Category Archives: Apologetics

Pseudo-Christianity

Posted by Dan C. on

I recently listened to a sermon with the above title by Dr. Curt Daniel, of Faith Bible Church in Springfield Illinois, courtesy of Sermon Audio. It was part of a series presented at the Contending for the Faith conference, at Dr. Daniel’s church.

Dr. Daniel presented 4 basic tendencies of pseudo, or false Christianity and drew comparisons between false Judaism of Jesus’ day and the false Christianity of our day:

1. Adding to the Gospel

2. Subtracting from the Gospel

3. Substituting other doctrines for the true Gospel

4. Watering down the Gospel while maintaining some truth

Adding to the Gospel

In Jesus’ day the primary Jewish religious group that added something to God’s requirement for faith were the Pharisees, who added works (strict law keeping) to faith in order to be right with God. According to Dr. Daniel the prime example of adding works to faith in the world of Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church, by far the largest ‘Christian’ religion on the planet. In Roman Catholicism, salvation is eventually earned by observing certain sacraments, having faith, and performing works (with a side trip to Purgatory on the way to Heaven for most Roman Catholics. In the religious system of the Pharisees and within Roman Catholicism ultimate truth is found in scripture and in religious/church tradition.

Subtracting from the Gospel

The best example of subtracting from true faith in Jesus’ time was the other main sect with Judaism, the Sadducees, who denied both the resurrection and the doctrine of hell, or eternal punishment. The Sadducees of old can be compared to the liberal Christianity of today, which denies one of more of the following:

· Substitutionary atonement

· The inerrancy and infallibity of Scripture

· The exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God

· The doctrine of Hell

Substitution of Other Doctrines

In Jesus’ day there were Jewish groups or sects that were neither Pharisees nor Sadducees, but instead had their own doctrines which they claimed to be TRUE doctrine. They can be compared to any number of ‘Christian cults’ today such as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, and others.

Watered Down Religion

In Jesus’ day as well as in our day there are those who claim to adhere to or follow a religion, but really don’t know what they believe or why they believe it. Ask then about their religion and they become really vague really quickly. Dr. Daniel termed today’s brand of this sort of religion as ‘pseudo-evangelicalism’. It is characterized by downplaying the need for repentance of sin (if not omitting it altogether), downplaying the holiness of God and requirements for holiness/sanctification of the believer, and what can be called ‘easy believism’. Rather than using the example of Jesus and the Apostles and keeping the gospel of salvation a matter of repentance from sin and believing in Christ’s substitutionary atonement, salvation is obtained by asking Jesus into one’s heart, opening one’s heart to Jesus, saying a special prayer, going forward in a meeting, or signing a card, NONE of which can be found in Scripture. It was quite interesting to note that when Billy Graham was once asked how many of those who came forward at one of his evangelistic meetings remained steadfast Christians, Rev. Graham’s answer was ‘around 4%’.

The second earmark of today’s pseudo-Christianity is the idea that a sinner can accept Jesus as Savior but NOT as Lord. One can be a Christian bound for Heaven and yet never experience a truly changed life in which sinful tendencies and behaviors give way to the indwelling Holy Spirit’s work of sanctification. In simple terms, you can be a ‘carnal’ Christian, a concept a cursory reading of Romans, Chapter 8 should dispel rather resoundingly.

What does all of this mean in terms of “Contending for the Faith’? Dr. Daniel urges us to

  • KNOW the true Gospel
  • DEFEND the true Gospel
  • DON’T  add to it, subtract from it, substitute other doctrines, or water it down

Great advice, don’t you think?

__________

Again, if you are interested in listening to the entire series of messages, go HERE.

Atheism Isn’t Simply a Lack of Belief

Posted by Dan C. on

Posted by Tim Barnett on March 03, Stand to Reason Ministries

Many atheists don’t like the term “atheist.” They take atheism to be just the default position. I’ve even heard some atheists state that atheism is not really a belief at all. Rather, they assert it is simply a lack of belief.

Given this redefinition, most atheists are taken aback when theists demand they provide evidence for their atheism. After all, they’ll assert, we don’t demand evidence from people who lack belief in Santa Claus. Moreover, we’re told that everyone who lacks belief in Santa is technically an “a-santa-ist.” However, no one has ever labeled them with that term. Furthermore, the atheist might point out that most people don’t believe in the thunder god Thor (as much as you might like the movie), but no one calls them “athorists.”

Continuing this line of thinking, they will point out that everyone agrees that the athorist and the asantaist aren’t forced to prove that Thor and Santa don’t exist. The burden of proof would actually be on the person who claims that Thor and Santa do exist. Likewise, the theist is told that it’s up to him to prove that God exists. It is not the atheist’s responsibility to prove that He doesn’t.

But is this really what atheism amounts to? Is it merely a lack of belief in God? The answer is a resounding, No! Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is not the default position. Let’s get our terms straight. The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.” The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.” The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.” These are all beliefs. 

To say you simply lack a belief about something is to say that you have no beliefs about it. For example, if you asked me, “Who is the best female polo player in Europe?” I wouldn’t know where to start. Why? Because I have no beliefs about the quality of women’s polo in Europe, or any other country for that matter. I truly lack a belief regarding that question.

This is not the case with atheists. People don’t write books about things they don’t have any beliefs about. No one debates about non-beliefs. If they did, there would be nothing to talk about.

This attempt to change the definition of atheism to a lack of belief is a tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. But it won’t work. The belief that there is no God is a belief. And if the atheist thinks it is a reasonable belief, he should have reasons to believe it.

Pro-Gay Theology: Does the Bible Approve of Homosexuality?

Posted by Dan C. on

by Steve Golden on January 29, 2013 at Answers in Genesis

What exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? And how do pro-gay Bible scholars try to work around those passages?

One of the most pervasive issues of our time is the movement to embrace homosexual behavior, same-sex “marriage,” and the marred versions of masculinity and femininity that accompany this lifestyle. References sympathetic to the homosexual lifestyle appear now in books, on television, in films, and in video games and graphic novels. Even the popular social networking platform Facebook announced the addition of “gay marriage timeline icons” for users.1 And of course the crowning moment for the LGBT movement was the decision to legalize gay “marriage” by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Our children and teens are inundated with a message of “tolerance” and “acceptance” of homosexual behavior, and sadly even some professing Christians are preaching this message.

Scripture makes clear, as I will argue, that engaging in homosexual behavior of any sort is sinful (Genesis 18:20, 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10). But some in the church (such as Matthew Vines) have taken to reinterpreting key passages on homosexuality or even denying outright that these passages mean what they plainly say. So what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? And how do pro-gay Bible scholars try to work around those passages?

The Queen James Bible

In 2012, a pro-homosexual group published a Bible translation dubbed the Queen James Bible, based on the 1769 King James Version. Their rationale for the name was that King James’s alleged homosexual acts led his contemporaries to refer to him as “Queen James.” While the evidence for King James’s homosexuality is shaky at best, the editors of this “translation” have only made a mockery of a beloved Bible translation.

The changes that the editors made to various passages on homosexual behavior exemplify the ways in which pro-homosexual scholars twist Scripture on this issue. This article will examine a variety of Scriptures dealing with homosexual behavior and four primary arguments that pro-gay scholars use to justify it, using the editors’ summary of changes in the Queen James Bible as a springboard.

The Creation Order in Genesis

The early chapters of Genesis provide a clear example of what marriage looks like as God designed it. After creating Adam, God declares, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18). And so He puts Adam in a deep sleep, and forms Eve from his side.

Adam’s immediate response to meeting Eve, his suitable helper, is to declare that she is his counterpart, made from him, and to name her: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). The chapter closes with a beautiful illustration of marriage:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:24–25)

Marriage, as God designed it, has certain hallmarks that are evident in Genesis 2: a man and a woman joined in a monogamous marriage (verse 24), who complement each other in their gender roles (verse 18), and who can enjoy the fruits of marriage without shame (verse 25).

This is what makes homosexual behavior so morally perverse in Scripture—homosexuality is a direct violation of the creation order. Under the government’s current definition of “marriage,” it is no longer between a man and woman, but between any two people who apply for a license. Moreover, same-sex partnerships lack the complementarity that Adam and Eve’s marriage exemplifies. Men and women were created with unique masculine and feminine roles that, when brought together in marriage, create a harmony that same-sex relationships cannot adequately mimic. Finally, same-sex relationships rarely last and are often not monogamous.2 Regardless of what pro-gay scholars claim, God’s Word is very clear about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Same-sex “marriage” turns God-designed marriage on its head.

Sodom and Gomorrah3

Beginning in the Old Testament, the first passage dealing with homosexual behavior is Genesis 19. Here, two angels visit Lot in Sodom and stay with him and his family for the night. In the course of the evening, the men of the city demand access to Lot’s guests:

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:4–7)

Just as in many other occurrences in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 4:1, 17, 25), the word know in this passage refers to sexual activity. The angels eventually strike the men of the city with blindness (Genesis 19:11) and declare that the Lord will destroy the cities, “because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Genesis 19:13).

While the sin issue in view in Genesis 19 is clearly homosexuality, homosexual advocates typically reframe the issue in two ways, lack of hospitality or gang rape.4

Advocates of the inhospitality view claim that the issue in the text is with Lot’s refusal to introduce his guests to the men of the city. According to this view, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 19:5 for “know,” yada, commonly means “to be acquainted with.” This is indeed one of the primary definitions of yada, but as with all languages, particular meaning is determined by context. Based on the context of Genesis 19, yada is a reference to knowing someone sexually.5 If yada simply refers to acquaintanceship here, Lot’s refusal to introduce his guests to the town was a breach of the rules of hospitality—and the sin is Lot’s. So why did God see fit to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and spare Lot? Within the context of Genesis 19, the definition that some pro-homosexual scholars insist on for yada makes the passage ludicrous.6

The second view, that the sin is not homosexuality but gang rape, is the position that the Queen James Bible takes. In a convoluted fashion, the editors argue that Lot was pleading with the men not to rape his guests. They continue, “We know from Leviticus that one is not allowed to have sex with a beast, and angels are not human. . . . Rapes such as this one are common between men in prison; they aren’t sexual acts, they are power-dominating acts.”7

As for the Queen James Bible’s claim that the men could have been guilty of bestiality by having sex with angels, there is no textual support for including angels in the category of “beasts.”8 Additionally, the text gives no indication in Genesis 19:5 that the men of the town were aware of the real identities of Lot’s guests. The two angels were men, insofar as the residents of Sodom could perceive. Finally, Jude 6–8 makes clear that the men of Sodom were not simply trying to commit a “power-dominating act”—they had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” The editors’ own line of reason as well as the biblical language of “know them carnally” shows that this gang rape was a sexual act.

Of course, the men of the city did intend to rape Lot’s guests, and rape is indeed a sinful act. However, if the sin issue in Genesis 19 is rape alone (regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual), we must ask a similar question as before—why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for a sin that never actually occurred? The only reasonable answer is that the city was guilty of regularly participating in homosexual behavior, and the attempt to rape Lot’s guests was just the latest occurrence.

Levitical Laws

There are two verses in Leviticus that clearly condemn homosexual behavior as sinful:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Homosexual advocates typically challenge this part of the Levitical code by reframing these sanctions against homosexual acts in the context of pagan idol worship. Indeed, the editors of the Queen James Bible have done just that, adding wording to these verses to fit their argument:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22, QJB, emphasis added)

If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13, QJB, emphasis added)

There is no textual support in the Hebrew manuscripts for the additional wording the editors of the Queen James Bible have introduced. But the added phrase “in the temple of Molech” suggests that, in the view of these particular editors, homosexual behavior would only have been prohibited when associated with pagan rituals. The editors reached this conclusion by arguing that the Hebrew word for abomination, tow’ebah, means “ritually unclean.” Uncleanness related to pagan idolatry is one of the definitions of tow’ebah; however, it is also used in Scripture to denote something that is morally (ethically) repugnant in God’s sight, such as homosexuality (see, for example, Proverbs 6:16).9

Furthermore, chapters 18 and 20 in Leviticus are lists of prohibited behaviors for the Israelites, including incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice. To be consistent, the editors of the Queen James Bible must apply their changes to the whole of these chapters. But the implications of this hermeneutic are severe—incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors would all become acceptable except in the context of pagan idolatry.10 Surely pro-homosexual scholars do not intend to argue for the acceptability of all these practices. The clearest interpretation of these passages is that homosexual behavior is an abomination in the sight of God, whether or not it is in the context of ritual pagan idolatry.

Romans 1:26–27

The Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains a substantial New Testament passage on homosexual behavior. In Romans 1, Paul is explaining the sinfulness of man, “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,” and man’s willing rejection of God. He sums up the results of this rejection in verses 26 and 27:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In a plain reading of this passage, the Apostle Paul demonstrates that, because of man’s rejection of the truth for a lie, God gave humanity over to their sin. Homosexual behavior is a prominent part of these consequences. Romans 1:29–31 is a list of further sinful acts and behaviors associated with this giving over. And in Romans 1:32, Paul condemns not just those who practice these things, but also those who approve of them.

But pro-gay scholars and church leaders disagree. For example, John Shelby Spong, a homosexual advocate and retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, attempts to damage the Apostle Paul’s credibility and characterizes the Pauline statements on homosexuality as something other than the Word of God:

Yes, I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial, bound by the law that he hoped could keep this thing, that he judged to be so unacceptable, totally under control, a control so profound that even Paul did not have to face this fact about himself. But repression kills. It kills the repressed one and sometimes the defensive anger found in the repressed one also kills those who challenge, threaten or live out the thing that this repressed person so deeply fears.11

In Spong’s view, the Apostle Paul was allegedly repressing homosexual desires and that led him to condemn homosexual behavior in general. Furthermore, Spong argues that in Paul’s time, homosexuality was socially unacceptable, so Paul was supposedly forced to react negatively to homosexual behavior. When asked in one interview how he could so easily dismiss the Bible’s words on homosexuality, Spong replied, “I don’t see the Bible as the Word of God. I see the Word of God as that which I hear through the words of the Bible. There’s a very big difference.”12 A big difference indeed—between the orthodox Christian view of Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Spong’s heretical view that accords divine authority to his own thoughts.

The editors of the Queen James Bible chose to apply the same criteria to Romans 1:26–27 that they did to the Levitical laws. In other words, they believe that Paul condemns homosexual behavior only in the context of idolatry. They write, “It is much more likely that Paul meant to express that women were ritually defiling themselves (sexually or otherwise).” They go on to claim that what was “shameful” among these people was pagan idolatry, not homosexual behavior.

Neither of the above views has any biblical support. Whether or not Paul dealt with feelings of same-sex attraction (and there is no biblical evidence for that), he was given the authority of an apostle by God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1) and his words in Scripture are the Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). Spong’s basis for rejecting them is faulty: the entire Bible was composed by sinful men who were led by the Spirit of God to write what they did. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of their claims or the binding authority of their words for us today based on their humanity.

Finally, the idolatry position of the Queen James Bible editors still does not fit with the whole of Romans 1. Sexual perversion and excess were common in the Roman Empire during the Apostle Paul’s day, making his words in Romans 1 fitting for his audience. Once again, the clearest interpretation of this passage is one that takes hold of the plain meaning of the words: homosexual behavior is sinful in the eyes of God.

Arsenokoitēs and Malakos

In the New Testament, two Greek words appear in reference to homosexual behavior: arsenokoitēs and malakos. Paul uses these words together in 1 Corinthians, and arsenokoitēs appears alone in 1 Timothy:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor homosexuals [arsenokoitēs], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10, NASB)

. . . for fornicators, for sodomites [arsenokoitēs], for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:10, NKJV)

Conservative Bible scholars typically accept (based on solid historical and textual evidence) that arsenokoitēs refers to the active sexual partner in a homosexual act, while malakos refers to the passive partner.13 Pro-homosexual scholars, however, challenge the translations of these two Greek words. Some have tried to limit the words to adulterous homosexual relationships, while others have offered alternate definitions related to rape or sex with young boys (i.e., pederasty). For instance, the editors of the Queen James Bible chose to translate malakos as “morally weak” and arsenokoitēs as “promiscuous.”

The first term, malakos, “means literally ‘soft’ . . . and in Paul’s day served as an epithet for the ‘soft’ or effeminate (i.e., passive) partner in a homosexual (pederastic) relationship.”14 Even secularists recognize that in a homosexual act, one of the partners must act as the opposite sex—one of the males plays the female, and vice versa. It is an absolute inversion of the order set forth by God. The definition of the word arsenokoitēs has been the subject of much more debate.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburg Theological Seminary and an authority on sexual issues in Scripture, explains why the word arsenokoitēs so clearly relates to homosexual acts. Among the evidences Gagnon presents, one of the most compelling is the context of 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, where the apostle Paul is rebuking a man who was sexually involved with his stepmother:

1 Corinthians 5 treats a comparable case of intercourse involving consenting adults who are too much alike or same (here, on a familial level), with echoes to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. . . . For Paul, as for early Judaism and Christianity generally (and even us today), there were structural prerequisites for acceptable sexual unions that transcended appeals to loving dispositions. Gender and degree of blood unrelatedness were two such prerequisites.15

In other words, since 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 is dealing with sexual sin between two closely related family members (adultery is not the whole issue), and arsenokoitēs appears in a vice list in the midst of that, it is reasonable that this word references homosexual acts in general. Indeed, the definition of arsenokoitēs provided in BDAG (a standard Greek lexicon) is “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex,” specifically, “one who assumes the dominant role in sexual activity.”16

Furthermore, even the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, draws on the word arsenokoitēs in its translation of Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man [arsenos] lies [koitēn] with a male as he lies with a woman . . .”), demonstrating that the word would seem to imply men in general who lie with other men. Lastly, concerning the appearance of arsenokoitēs in the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:10, Gagnon writes, “The fact that arsenokoitai appears here in the midst of a vice list that the author states is derived from the law of Moses (1:8–9) confirms that Paul would have recognized a link to the Levitical prohibitions.”17

Conclusion

Try as they might, the arguments of pro-homosexual scholars simply are not convincing. In the very first book of the Bible, we read that God created a man and a woman for the first marriage (not a man and a man or a woman and a woman). And just a few chapters later, God’s Word plainly condemns homosexual behavior—a condemnation that continues into the New Testament and is still binding today. The church must stand on the authority of Scripture in this matter, speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) about homosexuality, and clearly share the message that Jesus Christ has the power to forgive and heal everyone who comes to Him in repentance and faith, regardless of the kinds of sins that ensnare them. Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of this truth:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

Is the VOICE Bible a Doorway to New Age Spirituality and the Emergent Church?

Posted by Dan C. on

It’s a question to consider. And if New Age spirituality and the Emergent represent apostate Christianity, or maybe even that which is heretical, it might mean approaching the VOICE Bible with extreme caution. Here are links to a two part in depth review that might be profitable for all of us.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/11/review-of-the-voice-new-testament—part-one.html

http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/12/review-of-the-voice-new-testament-part-two.html

A Perfect Storm of Apostasy

Posted by Dan C. on

The above title is also the title of a booklet tract published by Lighthouse Trails Research. Written by Mary Danielson, it is also billed as An Introduction to The Kansas City Prophets and Other Latter-Day Prognosticators.

The tract begins:

When speaking of spiritual things, what goes around comes around. This is true of every false movement within Christianity, especially in the last days, because the enemy is not going to let a perfectly good deception go to waste but rather will redesign anything to appeal to a subsequent generation. If a particular aberrant teaching is not rejected by the church when it first appears on the horizon by those who perceived it with spiritual eyes, then this movement or aberrant teaching will continue to lead people astray into a future generation.

Add to that the current social media technology wherein deception can attain an unprecedented level of exposure through multi-media, blogs, and conferences, and you have the recipe for a perfect storm of apostasy containing every unbiblical element imaginable. The latter-rain prophet movement is a perfect example of how this works. Regardless of the teaching, or how absurd it is, there will always be a following due to the church’s death of discernment today. With that in mind, I present to you some information of the current crop of “prophets” and “apostles” within the evangelical church. You can file this subject under “Last Days Deception,” along with everything else in Satan’s bag of tricks.

The booklet traces the history of the Kansas City Prophets, discusses principal characters, as well as other movements associated/connected to the KCPs.

To read the rest of the tract, click here.

If you want to order copies of The Perfect Storm of Apostasy – An Introduction to The Kansas City Prophets and Other Latter-Day Prognosticators, click here.

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

Posted by Dan C. on

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/

Lies and Pretty Horses

Posted by Dan C. on

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

Posted by Dan C. on

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.

Youth Targeted Calvinism?

Posted by Dan C. on

What????!!!! There’s a conspiracy afoot to ‘target’ our young people with Calvinism? Whatever does that mean? Are young people being singled out (targeted) by wickedly smiling evil men in order to corrupt their little minds and hearts? Don’t laugh. It appears that in the ranks of Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) youth groups, that exact thing is happening today (probably minus the wicked evil smiling). There are youth ministers who are teaching Calvinistic doctrine to their charges, enticing them away from the traditional doctrines of their parents! The shame of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here’s an excerpt from the SBC Today website that explains it all (and it’s just Part 1):

“Southern Baptist youth groups are filled with young people converting away from the traditional doctrines held by their parents in favor of more Calvinistic views on salvation, church, culture and ministry. At first glance, this trend seems harmless. If anything, the students converting in spellbound droves to the doctrinal views of Calvinism take their faith far more seriously than their parents do. What Christian parent is going to oppose a movement that actually encourages their child to read the Bible and study theology?. . . And yet, there are legitimate reasons for traditional Southern Baptist parents and church youth group leaders to view this trend as a dangerous development. . . . .”

The rest of the article is filled with some of the standard arguments against Calvinism, but I’m not going there. These interesting arguments are followed by a discussion of the aforementioned ‘targeting’ of SBC youth by diabolically dangerous youth leaders.

The article makes much of the ‘traditional doctrines’ of parents. What tradition doctrines? The ones that replaced the earlier and very much ‘traditional’ doctrines of Sovereign Grace that marked the Protestant Reformation, and that endured until the late 1800’s? The traditions brought to the forefront in modern America by Pelagian heretic Charles Finney, who said that revival is nothing more than the proper use of human ‘means’? What if the ‘traditions of parents’ are in themselves unbiblical? Just sayin’.

Youth are ‘flocking to Calvinism in spellbound droves’? Who are these evil youth pastors, reincarnations of the Pied Piper of Hamlin? ‘Nuff said. Along with the ‘targeting’ remark, the ‘spellbound droves’ comment should telegraph to any average reader the bias of the author, Dr. Rick Patrick, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Sylacauga, AL

Frankly, I’m embarrassed for SBC Today. I’ll shut up now. You can read the article for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I can’t wait for Part 2.