the Spirit, profits nothing, according to Jesus own words. The passage carries a universal negative to the possibility of anyone naturally coming to Christ on their own … but the Spirit gives the life, which is another way of saying, only that which is granted by the Father comes to Him. The words of Christ themselves carry the power of life as the Spirit works in and through them.

In 1 Thessalonians 1:5 Paul speaks plainly of the Spirit working with the word as the only means the Thessalonians came to know the Savior. Word alone is not enough to transform our heart: He says, “…for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” Later, in the same epistle, Paul thanks God for the faith that enabled the Thessalonians to believe:

“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. I Thess. 2:13 (…which effectually worketh also in you that believe.)

Notice that it is man’s reception of the Gospel that is the explicit grounds for which Paul is thanking and glorifying God! Paul gives God all the glory for man’s initial reception of the Gospel, and correspondingly thanks God for it. In his second letter to the same church Paul reminds them again who deserves thanks for their faith:

“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

Our entire salvation, from first to last, is due to God alone, “the author and perfector of our faith” (Heb 12:2), for from Him and to Him and through Him are all things … and, therefore, all the praise, glory, thanks and honor for our new life is to be given to God alone. We must conclude that it is not scriptural to thank and praise God for His “95%” in salvation, and then give man credit for the last remaining bit. If God is thanked for man’s new life in Christ, it must be because He alone is perceived as responsible for it

Jesus Himself explains this divine process in a similar instance when speaking with Simon Peter. Over and above all the other contrary voices which believed Jesus to be either John the Baptist or a mere prophet, Peter confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” . Jesus, responded to Peter’s confession: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The gospel of John picks up on this same language of flesh and blood when expressing how a person cannot convert himself without being born again: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13) If we are “born of God”, and not of our will, then it isn’t our faith which God’s responds to, rather it is grace which infallibly gives rise to our faith in response to God.

John Piper, in his exegesis of 1 John 5:1 says this:

“In the New Testament God is clearly active, creating a people for himself by calling them out of darkness and enabling them to believe the gospel and walk in the light. John teaches most clearly that regeneration precedes and enables faith. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” …The verb tense make’s john’s intention unmistakable: Every one who goes on believing [present, continuous action] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God [perfect, completed action with abiding effects]. ” Faith is the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it.”

The following verses written by the Apostle Paul further drives home the point that we are saved because of God’s internal purpose, not because of anything He has seen in us:

“…who has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…”2 Timothy 1:9

“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Romans 9:16 1:13)

How often do you hear your pastor use this kind of biblical language and do serious exegesis of such passages? The Scriptures are filled with such pictures of Christ’s work in our salvation, so why aren’t our churches? Are we afraid that it might offend our sensibilities? Our pride? So instead of a full-orbed gospel that comes from the whole counsel of Scripture we have traded it for a kind of half-gospel. We do this by pulling out verses which we like that have enough biblical truth to get our attention yet we avoid the equally important passages which expose our utter spiritual impotence apart from grace. The absence of such a prominent biblical concept from our pulpits may explain our both anemic lack of influence in our world and the horrifying reality that 80 to 90% of those “making a decision for Christ” fall away from the faith. This is not to say that we should only speak of such things, but the only faithful church is the one which teaches exegetically through every verse in the Bible, not only topically, as some are in the habit of.

What About Free Will?

Some have asked, if this is the case, have we no free will? It is clear that the natural man does indeed have a “freewill” to act according to his nature, that is, to choose according to his greatest natural desires, but he is morally incapable and unwilling to choose God on our own because he is “dead in sin”, “loves the darkness” and “cannot understand” the things of God because “they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 3:19). Our greatest affections, therefore, determine what we choose to follow. And although mankind can do many “good things” he is spiritually impotent and unable to do any redemptive good since his “freewill” is bound, which really amounts to no freedom at all. Man will always choose what he desires most, and without the regenerative grace working in us by the Holy Spirit there is no desire for God. So, while we were yet in active rebellion against God (so it would have been completely just of God to pour His wrath on all of us), yet, taking pity on us, He was still willing to show his great love and affection toward us by bearing the punishment and wrath we deserved and then apply the benefits of the atonement on His elect; those He had given His Son from eternity (John 17:9). J.I Packer said,

It is staggering that God should love sinners, yet it is true. God loves creatures that have become unlovely and (one would have thought) unlovable. There was nothing whatever in the objects of his love to call it forth; nothing in us could attract or prompt it. Love among persons is awakened by something in the beloved, but the love of God is free, spontaneous, unevoked, uncaused. God loves people because he has chosen to love them … and no reason for his love can be given except his own sovereign good pleasure. – (from Knowing God p.124)

So, here we clearly see that faith is not the cause of God’s choosing us, but the result of it. Justification, of course, is the result of faith, but faith is inevitable result of God’s efficacious and regenerative grace.

One Must First Be Able to Hear If One Is to Respond

To further drive home the point, the Scripture teaches that in order for someone to believe the word of the gospel, they must first be able hear and understand what it says. In contrast to the synergistic scheme, the biblical position of monergism teaches that prior to being born again we all have an uncircumcised ear and a heart of stone. We were blind and taken captive by Satan to do his will (2 Tim 2:26). A fallen person with an uncircumcised ear, therefore, has no earthly way of hearing spiritual things much less understanding and believing the gospel (1 Cor 2:14). Our ears must first be supernaturally opened and a new heart given us (Ezek 11:19) so that we are even willing to hear God’s word and come into vital union with Christ through faith. A man could more easily see without eyes or speak without a tongue than turn to Christ apart from the gracious, life-giving work of God in his soul. Our Lord asks, “Do men gather grapes from thorns?” No, every tree will only bring forth fruit from its own kind. What can be done then since we can naturally only produce bad fruit? In the work of the cross Christ gives TO US the very thing that He demands OF US. Our Lord tells us in Matt 12:33 that He must “Make the tree good, and his fruit will be good.” In other words, the nature of the tree (corrupt or good) determines what kind of fruit it will have, so to bring forth good fruit it must be changed (we must be born again) or no good fruit (including faith) will be forthcoming. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke 8:8; Matt 13:9)

Now if our ear is truly uncircumcised, if our eyes are truly blind and our heart is really hardened as stone, how can we even desire to turn to Christ? One must first have their ear circumcised (without hands, Col 2:11) before they could possibly even hear and respond to the gospel since an uncircumcised ear, by nature, cannot hear spiritual truths … Similarly if they would come willingly, one must first have one’s heart of stone be made a heart of flesh ( a change of nature); likewise, one must first have his eyes opened if he is to see. That is why Jesus says we must first be born again if we are to see the kingdom of God. “Flesh gives birth to flesh but Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:6) Those born of the Spirit, have the disposition of their hearts changed so that they delightfully believe the gospel as the first act of a newborn babe. The conclusion might be surprising to some but this means that regeneration is what actually produces faith and not the other way around. J.I. Packer says it this way:

“Infants do not induce, or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ prompt the quickening operation of God’s Spirit within them.”

How Does this Relate to Preaching Repentance and Faith in Jesus Christ?

The preaching of the Word of God, therefore, is central to the salvation of His people. When spoken in the power of the Holy Spirit, the word of God has the power to graciously open people’s eyes, unplug their uncircumcised ears, change the disposition of their hearts, draw them to faith, and save them (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, 25). The word of God does not work in an “ex opere operato” (automatic) fashion, rather, it is the work of the Holy Spirit sovereignly dispensing grace (John 3:8), quickening the heart THROUGH THE WORD to bring forth life. So the written word itself is not the material of the spiritual new birth, but rather its means or medium. “The word is not the begetting principle itself, but only that by which it works: the vehicle of the mysterious germinating power”(ALFORD). It is because the Spirit of God accompanies it that the word carries in it the germ of life. The life is in God, yet it is communicated to us through the word. The gospel declares that repentance and faith (commands of God) are themselves God’s working in us both to will and to do (2 Tim 2:25, Eph 2:5, 8) and not something that the sinner himself contributes towards the price of His salvation. Repentance and faith can only be exercised by a soul after, and in immediate consequence of, its regeneration by the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:1; Acts 16:14b; Acts 13:48; John 10:24-26; Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:37; John 1:13; 1 Cor. 4:7; 1 Cor. 15:10; Jas. 1:17; John 3:27). From this we must conclude that mere rational arguments are not enough to save anyone. In our evangelism (as believers) we are “partners” with the Holy Spirit, heralding the gospel and exerting ourselves for their salvation but in complete dependence on the Spirit to do the actual converting. We pray because we believe God can actually renew our rebellious hearts. If natural men could deliver themselves then there would be no need to pray for them.

To those without the regenerating work of the Spirit it is impossible to understand the word and believe the gospel (1 Cor 2:14). Although natural (unregenerate) man, apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, has an incapacity to the embrace the gospel due to his revulsion of it, he is still responsible to obey it. Moral Inability (like a debt we cannot repay) does not alleviate responsibility.

As we reflect more deeply upon this, however, it is important that synergists consider the following question: Why does one man embrace Christ while another man rejects Him? If two men hear the gospel preached to them why is it that one man ultimately believes and not another? What natural ability did the one man have or autonomously produce that the other did not? What good thing in his nature moved him to accept the gift of forgiveness and embrace Christ as his Savior? Did he make better use of the grace God gave to him than the other man? The scriptures declare there is only one reason for rejecting the gospel; because one is wicked. There is also only one reason a man embraces Christ: the grace of God. Anything less than salvation by grace alone leaves man with a basis for boasting (Eph 2:8,9). If synergism is embraced, then there is the very real but subtle danger that men could boast that they made use of God’s grace or had more wisdom than the man who rejected Christ. They could boast that they are different for, unlike others, they responded to Christ. The autonomous natural man would, then, ultimately determine His own salvation, not God. The Scriptures declare, however, that God does not quicken anyone based on some good thing He sees in them, but rather, it is due to His loving, merciful, good pleasure alone (John 1:13, Rom 9:16, Eph 1:5, 9,11, Luke 10:21, Acts 13:48). Don’t get me wrong: We certainly must respond in faith to Christ to be justified, but it is grace itself which enables us to be obedient to the gospel. This position alone strips the pride of man and gives glory to God alone for our new life.

C.H. Spurgeon once described the folly of trusting in natural ability by praying as a synergist would if he was consistent with his beliefs:

“Lord…If everybody has done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Spirit given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not – that is the difference between me and them.’ That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! When they are preaching and talking slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it.”
( C.H. Spurgeon Freewill– A Slave).

Thomas Watson, the Puritan divine once said, “God does not choose us for faith but unto faith”. To erroneously believe the reason for our salvation resides in natural man himself is little different from the same meritorious or Roman Catholic Counter-Reformational system taught at the Council of Trent where Rome consciously denounced the teaching of monergism and embraced synergism. It was this very teaching of Rome that was so loudly protested against by the Reformers as discussed in The Bondage of the Will By Martin Luther.

Our wretched fallen estate prior to God’s gracious act of regeneration in which we are only hostile to God and love darkness, keeps us from turning to Christ in faith. Synergism falls short because although God extends His gracious offer in that scheme, it still leaves us in our old nature with its corrupt desires to take hold of grace. We all believe that men may come if they will, but the “if they will” is the problem. C.H. Spurgeon beautifully explains this concept:

The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer-Did you ever meet with any person who was? Scores and hundreds, nay, thousands of Christians have I conversed with, of different opinions, young and old, but it has never been my lot to meet with one who could affirm that he came to Christ of himself, without being drawn. The universal confession of all true believers is this-“I know that unless Jesus Christ had sought me when a stranger wandering from the fold of God, I would to this very hour have been wandering far from him, at a distance from him, and loving that distance well.” With common consent, all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them.

In light of the overwhelming scriptural evidence for monergism, therefore, to believe that God merely gives us enough grace to choose for or against him is without evidence from the text. It would also leave salvation entirely in the hands of natural man by setting faith over against grace as an independent, autonomous, (ultimate, not penultimate) principle.

I say this often but I think it is worth repeating: in order to make sense of this doctrine we must first understand what exactly the condition of fallen man is. Most errors in regard to the doctrine of salvation have their roots in an deficient, unbiblical view of the moral and spiritual status of natural man prior to God’s work of grace. At the fall mankind incurred the penalty of spiritual and physical death and deservedly became subject to the wrath of God. The effects of sin on the will and entire person made men inherently and totally corrupt, utterly incapable of choosing or doing that which is acceptable to God. With no recuperative powers to enable him to recover himself, man is hopelessly lost in sin. Man’s salvation is thereby wholly dependent God’s mercy and grace through the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (with the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit) alone (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-19; John 3:36; ROM 1:18; 3:23; 6:23; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 John 1:8). The theologians call it total depravity for a reason; not because man is as bad as he could be but because his unwillingness and inability to come to God, apart from grace, is total. If man’s inability were merely physical handicap then he would not be culpable for his rejection of the gospel. But the inability I speak of is a moral inability. The difference can be seen in the analogy of a man who borrows a large sum of cash. He wickedly squanders all of his money in one night of riotous living. His inability to repay the debt does not alleviate him of his responsibility to do so. Therefore he is culpable for his inability, which is like unto the condition of man after the fall.

Synergistic Counter-Arguments

Some might further argue that passages which command or invite belief prove that man has the ability to believe while in the flesh. But all of these commands such as If thou art willing and whosoever believes, choose life are in the subjunctive mood. A conditional statement asserts nothing indicatively. Note that God also calls humanity to keep the 10 commandments, but it does not therefore, necessarily follow that man has the power to keep the commandments. A command does not imply the ability to fulfill it. The commands of God, rather, are meant to bring us to a knowledge of our impotence. With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation (ROM 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24). God cures man’s pride by the publication of the Law. God commands us to believe and obey but the purpose of this is to bring us to despair so that we will recognize our utter inability to do so driving us to Christ’s mercy. When man recognizes that even humility itself is a gift of grace then and only then it is evident that God is truly working grace in a man. The law was never designed to confer any power but to strip us of our own, enabling us to recognize that salvation is a work of God alone. So if someone were to ask how one might be saved, the clear answer is “to believe in Christ” with the understanding that the opening of our understanding and desire to believe is itself God’s gracious gift.

At first, many people might fight against this idea because it goes against everything they have ever been taught at their church. But I would challenge you to question your presuppositions. Carefully and prayerfully read the Scripture references I have given you because this is important. Remember that the affects of the fall on the mind and will rendered mankind wholly incapable and unwilling to come to God, where we would always reject Him if left to our own unregenerate nature. Being spiritually dead, the Scripture teaches that it is impossible for man to respond, no matter how attractive God is (1 Cor 2:14). Man’s nature and disposition must first be changed (made alive Eph 2:5, born again John 3:3). To say that we would ever come to God by our own choice without God first making this effectual is to underestimate the depth and totality of man’s fall. We were spiritually dead. Dead men will not respond to pleading and reasoning alone (ROM 8:7) but only when coupled with the effectual call of Jesus who raises him spiritually, as He did the physical Lazarus. Yes, we must command man to repent and believe and we thus proclaim the Gospel to him, but the Holy Spirit has to enable and efficaciously draw him through our preaching if he is to come willingly (John 6:37, John 6:44, John 6:64,65 Ezekiel 11:19-20).

Our honor as believers is to preach Christ crucified and watch God do the work in regenerating a persons’ soul through the quickening of the Holy Spirit. It is God alone that regenerates the dead or fallen spirit of His elect as we proclaim His word. He awakens poor sinners to a life of faith that they will see that Jesus, not in part, but in whole, has taken our sin upon Himself on the tree. His finished redemptive work is sufficient to put away our sins for all time. This is why world missions are so critical since the unregenerate can only come to Christ through hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-15) by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. (There are, however, notable exceptions to this rule. For instance, probable biblical historical examples of apostles or prophets, such as the Apostle Paul and John the Baptist, who received direct revelation. Or perhaps in cases of supernatural revelation to those who die as elect infants or invalids who would not otherwise naturally have the capacity to understand or grasp much of anything, let alone God’s word. People can and have been saved by direct revelation and God defines who of these will hear His voice. Physical inability is no more a hindrance to God than spiritual inability. God created us, so why would it be difficult for God to whisper in the ear of an unborn soon-to-be-miscarried baby and have he or she understand enough to be reconciled with God? ). In ordinary cases, however, God works concurrently with His church through prayers and the proclamation of His word to bring home His elect from every “tribe and language and people and nation.”(Rev 5:8)

I hope this leads people to see that the biblical case for monergism is overwhelming, a constant theme that seasons the entire Bible. Synergism appears to be a system of theology that is forced awkwardly on the Scriptures – trying to read into the Word a hermeneutic governed by a theological predisposition that is most likely the result of man’s unending desire to contribute something to his own salvation. Synergists would be hard pressed to find real biblical evidence to back their position. I must emphasize, however, that I know many sincere brothers& sisters that hold to the synergistic position. My prayer is that all the Lord’s people would go back to the Scriptures to earnestly seek God’s will in this crucial matter.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” … He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” John 6:63-65

I conclude by giving you this comparison chart between monergism and synergism which may be helpful to you in grasping the contrast of systems which greater clarity.

End of Article

This post is an FYI posted under apologetics. It is called ‘Monergism v. Synergism’ because someone just told me that the Bible teaches BOTH ‘isms’ which is simply not true, according to the article’s author. That I happen to agree with the author is purely incidental.