Sorry For The Lousy Formatting

I am sorry for the crazy formatting in the two posts with the sermon by Tennant. The article is still readable. But it irks me to see all those glitchy things in the formatting.

I tend to be a bit of a font maniac. (I like my Greek and Hebrew fonts.) But I can't seem to get any of them to work on my blog. The problems in the last two posts weren't related to Greek or Hebrew, but they were font related. The font I used in Word, didn't paste into my blog with the same formatting. I didn't notice all the wacky things until it was too late. I'm still learning the ropes.

Lust Rescued Me!

I think I just found out what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit looks like. It’s called missionary dating! If this doesn’t qualify as out-and-out blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, nothing does! This idiocy so boggles my mind, I almost can’t believe it’s for real. Alas, it is for real. It turns out that hot girls can use their narcissism to win hot guys to Christ. I guess they believe that ugly people are doomed to Hell.

Lest you begin to panic and get the crazy idea that this is evil and unbiblical, missionary daters have answers to you questions and 10 helpful tips for hot girls who want to use their sensuality to win hot guys to Christ.

Here is their advice:
1. If he tells your that you are hot...
Tell him God made you hot.
2. If he wants to hold your hand...
Give him a Bible.
3. If he tries to get closer...
Tell him the Holy Spirit is wooing him.
4. If he asks to pay for dinner...
Remind him that Jesus also paid a debt He did not owe!
5. If he reaches his arm around you...
Tell him that nobody will ever be as close to you as Jesus is.
(or ask him if you instead could "lay hands" on him in prayer)
6. If he tries to kiss you...
Remind him that a kiss killed your Savior.
(and you're not ready to "speak in tongues")
7. If he asks to come inside...
Ask him if he has asked Jesus to come inside his heart.
8. If he tells you he loves you...
Tell him that Jesus loves him.
9. If he gets angry that you won't put out...
Clarify to him that W.W.J.D. does NOT mean "Who would Jesus Do."
10. After you dump him...
Tell him that Jesus Christ will never leave or forsake him.

You think I’m making this stuff up. I’m not! Apparently, there are people stupid enough to believe this garbage. Here’s the proof: http://datetosave.com/. Trust me, you don’t want to look at the items in the website’s shop.

These gals don’t seem to be bothered by the deception involved here. The hot missionaries deceptively enter relationships with guys they intend to dump: either when they guy gets too carnal (!!!!) or gets saved (!!!!) They evidently aren’t concerned about the inherent stupidity the idea of luring men into the Kingdom by means of lust. In my father’s words, “Someone needs to be horse-whooped!”

A pox on anyone who advocates this blasphemy!

Total Depravity

Total Depravity: What does it mean? Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. So, we should begin with some elucidation. In doing so we will first clarify what it does not mean. It does not mean that every man is as bad as he can potentially be. This misunderstanding is perhaps why many people reject the doctrine. C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Problem of Pain, stated that he disbelieved the doctrine of Total Depravity because, “if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature.” Both parts of Lewis’ rejection of the doctrine are due to the misrepresentation that I am refuting.

Firstly, I would assert that, by nature, we do not know that we are depraved. It is theologians who have formulated this doctrine from the Divine revelation of Scripture, not secular philosophers from observation of humanity. If God had not revealed to us our depravity we would not know it, and that, in itself, is an indication of the totality.

The word, “depraved,” occurs three times in the New Testament (NASB). It is rendered thus from the Greek: αδοκιμος. The word αδοκιμος occurs eight times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16; Heb. 6:8). The range of meanings includes: unfit, reprobate, worthless and depraved. It is impossible to say anything positive about humanity in light of this word. Let me reiterate, we did not discover this about ourselves; God revealed it in His Word.

Secondly, by “total,” we do not mean that every man is the worst he can possibly be. This is patently false. What we do mean is this: Every single faculty and part of the totality of man’s being has been ruined by Original Sin. There is no part of our total human nature that is unaffected by the Fall. In essence, Total Depravity means that corruption has extended to all aspects of human nature; hence, there is nothing any person can do to merit saving favor with God. Unregenerate man is not as bad as he can be, but he is as bad off as he can be. Only the restraining of God keeps any and every sinner from doing any evil thing any other sinner has done. All unregenerate are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). There are no shades of dead: dead is dead! No unregenerate sinner is less liable to God's wrath than any other unregenerate sinner, regardless of outward appearances.

Scripture is very clear on this issue. In Jeremiah 17:5 we are told, “Cursed is he that trusteth in man.“ In verse 9, this reason is given: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” What heart is so wicked and deceitful? The heart we were told not to trust - and that heart belongs to man. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares, “Madness is in the heart of the sons of men, while they live.” Consider also what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16:23 “Get thee behind me, Satan – for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” This tells us very plainly that to be carnal and vain, (opposite to what is spiritual and divine) is what men in their present state are naturally like.

Paul supposes the very same thing. In 1 Cor. 3:3 he writes,”For ye are yet carnal. For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” Hosea proclaims in 6:7, “But they, like men, have transgressed the covenant.” We might also adduce Matthew 7:11 – “If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts…” In 1 Peter 4:2 we read, “That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the lusts of men, but to the will of God.”

But what could be stronger than the statement of Job 15:16 that says that mankind drinks iniquity like water? The only possible rival is perhaps Genesis 6:5, where the intent of mankind’s heart is said to be always evil – continually.

Theophilus of Antioch, the 3rd Century Apologist, writing to an unbeliever, says, “For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes." Note the assertion that man must be enabled to see God because he does not have an innate ability or will to do so.

This is why some theologians have called this doctrine Total Inability. This term expresses the idea, that since man is so hopeless corrupted and dead in sin, he is totally unable to do anything tending to his own salvation. This make perfect sense. What corpse could respond to a "raise your hand" altar call? Jesus likened regeneration to birth. What baby decides when, how, where or even if it will be born? Hence the foolishness of asking people to decide for Jesus if they want to be born again.

P is for Perseverance

Perseverance of the Saints is not equivalent with "once saved always saved." This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. Perseverance of the Saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin have not been changed and saved by grace; they are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation.

The misrepresentation of the glorious truth of this doctrine that parades under the name “once saved, always saved” is more harmful to the cause of this truth than all the Arminian objections combined. The truth Scripture asserts and we proclaim is that a person who is unconditionally elected from all eternity is chosen to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Perseverance of the saints is not inconsistent with the truth that the believer may nevertheless fall into grievous sin and continue therein for some time. However, it does affirm that though the saint may fall, God will not forsake him and according to the promise of God’s Word, death will not take him before he has been recovered from his lapsed state. “Once saved, always saved” implies that a man may sin with impunity so long as he has accepted Christ as his Savior and he will still go to heaven when he dies. We reject this perverse caricature. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to live a life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. In his frequent debates with the Arminian Wesley brothers, George Whitefield said, “I cannot think that they are clear in the notion of Christ’s righteousness, who deny the final perseverance of the saints; I fear they understand justification in that low sense…as implying no more than remission of sins.”

I have sat in on and participated in many discussions and debates on this subject. Every Arminian objection to the doctrine of Perseverance I have ever heard sounded as if it carried a latent umbrage at the notion that the objector should be placed on the same footing as some “backslider.”

The Parable of the Hired Workers in Matthew 20:1-16 perfectly illustrates, in my mind, the feelings that Arminians have toward the doctrine of Perseverance. The whole gist of the Parable is the unreasonableness of the resentment of the workers who put in longer hours. Their “faithful service” would never have happened had the landowner not called and chosen them to work in the first place. They did not apply for the job. Their long hours in the hot sun did not entitle them to look down on the workers who came on board later in the day.

It appears to me, from my experience with Arminian objections, that there is more than a little resentment displayed toward the hypothetical backsliders or lapsed brethren. Both this parable and that of the Prodigal Son address this feeling of resentment. The unspoken sentiment is, “Why should he/she get the same reward of eternal life after being backslidden for many years while I have always been faithful?” In others words, “These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.” Or, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

St. Jude’s benediction becomes a malediction on the Arminian scheme. Jude is taunting us with an illusory and ephemeral assurance if he means that God is able to keep us from falling, but He won’t and our steadfast faithfulness “to the end” is entirely in our hands.

Jesus said, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” There can hardly be any plainer statement. Yet the Arminians would like to suggest imaginary “Christians” who leap from Christ’s hand! First of all, is the individual in question covered by the words “any man” or not? If he is, then even he cannot remove himself from Christ’s hand. If he is not, then no one can ever have the assurance of salvation that Scripture promises. Secondly, what kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed! Foolishness! It reminds one of the Sadducees’ imaginary woman who was married to seven brothers. The theory is a straw man and the question is simply a trick question, invented purely for the purpose of attacking the opposing view.

It is a noble and praiseworthy sentiment that wants to see holiness in the lives of professing Christians, but it is a selfish sentiment that would bar from grace those who fail to meet one’s own external standard. The ultimate Arbiter is God and it is true that “without holiness no one will see God,” nonetheless the true measure of a man’s sanctification is only known to God, for we cannot see the internal condition of anyone’s heart.

Incidentally, here is one of the most notable contradictions and inconsistencies in the Arminian system. First, they complain against Limited Atonement and would fling open the gates of Heaven to every single creature, then they complain against Perseverance and lock Heaven’s gates against everyone who doesn’t attain to perfection.

Covenant is Not Co-extensive With Election

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the doctrine of the Covenant.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as I called it; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, the doctrine of the Covenant provides a framework or paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to lest with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possible of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the doctrine of the Covenant is the only way to navigate this passage.