How to Defend the Gospel from Its Enemies—and Friends

Article by Ray Ortlund (original source tweet about, and argue against false teachers who lead people away from the truth? And how do we talk about true teachers who mistakenly counteract their own theology?

Defending the gospel against both its enemies and, at times, its friends is not easy. On the one hand, we desire not to be cowards; on the other hand, we desire not to be provocateurs.

How can we find our way? Here are four thoughts:

1. It’s a privilege to even have this problem to wrestle with.

We have been “approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” (1 Thess. 2:4). God has surely smiled on us, placing into our hands the stewardship of his truth here in this day when the world denies the validity of any truth. May we be fully pleasing to the Lord in how we handle our sacred trust in such a time as this!

2. The Bible speaks bluntly about false teachers.

For example:

Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD. (Jer. 23:32)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8–9)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet. 2:1)

And Jesus himself thundered against those who opposed the truth in sneaky ways:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. (Matt. 23:29–31)

Biblical passages like these are declaring that something massive is at stake in what we and others believe and teach. They warn us to make sure we are not leading people away from God.

3. Before moving a muscle to defend the gospel, pause and ask, “Why do I think I am qualified for so holy, so exacting, so difficult a task as rebuking a false teacher?” Continue reading

Ephesians 1; Romans 9; John 6

Romans 9:10-24, and 2 Timothy 1:8-10 all teach this truth. But I shall focus first upon the classicus locus, Ephesians 1:3-11, for my initial exegetical defense of this divine truth. As space permits, I will then briefly address Romans 9 and John 6. I invite the interested reader to follow along. I shall use as my base text the Nestle-Aland 27th edition of the Greek New Testament. English translations are my own.

Ephesians 1

Paul begins this tremendous introduction to his letter1 with a word of blessing addressed to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:3). All of salvation comes from the Father, its source, and its end. It is the Father who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. Immediately we encounter three vital truths: 1) God is the one who has blessed us (we did not bless ourselves); this is seen in recognizing that ho eulogasa refers to the Father specifically; 2) that Paul is not speaking of all mankind here, but specifically of the redeemed, for he uses the personal pronoun hama (us) when speaking of the scope of the blessing of the Father; we will see this is continued throughout the text; and 3) the phrase en Christo (in Christ) or its equivalent in Him, is central to Paul’s thought. All of salvation takes place only “in Christ.”

Verse 4 is central to our subject: “just as He chose us in Him before the creation of the world so that we should be holy and blameless before Him.”2 Again the Father is in view, for He is the one who chose us (hama, accusative, indicating direct object of “to choose”). This choice is exercised only in Christ (there is no salvation outside of the Son). It is vital to recognize the personal aspect of this choice on the part of God the Father. The passage says that we were chosen by God the Father, not that a mere “plan” was chosen, or a “process” put in place. The choice is personal both in its context (in the Son) and in its object (the elect). Next, the time of this choice by the Father is likewise important: before the creation of the world. This is a choice that is timeless. It was made before we were created, and therefore cannot possibly be based upon anything that we ourselves do or “choose.”3 This is sovereignty-free and unlimited.

God does nothing without a purpose. Both the means, and end, are in view. God chooses the elect to the end that they should be “holy and blameless before Him.” God is redeeming for Himself a people, and no power in heaven or earth can stop Him from accomplishing His intention. Continue reading

The Meaning in Greek

their argument might have some validity; but I am always suspect of someone who bases their interpretation on any basis that you are not able to check… Beware of people who claim authoritative knowledge based on something you can’t check. If they can cite a well-known translation or commentary writer, or if they make a sensible contextual argument, that is one thing. But to dismiss interpretations to the contrary that are held by all translations, be suspicious.” – Bill Mounce

The Reformation Isn’t Over

James-White032Article by Dr. James White (original source though one could properly question its fundamental truthfulness. It reflects, however, the prevailing attitude of Western culture, a pragmatism that enshrines in the judgment of “history” (whatever that means in this context) the final arbiter of morality, goodness, and worth. Often this phrase is being urged upon the church to “move on” from opposing homosexuality or the redefinition of marriage.

But this adage also captures the general attitude of a large portion of the population on both sides of the Tiber River to the Reformation and the continuing battle over the issues that gave it birth. Isn’t it time to just move on? Can’t we lay aside our differences for a greater good? Aren’t we a small enough minority now in the midst of a tsunami of secularism and the rising tide of Islam? Shouldn’t we be looking for unity, not for more reasons to remain separate?

We dare not dismiss the weight that these rhetorical questions carry with many within our congregations, and even among the clergy. At the same time, we must recognize the responsibility that is ours as heirs of the great struggle that was the Reformation. Can we betray those who came before us? What would such a betrayal involve? Are we really willing to assert that the great and momentous beliefs they fought for are no longer as important as we once thought?

The election of a new bishop of Rome in 2013 shed new light on the state of these questions in the minds of many who profess to be “evangelicals” and “biblical” in their faith and orientation. One well-known evangelical leader communicated with his followers electronically that we should be praying that God would “guide” the process of the selection of a new pope. In most venues, the objection that there is nothing remotely biblical about a “supreme pontiff” who is to be venerated as the “vicar of Christ on earth” or the “holy father” found little expression outside of those whose strongest feelings on the matter are borne of prejudice rather than conviction. And once the selection was made, many in the evangelical camp expressed pleasure at the selection, if for no other reason than Francis I has seemed significantly more, well, human—or at least less imperial—than Benedict XVI.

But very little of the public response was prompted by a passionate commitment to, say, the solas of the Reformation, or a knowledgeable, informed rejection of Rome’s soteriology over against a deep-seated love of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Should the Reformation continue to hold a place of importance in the church that faces such immense opposition as that coming from radical, gospel-hating secularism? Wouldn’t a united front, free from partisan bickering, help the cause of Christ? The answer has to be, “Of course the Reformation remains important, and, in fact, its work must continue in our day, and into the future as well.”

The reason is not hard to see, even if it seems hidden to many in our day. Wonderfully nebulous catchphrases like “the cause of Christ” often hide the truth: the cause of Christ is the glorification of the triune God through the redemption of a particular people through the cross-work of Jesus Christ, which is a rather Puritan way of saying, “The cause of Christ is the gospel.” Each of the emphases of the Reformation, summed up in the solas, is focused upon protecting the integrity and identity of the gospel itself. Without the inspiration, authority, harmony, and sufficiency of Scripture, we do not know the gospel (sola Scriptura). Without the freedom of grace and the fullness of the provision of the work of Christ, we have no saving message (sola fide). And so on.

The Reformation fought a battle that each and every generation is called to fight simply because each and every generation is made up of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam, and hence there will always be those who seek to detract from the singular glory of God in the gospel through the addition of man’s authority, man’s merit, man’s sovereignty. Is this not the meaning of semper reformanda, the church always reforming, always seeking to hear more clearly, walk more closely, to her Lord?

With the ebb and flow of human history, the forces arrayed against the church and her Lord and the particular front upon which the battle rages hottest will change. Rome’s theology has evolved and her arguments have been modified, but the issues remain very much what they were when Luther and Eck battled at Leipzig, only modified and complicated. God’s kingship, man’s depravity and enslavement to sin, and the insatiable desire of sinners to control the grace of God will always be present. And today, the sufficiency, clarity, and authority of Scripture are at the forefront, just as they were then. The need for the Reformation will end when the church no longer faces foes inside and out who seek to distort her purpose, her mission, her message, and her authority. Till then, semper reformanda.

Is Jesus Knocking at the Heart of the Unbeliever?

sproul877Article by R.C. Sproul (original source I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20). Usually the evangelist applies this text as an appeal to the unconverted, saying: “Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart. If you open the door, then He will come in.” In the original saying, however, Jesus directed His remarks to the church. It was not an evangelistic appeal.

So what? The point is that seeking is something that unbelievers do not do on their own. The unbeliever will not seek. The unbeliever will not knock. Seeking is the business of believers. Jonathan Edwards said, “The seeking of the Kingdom of God is the chief business of the Christian life.” Seeking is the result of faith, not the cause of it.

When we are converted to Christ, we use language of discovery to express our conversion. We speak of finding Christ. We may have bumper stickers that read, “I Found It.” These statements are indeed true. The irony is this: Once we have found Christ it is not the end of our seeking but the beginning. Usually, when we find what we are looking for, it signals the end of our searching. But when we “find” Christ, it is the beginning of our search.

The Christian life begins at conversion; it does not end where it begins. It grows; it moves from faith to faith, from grace to grace, from life to life. This movement of growth is prodded by continual seeking after God.

In your spiritual walk, are you moving from faith to faith, from grace to grace, from life to life? Are you continually seeking after God?

Glorification Never Ends!

will, mind, and affections, in which sin is eradicated and we are made like Jesus (see Phil. 3:20-21; 1 John 3:1-3). What I want to suggest is that there is a very real and important sense in which this glorification of all believers never ends.
I don’t mean that our glorification will never be reversed, although that’s true. There will never be the slightest diminishing or regression or reversal or loss of the purity and holiness and likeness unto Jesus that we gain at the resurrection of our bodies. What I mean is that although glorification will happen in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, it will also eternally grow and expand. The condition of our body, soul, and spirit, although entirely free from sin as a result of the event of glorification, is not the final expression of what we will experience throughout eternity. Let me say that again: glorification is a singular event that happens in a moment in time. But I want to suggest that there is a very real sense in which it is also an eternal process, a never-ending, ever-expansive, incremental increase in our knowledge and experience of God and thus also in our joy or delight in him. How do we know?

It is true that when we are “glorified” we will forever cease from sin, disease, and death. But that does not mean that all we could possibly know about God and his redemptive purposes in Christ will be ours at a single point in time, as if to suggest that we won’t “learn” in the New Heavens and New Earth. At the moment of glorification all false ideas about God and his ways will be eradicated from our brains. But that doesn’t mean that all possible true ideas about him are instantly imparted to us. In fact, I would argue that to suggest otherwise borders on blasphemy. To contend that we will, at the moment of glorification, instantaneously and forever know everything about God that can be known is to reduce God to the level of the Devil. It is to suggest that there is a limit to what is true about God and thus a limit to what we his creatures can know of him.

Is God infinite? If so, what does that mean? It means that there is no limit to God, in the sense that what can be known of him and his character and his ways can never be exhausted. Everything else in this universe is quantifiable. Everything that is created can be counted. That is to say, there is a finite number of quarks in material reality. There is a finite number of grains of sand on the seashores of the earth and on every planet in the cosmos. There is a quantifiable number of stars in the galaxies above. Everything that has been created is finite.

But the Creator is not. God cannot be quantified. The truths about him cannot be counted. God cannot be exhaustively known. To argue that the doctrine of glorification means we attain to an exhaustive and altogether comprehensive knowledge of God is to reduce God to the status of a creature. It would mean that God is finite, that there is a quantifiable amount of truth to and about him that can be reduced to a specific number. The great medieval philosopher/theologian, St. Anselm (1033-1109), is well-known for his definition of God. God, he said, is “That than which none greater can be conceived.” But if there is a finite, definitive, limited quantity of truths about God, could we not conceive of something greater, a being of whom even more truths might be discovered? Yes.

Not only do we reduce God to the level of a creature, in a sense we elevate ourselves to the level of the Creator. If we ever attained comprehensive knowledge of this being who purports to be infinite, would we not ourselves then be omniscient? Is not the definition of omniscience the capacity to know all that can be known? If it is, to suggest that we might ever reach a point at which we know everything about a God who is infinite would require that we ourselves be infinite at least in terms of our knowledge. And that, I suggest, is blasphemous.

Now consider a profound and necessary implication of this truth. With each new revelation about God that we learn, we rejoice. Genuine joy is always the fruit of knowledge. As our knowledge grows and increases so too does our joy or delight in what we have learned. And if that discovery of infinite truths about God never ends, then neither does the depth and intensity and expanse of our joy. It simply must increase forever as our knowledge of God increases forever. If we ever arrive at a point in eternity future where there is nothing more to know or learn or discover about God, he’s not God! It would mean that the object of our knowledge, the one who we thought was God, is finite, limited, quantifiable, bounded, and exhaustible. Such a being is not the God of the Bible who is in every respect infinite, unlimited, unquantifiable, unbounded, and inexhaustible!

That is why I can say that, in a very real sense, glorification never ends. Our transformation never ceases in the sense that we will continue to learn and expand in our knowledge of God and thus too in our delight and joy in God, all of which will lead to ever-increasing dimensions of change and growth and understanding.

Why these Books?

2 Lectures:

1: Who decided which books should make up the New Testament? Are the right books in our Bible? Did the early church suppress other competing gospels? Should books like the Gospel of Thomas be in our Bibles?

This lecture was presented by David White at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, NC on October 27, 2013.

2: The Reliability of the New Testament Text

How do we respond to accusations that the Bible has been hopelessly corrupted by centuries of copying and translation? How do we know that the Bible wasn’t altered and corrupted by early church councils who added or suppressed parts of the New Testament? How can we believe that God has preserved His word when the New Testament manuscripts we have are full of textual variants?

This lecture, presented by David White at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, NC on April 21, 2013, seeks to answer those questions and give Christians confidence that the English Bibles we have today are the same authoritative Word of God delivered to the apostles and the early church.

Overcoming Addiction

Are you, or do you know someone, struggling with addiction to drugs, alcohol, or pornography? Watch and share this powerful message given by Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church.

Jeff writes, “This is not a talk I give very often. I don’t like to talk for extended periods of time about myself when I give messages. However, I was asked to do a talk on addiction while I was at a conference in Sydney, Australia. I hope that this talk communicates the hope we have in Jesus and helps with understanding the chasm that exists between all secular attempts to address addiction and the Biblical Worldview. I pray that it is a blessing to you or someone you love who is struggling.”

What Does “World” Mean in John 3:16?

what’s not to admire about cityscapes and farmlands, fine cuisine and backyard barbecues, classical symphonies and folk ballads, Renaissance paintings and kindergarten squiggles? The world we know is filled with texture, intrigue, opportunity, and cheer. The problem is that for all that is good and interesting and beautiful about the world, it is overrun with sinners. Ever since Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the garden, the world has become a wasteland. No matter how wonderful the world may appear, it is not worthy of God’s redeeming love.

Understanding how undeserving the world is of God’s love is the key to John 3:16. Only then will we appreciate the unexpected gift that God gives. This point was well made many years ago by the esteemed theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. In his sermon “God’s Immeasurable Love,” Warfield probes the meaning of the term “world” (Greek kosmos) in John 3:16 in order to plumb the depths of God’s love.

What is the meaning of “world” in this passage? Drawing from the insights of Warfield, there are four possible answers.

In the first place, many people believe that “world” means all people without exception. In other words, when John 3:16 says that God loves the world, it means that He loves every person, head for head, equally. The logic goes something like this: God loves every person; Christ died for every person; therefore, salvation is possible for every person. However, this view seems to suggest that God’s love is impotent and Christ’s death is ineffectual. Otherwise, the natural conclusion of this position would be that every person is actually saved rather than just potentially saved. If God loves every person, and Christ died for every person, and God’s love is not impotent, and Christ’s death is not ineffectual, then the only conclusion one can draw is that salvation has been secured for every person. Yet this viewpoint contradicts the Bible’s teaching on God’s judgment as is evidenced by the immediate context in John 3:17–21.

Second, others argue that “world” means all people without distinction. This option emphasizes that God loves more than one type of person or ethnic group. The death of Christ on the cross was not only for Jews but also for Gentiles. The love of God is not confined to national boundaries but extends to all kinds of nations, tribes, cultures, tongues, and peoples. To this, all God’s people––Arminian and Calvinist alike––say a hearty “Amen.” While this view has the benefit of being undoubtedly right and fits within the larger context of John’s gospel concerning the global identity of the “children of God” (e.g., John 1:9–13; 4:42), it doesn’t quite capture the jolting contrast between “God so loved” and “the world” that John 3:16 deliberately draws.

Third, a popular nuance of the previous option among Reformed theologians is to argue that “world” in John 3:16 refers to the elect. Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus emphasizes the particularity of His grace. “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (6:37). “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me….I lay down my life for the sheep” (10:14–18). “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (15:9). “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (17:9). And so on.

The point is that God’s people are chosen from an unbelieving world. Again, this view strikes an important note by underscoring the biblical doctrine of election, but the focus of the term “world” in John 3:16 is not so much on the identity of God’s people but on the nature of God’s love.

This leads us to the final option. A solid case can be made for believing that “world” refers to the quality of God’s love. Warfield convincingly states:

[World] is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when he gave his Son for it.

The world represents sinful humanity and is not worthy of God’s saving love. Apart from the love of God, the world stands under God’s condemnation. But in Christ, believers experience God’s surprising, redeeming, and never-ending love. John 3:16 is not about the greatness of the world but about the greatness of God.