Monthly Archives: February 2011

Approach, my soul, the mercy seat

Posted on by
Reply

Hymn by John Newton

Approach, here my soul, the mercy seat,
Where Jesus answers prayer;
There humbly fall before His feet,
For none can perish there.

Thy promise is my only plea,
With this I venture nigh;
Thou callest burdened souls to Thee,
And such, O Lord, am I.

Bowed down beneath a load of sin,
By Satan sorely pressed,
By war without and fears within,
I come to Thee for rest.

Be Thou my Shield and hiding Place,
That, sheltered by Thy side,
I may my fierce accuser face,
And tell him Thou hast died!

O wondrous love! to bleed and die,
To bear the cross and shame,
That guilty sinners, such as I,
Might plead Thy gracious Name.

“Poor tempest-tossèd soul, be still;
My promised grace receive”;
’Tis Jesus speaks—I must, I will,
I can, I do believe.

Miscellaneous Quotes (9)

Posted on by
Reply

“The mark of a cult, in the minds of the West in the twenty-first century, isn’t the assertion of gross error, but the gross error of assertion.” – R. C. Sproul, Jr

In the last 1,000 years, what came to be known as “The Tower Experience” of Martin Luther might well be the most significant historical event in the Western world for all the ramifications which ensued. Here are Luther’s own words as he describes what happened as he was studying Romans 1:17 (and reading the insights of Augustine on this verse from a fairly obscure article he had written centuries before):

“For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” – Rom 1:17

“I greatly longed to understand Paul’s epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression “the righteousness of God,” because I took it to mean that righteousness whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust.

My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage Him. Therefore I did not love a just angry God, but rather hated and murmured against Him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the righteousness of God and the statement that “the just shall live by faith.” Then I grasped that the righteousness of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before “the righteousness of God” had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven…”

“The rejection of the gospel is as clear proof of moral depravity as inability to see the sun at noon is proof of blindness.” – Charles Hodge

“I Preach’d, as never sure to Preach again, and as a dying man to dying Men!” – Richard Baxter

“What is doctrine after all but the throne whereon Christ sitteth, and when the throne is vacant what is the throne to us? Doctrines are the shovel and tongs of the altar, while Christ is the sacrifice smoking thereon. Doctrines are Christ’s garments; verily they smell of myrrh, and cassia, and aloes out of the ivory palaces, whereby they make us glad, but it is not the garments we care for as much as the person.” C. H. Spurgeon, quoted in Iain Murray, Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism (Banner of Truth, 1995), 122
Continue reading →

Various False Prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Posted on by
Reply

Deut. 18:20 “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

Gathered by Dr. James White:

1972 “So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?…This ‘prophet’ was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as the International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.” (Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197)

1880 “As the beginning of that change was marked by the coming of Christ from heaven, so the 2300 years above mentioned indicated that Christ was due to leave the most holy place – ‘heaven itself’ – in 1844.” (Watchtower 7/1880 p. 3, Reprints p. 115)

1881 January: “Matt. xxv and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins ‘who are alive and remain’ must all come in, to a knowledge of the Bridegroom’s presences, by the fall of 1881, when the door – opportunity to become a member of the bride – will close.” (January 1881 Watchtower, p. 4) February: “And now we come nearer to the time when our change seems due (we know not the day or hour, but expect it during 1881, possibly near the autumn when the parallels show the favor to Zion complete and due to end, the door the marriage shut and high calling to be the bride of Christ, to cease) and light on the subject is becoming clearer…” (Watchtower, February, 1881, p. 5) Note: the closer they came to October 1881 the less definite the Watchtower became regarding the “change.” July/August: “We look to October of this year, as the limit of favor – the end of ‘the acceptable year (time or age) of the Lord’ – the closing of the ‘straight gate’ to the ‘narrow way’ of the opportunity to become a member of the bride of Christ and partaker of his Divine Nature.” (July/August Watchtower, 1881, p. 6)

1889 “In this volume we offer a chain of testimony on the subject of God’s appointed times and seasons, each link of which we consider Scripturally strong…it is beyond the breadth and depth of human thought, and therefore cannot be of human origin. (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1889, p. 15)

1892 “The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in the Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October 1874.” (Watchtower Reprints, January 15, 1892, p. 1355)

1897 “Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874 A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear it.” (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, 1897, pl. 621)

1914 “The war will proceed and will eventuate in no glorious victory for any nation, but in the horrible mutilation and impoverishment of all. Next will follow the Armageddon of anarchy.” (The New York Times, October 5, 1914, p. 8 )

1916 “In the meantime, eyes of understanding should discern clearly the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty now in progress; and our faith, guiding our eyes of understanding through the Word,, should enable us to see the glorious outcome – Messiah’s Kingdom.” (Watchtower Reprints, September 1, 1916, p. 5951)

1917 “The data presented in the comments on Revelation 2:1 prove that the conquest of Judea was not completed until the day of Passover, A.D. 73, and in the light of the foregoing Scriptures, prove that the Sprint of 1918 will bring upon Christendom a spasm of anguish greater even than that experienced in the Fall of 1914.” (The Finished Mystery, p. 62(1918 ed.) (some later editions have changed the dates for obvious reasons) “Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of ‘Christianity’” (p. 485)

1920 “Even the republics will disappear in 1920…The three days in which Pharaoh’s host pursued the Israelites into the wilderness represent the three years from 1917 to 1920 at which time all of Pharaoh’s messengers will be swallowed up by the sea of anarchy. The wheels will come off their chariots – organization.” (The Finished Mystery, 1918 ed., p, 258)

1920 “As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925. At the time the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized…Therefore we may confidently expect that the 1925 will mark the return of Abraham…” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89)

1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before 1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed.” (Watchtower September 1, 1922, p. 262)

1925 January: “The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them do.” (Watchtower, January 1, 1925, p. 3)

September: “It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an end of the work, and that therefore it would be needless for them to do more.” (Watchtower, September 1, 1925)
Continue reading →

Is God’s Love Unconditional?

Posted on by
Reply

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

God elects His own people unconditionally (as Romans 9:6-13 makes clear) as those dead in trespasses and sins can fulfill no spiritual conditions anyway… and what God demands, Christ provides for all His people, including providing repentance and faith as a gift (2 Tim 2:26; Phil 1:29; Eph 2:8,9, Heb 12:2).

However, many preachers in our day speak of God loving all people “unconditionally.” When the non Christian hears the phrase “God loves you unconditionally” he immediately interprets this to mean that though he has no interest in God, and no interest in making Christ his Savior and Lord, he can breathe a great sigh of relief and can relax as far as God is concerned because he is under absolutely no threat of Divine judgment. If God in fact loves him unconditionally, that would certainly be the case. He does not have to DO anything – God loves him without any conditions at all. However, the Bible makes it clear that this is not true in any way at all.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…” Rom 1:18

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” – John 3:36

1 Thess. 1:9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.”

Wrath is coming on every soul who does not come to Christ for salvation and this wrath (God’s just and righteous anger against sin) will last for eternity. When Jesus returns, He comes back full of wrath which will be poured out on all those who have not sought refuge in Him as Savior.

That message is totally lost when people use the phrase “God’s unconditional love” and say that God has this kind of love for ALL people. I am not entirely sure I used the phrase “God loves you unconditionally” when preaching the gospel to people, but many years ago I made a conscious determination never to do so. Its not a biblical phrase and it conveys an unbiblical message. More than that, it gives the false impression that there is no danger for any soul who rejects the message of salvation. It is a false message. It is not true biblical Christianity.

Concerning this, John Piper writes:

There is such a thing as unconditional love in God, but it’s not what most people mean by it.

It’s not a saving love that he has for everybody. Else everybody would be saved, since they would not have to meet any conditions, not even faith. But Jesus said everybody is not saved (Matthew 25:46).

It’s not the love that justifies sinners since the Bible says we are justified by faith, and faith is a condition (Romans 5:1).

It’s not the love of working all things together for our good because Paul says that happens “to those who love God” (Romans 8:28).

It’s not the love of the most intimate fellowship with the Father because Jesus said, “He who loves me will be loved by my Father” (John 14:21). And James said, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you” (James 4:8).

It’s not the love that will admit us into heaven when we die because John says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). And faithfulness is a condition.

How then does God love unconditionally? Two ways (at least):

He loves us with electing love unconditionally. “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world . . . for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:4-5).

He does not base this election on foreseeing our faith. On the contrary, our faith is the result of being chosen and appointed to believe, as Acts 13:48 says, “As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

He loves us with regenerating love before we meet any condition. The new birth is not God’s response to our meeting the condition of faith. On the contrary, the new birth enables us to believe.

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been [already!] born of God,” (1 John 5:1). “[We] were born, not . . . of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).

Let us pray that thousands of people who speak of the unconditional love of God would discover the biblical meaning of what they say. If that happened many would find their feet on solid ground.

O Lord, give me poverty of spirit

Posted on by
1

“O Lord, make me poor in spirit.” That’s not a prayer I have heard uttered in a long, long time. That is a sad fact. What is even more sad and to my shame is the fact that it is not a prayer I have heard myself pray in quite some time. That’s because poverty of spirit is quite possibly the underlying root cause difference between the Christian whose life is marked by seeking God and the prayerless saint. To be poor in spirit is to recognize utter and complete dependance upon the Lord. It is to say “Lord, I am nothing without You and I need You desperately.”

In our culture, to be independent is a virtue. Yet in the kingdom of God, the more we are aware of our need of God, the more our spiritual life can grow.

I believe poverty of spirit has two major components to it. First of all there is a recognition of the seriousness and vile nature of sin. John Wesley described it in the following way, “He has a deep sense of the loathsome leprosy of sin which he brought with him from his mother’s womb, which overspreads his whole soul, and totally corrupts every power and faculty thereof.”

The second component is this attribute of dependence upon God. Kent Hughes writes, “Just as no one can come to Christ without poverty of spirit, no one can continue to grow apart from an ongoing poverty of spirit. Poverty of spirit is foundational because a continual sense of spiritual need is the basis for ongoing spiritual blessing. A perpetual awareness of our spiritual insufficiency opens us to continually receiving spiritual riches. Poverty of spirit is something we never outgrow. In fact, the more spiritually mature we become, the more profound will be our sense of poverty.” (The Sermon on the Mount [Crossway, 2001], 22)

As you read these words today, join me in asking God for this poverty of spirit, to rid the heart of human pride and to realize the depth of our need of Him. There is no merit in praying such a prayer for this is merely a recognition of reality. We need Him more than we realise. Understanding this is foundational for life in the kingdom of God. Indeed, it is the first of the Beattitudes, for Jesus “opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven…” (Matt 5:3)

This poverty of spirit is illustrated in this testimony here: From a 2008 interview with Bob Kauflin, published in The Power of Words and the Wonder of God (pp. 149-151). Hopefully, most of us will not have to go to such low depths to discover just how much we need Him:

I helped plant a church in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1991. I began to feel increasing anxiety at different times when we first planted the church. Then in January of 1994 my wife and I were at a couple’s house for dinner, and I cracked. My life fell apart. Mentally I had no connection with what I was doing, no connection with the past, no connection with the future. I didn’t know why I existed. These were the thoughts that went through my brain. That began a period of maybe three years where I battled constant hopelessness. I would wake up each morning with this thought: “Your life is completely hopeless,” and then I would go from there. It was a struggle just to make it through to each step of the day. The way I made it through was just to think, What am I going to do next? What will I do? I can make it to there.

It was characterized by panic attacks. For the first six months I battled thoughts of death. I’d think about an event that was three months away: Why am I thinking about that? I’m going to be dead by then. I had feelings of tightness in my chest, buzzing and itching on my arms, buzzing on my face. It was a horrible time. And in the midst of that I cried out to God, and I certainly talked to the pastor that I served with and other pastors that I knew—good friends—trying to figure out what in the world was going on with my life.

Five or six children at that time, a fruitful life, a fruitful ministry. And this is what I discovered: although I’d been a Christian for twenty-two years (since 1972) I was driven by a desire to be praised by men. And I wasn’t succeeding. When you plant a church, you find out that there are a lot of people who don’t agree with you. People who came to plant the church left. All of that assaulted my craving to be admired and praised and loved and worshiped and adored and applauded. God, I believe, just took his hand from me and said, “Okay, you handle this your way.” I knew the gospel, but what I didn’t know was how great a sinner I was. I thought the gospel I needed was for pretty good people, and that wasn’t sufficient to spare me from the utter hopelessness I felt during that time.

I would read Scripture. It didn’t make sense to me. It didn’t affect me. I remember lying at bed at times just reciting the Lord’s Prayer to myself over and over and over, hoping that would help. I couldn’t sleep; then at times all I wanted to do was sleep. I remember saying this early on: “God, if you keep me like this for the rest of my life but it means that I will know you better, then keep me like this.” That was the hardest prayer I’ve ever prayed.

During that time I read an abridged version of John Owen’s Sin and Temptation and Jerry Bridges’s The Discipline of Grace.

About a year into the process I talked to a good friend, Gary Ricucci, whom I am now in a small group with at Covenant Life Church. I said, “Gary, I feel hopeless all the time.”

He said, “You know, Bob? I think your problem is that you don’t feel hopeless enough.”

I don’t know what I looked like on the outside, but on the inside I was saying, “You are crazy. You are crazy. I feel hopeless.”

He said, “No, if you were hopeless, you would stop trusting in yourself and rely completely on what Jesus Christ accomplished for you.”

That was the beginning of the way out. And I remember saying to myself literally hundreds of times—every time these feelings of hopelessness and panic and a desire to ball up in a fetal position would come on me—“I feel completely hopeless because I am hopeless, but Jesus Christ died for hopeless people, and I’m one of them.”

Over time I began to believe that. And today when I tell people that Jesus is a great Savior, I believe it, because I know that he saved me. That’s where my joy comes from. My joy comes from knowing that at the very bottom, at the very pit of who I am, it is blackness and sin, but the love and grace of Jesus goes deeper.

Limited Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

In his book Our Sovereign Savior, Roger Nicole explains the main teachings of the Reformed Faith. Chapter 5 of the book concerns the subject of “Particular Redemption.”

Here are a few of the good points he makes:

* When it comes to the debate surrounding “limited atonement” the value of the death of Christ is not in question. There are no limits to the value of Christ’s death: it is sufficient to save anyone and everyone who trusts in Christ.

* The death of Christ blesses everyone in human history and creation at large. There is no limit to the extent of these blessings which are often referred to as “common grace.”

* If a person doesn’t believe that the atonement of Christ is limited only to effectually saving the elect then a that person is only left with one theological option: universal salvation of all people.

* The real issue is the design or intent of the Father when he sent his Son to die on the cross and purchase redemption for sinners.

* Since all sinners do not get saved then there is either a limit in the effectiveness of the atonement or a limit in its intent. Was God doing something to save all sinners and failed? Or was God purchasing the salvation of the elect and succeeded? Historical, orthodox Christianity teaches that God had a limited intent designed for the atonement of Christ: Christ was to die for and purchase and secure the salvation of the elect. The Cross was absolutely successful in accomplishing the particular intent for which it was designed.

* Lorraine Boettner compared this matter to two bridges: (1) one is a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the water, and (2) the other is a very wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way across the water. What good is the second bridge? It is as good as a theology that teaches the atonement was for all sinners but didn’t actually save any.

* The term “redemption” refers to the payment of the full price to purchase a sinners salvation. If the atonement didn’t actually pay the full price and didn’t actually redeem sinners then what good is it?

* The term “propitiation” refers to the atonements satisfying effects upon God’s wrath. If the death of Christ was a propitiation for all sinners then why is God still angry with sinners?

* The term “reconciliation” refers to the healing of a relationship. Since sinners are still considered enemies of God then what good was the atonement?

* The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ died as a substitute for sinners upon the cross, suffering the wrath of God on their behalf. Biblical theology refers to this as the “penal, substitutionary atonement” and “federal headship.” Federal headship refers to the fact that Christ lived and died as our representative before God.

* The doctrine of “universal atonement” teaches that the death of Christ was for all everyone but didn’t actually save anyone. Therefore “universal atonement” completely undermines the biblical definitions of redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, substitution, and federal representation.

* Universal Atonement proponents are forced to defend the concept of the Father electing some sinners; but Jesus wanted to die for all sinners; but the Holy Spirit sides with the Father and against the Son and only saves some sinners.

* May no one ever think that definite atonement prevents anybody from coming, harms anyone or takes from anybody anything that belongs to him or her. On the contrary, definite atonement is a doctrine which shows a finished, accomplished salvation.

HT: Jason Robertson

What Is True Saving Faith?

Posted on by
2

Pastor John, could you explain to me what true saving faith looks like? I think the New Testament shows us that there is a false kind of faith that can look like the real thing, but is a flawed and deceptive substitute. Am I right?

Thanks for your question. Yes, indeed you are right.

The Apostle Paul’s main theme in the book of Romans is that of the Gospel itself, as he answers the question, “how can an unjust person ever be acceptable to a just and holy God?” In passages such as Chapter 3:20 – 4:8, he teaches that we are justified by faith alone and not by anything that we do (other passages where Paul states this are Titus 3:5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; to name just a few).

Romans 3:28; 4:3-8 – “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Having established the case biblically that we are justified by faith apart from works, we then need to ask the question, “what kind of faith is it that justifies?” In other words, what does true faith look like?

This is precisely the issue that James is addressing in chapter 2 of his epistle. He writes in verse 14, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him?”

The obvious answer to James’ question is “no, that is not the kind of faith that saves. True faith will produce works.”

It is never enough just to make the claim to have faith. No one is ever saved by a mere empty profession of faith. What is professed must actually be possessed for justification to exist. James teaches us clearly that if genuine faith is present, it necessarily produces the fruit of works. That’s the nature of true faith. In fact, if works do not follow from “faith,” then it is proof positive that the “faith” is not in fact genuine, but a mere claim to it.

There is no discord between what James writes and what we find in Romans and the rest of Paul’s writings. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith never saved anyone. True faith is a living faith, and will inevitably show itself with accompanying action or works. Yet even if all these good works do come from genuine faith, these works still have no part in the ground of our justification. Our works add no merit to us, removing all grounds for boasting. “For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one should boast” (Eph 2:8, 9).

The only work that contributes to our justification is the work of Jesus; not the work of Jesus in us, but the work of Jesus for us. His merit is the only merit that counts for us. Paul tells us that it we are justified by faith apart from works, and James tells us that that kind of faith that actually saves is a faith that will of necessity produce works.

The Reformers of the 16th Century were very clear about all this. They described true saving faith as having three parts to it, which were described by three Latin words: notitia, assensus and fiducia.
Continue reading →

19 Weeks

Posted on by
Reply

“How does it make any moral or legal sense to take heroic measures to do surgery on a 19 week old fetus while at the same time allowing the abortion of a perfectly normal 19 week old fetus? The only difference between the one and the other is that one has a mother that wants him and the other doesn’t. This inconsistency doesn’t even bear the lightest scrutiny, yet it is one that is plain to anyone who has eyes to see.” – Denny Burk

Three Quotes on Monergism vs. Synergism

Posted on by
2

Excerpts from R. C. Sproul – What is Reformed Theology?:

The doctrine of justification by faith alone was debated during the Reformation on the deeper level of monergistic regeneration. This technical term must be explained. Monergism is derived from a combination of a prefix and a root. The prefix mono is used frequently in English to indicate that which is single or alone. The root comes from the verb “to work.” The erg of monergy comes into our language to indicate a unit of work or energy. When we put the prefix and root together, we get monergy or monergism. Monergism is something that operates by itself or works alone as the sole active party. Monergism is the opposite of synergism. Synergism shares a common root with monergism, but it has a different prefix. The prefix syn comes from a Greek word meaning “with.” Synergism is a cooperative venture, a working together of two or more parties.

When the term monergism is linked with the word regeneration, the phrase describes an action by which God the Holy Spirit works on a human being without this person’s assistance or cooperation. This grace of regeneration may be called operative grace. Cooperative grace, on the other hand, is grace that God offers to sinners and that they may accept or reject, depending on the sinner’s disposition.

Monergistic regeneration is exclusively a divine act. Man does not have the creative power God has. To quicken a person who is spiritually dead is something only God can do. A corpse cannot revive itself. It cannot even assist in the effort. It can only respond after receiving new life. Not only can it respond then, it most certainly will respond. In regeneration the soul of man is utterly passive until it has been made alive. It offers no help in reviving itself, though once revived it is empowered to act and respond.

Here we reach the ultimate point of separation between semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism, between Arminianism and Calvinism, between Rome and the Reformation. Here we discover whether we are utterly dependent on grace for our salvation or if, while still in the flesh, still in bondage to sin, and still dead in sin, we can cooperate with grace in such a way that affects our eternal destiny.

Arminianism reverses the order of salvation. It has faith preceding regeneration. The sinner, who is dead in sin and in bondage to sin, must somehow shed his chains, revive his spiritual vitality, and exercise faith so that he or she may be born again. In a very real sense regeneration is not so much a gift in this schema as it is a reward for responding to the offer of grace. The Arminian argues that in this universal prevenient grace is primary, in that God first offers grace for regeneration. God takes the initiative. He makes the first move and takes the first step. But this step is not decisive. This step may be thwarted by the sinner. If the sinner refuses to cooperate with or assent to this proffered grace, then grace is to no avail.

In a related article Alan Kurschner writes:
The “Calvinist vs. Arminian” debate is substantially a debate between what is called “monergism” and “synergism.” There is no third option (unless one is willing to affirm Pelagianism). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is a primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are two very different ways for believers to view their salvation.

In general, the first type (the Arminian-Synergist) affirms what is called “synergism.” Synergists believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). These individuals will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

It could be said that these individuals are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

The second group of believers (the Calvinist-Monergist) affirm what is called “monergism.” Monergists believe that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear, hoping that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions– it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47

Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. Inconsistently, Arminians pray (without knowingly) Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” But the Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

John Hendryx:
Synergists teach ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’ but the Bible teaches ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.’ (Acts 13:48)

Synergists teach ‘…no one knows the Father except those who choose the Son.’ But the Bible teaches that ‘no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him’ (Matt 11:27) They are the ones who ‘choose’ the Son.

Synergists teach that ‘All can come to Christ of their own free will’, but Jesus teaches that ‘no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’ (John 6:65) and all whom He grants will come (John 6:37)

Synergists teach that ‘you are not Christ’s sheep because you do not believe’, but Jesus teaches that ‘you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.’ (John 10:26)

Synergists teach that ‘the reason you are not of God is because you are unwilling to hear and believe God’s words.’ Jesus, on the other hand, taught, ‘The reason why you do not hear [God’s words] is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

Synergists teach that ‘salvation is so easy a cave man can do it” but the Bible teaches that “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)

In the Divine economy men are responsible to believe the gospel, but are morally impotent to do so from their own native resource. This inability (due to our intimate solidarity with Adam’s sin) is something we are culpable for, like owing a debt we cannot repay. So God has every right to call us all to account to ‘repay our debt’, so to speak, even though we do not have the resources to do so. The Church is to call all men to repent and believe the gospel (an imperative) but no one believes. But God, in his great mercy, still has mercy on many, opening their hearts to the gospel that that might believe.

To this sometimes a synergist often quotes “whosoever will may come” to which we reply that this quote does not teach an indicative of what we are able to do, but rather, teaches what we ‘ought’ to do. As Martin Luther said, “Does it follow from: ‘turn ye’ that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from “‘Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart’ (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? What do arguments of this kind prove, but the ‘free-will’ does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power…But it does not follow from this that man is converted by his own power, nor do the words say so; they simply say: “if thou wilt turn, telling man what he should do. When he knows it, and sees that he cannot do it, he will ask whence he may find ability to do it…” Luther BW,164

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Posted on by
5

I believe this post (which is more lengthy than normal) will be extremely enlightening to many people. Written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, this article is reproduced from Modern Reformation, Vol 10, Number 3 (May/June 2001), pp. 22-29.

Shortly after the Reformation began, in the first few years after Martin Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, he issued some short booklets on a variety of subjects. One of the most provocative was titled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this book Luther was looking back to that period of Old Testament history when Jerusalem was destroyed by the invading armies of Babylon and the elite of the people were carried off into captivity. Luther in the sixteenth century took the image of the historic Babylonian captivity and reapplied it to his era and talked about the new Babylonian captivity of the Church. He was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification. You can understand how fierce the controversy was, how polemical this title would be in that period by saying that the Church had not simply erred or strayed, but had fallen — that it’s actually now Babylonian; it is now in pagan captivity.

I’ve often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can’t answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church. Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation — sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia — Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of solo fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone.

In the Fleming Revell edition of The Bondage of the Will, the translators, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, included a somewhat provocative historical and theological introduction to the book itself. This is from the end of that introduction:

These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognised by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimise and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters?1

Historically, it’s a simple matter of fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the leading Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points they had their differences. In asserting the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s works says this:

Whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith alone, which became the storm center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformers’ theology, but this is not accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed by Augustine and others, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only, and that the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a more profound level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration.2

That is to say, that the faith that receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Do you hear the difference? Let me put it in simple terms. I heard an evangelist recently say, “If God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved.” Consider the statement that has been made by America’s most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, “God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent.”

What Is Pelagianism?

Now, let’s return briefly to my title, “The Pelagian Captivity of the Church.” What are we talking about?
Continue reading →