The Days of Relic-ry Are Not Over

A couple of days ago the AP reported that a vial of John Paul II's blood is being sent to a Roman Catholic church in Poland as a relic.

I find it odd when I hear this in the light of so many remarks to the effect that the Roman Catholic church has changed since the Middle Ages. The relics that are known to have circulated the Romish world during the Middle Ages are strange, bizarre, and even obscene. 

I guess the one difference between this relic and the old-fashion ones, is that this relic can be verified. The old relics claimed to be nutty things like Noah's beard or bottles of the Virgin Mary's breast milk. At least this relic, a vial of blood can be authenticated.

That doesn't save the ship however. It is still an evil idolatrous practice. Thigh bone of a saint, piece of the cross, the holy grail, a vial of pope's blood - it's all a bunch of hocus-pocus. There is no Biblical warrant for venerating relics, and certainly not for worshipping by means of them. They are nothing but animistic charms or amulets dressed up in "Christian" garb.

In case you may be tempted to think I'm making this up, below is a link to the CBS/AP story. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/17/world/main7254387.shtml 

Thoughts on Hosea 8:12

I have written to him the great things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

Hosea 8:12

A series of sermons could easily be written on this passage, but today I merely want to make a couple of observations.

First, the audience of God’s Law. In other words: To whom is God’s Law addressed? For whom was the Bible written? This is a question of great importance, but one that is seldom considered. Let me just state the truth here and then explain why it is so. The Bible was written to God’s people and to them alone. In our passage, God says that He had written His law to Ephraim. God’s Law was not written for the Amorites, the Hittites or the Philistines. It was written only for God’s chosen people.

The Bible is not addressed to unbelievers. They cannot understand its message because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). It is to them the odor of death. When an unbeliever reads the Bible it is like reading a stranger’s mail. Although you may understand every word on the page, you will never understand the meaning of the letter because you do not know the author, nor do you know the nature of the subjects it treats. As long as a man is “devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19), the Bible will be “foolishness unto him” (1 Cor. 2:14). This is, no doubt, the explanation behind many of the strange teachings that drift around in the Church. The Bible has been read and preached by unconverted men.

And incidentally, I would argue that this is why many of the modern Bible translations are unacceptable. Many of the modern translations are based on a philosophy that believes the Bible is God’s “gift to mankind.” I object! Speaking of the Old Testament, Paul says in Romans 3 that the Jews were entrusted with oracles of God. The Scriptures were not for the Amalekites or Jebusites. The salutations to the Apostolic Epistles exclusively limit their audience to “saints,” or, “elect.” And we are committing a grave offense when we try to interpret, or rather, translate Scripture in language that is understandable or acceptable to the worldly, carnal, unregenerate mass of fallen humanity. The world in which we live is overrun with a Hegelian relativism that denies the existence of absolutes, especially moral absolutes. How in the world can we translate the Scriptures, which emphatically assert that homosexuals have their part in the Lake of Fire, that sex before – or outside of - marriage is sin, that Papists, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus – in short, that all idolaters will perish in an eternal Hell – How, I say, can we render the Scriptures in a way that is inoffensive to these people. The Bible is not ‘politically correct.’

My second observation is regarding how God’s Word is often treated. “Counted as a strange thing.” This refers to the treatment the Bible often receives – not at the hands of infidels, mind you, but at the hand of professing believers.

The Bible is often outright ignored. Charles Spurgeon once commented that there is enough dust settled on many people’s Bible that you could write the word “Damnation” in it with your finger. It’s a sad fact that many of us are more familiar with TV and movie celebrities, with sports stars and singers than we are with Bible characters. What excuse do we have for such behavior? And what could we possibly present to God on Judgment Day as a justification for such neglect of His Word?

Secondly, the Bible is often mishandled. There are more foolish, ignorant statements made in Sunday sermons every week than there are grains of sand on the seashore. I have heard pastors preach contradictory messages two consecutive Sundays. When I hear the idiocy spewed forth by the likes of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Kenneth Hagin, Morris Cerrulo, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Schuller, etc… I am amazed that God does not rend the heavens and stop them mid-sentence to put an end to their enormities! But one day, He will; rest assured: one day He will. “You are judging,” someone will say. CORRECT! I am told to judge. John 7:24, Jesus says, “Judge righteous judgment.” The holy Word of God is not a plaything to be toyed with by ignorant, arrogant men.

Lastly, as our verse says, the Bible is treated as a “strange” thing. The word “strange” in the King James means “foreign.” One does not need to watch modern Christendom for very long to see that the Bible is foreign to it. How often does someone actually “turn the other cheek?” How often are we encouraged to let unbelievers mistreat us? When was the last time we heard a sermon on lending and not asking for the payment in return? There are myriads of Bible principles that are slighted, ignored and downright rejected as impractical because we have not “renewed our minds” and we are striving to live the Christian life according to the dictates of worldly wisdom and secular philosophy. This is why Christians today indulge in behavior that unbelievers of 100 years ago would never have dreamt of engaging in. It is no secret that the Church is worldly. Nearly a half century ago, A.W. Tozer wrote, “Christianity is so entangled with the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is white-washed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers.”

Every month, all over the world there are Christian conferences held on every subject imaginable – except the Bible! The Bible is treated as a strange thing. With all due respect to Rick Warren, why is it that millions of congregations joined in the “40 Days of Purpose” program, but never a “40 Days of Exodus 20,” or even “2 Days of Matthew 5-7?” The Bible is quoted and read out of a sense of obligation or tradition, but it really is foreign to most of us.

Christ's Gethsemane Prayer Answered

The following paragraphs are from Hugh Martin's classic: The Shadow of Calvary. This is a very profound book. The paragraphs I have transcribed here deal with the Father's answer to Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, "Thy will be done."

We must bear in mind that the ultimate agony of Christ's prayer consisted of a burning and unquencable desire that the will of God might be done. "O my Father, Thy will be done." And this will of God embraced immediately and ditrectly these two objects: first, that Jesus should offer Himself a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour to God; and secondly, that herein He should be an effectual and accepted ransom securing the redemption if those whom the Father hath given to Him. The first part of this will of God, namely, the offering of the body of Christ once for all, is asserted in the well-known passage: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast prepared me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast no pleasure. Then said I,lo! I come to do thy will, O God" (Heb.10:5-7) And the second part of God's will, namely, our separation and consecration to God, and thereby also our salvation, as the fruit of Christ's death and sacrifice, is set forth in close connection with this in a subsequent verse, when the apostle says, "By th which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). Hence when the apostle describes His anguish of prayer in Gethsemane in these terms, "In the days of his flesh, he offered up suplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death," and wheh he assures us that His prayer was heard and answered "in that he feared" (Heb. 10:7); he proceeds to show that it was precisely in these two points that the answer to His prayer consisted; first, that He might receive all needed grace to be "obedient unto death," positively offering Himself a sacrifice; for this was that will of God which He came to do: and, secondly, that all His sheep, His children, the travail of His soul, might be secured unto eternal salvation. For unquestionably in these respects would the aposlte have us to understand that He was "heard in that he feared;" namely, first, inasmuch as "though he were a Son he learned obedience by the things which he suffered" (verse 8), being made perfect in His function as a high priest, not by mere passive obedience, which is the duty of a priest, and especially of such a priest as Jesus, to offer Himself without spot unto God. And then, secondly, the will of God being thus performed by Jesus, the sanctification or salvation of His people is also given to Him; for being thus "made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him" (verse 9).

Such are the two objects of God's will, the two corresponding elements of Christ's prayer, and the two-fold and complete answer. They embrace indeed, and briefly represent, the grand will and purpose of God in the everlasting covenant, consisting, as they really do, of the mutual pledge between the Father and the Son; first, on the part of the Son to the Father, that He should be obedient unto death, the ransom and the righteousness of the Church; and secondly, on the Father's part to the Son, that He should indeed see the travail of His soul, and that the Church in all her members should be ransomed and made the righteousness of God in Him for ever.

Hugh Martin, The Shadow of Calvary, Ch. 6

All Means What?

The typical Arminian objection to the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the tired old stand-by "all means all." By this they insist that whenever the Scripture uses the word "all" in reference to the Atonement, it must only and always be understood to refer every single individual on earth.

The Reformed way of understanding the word "all" when it refers to people affected by Christ's death is to affirm that this is a synonym for "of all kinds." Arminians always reject this reasoning and are usually angered by such an assertion.

When their "all means all" theory is put to the test, however, it falls apart quite quickly. Let me demonstrate. In 1 Corinthians 6:12 and in 1 Corinthians10:23 Paul asserts that, "All things are lawful to me." By the same reasoning Arminians use to deny the obvious Scripture doctrine of Limited Atonement we could argue that Paul means to say that adultery, murder, gluttony and theft are lawful for him. Hey, all means all! Once you begin to define the word "all" in these passages in a way that limits it to things which are not innately sinful, then you have implicitly admitted that limitation of the word "all" is indeed allowable.

For Pentecostals the case is even worse. In Acts 2:4 we are told that all spoke in tongues. Yet Paul asks rhetorically in 1 Corinthians 12:30, "Do all speak with tongues?" Using the Arminian hermeneutic of "all means all" we have a flat out contradiction on our hands here. Any attempt to wiggle out of this fact is again, a tacit admission that limitations of the word "all" are Biblically allowable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

1 Corinthians 13 tells us that "Love suffers all things." Are Christians walking uncharitably when they file an insurance claim when some punk kid throws a rock through their car window? Whatever happened to "all means all?"

1 John 1:7 says that we are cleansed from "all sin." Now here is where the rubber meets the road as far as the Arminian "all means all" Procrustean bed goes. If "all means all" as they always insist, then their system collapses in on itself. It is self-stultifying. Scripture explicitly affirms that Christ has cleansed us from "all" sin. This kicks both legs out from under Arminianism. For no one should go to hell if Christ has paid for ALL their sins! Secondly, no one can lose their salvation because this would imply guilt for sins not paid for, yet Scripture says ALL sins are paid for.

Preaching Election

I heard of a minister who had introduced the truth about Election to his congregation. He gradually began to see the consequences of it in terms of his own congregation, which was without a doubt like the mixed crowd that went up out of Egypt when Israel was "born" as a people of God. He saw many of this mixed crowd taking offense when this truth was brought up and began to fear for them lest they leave the church, with the result that the church's finances would of course be seriously endangered, as well as his own reputation as a pleasant, sensitive and open-minded man. Slowly he began to turn from the Word of God and one day said with strong emphasis, "If teaching doctrine is going to split my congregation, I'll never preach doctrine again."

What did this really indicate? What is "doctrine"? Doctrine is teaching, instruction; and Biblical doctrine is teaching what the Bible says. So here we have a minister of the Gospel who determines in his heart and promises publicly that he will never again teach what the Bible teaches about the true nature of man, about the true meaning of the Gospel, and about the real significance of God’s sovereign grace. How long can the Church of God remain a force in the world when its pastors depart so far from following the pattern set by the Shepherd of souls?

But when does one meet the topic of Election head on and proclaim it as an essential part of the Gospel? How does one present it? Traditionally, Calvinism starts with the Total Depravity of man and not as Arminianism does with man's alleged capability to exercise saving faith on his own. Such a capacity, they have held, is what God foresees and makes the basis of Election. But this places man in the position of being able to cooperate with God, actually of being needed by God in a cooperative capacity before his salvation can be effected. In a very real sense man becomes his own savior, though not without God's help. On the contrary, the Biblical view of man is best epitomized by the term Total Spiritual Inability. If we start here we will most reasonably move on to the question of why God should be interested in man at all. From this we ask, “If man's salvation is wholly dependent upon the will of God, on what basis did God then decide to save certain individuals but not others?” You see, there is a certain logic to the ordering of the questions in the whole Calvinist position and above all it is a system so deeply rooted in Scripture that it can justifiably be identified with the Gospel itself. Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel.

The opinion of the great Christian warriors of the past 1900 years has been amazingly consistent in this. They have never questioned the aptness or the need of openly proclaiming the sovereignty of God's grace. Certainly Paul's Epistles make no apology, nor does Peter. John's Gospel is equally unequivocal in the matter.

Augustine was straightforward indeed. In his De Bono Perseveratiae he affirms that the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching of Predestination are but two sides of the same coin. 1 He is very explicit in this matter. In his correspondence with Prosper and Hilary, written about 428/9 A.D., he acknowledges 2 that people were saying that since the doctrine of Predestination clearly implies that some will receive the Word and will obey and will come into the faith and persevere in it, while others "are lingering in the delight of their sins."…If one is predestinated to be chosen though as yet still unsaved he will receive the necessary grace to believe in any case, and therefore won't need exhortation. If, on the other hand, a man is predestinated to be rejected he will not receive the strength to obey the Gospel and threatenings will serve no purpose. Augustine replies: “Although these things are true, they ought not to deter us from confessing the grace of God…For if on the hearing of this some should be turned to torpor and slothfulness, and from striving should go headlong into lust after their own desires, is it therefore to be counted that what has been said about the foreknowledge of God is false? If God has foreknown that they will be good, will they not be good whatever the depth of evil in which they now engage? And if He has foreknown them for evil, will they not be evil whatever goodness may now be discerned in them?”

The basic problem is whether the abuse of the truth should encourage us to prefer error. Will not error be a greater evil in the long run? And so Augustine’s solution is: Weigh in the balance what will cause the greatest harm: to deny a truth to one able to bear it and be greatly profited thereby merely to prevent further harm to one who is already injured by ignorance of the truth, or alternatively, to do such good to the understanding of the one able to bear it that it outweighs the harm done to the one without understanding. And if it is a matter of permanently benefiting the saved while possibly causing temporary harm to the unsaved, our first responsibility must be to the saved. If there is a choice of doing good to the one or the other, the saved or the unsaved, and it is not possible to do good to both at the same time, we must follow Paul's injunction to do good as far as possible to all men, but "especially unto them who are of the household of faith" 3

Luther was equally convinced that God did not plan the truth of Predestination and Election to be buried in secrecy. He said to Erasmus: “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 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 consequence of his revealing it until these consequences were pointed out by you? You cannot dare to say this!" 4

Luther's contemporary, Martin Bucer, shared his views concerning the preaching of this doctrine. In his Commentary on Ephesians Bucer wrote: "There are some who affirm that election is not to be mentioned publicly to the people. But they judge wrongly.... Take away the remembrance and consideration of our election, and then, good God! What weapons would be left to us wherewith to resist the temptations of Satan?"

Even Melancthon, one of the less dogmatic of the Reformers, in his work entitled The Common Places treats of free will and predestination by first of all establishing that it is both a necessary and a useful doctrine in many ways, both to be asserted and believed. In fact, he goes so far as to say: "A right fear of God and a true confidence in Him can be learned more assuredly from no other source than from the doctrine of predestination." 5

Calvin no doubt believed this doctrine was to be preached and not merely believed. In a tract entitled The Eternal Predestination of God, which he published in 1552 in reply to certain criticisms of his openness in declaring his faith, he wrote: ”I would in the first place entreat my readers carefully to bear in mind the admonition which I offer [in the Institutes]: that this great subject is not as many imagine a mere thorny disputation, nor a speculation which wearies the minds of men without any profit; but a solid discussion eminently adapted to the service of the godly, because it builds us up soundly in the faith, trains us to humility, and lifts us up into an admiration of the unbounded goodness of God towards us, while it elevates us to praise this goodness in our highest strains.”

Benjamin B. Warfield wrote: “The biblical writers are as far as possible from obscuring the doctrine of election because of any seemingly unpleasant corollaries that flow from it. On the contrary, they expressly draw the corollaries which have often been so designated, and make them part of their explicit teaching. Their doctrine of election, they are free to tell us for example, does certainly involve a corresponding doctrine of preterition (i.e., of the omission of those not elect).” 6

J. I. Packer has many prudent things to say on this matter. He argues that, “...so far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility – indeed, the certainty - that evangelism will be fruitful. Were it not for the sovereign grace of God, evangelism would be the most futile and useless enterprise that the world has ever seen… Regarded as a human enterprise evangelism is a hopeless task. 7

And though Augustine rightly said that some of the Lord's people are not yet ready to receive the deeper things of God, he also held firmly to the principle that the harm done by withholding this doctrine from the Lord's people is far greater than the danger of exposing the unregenerate to it. If a choice must be made, Election must be taught – for God has most certainly not concealed it in Scripture. Augustine was perfectly right when he said, "We must preach, we must reprove, we must pray, because they to whom grace is given will hear and act accordingly, though they to whom grace is not given will do neither." 8

Such a spurious Gospel as we hear so often preached today leads to unreal conversions. The kind of conversions we often see passed off as the result of successful evangelism are more like the kind of conversion experiences which William James, the famous psychologist wrote about as occurring among unbelievers all over the world and throughout history. It is psychological rather than spiritual, and as long as it is initiated humanly this is all it will ever be. The best defense against such artificial forms of conversion is absolute faithfulness in the preaching of Election and the sovereign grace of God. In our present disturbed social setting the need for such faithfulness is greater than ever, and to suppose that falsehood is safer than the truth in such a crucial matter as Election is surely absurd.

1Chapter 36

2 Chapter 38

3 Gal. 6:10

4 Quoted in Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination, p. 97

5 Chapter 1

6 Biblical and Theological Studies ("On Predestination")

7 Packer, The Sovereignty of God in Evangelism pp. 106, 109

8 On the Gift of Perseverance, XIV.