Pushing The Antithesis – Part 5 – Alternative Worldviews

The fifth chapter of the book focuses on comparing and contrasting various worldviews outside of the Biblical worldview of Scripture. The purpose for doing this is to demonstrate different characteristics that some of the more popular worldviews hold to and how they contrast to the Christian one. There are two central tenets that are the focus of this chapter: Examples of several worldview options. The presuppositional cores sustaining those worldviews

Particular Worldviews 

Hinduism

The author expounds that Hinduism is a family of merged religions arising out of a thoroughly pagan backdrop. One source describes Hinduism as, “Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions, with diverse roots and no founder.” Another key attribute of this worldview is the belief in millions of deities that are typically derived from objects found in nature. Hinduism aligns well with the New Age movement and mysticism and views all reality as relative since Hinduism believes that reality is an illusion.

Behaviorism 

Behaviorism is school of psychological thought developed by B.F. Skinner. The key concept in this school of thought that all human behavior can be attributed to the concept of “operant conditioning”. This basically says that human behavior is the result of of response to pure environmental factors such as our experiences and our senses. The material world is the ultimate endgame and all our motivations revolve around getting the most fulfillment from the material world. Since man is simply the result of his conditioned environment, there is no responsibility for actions taken since there is no moral code attached to this system of thought.

Marxism 

The next world view is the infamous worldview of Marxism. Marxism is an atheistic, socio-political belief system that teaches the material world is the ultimate reality and that religion is an illusion. The author quotes the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of dialectical materialism on which Marxism is based as, “The Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements.” Adam Schaff summarizes the maxim of Marxism as, “Mans is a product of society…it is society that makes him what he is.” 

Existentialism

The last worldview system that the author examines in this chapter is existentialism. Existentialism is concerned above all else with freedom and self-expression. This system essentially boils down to feeling over thought, experience over logic, and the like. The author leaves some valuable quotes: “To kill God is to become god oneself: it is to realize on this earth the eternal life of which the gospel speaks.” –Albert Camus “If God exists man cannot be free. But man is free, therefore God cannot exist. Since God does not exist all things are morally permissible.” –Jean Paul-Satre The author is trying to get the Christian apologist to think through the foundational beliefs of these various systems to understand how they oppose Christianity and how they are internally inconsistent.

Recommended Reading

Bahnsen, Greg, “Prolegomena To Apologetics“, https://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA002.htm
Ravi, N.S.R.K, “Hinduism“, https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/hinduism/

Arminianism & Church Revitalization

Ed Stetzer has a new blog entry in which he describes the five necessary characteristics that are needed to be an effective church revitalizer. Now on the surface there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the characteristics that he lays out in his article. The big question I have is: Why is church revitalization even necessary?

The main theme in this article if you read it is the church should be treated the same way you treat a fortune 500 business that is losing its edge. You need to focus on leadership, organizational ability, and relational patience to name a few that he mentions.

He states, "At one church I served at, the leadership team had been elected to their positions and many were business leaders."

So the first question I'm going to raise is: Is such a position warranted in Scripture? To answer this question we goto the Scripture
itself and the well known, 'Great Commission' verse in Matthew 28:16-20 [KJV]:

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

So we can see from this section of Scripture that the role of the Church is to teach the nations, baptize them in the name of the Trinity, and ensuring the observance of said teaching and all of Christ's teaching. What you see is Stetzer's Arminianism coming out that silently asserts that Scripture and God's providence and grace is not enough and that in order for the Church to be successful man's ingenuity and efforts are needed to ensure that the church continues to be revitalized and not to grow stagnant.


When most Christians think of Arminianism they usually think of it just in terms of of the doctrines of grace and not in terms of how you define what the Church is and what it's role is within the bounds of Scripture. Like Calvinism it permeates all facets of the Christian life, so if the root is corrupt, so will its branches be.

Pushing The Antithesis - Part 4 - Worldview Features

The fourth chapter of the book focuses on the different components that comprise a worldview. They are the building blocks of a worldview and without any one of them you can not have a complete worldview and this is why it's so important to define each one and to expand upon each level to under the questions that they need to answer.

Another key factor that each of these worldview building blocks serve to show how utterly nonsensical the Atheist worldview is in that since it cannot accept order in the Universe and therefore is left to attribute every event to chance he cannot justify in what he observes.

Metaphysics

The study on what is the nature of reality. Beyond the physical as in laws of logic & science.
Metaphysics seeks to address three core questions:

• What does it mean to exist?
• What is the nature of man? Is he free? Good? An animal?
• What is the nature of the universe? Is it objectively real? Or is it simply appearance?

Metaphysicians seek to understand the world as a whole.
What Metaphysicians study is actually Christian theology in secular dress.
God is the ultimate ground of all reality. - Gen 1:1, Exodus 20:11, Neh 9:6, Rev 4:11

Epistomology

The study of the nature and limits of human knowledge.
Epistemological inquiry focuses on four class of questions:

• What is the nature of truth & objectivity?
• What is the nature of belief and of knowledge? What are their relationships? Can we know and yet not believe?
• What are the standards that justify belief?
• What are the proper procedures for science & discovery? How can they be trusted?

The unbeliever will not be able to rationally to account for the order of the universe which he experiences, since he is committed to the fate of chance.
There is no way to account for reason in the non-Christian system.

Ethics

Studies right & wrong attitudes, judgments, and actions, as well as moral responsibility and obligation.
Focuses on four main areas of concern:

• What is the nature of good and evil?
• What are the standards for ethical evaluation?
• What about guilt and personal peace?
• How do we attain or produce moral character?

For the non-Christian there is no sure basis for ethics.
The chapter can be best summed up in this Atheist Creed crafted by Christian scholar Steve Kumar:
There is no God.
There is no objective Truth.
There is no ground for Reason.
There are no absolute Morals.
There is no ultimate Value.
There is no ultimate Meaning.
There is no eternal Hope.

Recommended Reading

Bahnsen, Greg, "The Concept and Importance of Canonicity"
Butler, Michael R., "A Truly Reformed Epistemology"
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Humanist Manifesto II

Thompson, Bert, "In Defense of the Bible's Inspiration" Part 1 | Part 2

Book Review: Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms

Series: Emory University Studies in Law and Religion
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co.
Copyright: 2010
ISBN: 978-0802864437
Pages: 512

Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms can be summarized as a survey of the historically reformed Christians position on the two key concepts of the Two Kingdoms and Natural Law. Those two terms in the title are the key to understanding this book both in how the data the author uses to interpret the reformed position on these two concepts along with how they work themselves out in both the civil and ecclesiastical realms.

The book is an excellent work of collating the historical position on these two concepts going all the way back to Pre-Reformation area with Augustine all the way down to Greg Bahnsen and R.J. Rushdooney. One of the main reasons that I picked up this book is that I could not find a book that has attempted such a large venture and the author should be commended for such a work. The author does a good job of defining what he means when he interprets what Natural Law means from the historical sources he cites.

In regards to the term, "Natural Law" the book essentially defines it as the Decalogue applied to unregenerate man being made in the image of God. It is vital to understand that this term has nothing to do with the Ecclesiastical part of the book (this is covered in the Two Kingdoms term), but purely in the civil realm in regards to how un-generate man can rule the civil realm in righteousness and justice. This presents a problem from the Christian Reformed position in that the assertion has always been that although man has been created in the image of God, man is dead in trespasses and sins. This is no problem when it comes to the doctrine of the church, but with this book the position is negated when it comes to the civil realm and the "Natural Law" of man.  The author claims early in the book that he's not trying to defend the position in the book, but merely to express what the historical Reformed Christian position has been on the subject. If you do read this book you will begin to see that the author holds to the actual premise that he's attempting to demonstrate: that the Reformed position is providing chapter by chapter is the correct one and deviations from this are wrong and heretical.

The second motif in the book has to do with the Two Kingdoms. This is where the role of the church and the role of the state is expounded from the historical Reformed Christian sources he documents. The author seems to handle this in a more consistent way until towards the end of the book when he discusses Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. It's the classic position where the church operates in it's own sphere of church doctrine and discipline and the state (civil polity) operates in its own realm in governing and legislating according to it's own doctrines and precepts. The author essentially puts Christ Kingdom into two domains: Christ as Creator and Christ as Redeemer. The domain of Christ as creator is argued to mean that Christ governs the civil realm as Creator along with the providence he gives to unregenerate man through natural law and the other domain being Christ as Redeemer where he rules and governs his church by His Word. Natural Law is the link in the authors chain as to how he justifies these two kingdoms.

A key and problematic theme that is recognized in the book is an appeal to pagan authors and authorities more so on the Natural Law side than the Two Kingdom side, but one that is most disturbing. There's even a section in the book where the author appears to be passively mocking those that would have God's law as the standard in the civil realm as 'Biblicists'. This seems to me to be most disturbing given his Reformed Christian presuppositions.
I did find it interesting on his response to Bahnsen's theonomic position, but then again it aligns with the whole argument of leaving sinful man to rule the civil realm and only expecting the regenerate in Christ to rule the ecclesiastical realm. You will also find in this book that when it came to the Reformed tradition actually executing their presuppositions that the author articulates various consistencies come to light. He highlights some of this in Calvin's Geneva with the execution of Servetus being the best use case against the authors position since he was executed for an ecclesiastical charge and not one bound in the law of the civil realm at that time.


Concluding the book is a good survey of the historical Reformed position on the two areas of Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, but the premise that this position is correct or even consistent for that matter is questionable. As a Reformed Christian, I believe the Reformers were spot on in regards to the various doctrines of the church that they expounded and fought for, I just don't think their position in the civil realm has been consistent for biblically driven enough to warrant the position that the author assumes. If the Scriptures are to be the only rule for faith in life, this includes the civil as well as the ecclesiastical realm.

Pushing The Antithesis - Part 3 - Defining Worldviews

The third part of the series has to do with as the title suggests, defining worldviews. The actual definition for what a worldview is plays a critical role in understanding the presuppositions one brings to the table for interpreting reality, knowledge, and ethics.
One of the reoccurring themes you will notice through this blog series is Bahnsen's emphasis on the myth of neutrality. This becomes even more apparent when defining what a worldview actually is. In each of the major domains of a worldview you must assert truth's in each area and this itself removes the option of neutrality. An assertion has only a binary conclusion; true or false.
Bahnsen defines a worldview as:

"A worldview is a network of presuppositions(which are not verified by the procedures of natural science) regarding reality(metaphysics), knowing(epistemology), and conduct(ethics) in terms of which every element of human experience is related and interpreted."
Another quote worth providing is viewing the Christian faith as a complex system:
"We must recognize that the Christian faith is a complex system of mutually-supported, interwined beliefs filling out a broader interdependent worldview."

Like in Systems Engineering each component affects the overall health of the whole system, so each element of a worldview affects that worldview as a whole. Each subcomponent functions as a link in the chain and if one link is inconsistent with the others the system will break down. The Christian faith is no different, which is why the Bible must be the only rule for faith, life, and apologetics, otherwise Christianity will self-destruct on the sand of human autonomy.

Recommended Reading

Bahnsen, Greg, "Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator"
Hurd, Wesley, "Me and my Worldview"
Moore, T.M., "Beyond Creation vs. Evolution: Taking the Full Measure of the Materialist Challenge"
Nickel, James, "Mathematics: Is God Silent?"

Stump, James, "Science, Metaphysics, and Worldviews"

Pushing The Antithesis - Part 2 - Destroying Philosphical Fortresses

The second part of the series has to do with taking down philosophical fortresses. Although we have not covered chapter 3 on worldviews you may consider this prep work as a number of principles will nicely lead into the next series.
Try to understand why the unbelieving mind is hostile to the Christian worldview; understand why no one can be neutral and still remain philosophically consistent; what is meant by the "noetic" effects of sin.

The main points to be observed from this chapter are:

• Factually we must recognize that the unbeliever is not neutral.
• Morally, we must understand that the believer should not be neutral.
• Any claim to neutrality is a pretense, and it is philosophically impossible.
• "Noetic" is derived from the Greek word, nous, which means "mind".
• This is one aspect of the doctrine of "total depravity", which declares that the fall reaches deep down into a man's very being, even to his mind, and his reasoning faculties.
• The world and the universe do not operate randomly by blind chance or under their own inherent power.
• In fact, you will even give account for every "idle word" that you speak (Matt 12:36).
• None of your words is neutral; each one is subject to God's evaluative judgement.
• We are not saying unbelievers "know nothing." We are saying that they do not know anything "truly," because they do not recognize the most fundamental reality: All facts are God-created facts, not brute facts.

Recommended Reading

Flashing, Sarah J., "The Myth of Secular Neutrality: Unbiased Bioethics?"
Kruger, Michael J., "The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics"
Oliphant, Scott, "The Noetic Effects of Sin"

Woodward, Thomas E., "Staring Down Darwinism: A Book Review"

Pushing the Antithesis - Part 1: The Myth of Neutrality

I had acquired through a friend on Twitter, a copy of Greg Bahnsen's, "Pushing the Antithesis". As such I have decided to publish a blog post for each chapter. This is the first of twelve blog posts. Each post will consist of some key bullet points along with some recommend reading links where available.
As the chapter title suggests, Dr. Bahnsen puts to bed the supposed "neutrality" that anyone has let along the Christian.

The main points to be observed from this chapter are:

• This "neutral" approach is neither biblical nor effective.
• Christians must not set aside their faith commitment even temporarily in an attempt to approach the unbeliever on "neutral ground".
• If you don't start with God as your basic assumption, you can't prove anything./
• The assumption of God's existence required to all reasoning.
• Evolution theory is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern though and experience.
• Modern education is effectively subliminal advertising for atheism.
• The university and the media supposedly encourage neutrality by urging tolerance of all views.
• But we are all aware that the Christian view is seldom given equal tolerance.
• The Christian who strives for neutrality unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith.
• Simply put, you cannot adopt a position of neutrality toward God if you are to remain faithful to Christ.
• The Bible claims infallible and obligatory authority which demands commitment to its truth claims.
• Such neutrality actually amounts to skepticism regarding the existence of God and the authority of His Word.
• He (Satan) suggested that she must remain neutral in order to decide who was right, God or Satan. She did not accept God's word as authoritative and conclusive, but as a true neutralist, determined for herself which option to take. (Gen 3:4-6)
• Robert South (1634-1716) said, "He who would fight the devil with his own weapons, must not wonder if he finds himself over matched."
• Van Til - "there simply is no presupposition-free and neutral way to approach reasoning."
• A true biblical apologetic does not set aside Christ from our hearts, but sets apart Christ in our hearts.

Recommended Reading

Bahnsen, Greg L., Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
Demar, Gary, Thinking Straight in a Crooked World: A Christian Defense Manual

Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr., Defending the Faith: An Introduction to Biblical Apologetics

Declaration of Independence - Whose God?

In the US Declaration of Independence there is a reference that our rights come from our Creator:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The problem is who do they actually mean by "Creator". The three major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all assert to the Old Testament God as Creator narrative in Genesis. The term is too ambiguous to determine which.

This is the problem when you try to defend the Declaration of Independence as receiving our rights from our Creator, because the term itself is not defined in the midst of a pluralistic religious environment, which at the time was the 13 colonies.

So if the nation was essentially "Christian" why did, "Jesus Christ" not appear in the declaration to remove the ambiguity? Well, you have to look at Thomas Jefferson's view on Christianity.

Jefferson was a deist who: "Though he had a lifelong esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor in the divinity of Jesus."  The last part is the key; since he did not believe in the divinity of Christ, it would not make any sense for him to assert the term "Creator" with the person of Christ.

So when we attempt to use the Declaration of Independence as a proof text for our rights coming from God, although true within the biblical Christian worldview, just remember it's Jefferson's concept of "Creator" that is referenced that is anything but biblical.

Willie Robertson's Doctrine of Scripture

Recently I and my wife watched a move on Netflix titled, "God's Not Dead".  The main premise of the movie centers around a philosophy course at a secular college where the professor asks each student to write the words, "God is dead" on a blank piece of paper. One student who is a Christian refuses to sign the paper to his atheist professors dismay.

The plot then builds up to where the professor gives the student an opportunity to make his arguments for why he thinks God is not dead and in fact does exist. There are a few other subplots going on that involve other Christians and the struggles they face when the ones close to them to not share their new worldview.

One of the characters is a liberal reporter who ends up stalking Willie & Korie Robertson to try and trip them up. Then Willie Robertson says something after he quotes a verse from the Bible that includes the words of Christ, Willie says, "Now those words are in red so they are really important."

What Willie Robertson is saying is that Jesus' words that are typically found in a red font in most bibles have a much higher degree of importance than the words of scripture that do not. It's important to understand the significance of this distinction as it essentially undermines the inspiration of scripture.

The apostle Paul writing to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Now it has to be given that at the time that this was written the Old Testament is what was being referenced as the New Testament canon had not yet been finalized and sanctioned by the church. Notice he makes no distinctions in which he very easily could have. It would be like Paul giving preference to the versus where "Thus sayeth the Lord...", but he doesn't. Why?

Because he knows especially as a recovering pharisee that the entire library of scripture is the word of God and not just specific sections.

There are some logical implications if one adopts Willie Robertson's fragmented view of scripture; Jesus never said that his mother was a virgin when she conceived him. Does this mean since he didn't say it that we should take the gospel account with a low confidence level? Of course not, but if we take Willie Robertson's view of scripture you have no option but to question the portion of scripture that are in black font.

Warfield's Apologetic Error

One of the most important aspects of any aspect of Christianity is that it is itself a complete system. Try to isolate any one component from the system and the same is no longer consistent.

We see good example of this expounded by Greg Bahnsen in his book on Van Til's apologetic in regards to B.B.Warfields method of apologetics: "We thus see two things about the philosophical (epistomological) perspective which Warfield encouraged the apologist to take: it should be (1) outside of a commitment to Scripture and (2) in agreement with the right reason of the unbeliever-in a word, autonomous."

 Here we see two grave mistakes; one in that God's authoritative word is not relevant at the outset of our dialogue with the unbeliever and two that Scriptures themselves must bow down to the rationality of the unbeliever before they can be accepted. So right out of the gate the Christian apologist who takes this approach is already defeated since the whold foundation for which he/she stands (The Holy Scriptures) is removed as a foundational basis for the apologetic and therefore it's just a matter of whose rationality is more convincing. I hope you can see another danger in this approach and that this approach is reduced to mere opinion and probability among may ideas. Of course this will fail from a pure reasoning standpoint with the unbeliever, because the unbeliever has become vain in his reasoning (Romans 1:21), and he cannot receive the things of the Spirit, because they are foolishness. (I Cor 2:14) Let us remember that apologetics just like theology, evanlgelism, and philosophy are all part of a single system derived from the single authoratitive source of God's Word.

Source of Quote: Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen

Christian Apologetics - Interpretation of Facts

From Van Tils Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen:

As Van Til goes on to say, if one does not begin with some such general truths (universals) with which to understand the particular observations in one's experience, those factual particulars would be unrelated and uninterpretable -i.e., "brute". In a chance universe, all particular facts would be random, have no classifiable identity, bear no predetermined order or relation and thus be unintelligible to man's mind.

I recently ran across what I consider a good use case for applying this principle of Christian apologetic's; On the Reformed Theology G+ forum someone posted the following question: Do you accept the idea of objective morality? If so, what is your criteria for morality that isn't subjective (open to interpretation)?

Christianity asserts that it is the law of God as revealed in the Bible. This is not a subjective response as it's an assertion of worldview and is not bound in a single subject or a few peoples opinion. We can also not treat the question of morality as say the shooting average of Lebron James. The rules of interpretation of shooting averages facts do not conflict with opposing worldviews, but of a basic understanding of mathematics.

When we interpret the facts of morality we are dealing with transcendence in that the object is not bound by space or time. For the non-theist that believes everything is essentially 'matter in motion' this is antithetical to his presuppositions for which he interprets reality.

So it's not simply a matter of providing an argument that isn't open to interpretation, but comes down to how one interprets the facts for which they are observing. And the method of interpretation is driven by their presuppositions.

Assurance is not for Arminians

I have been reading through Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth and the book has been focusing a lot on the doctrine of assurance and thought I would share some tid bits.
“This precious ruth thus proved, looks sourly and wishly upon all those that affirm that believers cannot in this life attain unto a certain well-grounded assurance of their everlasting happiness and blessedness, as papists and Arminians; all know that know their writings and teachings, that they are in arms against this Christ-exalting, and soul-cheering doctrine of assurance. ‘I know no such thing as assurance of heaven in this life’, saith Grevinchovius the Arminian. Assurance is a pearl that they trample under feet; it is a beam of heaven that hath so much light, brightness, and shining glory in it, that their blear-eyes cannot behold it.” “Arminians are not ashamed to say, that God may crown a man one hour, and uncrown him in the next.”

So we see in this excerpt from Mr. Brooks work that what the Arminian professes is actually antithetical to the gospel and brings if not bad news, then most certainly questionable news. From this we can see why the Roman Catholic church places such emphasis on purgatory; they have no hope of assurance without a meritorious work of penance that cannot ever be met since only Christ was sinless to pay the offenses against an infinite God would take an infinite amount of time to satisfy and that would never bet met and hence no hope at all. What saith the scripture? In John 10:29, Christ says, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” Notice that Christ assures the believer that salvation is not dependent upon the believer in that God’s electing purposes take precedence over man’s efforts to earn salvation. This does not make man an autonomous robot requiring no action on his part; it just means that God’s grace is sufficient to secure the believers position in Christ.

Let the reader consider.

The Ministry of the Holy Spirit

I’m currently in the process of reading Richard Baxter’s, A Christian Directory and I came across 10 things that he outlines in the book that I thought I would share:

(1) That the Holy Ghost, as given since the ascension of Christ, is his agent on earth, or his advocate with men;

(2) This Holy Spirit, so sent, infallibly inspired the holy apostles and evangelists, first to preach, and then to write the doctrine of Christ, contained in the Holy Scriptures.

(3) This same Spirit in them, sealed this holy doctrine, and the testimony of these holy men, by many miracles and wonderful gifts, by the which they did actually convince the unbelieving world, and plant the churches.

(4) The same Spirit(having first by the apostles, given a law or canon to the universal church, constituting its offices and the duty of the officers and the manner of their entrance) doth qualify and dispose men for the stated, ordinary ministerial work, (which is to explain and apply the foresaid Scriptures,) and directeth those that are to ordain and choose them (they being not wanting on their part); and so he apppointeth pastors to the church. (Ephesians 3: 2-4) (Ephesians 3:8,13).

(5) The same Spirit assisteth the ministers to teach and apply the holy Scriptures according to the necessities of the people, the weight of the matter, and the majesty of the word of God.

(6) The same Spirit doth by this word(heard or read) renew and sanctify the souls of the elect; illuminating their minds, opening and quickening their hearts, prevailing with, changing, and resolving their wills, thus writing God’s word, and imprinting his image by his word upon their hearts, making it powerful to conquer and cast out their stronge st, sweetest, dearest sins, and bringing them to the saving knowledge, love, and obedience of God in Jesus Christ. See Acts xxvi.

(7) The same Holy Spirit assisteth the sanctified in the exercise of this grace, to the increase of it, by blessing and concurring with the means appointed appointed by him to that end: and helpeth them to use those means , perform those duties , conquer temptations, oppositionss and difficulties, and so confirmeth and preserveth them to the end.

(8) The same Spirit helpeth believers, in the exercise of grace, to feel it, and discern the sincerity of it in themselves, in that measure as they are meet for, and in those seasons when it is fittest for them.

(9) The same Spirit helpeth them hereupon to conclude that they are justified and reconciled to God, and have right to all the benefits of his covenant.

(10) Also, he assisteth them actually to rejoice in the discerning of this conclusion. For though reason of itself may do something of itself in these acts, yet so averse is man to all that is holy, and so many are the difficulties and hinderences in the way that to the effectual performance, the help of the Spirit of God is necessary.

Christians: Check your Inputs

I’m kind of into the Puritans. I have been studying a lot on them recently and has indeed been a blessing. One thing I have noticed with them that I think can be applied to the 21st century Christian is a technical term I’m going to use that references a method for preventing bad things from happening with software. In computer programming there’s concept known as a “Buffer Overflow”. What this basically means is that if a computer program was expecting to get 1 quart of water and someone supplied 2 or more quarts the computer memory essentially gets overwritten and bad stuff can happen. Trust me.

So how does this relate to Christianity? Well think of Christianity as a computer program. Don’t call me a heretic, but it is a system that we are convicted of as being true. Nevertheless, you as a Christian(if you are one) are fed with various inputs such as: Material wealth, power, lust, greed, gluttony, and wrath. Isn’t it funny how all of these are promoted if you turn on your T.V.? I’m going to narrow my scope to these items to keep this post short. Well what happens when you receive those inputs? Bad stuff. The Puritans spoke about something called the “Ordered Life”. They basically planned ahead of time what they were going to do throughout a given day or week. Part of this included excluding elements that were contrary to the fruit of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:22-23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”

So bottom line, check your inputs Christians and if they’re not compliant with the Word of God, remove that object as a future input. Better to go to heaven lame, then for your whole body to be delivered to hell.

The Healthy Christian

“The healthy Christian knows his frailty and suspects and distrusts himself, lest sin and Satan should be ensnaring him unawares; therefore he regularly grills himself before God, scrutinizing his deeds and motives and ruthlessly condemning himself when he finds within himself moral deficiency and dishonesty… The healthy Christian is not necessarily the extrovert, ebullient Christian, but the Christian who has a sense of God’s presence stamped deep on his soul, who trembles at God’s Word, who lets it dwell richly in him by constant meditation upon it, and who tests and reforms his life daily in response to it…

Does not this emphasis on constant self-suspicion and self-examination actually weaken faith, by diverting our gaze from Christ in his fullness to ourselves in our emptiness, so leading us to spiritual despondency and depression? No doubt it would if it were made an end in itself; but, of course, it never was. The Puritans ripped up consciences in the pulpit [particularly applying the law and exposing the pride of the human heart] and urged self-trial in the closet only in order to drive sinners to Christ and to teach them to live by faith in him.”

J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness – the Puritan View of the Christian Life, pp. 116 & 117

Thoughts on Christian Election

(1) Ephesians 1:4 “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love”

(2) Ephesians 1:8 “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinedaccording to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,”

---

I’m currently engaged in bible study on the book of Romans. The subject of election came up and the question arose that if God predestines those who will come to saving knowledge of Christ, why is there a need to evangelize? I mean if Christians do believe that God is sovereign over all then there really should not be a need for us to preach the gospel, is there?

This view is known as Hyper-Calvinism and the view in my opinion is unbiblical and I will work to expound why I think this is so.

I. As our two introductory verses show, God does predestine and elect his saints to salvation to a saving knowledge of his Son. This by implication means that he chooses some and passes over others. The Apostle Paul shows the folly of this view in Romans 10:14:

“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”

The fact of the matter is that even the elect in the visible church do not know who the elect are or will be. Sure there may be some strong evidences in the fruit that believers do and should produce, but only the Holy, Immutable will of God knows who in the end who will be elected.

II. God uses the means of human beings preaching the Gospel to other human beings to bring the elect into the sheepfold. I strongly this is why Paul warns about tolerating any other gospel than the one preached as he warned the Galatians who were already backsliding:

Galatians 1:8: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

So in this verse we see a grave warning even to the situation with the gospel in America in the 21st century; To pervert the gospel of Christ in anyway is to join ranks with the devil to undermine and scatter the sowing of Christ into the hearts of men, woman, and children. To do this to bring the wrath of God down upon the souls engaged in a most abhorrent procedure.

Let the christian reader beware and guard the gospel of Christ with great care.

Share this:

• Share

Holy Violence in the Christian Life

I just finished reading Thomas Watsons’ “Taking Heaven by Storm” and I must say it was a great book. I felt as though Watson pierced my heart with his words. What I wanted to do is to share some notes I took from the book with commentary where I felt inspired.

“Truth is the best flower in the churches crown” This quote made me stop and reflect on what this really means. In our culture all truth is considered relative with no absolute truth that can be expounded. The truth is not some novel concept, but it is a person and that person is Jesus Christ!

Holy Violence
Holy violence implies 3 things:
(1) Resolution of the will – Encounter the way to heaven as a resolute commander who charges through the whole body of the army. Where there is this resolution, danger must be despised, difficulties trampled down, and terrors condemned.

(2) Vigor of affections – The affections are on fire in passionate longings for heaven.

(3) Strength of endeavor – This violence implies strength of endeavor. We must put all of our strength and call in the help of heaven to this work.

Reading and Hearing of the Word
We must provoke ourselves to the reading of the Word. Below are nine maxims for accomplishing this task:

(1) Read the Word as a book made by God Himself.

(2) Read the Word as a perfect rule of faith.

(3) When you read the Word look on it as a soul enriching treasury.

(4) Read the Word as a book of evidences.

(5) Look upon the Word as a spiritual magazine, out of which you fetch all your weapons to fight against sin and Satan.

(6) Look upon the Word as a spiritual glass to dress yourselves by.

(7) Look upon the Word as a book of spiritual remedies.

(8) Read the Word as the last will and testament of Jesus Christ.

(9) Read the Word as a book by which you must be judged.

Meditations

(1) Meditate seriously upon the corruption of your own nature.

(2) Meditate seriously upon the death and passion of Christ.

(3) Meditate on your evidences for heaven.

(4) Meditate upon the uncertainty of all sublunary comforts.

(5) Meditate on God’s severity against sin.

(6) Meditate on eternal life.

Knowledge of God According to Rome

Section I, Part III, Number 36 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding the knowledge of God:

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

The first thing that you should note is the authority by which the statement is made. Not by the Holy Word of God, but by the church. Second that God can be known strictly by the created order in the universe. Third, they state that if this were not so, conversion would not be possible, since man is created in the image of God.

I agree that every human being is created in the image of God, but that due to the fall of Adam, man is dead in his transgressions. As the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 2:5:

Eph 2:5 “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved–”

So we see from God’s Holy Word that even though the light of nature reveals the glory of God, the natural man cannot and will not respond since he’s dead in his sins. The only way for a dead man to respond is to be resurrected by the Spirit of God unto salvation.