Baptism of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sins

How did people in the Old Testament have their sins forgiven? How is all of the stuff with the temple, and the stringent requirements that God gave in the Old Testament reconciled with grace through faith in the New Testament? These two questions are answered in very different ways depending on the person asked. The ways that this question is answered varies as much as the people asking it do.

One of the ways that this is answered is by saying that salvation was always by grace through faith (cf. Eph 2:8, 9) and not by works of the Law (cf. Gal 2:16). This happens to be what I see as clearly taught in Scripture, but others see the picture a bit differently. Another view is that the Jews in the Old Testament were saved by a combination of faith and works, and since the coming of Christ, all men are still saved by grace through faith and works. Other schools of thought would hold to a mish-mash assortment of views of varying consistencies that include a dual covenant (Israel is still saved by nature of being Israel, and the gentiles are saved by faith) theology, a hyper-dispensational theology that espouses a works righteousness salvation of the Old Testament and a true grace salvation of the New Testament, and many many more.

In a very roundabout way I came to deal with the question of salvation in the Old Testament, or under the Old Covenant, while studying for a Sunday school overview of John the Baptist. John the Baptist is one of the figures in the gospels who does not get too much attention by the Biblical writers or by the church. Most Christians will know that John was a relative of Jesus, that he was the promised forerunner of the Messiah, that he baptized Jesus, and that he was martyred by Herod. This is a fairly good and complete summary of who John was and what his mission was, so I didn’t want to focus primarily on these issues. What I wanted to investigate was the content, the message, of John the Baptist.

Have you ever noticed it when you gloss over a passage quickly when it seems to say something that you don’t agree with or when you simply don’t understand it? Perhaps I’m the only person who has done this, but I was definitely guilty of that in the past when I’d read a description of John’s message and ministry.

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)

I believe that the New Testament teaches baptism, repentance, and the forgiveness of sins, however the way that Mark formulates John’s message seems to combine these three things in a way that flies in the face the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It was this text that prompted me to study John the Baptist in hopes of coming to see how best to understand this text in light of the rest of the Scriptures.

Checking the other three gospel accounts gives some clues as to what the message of John was even if there is no point by point theological statement written down.

“¹⁶ John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. ¹⁷ "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." ¹⁸ So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people. (Luke 3:16-18)

In this passage I didn’t even focus on verses 16 and 17 except for the context of what John said. It was verse 18 that grabbed my attention. John was preaching the gospel, or at least what Luke identified as the gospel at a later date. I think that it is important to know that Luke, like the other New Testament writers, refers to the message of salvation from the condemnation of God as the gospel. Furthermore, Luke uses this word to summarize what Christ Himself was proclaiming during His own ministry. So whatever we say about John’s message, we cannot say that it differed from that of Christ’s own message.

“⁷ He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. ⁸ He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.” (John 1:7-8)

The apostle John understood and related the message of the Baptizer to be one that pointed to Christ and was clear enough so that “all might believe through him.” This would not be possible if John the Baptist was making people a slave of the Law or tradition in order to bring about salvation. The facts that the ministry of the forerunner to the Messiah was to clear the path to Christ and that John’s message was shown to be in harmony with the message of Christ Himself should erase any fear of a proclamation of baptismal regeneration from Mark 1:4. There is still one more Scripture that I had not looked at in this context before, which really captured the truth that John’s message was one that lined up not only with Christ, but also with the apostles.

“²⁴ Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. ²⁵ This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; ²⁶ and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. ²⁷ 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, ²⁸ for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28, emphasis mine)

I wanted to emphasize the later part of verse 25 but also include 27 and 28 because of the more complete context of Apollos’ early faith and ministry. Notice that before Apollos had been baptized in the apostolic ministry, he was “speaking and teaching the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John.” In other words, Apollos had come into contact with the ministry of John the Baptist and had been baptized by him (cf. Mark 1:5). This may have happened during one of the many Jewish feasts where the faithful would make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate and worship.

John’s message was clear enough and direct enough that Apollos truly was able to “believe through” John’s preaching (cf. John 1:7) but then was not present during the further ministry of Christ, or at least not surrounding the time of the crucifixion and resurrection. The reason I say that is that if he were around, he would have experienced the baptism of the apostles and the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

If Apollos was proclaiming the falsehoods concerning Christ and His role as Messiah, he would not have been “speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus”. So the fact that Apollos was accurately teaching the things concerning Jesus without any apostolic instruction but only with the teaching from John the Baptist is a great testimony for the content of John’s teaching. John the Baptist was truly making the paths straight to the messiah, and Apollos is an example of the fruit of his ministry.

---

---

Reflections on Isaiah 53:6,10

T.U.L.I.P.

In an effort to set up my thoughts and reflections on Isaiah 53, I am going to provide some of the context around what led me both to study it, wrestle with the seeming paradox in it, and finally come to my personal conclusion as to how we should understand the Isaiah 53:6 in the context of the rest of the chapter.

Even before I really made a personally motivated effort to memorize Scripture on my own, I knew these verses. Now, I may not have remembered the exact reference right away, and I knew what verse 5 much better than verse 6, but I could come close to quoting these verses for you. And it was with this in mind that I planned to study Isaiah 53 to teach in Sunday school. In the past I’ve spent weeks on studying a single chapter, but because I didn’t have that luxury this time, I planned on briefly looking at some of less familiar parts of this Messianic prophesy. My goal was to simply wet the appetites of the class into looking back at this passage with a revitalized sense of awe that may have been diminished because its familiarity.

In my grand design, I wanted to end the last few minutes of the class dealing with verse 6 and how we should understand what “the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” means. I had planned the majority of my time with looking at Christ as the once for all sacrifice as contrasted to the ongoing priestly sacrifices, what “His offspring” and “prolong His days” (v.10) means, or even how it is so important to note that “the Lord was pleased to crush Him” and “if He would render Himself (as) a guilt offering” (v.10) showed both the willingness of the suffering servant and the pleasure of the Father.

We began by reading 52:13 – 53:12 out loud, and when we were done, I asked what impressed them or stuck out to them from what we had just read. Now, I thought that someone would bring up something form verse 10, or something relating to the silent lamb before the slaughter (v. 7) and that is where we would begin the lesson. It was a good idea until the first, and only, person to answer my question referred to verse 6 and marveled at how awesome it was that Christ bore all of the sins for everyone whoever lived.

Now I had a problem. This is exactly the issue and mindset that I wanted to deal with, somewhat briefly, at the end of the class. Primarily I wanted to deal with it briefly because of the potential powder keg that discussing my conclusions on this verse might lead to. What I mean is this: at this time, I don’t necessarily believe that Isaiah 53 teaches the doctrine of particular redemption (limited atonement), but I believe that the correct understanding of it would lead one to think along those lines. And from my experience in preaching anything that touches on the doctrine of election, much less on the doctrine of limited atonement, the reaction could be less than hospitable and even cause enough discord as to motivate people to leave the fellowship of our local body. This is not to say that I will not say what the Word is saying in a particular text or situation, but I am very aware that I must be delicate because it is not my place to be so “controversial” as to motivate people to leave be cause of me.

So when the observation was made that this verse said that all people had their sins placed on Christ, and He paid for them all, I reluctantly took the carrot and decided to begin to look into what this verse means in the context of the rest of Isaiah 53. So without further ado, here are my reflections on Isaiah 53:6 when taken in context (specifically verses 11 and 12).

“⁵ But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. ⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.” (Isaiah 53:5,6)

When looking at these verses, my initial gut reaction is to take them to mean exactly what the words plainly say. Namely, that Jesus bore the punishment for everyone’s sins to bring us all to peace with God because everyone of us have gone astray, but God has caused all of our iniquities to fall on Jesus. I don’t think that I go too by saying that this is the general understanding of the majority of Christians when looking at this verse in the same way. I don’t know if I heard this from someone, or if is simply what I have thought in the past, but these two verses come across almost as the equivalent of Romans 3:23 in the Old Testament. In other words, just as Romans 3:23 (built on the context of Romans 1-3) shows the universality of the sinfulness of man, this verse is portrayed as doing the same thing in the Old Testament.

I had believed that exact thing until studying this chapter for this lesson. It was not verses 5 and 6 that caused me to be up way to late struggling with how to understand it, but it was when looking at these verses in light of verses 11 and 12 that I almost pulled my hair out.

“⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

¹¹ As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see {it and} be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53: 6,11 emphasis mine)

The language of “all”, “our”, and “many” may have caused some initial confusion, but in the past I had just understood them to be referring to different groups and had no problem with that. All people are sinful but only those who have faith in Christ will be justified. There is no problem with this because that is the glorious truth of the gospel. However, the problem that I encountered came from fact that the context indicates that those whose sins Christ bears will be justified, but if all people’s iniquities fall on Christ then all would be justified. In other words, then all people everywhere would be saved. Not that I would oppose universalism if the Bible taught it, but it blatantly does not. So how can I understand this in context?

Even though we understand that we are justified and connected to the death and resurrection of Christ through faith, Isaiah doesn’t address that. He simply states that “the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” and that the “Servant justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.” So, as I understand it, whether the “all” of verse 6 and the “many” of verse 11 refer to the exact same people or not, neither can be referring to all people of all time because the Bible is clear that many people will be eternally condemned.

My concern was not that this text somehow teaches universalism, my struggle was how to understand this passage consistently so that it said what I know the Bible teaches elsewhere. And the first thing that I was drawn too was the pronouns used throughout the chapter. Isaiah uses “our” (1,4,5), “we ourselves” (4), “we” (5), “all of us” (6), “each of us” (6), “us all” (6), “my people” (8), “many” (11,12), “their” (11) to describe those to whom the action of the Suffering Servant relates.

At first, the “my people” from verse eight seems to be the best clue as to who Isaiah is writing about here. I believe based on Isaiah 52:14 as well as 53:8 that “my people” refers to the nation of Israel, God’s covenant people. But that still doesn’t resolve the “all” verses the “many” problem that we get from verse 6 and 11. And unless “all” refers to all Israel and “many” refers to the number of descendants as related to the rest of humanity, I don’t think that identifying “my people” is the final key to unlocking the who’s who of Isaiah 53. And I say that because of what we know; we know that much of Israel is and was apostate, and we also know that salvation came to the gentiles in Christ. So, my dilemma continues.

After more searching and scouring of the passage for another clue as to what might be the best key for understanding the “many” against the “all” language, I reread and reread the chapter and surrounding context for some help. It wasn’t until after having read it many times that I again noticed that the first possessive pronoun used in chapter 53 was used in verse 1, and it was the word “our”.

“Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1)

I believe that it is this verse, this statement or lament of Isaiah, which gives the key to understanding and making sense of the rest of this chapter. And the question that I think is important is this: who is the “our” that proclaimed the message that was to be believed? This is not the nation, it cannot be. The nation rejected God and rebelled against the laws of God and of worshipping and following Him alone from the very Exodus from Egypt. Because of their constant rebellion and hard hearts, God sent prophets who were to call the nation back to the Lord. We also know that there were devout priests and other people who remained faithful to God during the rampant apostasy of their land (see 1 Kings 19:14-18).

It seems best to understand the possessive and inclusive pronoun “our” in verse 1 as well as “each of us” and “all of us” in verse 6 to refer to those people who were proclaiming the Word of the Lord. And for lack of a better way to categorize them, I’ll call them the prophets, even though this group would include more than those who wrote the prophetic books in the Old Testament. Isaiah wasn’t commenting on the general sin of Israel in verse 6, he was referring to the faithful group of prophets who proclaimed the message. Remember, this is the same Isaiah who lamented his own sinfulness before the throne of God,

“Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty." (Isaiah 6:5)

If Isaiah is referring to those faithfully proclaiming the Word of the Lord to the nations when he says “all of us” and “each of us”, then who are the “many” in verse 11? It seems best to understand the “many” in God’s ultimate redemptive sense. In other words, it is not simply the faithful among the prophets of God to Israel and Judah that He will save, but He is the savior of the gentiles too. The prophets knew this well, and that is why Jonah fled; he did not want God to be merciful to the Ninevites, even though he knew that He would be.

So in this case, “many” is actually a larger group than “all of us” is. Everyone who has been justified by faith is included in the “many”, but only Isaiah’s contemporaries proclaiming the Word of the Lord at that time would be included in the “all of us”. I could even be convinced that “all of us” refers to all of the believers of the message, not just the proclaimers of the message, in Isaiah’s time and in all time. And in this case, the “all of us” would include the totality of those chosen by God, and the “many” would refer to their numerical value.

This understanding of who the various groups are allow us to interpret Isaiah 53 consistently in its context as well as in the broader context of the Bible’s teaching on salvation. All of those people who have their sins imputed to Christ will be justified by His righteousness, and there will be many people who come from every tribe, tongue, and nation who receive God’s gracious gift of salvation through Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

When Debates Go Bad...Very Bad

James White debates Nadir Ahmed (Muslim apologist) in 2008 over whether the New Testament is reliable.

I watched this debate in its entirety, and I can say that I have never seen anything like it. This was infact a non-debate. The reason being that the Muslim apologist refused to stay on subject, answer questions, or follow the debate rules. Furthermore, Mr. Ahmed was asking for evidence regarding the validness of Paul being a "prophet" but would not even listen to anything that James would say.

Truly, the only thing about this debate that is worthy of remembering, at least from the things that Mr. Ahmed said, was this clip of him calling out a member of the audience in very "Jerry Springer-ish" way.

Yikes.

Praise God for the Bible and for men who can keep their composure much better and much longer than I can.

“I cannot help but stop for just a moment and remind us that it is not a gospel that does not explain to men and to women and to children why they’re under the wrath of God. Don’t tell me that you’ve preached the gospel to someone when you have not followed the apostolic example and explained, first and foremost, that we all stand justly condemned before a holy God. If you have not proclaimed that, you have not proclaimed the gospel.” - James White, 2008 John Bunyan Conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_3HVNqsTc 2:34 ff.

Baby Steps From Orthodoxy to Heresy

Whenever the Scriptures are misused, it grieves God and all of His children. As one of those children, I initially have a two-fold thought on this matter. First of all, I realize that I am imperfect, quite flawed, actually, and I have misused Scriptures in the past. Worse than that, I am sure that I will misuse Scriptures in the future. I have not done so intentionally, and I will not do it intentionally in the future, but even though I cannot think of a specific example, I am sure that this is a true description of me. The second thought that I have is one of indignation and anger that the Word of God is distorted by careless, immature, or malicious individuals when they use a Scripture to state as a fact what that Scripture, or perhaps even the Scriptures as a whole, does not teach at all.

And it is in the mindset of my two-fold reaction that I hope to address misuses of Scripture. First of all, if I am approached with an example of where I have used a Scripture out of context in order to support a theological conclusion (whether my final conclusion is Biblical or not, it makes no difference), I hope and pray that I will quickly have a humble attitude to investigate the issue to see if I am at fault. And once I become aware of an occurrence of out of context proof texting, then not only will I not use the text in the same incorrect manner, but I will do what I can to rectify my previous use of it in that manner.

My hope and prayer is that my Christian brethren will do the same. However, since we are all sinful, there are verses and issues that will not be given up easily or at all. Even if these misuses of Scripture are for theologically true issues or issues that are false but not at the level of being heretical, it is still a very troubling and problematic activity. If a text can be twisted out of context and accepted to affirm something that it doesn’t, even if that affirmation is not heretical, what is to stop the next person who wants to twist it even further?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

When I have researched and discussed the issue of female pastors, Galatians 3:28 is the verse that is used, along with other vague references and elusions to women, to argue the point. Furthermore, the passage in Galatians is the primary Scriptural cudgel that is used to bat down the opposing arguments. Proponents of female pastors and elders basically see this verse as washing away the distinctions of men and women as it relates to pastoral ministry. But along with the gender neutralizing application that is taken from Galatians 3:28, those who advocate female pastors from the Scriptures are quick to site the fact that there have been female prophetesses (Ex 15:20, 2 Kings 22:14, Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9), a female Judge (Jud 4:4), and a female member of a prominent husband and wife team that helped Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). However, without the glue of the above interpretation of Galatians 3:28, these examples don’t teach us anything about the role or qualifications of elders in the church, they are simply examples of what women had done under the Law and during the transitional time of the early church. But even the examples of prophetesses in the New Testament are not listed as elders or pastors, and that must not be overlooked or brushed under the rug.

So the question that must be addressed is this: does Galatians 3:28 teach the washing away of gender distinctions in the church, or at least regarding the issue of elders and pastors in the church? My answer is simply and quickly that it does no such thing. First of all, Paul’s letter is primarily addressing the issues raised because of the Judaizing false teachers who were teaching that one must follow the law as well as have faith in order to be saved. Paul’s pronouncement of this idea as anathema in the first chapter is one of the harshest in all of his letters.

So when we arrive at chapter three, Paul is now trying to give a presentation about the correct use or function of the law since following the law has no part in our justification. And it is in the context of the proper understanding of the law that we find Galatians 3:28.

²² But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. ²⁴ Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. ²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:22-29)

Verses 24-26 make it clear that Paul is referring both to who can be justified and how they can be justified. And the answer is that there is no racial, class, or gender disqualifiers for justification that occurs by faith. Forgetting that Paul’s parallel statement in Colossians 3:9-11 doesn’t mention a distinction between male and female. Even if Paul would have made the same “neither male nor female” statement, the context in Colossians is about the renewal that believer’s experience who have been justified by faith and not about serving in the church.

Another textual objection raised in this text, but in my experience much less frequently, is that we are all, male and female, “heirs according to promise”. The promise that we are heirs to in Christ is the promise made to Abraham and not one of temporal gifts or service in the church. Being an heir in this sense is saying that we receive the promise that was made to Abraham and passed down through Isaac, Jacob, and the nation is one of salvation (see Galatians 3:6-9).

But one proponent of the egalitarian view made a very wild “logical” continuation of applying Galatians 3:28 “only to salvation.”

“If Galatians 3:28 only refers to salvation, then we would have a difficult time defending the inclusion of the gentiles in the leadership roles of the church. Let me explain what I mean.

What if someone said that only the Jews were to rule, and all the gentiles had to be subordinate? After all, weren’t all of the books of the Bible written by Jews? Weren’t all of Jesus disciples Jews? Jesus never appointed anyone who wasn’t a Jew to a place of authority in the church.

Is that Biblical? It may sound logical because these are the same arguments that have been used against women. But the wall of separation has been taken down in every case.”¹

The proof-text that is used here referring to this dividing wall that is broken down and that the speaker relates to the roles of men and women in the church is Ephesians 2:14-16. While the verses do talk about breaking down a barrier and making the two into one new man, the context is about the Jews and the gentiles, not men and women.

One of the explicit qualifications given for the role of elder or overseer is that the person must be a one woman man. The language is clear that the individual must be a man, not simply a person who is devoted to one other person. He doesn’t say that the elder or bishop must be a good looking man, a black man, a white man, a young man, an old man, a Jewish man (Israelite), or a gentile man; he just says that he must be a one woman man.

Galatians 3:28 does not overrule or even clarify the male qualification for being an elder or bishop when Paul announces that there is no “male or female” in Christ Jesus. Paul is responding to the heresy of the Judaizers in Galatia and their insistence that you must add law-keeping to faith, especially circumcision, in order to be saved. And there is no distinction because of pedigree, gender, or social status. Conversely, when Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, he was giving positive instructions on leading in the church.

We must be careful not to confuse the Scriptures in their application. Even though it is my conviction based up on the Scriptures that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor or teacher of men, it is not heresy (not by a long shot). That being the case, using Galatians 3:28 as a verse that breaks down gender distinctions when this passage says nothing of the sort can open it up to further abuses. What context is to stop someone from making the positive case for committed Christian homosexual relationships? Of course the Bible explicitly refers to one man and one woman for marriage, but if there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free man, male or female in Christ Jesus, who are we to stop two loving people from being married?

There are always a few baby steps from orthodoxy to heresy, and we must be careful to school the steps of faith that we take by the Word of God in its proper context.

---

¹ Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUFC1ss-Dw&feature=user

The Good-O-Meter

Okay, so normally these types of videos don't impress me, but this one was different. And I would have done things a little different by adding a person saying "I prayed a prayer when I was a kid" or something like that, but otherwise it was good in showing the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!!!

God is No Respecter of Persons

For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:11)

Over the past month or so, I have seen this verse used to defend the idea that those who haven’t heard the gospel of Jesus Christ may still be covered by the blood of Christ even though they would not have placed their faith in Christ. I have also seen this verse used as the primary Scriptural cudgel used to attack the “demonic doctrine”¹ of predestination. In either occasion in my experience, when it comes down to it, the issue that is being defended is the free will of man to choose God apart from divine sovereignty.

This verse seems to be utterly debilitating to the doctrine of election if, as the King James Version puts it, “there is no respect of persons with God” means that God gives all men everywhere from all times the exact same ability and opportunity to respond to the gospel. Whereas the individuals who I have seen use this verse may not have stated their position in just this way, the issue remains the same because users of this verse for this reason hold that God would be a liar if this were untrue. And I agree, if Romans 2:11 means that all people everywhere for all time have the same opportunity and ability to respond to the gospel, then God would be called a liar if the doctrine of election were true. But is that what this verse is saying?

In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul is making the case that all men everywhere, in fact, have not honored God as they ought and therefore do not measure up to God’s standards. In fact, the summary of Paul’s argument up to that point is one of the most memorized verses in the New Testament,

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Paul goes into great detail as to why man is in this predicament, whether or not he’s heard the law of God before, and the end result is the same; Man falls short of God’s perfect standard and is justly under condemnation because of what we have done. And moving forward from Romans chapter three, Paul begins to unfold the great doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law or any human righteousness.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

With the general flow of the first few chapters of Romans established, we now have the perspective to look at Romans 2:11 to find out if using this verse to proclaim or defend the more Arminian understanding of the doctrine of free will. In the whole flow of the first few chapters of Romans, Paul is not addressing the issue of election or free will; he is making the case for the universal depravity of mankind. He does address these issues in detail, specifically in chapters eight and nine, but that issue has not been introduced in the first few chapters.

In the first 17 verses of chapter one, Paul gives his salutation and opens his letter with some statements concerning the gospel and the fact that it is the power of God for salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16). Paul also gives us glimpses of the gospel in chapter two when he admonishes us that it is God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience that lead the sinner to repentance (Romans 2:4). However, what Paul is saying in verse eleven is made very plain with the immediate context of that verse.

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; (Romans 2:9-12)

Paul’s statement about God showing “no partiality” or being “no respecter of persons” (KJV) is a statement regarding God’s judgment on mankind. Furthermore, I submit that he is saying that all men stand condemned by God in this text even though verse 10 speaks of God giving a positive reward to those who do good. The reason is that in just a few lines, Paul quotes the Old Testament stating that there are none who do good, and his conclusion is that all men fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the penalty of this offense is death (6:23).

It is true that God doesn’t discriminate on account of race, gender, or social status when it comes to salvation (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). In other words, being a woman, a slave, a barbarian, or a Jew doesn’t disqualify you from the God’s promise to forgive your sins if you repent of them and trust in His son. This is not either affirming or discrediting the doctrine of election, it simply affirms that there can be (and there will be) people of every tribe, tongue, and nation in Heaven with Christ (Rev 5:9).

It is also true that Christians are not to show partiality in regards to Christian fellowship. One believer is the same as the next. James condemns showing favoritism for a rich man over a poor man in the gathering of believers. Again, we are all of equal worth in Christ Jesus, and we must not discriminate on account of social status, ethnicity, or gender when it comes to our fellowship.

In short, the truth that God is no respecter of persons is in no way related to the doctrine of election, whether you agree with that doctrine or not. This verse is explicitly talking about the universality of judgment and condemnation of mankind on account of sin. This is seen from the surrounding few verses as well as the overall argument that Paul is making in the first three chapters of Romans.

---

---

¹ TheVineRhyme, “Predestination”, youtube video. 0:40 – 0:54. Uploaded on 5/21/08. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YirjO7e8i8

Unreliable Cultists and the Mormon Jesus

Over the past few weeks, some missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been coming around my neighborhood. Each time that they’ve come around, my wife has just happened to be outside and I’ve either been putting my boys to bed or not at home. According to my wife, their conversations have been pleasant and she’s held her own recognizing some of the subtleties of their language as being concerning. For instance, nearing the end of one of their conversations she said, “You know, there’s nothing better than talking about Jesus” to which they responded by saying, “Yes, there’s nothing better than talking about the church.”

Now, I don’t know all of the reasons for them to make the distinction that they did, but perhaps it was because my wife had been defending historic Christian doctrine about Christ and salvation in the midst of their heretical characterizations of Him. But wherever the conversation went on those two days, my wife said one thing on both occasions. “My husband would love to talk to you.”

It is true that I enjoy talking about Christ and the gospel. Most often these conversations are with my wife, my children, my brother-in-law, or a few of my Christian co-workers. But I’ll also try to talk about Christ and the gospel with co-workers who aren’t Christians as well as anyone else who’ll engage me in a conversation. This is not to say that I do aggressive street evangelism to strangers, but I will take any conversational open door that comes my way. I don’t say this to impugn street witnessing, but as a self-impugning confession that I truly want to change. Because, hey, there’s nothing wrong and almost everything right with politely asking someone to talk, and then witnessing to them in a reasonable and gentle way.

After the last conversation with my wife, the Mormons made an appointment to come back to my home this past Tuesday evening at 7:30 PM so that I could talk with them. When my wife informed me of this arrangement, I was both excited and a bit nervous. But, when Tuesday rolled around I was reading Colossians and studying up on what the Bible says about the eternality of Jesus Christ so that I could have those verses fresh on my mind to counter the Mormon assertions that Jesus is a created being.

We setup a patio table in our garage (in case of rain), setup four chairs, and even made some lemonade so that we could all sit comfortably while we tried to convert each other. But 7:30 came and went and there were no Mormons sitting at my table telling me about the fact that there are still prophets today. My wife and I were getting disappointed, but I made the comment that perhaps these young men were still on Utah time, and so 7:30 on their watches would be 8:30 on ours. I didn’t really think that was the case, but I was really looking forward to speaking with them. Well, once 9PM rolled around, it was a pretty fair certainty that they were not going to show up, and we packed away our gear and retreated to the mosquito-free inside of our home.

While I was preparing to discuss some of the more troubling aspects of Mormon theology, I really had only a few goals for our conversation. I wanted to give some Scripturally sound answers to their assertions about their understanding of Jesus, grace, works, baptism, salvation, and God. They believe that Jesus is their savior, but the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus revealed in the Bible. They believe that they’re saved by grace, but they confess that they’re saved by grace “after all that we can do”. In other words, they’re saved by their works. This is evident when you pose the “knife in the back” scenario.

The “knife in the back” scenario is simply that you set the stage that you’re a man who has a knife in his back, and you’re going to die in minutes. You confess that you’re not religious, but you’re scared of going to hell. Then you ask for them to tell you what you can do to escape hell. I’ve posed this to Mormons in the past, and their reaction is very telling. The last time that I did this, the young men said plainly that you can’t be saved in three minutes. The obvious biblical rebuttal to their assertion is the account of the thief on the cross or Jesus’ parable of the tax collector and Pharisee at the temple.

But even more important than the truth that their salvation method is wrong is the truth that their Jesus is wrong too. They believe that Jesus is the firstborn son of the former man Elohim. They believe that Jesus, like Elohim before him, was born as a man who then was exalted to deity and given his own domain to rule as god. The Bible is emphatic that Jesus existed from the beginning (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 8:58) and was not created. He is the first-born of creation (Col 1:25) in that He has power over creation and is the pre-eminent one. The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of the Scriptures. Believing in the Mormon Jesus will not save anyone any more than believing in a fictitious 11th century red-headed Viking warlord named Jesus who lived in Scandinavia. That fictitious person isn’t the savior of mankind, God incarnate, and neither is the Mormon understanding of Jesus.

He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:23b)

Even if the Mormons had a perfect doctrine (which they don’t) of salvation that was by grace through faith alone and not of works, they would be left unsaved because they do not place their faith in the truly revealed Son of God.

Is the Atonement of Jesus Christ Limited?

T.U.L.I.P.

"I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody..." - C.H. Spurgeon

"...the Arminian view of the atonement can be compared to a wide bridge that extends most of the way across a river." - Loraine Boettner

The video correctly states that the "L" in the Reformed acronym is the most missunderstood and potentially offensive part of reformed soteriological theology. It is primarily because of this doctrinal conviction on the part of historic Calvinistic theology that the presense of four-point Calvinists is prolfic.

It was my struggling to understand this doctrinal statement that kept me "in the closet", as it were, for a few years when it cam to being openly Calvinistic. Even though the quotes that I have written out are in the video, I believe that some of them pack such a punch that they need to be restated. That is true for proponents of a particular redemption as well as its oponents. If I could summarize the objection in my mind that continually led me to question my tendencies for believing in a general atonement, it would be the issue that a steadfast Arminian raised.

many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say taht Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to [historical] Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did He did for every person; therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. - Dr. J. Kenneth Grider,