Monthly Archives: May 2016

Man’s Natural Inability

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Luther, God’s Law and Uncle Rico Syndrome by Aaron Denlinger (original source who until then had proven reluctant to challenge Martin Luther publically, finally caved to pressure from Rome to employ his literary talent against the impudent German Reformer who had caused, and was still causing, the institutional church of his day such problems. Erasmus chose to attack Luther where he believed the Reformer to be most vulnerable; he chose, that is, to challenge Luther’s assertion that sinful man was wholly unable to contribute anything to his own salvation, and for such required not only Christ’s atoning work on his behalf, but also the Holy Spirit’s work of enabling him to believe in Christ and so appropriate Christ and his benefits.

Erasmus’s defense of human free will — his defense, that is, of man’s innate ability to cooperate with God in his own salvation — employed a well-worn Pelagian argument. The humanist scholar argued that biblical commandments imply an ability on (sinful) man’s part to actually fulfill said commandments. So, for instance, appealing to Gen. 30:19 (“I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live”), Erasmus commented: “What could be put more plainly? God shows what is good, [and] what is evil, shows the different rewards of life and death, [and] leaves man free to choose. It would be ridiculous to say, ‘Choose,’ if the power of turning one way or the other were not present, as though one should say to a man standing at a crossroad: ‘You see these two roads, take which you like’ … when only one was open to him!”

To be sure, Erasmus’s argument has a certain logic to it. One would hardly excuse me as a parent if I ordered my three year old daughter Geneva to change the oil in the family car and then punished her when she failed to fulfill the required task(s). Commandments to fulfill impossible tasks, and subsequent consequences for failure to deliver, do seem cruel. Surely, then, God would not order man to “choose life” if such a choice genuinely lay beyond man’s ability.

Luther’s response in his 1525 Bondage of the Will takes cognizance of how high Scripture actually sets the bar for man’s moral conduct (“You must be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect,” Matt. 5.48) as well as rather clear biblical statements that reflect man’s spiritual depravity and (hence) inability to clear that bar (“Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin,” John 8.34). The Reformer’s response also, however, employs a very careful explanation for why God apparently commands sinful man to do things that sinful man has no ability to do.

That explanation begins with recognition that one critical component of natural man’s perverse disposition and enslavement to sin is natural man’s deluded perception of his own freedom and, if not moral achievements, at least ability to produce such achievements should he put his mind and energies to the task. “Man,” Luther notes, “is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, and dead, but in addition to his other miseries is afflicted, through the agency of Satan his prince, with this misery of blindness, so that he believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered, able, well, and alive. […] Accordingly, it is Satan’s work to prevent men from recognizing their plight and to keep them presuming that they can do everything they are told.”

In Luther’s estimation man suffers from a spiritual version of Uncle Rico Syndrome. Uncle Rico, a character in the 2004 film Napoleon Dynamite, is a man utterly convinced of both his past and present abilities on the football field. In one memorable speech delivered in the film, Uncle Rico affirms his ability in earlier days to “throw a pigskin a quarter mile.” After subsequently demonstrating his skills by hurling an overcooked steak at his bike-riding nephew Napoleon’s head, Uncle Rico looks wistfully at the mountain range several miles distant and asks: “How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?”

Rico is seriously deluded about his own abilities. But how might one best go about disabusing Rico of his delusion? One could, of course, reason with him about the actual distance of those mountains, the average distance that even professional quarterbacks can throw a ball, etc. A much quicker solution, however, would be to simply hand Rico a football and issue him a command: “Do it.”

This, according to Luther, is essentially how God deals with natural man’s delusion regarding his freedom and abilities in Scripture. Faced with sinful man’s persuasion that he can, at any time he chooses, perform the works necessary to merit eternal life, God essentially tells man: “Do it.” Luther explains: “Human nature is so blind that it does not know its own powers, or rather diseases, and so proud as to imagine that it knows and can do everything; and for this pride and blindness God has no readier remedy than the propounding of his law.” God’s command to “choose life,” then, implies no ability to do so. “By this and similar expressions man is warned of his impotence, which in his ignorance and pride, without these divine warnings, he would neither acknowledge nor be aware of.”

Thus Luther undermines Erasmus’s claim that commandments are somehow cruel if issued to persons incapable of fulfilling them. A commandment to Geneva to change the oil in the car, for instance, assumes a different character when one knows my daughter, a three year old possessed of more than her share of self-confidence. Geneva’s favorite words at present are “I can do it myself.” I have more than once in the last several weeks invited Geneva to do exactly what she claims herself capable of purely in the interest of disabusing her of her inflated confidence and guiding her towards the humble art of asking for (daddy’s) help. I’ve not, to be sure, asked her to change the oil in the car. But on the off chance she tells me tomorrow that she’s capable of doing so, I may very well invite her to do so, simply to rein in her perspective on her own innate abilities.
Similarly, divine commandments that are not actually matched by (fallen) man’s ability reflect no cruelty on God’s part. They are, rather, instances of divine kindness. It would be cruel for God to leave man in his state of delusion regarding his own freedom and abilities. It is kindness to lead man experientially to a knowledge of his inability and (hence) dire state, and so ultimately to lead man to seek salvation not in himself but in the work of Christ on his behalf. In Luther’s words: “The work of Moses or a lawgiver is … to make man’s plight plain to him by means of the law and thus to break and confound him by self-knowledge, so as to prepare him for grace and send him to Christ that he may be saved.” We’re all born with spiritual Uncle Rico syndrome, and to varying degrees we suffer from it until the day we die. One function of God’s law is to (kindly) disabuse us of our confidence in our ability to throw moral footballs over metaphorical mountains, and so to lead us to place our confidence and hope wholly in him who not only could but did

Baby Talk

Posted on by
Reply

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

The Precious Gift of Baby Talk by John Piper

john-piperHuman language is precious. It sets us off from the animals. It makes our most sophisticated scientific discoveries and our deepest emotions sharable. Above all, God chose to reveal Himself to us through human language in the Bible. In the fullness of time, He spoke to us by His Son (Heb. 1:1–2), and that Son spoke human language. In like manner, He sent His Spirit to lead His apostles into all truth so that they could tell the story of the Son in human language. Without this story in human language, we would not know the Son. Therefore, human language is immeasurably precious.

But it is also imperfect for capturing the fullness of God. In 1 Corinthians 13, there are four comparisons between this present time and the age to come after Christ returns.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love (vv. 8–13). Note the comparisons with this age (now) and the age to come (then):

Now: We know in part.
Then: When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away (vv. 9–10).

Now: I spoke and thought and reasoned like a child.
Then: When I became a man, I gave up childish ways (v. 11).

Now: We see in a mirror dimly.
Then: We will see face to face (v. 12).

Now: I know in part.
Then: I will know fully, even as I am fully known (v. 12).

In this context, we can see what Paul means when he writes, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.” He is saying that in this age, our human language and thought and reasoning are like baby talk compared to how we will speak, think, and reason in the age to come.

When Paul was caught up into heaven and given glimpses of heavenly realities, he said that he “heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:4). Our language is insufficient to carry the greatness of all that God is.

But what a blunder it would be to infer from this that we may despise language or treat it with contempt or carelessness. What a blunder, if we began to belittle true statements about God as cheap or unhelpful or false. What folly it would be if we scorned propositions, clauses, phrases, and words, as though they were not inexpressibly precious and essential to life.

The main reason this would be folly is that God chose to send His Son into our nursery and speak baby talk with us. Jesus Christ became a child with us. There was a time when Jesus Himself would have said, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child and thought like a child and reasoned like a child.” That is what the incarnation means. He accommodated Himself to our baby talk. He stammered with us in the nursery of human life in this age.

Jesus spoke baby talk. The Sermon on the Mount is our baby talk. His High Priestly Prayer in John 17 is baby talk. “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) is baby talk—infinitely precious, true, glorious baby talk.

More than that, God inspired an entire Bible of baby talk. True baby talk. Baby talk with absolute authority and power. Baby talk that is sweeter than honey and more to be desired than gold. John Calvin said that “God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.1). How precious is the baby talk of God. It is not like grass that withers or flowers that fade; it abides forever (Isa. 40:8).

There will be another language and thought and reasoning in the age to come. And we will see things that could not have been expressed in our present baby talk. But when God sent His Son into our human nursery, talking baby talk and dying for the toddlers, He shut the mouths of those who ridicule the possibilities of truth and beauty in the mouth of babes.

And when God inspired a book with baby talk as the infallible interpretation of Himself, what shall we say of the children who make light of the gift of human language as the medium of knowing God? Woe to those who despise, belittle, exploit, or manipulate this gift to the children of man. It is not a toy in the nursery. It is the breath of life. “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63).

Praying for God to Save the Lost

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms – Praying for God to Save the Lost (2002)

I want to introduce this article by taking us back some forty-one years to the initial publication of what soon became an evangelical classic: J. I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (IVP, 1961). The book was an expansion of the address Packer delivered to The London Inter-Faculty Christian Union (LIFCU) on October 24, 1959, at Westminster Chapel. What makes Packer’s book so instructive for us today is the utter incredulity on his part, in 1961, regarding a theological perspective that today, in 2002, is widespread and pervasive in its influence.

Packer begins his defense of divine sovereignty in salvation by appealing to what he believes is, or at least should be, an evangelical consensus on the practice of prayer. He appears to assume that no one who embraces a high view of Scripture could possibly think otherwise. It is more than simply that we pray, but also how and what we specifically ask God to do that Packer believes supports his understanding of the activity of God in saving a human soul. Here is what he says:

‘You pray for the conversion of others. In what terms, now, do you intercede for them? Do you limit yourself to asking that God will bring them to a point where they can save themselves, independently of Him? I do not think you do. I think that what you do is to pray in categorical terms that God will, quite simply and decisively, save them: that He will open the eyes of their understanding, soften their hard hearts, renew their natures, and move their wills to receive the Saviour. You ask God to work in them everything necessary for their salvation. You would not dream of making it a point in your prayer that you are not asking God actually to bring them to faith, because you recognize that that is something He cannot do. Nothing of the sort! When you pray for unconverted people, you do so on the assumption that it is in God’s power to bring them to faith. You entreat Him to do that very thing, and your confidence in asking rests upon the certainty that He is able to do what you ask. And so indeed He is: this conviction, which animates your intercessions, is God’s own truth, written on your heart by the Holy Spirit. In prayer, then (and the Christian is at his sanest and wisest when he prays), you know that it is God who saves men; you know that what makes men turn to God is God’s own gracious work of drawing them to Himself; and the content of your prayers is determined by this knowledge. Thus by your practice of intercession, no less than by giving thanks for your conversion, you acknowledge and confess the sovereignty of God’s grace. And so do all Christian people everywhere.’

He also appeals to what he believes is the underlying theological assumption for our gratitude. Why do you ‘thank’ God for your conversion, he asks? It is, he says, ‘because you know in your heart that God was entirely responsible for it.’ You thank God because ‘you do not attribute your repenting and believing to your own wisdom, or prudence, or sound judgment, or good sense.’ Packer believes he is speaking for all Christians when he says,

‘You have never for one moment supposed that the decisive contribution to your salvation was yours and not God’s. You have never told God that, while you are grateful for the means and opportunities of grace that He gave you, you realize that you have to thank, not Him, but yourself for the fact that you responded to His call. Your heart revolts at the very thought of talking to God in such terms. In fact, you thank Him no less sincerely for the gift of faith and repentance than for the gift of a Christ to trust and turn to.’

Of course, today there is an increasing number of professing evangelicals who happily do precisely what Packer contends they ‘would not dream’ of doing. Packer’s incredulous ‘Nothing of the sort!’ is today’s ‘orthodoxy’. What Packer claims you would never attribute to the human will is the very thing advocates of libertarian freedom insist upon. What Packer says we would never tell God, indeed, that thought at which our hearts would revolt, is being preached and published at a dizzying pace in 2002.

In all fairness to Packer, one must assume that such language is intentional hyperbole, a writer’s way of jolting his readers into thinking through what he believes are the unacceptable implications of the theological system he opposes. But the fact remains that what Packer argues most certainly cannot (or should not) be the conscious intent of any thinking Christian is precisely that for most, if not all, open theists. Given the latter’s insistence on libertarian free will, what Packer contends we would never ask of God is precisely what open theists applaud as the essence of intercessory prayer.

I have yet to read an open theist who does not make much of the argument from prayer. Some would even appear to have embraced this theological model in large part because it alone invests in intercessory prayer a value and efficacy that warrant its practice. One often hears open theists declare that classical theism, in its affirmation of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, destroys the foundations of prayer and transforms otherwise meaningful dialogue with God into a sham. Greg Boyd is typical of most open theists when he says: ‘My conviction is that many Christians do not pray as passionately as they could because they don’t see how it could make any significant difference.’ Again, he writes, ‘I do not see that any view of God captures the power and urgency of prayer as adequately as the Open view does, and, because the heart is influenced by the mind, I do not see that any view can inspire passionate and urgent prayer as powerfully as the Open view can.’ The same sentiment may be found in David Basinger’s treatment of prayer as part of a larger concern with the practical implications of the open view of God. Continue reading →

John 1:1

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms:

The ESV translation of John 1:1 is as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Perhaps a few comments will prove helpful.

The Greek preposition translated “with” (pros) often means “towards” or “to”, thereby pointing to the Word and God in face to face intimacy. The term “with” implies a strong sense of relationship. In some sense the Word is distinct and distinguishable from God and yet in another sense is God. In the Godhead in eternity past there was no solitude or isolation. There was complete togetherness. God is his own family.

John clearly declares that the Word is God. The Word who always was, the Word who always was with God, this Word was and is himself God. Although the Word is in some sense distinct from God, so too the Word and God are in some sense the same. John doesn’t say the Word was “like” or “similar to” or that he “bears a striking resemblance to” God. The Word was God. He doesn’t say the Word was a copy or facsimile of God or a reflection of God or merely analogous to God. The Word was God.

Therefore, whatever you can say about God the Father that pertains to his being God, you can say about the Word (God the Son; and God the Spirit as well). John isn’t saying there is something “divine” about the Word, as if he has some exalted, mystical, godlike qualities. He is God. The Word wasn’t an angel. The Word was God. The Word is in no sense, way, shape, or form inferior to God the Father.

So what are we to make of the insistence by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the absence of the definite article “the” requires that we translate the verse as: “and the Word was a god”? What follows may only make sense to those who know Greek, but I urge everyone to read it closely.

The absence of the Greek definite article (“the”) does not mean the Word is only one of perhaps many gods. In this kind of Greek construction where an anarthrous predicate nominative (one lacking the definite article), in this case theos or God, precedes the verb, the noun retains the emphasis of specificity or definiteness (i.e., “the” vs. “a”).
The apparent equation of subject and predicate nominative does not imply complete correspondence. The predicate nominative describes a larger category to which the subject belongs. Thus the verb “is” does not always mean “equals”.

I should also point out that when the article occurs with both the subject and predicate (which is not the case in John 1:1), both nouns are definite and interchangeable. When the nouns are not interchangeable, as here, the article is absent from the predicate (i.e., absent from the noun theos, God).

In other words, if John had included the article (“the” God) he would have contradicted himself. If he had said “the Word was the God” one would be led to conclude that the Word is all there is to God, that no being could be God except the Word. But John has already said the Word was with God. In other words, the Word isn’t all there is to God. There is also God the Father and God the Spirit.

So we see from this that there is both an excellent grammatical and theological reason why the definite article (“the”) does not appear with the noun “God”. And thus we are on solid ground when we affirm that John is declaring the Word, Jesus Christ, to be God.

Debating Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Debate-PhotoIn my opinion Steve Camp is quite mistaken here in the stance he takes regarding debate with unbelievers. He wrote on his Facebook page:

ITS AN EFFORT IN FUTILITY TO DEBATE NONBELIEVERS, ESPECIALLY MUSLIMS, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” – 1 Cor 2:1-2. It’s the gospel … that any nonbeliever needs to hear (Mt 16:24-26; Acts 17:1-3, 17-39; Rom 10:9-10, 15:20-21; 2 Cor 4:5-6; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Pt 3:15). When witnessing of your faith in Jesus do not try and argue someone into believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, but give a reason for the hope that is in you. And do so with gentleness and respect. Amen?

***********

Here is Dr. James White’s response:

Sorry, Steve, no amens from the man you are talking about. Not after I looked into the face of a young man after the debate at Kensington Temple in London Friday evening and heard him say, “Three years ago I was a Muslim, but through the instrumentality of your debates, I have come to faith in Jesus Christ, and your work continues to strengthen my faith.” Not after talking to Muslims afterward who said, “You are consistent—you clearly try to represent us accurately. You make me think.” Not after talking to many young people excited about their faith and emboldened to go out and proclaim the gospel as a result. No, you can have your quiet, far-away-from-the-frontlines amens, but I, and those others, won’t be joining the chorus.

I have no idea why you have changed your position so radically over the past decade or so, Steve. But I would like to challenge your biblical argumentation, as brief as it was.
First, you cite 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, as if this text indicates it is “futility to debate…Muslims” on essential Christian doctrine. Could you explain the relevance of the text? You well know, Steve, that I do not believe I can argue anyone into the kingdom of God. Unless the Spirit takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, there can be no salvation. So I suppose if you were talking about an Arminian debater pleading with a Muslim to “change their mind” or something of the sort, maybe I could see some kind of application. But most of the folks reading your words know who I am, and well know I do not believe that my arguments are going to somehow force anyone, including my Muslim debate opponent, into capitulation to the lordship of Christ.

But how do you come to the conclusion that it is “futility” to proclaim the gospel to Muslims? You have, in the past, intimated that the gospel is not central to our debates. Those who attend them, and listen to them, know differently. The gospel is always there, even when the topic is on another aspect of the Christian/Muslim conflict. So when I defend the Trinity, or the resurrection, or biblical reliability to Muslims—you do not think the Spirit of God can use this in drawing the elect to the Savior? There is no place for removing stumbling blocks in the life of those in whom the Spirit of God is working? Are you sure that is what Paul was addressing?

You boldly assert that these debates “do not further the kingdom of God nor can it bring someone to salvation.” I do not know what has caused you to turn against Christian apologetics, but it is hard not to come to the conclusion that you have. When believers are emboldened and encouraged, this does not further the kingdom of God? When the Lordship of Jesus Christ is proclaimed over all mankind, this does not further the kingdom of God? When falsehoods raised against the faith are refuted and shown to be empty, this does not further the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God is only furthered in the singular repetition of the Four Spiritual Laws? Surely you do not believe such things.

Upon what basis do you decide to limit the actions of the Spirit of God as to how He can bring His elect to salvation? Since I know of many who have, in fact, experienced salvation for whom the means of debates was vital, I simply have to say your assertion flies in the face of reality. But more importantly, it flies in the face of apostolic example as well. When Paul went into the synagogue and ????????? ??? ????????????? (17:3), do you think there was no opposition, no interaction, just one-sided proclamation? Notice that ????? ?? ????? ??????????—but not all. Had Paul wasted his time with the others? Surely not. And have you ever pondered why Luke used the imperfect when he wrote, ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? (18:4)? And pray tell, Steve: would you have taken to Facebook to rebuke Apollos. You know the text:

And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 18:27–28)

Evidently, Christians can be encouraged by a powerful refutation of error and opposition, even when there is no mention of a positive “gospel response” upon the part of those thusly refuted! Have you considered this in coming to your dogmatic conclusion that God simply cannot use apologetics to bring people to faith?

You finished your statement by refuting what you had said before—at least in the obvious context of taking a shot at me and the wonderful evening of testimony at Kensington Temple (or even the debate a few days earlier at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa). Everyone knows I do not believe I can argue anyone into the kingdom, and everyone knows I believe firmly in obeying the actual command of Peter in the key apologetics text, which is not the apologia part—it is the ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? part. And my presentation in both places was in perfect harmony with that text. If you think otherwise, I invite you to provide examples from a careful review of either/both debates where I did not seek to fulfill that command. Until then, I invite you to reconsider your opposition to apologetic ministry to Muslims, and to realize that your insistence that the gospel is not being proclaimed in these events is, to put it quite bluntly, blatantly untrue, contradictory to the documented evidence, and irresponsible.

Exposing Sin (Whitefield)

Posted on by
Reply

Whitefield-300x243The following excerpt is taken from The Evangelistic Zeal of George Whitefield by Steven Lawson.

Whitefield was convinced that any presentation of the gospel must begin by exposing the listener’s sin and his dire need for salvation. This necessitated the preacher’s confronting his hearers’ rebellion against God and warning of the eternal consequences of their rejection. Whitefield plainly understood that none rightly desire the gospel of Christ until they know of their own condemnation before God. Whitefield preached those truths that reveal sin, namely, the holiness of God, the fall of Adam, the demands of the law, the curse of disobedience, the certainty of death, the reality of the final judgment, and the eternality of punishment in hell.

When addressing the unregenerate masses, Whitefield sought to ensure that their depravity was fully laid bare. Martyn Lloyd-Jones aptly stated, “No man could expose the condition of the natural unregenerate heart more powerfully than George Whitefield.” Only when confronted with their sinfulness, Whitefield insisted, would unbelievers seek to embrace Christ as their Savior and Lord. He peeled back the outer layers of people’s self-righteousness in order to bring about self-awareness of their sinful hearts.

The work of evangelism mandated that he address the eternally devastating effects of sin in his preaching. Whitefield, like a watchman on the tower, warned of sin, death, and judgment. He sought to disturb his listeners with their lost condition before a righteous Judge in heaven. “The sin of your nature, your original sin, is sufficient to sink you into torments, of which there will be no end,” he preached. “Therefore unless you receive the Spirit of Christ, you are reprobates, and you cannot be saved.” He believed the lost must be driven to the brink of utter desperation before they will come to faith in Christ.

Whitefield was a master at sweeping away all useless rhetoric in order that the unconverted would recognize their desperate need to repent. He implored them, “You are lost, undone, without Him; and if He is not glorified in your salvation, He will be glorified in your destruction; if He does not come and make His abode in your hearts, you must take up an eternal abode with the devil and his angels.” None who heard Whitefield were put to sleep with a false sense of security.

Pointing back to Adam’s transgression, Whitefield emphasized that all are born with an inherited sin nature from the first man. He declared, “We all stand in need of being justified, on account of the sin of our natures: for we are all chargeable with original sin, or the sin of our first parents.” It was this strong belief in original sin and total depravity that caused his every sermon to drive his listeners to grasp a sense of their desperate condition in sin. All humanity is born spiritually dead, he believed:

Can you deny that you are fallen creatures? Do not you find that you are full of disorders, and that these disorders make you unhappy? Do not you find that you cannot change your own hearts? Have you not resolved many and many a time, and have not your corruptions yet dominion over you? Are you not bondslaves to your lusts, and led captive by the devil at his will?

Whitefield’s sermons were filled with vivid warnings of the horrific dangers of remaining in a state of sin. In his sermon “Walking with God,” he warned that hell may be but one step away for them: “For how knowest thou, O man, but the next step thou takest may be into hell? Death may seize thee, judgment find thee, and then the great gulf will be fixed between thee and endless glory for ever and ever. O think of these things, all yet that are unwilling to walk with God. Lay them to heart.” Whitefield understood that gospel preaching must include the threat of hell, which is intended to drive men to flee to Christ and escape His terrors.

By such strong statements, Whitefield shined a sin-exposing spotlight into the dark crevasses of depraved hearts. Only then would sinners flee to the foot of the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ to hear about a Savior who died for their guilty souls.

The Continental Divide (in Theology)

Posted on by
Reply

steve_lawsonThe following excerpt is adapted from Foundations of Grace by Steven J. Lawson.

Through the western regions of North America, there runs an imaginary geographic line that determines the flow of streams into oceans. It is known as the Continental Divide. Ultimately, precipitation falling on the east side of this great divide will flow into the Atlantic Ocean. Likewise, water falling on the western slopes of this line will surge in the opposite direction until it finally empties into the Pacific Ocean. Needless to say, a vast continent separates these immense bodies of water. It is seemingly far-fetched to ponder that a raindrop falling atop a mountain in Colorado will flow to the Pacific, while another drop, falling but a short distance away, will flow into the Atlantic. Nevertheless, once the water pours down on a particular side of this great divide, its path is determined and its direction is unchangeable.

Geography is not the only place we find a great divide. There is a high ground that runs through church history as well—a Continental Divide of theology. This great divide of doctrine separates two distinctly different streams of thought that flow in opposite directions. To be specific, this determinative high ground is one’s theology of God, man, and salvation. This is the highest of all thought, and it divides all doctrine into two schools. Historically, these two ways of thinking about God and His saving grace have been called by various names. Some have identified them as Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Others have named them Calvinism and Arminianism. Still others have defined them as Reformed and Catholic, while others have used the terms predestination and free will. But by whatever name, these streams are determined by the Continental Divide of theology.

This metaphorical divide differs from the geographical Continental Divide in one key respect. Whereas streams flowing west and east of the Rocky Mountains descend gradually to the plains and lowlands where they meet the oceans, the terrain on the two sides of the doctrinal divide is quite different. On one side we find solid highlands of truth. On the other side there are precipitous slopes of half-truths and full error. Continue reading →

What Was God Doing Before Creation?

Posted on by
Reply

TimeAn article by Ken Ham (original source a man approached me and said, “But it makes no sense to believe in a young universe. After all, what was God doing all that time before He created?”

I answered, “What time do you mean?”

The person answered, “Well, it doesn’t make sense to say that God has always existed, and yet He didn’t create the universe until just six thousand years ago.” Apparently, he was worried that God once had a lot of time on His hands with nothing to do.

I then went on to explain that because God has always existed, then it is meaningless to ask, “What was God doing all that time before He created?” No matter how far you were to go back in time, you would still have an infinite amount of time before He created! So even if the universe were billions or trillions or quadrillions of years old, you could still ask the same question.

Time Was Created with the Universe
I then answered, “But you are missing the fact that there was no time before God created.”

Time is actually a created entity. The first verse of the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emphasis added).

A study of this verse reveals that God created time, space, and matter on the first day of Creation Week. No one of these can have a meaningful existence without the others. God created the space-mass-time universe. Space and matter must exist in time, and time requires space and matter. Time is only meaningful if physical entities exist and events transpire during time.

“In the beginning . . .” is when time began! There was no time before time was created!

God Is Separate from Both Time and the Universe
When I’m teaching children, I like to explain it this way. There was no “before” God created. There was not even “nothing”! There was God existing in eternity.

This is something humans, as finite created beings, can never really understand. That’s why the Bible makes it clear there is always a “faith” aspect to our understanding of God. Now, biblical faith is not against reason, but such things go beyond our understanding.

“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

In Psalm 90:2 we read: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”

So what was “before” creation? God existing from everlasting to everlasting—God existing in eternity.

Do you remember what God said to Moses when he asked God who he should say sent him to lead his people out of Egypt’s oppression?

“And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you”’” (Exodus 3:14).

God is the great “I AM.” He exists in eternity. He was not created.

In Revelation 1:8 we read, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,’ says the Lord, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’”

Isaiah 43:10 records these words from God: “‘You are My witnesses,’ says the Lord, ‘and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.’”

In other words, it’s a mistake to talk about what God was doing “before creation” because the concept of time (before, during, and after) did not come to be until Day One of Creation Week. God exists—He is—He is the eternal self-existent One. He is outside of time.