Young, Restless, Reformed

I got this article from Christianity Today and is a topic that I have aspirations of maybe someday writing a book about. It is a great article going into the resurgence of Reformed, or more specifically, Calvinism among young people.

Enjoy!



Young, Restless, Reformed
Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.
Collin Hansen posted 9/22/2006 01:54PM


Nothing in her evangelical upbringing prepared Laura Watkins for John Piper.

"I was used to a very conversational preaching style," said Watkins, 21. "And having someone wave his arms and talk really loudly made me a little scared."

Watkins shouldn't be embarrassed. Piper does scare some people. It's probably his unrelenting intensity, demanding discipline, and singular passion—for the glory of God. Those themes resound in Desiring God, Piper's signature book. The pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis has sold more than 275,000 copies of Desiring God since 1986. Piper has personally taken his message of "Christian hedonism" to audiences around the world, such as the Passion conferences for college-age students. Passion attracted 40,000 students outside Memphis in 2000 and 18,000 to Nashville earlier this year.

Not all of these youth know Piper's theological particulars. But plenty do, and Piper, more than anyone else, has contributed to a resurgence of Reformed theology among young people. You can't miss the trend at some of the leading evangelical seminaries, like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which reports a significant Reformed uptick among students over the past 20 years. Or the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now the largest Southern Baptist seminary and a Reformed hotbed. Piper, 60, has tinged the movement with the God-exalting intensity of Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century Puritan pastor-theologian. Not since the decades after his death have evangelicals heaped such attention on Edwards.



Reformed theology often goes by the name Calvinism, after the renowned 16th-century Reformation theologian John Calvin. Yet even Edwards rejected the label, saying he neither depended on Calvin nor always agreed with him. Still, it is Calvin's followers who produced the famous acrostic TULIP to describe the "doctrines of grace" that are the hallmarks of traditional Reformed theology: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. (See "It's All About God.")

Already, this latest surge of Reformed theology has divided Southern Baptist churches and raised questions about the future of missions. Its exuberant young advocates reject generic evangelicalism and tout the benefits of in-depth biblical doctrine. They have once again brought the perennial debate about God's sovereignty and humans' free will to the forefront.

The evidence for the resurgence is partly institutional and partly anecdotal. But it's something that a variety of church leaders observe. While the Emergent "conversation" gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon. It certainly has a much stronger institutional base. I traveled to some of the movement's leading churches and institutions and talked to theologians, pastors, and parishioners, trying to understand Calvinism's new appeal and how it is changing American churches.

God Starts the Party

A pastors' conference is the wrong place to schedule a private meeting with Joshua Harris. He didn't even speak at the conference I attended, but we still struggled to find a quiet spot to talk at his hotel. Slight and short, Harris doesn't stick out in crowds. But that doesn't stop pastors from recognizing him and introducing themselves. The unassuming 31-year-old took time to chat with each of them, even as our interview stretched late into the night.

Harris was a leader among his generation even before he published I Kissed Dating Goodbye in 1997. But the bestseller introduced him to a wider evangelical audience, earning many fans and at least as many detractors. Now he pastors Covenant Life Church, a congregation of 3,800 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Harris grew up as a youth leader in a seeker-sensitive church and later joined a charismatic congregation. Neither place emphasized doctrine. "Even just thinking doctrinally would have been foreign to me," he explained. He knew enough to realize he didn't like Calvinism, though. "I remember some of the first encounters I had with Calvinists," Harris told another group of pastors during Mark Driscoll's Reform and Resurge conference in Seattle in May. "I'm sorry to say that they represented the doctrines of grace with a total lack of grace. They were spiteful, cliquish, and arrogant. I didn't even stick around to understand what they were teaching. I took one look at them and knew I didn't want any part of it."

Harris's response is anything but uncommon in evangelical history. Reformed theology has periodically boomed and busted. Calvinists have always inspired foils, such as Jacob Arminius. The Dutch theologian argued that God frees up human will so people can accept or reject God's offer of salvation. That debate prompted his critics to respond with TULIP. Reformed theology waned during the Second Great Awakening. Most recently, Calvinism has played second fiddle to the charismatic and seeker-sensitive/church-growth movements, all of which downplay many theological distinctives.

For Harris, things started changing when he read Piper describe God's glory and breathtaking sovereignty. Later, C. J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Mahaney, 51, turned Harris on to his hero, Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher in London. Mahaney assigned him a number of texts, such as Iain H. Murray's Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism. "I would have been reading Christian comic books if left to myself," Harris told me, flashing the characteristic self-deprecating humor he shares with Mahaney.

The theological depth attracted Harris. "Once you're exposed to [doctrine]," he said, "you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you're ruined for anything else."

He notices the same attraction among his cohorts. "I just think there's such a hunger for the transcendent and for a God who is not just sitting around waiting for us to show up so that the party can get started."

Passion conferences also inspired Harris to trust in a God who takes the initiative. Harris first attended Passion in 1999 and sought the help of conference founder Louie Giglio to plan a similar event, from which blossomed Harris's New Attitude conferences. "Someone like Louie is saying, 'You know what, it's not about us, it's about God's glory, it's about his renown.' Now I don't think most kids realize this, but that's the first step down a pathway of Reformed theology. Because if you say that it's not about you, well then you're on that road of saying it's not about your actions, your choosings, your determination."

Passion's God-exalting focus keeps Piper coming back to speak year after year. He attributes the attraction of Reformed theology to the spirit of Passion—namely, pairing demanding obedience with God's grandeur. "They're not going to embrace your theology unless it makes their hearts sing," Piper said.

More Than a 'Crazy Guy'

During the weekend when I visited Piper's church, the college group was learning TULIP. The student teacher spent about 30 minutes explaining unconditional election. "You may never feel the weight, you will never feel the wonder of grace, until you finally relinquish your claim to have any part of your salvation," he said. "It's got to be unconditional."

Following that talk, I met with a group that included Laura Watkins, a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota. Like Harris, Watkins grew up in an evangelical church that downplayed doctrine. Calvinism certainly wasn't much of a draw for Watkins as she searched for a church in college. "The only exposure I had was high-school textbooks that teach about John Calvin as this crazy guy who burned people," she said.

Yet she stayed for the spiritual maturity and depth she noticed in the church. Now she's as articulate an advocate of Calvinism as I met. She unwittingly paraphrased Spurgeon as she explained her move toward Reformed theology. "When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision," Watkins said.

Watkins didn't stop with election. An enlarged view of God's authority changed the way she viewed evangelism, worship, and relationships. Watkins articulated how complementary roles for men and women go hand in hand with this type of Calvinism. "I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way," she explained. Just as "he's chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth," she said, "I don't want to be rebelling against the way God ordered men and women to relate to one another."

Piper no longer scares Watkins. He's more like a father in the faith, though she says they have never spoken. Privately, Piper contrasts sharply with his authoritative pulpit persona. I dare say he's even a little meek, if relentlessly serious. We mused on Reformed theology in his home in February following one of the last sermons he delivered before undergoing surgery for prostate cancer. He reflected on the rebellion he has unrepentantly fomented.

"One of the most common things I deal with in younger pastors is conflict with their senior pastors," Piper said. "They're a youth pastor, and they've gone to Trinity or read something [R. C.] Sproul or I wrote, and they say, 'We're really out of step. What should we do?'"

He tells them to be totally candid and ask permission to teach according to their newfound convictions, even if they are in Wesleyan-Arminian churches. Of course, he tells the young pastors to pray that their bosses would come to share their vision.

Baptist and Reformed

Starting in 1993, the largest Protestant denomination's flagship seminary quickly lost at least 96 percent of its faculty. SBC inerrantists had tapped 33-year-old Al Mohler to head the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which until then had remained open to moderate and liberal professors. Mohler addressed the faculty and re-enforced the school's confession of faith, derived from the landmark Reformed document, the Westminster Confession.

"I said, in sum, if this is what you believe, then we want you to stay. If not, then you have come here under false pretenses, and you must go," Mohler, now 45, said. "As they would say, the battle was joined."

Indeed, television cameras and news helicopters made it difficult for Mohler to work for a while. He still isn't welcome in some Louisville churches. That's not surprising, since no more than 4 faculty members—from more than 100—stayed with Southern after Mohler arrived.

Now it's hard to believe that less than 15 years ago, Southern merited a reputation as a liberal seminary. Mohler has attracted a strong faculty and spurred enrollment to more than 4,300 students—which makes it the largest Southern Baptist seminary. But SBC conservatives may have gotten more than they bargained for in Mohler. The tireless public intellectual freely criticizes perceived SBC shortcomings, especially what he considers misguided doctrine. Oh, and Mohler is an unabashed Calvinist. His seminary now attracts and turns out a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.

"This generation of young Christians is more committed, more theologically intense, more theologically curious, more self-aware and self-conscious as believers because they were not raised in an environment of cultural Christianity," Mohler said. "Or if they were, as soon as they arrived on a university campus, they found themselves in a hostile environment." Mohler explained that Calvinism offers young people a countercultural alternative with deep roots.

Mohler's analysis brought to mind one Southern seminarian I met in Louisville. Bradley Cochran grew up attending a mainline church with his family in rural Kentucky. He hated Sunday mornings, and by age 15 he had racked up a police rap sheet and developed a drug problem. But Cochran's troubles softened his heart to the gospel, and he fled his hometown to enroll at Liberty University. While there, he eagerly shared the Good News and earned an award for his evangelistic enthusiasm. A classmate loaned him some Sproul books, where he learned about predestination. He grew to accept this doctrine, but he said other students criticized his Calvinism before he even understood what the term meant. They couldn't understand how he squared God's sovereign choice with evangelism. Those challenges only intensified his study of Reformed theology. He became emboldened to persuade others.

"I felt like Calvinism was more than abstract points of theology," said Cochran, 25. "I felt you would get a much bigger view of God if you accepted these things, an understanding of justice and grace that would so deepen your affections for God, that would make you so much more grateful for his grace."

Cochran bolstered his arguments by boasting that he had never even read Calvin. Indeed, the renowned reformer appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous. Centuries ago, George Whitefield, the Calvinistic Methodist evangelist of the First Great Awakening, similarly argued: "Alas, I never read anything that Calvin wrote; my doctrines I had from Christ and his apostles; I was taught them of God."

The relationship of theology to evangelism has become a flash point among Southern Baptists. SBC Life, the journal of the SBC's executive committee, published two articles on Calvinism in April. In one, Malcolm Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that Southern Baptists generally reject any notion that God "arbitrarily chooses individuals to be damned before they are born."

"[T]he greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission," Yarnell wrote. He concluded, "Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin."

The most provocative comments in the SBC may belong to Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In April 2005, he presented a paper on "The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals." Lemke warned, "I believe that [Calvinism] is potentially the most explosive and divisive issue facing us in the near future. It has already been an issue that has split literally dozens of churches, and it holds the potential to split the entire convention."

Lemke noted that Calvinism has periodically waxed and waned among Southern Baptists. "However, the number of Calvinist faculty dramatically increased [starting in the 1980s and] over the next 20 years." Lemke and many others explained to me that Calvinists like Mohler earned leadership roles during the SBC's inerrancy battles due to their reliably conservative theology. Their academic and biblical rigor suited them for seminary positions. Now, Lemke said, their influence has made the "newest generation of Southern Baptist ministers … the most Calvinist we have had in several generations."

Lemke doubts that Calvinism has yet reached its high-water mark in the SBC. But he is no fan of this trend. Baptism and membership figures, he said, show that the Calvinist churches of the SBC's Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. According to Lemke, the problem only makes sense, given their emphasis on God's sovereign election.

"For many people, if they're convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect … I don't see how humanly speaking that can't temper your passion, because you know you're not that crucial to the process," Lemke explained.

Evangelicals who adhere to Reformed theology have long chafed at such charges. They remind their critics that Whitefield, one of history's most effective evangelists, believed God elects his church. In addition, Edwards defended the First Great Awakening's revivals with Religious Affections. More recently, J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (1961) showed persuasively that there is no contradiction between those two ideas.

"I think the criticism of Reformed theology is being silenced by the mission and justice and evangelism and worship and counseling—the whole range of pastoral life," Piper said. "We're not the kind who are off in a Grand Rapids ghetto crossing our t's and dotting our i's and telling the world to get their act together. We're in the New Orleans slums with groups like Desire Street Ministries, raising up black elders through Reformed theology from 9-year-old boys who had no chance."

Deep into Doctrine

Calvinistic Baptists often told me they have less of a problem with churches that don't teach election than with churches that downplay doctrine in general. An SBC Life piece published in April by Daniel Akin, a former Southern professor and current president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, presented this perspective. "Let us be known for being rigorously biblical, searching the Scriptures to determine what God really says on [God's sovereignty] and other key doctrinal issues," Akin wrote. "For the most part, we are not doing this, and our theological shallowness is an indictment of our current state and an embarrassment to our history!"

The young people I talked to want churches to risk disagreement so they can benefit from the deeper challenges of doctrine. Joshua Harris said years after he graduated from high school, he bumped into his old youth pastor in the grocery store. The pastor seemed apologetic as they reminisced about the youth group's party atmosphere, focused more on music and skits than Bible teaching, Harris said. But the youth pastor told Harris his students now read through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

"I think there's an expectation that teens can't handle that, or they'll be repulsed by that," Harris told me. "[My youth pastor] is saying the exact opposite. That's a dramatic change in philosophy in youth ministry."

Pastor Kent Hughes senses the same draw for students who cross the street from Wheaton College to attend College Church. "If there's an appeal to students, it's that we're not playing around," Hughes said. "We're not entertaining them. This is life and death. My sense is that's what they're interested in, even from an old man."

Perhaps an attraction to serious doctrine brought about 3,000 ministry leaders to Louisville in April for a Together for the Gospel conference. The conference's sponsors included Mohler and Mahaney, and Piper also spoke. Most of the audience were in their 20s and 30s. Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of TULIP. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques.

Roger Olson, professor of theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, said more than just Calvinists worry about these problems. "A lot of us evangelical Arminians agree with them in their criticisms of popular folk religion," Olson said. "I agree with their basic theological underpinnings—that doctrine is important, that grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not a decision we make."

If Olson is right, co-belligerency on these concerns could forestall further conflict, at least on the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

A Passion for Puritans

Mark Dever hasn't sold books to the degree Piper has. And he doesn't head a flagship institution like his longtime friend Mohler. He doesn't even pastor a megachurch. But oh, how strategic his church is. Hop off Washington, D.C.'s Metro on the Capitol South stop. Head north past the Library of Congress and the Capitol. Turn right and bear east before you reach the Supreme Court. A couple blocks later you'll see Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which Dever has led for 12 years, beginning when he was 33.

Yet location isn't what makes Dever's church so strategic. Maybe it's all the political maneuvering in the air, but Dever networks effectively. He conceived Together for the Gospel and otherwise works to connect conservative evangelicals who worry about the same things. Dever's church also trains six interns at a time, imprinting his beliefs about how a local church should run through a related ministry, 9 Marks.

I visited Capitol Hill Baptist in January. The church kicked off with Sunday school, which really should have been called Sunday seminary. Class options included a survey of the New Testament, spiritual disciplines, and a systematic theology lesson on theories of the Atonement.

Such rigor can be expected from a church led by Dever, who earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge studying the Puritans. He embodies the pastoral theologians who are leading young people toward Reformed theology. He has cultivated a church community in the Puritan mold—unquestionably demanding and disciplined. And the church attracts a very young crowd. Its 525 members average 29 years old. Dever mockingly rejected my suggestion that they aim to attract an under-30 crowd. "Yes, that's why we sing those hymns and have a [55-minute] sermon." Dever smiled. "We're seriously calibrated for the 18th century."

Dever and others have turned a young generation onto some old teachers. He organizes his study around a canon of renowned church leaders that includes Augustine, Luther, Calvin, John Owen, John Bunyan, B. B. Warfield, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and Carl Henry. It's mostly Puritans who have fueled this latest resurgence of Calvinism. Leaders like R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer have for decades told evangelicals they have something to learn from this post-Reformation movement. During the late 1950s, Banner of Truth starting reprinting classic Reformed works, including many from Puritans.

Among the Puritans, Edwards is most popular. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor and Edwards scholar Douglas Sweeney said his seminary includes many more Calvinists than 20 years ago. Not unrelated, he said among evangelicals "there is more interest in Edwards today than there has been since the first half of the 19th century."

Garth Rosell, church history professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has noticed his students' increased interest in Puritan studies, especially Edwards. He suspects young evangelicals gravitate toward the Puritans looking for deeper historic roots and models for high-commitment Christianity.

That's at least what Jordan Thomas, a 28-year-old church planter, told me about the Puritans. "I don't read them to find out what these guys say about Calvinism," Thomas told me in Piper's church. "It's their big-hearted love for Christ. They say things about their devotion to him that I'm just like, I wonder if I know the same Jesus these guys love."

Scripture Trumps Systems

Evangelicals have long disagreed on election and free will. The debate may never be settled, given the apparent tension between biblical statements and the limits of our interpretive skills. In addition, some will always see more benefit in doctrinal depth than others.

Those fearing a new pitched battle can rest easy. That's not because the debate will go away—for the foreseeable future, the spread of Calvinism will force many evangelicals to pick sides. And it's not because mission will trump doctrine—young people seem to reject this dichotomy.

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

That's the essence of what Joshua Harris calls "humble orthodoxy." He reluctantly debates doctrine, but he passionately studies Scripture and seeks to apply all its truth.

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."

Collin Hansen is an associate editor of CT.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today

Read More......

Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses

This is definitely not exhaustive but wanted to share some of the verses that some Jehovah Witnesses recently tried to "convert" me with and then how I refuted their answers with the living and abiding Word of God.

The first verse that they took me to was Revelation 3:14

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this..

They stated that if Jesus had a beginning then He must have been created. The easy answer is truly this: God is called the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End; so if God has a beginning then He was also created but even more piercing is that if God is also the Omega or End, then there will be a day that God doesn't exist, He will have an end. To which they of course said that couldn't happen, I then told them that they were using double hermeneutics which is against correct biblical interpretation. Which I, of course, do not believe that God has a beginning or an end but wanted them to see where their logic must take them. So, I continued to take them to proving Jesus is truly God.

I asked them what the term "Alpha and Omega" means. They stated, "The Beginning and the End" I then asked them, "how many Alpha and Omegas are there?" They replied, "one, the Lord Jehovah" Which is found in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6 and Revelation 1:8. So, getting what I wanted from them to show them Christ, I took them to Revelation 22. Read the whole chapter for yourself but I want to take a look at 4 verses in this chapter: 12,13, 16, 20

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

This Alpha and Omega in verses 12,13 is "coming quickly" and notice verse 16 says that it is Jesus who is speaking and then Jesus uses the same term, "I am coming quickly" in verse 20 and John reconfirms who this by stating, "Amen Come, Lord Jesus." So, we have just seen that if there is one Alpha and Omega then Christ must be Jehovah, because He is called the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 22 just as Jehovah is shown in the above mentioned references.

The last verse they took me to is John 17:3

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

They ask, "If Jesus is truly God why would He say that Jehovah is the only true God?" This is easier to answer than some may think because God the Father calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8

But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Notice who is doing the talking: God the Father about the Son. The Father says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and forever"

God the Father just called Jesus, God.

This is what is so great about the Word of God; it, when read and studied comletely, explains itself. Know that there is many other testaments of who our triune God is, and that it exactly what I worship: the triune God.

I don't know what will happen with those two that came to my door that day, but I told them that I wasn't into winning an argument but in the salvation of their souls. We spoke for about 45 minutes and spoke about many things, I just pray that the Holy Spirit will convict them of their sin and warped thinking of who He truly is.

Read More......

Jesus Is God

We are not being exhaustive here but I want to point to the places that Christ testified of Himself being God and much is also seen, not only in His proclamation, but in the reaction of those whom hated Him most.

The first two that I would like to turn to are: John 8:58,59 and John 10:30

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple
John 8:58,59

When Moses is sent to his people and asks God, “who shall I say sent me?” God tells Moses in Exodus 3:13-15, “tell them I Am who I Am, thus you shall say to Israel, I Am has sent me. "

Jesus by saying that before Abraham was, I am, is saying that He is God and that is why they pick up stones to stone Him, because saying that you are God was punishable by stoning. We see the same thing happen in John 10:30 when Christ says, “ I and the Father are One” What do the Jews do? They, again, pick up stones to stone Him. Let me ask you this. Why did the Jews want to crucify Christ? We find the answer in John 19:7

The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”

Why was this punishable by death? Because it was blasphemy. This is why your Saviour was put to death; because He proclaimed and taught that He was God and the Saviour of the World.

By saying that He was the Saviour He directly says that He is God as we find in Isaiah 43:11, when the Lord Almighty states:

I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no Saviour besides Me.

The next text that I would like to take a look at is Isaiah 41:22; 43:8-10 vs John 13:19

Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the
former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their
outcome; Or announce to us what is coming;
Isaiah 41:22

All the nations have gathered together So that the peoples may be assembled Who among them can declare this And proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,Or let them hear and say, "It is
true." "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I
have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He
Isaiah 43:9,10

From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He
John 13:19

One of the best parts of Scripture that details who God is and how to know the true God is Isaiah 40-45. So here God is telling us how they can know who He is and that is He knows perfectly the past and perfectly the future because He ordained all things. Christ, says the same in John 13:19; again showing His deity and calling Himself God.

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the
living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped.
Revelation 5:11-14

This is one of my favorite passages with John declaring Jesus as God. Notice the subject in verse 12 is Jesus, the Lamb of God. Then in verse 13 says that every created thing, meaning Jesus couldn’t have been created as it says that every created being and by saying this apart from the Lamb of God, this means that the Lamb was uncreated and separate from the created beings. But the clincher is in the last verse.

Who alone can be worshiped? God. Look to what the four living creatures and the elders did…they worshiped. They worshiped the Lamb who was slain.

Jesus claimed in many places that He was and is truly God. These are just a few of the places that this is ascertained. Next time I will look at some of the verses that Jehovah Witnesses bring up to try and disprove our God.

Read More......

A Calvinist Faces Death

I first learned about this story from Irish Calvinist and got this from TIME Magazine. Enjoy!

After roughly 200 years of decline, Calvinism, the faith of the Puritans, has made a modest comeback among younger Evangelical Christians. One of the movement's potent mentors is Albert Mohler, the influential, telegenic head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who made waves last June when he critiqued the religious claims of presidential contender Barack Obama in an essay called Secularism With A Smile.

Mohler, a Calvinist, went into the hospital in December for a fairly routine stomach operation and suddenly developed pulmonary embolisms, a frequently fatal form of clotting, in both lungs. After emergency surgery and four days in the Intensive Care unit, he made a complete recovery. David Van Biema asked him whether his crisis could illuminate his brand of faith.

I'm happy to be talking to you!

And I'm happy to be talking to you! And thankful.

A few years ago you claimed that "everyone is a Calvinist in praying before surgery." Can you explain that?



Yeah. Absolutely. In this sort of crisis we all want God to be sovereign, all powerful — to be able to intervene decisively, to rule over every atom and molecule of the universe. My point was that lots of believers are more dependent on a Calvinist-style sovereign God than they realize when they make their theological claims.

Like who, for example?

The God of liberal theology — He's a linguistic symbol, or a vague kind of spirituality. I've heard liberal theologians who have said that in situations like mine God is basically active in helping you find our own inner resources. It was very apparent to me in the ICU that I had no inner resources. My trust was in the unlimited sovereignty of the God of the Bible. I shudder to think of going through that experience believing that there is no one in control.

Can you explain the nature of your prayer at that point?

I prayed to survive — but I think like most Christians, I prayed, "if it be Your will."

This may be rude, but what response would you expect from Calvinist friends in the event that you had died?

I'm human enough to hope they would grieve my loss, but praise God's mercy in allowing me to live as long as I had and to know that God's plan for me — and them — includes what we wouldn't have chosen, but that we know to be perfect and best.

At the most extreme moments, did you experience any unusual recognitions that reflected your theology?

Yes. In the ICU I couldn't make my brain work in the way I was accustomed to. I couldn't get the words and thoughts to work. But [somehow] I remembered Chapter eight, Verse 26, from the Book of Romans, that says that when we can't pray for ourselves the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with "groaning too deep for words."

Are you saying that that idea was meaningful, or that this was an example — that God placed that verse in your mind when you would not have been able to?

Maybe both. I had memorized it, but God provided it.

A keystone of Calvinism is predestination, and what most non-Calvinists may find odd is how you could be so sure that you were predestined for heaven if you didn't pull through. Or were you?

Yes. I do not see predestination as either a blind force. We have the assurance that "God chose us before we chose Him."

But what gives you that assurance? Isn't it possible for people to think that they believed, and be mistaken and not be saved?

It's not some kind of game. I believe it is possible for a person to wrongly believe they are saved, but it's because they don't really believe in Christ or otherwise confused the Gospel.

How do you know you're not one of them?

We are supposed to look for the signs in our lives, of regeneration and authentic faith, but we should not live in continual fear that we are somehow not assured of our salvation, because that too is a form of doubting God.

One misconception people may have about Calvinism is that it holds that Christians act as though they had free will — when God has orchestrated everything. Can you address that?

Calvinists believe that the human will is instrumental in the experience of salvation. We would take issue with the idea of absolute free will, where people are talking about the priority of the human will in salvation. The big question is whether it is possible for the divine and human wills to operate in absolute harmony. I believe it is.

How would a Calvinist have viewed your successful recovery versus a non-Calvinist?

Some non-Calvinists might say, I'm glad he survived, but I'm so sorry this accident happened to him. A Calvinist would say "God had something for him to learn through this that will be important for his formation for eternity."

And you've learned...

A lot of things. I've blogged about it. One of the things I was really struck by was an empathy, recognizing that even as I was in the ICU, I may have been the healthiest person there.

Anything else?

I want people to know this is not the experience of Al the Calvinist, but Al the Christian. I wasn't reciting Calvinist principles to myself in the hospital bed, but I was very much trusting in the sovereign God any Christian can know and trust.

Read More......

17 Year Old Gets 10 Years

This is a story of finger pointing by the secular media and secular mind set that "everyone is doing it" or "he is such a good boy." If you haven't heard of the story of the 17 year old in Georgia who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison, with no parole and also has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, then you can read here. But, understand that the story is explicit in description of what happened so please only for adults.

The explanation that I have heard of why this young man should not be put into prison is because: Every youth in America is doing the same thing, or the young man was a good student, good athlete, and just all around, a good boy.

This, again, shows how much people don't like, nor will they own up for their own sins without pointing to seemingly other "worse" sins or "worse" criminals. If only they saw their sin the way that God and the Scriptures sees their sin and their "good" works.

James 2:10 tells us that if you break the law in one point you have broken the whole law. Romans 3:10-18 tells us that none are good and that without the Spirit there is no fear of God in their eyes. Isaiah 64:6 tells us that our righteous deeds are like filthy rags, Genesis 6:5; 8:21 states that our thoughts and hearts are continually evil from our youth; Jeremiah 17:9 says that the heart is desperately sick. And what happens when we sin? Romans 6:23 states: Death forever in hell. So, with all this how can anyone plead to this young man's goodness?

Simple...what you see is what you get in America. This is why post modernism has been such a widely taught and accepted practice these days. Whatever feels true to you is true and there are no absolute truths. The thought that all people have some good in them and to always see the good in each other (secular humanism). I have yet to hear that this boy should have been put into prison because he broke the law and that he had premarital sex, or that he should take the punishment for his sin, that he should own up to what he did instead of pointing to the rest of America.

How many will be doing the same at Christ's judgment? When Christ separates the sheep and the goats, how many goats will be saying, "I wasn't as bad as that person!" The problem that the unregenerate apparently don't understand is that even the smallest sin in our eyes, separates us forever from a holy God.

I am not trying to be cold here, nor pretend that I am some righteous "standard" for anyone to follow. The difference is that I know that I am a wretched sinner saved only by God's grace and know that any righteousness in me is because of Christ imputing it unto me by His death on the cross.

When I see this kind of public outcry for the goodness of this young man I wish that someone in that community would stand up and preach the gospel so that even if this young man spends the next 10 years in prison, he will hear the truth of the ugliness of that sin and to know that 10 years is nothing in comparison to hell for eternity.

May God's glory be seen in this event and may we as God's people stand up against sin.

Read More......

Door to Door Evangelism

Talk about a dead issue these days. Who goes door to door anymore? Didn't the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses ruin this for us who believe in the true Gospel? It doesn't really work, does it? As I continue in my thoughts on God's sovereignty from my last post the pracitical aspects of His sovereignty find themselves in this post and in this area of my life. I head the evangelism "team" at my church and a couple of months ago, and again yesterday, we went door to door handing out Bibles to our community and proclaiming the truth of our Lord's death and resurrection. I find this in the New Testament in Acts 5:42

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

Now, I am not saying that if you don't go door to door you are sinning. But, I must ask for all those who don't: Why not?

Is it because of the above mentioned questions: The Mormons ruined it, it doesn't work, etc. etc. Again, do we not believe in God's sovereignty? I don't care what people think of me as I walk up to their door. They can think I am a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness; they can yell at me, shut their door in my face, or tell me to go away from the comforts behind a closed door. You know why? Because I believe that God ordains those who will not only be home or not, but also ordains who will or will not open their door. Not only that, but I believe that this person who takes a Bible might throw that Bible away and the garbage man could pick it up and see it and be saved by the power of the word of God. I believe that these people could keep it on their night stand, be on the brink of a major breakdown and decide to pick up that Bible to save their soul. All because they decided to not go to the store, to open the door to a stranger and to take a Bible and not throw it away. All because of the sovereignty of God. He does not lose anything! If one of these is His elect and I am the only one who will ever witness to them then God will not only direct my steps to their house on the correct day at the correct time, but He will not allow them to be away from their house, will not allow them to NOT open the door and will direct their heart to take a Bible and listen to the strange young man speaking of Christ.

Have the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses "ruined" this for us Christians? Only if you believe that God is not completely sovereign. Because I believe that He is, I go. Yesterday we knocked on many doors, had many responses, but in the end we handed out 40 Bibles to people who may or may not have their own copy of the sacred Scriptures. Now my prayer is that God would open the eyes of their heart to understand them.

Also, if I hear one more person say that "door to door doesn't work" or that "going door to door isn't their 'gift'" I might scream.

May we all press on towards the goal, and that goal is for God to be glorified in all we do.

Read More......

God is Sovereign

Where has the sovereignty of God gone? I recently read a book by James White, called The Sovereign Grace of God, and before going into his beliefs on Calvinism he first had to defend God’s sovereignty. Where have we gone in modern Christendom? Where have we gone that we have to defend, amongst Christians, that God is completely sovereign? I know the debates are strong in the area of Calvinism and Arminianism but God’s sovereignty should not be apart of this debate as this is our core of beliefs. Of course this belief on God leaving us humans to our “free will” has gone exactly where anyone could have guessed, to Process Theology and complete Open Theism. I am excited to have Dr. Bruce Ware coming up to Seattle and discuss this issue at hand, but to think that this is not a discussion between pagans and Christians, but against those who believe in Yahweh, is astonishing. If God is not completely sovereign, yes even in salvation, how can we hope in His omnipotence and omniscience? Some say that God knows all things but does not ordain all things, but Scripture speaks completely to the opposite. Not only can we see this in narrative parts of Scripture but also in the prophets and wisdom literature as well. Let us see the three different areas in compact form. I just want to show one example from each so you can see that God not only knows the future but He actually ordains the future as well, very important to understand.

First, in narrative Scripture.

“Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is
my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have
done this.” Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that in the
integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning
against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.”

Genesis 20:5,6

This comes from when Abraham was traveling with his wife Sarah and came to the land of Gerar (Gerar was near the coast about 12 miles south of Gaza and about 50 miles south of Hebron, in the land of the Philistines) where he tells King Abimelech that Sarah is his sister so that the King does not kill Abraham for his wife. Notice that God says that He “kept” the King “from sinning;” which literally means to restrain or hold back, showing that if the King were left to his own desires the King would have surely done as Abraham predicted (for you don’t have to restrain something unless it is fighting against another force, like restraining water with a dam). God also, “did not let” the King touch her. God shows that from His hand He truly decrees what will happen. We don’t know what would have happened if God didn’t intervene, one can only imagine, but that was not apart of God’s plan so He did not allow it to happen. So you can see the King did not have a “free will” to choose what he would do, but God directed the King’s heart and kept him from sinning.

The second comes from the Prophets:

“Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Because you have not obeyed My words,
behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ declares the
LORD, ‘and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will
bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these
nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and
a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. ‘Moreover, I will take from them
the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the
voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. ‘This
whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the
king of Babylon seventy years. ‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed
I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the LORD, ‘for
their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting
desolation.

Jeremiah 25:8-12

Notice here the great insight to the plans of the Lord. God says, speaking through Jeremiah, that it is only Him who will do all these things. In these five verses God uses the phrase “I will” six times. God is making sure that we know exactly who is declaring these times of destruction of not only His people but also those who were allowed to carry out their sinful and darkened ways. The discussion of the punishment of this sin is for another discussion but shows again, God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in sin. But in all this, God is the one who is doing the sending and the destruction.

The last is in the Wisdom literature:

The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
Proverbs
16:9

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.
Proverbs 21:1

The first verse is a very strong verse. The word for “directs” means to literally “to be securely determined.” So even though we as men might have thoughts and intents on what we will be doing it is God who determines our steps. This is why David can say in Psalm 139 that God “leads him with His hand” and that all his ways were “ordained” or “predetermined” before David was even born.

The second verse is again to show that even the highest courts of men cannot do anything that is not from the hand of God. God turns the King’s heart wherever God wishes, or better yet, wherever God “is pleased to.” Would make sense so that we can truly cry out that no matter what, “God is glorified.”

These are just a quick overview of some great verses in the Bible that speak to the sovereignty of God; which is important to truly trust, so that we can believe Paul when he says,

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who
love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Romans 8:28

How can one believe that these words are true unless they believe that God is completely sovereign in all things? This should not be something that is “debated” amongst Christians, this should be an afterthought. For if God is not completely sovereign, then just one mistake out of someone’s “free will” would cause all the preceding verses and revelatory verses to crumble.

I truly would like someone who doesn’t believe in complete sovereignty to exegete these passages above to show they could mean something besides God pre ordaining all things.

I love the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and it allows me much hope and security in times of distress and trials to know that God is in complete control; even in the lives of those I know that don’t know Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

USS New York

She was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center.

She is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.

Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there."

Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."

The ship's motto? "Never Forget"

Read More......

Letter from Iraq

This is a letter from a dear friend from my church who is over in Iraq fighting in the war. I hope that this will encourage us who are here to pray for our soldiers and realize the luxuries we have here in our homeland. I pray that as you read this you would feel as I, our providence is sovereign and divine, Soli Deo Gloria!

Well, as I told you in the brief email, the official word has finally come down and we are extended. It?s kind of strange that so many of us volunteered but only for specified amount of time. For myself that date was May 1st but since the Brigade was coming back early in March, my choice was to remain in Iraq with a third Brigade here (which I was not going to do) for at least another six months or return home (which was my intent).
Now, it looks like I will be here until at least the end of July unless I hear otherwise.

So, now the question on everyone's mind is how do I really feel about it? Since some of you know me and others are learning about me, you can understand that I analyze almost everything. With that in mind here is what I think.

On the negative side, I am away from my family, friends and church. I am in a war zone in which occasionally we have rockets or mortars exploding someplace near. I live in a desert where sometimes in the winter it is so cold I can see my breath in the summer so hot I can hardly breathe. I eat food that after a month here looks and smells the same. There are times when I am lonely, sometimes fearful and sometimes depressed. I work seven days a week and holidays march by as any other day even those that I revere. I wear the same clothes everyday. Everyone around me wears the same. I sleep surrounded by stonewalls. I am imprisoned behind concertina wire and only occasionally can I venture out at the risk of injury or death. At times I must wear 70 pounds of armor and at all times I carry my M16. I eat with it, drink with it, bathe with it, sleep with it and even pray with it. When it is turned in I will feel like the amputee who can still feel the lost limb even though it is gone. I have known death and it is burned into my memory. Never will I be the same man again. I work with many who do not worship the same God I do nor speak the same language I speak. I do not know who the enemy is as they wear no uniforms. The dust burns my eyes; the heat burns my skin and sucks the energy from my bones. Drinking water is no longer just a relief from the heat but a requirement to keep moving during the day. I am weary and tired and the pain in my back sometimes forces me to stop and find something to lean on or sit down on. I am a prisoner in a strange land with no possibility of parole until the sentence is finished. My family is thousands of miles away and my mother is slowly losing her memory and I fear that she may not know me the next time I see her.


In all of this, yes all of it, I give praise to God for being here. I have walked in Abraham's home, walked on stones that filtered the waters of the Garden of Eden, flown over and walked where many in the old testament walked. I have lived in hell but felt closer to heaven. I have prayed with soldiers, become friends with Chaplains and cried at memorials. I have met the people of this land and moved from being fearful and suspicious to respectful and in awe. I have turned from looking at them as the enemy to looking at them with compassion and love. I eat the food and give thanks for it. I bear the weight of the armor and am thankful that even though I am sometimes in pain, He gives me the strength to continue on, to not give up as I could easily do. With His guidance I humbly write these words so that you can feel some of what I am feeling. It is a gift He has given me to give to you.

Yes I miss my family but He comforts me. He answered my prayer to see my mother before she got any worse and I did before I was deployed to Iraq. When I am depressed, He picks me up and shows me that my life is rich compared to others. When I am fearful He reminds that He is with me and I have nothing to fear. When I work, He gives me rest.

He has blessed me with a wife and family who show nothing but support for what I am doing here.

And now He has extended my time here in Iraq to participate in what might be the beginning of the end for the enemy. But is that the reason I am here? I do not know for Gods plan is sovereign. Am I here to bring some to the Lord or to encourage someone reading this? Am I here to write a book or to learn for my own growth? Or maybe I am here to learn that all are Gods children and to not judge those that have been led astray and believe in a god that is not the true God. I do not know for Gods plan is sovereign.

I used to believe that I volunteered to be here but I don?t believe that anymore. I believe, no that is not correct, I know, God urged me to volunteer. I feared failing the physical but I passed. I feared that I would not be able to handle the armor but I did. I feared, at my age, to wear the 70 pounds of armor and carry over 100 pounds of equipment and though I struggled, I did it. I feared the unknown but embraced it. I feared not being up for the task and at times I excelled. I hated leaving my family, felt the pain of the loss of my brothers wife, the loss of an Aunt, my mother moving to a home and the pain my father must feel over it. But I handled it. I was not there when Tyler had a major operation, was not there for my anniversary, nor my wife?s birthday. I will miss my sons 18th birthday, the anniversary of the day my wife and I met, and I will be alone for my 52nd birthday (another birthday). But I handled it. Do not think that I handled it due to any strength I have because it just is not true. It has only been through Him who has given me the strength when I have felt I have none left. There are days when I ache over missing so much for not being there for my family. No dear friends it is not my strength that keeps me moving. It is not me who walks the base not fearing the rockets that may or may not fall. It is only through Him.


No, I do not know why I am here and it may sound strange but I don?t care. I don?t care if I ever know until I have the opportunity to ask the Lord face to face. I just know that for whatever reason; it is His will and I am humbled that He has chosen me for some task that my small, finite mind cannot fathom. Whether it is for me personally or for others or for both, He is my God and I gladly will follow Him wherever He leads me.

One thing I have learned is that we who are believers never need to question our worth or judge others by how many people they have or have not led to the Lord. We need only to understand that once saved, we are His and once open to His will, we are His vessel that He will use sometimes, I believe, without our even realizing it. Is it really important to know what He has done through us or is it more important that we are open to His will and accepting of our place on this Earth? No dear brothers and sister I do not know Gods plan for me here in Iraq, all I know is that He is here with me and He is sovereign. As much as I desire to know, I accept that I do not and may never. I just know that I have learned and grown, my wife and son have learned and grown. If there is no other reason for my being here, I praise Him for it. But I must admit that in the back of mind there is more that He has planned. He has shown me so much here. He has turned the desert from an ugly
sandy nomads land where no life existed into something totally unexpected by me; a land that has so much beauty if you just open your eyes. He opened mine. He showed me the beauty of the stars in the sky in Tikrit, the animals and plants and even the dust devils that cut across the land. He has let me mingle with the people here. I still am amazed. I am still in awe and I am still thankful.
So be at peace with my being here longer. God is not through with me here yet and has something else He needs me to do. I don't know what it is but my God is sovereign.

May the Lord who created the heavens, the Earth, Adam and Eve, became man and was crucified, buried and rose on the third day, bless you and your family. May you never doubt your worth, accept your failures, repent and move forward. May the pain you have suffered in your lives be replaced with the knowledge that our God is a good God and there is a plan for ALL of us. May you always understand that God loves you no matter what. And when you sin as we all do it is not God who turns his back on you but we who turn our backs in shame. And when we ask for forgiveness and turn back to face our Father, remember that He is not frowning at you as if you are a bad child returning to the fold. No, He is smiling, possibly with tears of happiness in His eyes and His hand extended saying, ?I told you that I would never forsake you?. Believe it!

God Bless you all. Pray hard for the protection of those soldiers who will march into Baghdad. Remain strong in the faith He is our sovereign God and pray that all of those who face death daily come to believe as we do; that God does love them and will be with them. Most importantly pray that many will come to know the Lord; both the soldier and the people of Iraq.

Be Blessed,
Mitch

Read More......

Contend Earnestly Books

Although a work in progress to get more of the commentaries on the site, our book review blog is up and running. Hope you enjoy, and for those that I know through the blogosphere, I would also love if you wanted to drop a book review on the site to let me know...the more the merrier. Contend Earnestly Books

Read More......

Dueling Blogs

Just wanted all to know that starting this Saturday I, Seth, will be "dueling" with Josh from Theology Online in dealing with eschatology. Josh and I have discussed many things over the internet and have enjoyed sharing instead of quarreling over matters. Josh emailed me and invited me to do something that I have never done, dueling blog posts. It should be interesting and I hope that no one, meaning commenters, will deal with this issue in a hateful manner. Be on your best behavior and know that I have a great deal of respect for Josh in our differences in the past. We are going to start our discussion on Pre-Trib vs. Post-Trib rapture. I hope you all enjoy and in the meantime check out a great series on Bible Versions on Theology Online from Larry (Theologian).

Read More......

Resurgence Conference 2007

I am now excited for this March more than I was before, because of the Resurgence Conference here in Seattle. It is sponsered by Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church and the keynote speaker is Dr. Bruce Ware. It used to be that Seattle got very little attention but now, we are getting more and more. I pray that this will continue and looks like it will with James White doing a cruise up here next October as well.

Read More......

Theonomy Discussion

I was surprised, showing my ignorance of some issues, to find out a view I did not know was growing with popularity: Theonomy: theos = God + nomo = law. As a theological expression, it means the abiding authority of all of the Bible's teachings, unless the Bible itself asserts that those teachings have been fulfilled or rescinded.

It first came out in our discussion on Calvin vs Servetus and then "the gloves came off." I found an article that I have just started to read, but before I finished, I thought I would go ahead and supply the link for all to read. Enjoy.

Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment
by Sam Waldron



ummm...go read the article...I have nothing else to say

Read More......

Sealed: Holy Spirit and Circumcision

We had a great discussion, and I stress discussion, over at Theology Online about paedo baptism vs credo baptism. I thought that Lance Roberts brought out a great point so I thought I would stress it in blog form. The paedo baptist would contend that our children, children of the covenant, are to be baptized in the same way that a child was circumcised in the Old Testament. We as credo baptist would believe that baptism is only given to believers as a sign of what the Holy Spirit did on the inside when He baptized us internally (Romans 6). Please do not get this confused with the second baptism of the Spirit that charismatics speak of.

The real question though is what is the role of baptism? I will say this to make sure all understand. I used to think that paedo baptist had no reasoning for their thought process and just did it from tradition of the Catholic Church that carried over to Calvin, Luther and then to the newly found Presbyterian Church of long ago.

Again, go to either Lane's blog or Josh's to get a better understanding of the paedo baptism stance on the issue at hand. Here was Lance's thoughts and I find them interesting:


The seal for the faith of Abraham was circumcision and our seal in the New Testament church is the Holy Spirit. Here are the proof texts:

How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while
circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while
uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without
being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
Romans
4:10,11

Here is the other texts referring to us as the New Testament saints:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your
salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit
of promise,
Ephesians 1:13

Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Ephesians 4:30

This thought of the Holy Spirit being our "circumcision" would make a lot of sense as well. This would also make sense being that the Israelites were told that their hearts must be circumcised.
We find this in Jeremiah 4:4; Deut 10:16; 30:6

Further, Ezekiel 36:26 states:

“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."

I know this is a lot of Scripture references but here is the last one that seems to point that the Holy Spirit, when He regenerates, He gives you the circumcision not made by hands:

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in
the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Colossians 2:11

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Rom 2:29

So, it seems through this process that the Holy Spirit, when He regenerates, circumcises, then our obedience would be to follow this inward circumcision with our outward observance of that through baptism. Since only the believer is baptized with the Spirit and circumcised by Him, only those who believe should be baptized, not the children.

Acts 2:38
Repent and be baptized

Read More......

Genesis 22 - Part 3

The last time that we left off we ended with Genesis 22:5, with Abraham commenting that "we will worship and return to you." We now move on to the crux of the passage as Abraham and Isaac leave together to worship their God. Here is our verse:

Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.
Genesis 22:6

Notice that this again, is showing Abraham, as the one who prepared the wood for the offering and placing it on his son. We see the same mentioned in John 3:16, that shows that God loved us so much that He sent His Son to be sacrificed. In essence, God placed the cross on the shoulders of Christ for His Son to bear. Notice also that Abraham carries the fire and the knife, those things which actually slay the son. As we have seen before, in Acts 2:23 that Christ was delivered over by the predermined plan and foreknowledge of God. So, God sent Christ to the cross. We also see this more fully in Isaiah 53:4d

...smitten of God, and afflicted

The word for smitten means to be struck down, just as Abraham was to strike down His son.

Genesis 22:8 continues:

Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my
son." So the two of them walked on together.

God will indeed provide a Lamb.

saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power
and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."
Rev 5:12

Notice also that the two of them walking together to the place of the offering, showing a constant communion, as with our Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. Their constant communion is one that cannot be fully shown on the pages of Scripture and we will never fully understand what it meant spiritually when Christ states on the cross:

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?
Mark 15:34

Continuing:

Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the
altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the
altar, on top of the wood.
Genesis 22:9

Two things of note here is to notice that it was Abraham who bound his son Isaac on the wood, showing once again that it was Abraham, just as God was, doing the sacrificing. But, one thing often missed is to know that Isaac is somewhere between the age of 17-35, the Jewish Talmud states that Isaac was in his early 30's, while Abraham was over the age of 100. So, not only did Abraham bound Isaac, but Isaac was old enough and strong enough to not allow this to happen. He could have very well decided that his father was in the wrong and not allow this to happen; but Isaac was a willing sacrifice. Just as Christ. Christ willingly gave up his life.

fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set
before Him endured the cross,despising the shame, and has sat down at the right
hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12:2

As we conclude, Genesis 22:13 states:

Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in
the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up
for a burnt offering in the place of his son.

Notice that the promised Lamb was not yet sent to Abraham but it was a ram. Christ was yet to come, the Lamb, to take away the sins of not only Isaac but to Abraham and God's chosen people. Isaac, as Christ, was the sacrifice, the willing sacrifice. Notice also that Isaac never once complains to his father, but is submissive to him at all times. The only time he questions his father is asking, "Where is the lamb?" But the question is almost posed as if Isaac was saying I will go and get the lamb if we have none, the question was not to degrade his father. Isaac at all times was submissive to his father; just as Christ.

What great insights in the foreshadowing of the cross. What great promises we have in Christ, that in Him their is no sin and He exchanged that righteousness for those who will believe. Have you believed? Take a look at this site that explains God's great gift of salvation.

Know this. That God provided the ram for Abraham and even greater:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8

He is definitely the great and only, Jehovah Jireh. (Genesis 22:14)

Read More......

Prayer and Answered Prayer for Al Mohler

Most of you know that Al Mohler has been having some serious health issues, but here is the update that I have taken from Tim Challies:

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was moved out of intensive care and into a private room at Baptist Hospital East this afternoon and continues to improve following complications from abdominal surgery that was performed Dec. 28.

Russell D. Moore, dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern, said Mohler is in good spirits following a difficult weekend.

"I am extremely encouraged after having just left his room," Moore said Monday afternoon. "He is eating, he is in good spirits and it looks as though the situation is completely under control at this point. He looks strong, is in remarkably good spirits and is even cracking jokes.



"Dr. Mohler is very appreciative of the prayers of God’s people and the outpouring of support from the churches and from the community."

Mohler was placed in intensive care Friday after developing blood clots in both lungs. After nearly a week of intense abdominal pain, he was admitted to the hospital on Dec. 27 and underwent surgery the following day.

While physicians reported that the procedure went well and that Mohler's abdominal issues were remedied, the development of blood clots led doctors to move Mohler to the hospital’s intensive care unit.

Moore asked that the seminary community and local churches continue to pray for Mohler and his family during the recovery. It is not yet known when Mohler will be released from the hospital, however Moore said the improvement in Mohler's condition along with his high spirits were readily evident.

"He has a stack of books and articles in his bed along with a massive number of highlighters," Moore said, "so the Albert Mohler I know is back."

Prayer Requested:

Let's continue to pray that God will heal Dr. Mohler and get him back to serving Him in his home, church and seminary.

Read More......

Which Church is it? Universal or Philadelphia's

I know that we have a lot of reformed readers here that will jump on this band wagon and love to "make fun" of me and my co-horts being dispensationalists, but I still must point out a troubling "proof" text that someone recently used for the rapture of the church. And when I say that my reformed friends will "make fun" I am kidding as they have been very gracious to us here at Contend Earnestly and I have enjoyed their company. Now time to move on.

As I was a young boy in the pew of my churches we would always sing "Just as I am" or "I surrender all," both great songs, and as people would respond to the altar call, which I longer adhere to, the pastor would almost always say, "Jesus stands at the door and knocks and whomever lets Him in will have eternal life."

This reference has been used by a lot of "free-willers" and Arminians to show that Jesus Christ literally stands at the heart of every man. This view of Christ really depicts a sorrowful Saviour with no control, and definitely no sovereignty, but almost seems as though He just waits on us and when we finally decide, "He wins one for the gipper!" Sorry, but this is not what this means and this is not what happens. Read John 6:35-45 and pick up "Drawn by the Father" for the illustration and exhortation on that text.

The verse used is in Revelation is speaking directly to the church of Laodicea, and them alone. Christ was not welcomed in their worship and Christ was commanding to be worshiped or their church was to be condemned.

Anyway. If we take this in context, we must also throw out another misnomer. It is this letter directed towards Philadelphia.

Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you
from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole
world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Revelation 3:10

I have heard many use this as a way of showing a Pre-Trib Rapture, which to many reading this sounds like folly in itself, but bear with me. There are other verses that I see that we can use for the pre-trip rapture but we must not go here for that exhortation. For if you use this we must adhere to, Jesus standing at the heart of every man waiting to be accepted, which I will never do.

We must test all those who are teachers to the word of the Lord and as I look at this defense of a pre-trip rapture it leaves me wanting. Are we really willing to use this verse as a an overarching message to the universal church? Because if we do we must not stop there and must charge that the same is meant in the next view verses to Laodicea when speaking of the knocking at the door, and that cannot be or the whole of the Doctrines of Grace does not make sense.

This promise is only for Philadelphia and not for us. Philadelphia's faith was great, therefore they will not have to go through the time of wrath.

Use discernment and test these Scriptures that have been used so many times in the past.

Read More......

Packer on Recovering the Gospel

I took this from "Morning Coffee with Gomarus" and thought I would share it here as well. Enjoy and thanks Jim for the post!

The following is an extract from J. I. Packer’s Introduction to a 1958 reprint of John Owen’s, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Although penned over 35 years ago, Packer’s words ring truer than ever when he says “One of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today is the recovery of the gospel.” He follows with these words:

This last remark may cause some raising of eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.

There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.



One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of “helpfulness.” Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not “helpful”; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be, the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence “at the door of our hearts” for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need.

Note: It is at this point that Packer suggests Owen’s treatise on redemption (The Death of Death) can give us help. For Packer’s entire introduction, see here.

Read More......

Are Homosexuals "Born that Way?"

Tyrone asked a very good question, "Are homosexuals born homosexuals, or are they born into sin, like all of us, with this specific sin being their "vice?" I have gone back and forth in my own mind over the past couple of years with this issue. First, I thought, of course they weren't born that way, there is no way! Then again, I had no Scripture to point to. So, then I thought: Are we not all born into sin, some of us prideful, some of us lustful, some of us greedy, some of us, etc. etc. etc. So couldn't some of us just be born gay? This doesn't say that being gay is not a sin, for it still does, and still says that those who are gay, prideful, lustful, greedy, and the such still are commanded to repent and turn to Christ. But then I found the clincher that changed my mind once again.

Romans 1:27

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

The word for "natural" means in the Greek "inborn" or "produced by nature." This means that those that are gay are going against what they were inborn with: heterosexuality. If you look even further into Greek literature, Aristotle and the such, they also used this exact word for "the way nature intended" when using this word in their writings. I am not saying that they were writing about homosexuality, but they used the words when pertaining to the way "things were meant to be by nature." So, I have gone back to my roots, with Scripture this time, knowing that the homosexual is NOT born a homosexual. They are however, like us all, born into sin. They might have different struggles than we do in this particular sin, but they were not specifically born as a homosexual.

Read More......

Around the Web

Fide-O discusses church membership

Theology Online "debating" on baptism and a little on covenants

Calvinist Gadfly having an interesting time with some songs

Dan Philips has an interesting post over on Team Pyro

Read More......

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

I have been having a dialogue with someone who emailed me and asked if I felt that homosexuality is a sin. As we have dialogued through email the discussion turned into more of a heated debate. I am saddened when I see this happen but am not surprised when we are speaking of such a "hot" topic these days and also trying to defend it with the most absolute and closed-minded source: the Bible.

Is not My word like fire?” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock?
Jeremiah 23:29

When we take a look at homosexuality we must see what God says to the issue and then we will take a look at what this person has tried to refute me with.

The first and obvious Scripture lies in these verses:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 18:22

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act
Leviticus 20:13

To these the man replied, "this is the law of the Old Testament and has no barring for us in the New"

Without going into a complete defense of this I just remarked simply, "In Leviticus 18:23 it tells us not to mate with animals, is this now appropriate for Christians to do?" Simply put, no answer on this one from him.

I then went to the New Testament and showed Romans 1:26,27

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

This obviously points to not only the lust but also the carrying out of that lust to the "indecent act."

He tried to then say, "this is saying that it is unnatural for a heterosexual to have lust for another man but it is okay for a homosexual to have that same lust."

The interesting point to also make is that when we see the word "men with men" in verse 27, this is a Greek term meaning, "abuser of (one’s) self with mankind, a sodomite" So if anything, this isnt' even speaking to a heterosexual because a heterosexual will not have these lusts or these acts that are both called improper and improper.

The same term for "men with men" is used both in 1 Cor 6:9 and also 1 Timothy 1:10, and they both point to that the homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I will stress this, if you have read this far, I do not "focus" my time on this issue, nor do I put it above other sins as more vital or less vital, but trust the word of the Lord that says:

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he
has become guilty of all.
James 2:10

The finality of my email to him was that the burden of proof lies on him. God never speaks of homosexuality in any sort of good whatsoever, and actually sends down fire from heaven to destroy a city because of it.

To put some kindling on the fire I also had to refute his idea that David and Jonathan had a love relationship with one another that extended past friendship.

May we all hold to Scripture alone and His glory alone.

Read More......

Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology

I have taken this from the book: Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings edited by Timothy F. Lull


In this crucial document from the early fall of 1517, Luther offers a number of theses for debate that are sharply critical of the currently reigning method of scholastic theology, with its high confidence in human reason and free will. The philosophical dependence of theology on Aristotle, going back two hundred and fifty years to St. Thomas Aquinas, may initially have been a creative and worthwhile experiment. But now as Luther views the scholastic theology of his own time, this approach has blunted the distinctiveness of the gospel.
The reader may well find the thesis-form forbidding and find some of the issues that Luther is addressing difficult to understand. These theses were written for a student to defend in an academic exercise at the University of Wittenberg and therefore were designed only to provide initial clues about these positions. Their very pointed, exaggerated nature is part of the intellectual challenge of the disputation for those who must develop and defend them.
But the reader who perseveres will find in them many of the major themes of Luther’s own theology as they had been emerging in his biblical lectures of the preceding years. One can at least see that Luther already had strong convictions on a number of issues, especially the relations between sin, grace, free will, and good works, even before the debate about indulgences began.
Luther’s language is sharp, but his official posture is still deferential. He concludes the attack on scholastic theology with the claim that we believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church. But within weeks Luther had launched a debate about the selling of indulgences that brought him and his theology to the attention of the highest church authorities.
Translated by Harold J. Grimm

1. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common knowledge.
2. This is the same as permitting Pelagians1 and all heretics to triumph, indeed, the same as conceding victory to them.
3. It is the same as making sport of the authority of all doctors of theology.
4. It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil [Cf. Matt. 7:17–18].
5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. Tiffs is said in opposition to common opinion.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus2 and Gabriel.3
7. As a matter of fact, without the grace of God the will produces an act that is perverse and evil.
8. It does not, however, follow that the will is by nature evil, that is, essentially evil, as the Manichaeans4 maintain.
9. It is nevertheless innately and inevitably evil and corrupt.
10. One must concede that the will is not free to strive toward whatever is declared good. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
11. Nor is it able to will or not to will whatever is prescribed.
12. Nor does one contradict St. Augustine when one says that nothing is so much in the power of the will as the will itself.
13. It is absurd to conclude that erring man can love the creature above all things, therefore also God. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
14. Nor is it surprising that the will can conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
15. Indeed, it is peculiar to it that it can only conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.
17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.
18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.
19. Nor can we apply the reasoning of Scotus concerning the brave citizen who loves his country more than himself.
20. An act of friendship is done, not according to nature, but according to prevenient grace. This in opposition to Gabriel.
21. No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence against God.
22. Every act of concupiscence against God is evil and a fornication of the spirit.
23. Nor is it true that an act of concupiscence can be set aright by the virtue of hope. This in opposition to Gabriel.
24. For hope is not contrary to charity, which seeks and desires only that which is of God.
25. Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.
26. An act of friendship is not the most perfect means for accomplishing that which is in one.5 Nor is it the most perfect means for obtaining the grace of God or turning toward and approaching God.
27. But it is an act of conversion already perfected, following grace both in time and by nature.
28. If it is said of the Scripture passages, “Return to me,…and I will return to you” [Zech. 1:3.], “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” [Jas. 4:8], “Seek and you will find” [Matt. 7:7], “You will seek me and find me” [Jer. 29:13], and the like, that one is by nature, the other by grace, this is no different from asserting what the Pelagians have said.
29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
31. It is said with the idlest demonstrations that the predestined can be damned individually but not collectively. This in opposition to the scholastics.
32. Moreover, nothing is achieved by the following saying: Predestination is necessary by virtue of the consequence of God’s willing, but not of what actually followed, namely, that God had to elect a certain person.
33. And this is false, that doing all that one is able to do can remove the obstacles to grace. This in opposition to several authorities.
34. In brief, man by nature has neither correct precept nor good will.
35. It is not true that an invincible ignorance excuses one completely (all scholastics notwithstanding);
36. For ignorance of God and oneself and good work is always invincible to nature.
37. Nature, moreover, inwardly and necessarily glories and takes pride in every work which is apparently and outwardly good.
38. There is no moral virtue without either pride or sorrow, that is, without sin.
39. We are not masters of our actions, from beginning to end, but servants. This in opposition to the philosophers.
40. We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. This in opposition to the philosophers.
41. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This in opposition to the scholastics.
42. It is an error to maintain that Aristotle’s statement concerning happiness does not contradict Catholic doctrine. This in opposition to the doctrine on morals.
43. It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. This in opposition to common opinion.
44. Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.
45. To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic—this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This in opposition to common opinion.
46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure. This in opposition to the new dialecticians.
47. No syllogistic form is valid when applied to divine terms. This in opposition to the Cardinal.6
48. Nevertheless it does not for that reason follow that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic forms. This in opposition to the same new dialecticians and to the Cardinal.
49. If a syllogistic form of reasoning holds in divine matters, then the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrable and not the object of faith.
50. Briefly, the whole Aristotle7 is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics.
51. It is very doubtful whether the Latins comprehended the correct meaning of Aristotle.
52. It would have been better for the church if Porphyry8 with his universals had not been born for the use of theologians.
53. Even the more useful definitions of Aristotle seem to beg the question.
54. For an act to be meritorious, either the presence of grace is sufficient, or its presence means nothing. This in opposition to Gabriel.
55. The grace of God is never present in such a way that it is inactive, but it is a living, active, and operative spirit; nor can it happen that through the absolute power of God an act of friendship may be present without the presence of the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
56. It is not true that God can accept man without his justifying grace. This in opposition to Ockham.9
57. It is dangerous to say that the law commands that an act of obeying the commandment be done in the grace of God. This in opposition to the Cardinal and Gabriel.
58. From this it would follow that “to have the grace of God” is actually a new demand going beyond the law.
59. It would also follow that fulfilling the law can take place without the grace of God.
60. Likewise it follows that the grace of God would be more hateful than the law itself.
61. It does not follow that the law should be complied with and fulfilled in the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.
63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.
64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.
65. Outside the grace of God it is indeed impossible not to become angry or lust, so that not even in grace is it possible to fulfill the law perfectly.
66. It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.
67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.
68. Therefore it is impossible to fulfill the law in any way without the grace of God.
69. As a matter of fact, it is more accurate to say that the law is destroyed by nature without the grace of God.
70. A good law will of necessity be bad for the natural will.
71. Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God.
72. What the law wants, the will never wants, unless it pretends to want it out of fear or love.
73. The law, as taskmaster of the will, will not be overcome except by the “child, who has been born to us” [Isa. 9:6].
74. The law makes sin abound because it irritates and repels the will [Rom. 7:13].
75. The grace of God, however, makes justice abound through Jesus Christ because it causes one to be pleased with the law.
76. Every deed of the law without the grace of God appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. This in opposition to the scholastics.
77. The will is always averse to, and the hands inclined toward, the law of the Lord without the grace of God.
78. The will which is inclined toward the law without the grace of God is so inclined by reason of its own advantage.
79. Condemned are all those who do the works of the law.
80. Blessed are all those who do the works of the grace of God.
81. Chapter Falsas concerning penance, dist. 5, 10 confirms the fact that works outside the realm of grace are not good, if this is not understood falsely.
82. Not only are the religious ceremonials not the good law and the precepts in which one does not live (in opposition to many teachers);
83. But even the Decalogue itself and all that can be taught and prescribed inwardly and outwardly is not good law either.
84. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God, spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
85. Anyone’s will would prefer, if it were possible, that there would be no law and to be entirely free.
86. Anyone’s will hates it that the law should be imposed upon it; if, however, the will desires imposition of the law it does so out of love of self.
87. Since the law is good, the will, which is hostile to it, cannot be good.
88. And from this it is clear that everyone’s natural will is iniquitous and bad.
89. Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.
90. The grace of God is given for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in loving God. In opposition to Gabriel.
91. It is not given so that good deeds might be induced more frequently and readily, but because without it no act of love is performed. In opposition to Gabriel.
92. It cannot be denied that love is superfluous if man is by nature able to do an act of friendship. In opposition to Gabriel.
93. There is a kind of subtle evil in the argument that an act is at the same time the fruit and the use of the fruit. In opposition to Ockham, the Cardinal, Gabriel.
94. This holds true also of the saying that the love of God may continue alongside an intense love of the creature.
95. To love God is at the same time to hate oneself and to know nothing but God.
96. We must make our will conform in every respect to the will of God (in opposition to the Cardinal);
97. So that we not only will what God wills, but also ought to will whatever God wills.
In these statements we wanted to say and believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church.
1517

Editor, T. F. L., & Second Edition Editor, W. R. R. (2005; 2005). Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Fortress Press.

Read More......