How Far Is Too Far?

I argued in my previous post that while true faith can exist with remarkable ignorance, confusion, and doubt, believers are called to learn everything that our Lord teaches in his Word. “How much is enough?” is basically a cop-out. It assumes that we’re saved by passing a doctrinal exam and we just want to know what will be on the test. That doesn’t exactly make a disciple—which first and foremost means a pupil. The corollary question is “How far is too far?” Yes, faith can coexist with ignorance and perhaps confusion, but what about outright contradiction of the truth?
At this point, we have to be careful about what we put under the category of heresy. Faith is trusting in Christ to save us from condemnation and death by his own life, death and resurrection. That’s why Paul says that these events in history are “of first importance”; they are the gospel (1 Cor 15:3). Deny the resurrection and you are cut off from all hope. Yet in that same chapter Paul goes on to unpack that gospel in its glorious effects: justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is possible for Christians to disagree about crucial definitions of these truths while nevertheless directing their faith to Jesus Christ. Whatever they say in theological debate, if you ask them where their confidence for salvation is lodged, they name Jesus Christ.
I have Roman Catholic and Protestant friends who don’t accept what I am convinced is the clear teaching of the gospel with respect to justification. I think they’re on dangerous ground. Yes, I believe that their salvation is endangered—not because they don’t check the right box on a doctrine exam, but because justification by Christ alone through faith alone is the only consistent way of articulating what it means to trust in Christ. I think the 17th-century Puritan John Owen was correct in his repeated warnings against the threat of Arminianism and Roman Catholic teaching on this point. Yet I also agree when he says, “Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed” (The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in Owen’s Works 5:163-64).
Another unimpeachably Reformed source is Herman Witsius (1636-1708). He wisely counsels,
To point out the articles necessary for salvation, and precisely to determine their number, is a task, if not utterly impossible, at least extremely difficult…It does not become us to ascend into the tribunal of God, and to pronounce concerning our neighbor, for how small a defect of knowledge, or for how inconsiderable and error, he must be excluded from heaven. It is much safer to leave that to God. It may not be safe and expedient for us to receive into church-fellowship a person chargeable with some error or sin; whom, however, we should not dare, on account of that error or sin, to exclude from heaven…Our faith consists not in words, but in sense; not in the surface, but in the substance; not in the leaves of a profession, but in the root of reason. All the heretics of the present day, that claim the name of Christians, are willing enough to subscribe the words of the Creed; each however afixing to them whatever sense he pleases, though diametrically opposite to sound doctrine (Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010, 16, 27-29, 31).
True faith is directed to the Father, in the Son, through the Spirit. When we call on the name of the Lord for salvation, we are invoking for rescue the Father who has given his Son as our Mediator and his Spirit as our Life-giver. Believers did that in prayer and in baptism even before the Council of Nicea. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined over against heresies that challenged what the earliest Christians were directed to believe and to do already by Jesus and his apostles. To direct our faith to anyone but this Savior, Jesus Christ, is idolatry. We have the wrong God as the object of our trust. We may still hope that someone who denies the Trinity is saved, but we have no biblical justification to recognize the legitimacy of their public profession of faith. This is rather different from the believer who is confused or is struggling to accept the mystery of “one in essence, three in person.” To recall the illustration above, one may be relying on the lifeguard for rescue and only afterward come to appreciate more fully the peril and the credentials of the rescuer. It is possible to trust in this Savior with the slenderest of knowledge and even with confused or errant beliefs. The problem is that if we do not go on to maturity, our faith more easily will shift eventually from Christ to someone or something else.
Wrong views of God, the person and work of Christ, justification, and the like are so critical that they strike at the very foundation of the faith. If one follows errant views on these points consistently, one would not be looking to Christ for rescue. Happily, many believers are inconsistent and do trust in Christ even though the way they articulate that doesn’t fit with—and undermines—that confidence.
What I have suggested here in relation to Christians applies more broadly to churches. This is why churches of the Reformation have identified the marks of a true church with the true preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution.
The Roman Catholic Church officially embraces many crucial truths, but contradicts the gospel at its heart. Condemning the doctrine of justification as taught by the apostles, Rome just as explicitly affirms justification by our meritorious obedience as we cooperate with enabling grace. The merits of Christ are not sufficient for our salvation. This is not an inference, but the clear and consistent teaching of Rome’s magisterium to the present day. Rome is therefore not a true church. And yet I can say with Calvin that “there is still a true church among her.” On one hand, there are remnants of the gospel in the actual preaching, liturgy, and baptism administered in Roman Catholic circles. On the other hand, these remnants are buried or even contradicted by serious errors in doctrine and worship. The same could be said of Protestant churches. There are many such churches where the gospel is not being faithfully preached and the sacraments are not being properly administered. Sure, there may be true believers among them. Yet they are in spiritual danger. Soon they will realize either that their faith in Christ is being challenged and will therefore seek a true church or, like the frog in the kettle, they may remain as their profession of faith is increasingly confused, weakened, and perhaps even abandoned.
Whether we are talking about individuals or churches, we hold simultaneously to charity and discernment. This is clear in 2 Timothy 2. There is indeed a “pattern of sound words,” as Paul mentions earlier in the letter (1:13). How we say things is important. That’s why we have creeds, confessions, and catechisms: to learn the grammar of the faith. Like a trellis, these consensual statements give proper direction to our faith, leading us to Christ. However, we can easily become slaves of words to the point where we listen not for what a brother or sister is actually affirming or denying, but the precise formula. Faithful pastors don’t encourage “quarreling over words,” Paul reminds Timothy (2:14). That was one of the points that Witsius makes above.
Paul adds, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2:15). He warns against specific false teachers. “Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and, ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity’” (vv 17-19). Timothy is approved and those who follow the gospel (specifically here, the bodily resurrection in the future) are approved as well, while the false teachers are not. They have in fact “swerved from the truth” and are “upsetting the faith of some.” The latter are not to remain under the tutelage of these false teachers, but must “depart from iniquity.” This is an act of discernment. It is foolish to remain in a false church. At the same time, Timothy is called to exercise charity. Even in this case, faithful shepherds recall straying sheep from hirelings in love, “correcting his opponents with gentleness.” Why? “God may perhaps grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (vv 25-26).
In short, Paul reminds all of us with Timothy that only the Lord knows his elect. Pastors and elders in council may approve valid professions of faith and guard the ministry of preaching, sacrament, and discipline, but only the Great Shepherd can separate the sheep from the goats on the last day. Until then, our calling is to entrust ourselves to faithful shepherds and to long earnestly and prayerfully for the repentance of those who have strayed from Christ’s Word.


January 30th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Michael before I begin let me say I have benefited greatly from you guys at the WHI so don’t take my critique of your article too harshly. You guys are “tops” in my opinion. Thanks!
I’m living proof that faith exists with ignorance and confusion. I’ve stated recently in a conversation that if I knew what all of my false doctrines were, I’d write a book. I have been newly converted to confessional Lutheranism and have found in my studies of leaving my Southern Baptist tradition that trying to muddle through the various doctrines held by the many reformation traditions is more than just daunting. It’s really impossible to come to a final decision on many issues of faith. I had to come to the best conclusion I could muster and go with it. One tradition spouses that salvation can be lost… yet it isn’t works. Another tradition says the atonement is ‘limited’ in it’s scope… so how do we know we’re numbered? Baptism saves. No it doesn’t do anything! I know that I must trust that God will be merciful to me in that day… because of Christ. Whatever ‘maturity’ is to be made will have to be done providentially because I have resorted to knowing not much more that “Christ and him crucified” for me and having access to God’s mercy through Word and Sacrament.
What I have found to be the greatest question to answer is this: “How do I know… really know… that I’m saved?” The last paragraph here takes any ability to answer that question away. I will admit I’m a person of fragile faith. No, I don’t go around dejected and miserable but there is a constant nagging of the question… “What if it doesn’t pan out the way I’m expecting?” In the final analysis this article seems to dash any hopes of truly putting that issue to rest.
January 30th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Mitchell I certainly share with you when you say you have a fragile faith. I like to think that when Reformed believers say that only God truly knows who are the elect they are simply referring to the fact that none of us can truly no why another came to Christ. We can know within our own heart that we came to Christ out of trembling and fear and the realization of our need. And asking Him for salvation much like the Philipian jailer when he said to Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” But, sadly there are some whom do not receive Christ for what forgiveness but rather for some worldly reason such as prosperity, or social acceptance. And so again, I think this is really the issue that Reformers are addressing when they make this statement about God only knowing who is saved. The scriptures in the book of 1 John state that we may “Know that we have eternal life.” We may not know 100% that our brother is saved, but we can know that we are saved, 100% by Christ alone.
January 30th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Thanks for the response Stuart. You reiterate the same words my pastor has before. I have often thought why go to church if it is only for the “possibility” that I may be saved. Assurance seems to be a fleeting thing to hold onto. I also think it gets worse the more I study. At least that’s the way it seems sometimes. I sure enjoy the warm months of the year… I golf daily and get a rest from actually trying to answer many of these questions. Thanks again my friend.
January 30th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Recently, I met an impressive returned Roman Catholic who was very high on Calvin’s Institutes. His demeanor was what made him impressive. Unfortunately, we spent only a minute in passing, but now I have a new category. While only a grain of mustard seed is required, there is necessarily an urgent and impelling desire to know as much as possible from the Word. The world of biblical truth is increasingly segregated from worldy wisdom. Two different and competing realms. Once the journey is begun there is no turning back.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:57 am
Michael,
I agree. He who puts his hand on the plow and looks back is not fit…
Soddom, Gomorrah, or Christ? Longing and hunger for man’s liberty and prosperity, or hope in the mercies and promises of Christ Jesus? The one with living faith–as little as he may receive–clings to the latter in life and death.
We can *say* one thing, but positionally tell another. I think we have to ask ourselves, “who are we presenting ourselves to as slaves?” If we were an indentured servant, who would we offer ourselves to? Wouldn’t it be the master who we thought would most benefit us, care for us, and even teach us? If we have come to Christ, we are bowing at the feet of a different kind of Lord–the Lord of Righteousness.
Do we not know who we are standing in front of? It’s like the 10 lepers: only one actually trusts in Christ, worshipping Him (not his own freedom) with a grateful heart.
However, if we are really still at the Devil’s feet, truly presenting ourselves to him, won’t we become more like him–liars? …confessing Christ with our mouths and affirming the great confessions of the church, all the while showing no regard for them and even reveling in our own practices of sin and godlessness instead? …claiming as ours the Name of Christ, in vain, as we reject and exploit His goodness with our actions and malicious intentions? Apparently claiming the benefits of eternal life, while worshipping and practicing the way of damnation?
But the one who presents himself to Christ with a living faith is a servant of that Name–body and spirit; sin and all. The servant, sinful as he is, can never be equal to the Master, even if he has become His friend or even His brother. He remains a bond-servant and willing vessel for righteousness…for the Master, “our righteousness.” He is not saved on the basis of works, but generates them nonetheless in some increasing measure throughout his life.
In this way the one servant makes war on His own sin: when He looks to Christ, his hope, in hunger and thirst as the only fountain of righteousness. The servant of the Devil is a liar in regards to the faith…caring only for the flesh just as his mind is really set on his flesh. This man cannot please God.
Romans 6-8
Sorry I kind of took a while…I just got going…
Chris Jager
Tillamook, Oregon
February 2nd, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Mitchell, one thing that might help you with assurance is this, your salvation does not depend on anything you do, your good, bad, or ugly works do not change one iota about your salvation. They can’t add nor detract from your salvation. Your salvation was 100% accomplished at Calvary. So tell me now, how can your salvation be jeopardized when it depends on Christ’s perfect work at Calvary, his shed blood? Your salvation is as sure as Christ’s resurrection, if Christ was not raised, then yes you are still in your sins like Paul teaches in First Corinthians chapter 15. But if Christ is raised you are saved. You will never find assurance by looking inside yourself, your faith, your knowledge, your works, none of this will ever give you full assurance of salvation simply because faith, knowledge, and works are very weak and very imperfect. Only Christ’s perfect obedience to the father and that he was extolled by the Father above ll things and that he’s sitting at his right hand as an advocate for you, only there you will find assurance, in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. He’s the first fruits and we will follow him in his resurrection. Only by focusing on Jesus and his perfect atoning work, you can find assurance of salvation. The moment you look at your faith, your works, you will find nothing but doubt, we ought to preach Christ as the Savior of the whole world, not just us, but the whole world. The moment we forget about Christ and focus on our faith or works which can’t save us we can go only downhill, it is Christ’s work on the cross that saves us. By saved you have been saved through faith, the important thing to highlight is that it is by grace we have been saved, by the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Although faith apprehends the grace that is in Christ Jesus, it is his grace that saves us, otherwise we make faith a work and is not faith any longer. So there’s nothing that you do that saves you, it is Christ’s work that saves you, which God reveals to you and the witness of spirit testifies that we are children of God as Romans 8 teaches.
1 Timothy 4:10 “For to this end we toil and strive,[a] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”
1 John 2:2 “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:52 pm
On the subject of assurance I was just reading Rod Rosenbladt’s “Solus Christus and the Pastor” from
Christ alone. He says that this idea of measurable
moral progress can be deadly to our assurance:
HERE IS AN EXCERPT:
“First of all, he recognized that the Law has done, and is doing, its work on him or her. The pastor realizes that what is needed in this case is not the Law but the Gospel. One of the effects of Wesleyan revivalism in this country has been the common conviction that genuine conversion always show itself in measurable moral progress (and, correlatively, the lack of such progress is evidence that no true regeneration has taken place.) So the still-sinning believer is led to believe that he/she is not now a believer at all. Luther recognized the deadliness of this sort of theology. He knew that any counsel that turns us back into ourselves for assurance is no assurance at all. To put the matter bluntly, Luther knew that the death and resurrection of Christ in our stead was strong enough in its effect to save even a Christian!”
Rod Rosenbladt
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:53 pm
On the subject of assurance I was just reading Rod Rosenbladt’s “Solus Christus and the Pastor” from
Christ alone. He says that this idea of measurable
moral progress can be deadly to our assurance:
HERE IS AN EXCERPT:
“First of all, he recognized that the Law has done, and is doing, its work on him or her. The pastor realizes that what is needed in this case is not the Law but the Gospel. One of the effects of Wesleyan revivalism in this country has been the common conviction that genuine conversion always show itself in measurable moral progress (and, correlatively, the lack of such progress is evidence that no true regeneration has taken place.) So the still-sinning believer is led to believe that he/she is not now a believer at all. Luther recognized the deadliness of this sort of theology. He knew that any counsel that turns us back into ourselves for assurance is no assurance at all. To put the matter bluntly, Luther knew that the death and resurrection of Christ in our stead was strong enough in its effect to save even a Christian!”
February 3rd, 2013 at 7:43 am
Wow, lots of words…lots of thoughts! Called to learn or called to be?
Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him, but you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be with you.” John 14
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Paul says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one Body and all made to drink of one Spirit.” “As it is there are many parts, yet one body.”( One part of the body cannot say to another part-I have no need of you or you don’t belong.) 1 Corinthians 12
“So faith, hope and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13
Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.”
Let us have loving conversation between believers and ask God to heal our division through reconciliation. Read the Catechism, talk to a faith-filled Catholic, come to Mass during Lent-we really are on the same body! Convert in 2010, the more I learn, I learn there is more to know.
Catholic Catechism 1987 – Justification: The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (see Romans 3 & 6)
Shalom
February 3rd, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Stuart, great point that’s what I was trying to get at.
Now Jane I think you bring some very valid points as well. I don’t doubt there are many catholics that are true christians that will be in heaven, that have trusted solely in Christ’s shed blood for salvation. My question to you though is why is it that I don’t hear the Pope preach the gospel more often? Honestly I have yet to hear a pope calling sinners to repentance, I hear a lot of talk from popes on human dignity, making the world a better place, but I don’t hear popes talk about the good news of salvation that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, and if we don’t repent and believe the gospel we will surely perish. Why does the catholic catechism teach that muslims can go to heaven and that they worship the same God that Christians do? See this quote from the catholic catechism where it teaches that God’s plan of salvation includes men and women that profess the muslim faith and hold onto their muslim profession of faith until deah http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
And Jane, I’m not picking on the catholic church, a lot of evangelical christians also believe that muslims will go to heaven, and so does Brian McLaren. However what makes the catholic church position more problematic is that they have entrenched in their catechism that the muslim faith is a gateway to heaven and that muslims worship the same loving God we Christians do. This my friend, is apostacy of the faith. I honestly think Jane that you brought some great points in your comment, however you shouldn’t defend the apostate catholic church. Church fathers of the catholic church like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas taught that Christ was the only way to heaven, and that there is no other name under heaven by whom man can be saved than Jesus Christ. Unlike the Aquinas and Augustine the moern catholic church teaches that the muslim faith leads to heaven.
February 3rd, 2013 at 8:57 pm
The invitation is open to all catholics, please explain the below qutoe from the catholic catechism. Please enlighten me, because i don’t get it, if this is not outright apostacy what is it? How can the catholic church blatantly state that Muslims and Christians worship the same God when muslim don’t even believe in the Trinity.
See below the quote from the catholic church’s catechism that I also quoted in my last post:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
“841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.:
February 4th, 2013 at 9:18 am
Bill,
It is possible to look for “points of confluence” and start there in conversations with Muslims and other faiths. There is necessarily shared aspects between historical, biblical Christianity and Islam, Buddhism, and other forms of Christian profession. It is not so much a question of total, ultimate truth as what manner of approach is the most winsome. Remember J.I. Packer “All theological questions must ultimately terminate in mystery” (paraphrase). Most Eastern religions get stuck on the question of miracles, which they doubt ever occurred. In a one-on-one with someone outside the faith, it is better to show respect and acceptance while still pointing out in a non-judgmental way where the differences lie. Make a friend first and then he/she can be moved. Start out with “you are going to hell” and you lose access to this person foreven. Firmness, but gentle confrontation.
February 4th, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Michael, I’m not disagreeing with you. Muslims or hindus are no different from any other non-christians. The gospel needs to be preached to them the same way it needs to be preached to other unbelievers. You may taylor it a bit to their background, but at the end of day they are sinners that God calls to repentance just like any other unbeliever.
My point was mainly that the catholic church is so liberal today that denies the exclusivity of the gospel. There are other ways to heaven beside Christ, the muslim faith being on of them. As I said I’m not picking on the catholic church, emergents like Brian McLaren and evangelists like Billy Graham have said the same thing, that there are muslim followers of Christ and hindus followers of Christ and atheists followers of Christ. This however is unbiblical teaching and the catholic has entrenched it into its catechism. With all due respect to Jane who posted some very good and very relevant bible quotations, she’s recommending ecumenism, catholics and protestants together. This is already happening by the way, Rick Warren and most evangelical leaders have openly stated catholics are christians like anybody else and there’s no problem with their theology. The truth though is very different, there are serious problems with both Rome and liberal protestants that are now in bed with Rome. What these protestants and catholics have in common is that the deny the exclusivity of the gopel. They do not believer that in order to be saved you have to trust in Christ’s atoning sacrifice and God forgives your sins on account of Christ. As a matter of fact catholics, liberal potestants, and seeker sensitive evangelicals teach that you can be saved without ever hearing of Jesus or by rejecting Jesus and staying in the muslim faith. To me this is blatant apostacy. And the White Horse Inn has done a superb job exposing this kind of christless christianity that is permeating catholicism, liberal protestantism, and now what used to be conservative evangelicalism (Rick Warren and Bill Hybels) which is nothing else than old repackaged liberalism.
February 4th, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Sometimes Christian love includes carefully correcting one’s brother or sister in order to help one see his/her error: e.g., Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
In fact, on one occasion Paul, in Galatians 2, not only corrects Peter (the so called 1st “pope”) but actually placed him under the wrath of God since Peter again committed the great sin of divisiveness to the body of Christ (interestingly, Peter committed this grievous sin after Pentecost but of course we know that Peter repented after Paul “rebuked him to his face”): Gal 2:11-16 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Interestingly, this is the same sin of Rome that thus makes Rome a false church unless and until they repent as did Peter. The RCC says it’s the only true church that Christ instituted and they thus separate themselves from the catholic church via their arrogant pharisaical “corporate pride” as did Peter in his divisive sin that put him under God’s wrath.
Paul thus doesn’t back away from his correction of Peter. Rather, he lovingly rebukes him for his error which reveals that Paul is a true and faithful brother to Peter rather then a deceptive enemy. A deceptive enemy is one who pretends to be a friend with outward agreement without ever being honest when one disagrees with his/her friend & thus reveals his/her error as does Paul in this divisive Peter event.
As Paul says in Col 2:8-15 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
February 4th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Thank you, Bill, for your response. I appreciate the dialog. I purpose to read your questions carefully and answer carefully. I hope I am not confusing or too random. May God guide us in love and wisdom.
Bill- “Why does the catholic catechism teach that muslims can go to heaven (everybody is invited to believe-John 3:16) and that they worship the same God (there is only one God-Isaiah 45:22) that Christians do?”
Excellent question you bring up in section 841 found in section 839 titled “The Church and non-Christians” :
“Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” This right here addresses your concern that the Gospel of Salvation must be acknowledged. Related in various ways, we have common questions-who am I, where did I come from, where am I going?
841- “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator… these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” God is mankind’s judge on the last day. Love the Lord your God
843- “The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a “preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
Matthew 28:20 “Go into all the world…”
Romans 2:14-“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires…15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus”
Read all Romans 2 about judging. “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. vs 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience:
Matthew 8:5-13 The Centurion-“When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
Section 841 must be read in context to Chapter One Article 1-#199 through Article 8-#744 which is the Gospel of God. Reading in context, it is so comprehensive, understandable, undeniable that I should add no more.
Bill- “My question to you though is why is it that I don’t hear the Pope preach the gospel more often?” How often do you listen to or read about his statements? I have not watched all of these but I trust them to be worthy of a listen: http://www.annusfidei.va/content/novaevangelizatio/en.html
Thank you again for the opportunity to dialog.
Shalom
February 5th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
The notion that a new convert cannot immediately upon conversion understand cognitively and agree with consistently a few simple, biblical propositions concerning the atonement, the sovereignty of God, and the person of Christ, because he hasn’t yet studied enough of his Bible, or because he hasn’t had enough theological training, is an appeal to salvation by perfect knowledge and I reject it.
Lost people define faith as the instrument by which whosoever wants to can apply the atonement to themselves and thereby obtain justification.
Lost people define the atonement as the sin-guilt of everyone charged to Christ, and often also, God’s wrath not satisfied by it until whosoever wants to chooses to apply it to themselves.
Lost people define the righteousness imputed as the agent that won’t really save until the one to whom it was imputed proves that it was really imputed by altering their moral behavior.
Horton ignores these three key differences, though he knows for a fact they are present. Rather than confronting the lost by challenging these definitions, Horton instead welcomes these lost souls as Christian brothers. There are a variety of reasons why Horton and those like him do this, but chief on that list is the fact that he can’t get past the idea that some of these very same lost people are those for whom he cares the most; family members, friends, people he churches with, co-workers, etc. He cannot get over the fact they are lost, will most likely remain lost, and in some cases have already died lost. Rather than face up to this fact and praise God for His grace, Horton instead rejects the truth in order to comfort lost people with a lie.
February 5th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Stuart,
I am sorry that I communicated the idea of moral progress to you, and I know that there are many points of clarification in my post. If you knew me, you would know that I am very firm and dead-set against the idea.
Our only hope of sanctification–which is a Christian reality for sure–is at the foot of the Cross. I knew my post would probably raise the issue, and I agree with Rosenbladt, so that is why I tried to communicate the point in the last paragraph as such: “In this way the one servant makes war on His own sin: when He looks to Christ, his hope, in hunger and thirst as the ONLY FOUNTAIN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.” And by fountain I mean “only source period,” not “the start of, whereby we continue with our own.”
I am also not saying that, as a lost individual, this person out of his depravity is choosing God for himself. I am assuming that God is calling this person by grace, through the gift of faith. But that instrument–that faith–is found at the foot of the cross, having heard the gospel, and is strengthened there also with the confession of sin and the cry for the mercy of God–not increased by the human means of an individual persuit of righteousness or moral progress. Rather, “if by the Spirit you ARE PUTTING to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.” So it (sanctification) is not an act of man, but is of God’s gracious grant, through the gifted-instrument of faith in our Sovereign Lord, at the confession of sin, with one and only hope (Christ), to whom we cry out for mercy.
Knowing and confessing even part of the depth of our sin, by the grace of God, should drive us to Jesus with a cry for mercy as a hopeless and miserable sinner, and that at the hope of the gospel that, “God justifies the ungodly.”
As I said, “the one who presents himself to Christ with a living faith is a servant of that Name–-body and spirit; SIN AND ALL.” Even in our righteouss deeds there is enough sin intermixed to condemn us.
I am also talking about sober judgment and current-self-appraisal, not trying to measure other people’s sin and categorize them. And in that appraisal, there again, I believe we should be running to the cross–asking God to rid us of our sin, (since we are miserable in it), while depending wholly upon his mercy and grace. (I’m talking indwelt sin here ((Romans 7)) and not the record of it, which has been nailed to the cross ((Colossians 2))).
Thanks,
Chris Jager
Tillamook, OR
February 5th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Jane, the bottom line is this the catholic church in the catechism teaches that muslims worship the creator and the same merciful God we do. There can be no compromise with this teaching. The truth is muslims don’t know God, and they worship and idol in Allah.
And the same mistake the catholic catechism makes in relationship to the jews where 840 it talks the similarities and common goals (a messsiah) of the christian and jewish faith and it also calls the jewish people the people of the old covenant. Let’s be clear in the old covenant, Moses, Joshua, the Prophets they all had faith in the coming Messiah, and were saved by Jesus blood. The jews today that reject Christ are like the jews that killed the prophets and have nothing in common with christian nor with old testament saints, the jews that reject christ are unbelievers and are like the pharisees and saducees that rejected Jesus. The jews that reject Christ today are not the heirs of Abraham nor do they profess the faith of Abraham, otherwise they would believe the old testament scriptures that testify about Jesus John 5:39-40
And things get worse in the catholic catechism, after acknowledging that faith and baptism are necessary for salvation the catechism goes onto to make an exemption and affirms that those that have never heard the gospel can be saved. The catechism state that those that don’t know Christ due to no fault of their own can be saved! Unreal, this outright apostacy. Here’s paragraph 847 of the catechism where this is affirmed:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
This paragraph 847 I just quoted affirms salvation by works. Rome just doesn’t get it. The wages of sin is death. We are saved by grace alone. Those that don’t have Christ don’t have God’s grace and the wrath of God abides in them. None of the unbelievers will be able to plead that it is not their fault they don’t know Christ, as Rome teaches. This is pure pelagianism, as if it is in man’s hands to choose Christ. In John 15:16 Christ teaches I chose you, you didn’t choose me. It is God that saves at his own good pleasure. Those that don’t know Christ have not been chosen by God, they are not the elect, and they will perish. There is none that doesn’t know Christ that will go to heaven as Rome teaches in paragraph 847, and even if there was somebody, scripture doesn’t teach it ought not to be in a catechism. Paragraph 847 of the roman catechism is pure pelagianism, by teaching that men that don’t know Christ through no fault of their own will go to heaven, Rome is denying salvation by grace alone. Salvation now depends on man and if it’s not man’s fault that he deosn’t know Christ then he will go to heaven. This is pure heresy and man made idolatry. The God of the bible saves only those he chooses and whom he chooses to reveal himself to, those that don’t know Christ are not the elect and will perish eternally. This is the biblical teaching, not the idolatry taught in the roman catechism paragraph 847
February 5th, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Sadly, David Bishop’s construal of Horton’s theology is at best immature and at worst Pharisaical pride. Unlike David, Mike follows the apostle Paul’s pattern of Christian love without backing away from the gospel. For example, Paul deals with the church at Corinth with pastoral charity even though many of the Corinthians fell prey to their cultural “super-apostles” and thus many believed erroneous doctrines. Some even rejected the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15). Yet Paul (like Mike Horton) in redirecting them to the gospel they professed, assumes (via Christian love not faith) they are Christians even though they had many errors. Paul thus presupposes they’re Christians before correcting them rather than assuming beforehand that they’re “lost people” as does David. Mike’s demeanor thus reflects that of Paul’s (patient and kind) whereas David’s demeanor is totally void of Christian charity.
I had no desire to post this but because Christian love includes correcting one’s brother I thought this to be my duty hoping that David grows in Christian faith, hope and especially love.
1 Cor 13: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
February 5th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
And something else about this paragraph 847 of the roman catholic catechism. It teaches at the end that those who don’t know Christ and throu their actions follow their conscience they can achieve salvation. Pure salvation by works, so man by following his consciecen can be saved! This outright pelagianism, and nothing else but salvation by works. Basically the actions / works of the unbeliever who follows his conscience can earn him salvation. Those are the words at the end of paragraph 847, which I’m quoting again below http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
February 5th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Hey David, just curious what do you mean by what you wrote here. I’m going to quote you and then ask you a question, because your statement below smells of antinomianism but maybe I’m not getting it, please elaborate on what you wrote:
“Lost people define the righteousness imputed as the agent that won’t really save until the one to whom it was imputed proves that it was really imputed by altering their moral behavior.”
My question to you is this, do you think it is possible for God to impute Christ’s righteousness to somebody without any alteration of the person’s character or moral behavior?
Because let me answer this one for you. Both lutherans and reformed teach that the minute we trust in Christ we are a new creation, the old is passed. This is an instantaneous change, called regeneration by which God infuses faith in the believer as well as repentance (a desire and willingness for good works, as Paul in the letter to the Philippians teaches we will and do because Christ wills and does in us).
February 5th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Chris, no problem. I appreciate the explanation. I think the problem of sin in the believers life is an old debate. Bill, I would say no it is not possible for a person to be unchanged by regeneration. There should be some change as regards to sin, without a doubt. The problem is when we define what that looks like and how much of what sin should be gone by what certain time. For instance, “oh, you still have not conquered that sin-habit after 10 yrs, you must not be born-again. As I quoted Rod Rosenbladt in the previous post, this kind of moral measuring was considered deadly by Luther. No true believer would condone sin in their life, but the problem is that we are unable to keep the law, as St. Paul complains of in Rom 7- “the things I want to do, I don’t do…”
Personally, I think there are some who are simply a lot stronger when it comes to keeping God’s law than others. Especially those who have been blessed with a loving and secure family. We should never judge those who sin more than we do, through weakness. Remember the two men in the temple, the one thanked God he was not like other men, and the other simply said– Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.
Now I know the Word calls us to grow in grace and to obey the law. But at the same time, it does not say that if we fail to measure up or grow by such and such a time, that we are lost (Heb 10:26 & 1 John 3:9 do not mean that either). No, rather it appeals to the salvation that has been done for us (Rom.6) and our identity as a new creature, which should motivate us to good works. But it does not condemn those who are weak and tempted more than others. The spectrum of moral integrity within the body of Christ is quite wide, in my opinion. The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak. This is not an invitation to give up and abandon our fight against our sin, but an encouragement to those who have grown weary with their sin. To realize they are in fact saved, and to not give up. We may never be rid of that besetting sin until we die, but we can know that our sin is covered by His blood.
February 5th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Hey Stuart, I agree with you and I know that when we are regenerated we get a new heart with new desires. If you noticed my questions was addressed to David Bishop, and his quote that implies that somebody can be justified without being sanctified or any cange in moral behaviour. And I wanted to pin down David Bishop because he comes into this forum blasts the owner of the White Horse Inn Michael Horton as you can read in his post above. Then he makes this hypercalvinist statement. I wanted to nail this guy, so I check his website (if you click on his name it will take you to his hypercalvinist web site), and surprise, surpise Mr Antinomian David Bishop has a whole section condemning Lordship Salvation, and making other totally out of place comments like saying Paul Washer is an arminian, all this on top of his attack on Michael Horton that he’s unable to back up. This guy has to be exposed and he should know that Jesus is both Lord and Saviour, when He savesa sinner he doesn’t ask him for permission to be Lord he makes himself Lord. The teaching of David Bishop that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to a sinner and doesn’t change him is abhorrent and unbiblical. And the way he came into this blog stating that “Horton instead welcomes these lost souls as Christian brothers” has disgusted many of us here, not to mention he goes further to state in his post above the reason Horton does this is because many of his relatives, friends, and co-workers sre lost and he doesn’t want to tell them that! In light of this I asked David Bishop a very pointed question, because I’m not going to let this guy off the hook and if he’s an antinomian (and based on his attacks on Lordship Salvation in his website I believe he is) I will pin him down. If not I will gladly acknowledge him as a brother.
February 5th, 2013 at 9:49 pm
And by the way on top of considering Lordship Salvation unbiblical David Bishop also denies common grace on his website http://sovereigngracesociety.wordpress.com/, only the elect receive special grace and the non-elect receive no grace whatsoever. This is typical hypercalvinism and is contrary to the the teaching of confessional reformed churches tht acknowledge common grace to all men. He is like Redbeetle, the guy that has videos on youtube that calls himself calvinist and reformed and is neither. Hypercalvinist antinomianism is a heresy.
February 5th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Stuart,
Beautiful response. Enjoyed reading your reply. Very clear, concise, and articulate.
Thanks for the conversation,
Chris Jager
Tillamook, OR
February 6th, 2013 at 4:59 am
Alex, I encourage you to read Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
1 Cor 1:6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you
1 Cor 3:1-2 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it.
1 Cor 4:15-17 For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote
Paul had a history with the Corinthian believers. He assumed nothing. He had a history with them every bit as tangible as the history he had with the believers in Ephesus, Galatia, and Philippi. Nowhere in his epistle to the Corinthians do we find Paul addressing unbelievers as saints. What we do find instead is this:
1 Cor 15:33 “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals. Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. FOR SOME HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. I say this to your shame.”
Do you think he was referring to those people who had no knowledge of God when he opened his letter by saying, “to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
The only pastoral charity Paul had with the churches was for believers. Examine his epistles. Every one of them are addressed explicitly to believers and to believers only. Not one of them is addressed to unbelievers. You think to twist this into meaning he presupposed everyone a believer. You sound like the Arminian who claims the word “world” automatically denotes everyone without distinction.
As for those so-called “cultural super-apostles” you mention, Paul does tell us that they did indeed water the seed he had planted. (1 Cor 3:6).
Mike Horton is redirecting people who have never believed to a gospel he claims they do believe. I suppose any Jesus is good enough for Mike Horton just as long as that any Jesus claims to save. Did your Jesus save you after you used your free will to let His choosing of you take effect? By golly that’s good enough for Mike Horton. Did your Jesus manage to save you after your parents took him up on his offer to let the priest sprinkle some water on your head? Good enough for Mike Horton. Gloria in excelsis deo.
This is what you guys continue to miss. I sit here and I say with the testimony of Scripture alone that the only Christ who saves is the Christ alone who is revealed in the propositional truth claims of Scripture alone. This means that the only Christ who saves is the Christ who perfectly and completely atoned for the sins of His elect alone by dying on a cross for His elect alone, thereby accomplishing the redemption of His elect alone.
When I tell you that this Christ alone is revealed in the propositional truth claims of Scripture alone to be the Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, you will agree and call every Jehovah’s Witness an unbeliever for rejecting this truth claim.
When I tell you that this Christ alone is revealed in the propositional truth claims of Scripture alone to have, when the fullness of time was come, taken upon himself man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, you will agree and call every Mormon an unbeliever for rejecting this truth claim.
AND YET, when I tell you that this Christ alone is revealed in the propositional truth claims of Scripture alone to Christ who perfectly and completely atoned for the sins of His elect alone by dying on a cross for His elect alone, thereby satisfying God’s just wrath on behalf of His elect one, thereby accomplishing the redemption of His elect alone, you suddenly throw your hands up in protest and call me a Pharisee. “Now just wait a minute there, buddy! You just hold your horses there! The Catholics and the Arminians, they reject the part about it being accomplished, but by golly they’re still believers.”
No, sir. They’re not believers. And neither are you.
February 6th, 2013 at 5:14 am
You are correct, Bill. I do reject the heresy of Common Grace. Your all too common notion that it is Hyper-Calvinist to do so, however, demonstrates a gross lack of diligence on your part to study the issue. Consider, for example, my critique of Murray’s book, “Redemption: Accomplished and Applied”.
Murray asserts that the reprobate enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. He bases this assertion on the notion that Christ’s mediatorial dominion is universal. Where in Scripture is Christ’s mediatorialship presented as universal? That His dominion is universal I do not deny. “Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9), “according the working of His great might that He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph. 1:19-20). But nowhere do I find the idea that He, rather than an angel, is the mediator of a non-justifying, non-redeeming covenant.
Murray recognizes the fact that Christ’s priestly ministry is tied uniquely to the efficacy of His sacrifice. He states early in his book:
“It is necessary to remember that He eternally embodies in Himself the efficacy that accrued from His sacrifice upon earth and that it is in virtue of such efficacy that He exercises His heavenly ministry as the great High Priest of our profession.” – Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 54
How then can it be that Murray on one hand argues that Christ’s priestly ministry is tied uniquely to the efficacy of His sacrifice, and yet on the other insist that His mediatorialship governs even those whom He did not sacrifice for? I ask this, because after all, is He not the mediator of a covenant that was promised only to the elect? “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). Or was the eternal inheritance promised to the world universal?
Galatians 3:22 shows us clearly that the eternal inheritance was promised only to the elect. How then can this be true, while at the same time Christ’s mediatorialship also be universally beneficial? It can’t be!
It seems clear to me that Murray assumes that because Christ’s mediatorialship is eternal, therefore it is also universal. Thankfully he rejects universal atonement, and so limits his idea of Christ’s universal mediatorialship to “just short of justification and redemption”, but this still leaves us with a logical dilemma.
If God also works all things together for good to those who hate Him (the opposite of what is stated in Rom. 8:28), then it must asked, upon what basis does He do this? Murray answers that it is upon the basis of a death that does not justify those whom God hates. “The unbelieving and the reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again” (pg. 61).
However, it must be asked in light of this assertion, why is this not also the same basis for God’s goodness shown to those He does love? After all, if God’s goodness is not dependent on His love, but is instead dependant on His dominion, then upon what basis can the elect say God is kind to them because He loves them? They would have no basis! So what if Christ died for someone. So what if God loves someone. According to Murray, these two conditions are not necessary for a person to benefit from Christ’s death. According to Murray, all that is necessary is that God reigns. But if that is the case, then why should it not be said then that God also gives good gifts to rebellious angels? After all, does He not reign above all principalities, powers and dominions? And does He not so reign because of His obedience unto death?
I trust now you see the problem in Murray’s argument.
I mentioned a moment ago that Murray assumes that because Christ’s mediatorialship is eternal, it is also therefore universal. Murray writes:
“The provision which God has made in his providence for the sustenance and comfort of man and beast is not the sparring or niggardly. He has made the earth to teem with good things to satisfy the needs of man and beast and to meet their varied tastes and appetites. Psalm 104 is the inspired lyric of praise and admiration. ‘These wait all upon thee; that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season . . . Thou openst thine hand, they are filled with good’. ‘Wine that maketh glad the heart of man, oil to make his face to shine, and bread which stengtheneth man’s heart’. And the psalmist exclaims: ‘O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Though made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.’” – Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 79
When did it enter into mainstream thought that sustenance and comfort are always to be understood as good things? Personally, I am of the opinion that it became the dominant view as the result of American industrial dominance and the subsequent explosion of sudden wealth in the average immigrant household at the end of World War 2. I am certainly positive that no one who was condemned to a brutal death in a Soviet gulag would ever have considered it a good thing for Stalin to continue receiving sustenance and comfort. Murray, in my opinion, spent way too much time studying his Bible in the relative comfort of Western culture.
Psalm 104 is clear enough all right. God gives water for drink to every beast of the field, a song to sing for every bird in the air, grass to eat for livestock in the field, and vegetables to grow for every man in a tent, but no where in this Psalm is there talk of all these things being universally a good thing for the people who receive them.
Yes, the Psalmist does say in verse 28 “when you open your hand they are filled with good things”, but he is using the word good to describe the savory taste of food!
“These all look to you,
to give their food in due season.
When you open Your hand, they gather
it up;
when you open your hand, they are
filled with good things.”
The Psalmist does not declare that these things are universally good to everyone who receives them. Quite the contrary. He looks at all that God does and has done in creation, and then praises Him for creating it all in His wisdom (v. 24). He praises Him for His majesty, for His splendor, for His glory, but nowhere does he say that everything that receives gets for its own good. In fact, when the Psalmist states in verse 27, “these all look to you, to give them their food in due season”, does anyone believe the wicked think this a good thing?
Certainly it should be said that God gives for the good of His glory, but this should not be interpreted as meaning He gives to the wicked with the intent to bless them. He did not raise Pharaoh up with the intent to bless Pharaoh. He did not raise Assyria up to be the rod of His anger in order to bless Assyria. Assyria’s rise to power was not good for Assyria. It was good for God, good for God’s people, but it was not good for Assyria. It was a curse for Assyria, just as King Saul’s installment onto the throne was bad for King Saul.
God gives wine to gladden the hearts of men. We praise Him for His wisdom in this. We say He is wise to do this. But let’s ask the thrice-divorced, homeless alcoholic whether this gift is beneficial for him. Let’s ask Noah and Lot whether it was beneficial to them. It benefitted Christ at a certain wedding feast, and later benefitted His disciples in a certain upper room, but let us not assume from these few examples that it benefits everyone universally.
God sends His rain upon the just and the unjust. But as Hebrews 6:7-8 points out, that rain chokes and floods the unjust. It is not beneficial to them. God created oxygen for lungs and the stomach for food, but Hitler’s continued supply of air and food was not beneficial for the millions of reprobate and elect who suffered and died in Nazi concentration camps. God ordained this. He ordained it for the good of His glory. He did not ordain it for the benefit of any non-elect who died in a concentration camp. If you have a hard time accepting that, then you will have a hard time accepting the truth about God’s sovereign grace.
There is no doubt that God’s dominion is universal. But there is great doubt that Christ’s mediatorialship is. Several times in the gospels Christ warns that He will return at the end not only to collect His elect, but also to destroy the reprobate. He makes no promise of mediating anything for the reprobate, either then or now. He promises only destruction. His return will not benefit them. Not their governments, not their homes, not their lives.
Scripture is clear that all things work together for good only for the obedient.
Ecc 2:26 – For to the one who pleases Him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner He has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to the one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after the wind.
Ezek 20:25-26 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
Amos 9:4 And if they go into captivity before their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good.
Jeremiah 5:24-25 They do not say in their hearts, “Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives the rain in its season, the autumn rain and the spring rain and keeps for us the weeks appointed for the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these away and your sins have kept good things from you.
Isaiah 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land, but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
The good news for those who are in Christ is that Christ fulfilled all the conditions required for the receipt of God’s blessings. That is why all things work together for the elect. That is not to say that the elect are promised an easy life of health and wealth. Far from it! But ultimately, even if only in the later, God will work all things together for their good.
This is not the case for the non-elect. Nothing will work together for their good. They may at times believe that things are working out for their good, but they are not. As the old cliché goes, better be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
How many times do we have to be confronted with another nobody who got rich and famous only to then later find himself embroiled in an embarrassing scandal played out on our evening news? The guy who wins the lottery and then five years later receives a twenty-year prison sentence for tax evasion. The young lady who wins the next big talent show and then finds herself a virtual sex slave addicted to heroine and methamphetamines after she spent a few years chasing the lifestyle of a “rock star”. The popular TV preacher caught in a financial scandal, the politician caught in a sex scandal, the TV star caught in a drug scandal. Time and again we watch people’s lives come undone as a result of receiving what many of us would like to receive. And time again we shake our heads, tisk to ourselves, and then reassume the view that the next big lottery winner has received a good thing.
Sure, there is pleasure to be found in sin, but only for a season. “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.” (Heb 11:23-24). That pleasure is not a good thing to receive. It coils tight around its prey like a serpent, choking its prey with hopelessness and addiction. There is sometimes also suffering to be found in righteousness. “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” (Rom 8:20-21) In either case, whether suffering or pleasure, we cannot say that suffering is always bad and pleasure always good, anymore than we can say winning the lottery is always bad or falling in love is always good. It depends. The one thing I will not say is that the non-elect receive good because of Christ’s death. They most certainly do not.
Still positive about that Common Grace now?
February 6th, 2013 at 5:25 am
Allow me to answer your question, Bill, by answering Mike Horton’s question. How far is too far? Well, Mike, let’s give this a try.
Faith, says Hebrews 11, “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen . . . by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”.
In other words, Godly assurance and conviction are not the subjects of empirical evidence. They are not derived from sense experience. They are not borne by feel of the wind on the skin, by the sight of trees, or by the methodical study of animal cells and stars. Rather, Godly assurance and conviction are borne by the word of God. The truth about trees, about the wind, about animal cells and stars are derived exclusively from the word of God. Faith is the conviction, the assurance that this knowledge derived from the word of God is true. (John 3:32-33)
Knowledge is not faith. Faith is not knowledge. Faith requires knowledge, for one cannot believe what one does not know, but faith is not knowledge. A person can know, and yet not believe. But a person cannot believe, and yet not know.
What is faith? Faith is intellectual assent. Look the word assent up in any standard desktop dictionary. Guys like J. I. Packer think the word assent means to know. Such people desperately need someone to give them a dictionary.
The word assent means “to agree with”. It does not mean, nor is it in any way associated with the idea of climbing a proverbial ladder of knowledge up toward God. Climbing concerns the word ascent. Different spelling, different word. Ass-ent means to agree with. Asc-end means to climb. A king can asc-end to a throne. A king can also ass-ent to his laws.
To agree with. That is the meaning of the word assent. To assent to God’s revelation of righteousness. That is the Biblical definition of gospel faith.
Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘the righteous shall live by faith’.”
“Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony: if I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” – John 3:11-12
Christ separated the two ideas of faith and knowledge in John 3:11-12. I have told you earthly things, He said, and you do not believe . . . That is, you have knowledge of earthly things, for I have just told them to you, but you do not believe.
Faith and knowledge. Two different words that are closely associated, but do not mean the same thing. Faith is not knowledge. Faith requires knowledge, for one cannot believe what one does not know, but faith is not knowledge. A person can know, and yet not believe. Judas was someone who knew, but did not believe. He had heard all that Christ had said about Himself, but he did not agree with God that these things Christ said about Himself are true. He had knowledge, but not faith.
This assurance and conviction that Hebrews 11 talks about is not something people arrive at on their own (John 3:11-12). Quite the contrary, for Hebrews 12:2 states that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith.” That is, He does not finish what I start. Rather, He is the originator, the progenitor, the genesis of the assurance, as well as the finisher of it too.
And yet it is also true that I do the trusting. He does the assuring, and I do the agreeing. God speaks His word, He authors my will and desire to trust Him, and I take His word to be true.
John 20:30-31 “Now Jesus did many other things in he presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”
Romans 10:17 “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
How does God author my desire? I mean, though it is true that God is sovereign, yet it is also true that I choose, so how does God author my faith?
1 Corinthians 2:10-13, “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have the 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.”
John 3:3, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Keeping in mind passages like Romans 8:10 “the Spirit is life because of righteousness”, I answer the question with the truth of God’s word. God gifts His Spirit to those He justifies. And upon justifying His elect, and upon gifting them with His Spirit, God by His Spirit changes their nature so that they will to do the will of God. What does that mean? It means that they want to obey God by believing Him. God opens the eyes of their heart (mind) to understand the gospel He has revealed to them by the preaching of His word. And having perceived the revelation of His righteousness, and now finding themselves wanting to obey God, His justified, born again people agree with Him that His revelation is true.
So then, let’s put all this together. What is faith? Faith is a first cause of the Spirit’s activity in the mind of His justified elect resulting in intellectual assent to the righteousness of God which He revealed in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom His testimony (the Bible) is entirely concerned.
To put it more simply, faith is intellectually agreeing with God that the knowledge which God has revealed to me about His righteousness is true. It is impossible to agree with the knowledge of God’s righteousness without being justified and born again.
How Much Belief Is Enough?
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you is increasing.
Colossians 1:5-6 Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it bearing fruit and growing – as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith – that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may filled with all the fullness of God
There is a big difference between growing in faith, and growing into faith. Some people are confused about this. They think there can be no growth of knowledge once faith is present. Certainly nobody grows into faith in God’s righteousness. The blind do not happen themselves into sight. The deaf do not grow into hearing. But those who do see and hear do see and hear more than they saw and heard the day before.
In the light of this then, a question looms large on the horizon. If faith requires knowledge of God’s righteousness – and it most certainly does – then how can one’s faith grow without their knowledge of God’s righteousness growing too? The answer is, it can’t! As a believer’s knowledge of God’s righteousness grows, so grows his faith.
How is such a thing possible though? Does this mean the believer didn’t really believe to begin with? Not at all.
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
What are the “these things” of which John speaks? Perhaps better to the point is to ask ourselves what are not some of “these things” of which John speaks?
Nowhere in 1 John do we find any mention of the state of the non-elect after Christ returns. Nowhere do we find any instructions concerning meat sacrificed to idols, or the keeping of certain days as holy. Nowhere do we find instructions concerning baptism and communion, or the role or non role that a believer should pay to human government.
More importantly, nowhere in John’s first epistle do we find an exhaustive list of fully systematized propositional statements concerning Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Nowhere do we such a list concerning His incarnation, His deity, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, His sovereignty, His righteousness, the nature of imputation, the depravity of fallen man, justification, new birth, and so on and so forth.
Certainly we do find SOME propositional statements concerning these things, but nowhere do we find an exhaustive, all comprehensive, fully systematized list.
And yet I am asked, why then do I not speak of Arminians as brothers? The answer is really rather simple. Because Arminians reject and distort most of the propositions of which John does write. They twist “God is love”, for example, into “God loves everyone without distinction.” They reject the fact that Cain was of the evil one by God’s sovereign choice. They assert instead that Cain made himself of the evil one by failing to offer an adequate sacrifice.
True biblical faith in the gospel will not find itself rejecting the propositions that are revealed in John’s first epistle. This does not mean that a person must have knowledge of John’s epistle in order to believe the gospel, for the propositions of which John speaks are reiterated plenty of times elsewhere in Scripture. Romans 10 tells us that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It does not say faith comes by hearing 1 John. This is not to say that 1 John is not part of God’s word, for it most certainly is, but it is not the entirety of God’s word.
However, though 1 John is not the entirety of the word of God, it yet remains a fact that John stated very clearly in his first epistle that we can know we have eternal life by the fact that we understand and agree with the things he spoke of in his first epistle. Of his epistle, there appears nowhere in it a fully systematized list of exhaustive gospel propositions, but there does appear some propositions.
True biblical faith in the gospel will not find itself rejecting the propositions revealed in John’s first epistle, but true biblical faith does not have to be an assent to a fully systematized and exhaustive list of propositional statements in order to be biblical faith. The seeing and hearing, while not rejecting what they saw and heard yesterday, do indeed see and hear more than they saw and heard the day before. They will see and hear more tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on until the day they die.
Grow in does not mean grow into. Like the words assent and ascent, they are two different thoughts that mean two different things. Do not confuse them. And do not confuse faith and knowledge.
Putting all these things together, what do they mean? They mean this:
Faith is a first cause of the Spirit’s activity in the mind of His justified elect resulting in intellectual assent to the righteousness of God which He revealed in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom His testimony (the Bible) is entirely concerned. Having been justified and born again, and now agreeing with God that the revelation of His righteousness is true, the believer grows in the knowledge and understanding of God’s grace that is expressed in the revelation of His righteousness. The believer does this with the Spirit’s working of power through the word of God in the believer’s mind. The believer studies his Bible, hears the gospel being preached, reads what older believers have learned from studying their Bibles and hearing the gospel being preached, and methodically, systematically works out in his mind the gift of salvation God has granted him. In other words, he grows in faith and knowledge of God’s grace.
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you is increasing.
February 6th, 2013 at 9:29 am
David, one question. Do you believe faith is knowledge and assent? This actually is what Rome teaches. Or do you believe as the Reformers do that it is knowledge, assent, and trust? You say more than once faith is intellectual assent, but I do tell you that many that have an intellectual assent of the gospel are not saved. Saving faith is not knowledge plus intellectual assent. You can have all the knowledge in the world and know the bible from cover to cover, intellectually assent to it and still not be saved. The faith of the devils is like that.
Faith beside intellectual assent includes trust. Trust that Christ’s atoning sacrifice applies to me, that God looks favourable upon me, that all my sins are forgiven because of Christ’s work on the cross. Trust means that the atonement, the atoning sacrifice of Christ actually applies to me. You can have knowledge of the gospel and have intellectual assent of the gospel, and still lack trust in Jesus as your personal Saviour.
So do you agree that knowledge of all biblical facts and assent alone to all the biblical facts does not save?
February 6th, 2013 at 9:36 am
The atonement has to be applied personally, and I need to trust in Jesus Christ, that the atonement personally applies to me. This is what trust means. Without this trust, intellectual assent to historical fact or to biblical propositions, does not save. A change of heart produced by God when he gives the holy spirit through the hearing of the gospel (that creates this trust in Christ as our personal Saviour) is essential for salvation. But intellectual knowledge that Christ died for sinners, or that Christ died for the elect (for those that believe in limited atonement) does not save. God needs to reveal to me that Christ died for me, in essence God creates this trust in the new birth. This trust is different from knowledge and intellectual assent. You can have knowledge and intellectual assent of the gospel and lack trust in Christ, and all the intellectual knowledge and intellectual assent won’t save you.
February 6th, 2013 at 9:45 am
“You can have all the knowledge in the world and know the bible from cover to cover, intellectually assent to it and still not be saved. The faith of the devils is like that.”
Spoken like a true MacArthurian. James does not say even the devils believe the gospel. He says, even they believe God is one. Bill, that is just about the only thing about God that they do agree with!
Oh Lord, please turn the lights on for Bill. Please open his eyes.
This is why in the New Testament we find demons sniveling and whining and accusing every time Christ confronted them. “Have you come before the time, Son of God?” The implication was, you might as well lie about the time too since you lie about everything else. The demons know they will be judged at the last day. What they don’t agree with is that Christ will be just to do this. They believe instead that He is very unjust to judge them.
What is the difference, Bill, between Judas and Peter? Both heard what Christ said about Himself, but only one agreed with God that what he heard Christ say was true.
Faith in the Christ of Scripture is its own evidence. But if I’m not judging by faith; if, let’s say, I’m judging by my moral behavior instead, then it doesn’t matter whether someone agrees with the doctrines of my Christ or with the doctrines of another Christ. What matters instead is that they agree with the principles of my moral behavior. Am I being charitable enough? If you think so, then you must be a fellow brother despite the fact you disagree with the doctrines of my Christ. The condemnation of such people is just.
February 6th, 2013 at 10:16 am
“The atonement has to be applied personally, and I need to trust in Jesus Christ, that the atonement personally applies to me. This is what trust means. Without this trust, intellectual assent to historical fact or to biblical propositions, does not save.”
To assent does not mean to know. To assent means to agree with. God reveals the truth about Himself in the pages of Scripture. Anybody can KNOW that truth, but only the converted can and will agree with God that it’s true.
Demons know that truth, but they do not agree with God that it is true. Judas knew that truth, but he did not agree with God that it is true. Other people, like Richard Dawkins, do not know that truth, and so consequently do not agree that it’s true either. This is why believers are instructed to go out and tell the whole world the truth about the one and only Christ of Scripture. Tell them so that they will know it. Most will still not agree that it is true, but those who are His elect, whom He justifies and births anew, they will agree that it is true.
February 6th, 2013 at 11:09 am
David Bishop,
Intellectual agreement with the truth of the gospel does not save. The demons trembled at Christ when they say him, they acknolwdged Him as the true Son of God, they did not deny his deity, quite the contrary they affirmed him. As I said intellectual assent to propositional truths does not save.
I affirm it again applying the gospel to oneself is the basis of personal trust in Jesus Christ. If you haven’t applied the gospel to yourself, if you have not personally appropriated the salvation that is in Christ Jesus then you are not saved. This appropriation by the way is wrought by God in the believer’s heart at the new birth, it is true faith. Those that haven’t done that and don’t believe the gospel (the good news of salvation applies to them personally) are not saved, no matter how much assent to the truth of the gospel they profess.
The unbeliever can provide assent to the gospel, the unbeliever is capable of making a decision for Christ, the unbeliever is capable of intellectual assent to the gospel. Yet he is still an unbeliever because he has not trusted in Christ for salvation. You don’t need the holy spirit to intellectually assent to the gospel, the unbeliever is perfectly capable of intellectually assenting to the truth of the gospel. Those that trust on their intellectual assent to propositional truths are not saved, as I said the devils and demons know those propositional truths and yet are condemned and they know it. They also know that Christ is the Son of God and came to rescue sinners, this is why the Devil trembles at the name of Jesus Christ. The devil assents to the propositional truths of the gospel but knows that the gospel does not apply to him, it applies to the elect but not to demons and the devil. Intellectual assent does not save and the unbeliever and demons and perfectly capable of intellectually assenting to propositional truths.
Funny you call me McArthurian, because I am not, for your information lutherans as well as reformed believe that trust is an essential element of salvation. Both the lutheran and reformed affirm that intellectual assent to the gospel does not save, this is the teaching of Rome actually that intellectual assent to the gospel saves. I know your web site is filled with attacks on Lordship Salvation and John MacArthur, I may not agree with everything John MacArthur teaches but I do agree with him that making a profession of faith, merely showing intellectual assent, does not save where trust is missing.
You are sadly mistaken, you make the intellectual assent of propositional truths equivalent to salvation. And it is not. You go as far as saying that anybody that believes in universal atonement and applies that atonement to himself can not be possibly saved. You basically have condemned all lutheran and arminians to hell. I have news for you, all your intellectual assent will profit you nothing at the day of judgment if you have not trusted Christ for salvation.
February 6th, 2013 at 11:29 am
Who said anything about demons not acknowledging Christ’s deity, Bill? I didn’t. I said they do not agree that He is just to judge them.
You argument is self-refuting, Bill. Assent means to agree with. Please explain how someone can agree that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet at the same time not trust that 2 + 2 = 4. Your argument is asinine, it is irrational, it is self-refuting, it is typical nonsense spewed forth every Sunday from pulpits all across this nation by wicked men who are in agreement with the serpent. “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
I leave you with John Robbins.
Long before neo-orthodox theologians thought of saying that faith is an encounter with a divine person rather than assent to a proposition, preachers who ought to have known better taught that faith is trust in a person, not belief in a creed. This writer, when a teenager, was told that some people would miss Heaven by twelve inches-the distance between the head and the heart-because they believed the Gospel with their heads but not with their hearts. Today it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to find a minister-a conservative minister- who does not believe and teach that one must have a “personal relationship” with Christ in order to be saved. But what that “personal relationship” consists of is either not made explicit or, when made explicit, contradicts what the Bible teaches about saving faith. The result is that non-Christians are either needlessly confused or deliberately misled. Perhaps the world is not responding to our message because we have garbled the message. Neither we, nor they, know exactly what to do to have eternal life.
Statements such as these about the head and the heart and trusting a person, not believing a creed, are not only false, they have created the conditions for the emergence of all sorts of religious subjectivism, from modernism to the charismatic movement and beyond. No one will miss Heaven by twelve inches, for there is no distance between the head and the heart: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” The head/heart contrast is a figment of modern secular psychology, not a doctrine of divine revelation. St. Sigmund, not St. John, controls the pulpit in all too many churches.
Further, “trust in a person” is a meaningless phrase unless it means assenting to certain propositions about a person, propositions such as “I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into Heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Trust in Christ, unless it means belief of these propositions, is totally without value. “Christ” means these propositions-and a lot more, to be sure, but at least these. No one who trusts in the Christs of Barth, Brunner, Renan, or Tillich will be saved.
As for having a “personal relationship” with Christ, if the phrase means something more than assenting to true propositions about Jesus, what is that something more? Feeling warm inside? Coffee has the same effect. Surely “personal relationship” does not mean what we mean when we say that we know someone personally: Perhaps we have shaken his hand, visited his home or he ours, or eaten with him. John had a “personal relationship” with Christ in that sense, as did all the disciples, including Judas Iscariot. But millions of Christians have not, and Jesus called them blessed: They have not seen and yet have believed. The difference between Judas Iscariot and the other disciples is not that they had a “personal relationship” with Jesus and he did not, but that they believed-that is, assented to certain propositions about Jesus-while Judas did not believe those propositions. Belief of the truth, nothing more and nothing less, is what separates the saved from the damned. Those who maintain that there is something more than belief are, quite literally, beyond belief.
In “Faith and Saving Faith”, Dr. (Gordon) Clark defends the view that faith is assent to a proposition, and that saving faith is assent to propositions found in the Bible. Saving faith is neither an indescribable encounter with a divine person, nor heart knowledge as opposed to head knowledge. According to the author of Hebrews, those who come to God must believe at least two propositions: that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Mindless encounters and meaningless relationships are not saving faith. Truth is propositional, and one is saved and sanctified only through believing true statements. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
The anti-intellectual cast of virtually all modern thought, from the university chair to the barroom stool, controls the pulpits as well. It is this pious anti-intellectualism that emphasizes encounter rather than information, emotion instead of understanding, “personal relationship” rather than knowledge. But Christians, Paul wrote, have the mind of Christ. Our relationship to him is intellectual. And since Christ is his mind and we are ours, no relationship could be more intimate than that. That is precisely why the Scriptures use the analogy of marriage to illustrate the intellectual relationship between Christians and Christ.
This recognition of the primacy of the intellect, the primacy of truth, is totally missing from contemporary theology. Fifty years ago, one of this century’s greatest theologians and writers, J. Gresham Machen, wrote a book entitled What Is Faith? His words are as appropriate today as they were then:
This anti-intellectual tendency in the modern world is no trifling thing; it has its roots deep in the entire philosophical development of modern times. Modern philosophy… has had as its dominant note, certainly as its present day result, a depreciation of the reason and a skeptical answer to Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” This attack upon the intellect has been conducted by men of marked intellectual power; but an attack it has been all the same. And at last theological results of it, even in the sphere of practice, are beginning to appear. A marked characteristic of the present day is a lamentable intellectual decline, which has appeared in all fields of human endeavor except those that deal with purely material things. The intellect has been browbeaten so long in theory that one cannot be surprised if it is now ceasing to function in practice ….
As over against this anti-intellectual tendency in the modern world, it will be one chief purpose of the present little book to defend the primacy of the intellect, and in particular to try to break down the false and disastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge and faith.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
David,
Www! You just confessed with your mouth that trust in Christ is meaningless. I can’t see how you will escape God’s judgment unless you repent and believe the gospel.
The fiduciary component of faith whigh you went on tirade agsinst and quoted John Robbins is not something that was invented by neo-orthodox theologians Karl Barth or Emil Brunner. It is entrenched right in the lutheran confessions and it is also taught by reformed theologians. The 16th century protestant refrmation differed from Rome in that justifying faith had trust as it distinctive component. Here are some quotes from the Defense of the Augsburg Confession in written in 1531 at the start of the Reformation where the lutherans told Rome trust is the essence of faith: Also notice how paragraph 49 talks about the heart, paragraphs 67, 69, and 97 also emphasize trust as a component of christian faith. Believig in Christ is not merely intellectual assent, if trust in your heart is missing you have no faith.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
48) It is the certainty or the certain trust in the heart, when, with my whole heart, I regard the promises of God as certain and true, through which there are offered me, without my merit, the forgiveness of sins, grace, and all salvation, through Christ the Mediatoré.
57) Here he comforts himself by his trust in God’s mercy, and he cites the promise: My soul doth wait, and in His Word do I hope, i.e., because Thou hast promised the remission of sins.
69) But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that for His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us.
97) And to call upon the name of Christ is to trust in the name of Christ, as the cause or price because of which we are saved.
Now that I have finished quoting a confessional lutheran document for you to prove that trust in Christ is not a neorthodox (Karl Barth) inention as you stated, let me go and explain to you what assent and knowledge are. Knowledge is knowing biblical facts, an atheist that has read the bible may be very knowledgeable in biblical truth, yet he rejects the truth by for example claiming the bible was written by men but it is all an invention of man and it does not teach the truth. Yet this person atheist can be very knowledgeable and know the bible from Genesis to revelation, yet he fails to recognize it as the inspired word of God. So knowledge is not sufficient. What is assent, assent is knowing the teachings of the bible and assenting to their truth, assenting that it is the world of God. Assent is the fait of the devils, they know that Jesus is the Son of God and believe, they recognize him as God. So assent is not sufficient for salvation either. You can have assent of the biblical truth like demons dol and still go to hell. As the Reformers taught you need trust in Chris for salvation, in addition to knowledge and assent. Trust in Christ is something that the natural man is unable to attain, the natural man can have knowledge and assent to biblical truth, yet he is unable to trust in Christ. Trust in Christ is a gift of God when he gives man a heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone. It is not head knowledge like assent, but heart knowledge, and only God can give those that are dead in trespasses and sins a new heart. Ezekiel 35:26 most clearly teaches that unless God gives man a neww heart he can not be saved “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” A man needs to be born again, intellectual assentof the gospel by the carnal man is possible but it is not saving faith.
You David, need to be saved. Only God can do that, but your pride now shows that you ae far from salvation, but nothing is impossible with the Lord. I pray that he will reveal the gospel truth to you.
February 6th, 2013 at 9:25 pm
David,
And let me wrap this up here. Faith affects all the emotions not just the intellect as the Reformers taught.
Now I have no problem discussing this on a solely intellectual level, and I have done that. And we have found out that we have a profound intellectual difference in our understanding of salvation and the gospel. This fundamental difference resides in that concur with the Reformers that no salvation is possible until the gospel is applied personally, this in plain english means that I must believe that Christ died for MY sins. It’s not sufficient to have an intellectual understanding that Christ died for the elect (or for the whole world for those that adhere to universal atonement), I need to believe that Christ died for ME, that MY sins are covered. This is what it means to apply the gospel, the good news of salvation, personally to my situation as a sinner. I need to apply the blood of Christ to MY sin to be saved.
If you were to agree with the above David, I would have no problem with your definition of faith, but you’ve stated in your first post here that those that believe that they need to apply the gospel to their own sin are lost. I’m saying the opposite that the essence of faith in Christ is to apply the atonement to myself, I must trust in Christ, and an intellectual assent that Christ died for the elect does not suffice, until God reveals to me that Christ’s death on the cross applies to MY OWN sins. And when God creates this saving faith in me, then all my emotions are affected, not just the intellect, this is the new heart God promised in Ezekiel 35:26, so I am a new creation, the old has passed instantaneously when I apprehend by faith that the atoning work of Jesus Christ applies to ME. For me this is was an instantaneous conversion that I can give you a date, others that are raised christian as children by their families and in the church may not experience such powerful conversion as I did, but most adult converts who were raised in unbelieving homes like I did will go through this instantaneous conversion.
February 7th, 2013 at 4:04 am
Someone needs to give you a dictionary, Bill. Or you need to at least take 5 seconds to Google the words “knowledge” and “assent”. Either way I wipe the dust now. So long.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Well, my friend. You never answered the question whether Christ died for your sins. I’m not asking about the sins of the elect, but your sins. I’m not asking you whether you havean intellectual assent to Christ’s divinity or whether you believe Christ died for sinners. I am asking did Christ died for you. Have you made the atonement personal to your situation? Has God revealed to you that He is your Saviour? I’m not asking you whether you believe Christ saves sinners, buth whether he saved you. In short I am asking you have you trusted in him for salvation. And I have yet to hear a yay or a nay from you.
If you had not gone after Michael Horton, John McArthur, and Paul Washer in your website I wouldn’t have tested your faith, but because you did I am testing your faith. And so far you have failed to answer my question.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
A new post, Bill, just for you.
http://sovereigngracesociety.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/knowledge-truth-and-christianitys-first-critics/
February 12th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
David,
1) It is unfortunate that you refuse to answer my question becasee it makes it difficult to me to know if I’m talkingto a christian brother or to somebody that has not trusted Christ for salvation.
2) I read your link in your last post and I agree that christianity is based on historical facts. Horton agrees with this as well and has stated it many times. Knowledge and assent are essential elements of faith. However, they are not suffcient, you need trust in addition to knowledge and assent to the truth. Knowledge and assent though absolutely essential components of the faith, when not accompanied by trust are basically what’s called dead orthodoxy.
3) Without judging I have serious concerns about you because you have attacked known Ministers of the faith that proclaim Christ and him crucified. As well you have quoted John Robbins (the Trinity Foundation) as one of the guys you follow. I read a bit about him and he was a schismatic that walked out of the Presbyterian Church. You are a calvinist that denies common grace in line with Gordon H Clark whom you’ve also quoted. Clearly you take Clark’s side on the Clark- Van Til controversy. Mike Horton on the other hand supports Van Til in his book Systematic Theology.
I have to tread lightly here because I’m not an expert on these reformed controversies. Nevertherless Gordon H Clark denied common grace in the call of the gospel, while Van Til affirmed it. You also attack Horton because he preaches Chrisst as Saviour to everybody, I will quote you from one of your posts above:
David Bishop wrote:
“Mike Horton is redirecting people who have never believed to a gospel he claims they do believe. I suppose any Jesus is good enough for Mike Horton just as long as that any Jesus claims to save. Did your Jesus save you after you used your free will to let His choosing of you take effect? By golly that’s good enough for Mike Horton. Did your Jesus manage to save you after your parents took him up on his offer to let the priest sprinkle some water on your head? Good enough for Mike Horton. Gloria in excelsis deo.
This is what you guys continue to miss. I sit here and I say with the testimony of Scripture alone that the only Christ who saves is the Christ alone who is revealed in the propositional truth claims of Scripture alone. This means that the only Christ who saves is the Christ who perfectly and completely atoned for the sins of His elect alone by dying on a cross for His elect alone, thereby accomplishing the redemption of His elect alone.”
Now, think about this David. Didn’t Calvin teach that Christ and the gospel should be preached to all men? John 3:16. Also the gospel as an announcement of what Chist has done is useful for both the saved and unsaved. How would you preach the gospel to the unsaved? I know you deny common grace and beieve the gospel offers grace only to the elect. Still don’t you think the gospel should be preache to elect and reprobate? How do you know who the elect are so that it would only be preached to the elect?
February 12th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Excellent point(s) Bill! My first intro to the Christian faith (in Hawaii) was in a Charismatic church and when asked to teach a bible study I began to order a bunch of theology books since I knew nearly nothing about what I believed and why. One of the authors that influenced be most was Gordon Clark. Thus, reading by myself in Hawaii various theology books (including G Clark and AW Pink & others), after being a “happy Pharisee” I then became a “mean Pharisee” since I went from self-centered-me spirituality to a Hyper-Calvinist. Eventually I left off church and out-partied many of my atheist friends until, one night when I was both stoned and drunk, when switching through radio stations in my BMW, I heard this guy talking about grace in a way I had not yet head of. His name was Mike Horton. I decided to give church another try so I attended a reformed church. Eventually I went to Westminster Seminary and I now know what I believe and why. I can so relate to Paul when he was kicked off his horse and Peter when he cursed and swore that he did not know Christ. I now get grace. Thanks again, Bill…
February 13th, 2013 at 5:28 am
You say Christianity is based on historical fact, and that knowledge and assent are essential elements of faith. I could not disagree with you more. Knowledge of history is important, for a person cannot agree with what they do not know, but agreeing with God that the history is true is what faith is. It is the definition of faith.
You do not agree though. You maintain that in addition to agreeing with God that the history is true, you must also “trust the truth”.
So let me see if I understand what you’re saying, Bill. You’re saying that if I know 2 + 2 = 4 and I agree that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, this not trusting 2 + 2 = 4. You are saying that in addition to knowing that 2 + 2 = 4, and agreeing that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, I must also “trust” that 2 + 2 = 4.
You use the term “dead orthodoxy”. As Inigo Montoya once said: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Please take the time to verify this for yourself, Soren Kierkegaard is the father of Existentialism. Kierkegaard’s existentialism was a reaction to the Rationalism he saw festering in the Danish Lutheran churches. The problem is that he went too far. He began by arguing that God could not be grasped by human reasoning. He argued that Christianity was not a doctrine to be taught, but rather a life to be lived. HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL WAS EXTERNAL. HE BELIEVED IT WAS INTERNAL. Prior to Kierkegaard, dead orthodoxy was orthodoxy that was unbiblical. After Kierkegaard and the steady advance and acceptance of his existentialism, “dead orthodoxy” became associated with orthodoxy of any kind that wasn’t also accompanied by an emotional experience.
Listen again to what Kierkegaard said here:
“What I really need is to become clear in my own mind what I must do, not what I must know – except in so far as a knowing must precede every action. The important thing is to understand what I am destined for, to perceive what the Deity wants me to do, the point is to find the truth for me, to find that idea for which I am ready to live and die. WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO ME TO DISCOVER A SO-CALLED OBJECTIVE TRUTH, though I were to work my way through the systems of the philosophers and were able, if need be, to pass them in review?”
– Soren Kierkegaard, A Short Life of Kierkegaard, pg 82
Does that question not cause you to recoil in horror? What good would it do me to discover objective truth? Notice that he does not say objective knowledge. He does not ask what good it would do him to discover that someone says 2 + 2 = 4. Rather, he asks, what good it would do me to discover that 2 + 2 = 4 is actually true? His conclusion is that it would do him no good at all!!!
What good would it do a person to discover that it is true that Christ fully satisfied God’s wrath on behalf of His elect? Answers Kierkegaard, no good at all. What good would it do a person to discover that it is true that only God’s justified, born again elect will agree with Him that it is true that Christ fully accomplished the propitiation of God’s wrath on behalf of His elect? Answers Kierkegaard, no good at all. Answers Kierkegaard, it does no good at all unless the person first gives that truth personal meaning.
What must I do to be saved, asked the Philippian jailor. Agree with God that what He has said about His Son is true. Kierkegaard would disagree. He would say that this would do no good, because you need also to give the things that God has said about His Son personal meaning. Or as you put it, “you need to also trust the truth.”
3) MacArthur, Piper, Washer and the like do not preach Christ crucified. They preach Christ able to save those who save themselves.
You read someone say that Robbins was a schismatic who walked out of the Presbyterian Church. Which Presbyterian church would that be? The OPC, the RPCNA, the PCA, the ARP, the APC, the BPC, the EPC, what? I mean, I would assume that you would stand against some of these churches, as well, especially the ones that ordain homosexuals. Does that make you schismatic? Why don’t you actually bother to read a little of what Robbins himself has written, rather than relying on second hand information that may be as vindictive as it is opinionated.
Yes, I take Clark’s side in the Clark-Van Til Controversy as does also Dr. Robert Reymond. And . . . ? Got anything to weigh in on that yourself? Ever read Hoeksema’s “The Clark-Van Til Controversy”? Ever read what Hoeksema has had to say about Van Til? Ever speak to John Petersen? He lived with Van Til near the end of Van Til’s life. He took care of him and one of his students. He is now a staunch Clarkian, and stands vehemently against Van-Til’s ridiculous, self-refuting pseudo philosophy. You can find him on Facebook. He has preached before at the church I attend.
Yes, Van Til affirmed the heresy of common grace. Clark actually never came right out and said one way or the other. Robbins rejected it, as did Hoeksema. So do a lot of other people including the Protestant Reformed Churches. I also reject the Free Will Offer heresy. What’s your point? Have you actually read the minutes of the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948? I doubt it. Probably read what Sam No-Not said about it instead.
I have never denied that the gospel should be preached to all men. I like straw men just as much as anyone, Bill, but only when they’re in the field guarding my corn.
The gospel is indeed to be preached to all men, but it is not to be preached under the assumption that everyone in the audience is a member of the elect. The audience is to be told that Christ did this and Christ did that for His elect alone. The audience is to be told that because of what Christ did for His elect, only His elect will be brought to agree with God that the things He did for His elect are true. But the audience is NOT to be told, “Jesus died for you” and “God wants to save you”, because the truth is, He only wants to save His elect, which is why only His elect shall be saved.
February 14th, 2013 at 10:58 am
David Bishop in your last post you wrote:
“Knowledge of history is important, for a person cannot agree with what they do not know, but agreeing with God that the history is true is what faith is. It is the definition of faith. You do not agree though. You maintain that in addition to agreeing with God that the history is true, you must also “trust the truth”.”
Sir, you are neither lutheran nor reformed. The faith of the devils is the one that lacks trust in Christ but assents that history is true. R C Sprout who is reformed gets it but John Robbins of your beloved Trinity Foundation do not. In the following link from the Trinity Foundation I am showing the heresy of John Robbins the man you follow rebuking R C Sprout for teaching that trust is essential to faith and it is the most important component as R C teaches. R C Sprout gets it, John Robbins neither has nor understands saving faith. As a lutheran myself I can’t give a pass to you or John Robbins, because both of you deny trust as an essential component of faith in addition to assenting to historical facts. Here it is the link to John Robbins condemning himself when rebuking R C Sprout, the teaching of R C Sprout is the biblical teaching of faith, your teaching and John Robbins teaching is heretical and departs from classic reformed and lutheran theology http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238
February 15th, 2013 at 6:37 am
Bill, perhaps you should learn a little history while you’re at it. You are aware that Horton wrote the foreward to John Pedersen’s book, “Sincerity Meets the Truth”, aren’t you? Sincerity Meets the Truth is the book in which Pedersen criticized and condemned Van Til’s philosophy.
Who is R C Sprout? I know who R C Sproul is, but I have never heard of R C Sprout. So much for your opinion, huh.
Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t even know that Robert’s last name is not Sprout, but Sproul. That’s like calling Paul Washer Saul Fasher and then claiming you know what he teaches. I bet you don’t even know that Sproul is a Thomist. In fact, I bet you don’t even know what a Thomist is!
Here, by the way, is Pedersen criticizing Van Tillianism in a fun, creative way. Have at it. I’m finished with you. http://anglo-reformed.org/billy-talks-to-his-pastor-about-god
February 15th, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Look, you will not fool me. The Trinity Foundation is an antinomian think tank that denies that affirms that salvation is possible by intellectual assent to the gospel without any change in the believer. In short the teachings of the Trinity Foundation and John Robbins are antinomian. I called an antinomian and reaffirm here.
And let me add that I know the cancer of the Trinity Foundation first hand I’ve run into dispensational free grace advocates that won’t have nothing to do with anything reformed or lutheran, and yet they pointed that the Trinity Foundation is an example of sounds understanding of grace. This coming from guys that follow Zane Hodges. These are the guys John MacArthur fought his whole life. The Trinity Foundation criticizes Lordship Salvation and it affirms that there are saved believers that have assented to the gospel but live like unbelievers. This is pure antinomianism.
I am telling you salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone. A faith that is alone and is not accompanied by good works is the faith of the devil and does not save. It sends you to the deepest area in the pit of hell. If you think that faith (assent to the gospel) that is not accompanied by good works saves, you are on your way to hell. This is the epitome of antinomianism.
And it’s not just that you attacked R C Sproul, what bothers me as a lutheran is the reason you attacked him in the link I provided in my last post. R C clearly stated that Satan himself assents to the gospel but lacks trust (in the link to the Trinity Foundation), we lutherans teach the same. And the same applies to the attacks on MacArthur, what bothers me is the reason the Trinity Foundation does it to support its teaching that there saints, saved believers, that live like unbelievers. This is an impossibility. God’s does not justify anybody that he does not also sanctify (transform into a new creation). There is no believer justified that has not also been sanctified. For Luther right after a believer is justified he wants nothing but do good works, he’s a slave to righteousness (read the freedom of a chrisian). Prior to justification he was a slave to sin. For Calvin the christian receives Christ with all his gifts, justification and sanctification (repentance that produces fruit in good works). To make matters worst the Trinity Foundation also does not accept gospel based sanctification as Tullian Tchividjian teaches http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=282 What a joke accusing Tullian and other grace pastors of conflating justification and sanctification, and comparing him to Roman Catholicism. My problem with your Foundation is that I have enough with its apostate propaganda. I have hear enough of Tullian Tchividjian being labelled roman catholic, R C Sproul a thomist, John MacArthur and arminian. All this mud slinging to justify your antinomian gospel and the faith of the devil that assents to the gospel while remaining an enemy of Christ.
The Trinity Foundation and John Robbins promote an antinomian dead faith that is nothing but a satanic faith.
February 15th, 2013 at 5:36 pm
And what a bunch of nonsense criticizing Tullian Tchividjian for going back to justification. As a lutheran I will step in prove to you the ignorance of the Trinity Foundation. What a bunch of baloney to say that Luther never taught that we have to go back to our justification.
Not only did Luther teach that we can go back to our justification so that we grow in grace, he taught that we can increase in our justification, or better in our alien righteousness.
Your foundation has no clue about lutheranism and telling Tullian Tchividjian that he doesn’t understand Luther is a travesty. Tullian Tchividjian (together with Mike Horton) gets Luther better than pretty nuch any of Reformed pastor. Here’s what Luther wrote in Two Kinds of Righteousness with regard to our alien righteousness in justification:
Luther http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html
[5] Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone—while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ—is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone. Christ daily drives out the old Adam more and more in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow. For alien righteousness is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death.
February 15th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
And here is John Robbins, the founder of the Trinity Foundation calling Mike Horton an agnostic http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=19
John Robbins has no understanding of faith, equating it with perfect head knowledge, and perfect assent to this head knowledge. John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation have made an idol of reason, and for them salvation is by intellectual knowledge and assent. But the fact of the matter is that reason and the intellect have been affected by the fall and Calvin taught that what we know about God is very limited, this is not agnosticism as John Robbins teaches. So much for Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”, I guess the author of Hebrews is agnostic as well based on the rationale the Trinity Foundation uses to label Mike Horton an agnostic.
February 15th, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Some further scripture for the rationalists, as Westminster Seminary California correctly labelled Gordon Clark. This reason worshippers need to humble themselves and realize that all men, even the Saints whom Paul speaks about know very little about God. In this life on earth we only have an incomplete and partial revelation of God, contrary to what the Gordon H Clark and the Trinity Foundation rationalists assert. And please stop calling christians like Mike Horton agnostics, here’s some scripture for you to show to you how little you know.
1 Corinthians 13 9-12
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
February 17th, 2013 at 8:46 am
Dear Bill and David
So many words, so many thoughts, so much knowledge! Wow! What is the profit?
1 Corinthians 13 is the love chapter, without love all the knowledge amounts to nothing.
And NOW these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Let go of the gnosis and put on God’s love. Colossians 3:12-15
Love = patient, kind, not envy, not boasting, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrong (wow, how often are we wrong?) , does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth….
Shalom
Have a productive Lent
February 17th, 2013 at 11:05 am
Jane, agree. I don`t enjoy doing this. It`s not something I like. However I`m between a rock and a hard place. Rebuking somebody is not nice to do, it`s painful, and yet the alternative saying nothing is I find a worse choice.
A hatchet job on the Trinity Foundation was way overdue. Even if they had sound doctrine, they have a track record of attacking every christian brother. Even if some of what they say about John MacArthur (and I picked only one of the christians they attack as an example) is true, John MacArthur has apologized and retracted some of his views in the lordship salvation debate, as a humble christian would do. John MacArthur fought all his life antinomians like Zene Hodges and his followers. Mike Horton in the 90s in a book and since then has rejected Zane Hodges antinomianism as unbliblical, he`s also pointed out in a charitable way to John MacArthur his mistakes. Now John Robbins went on a crusade against MacArthur, while at the same time allowing Zane Hodges to publish his. Zane Hodges has highly praised John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation for their definition of faith. I have yet to hear the Trinity Foundation call Zane Hodges an antinomian and dissociate themselves from such endorsement, and yet they call John MacArthur a legalist, even though John has retracted some of his statements and reaffirmed that Christ`s righteousness alone justifies. That antinomians are fond of the Trinity Foundation should be no surprise, during the Van Til – Clark controversy the professors at Westminster warned that Clark`s theology could very well lead to antinomianism.
Again I appreciate your feedback and I repeat it is not pleasant to attack somebody. And I agree with you that christian love should be evident in discussions between christians. This though is a different situation, the Trinity Foundation and John Robbins have shown no love to anybody. Now I can choose to love them regardless, unfortunately though I am convinced that their lack of charity towards other christians and their doctrinal positions that have been rejected by confessional reformed denominations as well as by Westminster Seminary California puts this schismatic group on the fringe and possibly outside the christian church. Some may think I`ve gone overboard and I respect that, however I don`t think the Trinity Foundation nor the guy that came into this blog out of nowhere should get a free pass, a green light to attack Ministers of Christ and treat them like unbelievers, I believe it is necessary to expose where these guys are coming from and their background. I`ve never been a fond of opening the door for the devil to get into my house. Now I would love for these guys to recognize their mistake and support the work of Christ, but while they oppose it, I don`t know how can I support them.
Alex, great testimony! I`m happy to hear how your life turned around and you ended up to Westminster Seminary!
February 17th, 2013 at 10:21 pm
OK, so let`s link some outstanding gospel presentations. I agree Jane we gotta the level of this conversation up. Here`s Mike Horton preaching the gospel in a 56 minute presentation. He covers all the basics needed for salvation that are not preached today. This is outstanding. A must listening for both believers and unbelievers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIkWLK_4oK0
February 17th, 2013 at 10:41 pm
And here it is Paul Washer when he came to Canada in the summer of 2011. This is a typical Paul Washer evangelistic event. Amazing evangelism, great puritan preaching. This is the gospel of salvation in pure form.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ0DedPmQxc part 1 of a 3 part gospel presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yZCrVlfpqo part 2 of 3 of the gospel presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiJL10dE_sU part 3 of 3
February 18th, 2013 at 4:12 am
Jane
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
1 Kings 18:27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
Love is not pretending that a liar isn’t a liar.
Ripped from the Trinity Foundation article on John MacArthur:
The fact that the Gospel of John does not use the word “repent” but does use the word “believe” – a fact which Zane Hodges has made much of — does not imply that repentance is not necessary; it simply means that repentance and belief are the same thing. If theologians would pay attention to the Bible rather than repeating the errors of other theologians, controversies like this might be avoided.
Does that sound like Robbins is giving approval to Hodges?
February 18th, 2013 at 5:28 am
Bill defines antinomianism as the belief that “salvation is possible by intellectual assent to the gospel without any change in the believer.” In his article entitled, “Holiness Wars: What is Antinomianism?”, March 20, 2012, Horton examines the definition of antinomianism. It is curiously absent Bill’s definition.
Antinomianism is the belief that a person is justified by virtue of law’s absence. In other words, an Antinomian is someone who believes that Christ satisfied the penalty for His people’s guilt by dismissing God’s law in His death, rather than by satisfying the law’s just demand for His people’s death. In such a system, assurance is NOT found in Christ’s death for His people, but rather in one’s claim that they can no longer violate God’s law. How do you know Christ has effectually secured your salvation? Answers the Antinomian, “Because all things are now lawful for me.”
Luther did not make his theory of two kinds of righteousness a major theme in his theology. IN FACT, HE WENT ON TO CITE FIVE MORE KINDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN HIS COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS!!! This aside, I do not agree with Luther’s definition of faith, nor with his theory of two (or five) righteousnesses.
Luther’s definition of faith and sanctification clearly confused him. He found it necessary to reside in logical paradoxes which eventually led him to conclude that James’ epistle was uninspired. What a relief it must have been for him. Rather than accept the fact that his understanding of faith and sanctification may have been defective, he instead scrapped an entire book of the Bible! Let someone try that today. Let us see whether they find themselves referred to as a faithful minister of God.
““We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” Yeah, right. And I guess you’ll be telling me next that you eat pizza alone, but the pizza you eat is never alone.
Wait. What?
There are only two ways out of that, isn’t there. Either you mean that you and someone else is eating the pizza, or you mean that you lied when you said you eat pizza alone. Both sink your definition of faith.
Faith, says Hebrews 11, “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen . . . by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”.
In other words, Godly assurance and conviction are not the subjects of empirical evidence. They are not derived from sense experience. They are not borne by feel of the wind on the skin, by the sight of trees, or by the methodical study of animal cells and stars. Rather, Godly assurance and conviction are borne by the word of God. The truth about trees, about the wind, about animal cells and stars are derived exclusively from the word of God. Faith is the conviction, the assurance that this knowledge derived from the word of God is true.
John 3:32-33 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.
I cited the fact that Horton wrote the preface to John Pedersen’s book. Pedersen was a former student of Van Til, and did in fact live with him and take care of him during his last few years. Pedersen later came to see the unscriptural nature and wickedness of Van Til’s theology. He wrote a book explaining why. Horton gave hearty approval and wrote the preface to it. Why is Bill not responding to this?
February 18th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
David, I am going to take my time here. First let us make it abundantly clear the importance of trust as an essential component of faith, and then I will deal with the other things you wrote.
Faith is not assent to propositional truth. Gordon H Clark, John Robbins, and you teach that faith is knowledge and assent and this departs from traditional reformed and lutheran theology. As I said the chief component of faith is trust, confidence in Christ. A guy with very little knowledge and assent to propositional truth can can have trust in Christ (the thief on the cross didn’t know a lot of propositional truths neither did the old testament saints who were waiting for but never had the full revelation of Christ, but these guys had trust) and a guy that assents to more propositional truth may not have trust in Christ.
A couple of examples will suffice to illustrate this.
I take an engineer that knows how a parachute works and assents to the physics of it. I tell him to jump into a cliff. He doesn’t trust the parachute though. He believes my word (the bible) that parachutes work but doesn’t trust the parachute (Jesus Christ) and doesn’t jump off the cliff.
Let’s go to second example an MBA graduate that understands and assents to the truth that you can make money by starting a business. Yet he lacks the confidence to start a business. Yet another guy with high school education that does not have as much knowledge or assent that you can make money with a business, a guy that never took an accounting course, has confidence and starts a business. Same can be said of the stock market a high school drop out may have way more confidence (faith, belief) in the stock market than a finance MBA that knows that the stock market goes up and outpaces inflation over the long term yet he lacks the confidence to invest. Knowledge and assent are not sufficient, this man lacks faith in the stock market and will never invest, he does not believe in the stock market due to lack of confidence not due to lack of assent to propositional facts but due to lack of confidence, , he just will brush it aside and say the stock market although profitable is for others but not for me.
February 18th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Luther’s 2 kinds of righteousness are essential to lutheran theology today. The reformed also affirm these two righteousness, though not all of them agree that justification logically precedes sanctification which manifests itself in good work. If you call this lordship salvation, guess what Luther taught lordship salvation and so did Calvin. Good works follow from faith, and if they don’t, you don’t have christian faith. The christian faith is active and always bears good fruit.
Here’s Luther on the two kinds of righteousness, which modern theology calls justification and sanctificaton. Justifying faith always is followed by good works, this is not Paul Washer or John MacArthur teaching it, this is Martin Luther (and John Calvin taught the same) http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html:
Luther:
“[1] There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds. The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30: “whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”
[6] The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5:24, “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”
February 18th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
This is the second kind of righteousness that Christ works in us, I didn’t copy the whole thing:
This is what Luther writes on sacntification, this is not MacArthurian by the way. But it teaches as I have said that we are saved by faith alone (justification) but this faith is never alone (evidence of this is our sanctification):
http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html
[6] The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5:24, “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” In the second place, this righteousness consists in love to one’s neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear towards God. The Apostle is full of references to these, as is all the rest of Scripture. He briefly summarizes everything, however, in Titus 2:12, “ In this world let us live soberly (pertaining to crucifying one’s own flesh), justly (referring to one’s neighbor), and devoutly (relating to God).”
February 18th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
This is my last post in reply to your post. I will pass on Van Til, have no interest in defending Van Til, I don’t need Van Til to prove Clark and Robbins mistake. I’d rather due it with my lutheran background than relying on Van Til (a guy I hardly know about and who totally misunderstood Karl Barth, so I can’t support Van Til)
In my example of the parachute above I meant to say that an engineer with all the assent to the physics of a parachute may still not trust it and jump, while a guy that has hardly any knowledge of physics and is incapable of assenting to the propositional truths of the physics of flight will have confidence in the parachute and jump. So confidence / trust is the essence of faith.
I just pulled Justified, a book edited by Modern Reformation and Mike Horton. In chapter 8, Mike lists 10 propositions on faith and salvation. Here’s proposition number 7:
Mike Horton:
“7) We affirm that although no one will be justified by works, no one will be saved without them”
February 18th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
And here is proposition number 4 from the book Jutified by the editors of Modern Reformation chapter 8 where there’s a clear explanation of knowledge, assent, and trust. As I said it’s not enough to know and assent to the greatness of a parachute, you have to put it on and jump off a plane, trust the parahute. Just believing a parachute works doesn’t get you anywhere until you believe it works for you, assent to propositional truths does not save, you need to put on the parachute. An adventurous 80 year old lady with no knowledge of physics may put on the parachute and jump, trust the parachute, while an engineer with full assent to the propositional truths of flight mechanics that assents to the truth that a parachute works may not trust it and not jump. You need to put on the parachute yourself, you need to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, you need to trust him. Believing that scripture is true and was written by God is of no use, if we don’t put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Assenting to the propositional truths in scripture and believing the wirter of scripture and what he wrote is not sufficient like believing the manufacturer of a parachute and his statements does not suffice, you need to trust Christ himself who is the parachute that saves, it is not enough to assent to scripture propositional truths or the statements made by a parachute manufacturer, you need to believe / trust the parachute will work for you. This is why Gordon H Clark’s theology has been called scripturalism by some, instead of trusting Christ (the parachute) he trusts scripture (the propositional truths about the parachute). Here’s Mike Horton’s 4th of his 10 propostions on faith and salvation where he reaffirms the classic reformed ahd lutheran definition of faith.
Mike Horton:
4) The definition of saving faith is knowledge, which we take to mean the intellectual grasp of the relevant historical and doctrinal facts concerning Christ’s person and work and our misery; assent of our volitional agreement of our hearts and minds that these facts are true; and trust which is the assurance that these facts are true and not only true generally, by trust in my own case. in this way I abandon all hope for acceptance with God besides the holiness and righteousness of Christ.
February 18th, 2013 at 11:43 pm
This debate needs to end and needs to end now. A line in the sand has to be drawn, Michael Horton spoke on behalf of the Reformation (both lutheran and calvinist). in chapter 8 of the book Justifed. I only quoted two of the 10 propositions on faith and salvation. I’m now quoting them all to end this once and for all. By the way this was also published in the book Christ the Lord where the White Horse Inn took the biblical in the Mac Arthur – Zane Hodges dispute. The White Horse Inn issued the following 10 propositions that every christian should believe and confess:
1) It is impossible that saving faith can exist without a new nature and thereby new affections (love, a desire for holiness, and so on).
2) Saving faith is nevertheless not the same thing as such affections or desires and does not include in its definition the effects of which the new birth is the cause.
3) It is not enough to say that we are justified and accepted by grace alone, for even Rome has agreed that is is only by God’s grace that we can become transformed in holiness. We must add that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, and it is a great error to change the meaning of faith to include acts of obedience and repentance in an effort to make a disposition other than knowledge, assent, and trust a condition of justification.
4) The definition of saving faith is: Knowledge, which we take to mean the intellectual grasp of the relevant historical and doctrinal facts concerning Christ’s person and work and our misery; Assent, or the volitional agreement of our hearts and minds that these facts are true; and Trust, which is the assurance that these facts that are true are not only true generally, but true in my own case. In this way I abandon all hope for acceptance with God besides the holiness and righteousness of Christ.
5) Not only is the ground of our justification the person and work of Christ; the assurance, hope, and comfort that this salvation belongs to us must have Christ alone as its sufficient object and faith as its sufficient instrument.
6) While evidences of the new birth can be discerned by ourselves and others, such evidences do not have sufficient righteousness or holiness to form a ground of assurance or a clear conscience. For, as Calvin says, “A fine confidence of salvation is left to us, if by moral conjecture we judge that at the present moment we are in grace, but we know not what will become of us tomorrow!”
7) We affirm that, although no one will be justified by works, no one will be saved without them.
8) We affirm that it is contempt and presumption, not faith, that produces apathy with regard to the commands of God.
9) He seeks to tear Christ apart who imagines a savior without a lord. Christ offers no priesthood outside his prophetic ministry and kingly reign.
10) Those who are confident in this: that because they have exercised their will or mind in such a way that God is obligated thereby to save them, show contempt for God’s holiness and Christ’s cross.