Saturday, November 12, 2011

15 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)
    seeds
  1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: creation.com/loopholes.
  2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: creation.com/code.
  3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: creation.com/train.
  4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.
  5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.3 See: creation.com/motor (includes animation).
  6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: creation.com/design_legit.
  7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: creation.com/multicellularity.
  8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: creation.com/evosex.
  9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: creation.com/pattquote.
  10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: creation.com/werner.
  11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: creation.com/chesterton.
  12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See: creation.com/sexstories.
  13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: creation.com/science#relevance.
  14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: creation.com/notscience#distinction.
  15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

References

  1. Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
  2. Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
  3. Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
  4. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
  5. Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
  6. Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
  7. Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
  8. Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
  9. As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
  10. Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
  11. E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
  12. pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
  13. Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
  14. Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Total Depravity contribution

Some say,  "we can come to God" or "I can choose Him" or "I have a "freewill" so choose Him" and "I can coƶperate with God". 


 What does the Bible say about the condition of men:

--..who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1)....
--"we are haters of God"... (Romans 1:30).....
--"the carnal mind is enmity against God"- (Romans 8:7). 
 --"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13) 
--"For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure."(Philippians 2:13) 
--"Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.)"(Ephesians 2:5)
  --"No man can come to me..... (John 6:44), ...that no man can come unto me.. (John 6:65), 
---.....for without me ( Christ ) ye can do nothing." John 15:5;
---in John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you."

Romans 9:16: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."


When we talk about free will it is almost always with regard to sin and salvation... not free will in some general sense. The question is whether the sinner is "free" to choose Christ or not? No, he is not. He is by nature hostile to God (Rom 8:7), loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19, 20). This is the only thing we are discussing when the topic of free will comes up.

When the term monergism is linked with the word regeneration, the phrase describes an action by which God the Holy Spirit works in the human heart, without this person’s assistance or coƶperation, because and again "A man can receive nothing... John 3:27 "No man can come to me.. John 6:44 ..that no man can come unto me,.. John 6:65 "...for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5..."he is by nature hostile to God" Romans 8:7,..loves darkness and hates the light. John 3:19, 20

All men, yes all men is by nature, are not free to do good or evil, but are held in spiritual bondage to sin and the devil. Jesus refers to man's bondage to sin when He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (John 8:34).

"Freewill" teaches that man's choice is the decisive thing in salvation. HELLOo heresy alert!! This is a denial of predestination. Predestination means that God's will (God's choice) determines all things, including who will be saved (Ephesians 1:3-6)

Are you saying that 'salvation depends on human will', but the Bible teaches that 'it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) and that we "were born, not of...the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

In scripture we see this shown to us in John chapter 6:44 and, that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. John 6:37 says that all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to him and all who come to him will be saved. If you put the two ideas together, you can plainly see that is a person is not saved it is because the Father has not given or drawn that person to Jesus. God chooses who will be saved. And He does so based on no condition that we (humans) can meet. Therefore, God choice of who He will save is unconditional from our point of view, not by our own choice, good works,, faith, believing etc.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

A view of Arminians.

#1.  The "true" Arminian is not regenerate.

#2.  This leads us to ask what is the "true" Arminian.

#3.  The "true" Arminian, at least include those who support all five tenets of Arminianism, and reject all 5 points of TULIP.  There are two manifestations of this.  #a. Those who talk, write, blog, and state their support of Arminianism and/or talk, write, blog, state their rejection of TULIP.  #b.  Those who not exposed to the typical language involved and thus do not use the typical language of the discussion, but nevertheless resemble those in #a.  A large number of conservative protestants are in group #b.

#4.  One can also be considered Arminian at differing levels of expression, which may seem to tedious to designate here.  I have counted at least 30 mathematical combinations of rejecting points: 1,2,3,4,5; 
1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 1 and 5, and so on.   However, many today are opposed to "Limited Atonement" and adhere to "Once-saved-always-saved" (which is not truly the "P");    This article will not need to delineate all this variations and react to each.

#5.  Some say, "But the people today are not Arminians they simply need discipleship, time for maturity, and clarification by clear teaching which they are not getting from the pulpit."  I say, "Fine don't call them Arminians then."  Why confuse apples with oranges. However, realize the danger of saying, "Most among Mormons and Popes, Freemasonry, and the Kingdom Hall are really not Mormons, Catholics, Freemasons, for these people simply need discipleship, time for maturity, and clarification by clear teaching which they are not getting from their current leader."   I have preached against Freemasonry and 99% have stayed in Freemasonry, I cannot consider this an issue of failing to mature, but rather failure to be born again.  

#6.  We could not sit back for 5 years with a member who constantly denies the deity of Christ, and reply that, "this person is a Christian, and not an Arian, they simply need discipleship, time to mature."  Likewise, I find it dangerous to broadly affirm people who deny the biblical doctrine of Man's Sin, Election, Grace, Atonement, and God's Sovereignty.   Yes many conservative protestants verbally agree that man is a sinner, God is gracious, and God is sovereign, just as many under the Pope make the same verbal affirmation.  So I am not surprised to hear Arminians hide under the same language.

#7.  Solution.  Give the individuals in question 7 of the best books on the main topics. (This should take about 7 months to read.)  Give them 26 of the best sermons on the topics which provide exposition and clarification.  (This should take about 6 months to hear.).  Give them 2 years to digest this material, and watch them mature.  If no maturity happens then it is no different than someone continuously rejecting the deity of Christ for 2 years despite clear teaching.  If they refuse to read or hear the material, then it is no different than someone refusing to address material evidencing the deity of Christ.  The doctrine of man's inability, election, atonement, effectual grace, and God's sovereignty is no more "hidden" in Scripture than the doctrine of Jesus' deity.  So if they constantly kick and buck against sound teaching, then they prove themselves to be "true" Arminians and their ability to articulate such will move them from camp #B to camp#a.  If they constantly refuse to even be exposed to the material or discuss the material, then likewise they are kicking and bucking in a passive-aggressive manner. 

#8.  If you think the "true" Arminian is regenerate, then we clearly disagree.  If you think someone you know resembles Arminianism, but yet "isn't", then enjoy the chance to disciple them, and see them grow.  It would be a dire tragedy to just "sit-back passively" and say "we will just leave them alone thinking they can lose their salvation at any moment."  If I heard a professed Christian talk that way, I'd be very alarmed and very active to teach them "P" in place of their errant understanding of salvation.  If I heard a professed Christian talk of man's ability, or the conditions of election, and the failing attempt of Jesus on the cross, then I too would be very alarmed and very active to teach them what the Bible says;    You say, "But no one I know uses such language"  Correct, and many among Mormons and Popes will hide behind words like Grace, Faith, and resting in Jesus all as a sly cover as Satan is crafty.   
 


Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Real Faith

Our justification is the direct result of our believing the gospel; our knowledge of our own justification comes from believing God’s promise of justification to every one who believes these glad tidings. For there is not only the divine testimony, but there is the promise annexed to it, assuring eternal life to everyone who receives that testimony. There is first, then, a believed gospel, and then there is a believed promise. The latter is the “appropriation,” as it is called, which, after all, is nothing but the acceptance of the promise which is everywhere coupled with the gospel message. The believed gospel saves; but it is the believed promise that assures us of this salvation.
Yet, after all, faith is not our righteousness. It is accounted to us in order to righteousness (Rom 4:5, GREEK), but not as righteousness; for in that case it would be a work like any other doing of man, and as such would be incompatible with the righteousness of the Son of God; the “righteousness which is by faith.” Faith connects us with the righteousness, and is therefore totally distinct from it. To confound the one with the other is to subvert the whole gospel of the grace of God. Our act of faith must ever be a separate thing from that which we believe.
God reckons the believing man as having done all righteousness, though he has not done any, and though his faith is not righteousness. In this sense it is that faith is counted to us for, or in order to, righteousness, — and that we are “justified by faith.” Faith does not justify as a work, or as a moral act, or a piece of goodness, nor as a gift of the Spirit, but simply because it is the bond between us and the Substitute; a very slender bond in one sense, but strong as iron in another. The work of Christ for us is the object of faith; the Spirit’s work in us is that which produces this faith: it is out of the former, not of the latter, that our peace and justification come. Without the touch of the rod the water would not have gushed forth; yet it was the rock and not the rod, that contained the water.
The bringer of the sacrifice into the tabernacle was to lay his hand upon the head of the sheep or the bullock, otherwise the offering would not have been accepted for him. But the laying on of his hand was not the same as the victim on which it was laid. The serpent-bitten Israelite was to look at the uplifted serpent of brass in order to be healed. But his looking was not the brazen serpent. We may say it was his looking that healed him, just as the Lord said, “lily faith hath saved thee”; but this is figurative language. It was not his act of looking that healed him, but the object to which he locked. So faith is not ourrighteousness: it merely knits us to the righteous One, and makes us partakers of His righteousness. By a natural figure of speech, faith is often magnified into something great; whereas it is really nothing but our consenting to be saved by another~ its supposed magnitude is derived from the greatness of the object which it grasps, the excellence of the righteousness which it accepts. Its preciousness is not its own, but the preciousness of Him to whom it links us.
Faith is not our physician; it only brings us to the Physician. It is not even our medicine; it only administers the medicine, divinely prepared by Him who “healeth all our diseases.” In all our believing, let us remember God’s word to Israel: “I am Jehovah, that healeth thee” (Exod. 14:26). Our faith is but our touching Jesus; and what is even this, in reality, but His touching us?
Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.
Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another’s. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be a righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like “the Lamb, without blemish and without spot” An imperfect faith may connect us with the perfection of another; but it cannot of itself do aught for us, either in protecting us from wrath or securing the divine acquittal. All faith here is imperfect; and our security is this, that it matters not how poor or weak our faith maybe: if it touches the perfect One, all is well. The touch draws out the virtue that is in Him, and we are saved. The slightest imperfection in our faith, if faith were our righteousness, would be fatal to every hope. But the imperfection of our faith, however great, if faith be but the approximation or contact between us and the fulness of the Substitute, is no hindrance to our participation of His righteousness. God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith. An earthenware pitcher can convey water to a traveller’s thirsty lips as well as one of gold; nay, a broken vessel, even if there be but “a sherd to take water from the pit” (Isa 30:14), will suffice. So a feeble, very feeble faith, will connect us with the righteousness of the Son of God; the faith, perhaps, that can only cry, “Lord, I believe; help mine unbelief.”
Faith is not satisfaction to God. In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It brings us to the cross, where there is expiation, and propitiation, and payment, and cleansing, and righteousness; but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice; it is not the altar, nor the laver, nor the mercy-seat, nor the incense. It does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago; it does not wash, but leads us to the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. It does not create; it merely links us to that new thing which was created when the “everlasting righteousness” was brought in (Dan 9:24).
And as faith goes on, so it continues; always the beggar’s outstretched hand, never the rich man’s gold; always the cable, never the anchor, the knocker, not the door, or the palace, or the table; the handmaid, not the mistress; the lattice which lets in the light, not the sun.
Without worthiness in itself, it knits us to the infinite worthiness of Him in whom the Father delights; and so knitting us, presents us perfect in the perfection of another. Though it is not the foundation laid in Zion, it brings us to that foundation, and keeps us there, “grounded and settled” (Col 1:23), that we may not be moved away from the hope of the gospel. Though it is not “the gospel,” the “glad tidings,” it receives these good news as God’s eternal verities, and bids the soul rejoice in them; though it is not the burnt-offering, it stands still and gazes on the ascending flame, which assures us that the wrath which should have consumed the sinner has fallen upon the Substitute.
Though faith is not “the righteousness,” it is the tie between it and us. It realizes our present standing before God in the excellency of His own Son; and it tells us that our eternal standing, in the ages to come, is in the same excellency, and depends on the perpetuity of that righteousness which can never change. For never shall we put off that Christ whom we put on when we believed (Rom 12:14; Gal 3:27). This divine raiment is “to everlasting.” It waxes not old, it cannot be rent, and its beauty fadeth not away.
Nor does faith lead us away from that cross to which at first it led us. Some in our day speak as if we soon got beyond the cross, and might leave it behind; that the cross having done all it could do for us when first we came under its shadow, we may quit it and go forward; that to remain always at the cross is to be babes, not men.
But what is the cross? It is not the mere wooden pole, or some imitation of it, such as Romanists use. These we may safely leave behind us. We need not pitch our tent upon the literal Golgotha, or in Joseph’s garden. But the great truth which the cross embodies we can no more part with than we can past with life eternal. In this sense, to turn our back upon the cross is to turn our back upon Christ crucified, — to give up our connection with the Lamb that was slain. The truth is, that all that Christ did and suffered, from the manger to the tomb, forms one glorious whole, no part of which shall ever become needless or obsolete; no past of which can ever leave without forsaking the whole. I am always at the manger, and yet I know that mere incarnation cannot save; always at Gethsemane, and yet I believe that its agony was not the finished work; always at the cross, with my face toward it, and my eye on the crucified One, and yet I am persuaded that the sacrifice there was completed once for all; always looking into the grave, though I rejoice that it is empty, and that “He is not here, but is risen”; always resting (with the angel) on the stone that was rolled away, and handling the grave-clothes, and realizing a risen Christ, nay, an ascended and interceding Lord, yet on no pretext whatever leaving any part of my Lord’s life or death behind me, but unceasingly keeping up my connection with Him, as born, living, dying, buried, and rising again, and drawing out from each part some new blessing every day and hour.
Man, in his natural spirit of self-justifying legalism, has tried to get away from the cross of Christ and its perfection, or to erect another cross instead, or to setup a screen of ornaments between himself and it, or to alter its true meaning into something more congenial to his tastes, or to transfer the virtue of it to some act or performance or feeling of its own. Thus the simplicity of the cross is nullified, and its saving power is denied. For the cross saves completely, or not at all. Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross alone saves, and that it saves alone. Faith adds nothing to the cross, nor to its healing virtue. It owns the fulness, and sufficiency, and suitableness of the work done there, and bids the toiling spirit cease from its labours and enter into rest. Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the “It is finished!” of the Sin-bearer, and says, “Amen.” Where faith begins, there labour ends, — labour, I mean, “for” life and pardon. Faith is rest, not toil. It is the giving up all the former weary efforts to do or feel something good, in order to induce God to love and pardon; and the calm reception of the truth so long rejected, that God is not waiting for any such inducements, but loves and pardons of His own goodwill, and is showing that goodwill to any sinner who will come to Him on such a footing, casting away his own performances or goodnesses, and relying implicitly upon the free love of Him who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.
Faith is the acknowledgment of the entire absence of all goodness in us, and the recognition of the cross as the substitute for all the want on our part. Faith saves, because it owns the complete salvation of another, and not because it contributes anything to that salvation. There is no dividing or sharing the work between our own belief and Him in whom we believe. The whole work is His, not ours, from the first to last. Faith does not believe in itself, but in the Son of God. Like the beggar, it receives everything, but gives nothing. It consents to be a debtor forever to the free love of God. Its resting-place is the foundation laid in Zion. It rejoices in another, not in itself. Its song is, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us.” vChrist crucified is to be the burden of our preaching, and the substance of our belief, from first to last. At no time in the saint’s life does he cease to need the cross; though at times he may feel that his special need, in spiritual perplexity or the exigency of conflict with evil, may be the incarnation, or the agony in the garden, or the resurrection, or the hope of the promised advent, to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe.
But the question is not, “What truths are we to believe?” but, What truths are we to believe FOR JUSTIFICATION?
That Christ is to come again in glory and in majesty, as Judge and King, is an article of the Christian faith, the disbelief of which would almost lead us to doubt the Christianity of him who disbelieves it. Yet we are not in any sense justified by the second advent of our Lord, but solely by His first. We believe in His ascension, yet our justification is not connected with it. So we believe His resurrection, yet we are not justified by faith in it, but by faith in His death, — that death which made Him at once our propitiation and our righteousness.
“He was raised again on account of our having been justified” (Rom 4:25) is the clear statement of the word. The resurrection was the visible pledge of a justification already accomplished.
“The power of His resurrection” (Phil 3:10) does not refer to atonement, or pardon, or reconciliation; butte our being renewed in the spirit of our minds, to our being “begotten again unto a living hope, by the resurrection from the dead” (1 Pet 1:3). That which is internal, such as our quickening, our strengthening, our renewing, may be connected with resurrection and resurrection power, but that which is external, such as God’s pardoning, and justifying, and accepting, must be connected with the cross alone.
The doctrine of our being justified by an infused resurrection-righteousness or, as it is called, justification in arisen Christ, is a clear subversion of the Surety’s work when “He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,” or when “He washed us from our sins in His own blood,” or when He gave us the robes “washed white in the blood of the Lamb.”
It is the blood that justifies (Rom 5:9). It is the blood that pacifies the conscience, purging it from dead works to serve the living God (Heb 9:14). It is the blood that emboldens us to enter through the veil into the holiest, and go up to the sprinkled mercy-seal It is the blood that we are to drink for the quenching of our thirst (John 6:55). It is the blood by which we have peace with God (Col 1:20). It is the blood through which we have redemption (Eph 1:7), and by which we are brought nigh (Eph 2:13), by which we are sanctified (Heb 13:12). It is the blood which is the seal of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20). It is the blood which cleanses (1 John 1:7), which gives us victory (Rev 12:11), and with which we have communion in the Supper of the Lord (1 Cor 10:16). It is the blood which is the purchase-money or ransom of the church of God (Acts 20:28).
The blood and the resurrection are very different things; for the blood is death, and the resurrection is life.
It is remarkable that in the book of Leviticus there is no reference to resurrection in any of the sacrifices. It is death throughout. All that is needed for a sinner’s pardon, and justification, and cleansing, and peace, is there fully set forth in symbol, — and that symbol is death upon the altar. Justification by any kind of infused or inherent righteousness is wholly inconsistent with the services of the tabernacle, most of all justification by an infused, resurrection-righteousness.
The sacrifices are God’s symbolical exposition of the way of a sinner’s approach and acceptance; and in none of these does resurrection hold any place. If justification be in a risen Christ, then assuredly that way was not revealed to Israel; and the manifold offerings so minutely detailed, did not answer the question: How may man be just with God? nor give to the worshippers of old one hint as to the way by which God was to justify the ungodly.
“Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), is a well-known and blessed truth; but Christ IN US, our justification, is a ruinous error, leading man away from a crucified Christ — a Christ crucified FOR US. Christ for us is one truth; Christ in us is quite another. The mingling of these two together, or the transposition of them, is the nullifying of the one finished work of the Substitute. Let it be granted that Christ in us is the source of holiness and fruitfulness (John 15:4); but let it never be overlooked that first of all there be Christ FOR US, as our propitiation, our justification, our righteousness. The risen Christ in us, our justification, is a modern theory which subverts the cross. Washing, pardoning, reconciling, justifying, all come from the one work of the cross, not from resurrection. The dying Christ completed the work for us from which all the above benefits flow. The risen Christ but sealed and applied what, three days before, He had done once for all. vIt is somewhat remarkable that in the Lord’s Supper (as in the passover) there is no reference to resurrection. The broken body and the shed blood are the Alpha and Omega of that ordinance. In it we have communion (not with Christ as risen and glorified, but) with the body of Christ and the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), that is, Christ upon the cross. “This do in remembrance of me.” “As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” If, after we have been at the cross, we are to pass on and leave it behind us, as no longer needed, seeing we are justified by the risen Christ in us, let those who bold that deadly error say why all reference to resurrection should be excluded from the great feast; and why the death of the Lord should be the one object presented to us at the table.
“Life in a risen Christ” is another way of expressing the same error. If by this were only meant that resurrection has been made the channel or instrument through which the life and justification are secured for us on and by the cross, — as when the apostle speaks of our being begotten again unto a lively hope by the “resurrection of Christ from the dead,” or when we are said to be “risen with Christ,” — one would not object to the phraseology. But when we find it used as expressive of dissociation of these benefits from the cross, and derivation of them from resurrection soley, then do we condemn it as untrue and anti-scriptural. For concerning this ‘life” let us hear the words of the Lord: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51), “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56). This assuredly is not the doctrine of “life in a risen Christ,” or “a risen Christ in us, our justification and life.” I do not enter on the exposition of these verses. I simply cite them.. They bear witness to the cross. They point to the broken body and shed blood as our daily and hourly food, our life-long feast, from which there comes into us the life which the Son of man, by His death, has obtained for us. That flesh is life-imparting, that blood is life-imparting; and this not once, but for evermore.
It is not incarnation on the one hand, nor is it resurrection on the other, on which we are thus to feed, and out of which this life comes forth; it is that which lies between these two, — death, — the sacrificial death of the Son of God. It is not the personality nor the life-history of the Christ of God which is the special quickener and nourishment of our souls, but the blood-shedding. Not that we are to separate the former from the latter, but still it is on the latter that we are specially to feed, and this all the days of our lives.
“Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us.” Hence we rest, protected by the paschal blood, and feeding on the paschal lamb, with its unleavened bread and bitter herbs, from day to day. “Let us keep the feast” (1 Cor 5:8). Wherever we are, let us keep it. For we carry our passover with us, always ready, always fresh. With girded loins and staff in hand, as wayfarers, we move along, through the rough or the smooth of the wilderness, our face toward the land of promise.
That paschal lamb is CHRIST CRUCIFIED. As such He is our protection, our pardon, our righteousness, our food, our strength, our peace. Fellowship with Him upon the cross is the secret of a blessed and holy life.
We feed on that which has passed through the fire; on that which has come from the altar. No other food can quicken or sustain the spiritual life of a believing man. The unbroken body will not suffice; nor will the risen or glorified body avail. The broken body and shed blood of the Son of God form the viands on which we feast; and it is under the shadow of the cross that we sit down to partake of these, and find refreshment for our daily journey, strength for our hourly warfare. His flesh is meat indeed; His blood is drink indeed.
Tags:

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Questions for the Arminian

Did the grace of God cause your salvation? Why didn't the grace of God cause the salvation of everyone? Did the power of God cause your salvation? Why didn't the power of God cause the salvation of everyone? Did the Holy Spirit cause your salvation? Why didn't the Holy Spirit cause the salvation of everyone? Did God cause your faith to be present and active? Or did you cause your faith to be present and active? (Diagnostic Questions for the Arminian)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

God's Freedom

Adam was not given a "choice", He could not "forbid" the existence of each tree, the serpent, the devil, the consequence, the Eve; If Adam had a "choice" he could have told God I want to be an elect angel instead of a human, and I don't want there to be any such trees in existence, and like you I don't want to even need food, nor make any such serpents, nor make an angels that will fall, namely Satan, nor allow serpents to be possessed by Satan, nor make Eve to confuse the situation by her attention to the serpent's lie; None of the elect angels were placed in this providence, but Adam was and he was not given a choice about that providence. God made Adam upright, but He did not make him immutable, and Adam did not have a choice about being made mutable. Just as Joseph's brother's meant it for evil, but God for good. God had redemption and His glory in view during the Fall, and His motive pure and Holy, whereas Adam's motive during the Fall, was rebellious, impure, and evil. God was free to make fruit that God could eat if He wanted to and forbid Adam if He wanted to, God is free to set a command and "choice" for Adam, that God himself is not required to follow. A police officer can drive 90 mph due to his office and yet I not be given that same freedom. The officer is granted choices, that the citizen is not given. God is a law unto Himself, He is not under some external law whereby men vainly attempt to judge him.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

2 Peter 3:9, tinas

A Careful Examination of 2 Peter 3:9  by Nick Migliacci.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many people misunderstand 2 Peter 3:9 because they believe the word “any” refers to “every single person on planet earth.”  A popular English translation of 2 Peter 3:9 is as follows:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

The Greek word behind the word “any” is “tinas,” which is simply a pronoun.  It is a particular form of the root word, “tis.”  The word “tis” has ten different forms in the Greek language (based on different combinations of case, number, gender, etc.), each one being spelled slightly differently, of course.  The New Testament has need for only five of those forms.  In 2 Peter 3:9, this pronoun actually appears twice:  1) as the direct object in the phrase “any perish” (spelled “tinas”), and 2) as the subject in the phrase “some count” (spelled “tines”).  That’s right, “some” and “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 are two different English words attempting to translate one and the same Greek pronoun, “tis” (simply spelled differently due to the former being nominative and the latter being accusative).  But while the pronoun is spelled differently, it has the same definition in both cases.  It means “some,” or “certain ones.”  So a more careful translation that helps the English reader see at a glance that 2 Peter 3:9 repeats the same pronoun, would be:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that some should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

(The word “some” could be substituted by the phrase “certain ones” just as well.)  There is no good reason to use differing English words to translate the same Greek word in the same immediate context.  Peter deliberately used the same Greek word twice, and it behooves the translator, whenever feasible, to pass along such features of an original work into the translation.  (For this very reason, it is unfortunate that many modern translations of 2 Timothy 4:2-3 fail to pass along to the English reader the fact that Paul uses the same word, “doctrine,” twice:  once at the end of verse 2, and once at the beginning of verse 3.  What Paul was telling Timothy to do was to feed his congregation the very thing that they would soon spit out!  “Give ‘em doctrine, because soon they won’t take your doctrine!”  That important relationship, however, is lost in modern translations which use differing English words to translate one and the same Greek word in those two verses.)  So here, Peter deliberately used the same Greek pronoun twice in 2 Peter 3:9, and unless there is some enormous reason to do otherwise (which there is none), we ought to use the same English word in both cases.

Now if “tinas” is a pronoun in the phrase “some perish,” then what’s the noun?  The noun is unwritten.  In the Greek language, this legitimate literary device is called an ellipsis.  It occurs when the writer purposefully omits certain words (to save papyrus, quills and candles), with the unspoken intention for the reader to naturally supply the missing words.  Let me give some examples of ellipses in the New Testament.

  • John 14:6 – “Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life….”  Here, the reader is supposed to understand Jesus saying, “I am the way, I am the truth, and I am the life.”

  • Matthew 22:37 – “Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’”  Here, the reader is supposed to understand Jesus saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your soul, and You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind.’”

  • Romans 8:5  – “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.”  Here, the reader is supposed to supply the missing words “set their mind” before the ending phrase, “the things of the Spirit.”

  • Philippians 3:10 – “that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.”  Here, the reader is supposed to supply the missing words “that I may know” like this:  “that I may know Him, and that I may know the power of His resurrection, and that I may know the fellowship of His sufferings….”

  • 1 Thessalonians 5:9 – “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Here, the reader is supposed to supply the phrase “God did appoint us” like this:  “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but God did appoint us to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

  • As you can see, the ellipsis is a very natural, fluid occurrence in the New Testament.  It’s nothing to become alarmed about, until, it seems, we’re discussing 2 Peter 3:9!  Here, people let their theologies overrule the grammatical force of the verse, which is quite unfortunate.  So the question on the table is, What is the unwritten noun in the phrase “any [noun] perish?”  What does “any” refer to?  Does it refer to trees?  To demons?  There’s no need to guess.  In fact, the reader does not have the liberty to insert just any thing he so desires.  If you were paying close attention to the previous examples, you’ll see that we supplied the last phrase mentioned prior to the omitted phrase.  So let’s look at 2 Peter 3:9 again to find the missing word(s) which we are supposed to supply after the word “any”:

    “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

    Grammatically, we are required to supply the word “us” after the pronoun “any.”  Thus, to spell it all out, 2 Peter 3:9 looks like this:

    “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

    So the first thing we see is that “any” does not refer to every single person in the whole, wide world!  In fact, the pronoun “tis,” occurring in its various forms 418 times in the New Testament, never refers to every single person in the whole, wide world.  Instead of listing all 418 occurrences of this pronoun, I will list all 25 occurrences where “tinas,” that form of “tis” behind the word “any” in 2 Peter 3:9, occurs, to show that it never refers to every single person in the whole, wide world.
    1. Mk. 7:2 – Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
    2. Mk. 12:13 – Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words.
    3. Lk. 7:19 – And John, calling some, that is, two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"
    4. Lk. 18:9 – Also He spoke this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
    5. Acts 9:2 – and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
    6. Acts 9:19 – So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.
    7. Acts 10:48 – And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay for some days.
    8. Acts 12:1 – Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.
    9. Acts 15:2 – Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
    10. Acts 15:36 – Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing."
    11. Acts 16:12 – and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days.
    12. Acts 17:5 – But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
    13. Acts 17:6 – But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, "These who have turned the world upside down have come here too.
    14. Acts 19:1 – And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples
    15. Acts 23:23 – And he called for some, that is, two centurions, saying, "Prepare two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night;
    16. Acts 24:24 – And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
    17. Acts 27:1 – And when it was decided that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment.
    18. Rom. 11:14 – if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
    19. 1 Cor. 9:22 – to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
    20. 2 Cor. 10:2 – But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against certain ones, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
    21. Gal. 2:12 – for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
    22. 1 Thess. 4:2 – for you know certain commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
    23. 2 Thess. 3:11 – For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.
    24. Heb. 4:6 – Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
    25. 2 Pet. 3:9 – The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that some should perish but that all should come to repentance.

    Now this sparks another question about 2 Peter 3:9.  If the Lord is longsuffering toward us, and is not willing that any of us perish, to whom is the “us” referring?  Again, the reader does not have the liberty to fabricate any answer he pleases.  The “us” of 2 Peter 3:9, is sandwiched between, and refers to, the endearing word “beloved” appearing in the previous verse (v. 8) and in verse 17.  It is a repeat of the word “beloved” in 2 Peter 3:1 where Peter writes, “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle….”  (See also 1 Pet. 2:11; 4:12.)  The “beloved” is not a reference to every single person in the whole, wide world.  No, it’s much more selective than that.  The “beloved” whom Peter is addressing are, according to the opening verses of 1 Peter, the “elect of God,” and according to the opening verse of 2 Peter, “those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”  In other words, in 2 Peter 3, Peter is addressing the scorn that the “beloved” are enduring, namely, “that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?  For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation’” (2 Pet. 3:3-4).  Peter’s response to this is to remind the “beloved” that the reason the Lord has not returned yet is not because He has neglected His promise, but because there are others who still need to come to repentance before He can return.  These “others” are among the elect of God, and Peter refers to them as “us” since, though currently unrepentant, they are nonetheless among God’s elect.  Once the last of these elect persons comes to repentance, then the Lord will return.  (Perhaps a day or two after…we aren’t told exactly.)

    One important fact that needs to be stated is that the “promise” in 2 Peter 3 is NOT a promise to save everybody in the whole world!  That is “universalism,” and it is unbiblical.  God never promised to save every single human being.  Often, however, people make a mental connection between two things that they imagine Peter to have said:  1), they imagine Peter said that God has promised to save every single person, and 2), they imagine Peter said that God is not willing that any single human being perish.  But Peter taught neither of those notions.  The “promise” of 2 Peter 3 is the promise of the Lord’s return, and the reason that He hasn’t yet returned, said Peter, is because He’s not willing that any of us perish, but that all of us should come to repentance.  The first person plural “us” is the polite way of including himself among those who haven’t yet come to repentance.  (See “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament” By Daniel B. Wallace, pages 394ff, for a thorough treatment of the scope of “we” in the New Testament.)

    It is interesting to note that, if the popular idea of God not-wanting-any-single-human-being-on-the-planet-to-perish were true, then according to Peter’s own teaching, the Lord would not come back to earth so long as there remained even a single person on the earth who was unrepentant.  And yet the Bible tells us that not all will be saved, hence, we know the Lord will return while there remains unrepentant people on the earth.  Why doesn’t God wait for them to repent before sending His Son?  Because there’s no verse in the Bible that teaches that.  What we can be certain of, however, is that the Lord will not come back before all the elect repent.  We can be sure of that because that’s what 2 Peter 3:9 teaches.

    Some people dismiss this teaching because they suppose it is common knowledge that God wants His elect to come to repentance, and they feel like a verse in the Bible would not be so elementary.  But even if it is common knowledge, it is still no reason to dismiss what Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended to communicate.  Not surprisingly, this same truth is taught elsewhere in Scripture, namely, John 6:39 – “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”  Evidently, the Spirit of God wanted to communicate the same “elementary” truth at least twice.

    If you think about it, it’s not only the scoffers who deny that the Lord will return.  There is another group of people who, when pressed to take their theology to its logical end, would also have to deny that the Lord will return.  This latter class of people are those who believe the Lord is waiting for every single human on the earth to repent.  If that is really what the Lord is waiting for, then the scoffers will be right and He’ll never come back!

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For similar treatments of 2 Peter 3:9, I recommend the following audio and video files:

    Saturday, February 5, 2011

    WILL YOU CALL THEM ARROGANT

    Matthew 5:22  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

    Matthew 7:26   And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

    Matthew 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

    Matthew 25:2-3 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. [3] For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,   Matthew 25:8  And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'

    Mark 7:22  coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

    Luke 11:40  You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?

    Luke 12:20  But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'

    Luke 24:25   And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

    Romans 1:14   I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

    Romans 1:21-22   For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

    Romans 1:31   foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

    Romans 2:20   an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—

    Romans 10:19   But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;  with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

    1 Cor. 1:20   Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

    1 Cor. 1:27   But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

    1 Cor. 15:36   You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

    2 Cor. 11:19  For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!

    2 Cor. 11:21   To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!  But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that.

    2 Cor. 12:6   Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

    2 Cor. 12:11   I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing.

    Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

    Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

    Ephes. 5:4   Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

    Ephes. 5:17   Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

    2 Tim. 2:23   Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

    Titus 3:3   For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

    Titus 3:9   But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

    James 2:20   Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

    1 Peter 2:15   For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

    Friday, February 4, 2011

    SUFFERING IN AMERICA

    I have a tendancy to block out sermons on "Understanding Suffering", because I assume most pastors will rush to direct the focus on matters like:  getting cancer, the death of an infant, the death of a spouse, losing the use of your legs, etc.  I can easily see the need of edification if I were put in one of these providences, however I still block out these sermons because the focus becomes so immediatlely couched in physical connotations, instead of spirtual ones.

    Second, I pass over these sermons because if the pastor does talk about Suffering for Jesus, then we are brought to consider the persecution of Christians in Muslim Nations, Communist Nations, and Atheist Nations.  These Christians are threatened, beaten, arrested, driven from homes, tortured, killed, and separated from family.  They live in abject poverty and face a tribulation very different from the comforts of the American Protestant scence. While this is important to remember, it still seems to be so far removed from what we are able to relate to and respond to.

    However, I am learning now the important priority to speak on Christian Suffering in America.  While this suffering holds no comparison to those Chrisitans in Muslim and Communist Nations, it is still a undeniable reality.

    I want to make it clear, that Christian Suffering in America does not refer to Hollywood attacking morality, or the government taking prayer out of schools.  This is not about immoral sectors attackign moral sectors.  This is not precisely about the gay-agenda.  In reality it is in fact a Suffering from groups holding a Bible against those who are truly Born Again.  The current suffering is not yet physical, but the animosity and division is real.  Those who proclaim SOVEREIGN GRACE  are ignored, isolated, mocked, ridiculed, and maligned.  They are to be silenced from the pulpit and from the congregation.  Their conversation is to be squelched and dismissed as divisive and untimely.

    Tuesday, February 1, 2011

    LUTHERS THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

    The term, theologia crucis is actually used very rarely by Luther. He first uses the term, and explicitly defines it in contrast to the theology of glory, in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. During this debate, he represented the Augustinians and presented his theses that later came to define the Reformation movement.

    ThesesThe pertinent theological theses of the debate are[1]:

    1. The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
    2. Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.
    3. Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
    4. Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
    5. The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works that apparently are good), as though they were crimes.
    6. The works of God (those he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
    7. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.
    8. By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security.
    9. To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God.
    10. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.
    11. Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.
    12. In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal.
    13. Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin.
    14. Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity.
    15. Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in a passive capacity.
    16. The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.
    17. Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.
    18. It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.
    19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened.
    20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
    21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it actually is.
    22. That wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
    23. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ.
    24. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.
    25. He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.
    26. The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done.
    27. Actually one should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work.
    28. The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.

    Wednesday, January 5, 2011

    RESPONSE POLICY WHY STREAMLINE

    MUTUAL BENFITS FOR MY NEW POLICY


    #1. (No repetition for you to create; Time Management)

    #2. (No distractions for you or those reading your blog)
    #3. (No size limitations for you)
    #4 (No time pressure for you, more thoughtful, edited, substantive entries)
    #5. (Less Tangents for you to be dragged into).
    #6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves presented to you).
    #7 (No fighting to get the Last Word with you).
    #8. (No one falsely accuses you of being argumentative).
    #9. (Your joy and peace should not be based on your blog's attempt to convince others; as some attempt in FB threads.).
    #10. (Your readers will not take it personally).
    #11 (You will not sense that you are being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, inundated, escalation).
    #12 (Easier Editing, Reading, Formatting, Control, Archiving of your points)

    for elaboration see:
    1.  THIS EXPLANATION
     2.  http://cid-ee707e96478c2486.office.live.com/view.aspx/118min/Policy%20Benefits.docx

    Response Policy Why

    APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)


    At least TEN ADVANTAGES FOR YOU (and me) from this new policy:

    #1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again.  This translate to better time stewardship over the months, instead of repeating the same attacks 12x a year.

    #2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.

    #3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;

    #4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.

    #5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.

    #6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.

    #7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.

    #7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.

    #8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.

    Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.

    #9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.

    However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.

    I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.

    In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.

    #10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side, and to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.

    I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.

    So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.

    Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

    TULIP REJECTERS HUB

    I fully affrim TULIP.  These internal links are provided for persons who affirm the TULIP to prepare a proper defense.  They are also provided for those who REJECT Tulip, so that Facbook Threads will not be swamped with verses, pleas, and assertions that have already been heard and examined. 

    1.  Link to 50-70 Blogs, Books, Writiers, Persons who reject the TULIP.
    2.  Link to Verses cited to dispute each segment of the TULIP.
    3.  Link to 45+ Questions/Accusations/Assertions to reject the TULIP.

    A.  Link to my new Facebook counterpoint policy.
    B.  Link to Mutual Benefits for this policy.

    I've already provided you with 90% of the verses and counterpoints you would present.  I am not sure what is accomplished for you to clutter my wall with the exact same material that I myself have already stated, and rejected.  If your post, verse, assertion is original I will seek to incorporate it into these materials. 

    If you are in some manner "undecided" in these matters, let it be known that Reformed Theologians are well-aware of these verses and questions and have responded in detail to each verse and question for centuries now.  One of my goals is to assemble those detailed responses on my blogs.


    ---- COPY AND PASTE FOR FUTURE FACEBOOK -----  For TULIP REJECTERS:

    Unless you plan on stating an original angle in rejecting TULIP, just cite my own blog link below when you intended to counter my future posts. My own blog provides: 50 plus blogs for your position; 40 plus verses you plan on citing; 45+ assertions you plan on making. I do not know the benefit of telling me the claims I've already heard repeatedly and examined repeatedly.  http://118response.blogspot.com/2011/01/tulip-rejecters-hub.html



    ------- END --------