If the law has not passed away, what then of grace?

Some will try and claim that Jesus’ saying that the Law has not passed away, and Paul’s pointing out that salvation is by grace through faith alone are contradictory. Are they contradicting each other? NO!

Striving to proclaim & defend biblical truth and yet NOT be a grade-A jerk in the process

We Christians are to proclaim truth boldly. This does not mean we be jerks in the process. This is something I have been growing in and am still continuing to grow in during this process of sanctification I think.

Temptation to dress up the gospel

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus Christ] has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

2 Timothy 4:1-5
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

I recall last summer, I prayed with Nolan about my roommates for this current school year I am in. We prayed that God’s will be done and that it may mean being paired with nonChristians, so be it that I may share the good news of Christ Jesus with them. Well, I am thankful Nolan encouraged me to pray God’s will be done… because that was his will, and it was done.

Neither of my two roommates happened to be believing Christians. One actually is a member of the Mormon Church, and he and I have recently had some interesting conversations/discussions about Christianity, the origin of the Scriptures, and the personage of Christ. I must remember to write a bit more in-depth about what happened there. Never the less, I did share the gospel with him, sharing the law and the free grace of God with him. This individual, William, is no longer my roommate, as he graduated yesterday. Please keep William in your prayers, that he would respond to the gospel call to repent and believe… not in the Mormon Jesus but in the true Triune God of the Bible (Mormons deny the Trinity, if you did not know. In doing so, they worship a false deity of their own making).

My other roommate, Zhu (pronounced “Jue”) is a bit more interesting. After noticing early on that just about every Sunday morning William and Kacey and I would head to our respective church services, Zhu stated he would be interested in going to church, because it was “the good thing to do.” I carefully explained to him Kacey and I did not attend church services to “do good” or to earn spiritual points. We go to worship God for who He is and what He’s done– for his mercy in choosing to seek and save the lost who are utterly unable to save themselves. It’s not about our spirituality being furthered or earing good points. It’s about worshiping YHWH alone. I shared the law and gospel with him as well, encouraging him to consider the things we’d talked about.

Yet when I’ve tried to speak with him about Christianity recently, his response is to shake his head with a smile on his face and say “No, no.” There is no … interest in the things of God. He once came back from his REL 100 (Intro to Religion) course after learning about Hinduism and their deities very enthused about what he had learned. “I think I like the gods of Hinduism much more than the God of Christianity! I mean, the gods of Hinduism have many arms, and look VERY COOL! Where as Jesus is just a man… and very boring!” is what he told me.

:-\ How do you respond to that? How do you respond to someone who is primarily interested in how COOL God looks or seems to him… how relevant He seems? How do you respond to someone who wants a religion that is pleasing to his eyes and his ears? Do you give him what he wants?

Do you scratch his “itching ears”? The Bible is clear: NO.

Now this seems to go against human wisdom. In advertising and other mediums, you learn to make things attractive so people buy into what you are selling. This is a commonly used tactic in the world… make things flashy, sexy, cool and people will buy into the product so they will seem flashy, sexy and cool.

However this is worldly wisdom… not the way God works.

There has been a lot of temptation to try and dress up the gospel. Take him to a church he would be amazed and wowed by the service. (As if the service is for HIS enjoyment and not for the worshiping of God) Try and suggest campus ministries that reach out to unsaved individuals by preaching “relevant” lessons. This seems like it would do some good from a worldly perspective in getting him saved! right? If you want to see how God saves men… see Romans 10:5-17. God uses preaching the Word of God… the truth of the gospel. Not marketing tactics, but the truth through boldly preaching. This will seem to be the foolish thing to do (1 Corinthians 1:20-25) from a perspective of the unregenerate world. But “the foolishness of god is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25).

We, as Christians, are not called to scratch the itching ears. We are called to preach the Word, in season and out of season. To preach the gospel of Christ and Him crucified. Not to wow and amaze by how cool or relevant we can seem. But to call all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.

Tempted as we may be to dress up the gospel in a way that seems relevant and / or hip to the world, we must remain obedient to God’s truth that is the Word. Preach the Word… when it is popular and unpopular to do so–in season AND out of season.

<><

Exceeding the Righteousness of the Pharisees

Matthew 5:20
[Jesus said,] ”For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

My name is Ryan.  And I am a law breaker.  Yes, I have broken God’s law.  I am a filthy wretch.  I am a liar, a hypocrite, and adulterer at heart… I am a murderer even.

Yes.  A murderer.  As recorded in Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus explained the sin of murder is not limited only to the actual act of slaying someone with a blade.  “Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”  Have you been angry with someone?  You are liable to judgment by Almighty God, who is free to judge you as though you HAD murdered someone.  “Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”  I can say, with confidence, I have insulted others.  My parents… my family… my close friends… my enemies.

Now, I COULD make a case that the use of “his brother” means these offenses are only applicable to the act of murder in God’s eyes, IF the offense is toward a FELLOW BELIEVER.  The term “brother” is often used in the New Testament to speak of fellow believers, so this could be extended to this passage (though of course in the ORIGINAL context, the “brothers” would be Jews… however, we Christians are grafted into the vine… so we are all BELIEVERS).  However, I find this irrelevant for 2 reasons:  1) later in the same sermon, Jesus says to love and to greet not only your brothers, but also your enemies (v. 47).  If you are murdering or insulting your neighbor, enemy or not, is that very loving?  Can you flick someone off in love?  I think not.  2) Even if this command is to be concerned ONLY with believers… OK!  So… have I been angry with a fellow believer?  Have I insulted a fellow Christian? YES… ok… so even so, I’ve STILL not kept that law… and I’m guilty as a murderer in God’s eyes, from his standard.

So under the Law, what is the standard to enter the kingdom of heaven?  What is the requirement we must keep, “so that [we] may be sons of [our] Father who is in heaven?” (v. 45)  The answer:  Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.  Or… as Jesus restates in v. 48:  “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Under the law… the only thing that can save us is perfection.  Keeping the law PERFECTLY.  Time doesn’t blot out sin.  There is no statute of limitations when it comes to God’s perfect holy law.  If you want to get into Heaven, there’s is ONE thing you HAVE to do to get there:  BE PERFECT.  Problem:  I am not perfect.  I look at the mirror of the law, and I only see my own sin.  Any attempt of self-justification is futile.  No amount of convoluted reasoning can change the fact that I am a law breaker.  A transgressor against YHVH.  I sinner.  I sin because I am a sinner.  You sin because you are a sinner.

Left to my own, there is no possible way I would ever inherit the kingdom of heaven.  It’s impossible, I am stained by my sin.  And if you think you can earn your way into Heaven, you MUST be PERFECT.  But you know you are not perfect.  Like me, you are a law breaker.  A liar… a hypocrite… one who lusts… and a murderer.  Left up to yourself, you are screwed.  You WILL NOT get to Heaven.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for YOU to DO ANYTHING to make it so that YOU can get to Heaven.  I don’t care how much you cared for the orphan and the widow… I don’t care how much you gave… how much you read your Bible… how you only had sex within marriage… how you gave up porn… how you don’t drink underage… how often you took communion… or if you were baptized…  how often you pray… how you say you don’t watch filthy movies… the fact is IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!  YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!  If you think you are good enough, you are a LIAR… and right there alone you are disqualified from the inheritance.  Because guess what?  YOU ARE NOT PERFECT!  YOU ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS!  YOU WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ON YOUR OWN BY YOUR WORKS!  I cannot stress this enough.

Nothing I do will make me good enough to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

I have noticed a growing confusion with the law and the gospel.  SO often people are presenting the law AS gospel.  I have encountered pastors saying that the gospel is all about LOVE–Love God, and Love Your Neighbor.  PROBLEM: I DO NOT LOVE GOD WITH ALL MY HEART!  If I did, I would not sin!  Same with my neighbor…if I REALLY loved my neighbor, I would not lust for her… I would not be guilty of murder against him or her by insult.  Did Jesus say, “On love does the gospel hinge?”  NO! On these things (love God, love neighbors) does the LAW hinge.  These 2 things are COMMANDS.  They are part of the LAW.  Loving God doesn’t save you… if it did, do you love God PERFECTLY?  Nope.  So you are disqualified.  The law cannot save you.  Or if it could, you MUST keep it perfectly.  If you don’t you are disqualified from working your way to the kingdom.

However… praise God… there is good news…

…to be continued…

Proginosko (foreknowledge)… not fortune telling

Romans 8:28-30 (ESV)
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is an issue that seems to come up fairly frequently in my discussions of the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism): What exactly does “foreknowledge” mean?  The Arminian and the Calvinist have very different understandings on what this word proginosko (“to foreknow”) means.  The Arminian tradition sees this word as simply meaning foresight… their version of this “golden chain” is that God first looks down the tunnel of history to see what you are going to do… and if you of your own will choose HIM, then guess what– He’ll choose you!!  **eye roll**

The problem is… on what basis was the unregenerate sinner able to resurrect himself and choose God in the FIRST place?  How was he able to?  If man actually is, as scripture says in Eph 2:1, spiritually dead… he cannot bring himself to choose God on his own free will, because that will is corrupt.

Rather, proginosko is dealing with not foresight or fortune telling of what people are going to DO… It describes God’s intimate relationship he has with those He has chosen to be his elect.  The Bible often speaks of “knowing” someone not only in a cognitive sense but in an intimate sense… even sexually, to describe the degree of intimacy.

The following quote is adapted from a YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQENcj_kRcg and is available between 13:50 and 18:02.  I have simplified it to be more of a commentary on ALL the Arminians who argue the particular argument, rather than just the one individual Dr. White was speaking of.  It is far more eloquent than I could hope to be on the subject…

“When the passage (Romans 8:29) says “God foreknew“… the Arminian thinks that means that God, in essence, looked down the corridors of time and saw what we were going to do in advance before we do it.  This is an incorrect assumption on the part of the Arminian.  First of all, you will notice that “proginosko” is a verb.  And yet the Arminian will consistently switch it with the noun form.  Now that is not something you can do, especially when the person doing the action, that is the subject of the verb, and the object of the verb come into play.  What do I mean?  Well, when God foreknows, if the Arminian interpretation is correct, when God foreknows, he would know actions, he would know what someone is doing.  The Arminian may not even point out that it IS a verb, he just says “God has foreknowledge”… but that’s not what the passage says.  It says “he foreknows.”  In fact each one of the verbs: “to foreknow,” “to call,” “to predestine,” “to justify” “to glorify”–these are all active verbs.  These are active things that God does.  And there are objects; that is, God is doing this to someone.  The problem is, the Arminian view interprets this verb to mean that God foreknows ACTIONS.  And yet never when proginosko is used with God as the subject are actions the object of the verb.  It isn’t that God knows WHAT we do, but rather, God knows US.

“This isn’t talking about having mere static knowledge of future events.  This is not what proginosko means.  This is something God does; the object is not actions, it’s people.  God has “fore-loved.”  He has beforehand been fond of these individuals.  God has chosen to enter into relationship with these individuals, and as a result he initiates their salvation, and their salvation is all of God.  His decree of predestination of them unto conformity to the image of Christ is based upon this eternal love that he has set upon them, and the “Golden Chain of Redemption” (Romans 8:29-30) is a very consistent chain that, from beginning to end, has the exact same objects all the way through.”
–Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries

To the liberal "chritians"…

You say you are a Christian… And you are really going to vote for Clinton? Or Obama?

Really? Wow.

I didn’t know you cared so LITTLE for those defenseless children slaughtered by the hundreds daily in abortion clinics. I thought the godly thing to do is take care of those who are defensless– including the unborn babies.

I also didn’t know you supported the government steeling money from hard-working Americans and giving it to those who do not really work as hard and are addicted to crack as opposed to actually working– what man was placed on Earth to do by God.

I also didn’t know you cared so little about national security– I hope the terrorists don’t blow us up if your Obama or Clinton gets in office. ‘Cause both would be too weak and pull out, allowing the bad guys to blow us up.

Have fun with that.

Don’t put your trust in Big Government. That is idolitary! Our hope SHOULD be built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. Dare not trust the sweetest frame but ONLY lean on JESUS’ NAME.

Is your solid rock big government that wants to slaughter babies, steel from the rich and give to the lazy, and who will not protect us from those who want to blow us up?

Again… good luck with that.

2 Peter Defeats Calvinism? NO WAY!

Doctrines of Grace – Categorized Scripture List

**taken from ReformationTheology.com**

Unconditional Election

God is Sovereign
Exo 15:18; 1Chr 29:11-12; 2Chr 20:6; Psa 22:28

1. He exercises that sovereignty in actively ordaining everything

Deu 32:39; 1Sam 2:6-8; Job 9:12; Job 12:6-10; Psa 33:11; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6; Isa 14:24; Isa 45:7; Act 15:18; Eph 1:11

• Including matters of “chance”

Pro 16:33; 1Ki 22:20, 34, 37

• The wicked actions of men

Gen 45:5; Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; Jdg 14:1-4; Psa 76:10; Pro 16:4; Isa 44:28; Amos 3:6; Act 2:22-23; Act 4:27-28

• The actions of evil spirits

1Sam 16:14-16; 1Ki 22:19-23; 1Chr 21:1/2Sam 24:1

• The good actions of men

John 15:16; Eph 2:10; Phi 2:12-13

• The actions of good angels

Psa 103:20; Psa 104:4

• The actions of animals

Num 22:28; 1Ki 17:4; Psa 29:9; Jer 8:7; Eze 32:4; Dan 6:22

• The operations of all creation

Gen 8:22; Psa 104:5-10; Psa 104:13-14; Psa 104:19-20; Mark 4:39

2. Man is not permitted to question his sovereign acts

Job 33:12-13; Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9-10; Mat 20:1-16; Rom 9:19-24

God elects [i.e. chooses, predestines, foreordains]

1. His angels

1Tim 5:21

2. His peculiar people, Israel

Exo 6:7; Deu 7:6-8; Deu 10:14-15; Psa 33:12; Isa 43:20-21

3. Individuals to salvation

Psa 65:4; Mat 24:24; John 6:37; John 15:16; Act 13:48; Rom 8:28-30; Rom 9:10-24; Rom 11:5-7; Eph 1:3-6; Eph 1:11-12; 1The 1:4; 1The 5:9; 2The 2:13-14

4. Individuals to condemnation

Exo 4:21; Rom 9:13; Rom 9:17-18; Rom 9:21-22; 1Pet 2:8

His motivation in election

1. His own good pleasure

Eph 1:5; 2Tim 1:9

2. The display of his glory

Isa 43:6-7; Rom 9:22-24; 1Cor 1:27-31; Eph 2:4-7; Pro 16:4

3. His special love

Deu 7:6-8; 2The 2:13

4. His foreknowledge

Rom 8:29; 1Pet 1:2

• Which means his special love

Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2; Mat 7:22-23; 1Cor 8:3; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 1:20

• But not:
• Any good [nobility, wisdom, power, choice, seeking] he foresees in anyone

Deu 7:7; Rom 9:11-13; Rom 9:16; Rom 10:20; 1Cor 1:27-29; 1Cor 4:7; 2Tim 1:9

Total Depravity

Man is constituted a sinner by his relationship with Adam
Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Rom 5:18-19

He is therefore unable

1. To do anything good

Gen 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa 130:3; Psa 143:2; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 64:6; Jer 13:23; John 3:19; Rom 3:9-12; Jam 3:8; 1John 1:8

2. To believe in God (or come to him)

John 6:44; John 6:65; John 8:43-45; John 10:26; John 12:37-41

3. To understand the truth

John 14:17; 1Cor 2:14

4. To seek God

Rom 3:10-11

He is dead in sins
Gen 2:16-17; John 3:5-7; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13

He is blinded and corrupt in his heart
Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ecc 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19-21; Rom 8:7-8; Eph 4:17-19; Eph 5:8

He is captive to sin and Satan
John 8:34; John 8:44; Rom 6:20; 2Tim 2:25-26; Tit 3:3; 1John 5:19

He performs actions freely according to his nature, but his nature is wholly evil
Job 14:4; Mat 7:16-18; Mat 12:33; Mark 7:21-23; Jam 1:13-14

Limited Atonement

God purposed to redeem a certain people and not others
1Chr 17:20-21; Mat 22:14; 1Pet 2:8-9 [see “God elects individuals to salvation”/God elects individuals to condemnation”]

1. It is for these in particular that Christ gave his life

Isa 53:10-11; Mat 1:21; John 6:35-40; John 10:3-4, 11, 14-15; Act 20:28; Eph 5:25 [we are commanded to love our wives in the same way that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it; therefore, if Christ loved and gave himself for all people in the same way, we are commanded to love all women in the same way that we love our wives]; Heb 2:17; Heb 9:15

2. It is for these in particular that Christ intercedes

John 17:1-2; John 17:6-12; John 17:20-21, 24-26; Rom 8:34

3. The people for whom Christ intercedes are the same as the people for whom he offered himself up as a sacrifice

Heb 7:24-27; Heb 9:12 [note context, in which entering into the holy place is explicitly for the purpose of intercession], 24-28 [For a fuller understanding of the indissoluble connection between sacrifice and intercession, read Hebrews chapters 7-10]

The atonement of Christ is effective

1. To justify

Isa 53:11 [the single effective cause of justification in view here is the bearing of iniquities; all whose iniquities Christ bore must be justified]; Rom 8:34 [the argument here is that the fact of Christ's death, resurrection, and intercession is in itself an incontrovertibly effective reason for non-condemnation; if this verse is true, then no one for whom Christ died and was raised to intercede may be condemned]

2. To redeem and cleanse from sins

Eph 5:25-27; Tit 2:14

3. To propitiate the Father

1John 2:2 [“propitiation” means “the turning away or appeasement of wrath”; therefore, by definition, the Father has no more wrath against those whose sins have been propitiated]; 1John 4:10

4. To raise to new life

2Cor 5:14-15 [the argument is a simple “if/then” proposition: “if” Christ died for someone, “then,” with no other conditions, that person died with him and was raised again]; 1Pet 3:18

[See also, “Jesus' death purchased for his people a new heart; – faith; – repentance”. Jesus died in order to establish the New Covenant (Mat. 26:26-29, etc.); the New Covenant promised faith, repentance and knowledge of God (Jer. 31:33-34, Ez. 36:26-27, etc.); therefore, Jesus died in order to provide faith, repentance, and knowledge of God, as the fulfillment of a unilateral promise. This means that his death had a definite purpose which was intended for some and not others. His death effectively purchased faith; not all have faith; and so his death had an effective intent that was limited to certain persons.]

Those whom God purposed to redeem include all who believe
John 3:16

1. From every nation

Rev 5:9

2. From every class

Gal 3:28; 1Tim 2:1-6 [the first “all men” is explicitly tied to all classes of men, which gives warrant for understanding the second “all men” in the same way]

3. Therefore, Christ’s saving work is commonly spoken of in terms of “all,” “world,” etc.

John 1:29; Tit 2:11-14 [in the context of “all men” is the delimiting concept of a peculiar people, zealous of good works]; Heb 2:9-10 [notice that the many sons whom Christ brings to glory gives a contextual delimiter to the term “every”]; 2Pet 3:9 [note that this desire is explicitly limited to “us” (Peter was writing to fellow-believers) in the context]; 1John 2:2 [propitiation means “appeasement of wrath”; either Jesus appeases God's wrath against all, and therefore hell (which is the place where God's wrath resides) is non-existent; or the “whole world” means something different than “every individual who ever lived”. See John 11:51-52, and “The word 'world' is often used in the sense of 'many,' or 'all of a set'”]

4. The word “all” is often used to indicate all of a set, or even many representatives of a set

Mat 10:22; 1Cor 6:12; 1Cor 15:22; Mat 2:3; John 4:29; Act 10:39; Act 17:21; Act 21:28; Act 26:4

5. Or, to indicate all “classes” or “nations,” not all individuals

Mat 5:11; Act 2:17; Act 10:12

6. The word “world” is often used in the sense of “many,” or “all of a set”

Luk 2:1-2; John 6:33; John 12:19; Act 19:27; Rom 1:8

Additional reasons that the atonement of Christ is not for all the sins of all people

1. God punishes people in hell, which would be unjust if their sins were atoned for

Mark 9:43-44

2. If one were to say, “their sins are atoned for, but that atonement is not applied because of unbelief,” he fails to realize that unbelief is likewise a sin
   

Heb 3:12

[“The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:

1) All the sins of all men;

2) All the sins of some men; or

3) Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1) If the last be true all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved;

2) That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth;

3) But if the first is the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!” – John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ]

3. God bears eternal wrath against people, which by definition means that his wrath against them has not been propitiated [appeased]

1The 2:16; 2The 1:6-9

Intentions of Christ’s death other than atonement

1. To make a public display of demons

Col 2:13-15

2. To rule over everyone

Rom 14:9

3. To redeem creation

Isa 35:1-4; Rom 8:20-23

4. To lay the foundation for a genuine gospel call

John 6:39-40; John 7:37-38

5. To provide temporal mercies for the non-elect

Mat 5:45; 1Tim 4:10

Irresistible Grace

Faith and Repentance (as well as the new heart which is able to produce them) are themselves gifts of God

1. A new heart

Deu 30:6; Eze 11:19; Eze 36:26-27

2. Faith

John 3:27; Phi 1:29; 2Pet 1:1; Act 16:14; Act 18:27; Eph 2:8-10

3. Repentance

Act 5:3; Act 11:18; 2Tim 2:25-26; 1Cor 4:7

The Father writes his own word upon (places the fear of himself in, etc.) his people’s hearts
Jer 31:33; Jer 32:40; Mat 16:15-17; Luk 10:21; John 6:45; 2Cor 4:6

The beginning of salvation is the sovereign impartation of spiritual life into a heart which had been dead, thereby causing it to exercise faith
1John 5:1; Eze 37:3-6, 11-14; John 1:11-13; John 3:3-8; John 5:21; Eph 2:1-5; Jam 1:18; 1Pet 1:3; 1John 2:29

True offers of grace in the outward gospel call may be resisted by men who do not have this new heart
Act 17:32-33

In fact, true offers of grace will always be resisted by such men
John 10:24-26; John 12:37-40

But there are some whom God causes to come to him
Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3; John 6:37-40; Rom 9:15

Perseverance of the Saints

What God begins, he finishes
Psa 138:8; Ecc 3:14; Isa 46:4; Jer 32:40; Rom 11:29; Phi 1:6; 2Tim 4:18

Of all whom he has called and brought to Christ, none will be lost
John 6:39-40; John 10:27-29; Rom 8:28-31; Rom 8:35-39; Heb 7:25; Heb 10:14

God’s preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith
1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Heb 3:14; Heb 6:4-6; Heb 10:26-27; Heb 12:14; Rev 21:7-8; Rev 22:14-15

However, it is God who sanctifies us and causes us to persevere
John 15:16; 1Cor 1:30-31; 1Cor 6:11; 1Cor 12:3; 1Cor 15:10; Gal 3:1-6; Eph 2:10; Phi 2:12-13; 1The 5:23-24; Heb 13:20-21; 1John 2:29; Jud 1:24-25

Apparently I’m Practically Nonexistent Species? LOL!

Yesterday I sat in STRONG (Hall) #204 in my REL 320: Jesus of Nazareth course a bit more than slightly frustrated with the clips our class had just watched from The Last Temptation of Christ. We were comparing this fictional re-telling of Christ’s life to the gnostic Gospel of Judas. I’m not sure which notion was more difficult to stomach– the gnostic view that YHWH is the evil creator that we need to defeat (essentially), or the notion that Jesus and Judas… cuddled… (and more?) Yuck.

ANYWAY.

A student in the class brought up a point that he had always struggled with growing up: If it was foreordained that Judas would have to betray Jesus, and it had to happen for Jesus to save the world, why should Judas suffer and be held to blame for his actions? I just sat there in my silence fully confidant of the answer. And yes, I too had wondered this before — he was supposed to do this, and yet he is held to blame? But after years of maturing in the faith, I was able to see that it doesn’t matter that he was supposed to do this, foreordained by God. The question is: DID JUDAS SIN? Answer: YES! He betrayed the Savior — a sin against God. Because he sinned, he along with EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, DESERVES DEATH AND PUNISHMENT IN HELL!! No one deserves Heaven — if they did, it wouldn’t be grace, would it? It would be earned merit. They are not the same. Besides, are not all men his? Can he not do with his creation what he wishes? Apparently this gentleman (and other fellow students) had never read/fully understood Romans 9.

But instead of pipping in I just sat there with a sort of grimace on my face… amazed that someone would imply that another DIDN’T deserve Hell because of their sin. However this notion continued to flow about the room as Dr Baynes too seems to imply that it is somehow unjust that Judas should be cursed, when this was all predestined to happen. “Many people today have a problem with this notion of Predestination.” I just sat and quietly rolled my eyes to myself. THEN came the statement that nearly knocked me out of my seat — “And very few (if any) believe in this idea of Predestination today.” :-O The manner in which she said this implied, to me, that she felt Predestination is some irrelevant archaic product of the Reformation that really has an average of maybe 8 or 9 that accept this as truth. I am not denying that the majority rejects this fundamental concept upon which the Reformation was built upon (this may not even bother me so much — Mt 7:13-14)

However the idea that she seemed to convey that practically NO ONE believes in such a doctrine anymore is quite silly, and really showed her ignorance on the issue IF she was implying practically no one upholds such doctrine. Maybe she hasn’t heard of RC Sproul. John MacArthur. John Piper. Dr. James White. Mark Driscoll. Phillip Johnson. Those are just a small handful of leaders within Christendom who recognize the biblical doctrine of Election. However Dr. Baynes seemed to just pass the idea off as something that could be compared to the old belief that the world was indeed flat.

Eventually I did speak up from the back of the class and proclaim, “Well, they are out there,” to which she did acknowledge this is true — they are out there. I just smiled and said, “Yes, WE are!” “We?” she asked. “We.” She seemed a bit taken back and some in the class got a little laugh out of that– I think even more of the class may have turned to see what a Calvinist ACTUALLY looked like. As if I had an extra head or something and was needing to be locked up in a cage and stared at by paying onlookers. “Well then, I guess I’ll have to watch what I say now.” … I am not sure about this statement– what bad could she say about such a view. Although she’s right– it is uncommon for good sound biblical doctrine to grace the presence of the liberal-leaning Religious Studies Dept. @ MSU.

I guess I’m not one to embrace much man-centered theology…

<

Firmly grounded as a student.

I find it odd that I am not the normal college student. I do not speak of my decision to not smoke, get drunk, or have premarital sex. I am glad I have resisted temptation for these (though most have never really even been an issue for me), though I am not speaking specifically of m relm of belief. I may be one of a few handful of students whose beliefs, values or convictions have not crumbled ‘neath the weight of the ivory walls of the University.

One such example is my stance on politics. I was raised in a very conservative home where I learned of the importance of defending the lives of unborn babies from a slaughter at the hands of some who consider themselves “doctors” (more like death dealers). So conservative yes, but I was, by my own admission, truly a 2-issue voter by the time I was 18. The issues I was concerned about were biblically social issues — abortion and the defense of the institution of marriage between man and wife (as God created it). Sure I cared about the liberation of the Iraqi peoples from the hands of an evil regime… but it was not as important as the life of an innocent and defenseless unborn babe.

Then I got to a political science course once in college and my teacher explained to me the economic system of our country. He even went on to explain the differences between how the conservatives do the economy and how the liberals do the economy. I was astonished at how controlling and money-hungry the liberal approach to the economy is! So instead of turning me into a godless tree-hugging hippie, this course (& instructor) fortified my convictions and made me an even STRONGER conservative!

Along those lines, I also have not crumbled in my beliefs when it comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am currently enrolled in a Historical Jesus course that attempts to look at the gospels historically and critically… or more accurately, “How much can we attack the validity and reliability of the Bible, and prove that a Winnie-the-Poo book contains more truth than these accounts of Jesus’ life.” Blah. I still continue to be amused at how liberal the course tends to be, even though the current instructor is no where near as left-winged as the previous one. Even so, the approach taken to the Holy Scriptures is appalling.

When I approach a passage in a gospel that does not perfectly line up with another gospel, I think, OK, how can I make this work logically? The instructor wishes us to think, AHAH! An error– no way this book is divinely inspired! After a while, this approach just gets rather boring. For instance, just yesterday our class was called to vote (Jesus Seminar style– colored beads and all) on whether or not Judas kissed Jesus when he turned him over to the Jewish authorities. This event is recorded in Mark 14:45 and Matthew 26:49. Luke 22:47-48 do not mention Judas’ kiss, but say that Judas drew near to Jesus to kiss him. From this, we were supposed to arrive at the conclusion that Luke has Judas not kiss Jesus, even though this is not explicitly written. Our instructor mentions (as any good studier of the scriptures) not to read one’s own meaning into the text itself. However she was guilty of doing just that! Kevin and I did challenge this, observing that Luke never says that the kiss DIDN’T happen. The word “but” is problematic though, so our instructor looked up the passage in her Greek NT. There are, in Greek, two kinds of “but”s. One is a very final BUT, implying someone went to do something BUT it did not happen. The other “but” may also be translated as “and.” I was glad she was looking it up, but I was rather nervous… as if it was the former more final “but,” my point would be completely void!… THANKFULLY, it was the later but. w00t! Had it been the other one, scripture would have claimed in Luke that Judas did not kiss Jesus. But God, in his sovereign will, inspired the author to pen the other “but.” Funny how one word can have such an impact on meaning, aint it?

This has also happened elsewhere in this class… for instance, dealing with “Is John the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel of John?” I know it does not matter really if John did or didn’t pen the Gospel of John, as his name is not attached to the gospel. However it does seem to be a BIG part of church tradition from very early on.

I am pleased that despite my liberal environment, God has keep my mind grounded in truth (instead of leaving it open for my brains to spew out). I pray I will be able to continue in defending the truth when called upon to do so.

<