Sex After Christianity | Moral Chaos Leads To Anarchy – The End Game Of Fascism

Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity. Whether we can keep them in the post-Christian epoch remains to be seen… Conservative Christians have lost the fight over gay marriage and, as we have seen, did so decades before anyone even thought same-sex marriage was a possibility. Gay-marriage proponents succeeded so quickly because they showed the public that what they were fighting for was consonant with what most post-1960s Americans already believed about the meaning of sex and marriage. The question Western Christians face now is whether or not they are going to lose Christianity altogether in this new dispensation.

Too many of them think that same-sex marriage is merely a question of sexual ethics. They fail to see that gay marriage, and the concomitant collapse of marriage among poor and working-class heterosexuals, makes perfect sense given the autonomous individualism sacralized by modernity and embraced by contemporary culture—indeed, by many who call themselves Christians. They don’t grasp that Christianity, properly understood, is not a moralistic therapeutic adjunct to bourgeois individualism—a common response among American Christians, one denounced by Rieff in 2005 as “simply pathetic”—but is radically opposed to the cultural order (or disorder) that reigns today.

via Sex After Christianity | The American Conservative.

Anyone who has studied fascisms will recognize the process toward paganization of society and its collapse begins and is empowered by changing the cosmological thinking of the masses. Change the way the cosmos is perceived and you can control the way people live in it. The aim of fascisms is anarchy which inevitably leads to the reestablishing of tribalism as a means of attaining individual liberation from control. More directly, though, it is the means of individuals with power to control others. The eventual establishment of autonomous individualism where only one thing remains, the will to power, is the ostensible goal. But, as was seen in Nazi Germany, when reason and morality with a basis of faith in an absolute transcendent authority is undermined by individual triumphant and passion, chaos ensues. Sexual liberty was the means to attain control in Germany, and once control was established, sexual policing was the means to maintain it. In fascisms, the void is filled by those who have the might to forcibly take their freedom from those who have what they see as a threat to it. Nazism was then, and on a relatively localized scale. Homosexualism is today, and we are experiencing it on a global one. For the time being the usurpation of moral right and wrong by indeterminate standards is being imposed by governments whose who fear the loss of power. They have abandoned their pledge to deliver the right and good to the people who established the such governments over them to provide it. It was the aim of a government like that of the U.S., which was established under the supreme authority of a Creator who endued men with certain unalienable rights. That was the old paradigm. The new one has done away with transcendent truth as a grounding for rights, for right and wrong, for morality altogether. And in its place is the individual’s right to self expression of a world of his imagination which trumps others rights to life, property and a good way of living. Soon, we will seen the true persecution of Christianity. Like it was for the Jews and the Reformed Orthodoxy of Germany, it will be for even the moderate Christian, on a world-wide scale. Once that begins, it will produce the very revolution that fascisms long for and breed. The resulting chaos will leave a void of power. The dethroning of Judeo/Christianity was the first and greatest triumph of Nazism. The question will be, as it was in the first half of the Twentieth Century, who will fill that throne and with how many of lives?

Can SBC Today’s Bob Hadley Please God While Denying Baptist Faith And Message?

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Regeneration | SBC Today.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Bob says:

Basically, there are two primary interpretations as to the how and when one is “born again” or regenerated, and both are related to belief, repentance and faith. One posits being born again as being essential for belief, repentance and faith to take place; and the other makes belief, repentance and faith essential for being born again.

What does the BF&M say regeneration is? 1) a work of grace whereby believers become new creatures 2) a change of heart wrought (past tense and a past participle of work) through conviction. It is a work of the Holy Spirit who changes the unconvinced heart of an unbelieving sinner to a convicted heart of a believing sinner who responds in repentance toward God and faith in Jesus. Even if one wants to make conviction moving a person toward the truth and a sense of guilt of sin, the question is still who works it. The BF&M states about the work of the Holy Spirit:

Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

What does Scripture say:

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Are you so foolish (anoetos)? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

It is not man who is doing any of this. It is being a fool, Paul said, to think so.

What is the order in the BF&M, then? God by grace works regeneration -a change of heart- convicting of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance and faith. He baptizes (seals them) into the body of Christ and then seals them as the guarantee of ongoing sanctification to complete maturity and salvation of the final redemption. What is Bob’s order: repentance and faith is necessary prior to one being born again. To reiterate, the BF&M places “It” (being born again; a change of heart), prior to repentance and faith. In accord with that the BFM places illumination and enablement by the Holy Spirit prior to repentance and faith. Who is working the enablement and the illumination? And where? The Holy Spirit by his presence in the Christian.

To make no mistake about what he is speaking of, Bob states:

One thing appears clear: apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or ones being “in Christ” there is no new birth or regeneration… Clearly to be born again one MUST have the Spirit living in his heart for if one does not have the Spirit in his heart that one does not belong to God. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

He then asks:

So the question now is this: does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of the unregenerate so that he is able to believe, repent and be saved or does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of an individual who has believed, repented and is then saved?

But as is seen in the BF&M the order is established- by the grace of God the Holy Spirit’s presence within changes the hearted, the believer is enabled, illumined, so as to understand. Which in turn, through conviction the sinner responds in repentance and faith. The BFM has already defined salvation broadly, and not narrowly as Bob has done. To be saved includes far more than Bob can allow, quoting the BFM:

In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

Again, note the order. Regeneration comes before justification. Scripture identifies the order of justification this way:

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Regeneration, the BF&M states, is the beginning of sanctification by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes… So we need to ask, is faith set apart for God’s purposes in the believer, nor not? Is faith part of sanctification. Which comes first, a new heart which believes, or belief from an unchanged heart?

The question that should be asked is does the Holy Spirit take up residence in an unregenerate heart at all? That is, if as Bob says the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and regeneration are inseparable realities, in which he is right, how could it ever be that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in an unregenerate heart so that it is convinced to turn on its own?

First of all, Bob presents a canard. No Calvinist believes that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the unregenerate so that he will do what is required by the commandment to repent and believe. Calvinists believe that in regeneration the Holy Spirit is resident in the newly created heart. We also need to ask, can an unbelieving heart believe? Bob believes so. The self-contradiction is obvious. For those who are, borrowing the term Jesus used, anoetos (not understanding, unwise, foolish), the answer is no! Unbelievers, by the very nature of unbelief, don’t believe. By the testimony of Scripture, an unbeliever cannot be saved, period. How does one who has not had a change of heart (the BF&M’s definition of regeneration) from an unbelieving one to a believing one, believe? Again, for the anoetos, he can’t. Or, quoting Romans 8 where Bob conveniently didn’t:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

How does a hostile, unbelieving heart, submit? Paul says, it cannot. It will not obey the commands such as repent and believe. So we ask also, can an unbeliever please God? Or, can only a believer? And who is he who can believe? The BF&M is clear, only those who have had a change of heart, who are set apart for God’s purposes can believe. Interestingly, the section on regeneration in the BF&M is supported by Philippians 2:12-13 in which it is clearly stated that God works in us the things which are pleasing to God and John 1:11-14, where we find that those who received Christ were those who were born of God. They didn’t receive him and then were born of God. The BF&M’s own quotations refute Bob’s intentions. If Bob would have further developed Romans 8 he would find that the setting apart for God’s purposes, as the BF&M’s consideration of the grace points out, is part of the whole package of election (i.e. salvation) which includes regeneration and all other means of accomplishing it. It is consistent with free agency because man in bondage to sin while unregenerate has no means of moral choice by which he can submit himself to the commandments of God. The BF&M delcares that the illumination by the Holy Spirit establishes truth in man and by that working of conviction man is set free to do what God has commanded.

Bob quotes:

Consider the following passages. At Pentecost, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’”

But this is misdirection. The manifestation of the Spirit given on Pentecost is not the indwelling. Peter and the others who were with Jesus prior to his crucifixion and after his resurrection already were indwelt by the Spirit, yet the gift Peter is speaking of is “this which was spoken by the prophet Joel… which also was given to Peter on Pentecost. So why quote it here? It is a non-sequitur. But since Bob’s motives are at best questionable, we can ask if it is sleight of hand meant to distract weak-minded anoetos.

He quotes:

“By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God”

But why didn’t he quote: “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.”

Bob quotes:

“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

So we ask, how can one call upon the name of the Lord and be saved except that he already has the Holy Spirit? Again, for the anoetos, he can’t. He must be regenerated, and in regeneration have the Holy Spirit before he can call upon the name of Jesus as Lord and be saved. For no one, not anyone, zero, zip, nadie sin excepciones, calls upon the Lord who does not have the Spirit.

But Bob says:

Conversion is the result of the Holy Spirit taking up residence in a person’s heart and that takes place after one believes, repents and confesses Christ.

Again, this is a canard. Calvinists speak of conversion as the outward manifestation of the inward change (a lot like the BF&M). That is, salvation is much broader than Bob seems to have any concept of and begins with regeneration through the hidden work of the Spirit as John 3 explains. It is demonstrated by the fruit it produces, or as John 3 says, we don’t see wind coming or going but we know it by its effects. Conversion, like salvation is a continuum of events some hidden, others obvious. Typically, the outward work is what is acknowledged as conversion (which fits into the category of sanctification), and regeneration is that which cannot be seen and as the BF&M and Scripture testify come before a man’s understanding is opened so that he sees the kingdom and embraces it. When John says that God has blinded the eyes of some so that they cannot see and be converted, (John 12:40; cf Isaiah 6:9-10), the Greek word, which means to turn around, as in repent, is in the passive voice. In other words, conversion, according to John, is something which is being done to those who are turning around. What else should we expect from John who wrote that Jesus said without being born again, one cannot see, that is understand, the kingdom?

To clarify language, when speaking of being saved we acknowledge the inception, the process, and the consummation:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So one is said to be saved in the beginning and to be saved throughout and saved in the end. Bob doesn’t make the proper clarification and so, again, he presents a canard by conflating meaning to the point of utter confusion.

So Bob continues to confuse the issues:

Consider Paul’s word of instruction in Ephesians 1: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory” (see also 2 Co 1:20-22). Clearly the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place after one has heard the Word of truth presented in the proclamation of the gospel message and has believed it.

Yes, let’s do. What is the sealing spoken of here? Is it the indwelling? It doesn’t say that. The Holy Spirit’s work is varied. For our comfort, according to many places, such as 1 Cor 2, we are told we have been given the Spirit so that we might know the things God has freely given us and knowing the truth we would be set free and no longer fear the wrath of God. 1 Cor 2 says that we have received the Spirit, not that we should fear, but so that we can discern the truth, understanding the things which God has freely given. It also says that the natural man does not have the Spirit and so cannot discern the truth. But, if that is the case, then how does he place his faith in what he doesn’t know to be the truth and turn around, convert, from unbelief to belief? What faith looks to darkness for light? John writes that these things were written that we might know. But, Paul says, only those who have the Spirit can know the things which were written. Jesus said only the disciples know and that all the rest have been blinded so that they would not convert (repent) and believe. So, when the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said, brings to our minds the things he has said, the Holy Spirit seals the truth to our minds. But, he only does that for those to whom it has been given, to those outside it remains a mystery. And this is our comfort, that as Paul, we know him in whom we have believed, not that we first believe and then know him. First, though, before we can know, and knowing repent and believe, we must have the Holy Spirit.

We  also speak of the sealing of the Holy Spirit in another way. We speak of it in adoption. That having been made partakers of the divine nature, we are inextricably bound to Christ by the Holy Spirit. But, what we have been made to be in this latter sense is given in regeneration, the former is given in sanctification. The latter is what would include definitive sanctification and justification though faith which is the whole of salvation given as righteousness by  union with Christ which seals us to Christ. The former is progressive sanctification which includes all the works we are active in, and justification through believing in which the believer is also active through the power of the Spirit performing those things in him which are pleasing to God. The power of the Holy Spirit acts in believers as the confirming signature by which the saints persevere to the end and inherit the promise. As there is a nuance to the terms used in Scripture, such as saved, salvation, redeemed, redemption, and the myriads of ways we use those terms in doctrinal discussion, there is a variety of ways the terms seal or sealed is used. To seal can mean to bind together, or it can mean to affix a mark as in a signature or deed of ownership.

Then again, even if there is a more nuanced way in which Ephesians 1:13 can be understood, there is a sense in which some or all the aspects of one nuance of the whole of our salvation are true of others. Notice that in Ephesians we have a future redemption. But, is it not the fact that those who are believers are redeemed now? There is a comprehensiveness expressed in Ephesians from first to last, from predestination to consummation. Beside, the phrase, “having believed, you were sealed,” is not necessarily rendered correctly. “Having believed is an aorist participle and could well be translated, believing. And “were sealed” is in the aorist indicative and could be rendered “being sealed.” Thus, it could say, you believing being sealed… So simply, it could just mean that believing is the seal of the Holy Spirit’s working. And if we go to Ephesians 1:20 we find the current condition of believers as now seated in the heavenlies which is the future state as considered in the past and present. This is ongoing work, and not simply the initiatory work. In both the believing and the sealing in Ephesians 1:13, the full sense of the aorist tense needs to be considered. The sense of all of Ephesians is forgone conclusion from predestination to consummation. That is, that it began, is ongoing and has futurity. It moves from the grounding purpose to infancy, to maturity, to standing in the end. So again, it is not necessarily right to fix a cemented sequence to the verbage, especially in view of the wide application of the tenses being used and with the full mind’s eye on all that Ephesians is about.

We can add to this Abraham’s faith. Was righteousness imputed to him because he believed, or was believing imputed to him as righteousness? When we look at Ephesians 2:8-9 we find that faith, though it may not be directly the gift referred, is nonetheless, a part of salvation given by God. And it is not a verb, it is a noun just as in Romans 4:9. Since the righteous live by faith, and Jesus concludes that man lives only by the word of God, it is not a stretch to conclude that faith is God’s grace provision as the full provision of all that is meant by the promise of salvation. That faith is righteousness is further confirmed by the fact that it is the very nature of the Son’s life, especially displayed on the cross. His entire life is that faith in which we are given Ephesians says in such a way so that we are in him by virtue of his resurrection (see Peter 1:3). And further, the proper way of believing is shaped by Jesus’s own faith in his Father to whom he entrusted his spirit. To say then that God enables faith in all men though they themselves remain not submitted to God, dishonoring the Son until they act on it, is to mingle the meaning of faith with faithlessness. It pollutes the kind of faith Jesus had. Jesus did not move from being an unbeliever to a believer, nor was he a mixture of doubts, rather, he was the firstfruit of the faith, and we are made after his image, as he said, born from above, John 3:3; John 17. If one makes faith a neutrality which can at once mean to believe or not to believe, faith simply has no meaning. It is no wonder then that Bob believes that an unbeliever can believe. That is to say, Bob believes that an unbeliever can be saved, thus making nonsense of John 3:16-18. We must first be raised from the dead, the power of God’s love in us as it was in Christ, by which, as the Son did, we sons cry Abba.

In Ephesians, it is best, probably, to understand that the Holy Spirit seals to our minds the knowledge of this comprehensive promise which is mentioned, as is clear in 1 Cor 2,through the word taught to spiritual men by the Spirit. Or, it might be said that this is the hope of glory which is in us, the Holy Spirit who, as with the disciples, was given after the disciples had already seen the risen Lord and had already believed, who brings to our minds the things Jesus said. As he said he would not leave them orphans but would send the comforter as the one who comes alongside as an aid in weakness, so also, even though by virtue of regeneration we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us as they did, Jesus further aids us by sending the Holy Spirit to teach, guide, and comfort. There is no reason to conflate the meaning of what the operation of the Holy Spirit is in grounding our hope in the promise of Scripture as a seal with the initial work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration which seals us to Christ. Because again, Scripture is so nuanced as to have, often, both near reference and far. The verse in Ephesians 1:13 proves no sequence of events, necessarily, especially in view of the comprehensive nature of the near context, and of broad category of salvation as it is spoken of throughout Scripture.

Bob concludes:

there is no ambiguity in the Scriptures where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is concerned with respect to being born again or being regenerated. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to those who have believed and have repented and trusted God by faith (Acts 2:38).

As I said before, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit are not the indwelling. The apostles already had the indwelling when the Holy Spirit’s gift spoken of in Acts 2 was given. The ambiguity is in Bob’s head where he conflates one meaning with another. In other parts of Acts it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon those who already believed:

And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.(Acts 4:29-31)

By Bob’s formulation, Peter was born again, and born again, and born again. For when Jesus spoke to the apostles after his resurrection John writes:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  (John 20:22)

The there is this:

And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
(Luke 1:15)

And we must ask, when did John the Baptist believe? Before or after he was filled with the Holy Spirit? Surely not before. It could only be that after he was enlightened that he believed for he had to be old enough to understand. Yet, we have the testimony that he was filled before he was born.

Bob concludes his conclusion:

While some may try to make a case for a temporal or logical position for regeneration preceding repentance and the exercise of saving faith, such is not the case for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

As we have just seen, this is not the case. Bob is just confused about the indwelling.

Since regeneration is not Scripturally possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, one must conclude regeneration prior to repentance and saving faith is not possible either.

There is no logical sense in which Bob draws this conclusion. The case is that we have the testimony Scripture that John was regenerated in the womb. Bob has simply failed to read the Scripture.

The lost are not regenerated so they may then repent and by faith trust Christ to be justified or saved; the unregenerate are convicted of their sin and their lost state by the work of the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel and through believing and repentance, they by faith in the person and the promises of God are converted and justified and receive right standing before God when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in their hearts.

Bob’s redundant assertion, I suppose, he hopes will carry his argument. Is he equating justification with being saved? But as we have seen, being saved is far more expansive than a one time event. Above it has been shown that an unbelieving heart is not convicted of anything. It hates the word of God, it cannot submit to it, it cannot please God. It, as the BF&M correctly affirms, must be changed. It is the Holy Spirit which works through conviction. But that is both the knowledge of God and of sin in truth. And Paul is clear that the man without the Spirit has no knowledge is a spiritual sense of anything pertaining to the promises of God. A man without the Spirit does not comprehend the things of God, because he cannot judge right from wrong. It is only the spiritual man who can,

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.(1 Corinthians 2:12-15 ).

If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that we must be spiritual, that is born of God having been given the Spirit, before we can understand spiritual truths interpreted to us (i.e., the Gospel, 1 Cor 2:1-5).

This is the clear position presented in Scripture.

Ronnie Rogers Wishes For A Systematician To Believe In

One Man’s Suggestions for Calvinists and Non-Calvinists, Part 2 | SBC Today.

This is hilarious. Anti-Calvinists nearly universally claim that Calvinists follow Calvin and not Jesus. Now, with no systematicians of their own, anti-Calvinist Ronnie Rogers hopes for someone they can believe in who would write a Systematic that they could stand on to reach the meaning of Scripture.

And here I thought they already exalted the Jesuit Molina to the position of patron saint.

Adventitious Farrago: Calvin On Baptism

via Institutes of the Christian Religion – Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Not everything Calvin said about baptism can be accepted. There is much he does say which is instructive. Just what is baptism, the proper mode, who is the right recipient and administrator, just what makes it valid, et cetera, are questions that are difficult to answer. However, there are answers. Where Calvin is best is in recognizing where the true efficacy of baptism in water is. He locates it in Christ’s baptism, and that meaning Jesus death burial and resurrection. Right where it should be. Getting that right makes all the rest added, and at times, unnecessary.

Enjoy.

I am adding on to this, this:

We must not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the sacraments by which they, in themselves, confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are clearly manifested. For the sacraments, as we lately observed (chap. 13 sec. 6; and 14 sec. 6, 7), are to us what messengers of good news are to men, or earnests in ratifying pactions. They do not of themselves bestow any grace, but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a ratification of the gifts which the divine liberality has bestowed upon us. The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord specially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit.

It is important to see how Calvin defines the sacraments so as to understand how he applies to them the source of their efficacy, and to whom they should be applied. Calvin appears self-refuting. In some ways concerning some things I think he is. On the other hand, Calvin stands in an arena, I believe, somewhere between paedoism and credoism. He surely doesn’t take the mystical approach that is found in some Reformed circles.

Egregious Dr. David Allen And SBC Today

Dr. David Allen @ the John 3:16 Conference | SBC Today.

This is what Calvin said: “Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.”

Here is the more full context:

8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.

9. Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of grace, he now affirms, that “it is the gift of God.” Instead of what he had said, “Not of yourselves,” he now says, “Not of works.” Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases, — not of yourselves, — it is the gift of God, — not of works, — he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone, — is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, — and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.

This passage affords an easy refutation of the idle cavil by which Papists attempt to evade the argument, that we are justified without works. Paul, they tell us, is speaking about ceremonies. But the present question is not confined to one class of works. Nothing can be more clear than this. The whole righteousness of man, which consists in works, — nay, the whole man, and everything that he can call his own, is set aside. We must attend to the contrast between God and man, — between grace and works. Why should God be contrasted with man, if the controversy related to nothing more than ceremonies?

Papists themselves are compelled to own that Paul ascribes to the grace of God the whole glory of our salvation, but endeavor to do away with this admission by another contrivance. This mode of expression, they tell us, is employed, because God bestows the first grace. It is really foolish to imagine that they can succeed in this way, since Paul excludes man and his utmost ability, — not only from the commencement, but throughout, — from the whole work of obtaining salvation.

But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s inference, lest any man should boast. Some room must always remain for man’s boasting, so long as, independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

For we are his work. By setting aside the contrary supposition, he proves his statement, that by grace we are saved, — that we have no remaining works by which we can merit salvation; for all the good works which we possess are the fruit of regeneration. Hence it follows, that works themselves are a part of grace.

When he says, that “we are the work of God,” this does not refer to ordinary creation, by which we are made men. We are declared to be new creatures, because, not by our own power, but by the Spirit of Christ, we have been formed to righteousness. This applies to none but believers. As the descendants of Adam, they were wicked and depraved; but by the grace of Christ, they are spiritually renewed, and become new men. Everything in us, therefore, that is good, is the supernatural gift of God. The context explains his meaning.We are his work, because we have been created, — not in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, — not to every kind of life, but to

good works.

What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God? Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostle’s words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are God’s work, and that everything good in us is his creation; by which he means that the whole man is formed by his hand to be good. It is not the mere power of choosing aright, or some indescribable kind of preparation, or even assistance, but the right will itself, which is his workmanship; otherwise Paul’s argument would have no force. He means to prove that man does not in any way procure salvation for himself, but obtains it as a free gift from God. The proof is, that man is nothing but by divine grace. Whoever, then, makes the very smallest claim for man, apart from the grace of God, allows him, to that extent, ability to procure salvation.

Created to good works. They err widely from Paul’s intention, who torture this passage for the purpose of injuring the righteousness of faith. Ashamed to affirm in plain terms, and aware that they could gain nothing by affirming, that we are not justified by faith, they shelter themselves under this kind of subterfuge. “We are justified by faith, because faith, by which we receive the grace of God, is the commencement of righteousness; but we are made righteous by regeneration, because, being renewed by the Spirit of God, we walk in good works.” In this manner they make faith the door by which we enter into righteousness, but imagine that we obtain it by our works, or, at least, they define righteousness to be that uprightness by which a man is formed anew to a holy life. I care not how old this error may be; but they err egregiously who endeavor to support it by this passage.

We must look to Paul’s design. He intends to shew that we have brought nothing to God, by which he might be laid under obligations to us; and he shews that even the good works which we perform have come from God. Hence it follows, that we are nothing, except through the pure exercise of his kindness. Those men, on the other hand, infer that the half of our justification arises from works. But what has this to do with Paul’s intention, or with the subject which he handles? It is one thing to inquire in what righteousness consists, and another thing to follow up the doctrine, that it is not from ourselves, by this argument, that we have no right to claim good works as our own, but have been formed by the Spirit of God, through the grace of Christ, to all that is good. When Paul lays down the cause of justification, he dwells chiefly on this point, that our consciences will never enjoy peace till they rely on the propitiation for sins. Nothing of this sort is even alluded to in the present instance. His whole object is to prove, that, “by the grace of God, we are all that we are.”  (1 Corinthians 15:10)

Which God hath prepared Beware of applying this, as the Pelagians do, to the instruction of the law; as if Paul’s meaning were, that God commands what is just, and lays down a proper rule of life. Instead of this, he follows up the doctrine which he had begun to illustrate, that salvation does not proceed from ourselves. He says, that, before we were born, the good works were prepared by God; meaning, that in our own strength we are not able to lead a holy life, but only so far as we are formed and adapted by the hand of God. Now, if the grace of God came before our performances, all ground of boasting has been taken away. Let us carefully observe the word prepared. On the simple ground of the order of events, Paul rests the proof that, with respect to good works, God owes us nothing. How so? Because they were drawn out of his treasures, in which they had long before been laid up; for whom he called, them he justifies and regenerates.

Being a believer is God’s creation. What we need to ask is if believing is a good work. As can be seen Calvin doesn’t make faith not a gift, he makes it part of the whole of the gift of salvation. Calvin’s view of faith is extensive and comprehensive. By Calvin’s reckoning, Allen is a Papist. What Calvin was combating was a restriction on the meaning of the gift which would isolate faith and lend to its necessarily having to be come a meritorious action to receive salvation. In other words, Calvin makes faith a necessary gift in regeneration through which all other graces are received. It is why he discussed free-will. Faith is necessary to over come it, otherwise it is a work of man and not of the grace of God. It also needs to be considered that regeneration is applied to the full process of salvation including sanctification (good works prepared beforehand that we will walk in them). Calvin used the terms interchangeably as many reformers did. That is because the entire man is regenerated in the process of salvation including the final culmination in a glorified body. So we ask, is believing part of our sanctification? Or, is believing neutral, having nothing to do with being conformed to the image of the Son? Did Christ trust the Father when he commended to him his spirit? Faith  is a word equivalent to salvation which includes belief. Calvin is faithful to the formula that faith, that is belief, flows from regeneration as can be seen, not only here, but in his discussion of faith in the Institutes:

We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit… Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection… Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

Calvin would view Allen’s faith as a false one, in other words, because it is not that

“the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use… In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end.”

It takes a proper knowledge of who Christ is to believe in him, and that, Calvin says, comes only from the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin would consider Allen’s faith as such:

“This is invariably true, and is not inconsistent with the fact, that the large benefits which the divine liberality is constantly bestowing on the wicked are preparing them for heavier judgment. As they neither think that these proceed from the hand of the Lord, nor acknowledge them as his, or if they do so acknowledge them, never regard them as proofs of his favor, they are in no respect more instructed thereby in his mercy than brute beasts, which, according to their condition, enjoy the same liberality, and yet never look beyond it. Still it is true, that by rejecting the promises generally offered to them, they subject themselves to severer punishment. For though it is only when the promises are received in faith that their efficacy is manifested, still their reality and power are never extinguished by our infidelity or ingratitude. Therefore, when the Lord by his promises invites us not only to enjoy the fruits of his kindness, but also to meditate upon them, he at the same time declares his love. Thus we are brought back to our statement, that every promise is a manifestation of the divine favor toward us. Now, without controversy, God loves no man out of Christ. He is the beloved Son, in whom the love of the Father dwells, and from whom it afterwards extends to us. Thus Paul says “In whom he has made us accepted in the Beloved,” (Eph. 1:6). It is by his intervention, therefore, that love is diffused so as to reach us. Accordingly, in another passage, the Apostle calls Christ “our peace,” (Eph. 2:14), and also represents him as the bond by which the Father is united to us in paternal affection (Rom. 8:3). It follows, that whenever any promise is made to us, we must turn our eyes toward Christ. Hence, with good reasons Paul declares that in him all the promises of God are confirmed and completed (Rom. 15:8).”

To love Christ, is to be in him, and how can one have faith in whom he does not love? Is believing an act of love? Then believing can only be in those who are in Christ.

Calvin has previously declared that the power of faith is such because it is Christ in us who is its strength and remains the faithful one even when we waiver. In other words, Calvin has declared with Scripture that without faith it is impossible to please God and that it is we in him and he in us the hope of glory, for Christ alone is the one in whom God is well pleased. All other faith outside Christ is void of power to save because it is not united with Christ who by the power of his resurrection has made us to be blessed in the Beloved. Divine favor, that is God’s gift in Christ, is the source and the resource of faith.

A simple external manifestation of the word ought to be amply sufficient to produce faith, did not our blindness and perverseness prevent. But such is the proneness of our mind to vanity, that it can never adhere to the truth of God, and such its dullness, that it is always blind even in his light. Hence without the illumination of the Spirit the word has no effect; and hence also it is obvious that faith is something higher than human understanding. Nor were it sufficient for the mind to be illumined by the Spirit of God unless the heart also were strengthened and supported by his power. Here the Schoolmen go completely astray, dwelling entirely in their consideration of faith, on the bare simple assent of the understanding, and altogether overlooking confidence and security of heart. Faith is the special gift of God in both ways,—in purifying the mind so as to give it a relish for divine truth, and afterwards in establishing it therein. For the Spirit does not merely originate faith, but gradually increases it, until by its means he conducts us into the heavenly kingdom. “That good thing which was committed unto thee,” says Paul, “keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,” (2 Tim. 1:14). In what sense Paul says (Gal. 3:2), that the Spirit is given by the hearing of faith, may be easily explained. If there were only a single gift of the Spirit, he who is the author and cause of faith could not without absurdity be said to be its effect; but after celebrating the gifts with which God adorns his church, and by successive additions of faith leads it to perfection, there is nothing strange in his ascribing to faith the very gifts which faith prepares us for receiving. It seems to some paradoxical, when it is said that none can believe Christ save those to whom it is given; but this is partly because they do not observe how recondite and sublime heavenly wisdom is, or how dull the mind of man in discerning divine mysteries, and partly because they pay no regard to that firm and stable constancy of heart which is the chief part of faith… The supplies of the Holy Spirit are therefore necessary, or rather his agency is here the only strength… The word is, in regard to those to whom it is preached, like the sun which shines upon all, but is of no use to the blind. In this matter we are all naturally blind; and hence the word cannot penetrate our mind unless the Spirit, that internal teacher, by his enlightening power make an entrance for it… Let it suffice to observe, that the spirit of faith is used by Paul as synonymous with the very faith which we receive from the Spirit, but which we have not naturally (2 Cor. 4:13). Accordingly, he prays for the Thessalonians, “that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power,” (2 Thess. 1:2). Here, by designating faith the work of God, and distinguishing it by way of epithet, appropriately calling it his good pleasure, he declares that it is not of man’s own nature; and not contented with this, he adds, that it is an illustration of divine power. In addressing the Corinthians, when he tells them that faith stands not “in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God,” (1 Cor. 2:4), he is no doubt speaking of external miracles; but as the reprobate are blinded when they behold them, he also includes that internal seal of which he elsewhere makes mention. And the better to display his liberality in this most excellent gift, God does not bestow it upon all promiscuously, but, by special privilege, imparts it to whom he will. To this effect we have already quoted passages of Scripture, as to which Augustine, their faithful expositor, exclaims (De Verbo Apost. Serm. 2) “Our Savior, to teach that faith in him is a gift, not a merit, says, ‘No man can come to me, except the Father, which has sent me, draw him,’ (John 6:44). It is strange when two persons hear, the one despises, the other ascends. Let him who despises impute it to himself; let him who ascends not arrogate it to himself” In another passage he asks, “Wherefore is it given to the one, and not to the other? I am not ashamed to say, This is one of the deep things of the cross. From some unknown depth of the judgments of God, which we cannot scrutinize, all our ability proceeds. I see that I am able; but how I am able I see not:—this far only I see, that it is of God. But why the one, and not the other? This is too great for me: it is an abyss a depth of the cross. I can cry out with wonder; not discuss and demonstrate.” The whole comes to this, that Christ, when he produces faith in us by the agency of his Spirit, at the same time ingrafts us into his body, that we may become partakers of all blessings… And what else is it than to bring the promises of Christ into doubt, when we would be deemed servants of Christ without having his Spirit, whom he declared that he would pour out on all his people? (Isa. 44:3). What! do we not insult the Holy Spirit, when we separate faith, which is his peculiar work, from himself? These being the first rudiments of religion, it is the most wretched blindness to charge Christians with arrogance, for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit; a glorying without which Christianity itself does not exist. The example of these men illustrates the truth of our Savior’s declaration, that his Spirit “the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you,” (John 14:17).

You can see, Calvin is exhausting the meaning of faith and its source and power. Faith knows him in whom it believes. It’s power and efficacy is God himself in the one who believes, and that from God. It is secured to us by the same power which raised Christ from the dead, and is active only by that power. How futile to claim that faith can exist outside of Christ, or that it can exist in us without Christ in us the hope of glory. Faith is not impotent emotionalism like that of the pagan religions and Allen would have it. That is what Allen presents, however. He offers nothing more than the stench of death, not the life freely given so that men might believe.

Allen, along with SBCToday, for some reason wants the reader not to read Calvin for himself. For some reason he wants to pretend that no one will take notice. How such filth stands as a representative of the SBC is beyond all comprehension.

A final note. All Calvinists believe that salvation is conditioned by faith.  That A.T. Robertson pointed out that in the Greek of Ephesians 2:8-9, means nothing. There are two nuances of conditioned that should be mentioned. It can mean in the conditional sense, i.e., that one thing must precede another. It can also mean the existing state of the thing which is indicated. That is to say, light is a necessary condition to see only indicates that the light must be. Not that sight must become light. Rather, that in seeing, light must exist already. Add that to the fact that the word faith here is noun, and not a verb, there is every indication that the thing essentially (and properly all of what faith means in Scripture) and not its action, is what is being spoken of.

Add to that, is salvation ever spoken of in Scripture as existing without faith as if faith were prior and not a part of it? Even when Scripture says believe and you will be saved, the conditionality as a possibility may only indicate that the state of being is what is meant, as in John 3:16 where it is said, “all the ones believing in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The SBCToday article makes it look as if A.T. is confirming Allen. But he doesn’t. In both verses he commends that all of it is of grace. That we have faith, that is, that it is we who believe, is not excluded from the power and the one working it in us. It, as all things considered as a condition of salvation, all of grace, as A.T. said, are not from in man but from without, a gift given. Faith is the condition of salvation, not the precondition of it.

For a definition and another look, see here. Faith is on our part, there is no doubt, but that doesn’t make it any less part of the grace which God gives than any other part of the whole of our salvation. That God gives it, and operates it, does not exclude us being active in it. Nor does what the referent is, or what it refers to, have anything to do with overthrowing the Holy Spirit who works all things in all. Unless one wants to say that faith is not of the Spirit- but if not of the Spirit, then it is not Christ’s, nor does it have anything to do with him. The Spirit works all things, regeneration, conviction, sanctification, repentance, et cetera. If he doesn’t work faith in us, then it is not in us. If it is not in us it is not part of us, either, if the Holy Spirit is not working it. A.T., is not the only Greek scholar in the world.

Another attempt to rule out faith as a gift is found here. Curiously, the same two foolish conclusions are made: 1) because of the grammar construction faith is not a gift (but as we saw above, Calvin got the grammar right and still said it was a gift), 2) that nowhere else in Scripture is faith indicated as a gift. The latter has been, and will continue to shown to be one of the most foolish things ever said:

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Philippians 1:29).

And Robertson’s NT Word Studies says of Philippians 1:29 “{In the behalf of Christ} (to huper cristou). Literally, “the in behalf of Christ.” But Paul divides the idea and uses the article to again both with pisteuein and with pascein. Suffering in behalf of Christ is one of God’s gifts to us.” Even as an unfriendly antagonist, A.T. could not help but come to the conclusion that faith is a gift when he says that to refers to both believe and to suffer.

Hart’s derogatory conclusion is that Ephesians 2:8 cannot be used as support for “faith as a gift theology.” But in reading his article, he demonstrates that is not true, as it is and will remain, controversial because of the construction in which faith may well be included in the grace of salvation even if one agrees that faith is not directly the gift in that verse. Isolated, it may be a gift, or it may not be, but it is not conclusive that it cannot be a gift. Here is the thing. Since Philippians says that faith is a gift, even if Ephesians doesn’t contain the construction that it is, it is proper to assign it as a gift there because it is proven elsewhere. Beside, when has it ever been the rule that a direct statement must exist to prove a doctrine. Can we say trinity… anyone?

I point out Hart for one very special purpose. Allen has been known to import whole-cloth others’ thoughts, without checking out the veracity of them. In other words, when a fool speaks foolishly, Allen has a tendency to take upon himself the mantle of a fool and repeat the fools words as truth. SBC Today lacks any compulsion to avoid the same kind foolishness. In the SBCToday articles “quotes” of Allen, Allen uses direct language from Hart.

I return to Calvin since Allen, Hart, and SBC Today have quoted him as an authority:

Here Paul clearly testifies, that faith, as well as constancy in enduring persecutions, is an unmerited gift of God. And certainly the knowledge of God is a wisdom that is too high for our attaining it by our own acuteness, and our weakness shews itself in daily instances in our own experience, when God withdraws his hand for a little while. That he may intimate the more distinctly that both are unmerited, he says expressly — for Christ’s sake, or at least that they are given to us on the ground of Christ’s grace; by which he excludes every idea of merit.

This passage is also at variance with the doctrine of the Schoolmen, in maintaining that gifts of grace latterly conferred are rewards of our merit, on the ground of our having made a right use of those which had been previously bestowed. I do not deny, indeed, that God rewards the right use of his gifts of grace by bestowing grace more largely upon us, provided only you do not place merit, as they do, in opposition to his unmerited liberality and the merit of Christ.

Once again Calvin makes it clear that faith in Philippians 1:29 is a gift even if it isn’t directly so in Ephesians 2:8. And so it is not as Allen and SBCToday claim. Faith is directly proclaimed to be a gift. There is of course Corinthians. But if any should complain, let it be known, I agree with Calvin in that what SBCToday and Allen have done is to become Papists and Schoolmen. They deny the active operation of God’s Holy Spirit in the ability of men to perform the duties required of them. When Calvin also condemns the semi-schoolmen along with them, he makes it clear that neither Pelagians, nor semi-Pelagians, have any interest in a salvation that is of God alone.

My God, My God, Why?”

(A compilation from Psalm 22:16-18; Luke 23:32-38; Mark 4:12; and 1 Corinthians 2:8) And Jesus said, “Father, permit these dogs to encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; and they cast lots to divide my garments. And the people stand by, watching. They may indeed see but they do not perceive, and may indeed hear but they do not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven. Father, permit this for they know not what they do. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. The rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” All who see me mock me; their mouths open against me; they wag their heads; “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”  The soldiers also mock…ed him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.” “Father, for what purpose do you do afflict me?” But the Father has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship before him, even before the one who could not keep himself alive. All who go down to the dust shall bow before him. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.

Rejoice In The Anastasis!

Pied Pipers Of The Covenant Of Works

There has been some chatter as of late in the misty blogs concerning the mythological monster called CoW who lived the Garden of Eden. I would have to say that seeing that there is no proof of such a hissing giant, people like John Piper can have their way with it if they want:

Harp from the Willows: John Piper and the covenant of works

An online acquaintance, a Reformed Baptist in the  SBC (if that isn’t in itself a blasphemous cohabitation), has a defense here.

As a proof text for the CoW, Hosea 6:7a says nothing whatsoever about Adam the man. Calvin’s take was that it meant man, not the man Adam. In context his argument has weight. All men, in context, always transgress the covenant. But, also in context the term is most likely in reference to a city, as that is the context, namely the condemnation of the cities and peoples under consideration. They, like all men, broke covenant. But as good Calvinists we understand that all doesn’t always mean all. Beside, in 6:7b we have to ask where there is. In 6:8 we see Gilead a city of evildoers. Calvin’s interpretation has strong merit, though I think it is simply the name of a city. In either case, it is not a verse to use for a Covenant of Works in the Garden for the very reason that it is a matter of dispute. Even Meredith Kline demurred such, but chose to ignore the controversy for the sake of his hermeneutic. Ipse dixit- he needed it to be so, so it was so, because he said so. The CoW becomes through the covenantal blinders of hermeneutical tradition. In other words, when seen through this verse, it is a creature of imagination born of necessity.

Though Calvin thought that Adam would have eventually ascended to heaven, he was clear that there was nothing which man had to fulfill (what it means to fulfill may be the working out of what is, rather than working for what is yet to be, as in Philippians 2:12-13 where we see our salvation being worked out by God according to his good pleasure, it is and is yet becoming what it is). It was all given, according to Calvin, (it may be in this sense that Adam was a type of Christ, alternatively, that he was the head of the first kind, Jesus the head of a last kind, or it might simply be that Adam bore the burden of sin coming into the world as antithesis, for we see Eve that brought sin into the human race, but Adam bears that sin for her and all those who came out from him, my emphasis). To the chagrin of many covenantalists, he discounted attempts to make the tree of life a means of life seeing life was something Adam already possessed. He granted it as most likely only a memorial to God’s providence by which Adam had life, not the reward of life for active obedience, nor the means of attaining it. A shocking thing to those who view it as a type of sacramental seal. Adam’s, life was given, his dominion was given, his subjection of the world was given, and he was placed into it, not to gain it, but to keep it. And even the keeping, Calvin said, was a gift of God’s providence so that Adam would have not worries that he might fail at his given task. It might be stated, man does not live by bread he makes alone, but even its ingredients, the recipe, and the ability to knead it and the hearth to bake the bread, is provided by every thing God speaks (that is to say, whatever God wills is the only source of all that is). Jesus didn’t have to reach out and take what the devil offered, he already possessed it. Even in the temptation he was strengthened and then refreshed by God’s provision. All was given to him. Adam, likewise, was to bask in the delightsome task God had given him, fully provided for in all aspects of the life he had been given to live to the full. Jesus for the joy set before him endured the cross. What he was given to do is what he did. Calvin rejected the idea that man could in any way, even in his innocence, do anything to merit anything so as to ascend to heaven. And Scripture affirms that no man ascends to heaven so as to bring Christ down, for the only one who can ascend is the one who descended.

Calvin rejected any sense in which there was more than one mediator between God and man. It is simply a usurpation of the eternality of the Mediatorial office to propose another could procure life to Jesus’ offspring, which are not of the flesh, but of the Spirit. Jesus understood that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Why can’t those who believe in Cow? Calvin characterized the distinction between the first and last Adam as one of kind, not of covenantal equality. The first he denotes as one who is the head of the family of living souls, that is of the flesh. The other, a life-giving spirit, the head of a family which is of the Spirit, born from above, not of the offspring of man, not of the works of man’s hands, not of blood, not of bloods, but of God. In other words, Jesus didn’t fulfill a covenant of works given to the first Adam: 1) there wasn’t one; 2) he came to fulfill another covenant altogether, which the covenants, where they really are covenants, are only positive or negative types, not their anti-type or in any sense the substance of it.

Jesus is not a priest after the order of man, anyway, as the works covenants require, but after a heavenly order, which is the meaning of the Melchizedek priesthood. Which brings up another thing. There are two essentially different covenants in the OT; one which requires man’s efforts, another which is done solely for man unilaterally by God. There is no priesthood in the Garden. The first priest is Abel as far as we can tell. He is the first to offer acceptable sacrifice. As such, he is both prophet and priest. His sacrifice is offered in type as one given by God (see Isaac’s ram substitute) contrasted with Cain’s which is typologically a works centered sacrifice and rejected. Abel’s priesthood was like that of John the baptist’s which pointed to Jesus’ priesthood. It doesn’t come through the law. All men’s priest works are sacrifices which come through the law and are rejected by God as insufficient to give life:

“Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law…And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”

The law is not incompatible with the promise. It points to it, but it is not the promise. Indeed the latter establishes the first in that it is the substance of the first. But not ever vice verse. In these unequivocal statements, Scripture denies any place for the law being a means to life. All human priest works can do is type, or sign, but can not ever perform the thing which they point to. And also,

“for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law,”

There was no law. To make the first prohibition a law conflates the meaning of what is later used to distinguish the punishment of transgression, with something which has universal, eternal overtures. Namely, that the divine nature expressed in the image of man is not properly law external. Strictly, God is not holy by law, but nature, so also was man in that image made, not subject to the external, but by the nature written in the heart. Violence done to that holiness is not by law, as it were, but an offense against his being, that is the substance of what is signified. As we read elsewhere, fornication is not a sin outside, but one committed in one’s body. The violence done is done without the law by nature. Indeed, the gentiles who do not have the law when they act according to it prove that the law is written in their heart. Meaning that the essence of law is what exists by nature without the law. The law coming after the offense demonstrates that the essential nature of the offence is not according to the law, rather, the law was given because of transgression demonstrating that transgression is of nature. Transgression is not the result, it does not derive from the establishing of the code, rather the essence of the transgression stands transcendent prior to the code. The law is given so that sin can be put on full display for what it is:

Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Where there is no law there is no law covenant… at least in Scripture’s account of the world of men. For covenants among men require such, as Hebrews says, and are sealed with an oath. With the covenant made to Abraham, which is the subject of Hebrews, it is a covenant which was not made with man, but is much higher, and so requires God to swear by God:

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise.

In relation to the true covenant made before time, the law can only point to, not establish the reality of it. In other words, even if a covenant was made in the Garden, it could never realize the thing which came before it. As 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, the first covenant was of the letter and brought death contrasted with the new covenant which brought life. Eternal life is granted according to the priesthood of Melchizedek, which was before anything existed and continues forever. It is the same covenant carried out by similitude. It is a covenant carried out before there is a child, e.g., Levi. It was a covenant carried out before Adam. A covenant with Adam would have to be of the same nature, not by works, but by the calling of God, without beginning and without end. In other words, if it was, it was a gift and if a gift, not earned, nor could it be annulled for it endures forever. Beside, the Eternal Priesthood of Christ is not shared with any. No other priest could do what he could being that he was not born according to the flesh, but conceived by the Spirit. His inheritance comes by relationship to the Father, not by works, but through Sonship. Adam was a living soul, Christ a life-giving spirit. That is the contrast of Romans 5. One is from below, and one from above. The last Adam, and he alone, could give to his offspring what was his by nature. As it is written, in him alone is eternal life.

Covenants, humanly speaking, have their basis of authority in written ordinances. We cannot say against Scripture that there was law where it says there was no law. Still, death came by transgression. It was not of a covenant between God and man, then, but a much higher offense against the eternality of the Holiness of God. Jesus’ sacrifice, likewise, is of a totally different priesthood, and a totally different kind, of a different reality, of which Adam could only have been a type. Abel, likewise was merely a type, not the forerunner, and his sacrifice was only a type and so far removed from the reality that Hebrews declares that such covenantal sacrifices could never satisfy even the demands of the law, as is demonstrated by the fact that they must be repeated. If they couldn’t supererogate the law, they surely could not satisfy the demands of the eternal holiness of God. From Abel forward, there is an unbroken chain of symbolic performances which have no efficacy because they are earthly and not from heaven. The work Jesus did, could only be done by one, and only once could it be done. As the fulfilling of the perfect covenant, he accomplishes it as both the maker of it and its perfecter. Otherwise, his sacrifice is no better than that of animals. We read that his was, and remains the only efficacious sacrifice by the nature of the who and how it was offered. As such, human priests can offer nothing. Even if Adam could have offered a necessary obedience, i.e., a priestly sacrifice, it would have fallen light-years short of the mark. Human priests’ sacrifices can only point to the one source of life which ever has been, and that, as given only by God’s voluntary condescension in creation. The offense which brought death is so far above the violation of any convenantal arrangement between God and man, that it required a solution of an entirely different kind. A sharp contrast with works, then, is the covenant of grace. Far from being a violation of a so called creation covenant, the violation of grace was the creation’s violation of the creator’s being.

Jesus’ kingship, likewise, is of a different order, he being the King of Glory, eternally. It is a kingship again, contrasting David with Saul, which has its origin in eternity and bears no resemblance to the kingships of men. The first kingship we see among God’s people is one of their desire, not his. Meaning simply, that the works Jesus came to do, his kingship and his other roles also, were of such a different order that He alone, being who he was, could grant eternal life. Jesus, the King Eternal, known by prophecy to be the one who would occupy David’s seat eternally, was the King upon the throne long before David was conceived. Thus David call’s him Lord. It is not David’s seat that Jesus ascends to, but Jesus’ seat which David ascended to as Ephesians says of all who are the blessed according to promise and not by law. The offense of wanting a king like men have was against God’s being. He said, that the people did not reject Samuel, but himself as King. Jesus came to be who he was. For this purpose he said he was born. And that kingship was not of this world, for his kingdom was not of this world. He was not another king David, a second one like a first. Jesus was uniquely The King, as in one of a kind, who knit David’s life together in the womb to become a king, so as to proclaim the One who came before him, the only begotten Son of God, the Eternal King of Glory.

It is to that reality which Calvin speaks, elevating the Mediatorial role of Christ beyond the bounds of earth, contrasting the man of dust who could produce only after his kind, with the one who created that kind out of the dust, and who creates a new kind after himself. Jesus is the firstfruits of an entirely different kind. As he was not of the earth, they are not of the earth, so John declares. He is from above, of heaven, the eternal progenitor, who begets children according to the Spirit, born from above. So it is said that eternal life is in him alone and is not by law, that is, it is not by works of an earthly sort, not the works of men’s hands. It never was, and never could be attained to, it can only be given. If another could have performed what he did, he would not have been called the Only Begotten Son of God, the only acceptable sacrifice whose blood speaks of better covenant, a covenant not of this world, made in heaven before time, and kept by his power alone, a covenant made by an oath between the Father and the Son. And not only that, but seeing there is no one else to swear it to, seeing he is not just man, but God, his covenant is with himself. Jesus did not come as another Adam, but the last Adam, the only son given as the father of the everlasting (Isaiah 9:6), the progenitor of a new generation, a new kind. He did not swear an oath with man, but it says:

“For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation… We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek… And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”

The covenant, the only one that matters, is the oath made before all time by God with God. Even if it were the case that a covenant with the first Adam as a first priest was made, it was made without such an oath.

This we should understand. Jesus is the sole true heir of the Kingdom. Not as if it were that it was not always his. As the only true Son, the Seed, who was and is and ever will be, the Kingdom belongs to him, the King of kings. Which is to say there is no other king but he. Not because he earned it, but because he is the King Eternal. The rest of the heirs are not parties in the agreement. They are made beneficiaries to it, much like those who do not engage in will and testament making, but are the heirs of the estate of one who dies. Heirs, in the latter sense do not make a covenant with the testator, nor he with them. A will is made between the testator and the magistrate, often prior to the existence of any heirs. The magistrate attests to the will and may appoint a trustee. In this case the testator is Jesus, who is also the true Heir in whom all the trust rights resolve. He is also the trustee, acting on the part of the testator and the magistrate to execute the terms of the will. As the trustee of the estate, he is the guarantor of the benefits, also. Tying this to the essence of law, it is not the law that makes one husband and wife, but God who joins them. The testimony to the essence follows, it does not precede the essence. The will and testament of Christ is of his essence, of his substance, as the Son. Of that will and testament, he makes us partakers by the Holy Spirit. We do not partake of his essence, but we receive all the benefits of it as if true sons by virtue of the execution of that will through which we have been made joint heirs by adoption.

It is why he is called the Lamb of God slain before time, because in him alone is eternal life. It is he alone who has been granted the right to give it to whom he wills, not according to works but by grace. It is in him alone where all the benefits are. Also, it is in him, as the first of a kind, that all his seed share in his inheritance. It wasn’t something he had to earn, but by nature of who he is and the relationship he had with his Father. It is not something which the children can earn, as it is written, it is the parent who gives an inheritance to his children. John 17 records it was a work given, with rewards given, with children given. The work doesn’t earn the gift, it is the gift. It is a gift passed from Father to Son, to sons. A father’s works are passed along in terms of some thing which is representative of the father. The gift of the Son was the foundation of why he makes a covenant with Abraham. A wise man who  gives an inheritance to his children’s children describes what the inter-trinitarian covenant was about. The father gave sons to the Son by virtue of progeneration, not by works. Which by extension meant that the gift is to Abraham and his descendants, so that the children and the children’s children, are counted in the Melchizedek covenant (which we have just seen); it is a covenant made before time, through a priest, king, and prophet, without beginning or ending, who begets children of his own kind. So it is appropriate that the covenant is extended to the heirs of it through the Heir, just as it is said that in a way Levi paid taxes through Abraham though Levi was yet in the loins of Abraham. It is not that there are two covenants, but that that first one is executed in favor of those who a members of it, so that God is said to make a covenant with Abraham and his children, and his children’s children, all of whom are in the loins, so to speak, of the Son.

Contrasted to this, if continuity is desired in such a way that a covenant of works is necessary in the Garden, covenants with man are demonstrated, throughout Scripture, as those which could never give life. Despite the claim that some would make that there is a distinction between the law of the curse given with penalties which is slavish, and the law of the Garden which was not, the distinction is strained to the breaking point. For both contain penalties with burdens of proof. Quite contrary, is it not, to the reading of the creation narrative with its picture of the blessed estate and the perfected presentation of a good creation abundantly provided without such cares? Indeed, it would seem, that if God created man and placed him in a Garden with a covenant of works, the burden of performance always swung overhead like the sword of Damocles. It was no Garden, it was a jungle nightmare.

What is eternal life, anyway? Scripture declares Jesus to be the source of life. It does not matter if it is life which in the beginning could be lost, or that life given through the new birth which cannot be. The life we have and the life to come are created things, and by definition, temporal. Christ alone is the author of life. The life we have and the life which is to come is just life. What makes the difference is that our new life in Christ is sealed to us by the Holy Spirit which he gives, not according to works but according to the promise. It is the sealing of life to us which makes it eternal seeing that eternality can only be properly assigned to God. Life is still, in essence, nothing more than life. The life Adam had he could lose, it was not anything he could gain. It was, as Calvin said, what he was given. Even if he had ascended to heaven and eternally sealed, what man has and will have is by providence, the gift of God. And here is the catch. What God gives is perfect, doing what it was meant to do. Adam did not, nor could he have, withstood the temptation of the enemy. It was not given to him to be able to do so. If he could not withstand, how then could he have stood? The new life we have been granted in Christ is something which he has guaranteed by oath with the Father. We do not stand by ourselves, neither could Adam. As it was in the beginning, so it will be in the end; the only source, the only means of attaining to life, is who it has always been and shall ever be, God alone. Who can merit eternal life? Jesus said it was impossible with man. Now, some will say that is the truth after the fall. But, stop. If life is a gift to begin with and man can only stand in it where God seals it to him, and eternal life is a free gift, just what is it that man could ever earn without first being sealed? To the enquiry, Jesus said sell it all. It cannot be bought by any merit of any kind.

I have written here on Calvin and the covenant of works.

Sex Changes: It’s Fundamental

“The debates about homosexuality, in part because they often involve public policy and legal issues, tend to be sharply polarized…

Yet as the foregoing also clearly shows, the policy and legal debates surrounding homosexuality involve fundamental issues of morality and justice. Perhaps most centrally of all, they cut to issues of personal identity and self-definition. Hence there is another, and even deeper, set of reasons for the polarization that marks these debates.”

There is a reason that conservatives are mooring their dinghies on the shores of pro-homosexuality. They’re conservatives. But, as the article concludes, the debates actually have a genesis rooted much more deeply. Though at other times it was one form of cultural morality versus another, as Christians we can see that it is Christian morality versus all other moralities that is at the heart of the current controversy. Historically not much has changed. The social milieu depends upon who is ruling. As long as there is a civil magistrate, civil religion will prevail. It can be asked, then, what is morality? Or better, which morality is the best paradigm to address is the question, since it has always been a struggle for the religious control of the civil state. It can also be stated, what is justice in the civil state since it is ideologically driven, and not by any historical measure a question of absolutes?

For Christians there can be only one response. But, let me be as blunt as possible by contemplating Paul’s response to Peter: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” The church must confront its own when errors creep seeking to take captive the weak. And we are all weak. It does no good for anyone for ministers of the Gospel to remain chained to their pulpits, unwilling out of a faux respect for boundaries, as ashamed, or afraid, to not confront their cross-town rivals in the faith. The great Peter was not beyond the reach of the perfection demanded by Scripture. He was not beyond the reach of his fellow elder. What Scripture demands, it demands of all mankind everywhere- nothing less than perfect righteousness, as Peter would say later, “Be holy.” Scripture demands a perfect knowledge of doctrine, the mature stature of the Son of God, Ephesians 4. Peter’s actions, not even his verbal teaching, was blurring sound doctrine, and Paul condemned him for it. Perfection is impossible for any, and yet, to that standard even the ”hypocritical” elder, Peter, had to be held accountable. In today’s church, we barely tolerate in-church discipline, let alone nailing a condemnation order to the backside of other churches elders. In many ways, we have become nothing more than a civic organization.

The issue of civil acceptance or rejection of Biblical morality is not the cause celeb of the Christian faith, any more than a restoration of an Edenic society is. The church is charged with the faithful preaching of the Gospel of repentance regardless of the outcome, regardless of the civil magistrates’ moral orientations. What kind of repentance is it which allows for sin in the church hierarchy by silent neutrality, but calls laymen and those outside to reject sin and confess the truth? Peter, by his actions, endangered even the highest of servants of the ministry: ‘For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…” Even Barnabas, who stood with the apostle Paul as a co-worker, proved weak. So what should we say? Word, words, words… and actions, actions, actions, are the weapons of our spiritual warfare. They must be consistent with one another. Peter had laid down the sword, and Paul slapped him with it.

Here is the gist: Though no one is perfect, all are expected to be so.

Barnabas, Peter, even James’ men ran afoul of the ideal and stood condemned. As the historical review reveals, society has remained fickle in its moralities, always in flux, subject to the changes of the civil wind, no matter the influence of the church. What does change is the church, unfortunately. And once the church begins to embrace civilian moralities and doctrines by not confronting its Peter’s, Jame’s, Barnabas’, Hymenaeus’, Philetus’, Diotrephes’, Phygelus’, Hermogenes’, or the believer in the pew living in open defiance of the morality of Scripture, it soon becomes the leader of the crowd by default.

What separates the church from the world is not its “saltiness”. That is the common attribute of all men. Scripture has concluded all men sinful.When once the church begins to think of leaders as better than the world and not worth the same condemnation of sin, is when it loses its flavor. When it once begins to think it can give a pass to those claiming its name, is when it loses it flavor. When it covers the light of truth so that not all are held to the accountability of the light, elder and layman alike, is when its light becomes darkness. No one lighting a lamp shelters any from the message that of Lot’s wife, or that of wicked Lot. What matters is the direction we are facing and whether we will come into the light or not. What separates the church is it love of truth and its love for one another in that truth. In that, we at once recognize our weakness as having come out of the salty world. What separates us is that we do not deny it. The world tries to justify itself as just another morality. Scripture holds mankind all alike accountable to perfection. We condemn our weaknesses as a rejection of the moral perfection which is defined by Scripture, and by that condemn all others who reject it, also. What we offer is repentance and faith in the One True Light.

Where we are found to be loving one another is in our willingness to call one another to accountability through repentance, and our willingness to stand near to help one another despite the moral failings of our flesh. By this, the common salt of the earth knows that we are disciples. We are mankind, just as they are, calling them to join us in the new life offered. It is not by our perfections that we receive. That is, our good works merit us no favor with God. That was Peter’s and circumcision’s problem. It is by grace through faith, a faith grounded in the Truth.  It is not by compromise, not by permissions, either, but through discipline, each part doing its part until we all come the unity of the faith, to maturity of the knowledge of the Son of God, reforming our minds day by day, that makes us different. That is the big part that is missing is the leadership in the church and why they have unwittingly become the leaders of civil rather than Biblical morality. We don’t, for the most part have men like Paul, who are willing to execute the office of ministers of the Gospel, and confront equals who by word or action teach false doctrine. What is missing today are faithful ministers of the word, as in Paul’s charge to Timothy, willing stand in public and denounce, the public embarrassment that some show forth for the Gospel of Jesus Christ while they blasphemously take upon themselves the name. The former make themselves partakers with the latter if they do not confront the error within. It is the least loving of all to leave a brother, yes, even a fellow elder, dying in the ditch, beaten and bloody, and do nothing.

We cannot cleanse the world, we cannot preserve it, but we can point it toward the Perfection which is coming to judge the world. To those being saved He is the sweet savor of life, to others, the stench of death. To one he is coming in respect to salvation, the other to the judgement of eternal damnation. There is only one answer we can give to the world, only one response to falsehood and every lofty argument which exalts itself against the knowledge of God: Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!

If judgement is to begin, let it begin with the household of God. Paul’s love for Peter could not have been expressed better than his publicly humiliating his brother in the presence of all so that all would fear the demands of a righteous Savior from heaven. And, so that all might wonder at the grace provided through Him alone. Peter obviously learned his woodshed lessons in holiness and the necessity of the blood of Christ and His resurrection to attain the holiness we all woefully lack. He learned it well enough that it became his theme of warning to the church and to those beyond of the coming destruction of all who oppose God.

Serving Up Servetus Rick Patrick Is In Good Company

(Follow up to comments posted here)

Why lie?

And don’t forget to listen to this: James White’s more full comment on the Barker, ahem, error.

Patrick wondered how anyone could with a clear conscience follow the teachings of Calvin after what he had done:

How does a Calvinist today so easily absolve his conscience while taking his theological cues on the nature of God’s love from a heart and mind so blind to the immorality of governmental or ecclesiastical homicide?

Patrick thinks himself such a genius, his mind capable of recognizing sin and able to condemn others, even those (Calvinists) not involved in any historical sense. Conversely, since he evidently does not view this as sin, can we not infer that perhaps there are a great many other things his brilliant mind fails to grasp as well… (these are Patrick’s own words turned on him).

Beside the caricature which is lie, Patrick perniciously  poisons the well and paints with a broad brush doubt of Christian conscience in both Calvin and all Calvinists all the while claiming to harbor no ill will towards and even friendship with Calvinists. We’ve seen him question their conscience and then this:

How Calvinists can take their cue regarding God’s love for sinners from a Sixteenth Century born non-Southern Baptist theologian who approved treating his theological opponents in such a manner is an absolute mystery to me. If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.

Calvin did not murder anyone. That is historically, factually a lie. Calvinists do not take their cue from Calvin, either. I am a Calvinist, I don’t. I study Calvin for insight not for infallibility. It is the old canard that Calvinists follow Calvin, a common vitriol used by frauds like Ergun Caner. I was a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist for fifteen years before I ever understood the significance of the name of Calvin. The doctrines of grace and much of the history of the reformation had been conveniently hidden from our church, which was constitutionally, and in adherence to the BFM, bound to teach the whole history of the Christian faith. Instead of practicing truth in love it chose obscurantism. It is lying caricature to say Calvinists take their cues from Calvin and does thereby impugn the character of Calvinists, and the scope of their  inquiry, as narrow and sycophantic. As I’ve personally experienced, it is anti-Calvinists who follow lock-step and like to hide the truth for fear of being exposed.

One might wonder how anyone could take their cue from those who were part of the SBC’s bigoted racist years. Think of those who sat in seats of “glory” in the SBC during those years, who, though filled with the Holy Spirit (ostensibly), continued to hate their neighbors because of the color of their skin and yet taught “biblical truth” from the pulpits. Just how many million consciences were raped by the not so subtle racist indoctrination of the SBC? Blacks weren’t even theological opponents. They were innocent people, not blasphemers and heretics. Their only crime was being considered not quite people. It is certainly fair to question, then, anyone who would take a Traditionalist’s position heralding their long and proud control of SBC politics including not just the segregationist years, but the anti-inerrancy years, is it not?

Every historic era of the SBC champions some good and some bad theology and people. Some really bad, some really good. Should fault condemn everything good? The sad thing in Patrick’s anachronistic elitism, as with all self-exalting pride, is there is no mirror, just an ivory throne from which to condemn those with whom he disagrees. Dare we say hypocrite. Does he dare call Calvin such, does he dare call Calvinists such? Then should we not be as daring as he?

He has a political agenda as can be seen in his non-Southern Baptist rift. It is as if Patrick thinks his own Traditionalist religion sprung crisp and clean from its own immaculate conception. They call themselves Traditionalists to distinguish their clan from mongrels. Their political tact is unmistakable. Poison labels, caricatures, defamation and misinformation, suppressing knowledge, anti-intellectualism, knee-jerk reaction, all very familiar territory in cultic (F)undamentalism. It is one of the bad things in the history of the SBC, not one of the good.

Why, then, would anyone listen to Patrick, a Christian, when he does what Barker the apostate/atheist did? Barker’s claim is no different than Patrick’s- it is wholesale condemnation by association. But, if hypocrisy is the reason for discounting the whole, then there is no reason to trust anything Christianity has to offer… if Patrick represents it.

Nefarious intent or ignorant ranting of a fool- Calvin can be accused of neither, Patrick, both. Calvin’s actions can be reckoned, and at the same time his wrongs recognized and not justified as acts of righteousness as White, a Baptist and former SBC’er,  expresses. How do we reckon what Patrick has done? Should we not also recognize back-door insult and character assassination as unrighteousness? Or, should we just give him a pass as he falsely claims Calvinists do with Calvin? Hundreds of years from now will some things Patrick has said that are good be rejected because so much was wrong with him? Should it be said of him that nothing he said about God’s love was to be trusted because of his halting ability to show it? Hardly.

Jesus’ love was often of this kind of kindness and gentleness: on the road to Emmaus he stealthily confronted two of his disciples and called them spiritual dullards and slow minded fools despite the fact that they were in an emotional crisis trying to reconcile the week’s events and three years of “wasted” devotion to someone they never really knew. Jesus’ self-revelation  to them through the Scripture which they had read and never understood, was a slap to the face, or as they described it, the fiery purification of their hearts. I hope Patrick wakes up to the fact that Christianity isn’t a quaint religion for the weak and thin-skinned, nor a child’s folly. If he doesn’t like the forest ablaze he should quit playing with matches.

A concise paper.

Thabiti Anyabwile: Called To The Gospel Ministry But Not Gifted For Evangelism?

Only Once in About 30 Days – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile.

One of the primary reasons that the church is failing in its calling to make disciples is the fact that many men filling the pulpits don’t know what it means to do the work of an evangelist. It is not rocket science. Not all are called to evangelism because not all are called to be evangelists. Some have natural talents, some spiritual gifts. Some are introverted, some are extroverted. Some are comfortable in sharing their faith, others are not. That is normal. Some can share and some can’t. That is normal. Some are intelligent and articulate, some intellects can’t put two words together without stumbling over their lips. Others are good speakers without sense. Some are wonderful teachers but not Gospel Ministers. All Elders are Gospel Ministers, or they’re not Elders.

The one thing common about the Gospel Ministry is that those called to it are gifted for it. One of the primary gifted activities, and I believe the purpose of all others, of a Gospel Minister is evangelism. Contrary to popular myth, there are ministers of the word and then there is the rest of the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit doesn’t leave the Gospel Minister without the necessary gifts to fulfill what the Holy Spirit has begun. The rest of the body of Christ is best fit not being the mouth. Sadly, too many take on the mantle of minister of God and are not. And being not, they are not fit with the gifts and authority that goes along with the work of the evangelist in rebuking, reproving, and commanding those who oppose sound doctrine to shut their mouths. Too many will not admit they are not fit for the office because they have been told that everyone is.

As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Sober-mindedness goes along with the noble task of the trust with the Gospel that has been given. And so there is a suffering in a way that is unique to it. Trustworthiness is an expected duty along with the suffering that it begets. The idea of suffering at first signals wariness and a drawing back, but on the other hand it is a word of comfort that those who speak the truth will suffer for it. Being like John the Baptist, a Gospel Minister is expected to be as one whose head  will be offered on a plate. Suffering also plays off of soberness, in knowing that God is, as he was with Christ on the cross, always with the minister of the word to the end of his life in all power and authority. What too many believe is that all authority and power has been given to all equally in contradiction to the clear teaching of Scripture. The great commission, the particular calling of the Gospel Minister, then, is captured in this triad: for it is expected that with the making of disciples and their being taught that suffering is the Way of Life.

This is mantle of the Gospel Ministry which Paul passes along to Timothy with a charged trust. One who is supposed to pass it along to other trustworthy men in like manner, cannot be worn by any who are not evangelists to the world outside the church. For it is the world which hates the ministers of the Gospel for the sake of the Gospel of Chris. To be hated for the work of the Ministry is expected of a minister of God.

 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

I quote at length so that the reader can see that what I said above is correct. Paul’s first cause is what I believe is later said by Jesus through John in Revelation as the first love of the church. There is a most excellent way, the way of love and that love is best expressed in the building up of the body of Christ that the church may do its mission as each one does its part as assigned by the Holy Spirit. As Paul has said, it is for the mutual benefit of the whole that each is gifted individually and particularly so that each one befits the body of Christ till we all come to the unity of the faith, becoming a mature man. Not all are alike, not all have the gifts that others do. Not all are mouths, some are feet and hands. Not all are evangelists. Those who are not should lend to those who are what is necessary for completing the great commission. The symbiosis is completed in that those who are called to be preachers/evangelists and teachers, give from their treasury of God’s giftings to the body what is lacking in it.

There is a fitness to the gifting of each one for the role that he will play within the body of Christ. Now, I acknowledge that the supernatural sign gifts have long since disappeared, the church having been established. However, we read that there are teachers given, that eldership continues, that there is an expectation of the maturing of the body of Christ, made up of all members, that it may put on the whole armor of God to be able to stand in the Day. Each part of the body is still gifted according to God’s dispensation for their particular calling. The body is being led by those whose particularity is the preaching and teaching of the word of God, and the care of the flock, and the defense of the Gospel. It is still the Spirit who works all thing in all. That should pique our minds that there is a difference between those who are sheep, and those who gather them and tend them. Are all teachers? Are all pastors? Are all evangelists? The answer is still no.

The point is this, if God has given pastors and teachers, even if the particular office of evangelist has passed away, the work of the evangelist has not as is demonstrated in Timothy. As Paul teaches, Timothy received gifting of a minister from God for the purpose of The Ministry. The fulfillment of that ministry is the work of the evangelist. That calling is not universal. It belongs to the Gospel Ministry, to particular men for a particular purpose. The Gospel Minister is to teach, preach, reprove, correct, defend and utterly silence those who oppose him. And, he is to go out and compel the sheep who are lost to come into the fold. In other words, he is not one who is ashamed to share, (Romans 1:16), he is one who is known within and without for his unabashed boldness to proclaim the truth. The power and authority are in all who are called to the ministry to be able.

Check out the qualifications of the Elder. Why the constancy, the calling to hospitality? That to outsiders he must hold himself out as a faithful martyr? That is what is meant by having a good reputation, (martureo, 1 Timothy 3:7). That is, he must be known as one holding to the testimony of the faith. And how would that be explicitly known except he boldly proclaims the truth to outsiders? Which means that by good reputation, he is probably hated for that testimony by those outside. It is not within the congregation, but outside it where the preaching associated with evangelism must take place, then.

Of coarse, every action of the Elders is in some way required of all. It is obvious, as it testified to the fact that these attributes of an Elder are foundational requirements prior to his ascending to the office. Once in office, in the Elder, the they are required exemplars as befits their office, being necessary for the work of the ministry-  the preaching, the teaching and all other duties- being fulfilled by the work of the evangelist. To fulfill the ministry is to do the work of the evangelist, Paul says. All other duties of the Elder, indeed, of the entire church, is this one thing-  to equip the Elder(s) to find the lost and bring them into the fold where they are tended to by the rest of the commission mandate as seen in Jesus’ instructions to Peter.

Only when we confuse The Ministry as something which is generic and generally applicable to the whole local church, do we begin to fail to see the purpose of the individual giftings and how they determine foot from mouth. All congregations of God enjoy the benefits of having fathers in the faith, men who lead as opposed to follow, those who speak as opposed to those who listen, those who are strong as opposed to those who are not, those who are bold and those who are timid. Each part of the body does what is according to its kind. And each in that way lends to the building up of the whole so that the ministers of the word can do what they were particularly set aside to do.

And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.

There is the distinction. Some were called to one work, others were called to another. And the reason was so that other things would not interfere with the primary work of the ministry of the word of God. The first work of the ministry is the preaching and teaching of the word. So that one does not get the idea that preaching is primarily within the confines of the church from behind the pulpit, those claiming the primacy of the preaching and teaching of the word of God in Act 6, did the preaching work of evangelism out in the world.

Now, lest any think I think it inappropriate to expect everyone to lay down their life and speak the words of truth according to their ability, Stephen’s testimony makes it clear that God does and will equip when the occasion calls and when the Spirit wills. We should not forget that when we cookie-cutter Christian duty it is still the Spirit who works both the willing and the doing of his good pleasure. No guilt trips, no evangelism classes, can prepare an individual for circumstances beyond their control or vision. What God alone makes them to be is what they will be when and where God so determines. Some are made mute, and that by God. Yet, we have the testimony of Scripture that some are set aside by God for particular tasking and that is evident by what they are already doing, so that they are not silent.

That said, a man who desires the office of Elder is acknowledging and is being acknowledged as being gifted. Or, the qualifications for such a calling are meaningless. Until the church returns to its first love, (Revelation 2:5), the reason for her existence as led by those who were gifted by God to lead her and be her mouth, her lamp is all but taken away. I ask, what was it that Jesus came to do but to seek and save the lost? He commissioned his apostles with that work and they in turn were to pass it along to others who would do the same.

Here is another example. Is Your Church Making Disciples?

Mark says:

The prevailing attitude that it is the paid ministers job to do all of the discipling also seems to be a prevalent attitude.

I don’t think this is the prevailing attitude. In fact, I have not ever seen it in practice. In every church I have attended, the discipling is cooperative. But, that is in the broadest sense of discipling. It is, Biblically, not the job of the layman to disciple, it is the job of the Gospel Minister. That others aid in this doesn’t annul the commission to disciple given to the Gospel Minister. Nor does it erect another office of disciplers within the church

It is also easier to give money and applaud the international mission work that money is supporting than it is to share the gospel with a neighbor.

Of course it is! It is a mistake, however, to say that since one can give to missions, they are also able to be a missionary. Not all are able, even, to give money to missions, anyway. Each is to give as they are enabled. And, at that, it is God who supplies… if he does. So if the fiscal means of support are not always given to each to give, then is it any less reasonable to expect that spiritual means are not given to all?

There is a second error. What’s international? All the churches of Christ are international. Your local church is a mission to the utter-most parts of the earth established by some leader(s), at some point. I am sitting nearly half way around the world from Jerusalem, the uttermost part of the world. And that is the point. Missionaries, i.e., Elder(s), are those who make disciples, do evangelism, and guide as leaders the building up of the saints as each does its part to further the mission. It is neither the job of the layman to make or teach disciples. That belongs to the missionaries, of which all Elders are. It is the job of the layman to assist, supply, and support in whatever way enabled so that the mission of the missionary is fulfilled.

Discipleship starts at home in our home churches and may be part of the reason why American Christians are losing, so to speak, the culture war.

No, absolutely not! Discipleship starts at church and is assisted in the home. Parents assist in teaching their youngest, but that is because the missionary cannot. Again, the great commission is not one given to all. It is for all however to do all that has been commanded as they are enabled and to fit in where they are needed. And in part, that is the “each one doing his part.” That doesn’t mean the roles are universalized. It means that in a family, such as is the church, particularity of calling is not lost. Some are parents, some are not, there are older men and older women, each in their own way teaching the younger. American Christians are losing for the same reason that Christian churches lose everywhere. When they abandon the first work of the church, making disciples (evangelism), teaching those disciples what they need to know and what they need to do, they have abandoned the great commission. This is the first love, the one that Jesus came to do, and the one he gave to his apostles to do. It was not given to all. Disciples don’t make disciples, the fathers in the faith do. Everyone else in the family provides for that work where and when necessary, by whatever means enabled, so that the whole family is prospered. The office of apostle has passed away, but as noted in the instructions to Timothy, the charge has passed on to the Elders. And not all are elders.

Mark reiterates the question asked in the publications he is referencing:

Assess your church experience in light of Jesus’s command to make disciples. Would you say that your church is characterized by disciple making? Why or why not?

First let me answer by way of generalization to the church at large. No. Most churches have adopted the non-biblical approach of friendship, relationship, personal, neighbor, et cetera, evangelism rather than the biblical approach of the Elder evangelism with support from the deacons and the rest of the membership of the local church. In nearly every church the Elders are professionals, not doing the work of evangelism and typically looking to their domestic entanglements rather than the good service of a soldier on duty. Second, yes. In my church, we do a good job of teaching within and are growing in the inter-congregational love that is by nature evangelistic when viewed by outsiders. It is becoming more and more individually fruitful. But, no. Our church doesn’t engage in evangelism by Elders. Consequently, we are not viewed frequently enough by outsiders so as to compel them to become disciples.

Update: http://vimeo.com/25167012