Monthly Archives: May 2012

So called “Gay Christianity” refuted

Posted on by

“He (Jesus) answered, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” – Matthew 19:4-6

From my friend, Dr. James White, an outstanding resource on a subject that very few will tackle head on: the biblical definition of “marriage” and a refutation of so called “Gay Christianity.”

Many questions are answered biblically including:

How did Jesus define marriage?
What really was the sin at Sodom and Gomorrah?
What does Leviticus say about God’s attitude towards homosexuality?
Just how clear is Romans chapter 1 on this issue?

Here is the link.

They mock…

Posted on by
Reply

What do we say when unbelievers mock the law of God?

R. C. Sproul Jr responds:

It’s not peculiarly new, this objection. People have used it for some time when confronted with the plain teaching of the Bible. Those outside the church seek to wiggle out from under the commands of God by, oddly, pointing to the commands of God. When we say “The Bible forbids x” they don’t reply, “It does not.” Instead they reply, “The Bible also says you can’t wear a shirt with both cotton and wool. The Bible also says you can sell your daughter. The Bible also says you can stone your son if he gets out of line.” And most Christians slink away.

The argument assumes the existence of a universal moral law that all humans recognize, but then suggests that the Bible itself not only falls short of that moral law but clearly and immediately opposes that universal moral law. The argument suggests, “Given that the Bible’s sense of morality says this, why should we listen to what it has to say about that?” It has reared its ugly head again in light of the President’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage.” And as usual, too many Christians are running scared.

What though, ought we to do with laws that challenge our sensibilities? The first thing we need to do is to understand the nature, meaning and scope of the laws. Consider, for instance, God’s command to Old Testament Israel that they not wear clothing of mixed materials. This law falls under what we call the ceremonial laws. These laws were not given because eternal moral standards require them. They were given instead for a more narrow, specific purpose- to set Israel apart from her neighbors. The same would apply to prohibitions against eating pork or shellfish. These laws were given for a people, for a time. They were not evil laws then, but they are not binding laws now. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, which means we now can eat a BLT, and better still, don’t have to be circumcised.

Some of the “offending” laws, however, were not ceremonial as such, but were civil. The Old Testament civil law, for instance, allowed for recalcitrant, disobedient children to be stoned to death. This did not mean, of course, that failure to pick up ones toys was a capital offense. The law instead dealt with older, teenaged children who defied, who dishonored, who maligned their parents continually. Still find it offensive?

Then you need to repent. The God of heaven and earth determined that the nation of Israel, that He formed, that He governed, should have such a law. No doubt recalcitrant children didn’t like it. No doubt their heathen neighbors didn’t like it. But we who are supposed to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit are commanded to disciple the nations, commanding them to obey all that Jesus commanded. And Jesus, remember, came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

The heathen find this retort effective not because God’s law is shameful, but because we are shamefully ashamed of it. We are already compromised, having our sense of justice informed by the world, rather than the Word. Our calling is not to squirm, not to apologize, not to try to cover for God. No, our calling is to stand on His Word, to have our consciences held captive to it, to adjust our moral sensibilities so they match God’s, rather than the world’s. Our calling is to be ashamed of ourselves, rather than the One who rescued us from our sins.

Calvin & Servetus (Revisited)

Posted on by
1

Geoff Ashley writes:

In August of 1553, Switzerland, home of the reformer John Calvin. Two months later he was executed. To read many internet articles, Calvin systematically stalked and slaughtered any person who dared oppose him. This picture of Calvin painted by his critics is a caricature greatly distorting the truth.

Before harshly judging Calvin a heartless tyrant, let us first hear the facts of the case. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Heresy was a capital crime in Geneva. Unlike the modern, Western separation of church and state, the world Calvin inhabited was one in which no such division existed. To be guilty of theological error was to be guilty of criminal offense. This political system existed as the norm for the vast majority of the world. Indeed, all the Protestants and Roman Catholics who were consulted at the time agreed with the execution.

2. Calvin was not the ultimate authority in Geneva. He certainly was no dictator as he is often portrayed by the misinformed. The magisterial council (who formally decided the case) opposed Calvin (who was not a citizen of Geneva) and used the trial to demonstrate their authority over him. Calvin did not have final power to condemn or save Servetus.

3. Servetus was not condemned for Arminianism, but for Pelagianism (the denial of original sin), Modalism (an anti-Trinitarian heresy), Pantheism (a rejection of the fundamental distinction between Creator and creation) and other serious theological errors. To read most internet sensationalism, Calvin opposed anyone who opposed Calvinism. In truth, he opposed anyone who opposed the gospel.

4. Nearly two decades earlier, Servetus asked Calvin to leave the safety of Geneva to discuss their differences. Though Calvin was wanted by the authorities in the area in which they were to meet, he went at the risk of his own life to reconcile Servetus to the truth of the gospel. Servetus never showed.

5. Calvin corresponded with Servetus before and during his imprisonment, imploring him to recant. One letter read, “I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.” Reflecting later, Calvin wrote, “I reminded him gently how I had risked my life more than sixteen years before to gain him for our saviour. I would faithfully do my best to reconcile him to all good servants of God. Although he had avoided the contest I had never ceased to remonstrate kindly with him in letters. In a word, I had used all humanity to the very end, until he being embittered by my good advice hurled all manner of rage and anger against me.”

6. Calvin visited Servetus in prison and prayed with and for him. J.I. Packer stated, “Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode.”

7. As Bruce Gordon wrote, “Heresy was a capital offense, but Calvin did not want Servetus to die.” When the council ordered execution by burning at the stake, Calvin alone intervened to appeal for a more merciful beheading. The council refused.

Of Calvin’s role in the Servetus affair, the historian Paul Henry writes:

…a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.

While we might disagree that Calvin is completely exonerated from all criticism in the case, the actual circumstances should greatly temper the rabid accusations which are often leveled at him.

Calvin and the leading reformers of his day approved the death of a heretic. But does this blemish invalidate the whole of their teaching? Do David’s actions regarding Bathsheba and Uriah nullify the Psalms? Does Peter’s cowardice and prejudice negate his epistles? There is only One Who has ever perfectly passed the litmus test of character. Such unfortunate failures and flaws in His people highlight all the more the grace God lavishes on such dreadful sinners as us.

Years later, on the verge of death, Calvin wrote, “With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which [God] has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance…I confess I have failed innumerable times to execute my office properly, and had not He, of His boundless goodness, assisted me, all that zeal had been fleeting and vain…For all these reasons, I testify and declare that I trust to no other security for my salvation than this, and this only, viz., that as God is the Father of mercy, he will show himself such a Father to me, who acknowledge myself to be a miserable sinner.”

Luke 23:34 – Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

Posted on by
Reply

There is a meaningful and significant textual variant at Luke 23:34 in our Bibles. The variant has been placed in brackets in the following citation:

[But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

It may be something of a surprise to learn that many scholars (even those scholars who believe the Bible to be the very word of God) are not convinced that these words (attributed to Christ) were actually part of the original New Testament text.

Dr. James White is a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update (1995). Here he is (below) discussing this verse with Alan Kurschner.

It really is a fascinating study, lasting just under an hour. Along the way, we learn a great deal about the field of textual criticism which seeks to ascertain the original words of the Bible.

Here is a link to the two graphics referred to in the program. The first is the textual data taken from Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Luke (London, 1998) and the second is a blow up of the relevant portion of Codex Sinaiticus:

For those who would like to read a recent article on this same theme by Alan Kurschner, here is a link to check out.

How Sovereign is that?

Posted on by
Reply

God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which He has ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them. It’s hard to grasp that mentally. Actually it blows our minds. Yet these two things are taught constantly in the Bible: (1) God is totally Sovereign and (2) man is totally responsible.

Furthermore, while man’s motives may be impure, even the attempts to thwart God’s eternal plan, in fact, only serve to further it.

In Genesis 45:5 and 50:20, the Bible tells us that God planned the attempted murder and enslavement of Joseph so that He could eventually rescue millions of people from famine.

Genesis 50:20 – “As for you, YOU MEANT EVIL against me, but GOD MEANT IT FOR GOOD, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

Joseph tells his brothers that their plan was wicked – “You intended it for evil.” But God’s plan trumped their plan, Joseph explains, “But God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

As my friend, Dr. James White has commented, “The action of selling Joseph into slavery was, without question, an evil one. No one would argue this. Yet, Joseph says that God intended the action for good. God was working in the very same situation to bring about His intended purpose. The motivation of Joseph’s brothers was evil: the purpose of God in the very same action was good and pure.”

The story of Joseph teaches us that while man’s motives are often times impure, and while man is totally responsible for his actions, even the attempts to thwart God’s eternal plan in fact only serve to further it. How Sovereign is that?

Miscellaneous Quotes 40

Posted on by
Reply

“None reverence the Lord more than they who know him best.” – William Cowper

“It is easier to cry against one-thousand sins of others than to kill one of your own.” – John Flavel

“There is not the meanest, the weakest, the poorest believer on the earth, but Christ prizes him more than all the world besides.” – John Owen, Communion with God (Christian Focus, 2007), 218

“In Christ dwells all the fullness of deity, bodily.” Colossians 2:9….. “Who actually gets what the incarnation is about? The whole fullness of deity… in a body. That’s like all of the oceans of the world… in a cup!” – Jason Meyer

“We need men who will stand before the opposing masses with nothing to help them except the gospel and the God who pledged to work through it.” – Paul Washer

“The gospel is a two-sided coin with forgiveness and life on the one side, and condemnation and death on the other. This truth must be told!” – Paul Washer

“The gospel is not “salvation to all,” but only to “those who believe.” To the rest, it is a sentence of death (II Corinthians 2:16). Christ not only taught that the gospel is for everyone who believes, but he also warned that it is against everyone who does not.” Jn.3:18 – Paul Washer

“Salvation comes to everyone who believes. However, the validity of a man’s confession of faith is confirmed or proven false by his life.” – Paul Washer

Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), founder of Princeton Seminary:

It seems desirable to ascertain, as precisely as we can, the reasons why Christians commonly are of so diminutive a stature and of such feeble strength in their religion.

When persons are truly converted they always are sincerely desirous to make rapid progress in piety; and there are not wanting exceeding great and gracious promises of aid to encourage them to go forward with alacrity. Why then is so little advancement made? Are there not some practical mistakes very commonly entertained, which are the cause of this slowness of growth?

I think there are, and will endeavour to specify some of them.

And first, there is a defect in our belief of the freeness of divine grace.

To exercise unshaken confidence in the doctrine of gratuitous pardon is one of the most difficult things in the world; and to preach this doctrine fully without verging towards antinomianism is no easy task, and is therefore seldom done. But Christians cannot but be lean and feeble when deprived of the proper nutriment. It is by faith, that the spiritual life is made to grow; and the doctrine of free grace, without any mixture of human merit, is the only true object of faith.

Christians are too much inclined to depend on themselves, and not to derive their life entirely from Christ. There is a spurious legal religion, which may flourish without the practical belief in the absolute freeness of divine grace, but it possesses none of the characteristics of the Christian’s life… Even when the true doctrine is acknowledged, in theory, often it is not practically felt and acted on. The new convert lives upon his frames, rather than on Christ; and the older Christian still is found struggling in his own strength… and then he sinks into a gloomy despondency… Here, I am persuaded, is the root of the evil; and until religious teachers inculcate clearly, fully, and practically, the grace of God as manifested in the gospel, we shall have no vigorous growth of piety among professing Christians.” – Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1844), 201-2

“The contented man is never poor, the discontented never rich.” – George Eliot

“It is more difficult to be long and convoluted than concise and clear. While it is easy to be comprehensive, it is often more difficult to be direct.” – Jesse Johnson

“Be well instructed in theology, and do not regard the sneers of those who rail at it because they are ignorant of it. Many preachers are not theologians and hence the mistakes which they make. It cannot do any hurt to the most lively evangelist to be also a sound theologian and it may often be the means of saving him from gross blunders. Nowadays we hear men tear a single sentence of Scripture from its connection and cry “Eureka! Eureka!” as if they found a new truth; and yet they have not discovered a diamond, but a piece of broken glass.” – Charles Hadden Spurgeon

“If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible… I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God… ” – C. H. Spurgeon

“If Christ is not all to you He is nothing to you. He will never go into partnership as a part Saviour of men. If He be something He must be everything, and if He be not everything He is nothing to you.” – C. H. Spurgeon

“For all the claims, however, that society is now ‘too visual’ for old-style word-centered religion, and that a book-based evangelicalism runs the risk of becoming a ghetto of middle class, cerebral bookworms with nothing to say to the Generation Xers, there is one embarrassing fact that the new gurus need to face: God gave us a book, full of words, as the basic means of giving us access to his revelation. The gospel is therefore ineradicably verbal and the Bible must remain non-negotiably at the centre of church policy, ministerial training and family life. Not to do so is to leave ourselves vulnerable to every puff of heretical wind that the gurus blow in our direction. It is also to set ourselves above what God himself has laid out for us.” – Carl Trueman, Reformation: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.

“If God created the world, and put one man and one woman in it, married them to each other, and established that as a pattern for the rest of human history, then marriage should be defined in accordance with that reality. If He did nothing of the kind, and we actually evolved out of the primordial goo, then we get to shape and define it however we would like it to go.” – Douglas Wilson
Continue reading →