Book Review: "Whosoever Will"

In this book, the author expounds the glorious truth that "every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." The subject is introduced by means of the words of hymn, which like many such hymns, is technically orthodox, yet usually sung and explained to promote heretical ideas.

In explaining the biblical way to understand, "whosoever will may come," the author first asks to whom is it that the willing may come. The ultimate answer given is God. And the author develops the significance of this answer by speaking about who the true God is in relation to sinful man. The undeniable conclusion for the reader who believes the plain teaching of Scripture is that God Himself must make man willing to come to Him through Christ. The author continually brings the reader back to consider the motivations and desires of the heart behind all our willing and doing, which especially demonstrates the impotence of the sinner, and begging hawkers of a false impotent Christ.

Hoeksema continues on this theme by presenting in great detail and majesty the identity of Christ as the Rest-giver, the Fountain of Living Waters, the Bread of Life, the Liberator, the Light and the Resurrection. In all of these, and especially in the last, it is seen incontrovertibly that the sinner cannot even will to bring himself to this Christ of the Scriptures, but rather Christ is the one who powerfully works in the sinner to bring him to life and make him willing.

"The will to come to Him, therefore, must be motivated by the desire to come to God, the longing for rest, a hunger and thirst after righteousness, a yearning after true freedom, love of the light, and the earnest desire to be delivered from death and to be quickened unto a new life."

This marvel of how God makes the sinner willing and draws him to Christ is explored with simplicity, clarity and precision. Man coming to Christ is shown to be an entirely spiritual act, consisting of "contrition, recognition, aspiration, and appropriation." These four are shown to necessary rely upon the monergistic work of God in drawing the sinner; conviction, illumination, allurement, and sealing. These meaningful terms are biblical explained, always in such a way that these truths are applied to the believing reader, both to comfort, and exhort.

Three important subjects in connection with this are dealt with in the concluding chapters. The author shows that the preaching of the true Gospel by faithful ordained ministers is the means which God uses to draw His elect. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for God's people to hear the word of God in the preaching, because the word of man has no power. Next, the common objection that the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation leaves no room for man's responsibility is shown to be the same objection laid against Paul in Romans 9, and not only erroneous, but proud and ungodly.

Finally as Hoeksema speaks of the need to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, the importance of the ministry of the Word and of membership in the true church is underscored. This teaching about the church is sorely needed. This excellent book is easy to read, written in an engaging style, and deals very helpfully with very important doctrines.

Available from the RFPA bookstore.

Wresting Scripture to Make "Free-Will" Seem Biblical

II Pet. 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

I Tim. 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Those who attack salvation by grace alone, by the unbiblical doctrine of "free-will" often use verses like this in an attempt to deceive the unwary who do not read their Bibles as they ought and check the context in which verses are situated.

It ought to be said at the outset however, that it is the common practice of heretics to point to short verses here and there in which the main thrust of the context is not the subject at hand. When we come to the Bible with a specific question, we ought to first go to those parts of Scripture which clearly deal with the question head-on - not those which may touch on it briefly when dealing with a separate issue. Some parts of Scripture are more difficult to understand than others, and we must go to the most clear passages first, and interpret the less clear passages in their light, according to the rule, "Scripture interprets Scripture". Those who studiously avoid doing this are following the practice of heretics which the Holy Spirit describes in the same chapter as one of the verses above:

II Pet. 3:15-17 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

We'll return to this portion of Scripture later, but for now notice, "the unlearned and unstable wrest" Scripture - in particular "things hard to be understood", of which there are "some" in Scripture; so not all Scripture is hard to be understood, and even those difficult parts may be understood far more easily and clearly, when we follow the practice advised by the Apostle's warning here: interpret the more difficult in light of the more clear passages.

So then the first question we must ask in this controversy is which passages especially deal with the issue of salvation by grace alone, and the issue of "free-will"? This is what people refuse to do. Romans speaks at length about human depravity, and salvation by grace alone because it is in this letter that the subject which is dealt with most clearly and fully. No wonder then that Arminians studiously avoid chapters 8 and especially 9 of this letter (not to mention the rest of it to greater or lesser extents).

The letter begins by stating its intention to set forth a summary of the Gospel, and immediately declares God's wrath against all humanity who are presented as those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (not who have a "free-will" to accept or reject the truth). The second chapter continues to abase all humanity, explaining that in terms of wickedness there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile, religious or irreligious - all are condemned, even self-condemned with or without the Law, all are alike "under sin". Any supposed "free-will" to do moral good in any sense, is utterly destroyed by this emphatic statement that all are "alike under sin". There is therefore none who makes himself to differ in the righteous eyes of God with respect to His wickedness. In chapter three, the subject continues to be human total depravity, and the Holy Spirit unleashes a barrage of proofs from the Old Testament to throw mankind into the dust and annihilate his pride and supposed "free-will". "There is none that doeth good, no, not one". If it is a good thing to accept the truth, or accept a gift of salvation and grace from God (and it is), then man is utterly incapable of it - indeed the disposition of his entire being is wholly against any such choice or decision.

Only when man is put in his right place, does the Holy Spirit begin to explain the atonement of Christ, and the righteousness of God that is without the works of the law (which are the only works that "free-will" can do). Those whom Christ has died for are freely justified, by their faith in God who justifies the ungodly. God does not justify those with "free-will" to accept or reject Him, He only justifies the ungodly, that is, those who are actively opposed to Him. Length prevents us from examining everything in any detail, but suffice to say that the letter goes on to prove that this is how Abraham was justified, before the law even was revealed through Moses, and before even he was circumcised - and that salvation and grace are given by the promise of God (which Hebrews also speaks about at length), not by means of an offer which man may accept or reject by means of his "free-will" (because then, as Paul already proved, man would certainly only reject such an offer, being ungodly and under sin, ruled by Satan), and because if the promise of God relied upon man's "free-will" it could not be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16). Because the promise must be sure to all the recipients of it, it is granted by the necessary means faith, so that it is all by grace (not by anything man does, which would mean that man could merit with God, which is impossible and a blasphemy).

Since we know the certainty of the promise of God to us by faith, the letter goes on to explain the blessedness of those who are justified by means of this gift of faith, and of the certain results of Christ's atonement for us. It is an effectual atonement because Christ took the punishment for our sins (while we were His enemies - so far were we from making ourselves acceptable above others by means of "free-will"), so that "much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him" and "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." There is the effect of the atonement, all those for whom Christ died have been reconciled to God, and therefore much more then, are saved from wrath, and are saved by His life. This salvation of all for whom Christ died is completed, as Christ said "It is finished" on the cross. Because this is the unchangeable effect of the cross for all those for whom Christ died, it is impossible that Christ died for everyone, because not everyone is saved, and many are already in hell suffering for their sins, because Christ did not suffer in their place.

The letter moves on to compare and contrast Adam, explained that as all in Adam are imputed with Adam's sin and are condemned for it to death, so all who are in Christ are imputed with Christ's righteousness and are therefore justified by it, and saved to eternal life! And the imputation of Christ's merits as opposed to Adam's demerits, causes much more grace to abound, than the offences of sin, so that our blessedness is far greater than Adam's original state before the Fall. And it is clear that just as "free-will" did not give us a choice whether to be condemned in Adam or not (but God determined it alone), so "free-will" cannot give us a choice whether or not to be justified freely in Christ.

The obvious objection to such concrete exposition of salvation by grace alone, is that should we therefore sin, so that grace may abound all the more? And this is emphatically denied, and declared impossible, because all those for whom Christ died are united to Him in His death and resurrection by the Holy Spirit, so that all who are saved will certainly walk according to the new life which they have received by grace - in obedience to God, being freed from slavery to sin and Satan, but a servant of God. Finally the freedom of the will is spoken of! But it is not freedom to do anything whatsoever to accept or reject God, but rather freedom from the slavery of sin (in which there was certainly no "free-will"), to be a servant of the living God (it even removes the freedom to reject God which is no freedom at all!) - that is true freedom! Yet who has this freedom? Those who have been given eternal salvation by the promise of God and the death of Christ and who have been born again by the Spirit of God who applies this salvation to all the elect - and no-one else, because no-one else is saved.

The next chapter (seven) proves that the law can no longer condemn those who are united to Jesus Christ by the Spirit of God, since He died, and the law has no hold over those who have died (which is why a person who remarries is an adulterer if their previous spouse is still alive). The Holy Spirit explains the purpose of the law (which is not to tell people that they have "free-will" to accept or reject God's grace - which is not only not the purpose of the law, but not part of God's law at all anyway, which if broken in the slightest, condemns to hell), which is to give the knowledge of sin. The law does not give the knowledge of "free-will", it gives the knowledge of sin; so that when you read, "THOU SHALT BE PERFECT AS I AM PERFECT", you do not conclude that we therefore have the "free-will" to be perfect as God is perfect, but rather you conclude that we are wretchedly depraved and sinful, condemned by this law to hell, and emphatically do NOT have "free-will".

Why must we be condemned by the law? To seek our salvation only in Jesus Christ, and flee only to Him, and trust only in Him. To guard us from ever daring to trust in our own "free-will" which is totally depraved and can do nothing except condemn us further. This was the Apostle Paul's attitude to the law, because he had received the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved eternally), he sees that, even having been born again, having the new life of a Christian, he cannot keep the law, but fails miserably and has only a small beginning of obedience, the law therefore pushes him to Jesus Christ, and keeps him trusting only in Christ for salvation, and makes him more and more thankful for such great salvation, so that he never trusts in his "free-will" or his ability to keep any of God's law.

Paul goes on to contrast the flesh and the Spirit - nothing good proceeds from what we are naturally, even the carnal mind is enmity against God (i.e. "free-will" is only the enemy of God, not a friend), nor can it ever be subject to the law of God. To be spiritually minded however, is life and peace. And if anyone does not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Jesus Christ, but conversely, if anyone does, he belongs to Christ and has eternal life which cannot be taken from him. The letter continues to exalt the blessedness of all true Christians, teaching us that the faith which we have (by which we can call God our Father) is by the witness of the Spirit in us, and that since we are children (and know it by the Spirit of God), we are therefore heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. We cannot inherit hell, but only the new heavens and the new earth, with Christ. So, Paul begins to explain how the creation will certainly be renewed, as surely as we know that we are God's children, and that Christ has died for us.

And as if we didn't get the point already in all this so far, he goes on to speak of the intercession of the Spirit for us which cannot be uttered, because our prayers are feeble and ignorant, and how Christ who knows the hearts, and the mind of the Spirit prays for us according to the will of God (which we only know in a very small part). By this we are given us confidence that there is no greater intercession for us in heaven, nor must we dare seek any which would be a blasphemy against Christ whose intercession is greater than all because He purchased our eternal salvation with His blood, and is very God of very God.

Considering all this, we know (and this is not a sin of presumption, but the confidence of faith), that God works everything for our good, and that nothing whatsoever, not even our wicked and pernicious "free-will" which remains in us battling against the Spirit, can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ. Again, Paul reminds us of the unchangeable effect of the atonement: if God is for us, who can be against us (because God alone is almighty)? Who can lay anything to the charge of us who are God's elect (which we know by faith)? God is the one who has justified us. Who is the one with the right to condemn? Christ is the Judge, who is also the one who died for us, and who rose again, and now is making intercession for us. So, all those for whom Christ died, must and will go to heaven, and cannot go to hell, as surely as God cannot deny Himself and is the only Almighty.

I haven't got to Romans 9 yet, but already "free-will" is obliterated by the Word of God, and condemned as a wicked enemy of salvation and of the Gospel of grace which is the Gospel of Christ alone, not of "free-will". Study the chapter yourself, and notice verse 16 which specifically denies that the will of man determines whom God saves. The chapter explains how God's promise has not failed with respect to the many Jews who do not believe in Christ, because His promise was never to every single one of the children of Abraham, but to the elect, who are chosen unconditionally, not on the basis of anything good or evil that they do, or their will or any other work, but by God's sovereign mercy whom He grants to some from eternity and withholds from others. And it answers the objection (an objection which is only raised because this unconditional sovereign election and reprobation in predestination is what the passage is exactly teaching) that it is unrighteous for God to elect without any respect to any form of merit whatsoever (whether "free-will" or anything else).

Much as I would like to continue at least to the end of chapter 11 (after this the subject deviates too far into a different though related area - gratitude for this salvation), We must return to what the verses first quoted mean:

I Tim. 2:4 speaks of God's will to save all men. First of all, it is abundantly clear from everywhere in Scripture that God's will is almighty (because He is almighty) and that whatsoever He wills certainly comes to pass. It is also clear throughout Romans which we have just discussed, that God elects some to salvation and not others. God wills to save some men and not others. But of course this verse can't contradict that because God cannot lie. And the explanation is simple. "All men" used in this context refers to "all kinds of men" just as it means in verse 1 of the same chapter. This is why context is so important in correctly understanding Scripture. "All men" in verse one cannot mean that we are expected to pray for those who are already in hell, for example, or for the Antichrist, for example. The context explains that it is speaking of men from all social strata, even kings, because God is not a respecter of persons (because He's the One who determines everything about us anyway), and Christ has redeemed people from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Rev. 5:9). That verse is simple to understand once the context is understood, and once it is considered that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

II Pet. 3:9 is perhaps even simpler. The passage is all about the second coming of Jesus Christ. The first part of the verse tells us that Christ is not slow to return, but rather He is longsuffering towards us and, so that before He returns all must be brought to repentance. It is obvious from the long clear passages discussed above that God will not bring every single person to repentance (as we know from history too, such as Judas, or the Canaanites, or the wicked before the flood, to name a few!), and we know that God's will is always almighty (Psalm 115:3, for example). It is also clear that if Christ were to wait for every single person to be brought to repentance, then He would never return! The purpose of the verse is to assure us that Christ is certainly coming, and will not delay! The obvious meaning is that "all" in this context refers to "all the elect". The elect are the only ones who are ever brought to repentance as we saw from Romans - so this verse really ought to be simply understood. The "us" in the same verse qualifies the "all"; so that the meaning is "all of us, the elect".

It has to be said that very often when heretics try to twist verses into their own false doctrines, the verses prove too much for them. There's a beautiful irony here, and a demonstration of the power of God's Word. Such verses lead them into impossible contradictions with the rest of Scripture. If that verse really meant that God willed for not a single person to perish, then first of all, that means He is not all-powerful (because many do perish), and secondly, what about the clear examples of where God did will for certain people to perish, such as Judas, the son of perdition. Or take for example, Pharaoh and his armies, God says very plainly that He raised them up in order to display His great power and salvation to the Israelites when He drowned them in the Red Sea. Or what about the Canaanites whom God sent Joshua to destroy? If God did not will for the antediluvians to perish, why did He send a Flood to kill them all? If Christ does not will for any to perish on the Last Day, then why does it describe Him treading the winepress of His fury? A terrifying quote from Nahum should help us to think rightly about how God views the wicked who are not in Christ:

"God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vegeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet." - Nah. 1:2-3.

We ought to remember that sometimes when Scripture speaks of the Lord being "slow to anger" it is speaking of His longsuffering towards His saints (which II Pet. 3 that we quoted earlier says, is salvation), and otherwise it is speaking of Him storing up wrath against the wicked for the Day of Judgment, when their cup of iniquity is full, and the wicked world is ripe for judgment. If God willed for no-one whatsoever to perish, there would never be a judgment.

People who stubbornly misinterpret Scripture by trying to use difficult passages to explain the clearer parts, end up tying themselves in knots and unable to understand the Scriptures at all, because one error leads to another. This is because the truth is simple and united and one - as God is. The reason we find it so hard to be corrected when we are plainly in error, is our pride. This is why we must have humility (which is the fruit of the Spirit, not of "free-will") when we come to Scripture, and come to it with other believers, knowing that in two thousand years of the church since Pentecost, there have no doubt been many much wiser saints than ourselves who have studied Scripture, and recorded the good fruit of their studies (even though we must test everything, because even the most spiritual Christian makes errors).

Luther's 101 biblical ways to destroy "free-will"

I thought about quoting various different parts of Martin Luther's "the Bondage of the Will"; a book which could have been appropriately named, "101 Scriptural arguments to destroy 'free-will'". I especially liked how Luther demonstrated that the Semi-Pelagians were far worse than the old Pelagians in two important respects, that the former were far more dishonest and crafty about their assertion of merit, and also attempted to purchase the grace of God at a far cheaper rate. It was very encouraging to read Luther unleashing the "thunderbolts" of Paul against both by the teaching of free justification.

I would also have loved to quote in full, Luther's demonstration that salvation by faith alone destroys "free-will" - since many today think that the modern protectors of "free-will" nevertheless still teach justification by faith alone (as they claim that they do). Luther considered the two wholly incompatible, and the one disproves the other. John Wesley's doctrine of justification was very different to Luther's, who no doubt would have called it justification by "free-will" alone!

Suffice to say, that Christians today ought to read this treasure of the Reformation, and learn what "the essential issue" of the Reformation was (as Luther called it), and how much of Evangelicalism today has in principle reaffirmed the most fundamental doctrine of Rome. I will quote one of his most succinct, simple, and characteristic arguments against Erasmus:

"Rom. 7; Gal. 5: the power of the 'flesh' in the saints disproves 'free-will'

"I forbear to insist on the Achilles of my arguments, which the Diatribe [of Erasmus] proudly passes by without notice - I mean, Paul's teaching in Rom. 7 and Gal. 5, that there is in the saints and the godly such a mighty warfare between the Spirit and the flesh that they cannot do what they would. From this I would argue as follows: If human nature is so bad that in those who are born again of the Spirit it not only fails to endeavour after good, but actually fights against and opposes good, how could it endeavour after good in those who are not yet born again of the Spirit, but serve under Satan in the old man? And Paul is not here speaking of gross affections only (which is the universal expedient by which the Diatribe regularly parries the thrust of every Scripture); but he lists among the works of the flesh heresy, idolatry, contentions, divisions, etc., which reign in what you call the most exalted faculties, that is, reason and will. If, now, the flesh with these affections wars against the Spirit in the saints, much more will it war against God in the ungodly and in their 'free-will'! Hence in Rom. 8 he calls it 'enmity against God' (v. 7). May I say that I should be interested to see this argument punctured, and 'free-will' safeguarded from its attack!"

You can purchase "the Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther from the online bookstore at: www.monergism.com. They even have in eBook format if you're that type.

Sam W.

Which doctrines are not important?

"What sins can I commit, and yet still be saved?" I hope you recoil in horror from such an ungodly sentiment. But many "Christians" today have this very same attitude when they say, "What is the least I must believe correctly, and yet still be saved?" It's like saying, "I don't really care about God at all, but I'd like to not go to hell."

Every child of Satan wants to be saved from hell, but we don't want to be saved from sin, because we love our sin - unless we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

People are just looking for a cheap ticket to heaven, to avoid hell, but what they don't realise, or don't think about, or simply refuse to believe, is that the Holy One who cannot abide sin is in heaven, and heaven is not an escape from Him. Hell is to be in the presence of God and not hidden in Christ.

Is truth and righteousness unimportant? Then God is unimportant. One cannot love God, without loving truth and righteousness. God is truth. God is righteous.

People misuse the words, "Oh, I don't believe in religion, I have a personal relationship with God." You have a personal relationship with God do you? Yet you don't care about doctrine, or living a holy life according to His commandments? How absurd. As if doctrine and obedience belonged to "religion" and not also to "relationship", and as if "religion" was necessarily devoid of "relationship"!

But as for the saints, "we love Him, because He first loved us." - I John 4:19.

I don't want your empty music anymore

"Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." - Amos 5:23-24.

These verses make me think back to the time I spent in a kind of broad, wishy-washy, shallow, and worldly Evangelicalism.

Music to stir the emotions was always a big deal, but I think that was just trying to compensate for the lack of real depth and genuine spirituality. It was as if there was an unspoken philosophy that maybe if people's senses are distracted enough with excitement they won't notice the superficiality of it all.

I say this because there was a disinterest in the truth of God, even sometimes an active attempt to keep it vague and unclear. There was an apathy differentiating between right and wrong, and godliness was seen as an optional extra; maybe even inadvisable since it might make the worldlings feel uncomfortable in their worldliness.

Well, whatever they might think, God is not pleased with such hollow worship. He is righteous, and loves righteousness, and demands that we judge between true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. We must set ourselves apart from everything that is against His good and beautiful standard of His own infinite moral perfections, and devote ourselves entirely to Him in loving gratitude for what He has done for us - and especially for Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

If only Scripture was more treasured in the heart:

"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." - James 4:3-10.

Defence of Christianity Against a Proud Scoffer

In answer to a believer's query about science and the Bible, I referred to this website: http://www.creation.com.

A scoffer replied by comparing the highly qualified and intelligent authors of the material on this website to "The Banana Man" (so quickly that I concluded that he had in fact not even looked at the website), and advised me to only pay attention to "REAL scientists", by which I supposed he meant, those who attempt to explain the world in a materialistic framework regardless of how awkward and self-contradictory the fit becomes. To answer this challenge for the sake of the believer who had first made the query, not for the professed atheist (since if one denies the Bible outright, it is impossible to prove anything to them, and irrational to try to do so, and therefore argument with them is unprofitable), I responded:

Absolutely, of course I prefer the theories of scientists who dare not contradict God, who created everything and was there when all was created. Since those who deny Him, who is the Author of all truth and history, are nothing but willfully ignorant fools (Rom. 1:18ff), then of course I would be insane to take their proud imaginations seriously. If they deny the very first principle of all knowledge, then surely all their speculation is worthless. What need could I possibly have to pay heed to their vain attempts to ignorantly explain what is now seen, within such a self-contradictory and godless framework, intent on calling God a liar. But while men can lie and be deceived, it is impossible for God to lie. And those who call Him a liar are calling themselves, who are mere creatures, the Authors of truth; yet without God there is no truth. But they were born as wicked men only a few short years ago, are finite, and their lives are like the flower that fades and withers away quickly; they were not there to tell how things came to be. But God is from everlasting to everlasting, infinite in power and knowledge and wisdom, He was there, and none else.

The professed atheist then attempted to criticise the Christian faith on the basis that:

1. It only believes what reaffirms its presupposed ideas.
2. These ideas cannot be based upon "tangible evidence".
3. It is therefore, "deliberate stupidity".

Again, lest anyone be fooled by these empty and self-contradictory words, I responded:

Blind and godless Empiricism is also a presuppositional belief. The difference is that there is no man who has not heard the witness of God in their own consciences (and therefore their denial of it is universally self-evident, no matter how much evil men deny it), and since the Lord has graciously granted me faith, I believe God's testimony which is greater than any other, and indeed is the only way in which I can test all other witnesses, and see the world as He does, and apart from which, all my own interpretations would be merely groundless stabs in the dark. Hence, I have nothing to discuss with such lying fools as you, unless you assert that God alone is the authoritative Author of all truth, and denounce your own feeble understanding, in order to learn from Him how we are to interpret the data and evidence which He has set before us.

Not content with this (of course), the God-hater dug himself a deeper pit, by denying that his empiricism was presuppositional, and calling it rational instead (as if the latter did not demand the former)! And then he gave a definition of empiricism which he presented as a vindication of his philosophy, rather than its very indictment, which it actually was. He then also claimed that his criticism of Christianity was "kind and gentle", and that he was speaking for my benefit, and asked me to do the same as if he were willing to be persuaded (but of course, only upon his own presuppositional grounds of godless materialism, which is the very thing I refuse to do, and would consider wholly irrational), as if I had not already laid before him his errors. Since the believer responded by giving his own definitions of materialism and of theism, which were unsatisfactory, and did not display the folly of the professed atheist, nor the Bible's evaluation of such scoffers and their godless philosophies, I finally responded at length:

Materialism: Trusting in your own experiences and your own interpretations of those experiences, while willfully denying God's trustworthy testimony.

Biblical Theism: Trusting in God alone, by whose Word all our experiences must be tested and interpreted.

"I'd really hope someone would extend a hand of knowledge to me" - the Roman Catholics once put the Bible on their forbidden book list, but to you, I am sure it is readily available - even in your own language. How much less excuse then, you have for inventing your own theories about why the world is the way it is, when you refuse to learn from the Creator who is the only One whose testimony can be trusted altogether.

The natural world indeed speaks powerfully about the greatness of the divinity and power of God (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:18ff), and God has even given us eyes, ears and all the other senses by which we can perceive the created things and thereby know of the wisdom, divinity, and power of the One who created them. This witness is sufficient to leave us without excuse for our wickedness in not glorifying Him as God. No wonder then that many in our day deny this.

Yet if we deny this, by what means do we suppose we can trust anything we observe? What reason would we have to put any confidence in our senses? Would we not simply then we left adrift in nihilism, perhaps "I think therefore I am", and all our experience may be simply a dream? Therefore the atheist contradicts himself, when he speaks of empirical rationality, because if there is no God who does not lie, and who has created all things, and who has given us these senses, then there is no reason to presume that anything is real. This is why atheism, contrary to the popular, yet foolish misconception of it, is actually the death knell to all scientific endeavour, while true Christianity is its very foundation. And this is true both philosophically, and historically. Science was given birth by Christianity which believes in one Almighty God who created all things and orders them according to natural laws which only He may alter by miraculous works which display His sovereignty over these laws. Without this, all is merely proud, blind speculation, as I said.

But He has given a far greater light in the Scriptures by which we might see things as they truly are and understand God's purpose for them in His eternal will to glorify the Son through the salvation of the company of the predestinate by Him. By these Scriptures we understand the origin of the world, and the history of it (including the flood by which the world that then was, perished by water), and the purpose of it for the glory of God. And by these Scriptures too, it is revealed to those whom God grants the gift of faith, how we are to be saved from the terrible wrath which we deserve - and there is no greater blessedness than to have been given the knowledge and assurance of this. Those who believe these Scriptures are the only ones who can really tell about why things are the way they are (but even then, only to a very limited extent), and why things work the way they do.

Furthermore, the study of things as they currently are and as they currently work, cannot tell us how things were in the past, or even how things will be in the future. In Scripture this notion is explicitly denied (II Pet. 3), because God did not leave things to continue as they were from the beginning, but everything changed at the fall of Adam, and about 1500 years later, this wickedness had manifested itself so universally that God destroyed the world by water, in order to preserve the church, and so the world that we now see is the aftermath, and quite different. If a bomb causes a building to explode in to dust, do we suppose that we can tell by looking at the aftermath how things were beforehand? Maybe certain things can be speculated upon, but all is vanity if it is denied that the explosion ever occurred.

This is one example of the proud vanity of those who speculate upon the past.

As for the future, if one denies God's providence in upholding the world by the word of His power (just as they deny that He created it by the word of His power), then they again have nothing but groundless inductive reasoning to go by and it is folly also to presume that all things will also continue as they are. But Bible tells us that though we ought to plan ahead, we ought to do so in the fear of God and prayer, because we do not know what a day will bring forth. We cannot say what will happen tomorrow because it is God who is the author of history not us; we can only say that if the Lord wills, such and such will happen (James 4:13-16), and we must study Scripture to understand the will of God, and we trust in His good providence for His people, knowing that He works all things for the good of those whom He has loved with an everlasting love (Rom. 8:28ff).

The Bible explicitly condemns this notion too in the same passage (II Pet. 3), as coming from the mouths of scoffers who deny the Flood and the first coming of the incarnate Son of God. It explains that Christ will certainly return on the last day, to end history and destroy the world, this time by fire, and to judge the living and the dead. And it explains also that Christ is not slow in coming, but He is carrying out the Father's will, that He will not lose one of those whom the Father has given to Him (how could He since He is omnipotent and has paid fully for their sins by His own infinitely worthy sacrifice? - John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:9). So He is not willing that any should perish; He will bring all His elect to repentance and faith before He returns in judgment.

I have written this in defence of the Christian faith against the scoffers which were prophesied beforehand, which were ordained to this condemnation, but I hope that God would bring all who read this to repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, rather than for greater condemnation to be poured out on them for denying it - but if that is the Lord's will, then so be it.

 I hope that believers readers will understand more fully that the Christian faith has nothing to fear from scoffers who irrationally boast about their rationality. As our Canons of Dordt say in head 3/4, article 4:

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

It is sometimes amazing to observe what proud boasts men make with only their mere glimmerings of natural rationality, and how they use it, as with all their remaining "wholly polluted" faculties, in the service of sin and the devil, endeavouring with all their powers to hate God will all manner of contrived blasphemies, and to oppose the work of Christ in the salvation of His people. But every observation of this, rather than puff us up, should instead remind us that we are no different except for the grace of God, and so we ought to take occasion to be more humbled, and to be more grateful to God, and exalt Him alone.

The Beauty Regime

I always thought the words of this song are interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zynO8DMDTC4
Of course, as an unbeliever he presents the completely wrong solution, much like Joel Osteen's religion of self-esteem. A Christian believes that true beauty is that of inner condition of the heart, not of the outward appearance, and therefore the only beauty we have is in Christ. God is the implication of all perfections, and as such only He is truly beautiful, and everything else is a parody and mockery of His perfection.

Isaiah 53:2-3 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath
no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

The world knows nothing about true beauty and so vainly chases after and obsesses about the outward appearance, which at the end of the day - is just eaten by worms. I wish Christians would be better witnesses against this kind of godlessness - but all too often they live in bondage to the same lies.

A brief Christian perspective on "Sustainable Development"

Sustainable Development is a popular concept these days - it is a buzz word that is driving significant changes in global policies, legislation, and economics. This is especially true in the European Union. It is important for Christians to look at the things that the world is obsessed about very carefully. As Christians, we do have a responsibility to be faithful and good stewards with what God has given us - to not use things wastefully or recklessly, and (as with everything) to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And this is not an earthly kingdom, and so we view our responsibilities in that light, liberally giving to the work of the Gospel and supporting it by whatever means we have, especially in the local church and for the good of "the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). But because this is only a proximate care that we have over these things, whereas God has the ultimate control over all, we ought not be anxious and worried about tomorrow. We also know that ultimately this present world is reserved for fire when Christ comes again, and until that time it will grow worse and worse until it is finally ripe for judgment (II Pet. 3).

The world on the other hand is very worried about tomorrow. And it is also only interested in using its resources for furthering the earthly kingdom of Antichrist. The key questions to ask about "sustainable development" are, "Sustainable for whom?", and, "Development of what?" The world has its own ideas about that, but we are interested in the reason that the world exists - the salvation of the church in Christ, made up of God's elect from every tongue, tribe and nation.

I once asked one of my lecturers (I studied Environmental Science) whether sustainable development was not simply an admirable but impossible goal, based on the second law of thermodynamics (neatly expressed as "rust and rot doth corrupt"). The truth is that this world bears witness of itself that it is "wearing away like a garment" and cannot last - and therefore our hope ought not to be in this world, but in "the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God". But for the academics, economists and politicians of the world, their only hope is in this present evil age - and this is why they so strenuously fight for the idea of sustainable development.

As for climate change - it is not really scientific. This was the subject of my final year thesis at university, which I can send to anyone who is interested in reading more about it. Climate change is convenient hype to enforce more and more laws and policies in line with the world's philosophy of sustainable development. Things like this are likely to make living as a Reformed Christian very difficult in the days to come, as our freedoms are gradually eroded, and the world unites more and more in global governance for the kingdom of Antichrist. The influence of these philosophies is more evident in the EU than anywhere else in the world, in my opinion.

Tales of the Visit of a Reformed Pastor to Limerick: Part II

I was also talking to Rev. Stewart a little about Erik Guichelaar's essay (related to evolutionism) in connection with the recent speech on Calvin vs. Darwin given in a Christian High School in the US. Angus suggested the great idea of putting it on our website, so I contacted Erik and did that the same week.

On Wednesday, we had a Bible study on I Peter 3:1-7. This was a very blessed time, as we discussed the Holy Scripture and meditated on it together and how it applies to us in so many ways. Of course there was much discussion about how the teachings here oppose the ungodly philosophy of the "feminist" movement. We also spoke about the dichotomy in verse 4 between the two different kinds of adornment (especially as it is important for a woman desiring to be sought by a godly man and a man desiring to seek a godly woman, but also in its intended context - that of a witness to an unbelieving husband for his salvation). It was a well-mixed group, and much profitable time was spent discussing the implications of the doctrine in verse 7 that husband ought to dwell with their wifes with understanding. One man who attended texted me early the next morning to say how much they had enjoyed this study. That week Ireland also lost one-nil to France at home, but fortunately we able to take that blow after such an uplifting Bible study.

On Friday then, we had our first lecture on “The Last Days,” and I had written a blogpost about this previously - making some comments about the bizarre philosophies of modern (or should I say modernist?) Irish Evangelicalism, insofar as they related. The lecture was a superb Scriptural explanation of sober eschatology - especially focused on a right exegesis of Acts 2. It showed absolutely conclusively that the last days reaches from the coming of our Immanuel, to the second coming, which in one event shall include the final resurrection, and the final judgment, and the ushering in of the new heavens and the new earth, etc - the consummation of all things and the end of days. It was argued that the last days are called the last days because there are no days after them (i.e. no earthly millenial kingdom!), and they finish with the last day (singular) which is also so-called because it is the final day with no more days after it.

One man commented at the end in astonishment, "You never used Revelation [the book]!" I think this is the source of a lot of confusion regarding eschatology - people immediately turn to the book in the Bible which perhaps requires the most intepretation using a comprehensive and thorough-going understanding of all the previous books, and so then they try to interpret it with little reference to the massive ground of revelation from which it draws its language, images, and ideas. No wonder with such a headstrong and ignorant approach to Scripture that the wild ideas from over-fertile imaginations of sinful men are so numerous. No, in contrast to this, if we speak of eschatology, the place to start is not the book of Revelation - the place to start is the simplest passages which speak most plainly.

No-one tries to work out a mathematics problem involving complex trigonometry and integration, without first having a thorough understanding of the basic algebra required, and even that is fruitless without the basics of arithmetic. But it is exactly our nature to turn things upside down and backwards in spiritual pride and ignorance. I remember Prof. Dykstra (of the PRTS) speaking about how many heresies come directly from ungodly hermeneutics. One friend enjoyed the lecture so much he felt like clapping afterwards. Another friend felt similarly, and they both bought some books I think - thankfully there were two copies of "Doctrine According to Godliness" by Ron Hanko, which is an absolute treasure, worth far more than the RFPA charge for it, and worth far more than its own weight in gold too.

More soon...

What's so important about the Last Days?

It is common in modern Irish Evangelicalism to speak of primary and secondary issues, whether they be of doctrine or practice. Often the primary issues are defined as those issues in which all Evangelicals are agreed. Naturally as more and more groups are accepted into Evangelicalism, with more and more erroneous and heretical views, these primary issues are being continually bombarded and slowly diminished from within. This arises out of necessity, for the inclusion of others who are automatically seen as genuine believers, because of another attitude within Irish Evangelicalism that shirks at any criticism (especially public) of any other religious group (including Rome, preferring to silently disagree). I would be inclined to call this "spinelessness" or "cowardice", and definitely being ashamed of Christ and His words (Mark 8:38), and definitely unloving.

Secondary issues are likewise, often defined as divisive issues - the issues which cause division between Christians. The prevailing attitude is not that these issues ought to be discussed so that agreement can be found, but rather in the hope of greater unity, that they ought not to be discussed and should be set aside as unimportant. The result of this, is that if a church, for example, strongly preaches a certain view of the Last Days, they are seen as needlessly divisive, and since their view is not universally agreed, they ought not to preach on the subject at all.

This view of doctrine is almost unquestioned, and even promoted as the true doctrine of the catholicity of the church. This is as if to say that if a church claims that her distinctive doctrines are true (and therefore the contrary views are wrong), that she is denying the catholicity of the church. She is guilty of being schismatic. Instead she ought to say we are all right (despite contradictions), or that we will never know on this side of eternity who is right. And since we do not know, or cannot know, we ought to preach only on the primary issues (which are continually being diminished). This view twists the old motto, “unity in diversity”, to define diversity as doctrinal diversity. And not surprisingly, this philosophy in practice usually does not result in silence on “secondary issues”, but rather it silences protests against all kinds of heresies; those of Romanists, other Arminians, Anabaptists, and Pentecostals, whose unchecked poisons then prevail in accelerating apostasy.

This is an ecclesiological heresy. The catholicity of the church is not that we must accept all doctrines as being equally true or valid. Indeed the catholicity of the church is not about diversity of doctrine at all (because there is one God, and therefore one Truth [John 14:6]), it is about believers from all tongues, tribes, and nations being equal in Christ, co-heirs with us all in all the promises of salvation - and this includes believers who are ethnically Jews. As our own Heidelberg Catechism explains this term found in the ancient Apostles' Creed:

Q. 54. What believest thou concerning the “holy catholic church” of Christ?
A. That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world (John 10:11; Gen. 26:4), gathers (Rom. 9:24; Eph 1:10), defends, and preserves to Himself (John 10:16) by His Spirit and Word (Isa. 59:21), out of the whole human race (Deut. 10:14, 15), a church chosen to everlasting life (Acts 13:48), agreeing in true faith; and that I am, and for ever shall remain, a living member thereof (I Cor. 1:8, 9; Rom. 8:35ff).

Immediately this is the condemnation of all Jewish premillennial dispensationalism. All doctrines which teach a future earthly kingdom of the Jews are heretical - a gangrene which must be cut off because they inherently divide the body of Christ (Eph. 2:14-15; 3:6; 4:4), and hinder the true mission of the church - that of preaching the Gospel to every creature, and teaching them to observe all things commanded by God and baptising all nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Isa. 52:6-15).

Furthermore, this ecclesiological heresy proudly claims for itself special knowledge of what doctrines are important and what are not, and therefore what doctrines that ministers are allowed to preach, and what they must not preach. This is a dynamic, mystical, man-centred, and therefore unbiblical view of doctrine. Any preacher humbly devoted to God in his calling to preach, prayerfully studies the Bible as God's Word, which he must preach indiscriminately and uncompromisingly to be innocent of men's blood.

He understands that all the Bible is God's Word, and that the whole counsel of God must be preached (Acts 20:26-32), and that God's people are frail and weak spiritually, and full of sin, and need instructed, exhorted, reproved, and rebuked in every way to encourage them and build them up in unity, including doctrinal unity (Eph. 4:1-16; I Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1ff). He knows that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” And he knows that he must keep nothing back from them which is profitable (Acts 20:20). He has only one qualification for what he must preach – is it in the Bible? If it is, it must be preached!

That champion of the true biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone by grace alone, Martin Luther, says this far better than I could, speaking about what is perceived by Irish Evangelicalism as the most divisive (and therefore most forbidden) doctrine of all (though as much as it is crucial in cultivating true humility, the necessary prerequisite of unity, it is actually one of the most unifying doctrines of all):

“If, my Erasmus, you consider these paradoxes (as you term them) to be no more than the inventions of men, why are you so extravagantly heated on the occasion? In that case, your arguments affect not me, for there is no person now living in the world who is a more avowed enemy to the doctrines of men than myself. But if you believe the doctrines in debate between us to be (as indeed they are) the doctrines of God, you must have bid adieu [goodbye] to all sense of shame and decency thus to oppose them. I will not ask, 'Whither is the modesty of Erasmus fled?' but, which is much more important, 'Where, alas! are your fear and reverence of the Deity when you roundly declare that this branch of truth which He has revealed from heaven, is, at best, useless and unnecessary to be known?' What! shall the glorious Creator be taught by you, His creature, what is fit to be preached and what is to be suppressed? Is the adorable God so very defective in wisdom and prudence as not to know till you instruct Him what would be useful and what pernicious? Or could not He, whose understanding is infinite, foresee, previous to His revelation of this doctrine, what would be the consequences of His revealing it until those consequences were pointed out by you? You cannot, you dare not say this. If, then, it was the Divine pleasure to make known these things in His Word, and to bid His messengers to publish them abroad, and leave the consequences of their so doing to the wisdom and providence of Him in whose name they speak, and whose message they declare, who art thou, O Erasmus, that thou shouldest reply against God and say to the Almighty, 'What doest Thou?'

“St. Paul, discoursing of God, declares peremptorily, 'Whom He will He hardeneth,' and again, 'God willing to show His wrath,' etc. And the apostle did not write this to have it stifled among a few persons and buried in a corner, but wrote it to the Christians at Rome, which was in effect, bringing this doctrine upon the stage of the whole world, stamping an universal imprimatur [official approval for publication] upon it, and publishing it to believers at large throughout the earth. What can sound harsher in the uncircumcised ears of carnal men than those words of Christ, 'Many are called, but few chosen'? And elsewhere, 'I know whom I have chosen.' Now, these and similar assertions of Christ and His apostles are the very positions which you, O Erasmus, brand as useless and hurtful.”
- Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will”, sect. 23, as quoted in Jerome Zanchius, “Absolute Predestination”, pp. 96-97, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

Luther's testimony ought to sufficiently remove from all the godly, this heresy which teaches that man has the authority over what must be preached and what must not.

In this context many say that what we believe about the Last Days is simply unimportant. It is certain that not every detail about this time and the future is important (insofar as not every detail is given to us in Holy Scripture), but the general idea and our one blessed hope is. Wrong literalistic views of the millennium have this problem (aside from an over-emphasis on a very small portion of Scripture) – they predict a coming magnificent earthly kingdom of Christ as the great final triumph of the church. From this they say that we must be especially busy in politics, in the media, in economics, etc. to go about trying to carnally establish this carnal kingdom.

In this the supreme importance of Gospel-preaching is side-lined and neglected. The energy and resources of the church are spent on promoting the national Israel of 1948, or the institution of “Christian laws”, not on promiscuously proclaiming the Gospel to every creature. False eschatology (doctrine of last things) destroys the true mission of the church, and in fact plays into the hands of the great kingdom of anti-Christ that we know is even now developing. For this reason, all true preachers of the Gospel ought to denounce these errors wherever they are found.

The good news tells us that the kingdom of Christ is not an earthly one wherein dwelleth unrighteousness – it is spiritual and that this world is becoming ripe for judgment, so that through great tribulation we must enter the kingdom of heaven (Acts 14:22). This is good news, because even now we know that Christ is reigning in heaven and that in this way His glory and grace is most glorified through history and the salvation of His church from this present evil age. Our blessed hope, is in the personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will usher in the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness – and that alone. As Prof. David J. Engelsma puts it:

“As deaf to the testimony of history as it is to the witness of Scripture, theological modernism still stubbornly entertains the hope of a “golden age” for mankind by means of evolutionary development and the efforts especially of preachers, politicians, scientists, and teachers in the state schools. Rome has its French Jesuit philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, liberation theologians, and, as his recent encyclical, 'Charity in Truth', indicates, the present pope.

“Protestantism has its Paul Tillich and hosts of pastors whose message every Sunday morning is love for mankind (referred to as humankind), tolerance of everyone and everything (except uncompromising confession of the truth and unswerving obedience to the law of God), and the uniting of all the nations and peoples of the world (excluding the holy nation, which is the true church).

“Natural men and women are moved by this hope of an earthly paradise – a carnal 'kingdom of God'. American politicians seek votes with the vision of 'a new world order'. Lenin and Stalin won the hearts of millions, including liberals in the United States, by their announcement of the coming of the millennium in the form of Communism, regardless of Communism's avowed godlessness, mass murders, and dictatorial cruelties. Hitler bewitched virtually all of Germany, including multitudes of German Christians, with the prospect of the 'thousand-year Reich' – the millennial kingdom of the messianic Fuhrer – reared up though it was by war, bloodshed, and terror.

“With his millennium, Antichrist will seduce the world, including many nominal Christians, who do not have their heart set on the spiritual kingdom of Christ, revealed in the sound doctrine of the Gospel (II Thess. 2). The seduction of will be the arrival, at long last, of the millennial kingdom of God and Christ (as Antichrist's prophet, the beast out of the earth [Rev. 13:11ff.] will describe it) in its full, carnal, bedazzling, beguiling splendour and beneficence.

“From this conception of the millennium, the Reformed post-millenialists are anxious to distance themselves. Understandably. Well may they be anxious also that their conception of a carnal kingdom not play into the program of the 'king of fierce countenance', who 'by peace shall destroy many' (Dan. 8:23-25).”

- Standard Bearer, 86(2), October 15, 2009, p.36.

The final objection may be, that while this may a serious problem for many elsewhere, it is certainly not an issue here in Limerick. Anyone who knows what is preached in Irish Methodist and Presbyterian churches today (especially in Presbyterianism), and the popular notions in Mallow Street hall (Brethren-style dispensationalism), and the local Assemblies of God institution, Abundant Life, knows that heretical eschatology is a deep and spreading poison among “Evangelical” Christians in Limerick.

Against this, and in promotion of the positive biblical Gospel, the true testimony of Scripture about the Last Days will be proclaimed this Friday evening by Rev. Angus Stewart. If it is God's truth, no God-fearing saint ought to dare to call it divisive. God's truth always builds unity, and gathers the saints together – because Christ's sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:26-31).

Salvation belongs to our God: not unto us, O Lord, not unto us!

Why do I hate "salvation by free will" (Arminianism) so much? Because I love God my Saviour who saved me even though my will was totally enslaved to sin and I deserved only hell even by my very nature since the moment I was conceived (Psalm 51; Rom. 3:9-28; 8:5-11).

The Gospel of Arminianism is the Gospel of hopelessness, and can do nothing except leave us all to damnation, since its only power is the powerlessness of the sinful will.

The Gospel of Christ however, is the power of God unto salvation!! Why? Because it relies nothing on us, but only upon what cannot change - God's eternal counsel in predestination (Rom. 8:28-9:29; Heb. 6:17-20; Eph 1:3-12). Except the Lord had predestinated us unconditionally to salvation we could only be as Sodom and Gomorrah. Of that, I have no doubt in my own conscience. What about you?

Here's the difference, the one rests upon the will of a totally depraved sinner - it cannot be more powerless. The other rests wholly upon the immutability of God. "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Mal. 3:6).

Wherever the light of this truth is extinguished, the Gospel has been utterly lost, the blood of Christ has been trampled underfoot, the Spirit of holiness has been thoroughly despised, and the glory of God has been replaced with the shame of the wicked. Where this truth has fallen to the streets, there it is that Satan rules.

But Christ will come, and all his enemies will be under His feet, for the Sovereign Lord is always victorious, and never fails to triumph. Not a drop of His precious blood can ever go to waste, and not sinner for whom He paid the ransom could ever be condemned to hell. Only this Gospel cleanses our consciences and assures us of eternal life in fellowship with our Creator, Saviour and Lord. Believe it, and join a church that preaches it without compromise!

Sam W.

Please take some time to study this important subject:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/christofarminianism.htm
http://cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/defenseofcalvinism.htm
http://cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/calvinismthetruth.htm

Good works in the sight of God?

Many boast today about their philanthropy, and all the wondrous things they think to do for humanity. Many Christians also praise these things as "good works", even though they may be done by the vilest atheist, and ungodly heathen. What is this preposterous notion they have that the unregenerate can do "good works"? That these carnal and wholly unspiritual people, enemies of God, and totally depraved in nature, can truly love their neighbour by all these deeds (Rom. 8:7-8)?

What measure are they using? It is certain that these people are not using God's measure - the only measure that counts (Rom. 3:9-18). Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and the praise of men, but does he have the praise of God? If not, then what does he have at all (Rom. 2:29)?

It is nothing but a proud insanity and most of all an impossibility to attempt to keep second table of the law while discarding the first table. For all of God's commandments are inseparably joined, such that if we are not keeping all of them, we have kept none of them (Jas. 2:10). If we have not loved God in our supposed "love" for our neighbour, we are nothing but hypocrites (Matt. 23:23). Such is our vast need for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:5-8). By grace alone this is imputed to us, through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

The only sacrifice which God regards from us is that sacrifice sanctified by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:10), and which proceeds from the new heart (upon which is written the two tables of the law - to love God and our neighbour - II Cor. 3:3; Ezek. 26-27; Jer. 31:33), and which in profound humility and brokenness cries, "UNWORTHY!" Those who by grace alone (and not of themselves at all) make this their offering, "God, be merciful unto me, a sinner," are those who are freely pardoned and fully justified by the blood of Christ (Luke 18:13-14).

If any of this hits home with you, please take time to read and study this article by Herman Hoeksema: "The Curse-Reward of the Wicked Well-Doer".

Sam W.

Is the climate-deniers position credible enough for a convincing April fool's joke?

See recent April fools joke on RealClimate.org:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/farewell-to-our-readers/

Samuel Watterson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 1 April 2009 at 5:07 PM

What I find most hilarious about this post is the number of people who were momentarily fooled by it. (I wasn’t, knowing how deeply committed these authors are - at least to their position if not always the data…)

Isn’t the idea of a good April’s fool gag that is it is convincing enough to fool some people? Makes me wonder whether daring with this wasn’t conceding that the “contrarians” might just have some credibility… Perhaps this gag was a bit too far after all.

--

Of course, I believe that term "climate-deniers" is more suited to the legends at RealClimate.org. The fact is that the proxies and methodologies used for historic reconstructions have not been verified by cross-examination with modern records, and the studies resulting from these do not match the historical documentary evidence. The Little Ice Age was very cold, and it was not so cold before it. Are we now warmer than before the Little Ice Age? Do we know? What significance would it have if we were? Documentary evidence indicates that at least the Northern Hemisphere is not as warm as it was.

Is our climate stable or unstable? Is it's instability so bad that a 0.01% change in the atmospheric composition (that roughly represents the increase in CO2 possibly due to human activity) could irreverisibly disrupt it? First we ought to remember who designed it:

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
- Isaiah 45:18.

And then let us remember the unconditional promise of the Sovereign Lord:

"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
- Genesis 8:21-22.

Of course this doesn't rule out disruption of the climate system by human activity altogether, but it does set boundaries and limits on it. We ought also to remember the terrible woes that are promised as this present evil age draws to its close. As Christians, we look for the city that has foundations, and the new creation - the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when He will bring fiery vengeance on those who obeyed not the gospel and loved wickedness, while we who by His grace were called, we dwell with Him. And He will be our God, and we will be His people, and He will wipe every tear from our eyes.

So what is the obsession with trying to prove global climate change caused by human activity - first, a global problem requires a global solution, second, human pride loves that sense of self-importance, that if the climate is awry, we are not only responsible, but can save ourselves too. Wonder at the glory of man! He can save himself from every distress! Not even global climate change will stop his progress! But he is godless, his glory is his shame, and his progress is towards hell.

- Sam W.

Lecture: The Reformation's teaching on the church

In the middle of this grand and outwardly glorious church building in France is Napolean's tomb. This is like the church today, beautifully white-washed on the outside, but at heart just a tomb for idolatrous images and the burnt ashes of the corpse of godless man, all built for the worship of Man.

Friday night's lecture was fantastic. Fewer of our (college) friends could come because of the pressures with exams etc, but we were nevertheless, greatly blessed. We had a friend who came down from Galway (and stayed for the whole weekend!) and we had another friend who has been coming to the Lord's Day meetings over for dinner beforehand who was delighted to learn the Reformed and biblical interpretation of 1 John 2:2.

We arrived early, and I was smitten from about 6 o'clock onwards with a splitting headache which endured throughout the entire lecture. But it was a great joy to meet the saints again (and to get loads of books that I had bought!). When the lecture began (which apparently was longer than usual), it seemed to me, that it was finished almost immediately.

I was quite gripped throughout the entire lecture, despite the headache, of which I recalled only afterwards and had to take paracetamol. The lecture covered all kinds of issues regarding the church, many of which are again very relevant today. For example, it would probably be abhorrent to some to consider the church to be the company of the predestinate (in fact to mention the words "the predestinate" is anathema to many). And for a while a few years ago, like many in the house-church movement I had also fallen into the grave error of presuming there to be no need for the church institute.

It was very helpful to hear not only the right view proven, but also all the myriad wrong views of papists, (Ana)baptists and fanatics disproven. What struck me was how comprehensive the lecture was. It seemed like every angle was covered; what the wrong views were (and why!) and what the right view is (and why!). There were (and are) so many controversies about the nature of the church etc, but the truth is so powerful. As always I am fascinated by what I learn about the Reformation and utterly astonished by how far the church has departed, and how gracious God has been to me to bring me to a true church.

Afterward there was some interesting questions and answers on the topic of children in the church. First, the Three Forms of Unity are very good on this subject, and also the CPRC kindly distribute many pamphlets to biblically prove the correct view on this, but I've also been reading Prof. Engelsma's "The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers". I was especially impressed by his treatment of Article 17 of Head 1 of the Canons of Dordt in the chapter "No Reason to Doubt", and I highly recommend it!

Almost all the "evan-jelly" church in Limerick while not necessarily baptist by name is (ana)baptist by nature; this false indoctrination and total ignorance of the covenant of God (and its nature) is why it is a big hurdle for people here to get around. I still marvel at how clearly I see the doctrine of covenant children in the Bible now, when once I thought it was a totally foreign concept.

The "evan-jellies" do a good job of inoculating us to the plain truth of the Bible until it is pointed out. This is what shallow preaching does: it causes confusion and ignorance and obscures the truth. I think this is why the foolishness of preaching does more than reading alone ever could. It's like God uses preachers who labour in their studies of God's word to point to the elephant in the room that you were too busy examining the toenail of to see that it was an elephant. How long did it take Luther in his reading to see that “the righteousness of God” is referring to His righteousness which can only be imputed to us by Christ, not a righteous standard that we must attain to of ourselves? But if it had been preached to him, the pieces of the jigsaw would have clicked together in very little time.

It is amazing to hear of all the many issues that were dealt with at the time of the reformation, and yet how ignorant most of us are of them. It is so sad, when there is such a precious wealth of biblical truth to be learnt from when these issues came up in the past, that the churches today seem to be like the proverbial fool returning to their folly (of the papists), like a dog to its vomit (Prv 26:11). If your father built most of a house already before he passed away, would you simply demolish it and start building your own from scratch? That's not only foolish, its obstinate and prideful - all of which I too am abundantly guilty.

In Limerick it seems like most church leaders are utterly blind to this. The lecture was like a bombshell going off making clear just how far the false churches have departed from the truth. God-willing others who received copies on CD of the lecture will see that they need to join a biblical church. I am always greatly encouraged when there is a public lecture, because I know that Christ is the one who builds His church (Matthew 16:18) and that it is by the work of ministers of the Word, especially in the preaching, that we are brought into unity, not to be blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:11-16).

There are certainly many winds of doctrines blowing around here in Limerick, but how can the lies stand against the word of God which is like a fire and a hammer that breaketh the rock into pieces (Jer 23:28-29)? Knowing this, I am courageous to pray and bold to approach the throne of our sovereign and gracious God who does as He pleases among the inhabitants of the earth, for the sake of the Reformed faith in this city, and that He would gather the saints here together so that we would obey 1Co 1:10.

We had some great chats afterwards as well. It was an absolute delight to hear the Reformed minister wholly confute all kinds of silly questions about the "age of reason" and other unbiblical notions, and defend the plain meaning of various passages of Revelation against the divers imaginations about communists, China, Russia, Gog and Magog and years etc. I told my friends about a book "Behold He Cometh!" by Herman Hoeksema (which can be read on-line) that I've been reading through, and how thoroughly sensible and biblical is the interpretation of Revelation it presents without wandering off into any foolish speculations and unscriptural ideas. The only right interpretation is what plainly comes by Sola Scriptura: “Scripture interprets Scripture!”

I think it was about hour after we said that we were going that we actually went, and even then we all spent some time thanking Rev. Stewart for coming down and talking about plans for possibly visiting the CPRC again in January. Exciting stuff! I could probably say a lot more, but I must get more study done - and lots of it.

- Sam W.

Do "all men" and "world" really mean "every single person"?

"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." - Romans 5:18.

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." - John 3:17.

There are some who say that Christ died for every single person. These people point to verses which use the terms "all men" or "world", like 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 4:10, John 3:16, John 4:42 etc. This issue I have with this position is that it tears down what Christ actually did by His death and resurrection. If Christ died for every single person and some of those people are not saved, then what Christ did wasn't enough to save every person for whom He died. And worse, then the reason that some are saved and some are not is not the grace of God, but something of themselves.

If the difference is not of God but of man, then it is not of grace but of works.

This was the central point of the controversy at the time of the Reformation. There were many faults in the church at that time, but it came down to this one crucial issue: are we saved by grace alone, or do we contribute something of ourselves to our salvation. To put this another way, is Christ our complete Saviour, or are we and Christ both half-Saviours. Is salvation the work of God alone, or is it the work of God and man. Is salvation by unconditional grace alone of God, or is it by merit conditional upon something of man. The Bible presents only two options, grace or works (it cannot be both):

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." - Romans 11:6.

A universal atonement means one of two things:

1. Every single person is saved (Universalism).
2. The atonement is conditional.

Every single person is not saved, so that leaves us with a conditional atonement. A conditional atonement means one of two things:

1. If the condition is supplied by God, then salvation is by grace but the extent of the atonement is in conflict with the extent of His intention (Amyraldianism), but God is supposedly one and all wise.
2. If the condition is supplied by man, then salvation is by works and not by grace (Romanism and Arminianism), but man supposedly has no grounds for boasting.

The Apostle Paul summarizes our conclusion from this in the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." - Ephesians 2:8-10.

In summary a universal atonement denies the efficacy of the atonement, the total depravity of man, salvation by grace alone, and that all glory belongs to God alone. It also tears down the theological basis for the perseverance of the saints (yet many try to retain that, at the same time as introducing the concept of "carnal Christians" along with their Semi-pelagianism). We can clearly see now that the doctrine of universal atonement is a vile heresy. It is insidious also, because it often comes under the guise of being "more loving" and "more inclusive" and "less offensive". It makes people feel better to think that Christ died for every single person and really wants to save every single person. But all the while it makes a wretched mockery of Christ's sacrifice, and God's sovereignty and His all-powerful love and man's depravity. To such blasphemies the Spirit loudly declares:

"What shall we say then to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is He that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" - Romans 8:31-35a.

"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." - Romans 5:8-9.

But aren't the verses of the many "gainsayers" compelling? "For God so loved the world!" "Who will have all men to be saved!" "He is the propitiation for ours sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Yet these verses actually condemn their position. If God loved every single person, every person would be saved, for isn't that the greatest expression of love? Surely God would not leave those He loved to their own sinful depraved wills, only enslaved to the sinful nature! If God would have every single person to be saved, then what power is greater than His that it might stop Him from saving them? Surely not our feeble resistance! If He had been the propitiation for all of every single person's sins, then how could He send any to hell? Surely He is not unjust to punish twice for one offence? If He is the Saviour of every single person, then how could some not be saved? Surely if some are not saved, He could not be called their Saviour!

Their argument is entirely based on their erroneous, alien and unjustifiable interpretation of the words "all men" and "world". Firstly "all men" quite often just means a general "all" which is only defined by the context, such as all fish, all sheep, all stars, all angels, all reprobate or all elect. Here the context defines what all refers to. For example:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9.

Peter has just spoken about God's word keeping into store the heavens and the earth reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, and about the false teachers of whom Jude 4 says that they "were of old ordained to this condemnation". Clearly he not teaching that God is not willing that they should perish and come to repentance. They were ordained by God to condemnation, and the heavens and the earth are being reserved unto fire against the day of their perdition! The plain meaning of this verse (and the only meaning that makes any sense in the context) is that the "any" that God desires not to perish and the "all" that He desires to come to repentance are the "us" that Peter refers to. Verse 1:1 explains, that Peter is speaking of the elect of God, the Church of Christ who will obtain like precious faith.

The phrase "all men" is best demonstrated in Romans 5:18 where Paul uses it to mean two different things in one verse. First he says that judgment came upon "all men" unto condemnation by the offense of one. There is no confusion here. The "one" refers to Adam (clear from the context) and the "all men" refers to every single person (clear from the context). This teaches us that by Adam's offense, judgment came upon every single person unto condemnation. This is what Ephesians 2:3 means when it says that we were by nature children of wrath. Every single person was born with a sinful nature and therefore justly under the condemnation of God.

Secondly he says that the free gift came upon "all men" unto justification of life by the righteousness of one. There can be no confusion here either. The "one" refers to Christ, the only Righteous One. The phrase "unto justification of life" means that just as the judgment was unto condemnation by the offense of Adam, the free gift was unto justification of life by the righteousness of Christ. Just as every person on whom the judgment came was under condemnation, now every person on whom the free gift came is under justification unto life. In this context "all men" can only mean those who are justified unto life, and all those whom the free gift came upon. If some are not justified unto life (which must be the case since not all are saved), then the free gift only came upon some and all of those on whom the free gift came are justified unto life.

In this one verse then, we find that in the first part "all men" probably refers to "every single person" and in the second part it can only refer to all upon whom the free gift came or all men of the elect. In other words, all men who Jesus Christ justified by His blood. The context must always determine what such a vague term as "all men" really means. In 1 Timothy 2:4 it means the same as in verse 1, all kinds of people, that is ranks and classes etc. Certainly we are not to pray for every single person, for example: not the dead and not those referred to in 1 John 5:16. 1 Timothy 4:10 of course explains itself: Christ is the Saviour of all kinds of people, that is in particular, those who believe, not those who do not believe. He cannot be the Saviour of those whom He does not save, and all those whom He saves will believe; He is only the Saviour of those who believe. To try to make these verses mean anything different is blatant Scripture-wresting.

What of the word "world"? This word simply means kosmos as in, the universe, the entire creation, space-time-matter continuum. It can refer to many different things depending on context: the world of the wicked reprobate (John 17:9 where Christ does not pray for the "world"), the evil world-system of the ungodly (1 John 2:15 where we are told not to love the "world" or anything in it), the world of the elect of every tribe, tongue and nation (John 3:16-17 where Christ declares God's love for the "world" and His Father's intention that He should not condemn the "world" but save it, while teaching the Jewish Nicodemus that salvation was for whosoever believeth, and 1 John 2:2 where it tells of who Christ's propitiation is for, and those propitiated for can no longer come under God's wrath).

In Noah's day, God both saved a "world" and destroyed a "world". He preserved the godly world with the Ark through baptism, and destroyed the ungodly world with the Flood by immersion. Afterwards He revealed His cosmic covenant of grace with the world of the elect, and reminds us of it every time we see the rainbow. Of course not all Noah's family were elect believers, Canaan was cursed, just as today in the church there are some who are wicked hypocrites. So today we know that there will be a new heavens and a new earth along with the New Jerusalem.

Those who claim that "world" means every single person have a completely untenable interpretation. It is not correct, and cannot be correct. To take that interpretation leads to the heresy of a universal atonement and wrests the Scriptures violently. Now, I boldly claim that there is not a hint anywhere in the Bible that Christ's atonement was universal or that some of those for whom He atoned with His blood would be condemned. Such would be to call the blood of Christ an unholy thing and to trample it underfoot.

There is just one final objection that is made (yet again Scripture interprets Scripture, so this cannot be an honest objection when so many passages speak so clearly about the efficacy of the atonement): that is a few verses like 2 Peter 2:1 and even Hebrew 10:29. Even a cursory glance at a few cross-references explain these without a doubt. 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers "denying the Lord who bought them". This is explained in verse 20 of the same chapter (if its meaning was not already apparent) they had "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", that is, these people were in the church institute (not the church organic). Outwardly they were in the church (the called ones, apart from the world), but inwardly they were not. They were hypocrites (Jude 1:4 says that they "crept in unawares"), without saving faith, only a surface knowledge. They knew all about the Saviour, and could recite the creeds in church etc, but they didn't know the Saviour and their hearts were far from Him.

They were bought in the same sense as the wicked hypocrites in Israel were bought from slavery in Egypt (Jude 5). They were bought out of the pollutions of the world into the church, but as the unbelievers with uncircumcised hearts in Israel died in the desert, the hypocrites in the church will also be condemned on the day of judgment. They were not of course truly ransomed by the blood of Jesus, because then they would be saved. They appeared to be bought with Christ's blood from a human perspective, but not in God's eyes.

Likewise Hebrews 10:29 carries the same idea, to the human perspective, they were in the church and had been baptised, and therefore seemed sanctified with the blood of Jesus (set apart as holy like the children of believers in 1 Co 7:14), but in God's eyes they were wicked hypocrites, still polluted by the stains of their sins. Just as not all the children of believers are elect, not all those in the church are elect and not all those baptised are elect. These reprobate covenant-violaters had received the outward sign of being sanctified with the blood of Jesus, by being outwardly baptised, but they were not inwardly baptised. Jude calls them blemishes in our feasts of charity (Jude 12). These verses use strong language to highight the depth of the hypocrisy and profaning of the covenant which these apostates are. To suggest that these verses teach that there are some who Jesus died for that are not saved would be to try to overturn all of Scripture and of course rob the believer of assurance and introduce the heresy of salvation by works again.

May we not err regarding the atonement, that we might say with Paul:

"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." - Galatians 6:14.

Thanks to AiG for the pic!