Showing posts with label Salvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salvation. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Podcast: Re: A Roman Catholic YouTuber

In this episode, we offer a response to four YouTube videos by Adam Charles Hovey, a Roman Catholic defending his church's doctrine. Topics range from confession, to the Eucharist, to faith alone, to the topic of assurance of salvation.



This link takes you to Mister Hovey's YouTube video page.

This link goes to the podcast episode on John 6 and whether or not it teaches the Eucharist.

This link takes you to a blog post where James 2 is discussed.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Podcast: Re: Are You Saved?

Ever heard someone say to you "I was saved, I'm being saved, and I hope to be saved"? We  review that sort of response in the latest podcast, in which we review an Eastern Orthodox response by Molly Sabourin to the question, "Are you saved?"

Monday, July 1, 2013

The Most Important Thing a Christian Should Know

Imagine in your head that it's World War II, and the Normandy beachhead is about to be invaded. A plane carrying elements of the 82nd Airborne is flying over the drop zones, and the soldiers are preparing to leap out. Then, two soldiers engage in a conversation.

"Do you think your chute will open?" says the first one.

The second shrugs, "I hope so."

The first one is taken aback by this, and he asks, "Do you know how to open your chute?"

"No."

"Do you know how to guide yourself after it's opened?"

"Nope."

"Do you know how to land when you get to the ground?"

"I couldn't tell you. But I hope things work out!"

Imagine all that unfolding...what would you make of it? You would probably imagine the second soldier was foolish, or at fault for not doing his homework. You would have figured someone doing something as important as jumping from a plane would have done just a little bit more research for assurance. You would think that, of all topics an airborne soldier would need to know, how to handle your parachute should have been top of his priorities.

And yet, many Christians are this exact same way in regards to their salvation.

I have met many who called themselves Christians and yet only had a vague idea of their salvation. Ask them what scripture teaches on salvation, and they'll tell you, "I don't know." Ask them how their salvation functions in relation to God, and they'll say, "I don't know." Ask them if they're saved, and they'll say, "I hope so." The importance of the matter seems completely lost on them.

Folks, the fact of the matter is that salvation is important. Eternity is a long time. When you are resurrected, there will be no second chance to do some studying and make certain you truly were saved, just as there is no second chance to make certain your parachute works once you jump out of an airplane. If you are in this camp of "I hope I'm saved," I would strongly encourage you to take this time now to study what scripture teaches about salvation - not just how to be saved but what happens after you are saved. It is the most important thing you will ever study, and will carry the greatest benefits. You will find that you will have great assurance, and receive comfort. You will have no doubt that, once you jump out of that plane, your chute will indeed open.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

John Bunyan and Perseverance of the Saints

The following is from John Bunyan's masterful work Pilgrim's Progress.
Then I saw in my dream, that the Interpreter took Christian by the hand, and led him into a place where was a fire burning against a wall, and one standing by it, always casting much water upon it, to quench it; yet did the fire burn higher and hotter.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This fire is the work of grace that is wrought in the heart; he that casts water upon it, to extinguish and put it out, is the devil: but in that thou seest the fire, notwithstanding, burn higher and hotter, thou shalt also see the reason of that. So he had him about to the back side of the wall, where he saw a man with a vessel of oil in his hand, of the which he did also continually cast (but secretly) into the fire.

Then said Christian, What means this?

The Interpreter answered, This is Christ, who continually, with the oil of his grace, maintains the work already begun in the heart; by the means of which, notwithstanding what the devil can do, the souls of his people prove gracious still (2 Cor. 12:9). And in that thou sawest that the man stood behind the wall to maintain the fire; this is to teach thee, that it is hard for the tempted to see how this work of grace is maintained in the soul. [source]

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Questions on Salvation

On an internet forum, I had responded to some questions concerning salvation, and I decided to repost it here on my blog. The questions asked are the ones in bold.
What do you have to do to be saved?
Let's make something clear: the act of salvation is the work of God. Paul states in Romans 3 that there are no righteous, no not one, and all have fallen short of the glory of God (v. 10 and 23); he likewise states in Ephesians 2 that we are dead men and (literally in the Greek) "objects of wrath" before God (v. 1-3). What happens then is a regeneration of our heart - as Paul said: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:5). While we were dead, God made us alive - God had to raise us spiritually in order for us to be saved, hence sola gratia. This regeneration causes a person to confess faith in God, as the apostle John wrote:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jn 1:12-13]
A lot of people like to quote v. 12 and forget what happens in v. 13: the apostle clarifies that a person is not a child of God because they were born by blood (that is, you're saved because you're a Jew, or because you're in a Christian family), nor by the will of flesh (that is, your works), nor by the will of man (that is, your own individual will to believe), but you are born of God - that is, by God's will. This is what our Lord meant when he told Nicodemus one had to be "born again" to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3). We owe nothing to ourselves and all to God the Father and the atoning work of Christ - soli deo gloria and solus christus.

Now one thing we have seen here likewise is the importance of faith. When we turn to Christ, we are justified by his blood through our faith, and we are counted as righteous in Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Ro 4:4-5).
Once you are saved, does that mean that you're automatically going to heaven?
Those who are God's sheep will never be lost, as Christ said:
"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." [Jn 10:28-29]
The apostle Paul likewise wrote:
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Ro 8:31-39]
Now if by "automatically going to heaven" you mean that's it, you got your ticket punched and you're going to heaven no matter what you do, even if it's murder, then that's wrong. People often confuse the doctrine of OSAS with Perseverance of the Saints, but they're not the same. Perseverance does not mean you're clear to go no matter what: part of the perseverance is that you will be sanctified more and more by God, approaching closer and closer that state of glory - you'll never be sinless, but more and more you'll find you can sin less. A lot of people like to quote Philippians 2:12, but can't seem to grasp that it's only half a sentence. The full passage from Paul reads:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Php 2:12-13]
Yes, after being saved, we do things for our betterment or to show we are saved (as a pastor of mine once said, we're not "chosen to be frozen"), but it's not because of something we have to do or something we are capable of doing - it's because God is working within us and perfecting us, and He will see this through. As the apostle Paul said: "he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6).
What if you commit a mortal sin after you are saved?
A Christian is judged by their fruits - a person who has a heart regenerated towards God will not go out and seek to kill someone, or steal a car, or the like. He might have those temptations, he might come close, but as seen before, God will preserve him from all acts that would violate this.

I know it's not popular for some to suggest that a statement of faith can be false, or that we can judge whether or not a person is truly saved, but I believe this to be scriptural. The Lord speaks of those who call him "Lord, Lord," and yet were never known by him (Mt 7:22-23). If you study the language the apostle John uses against Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11) and Jude uses against the heretics and false teachers (Jude 1:17-21), you'll see they are questioning whether or not the individuals were truly Christians to begin with.
I am getting confused. Does the person have a choice in the matter? Do they only choose once?
If by choice you mean the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism where God gives a general offer and a person, by their own power, chooses, then no. If you mean does man do anything, then yes, but it is only by the grace of God. As Paul said in Ephesians 2, we are dead men before regeneration - it is God who brings us to life, not ourselves. However, once we are regenerated, then we turn and come to Christ, and are kept preserved by him. As the Lord said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). In the original Greek, it literally reads "no one has the power to come to me," and the drawing is not a passive thing, but is an effectual calling upon the person (the word literally means "dragging"), and the end result is that, on the last day, that person is raised up.

I'm not quite certain I know what you mean by "only choose once." A person repents and puts their faith in Christ only once, yes, though they will continue to turn to Christ for repentance and strength their entire life - again, an aspect of the "perseverance." They rest in the knowledge that they have a high priest who "always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). 

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Did Lazarus contribute?

Did Lazarus contribute to his being raised? Was he the deciding factor in it happening? That some believe so has often astounded me. I was going to write a post on this, but instead I'll let someone else have a say at it and just engage with any conversation that gets started.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Happy Birthday, Jonathan Edwards!

Today is the 309th anniversary of the birth of my favorite theologian, Jonathan Edwards. So, to celebrate, here's an excerpt from his book A History of the Work of Redemption.
God’s disappointing the design of building the city and tower of Babel belongs to the great work of redemption. For that was undertaken in opposition of this great building of God of which we are speaking. Men’s going about to build such a city and tower was an effect of the corruption into which mankind were now fallen. This city and tower was set up in opposition to the city of God, as the god to whom they built it, was their pride. Being sunk into a disposition to forsake the true God, the first idol they set up in his room, was their own fame. And as this city and tower had their foundation laid in the pride and vanity of men, and the haughtiness of their minds, so it was built on a foundation exceedingly contrary to the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and his redeemed city, which has its foundation laid in humility. Therefore God saw that it tended to frustrate the design of that great building which was founded in Christ’s humiliation: and therefore the thing displeased the Lord, and he baffled and confounded the design. God will frustrate and confound all other designs, that are set up in opposition to the great work of redemption.

Isaiah ii. representing God setting up the kingdom of Christ in the world, foretells how, in order to it, he will bring down the haughtiness of men, and how the day of the Lord shall be on every high tower, and upon every fenced wall, Christ’s kingdom is established, by bringing down every high thing to make way for it, 2 Cor. x. 4, 5. “For the weapons of our warfare are mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.” What is done in a particular soul, to make way for the setting up of Christ’s kingdom, is to destroy Babel in that soul.

They intended to have built Babel up to heaven. However, that building of which we speak shall reach to heaven indeed, the highest heavens, at the end of the world, when it shall be finished: and therefore God would not suffer the building of his enemies, in opposition to it, to prosper. If they had prospered in building that city and tower, it might have kept the world of wicked men, the enemies of the church, together, as that was their design. They might have remained united in one vast, powerful city; and so have been too powerful for the city of God.

This Babel is the same with the city of Babylon; for Babylon in the original is Babel. But Babylon is always spoken of in Scripture as chiefly opposite to the city of God, as a powerful and terrible enemy, notwithstanding this great check put to the building of it in the beginning. But it probably would have been vastly more powerful, and able to vex if not to destroy the church of God, if it had not been thus checked.

Thus it was in kindness to his church, and in prosecution of the great design of redemption, that God put a stop to the building of the city and tower of Babel. [I, 3]

Friday, March 23, 2012

Random Meditations on the Trinity

The following is just a collection of meditations on the Trinity that I've had for most of the week, especially after some interesting conversations.

Do you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

This is a rather tricky question that must be first rightly phrased before it can be rightly answered. Emergents, liberals and other false teachers often attack orthodoxy by accusing Christians of teaching that you need to hold a specific set of beliefs in order to be truly saved. We recognize, however, that it is not the mere mental assent towards a deity is synonymous with salvation, for the Lord speaks of those who will call him "Lord! Lord!" on the day of judgment and yet be rejected (Matt 7:21-23), and the apostle James likewise writes: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (Jam 2:19) To say that a mere belief or adherence to a certain type of teaching will grant one salvation is at best easy believism and at worst cultism. Therefore, it is not merely an empty belief or understanding in the Trinity which gives a person salvation.

With this realized, let's transition to the more appropriate understanding of the relationship between belief and salvation. Faith, in regards to its salvific purpose, is dependent not upon the person who professes it, but upon the God who enables that person to confess it. Our blessed Lord spoke, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and the apostle Paul wrote (in an often misquoted passage), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phi 2:12-13). God enables a person to believe, and through that faith in Christ they are saved. B.B. Warfield put it perfectly when he wrote, discussing the topic of sola fide, that it is not faith in Christ which saves, but Christ who saves through faith.

Now let us turn this understanding towards our question of the Trinity and salvation. We know that mere assent to the belief in the Trinity saves no one - however, we also know that it is God's doing in the work of transforming a man's heart to believe fully in Him. If, therefore, someone denies the Trinity, then their very status of salvation is in question. Why is this? If God quickens a person, common sense begs us to understand that He quickens a person to believe towards Him and no other entity, for all other religions are the worship of demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). If we recognize that God quickens a person, and we also recognize that God would quicken a person towards Him and no other entity, then common sense will now beg us to recognize that a person quickened by God to worship Him as He is in His very state of being and in no other way. That is, a person quickened towards God will not burn incense to Hindu gods, or pray towards Mecca in allegiance to Allah and the teachings of his so-called prophet Mohammad. A person quickened towards God will recognize who God is and what His "divine make up" is. I might compare this to an orphan who meets his natural mother and father and finds out their identity; he will not give respect owed to parents to the first random person on the street, but to those whom he has discovered are his true parents.

Therefore, recognizing that if it is God who quickens a person, and that person should now submit to God alone, and that person must submit to God with an understanding of what, and not just who, God is, then a person who denies the Trinity denies what God is, and how His state of being exists, and therefore must have their salvation questioned. That is, a person who claims to be called of God and yet worships another god who is not Trinitarian in nature cannot truly have been saved, for he is directing his worship towards someone other than the true God of scripture.

Do we need to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible in order for it to be true?

A common attack by some against the Trinity is the fact that either the exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned, or that no New Testament writer ever spends time elaborating upon the Trinity in detail. Is this a fair argument? On the other hand, this argument forgets two main points:

1) This is reading backwards into history. That no one used the word "Trinity" in the New Testament is because the word came at least a century or two later, long after the time of the apostolic church and her writers. Furthermore, the word was not created to invent a doctrine, but to identify it. Note very carefully: I am not arguing for a kind of "progressive revelation" akin to the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity (rather, God's Trinitarian Being) was always present even though the term itself had not been conceived. The point we are trying to make is that we should not expect any one to use terms and phrases that did not exist at their time.

A historical example: Pliny the Younger, describing the explosion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, did not use any scientific terms, and yet his description of the explosions are so great that vulcanologists, reading it more than a millennium later, were able to identify exactly what he was describing (in fact, he described it so well they named the type of eruption after him). That Pliny did not know what to call the type of eruption does not suggest his description of it was invalid, nor that the 79 AD eruption didn't happen at all. It would be absurd to read backwards into history and demand Pliny use terminology and phrases that did not exist until long after his death.

2) The absence of a term does not imply that the definition cannot be discovered or seen. To explain this point, I often use an example from the movie The Battle of Algiers: in the movie, reporters ask the fictional Colonel Matthieu if he is torturing Algerian prisoners, to which Matthieu replies, "The word 'torture' is not written on any of our orders." Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was they were torturing prisoners. That the word "torture" was not written in the orders did not mean that torture was not happening.

The reason the word "Trinity" came into being at a later point in history was not because the doctrine in toto was being created along with the term, but rather to identify and name the doctrine that had already been known, in the same manner that the volcanic eruption was named to identify and name that which Pliny the Younger had seen.

Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

Now that we've established a word does not need to be present in order for its definition or what it describes to be seen, and that a historical label does not need to be forced backward upon a person describing said label, let us ask the basic question: does the Trinity exist in scripture? Or is the Trinity a later teaching not only in word but in definition and understanding? It is common for many people today to say that you can't prove the Trinity with scripture...and yet, this is completely and utterly false. The following are some verses I have personally discovered in my own studies (and not by running to Google, I assure you) regarding an identification of the Trinity and what roles the Trinitarian Persons play. I'll quote them and provide a brief explanation for each.
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [Matthew 3:16-17]
Here we see all three Persons of the Trinity make an appearance: the Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. There is a level of individuality seen in all of them: the Holy Spirit takes on the form of a dove, the Son is there in the flesh, and the Father is speaking as an eyewitness to the Sonship of Christ.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [Matthew 28:19]
Here, in the midst of the Great Commission, we have the command for Trinitarian baptism. Baptism, in Judaism, was always in the name of God, and indeed one would imagine that baptism should be in no other name except that of God. Yet here Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (each Person, in the original Greek, has the definite article preceding their name, emphasizing the distinction).

A person who denies this teaches the Trinity must therefore come to either one of two conclusions: Tritheism (three gods), which would contradict the monotheism of the rest of scripture; Modalism (three titles for the same god), which can be easily contradicted by other scriptures in which these persons are spoken of as distinct individuals (cf. Acts 2:26).
"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, [the Son] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." [Acts 2:33]
Here the apostle Peter, speaking to the Jews at Pentecost, explains the goings on and the source of all the wonders happening. After a lengthy discussion on the Person of Christ, Peter states that the Son has been exalted at the right hand of God, the Father, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the Son has bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the believers. Here we have an example of the "monarchical procession" of the Trinity that ancient theologians often wrote on. That is, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son upon believers. This signifies the various roles that the Trinity played at Pentecost, as well as how the Persons relate to one another: the Father bestows, the Son receives and sends, and the Holy Spirit is sent out.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [Romans 8:3-4]
Here, during Paul's great exposition on salvation, the apostle identifies the actions of the Trinitarian Person within said salvation: God the Father sent God the Son in the likeness of flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to God the Holy Spirit, who is our guide in this.
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]
Continuing his exposition on salvation, Paul states that the Holy Spirit bears witness (which is a personal action, suggesting the Holy Spirit is a Person and not a mere impersonal force) with our own spirit that we are children of God. If this is the case, Paul says, then we are heirs of God the Father, as we are fellow heirs with Christ, the Son. Thus all three Persons within the Trinity act to verify our salvation: the Holy Spirit is our witness that we are heirs with the Son, and as we are heirs with the Son, we are heirs to the Father.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. [1 Corinthians 12:4-6]
The apostle Paul begins a discussion on the unity of believers within the church despite the numerous gifts and talents. At the very beginning, Paul makes a sign of unity by turning to the Trinity itself: there are variety of gifts, but the same Spirit (who bestows those gifts); there are a variety of service, but the same Lord (who grants the ability to serve); there are a variety of activities, but the same God (that is, the Father, and who empowers those activities in believers). The roles of the Persons within the Trinity are made distinct from one another, and yet they are likewise put on the same level with one another, and unity is maintained.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [2 Corinthians 13:14]
At the conclusion of his epistle, the apostle Paul writes out a blessing to the Corinthians by naming all three Trinitarian Persons. He wishes for the Corinthian church: 1) grace from the Son; 2) love from the Father; 3) fellowship from the Holy Spirit. As with the first epistle, all three Persons are mentioned in the same train of thought.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. [Ephesians 1:13-14]
Similar to Romans 8:16-17, the apostle Paul goes into brief detail regarding the roles of the Trinitarian Persons within a believer's salvation. In Christ, the Son, believers were sealed with the promise of the Holy Spirit, who serves as our guarantee of the inheritance of the Father.
For through [the Son] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [Ephesians 2:18]
In a very blunt verse, Paul states that in the Son we have access to the Father by the Holy Spirit. The Son, of course, is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), and it is in the Holy Spirit that Christians have fellowship with one another (2 Cor 13:14).
How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. [Hebrews 2:3-4]
Writing to Jewish Christians, the writer of Hebrews (whether the reader believes it was Paul or not) asks how one can neglect so great a salvation, and then discusses how this salvation was revealed to the Jews. First, it was declared by the Lord - that is, the Son - through the ministry of Christ, which was heard by the apostles and other eyewitnesses. Second, the witness of the Father's favor in the Son was seen through the signs, wonders and miracles. Third, it was seen by the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles and early Christians as a sign to the Jews of that time. In just two verses, the writer explains how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit worked together in the exposition of salvation to early believers.
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. [Hebrews 9:14]
In the great discussion of our salvation by Christ's atonement, the same writer of Hebrews goes into a discussion on how all three Persons work in this salvation. That is, the Son (Christ), offered Himself, through the Holy Spirit, without blemish to God the Father, in order that believers may be purified and made holy to serve God.

This is just a sampling of verses wherein the Persons of the Trinity are identified, most of which also go into discussion regarding the roles of those Persons. Again, the idea that the Trinity cannot be taught or seen in scripture is simply untrue.

Should we be concerned if no one previous to the New Testament writers believed in the Trinity?

Did Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and other Old Testament personalities believe in the Trinity? Of course, men like David never wrote on the Trinity, and it's probably safe to assume that Abraham and Moses were not in full knowledge of God's true design of Being during their lifetime. Is this enough to dismiss the Trinity, however?

Obviously, we recognize that those in the Old Testament and New Testament alike worshiped the same God, and that the God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. Trinitarianism is still monotheism, and the Trinitarian nature of God does not contradict or usurp the monotheistic teachings of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God whom Abraham prayed to and the God whom Paul prayed to are one and the same God. In this regard, there is no conflict.

What we must consider, however, is that through the Old Testament there was a progression of revelation towards the Messiah and the atonement of the Messiah's people. We see this throughout the Old Testament itself. Abraham did not know anything of the Temple or its sacrifices, though Ezekiel and Jeremiah certainly did. Deborah knew of the sacrifices for atonement, but nothing of the Temple, though John the Baptist and the apostles certainly knew of both. All that God revealed, bit by bit, pointed towards Christ. They were a "shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1) until "the fullness of time" wherein God would send His Son (Gal 4:4).

Part of this revelation would be the full understanding of God's Being as being Trinitarian in function. For certain there are moments wherein the existence of coequal Persons within the Trinity are hinted at, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, where it is said that "the LORD rained...sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24), or the psalm of David where he writes "the LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...'" (Psa 110:1). However, the truest revelation of God's Trinitarian Being would be in the time New Testament period, with the incarnation of the Son and the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the church. Everything from Genesis to Revelation is about the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of God's glory in His death and resurrection.

Therefore, it should not surprise us that no one previous to the New Testament spoke on the Trinity any more than it should surprise us that Abraham knew nothing of the Temple and its sacrifices. This does not, however, denote that the Trinity is created. God revealed forward, and the apex of this revelation was in the Trinitarian revelation of the New Testament, where the Father would send the Son to willingly give His life in the cross that, with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we may have forgiveness of sins and become fellow heirs with the Son to the inheritance of the Father.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Law, Righteousness and Salvation

Perhaps some of the main differences between universalism (everyone goes to heaven), inclusivism (some non-Christians will go to heaven) and exclusivism (salvation in Christ alone) rests both in the place of God's Law and Christ's Righteousness.

I created a diagram to explain this further:
Universalism excludes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. Some universalists might argue that Christ's righteousness covers mankind in toto and for this reason all go to heaven, but this contradicts the teaching of scripture that eternal life is dependent upon belief in Christ (John 3:16). Some universalists will likewise propose some level of God's Law - or at least some social standard for individuals to follow. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) it is no longer a standard of righteousness, but rather a therapeutic moral code of ethics; 2) the idea of a consequence-free afterlife makes any reason for morals in this life absolutely senseless. That is, why avoid being a Heinrich Himmler and shoot for being an Oscar Schindler if both Schindler and Himmler will, in the end, both be in heaven?

Inclusivism might include God's Law, but does not depend on Christ's righteousness. It recognizes that God has a standard and a set rule of morality and ethics, but that nothing else is needed of others to obtain salvation. If a person is "good," then it is possible for them to be considered saved and enter into heaven upon death. Therefore, whereas inclusivists may follow through the works of the Law, they will stop short at the righteousness of Christ. However, this seems to forget that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), and that all our good deeds "are like a filthy garment" (Isa 64:6). The point of the Law is to "shut up everyone under sin," so that none may consider themselves righteous before God, and "so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal 3:22). As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), there is none on earth who is without need of Christ's righteousness. Some inclusivists might argue that God may choose to bestow His righteousness upon unbelievers by His own mercy, but this thinking suffers in a few points:

1) No where in scripture does it say God has any obligation to save anyone outside of faith. Bringing unrepentant sinners into a state of repentance is enough of a sign of His mercy.

2) This ignores the constant teaching of scripture, which states that it is in faith by which we receive our righteousness. Those outside of faith are condemned already because they are outside of faith and still live in their sins (cf. John 3:18), and it is only "those who are in Christ Jesus" who are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). Righteousness is given through faith, and the righteousness of Christ is solely conditional upon faith.

Exclusivism includes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. We are saved by Christ alone for the glory of God alone. This salvation is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is that righteousness "apart from the Law," which is only "through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:21-22). Christ told His followers:
I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. [John 15:5-6]
Man left on his own is helpless without God. No one will be in hell simply because they did not meet a set of beliefs - but rather, they will be in hell for their sins. However, with Christ, the sacrifice for our sins and the only righteous man to ever live, we are able to stand before the Father and be considered sons in adoption.

Of course the world, as a whole, does not care for exclusivism, as the very name sounds like something with prejudice or bias. The world at large wants us to believe in universalism, whereas most liberal Christians think only someone with a closed mind would reject inclusivism. Nonetheless, exclusivism is simply another word for the biblical teachings of salvation. Many times in Acts and the epistles, salvation is always conditional upon the words "in Christ." Always, always "in Christ." There is no other way to describe the focal point of salvation except "in Christ."

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Slippery Slope of Works Salvation

One of the most difficult topics in terms of daily Christian life is the place of works. Are we supposed to do works? Are we to exclude works? Most of all, how does God respond to our works? A common conception these days is that man must do something to please God, lest they lose God's favor. In this mindset, works are what we do to maintain our salvation and receive blessings from God.

The main issue with this mindset is that it becomes a bargaining with God: because we did A, God will do B. Asides from the fact that this turns salvation and worship into tit-for-tat, it almost makes it seem as if God owes us something. In fact, I recall watching Trinity Broadcasting Network and hearing as a host came very close to outright saying, "When we pray for something, we put God on the spot." Rick Warren, during his lecture at the Desiring God conference earlier this year, continually worded his advice to young pastors along the lines of, "If you do this, God will do this for you." Maybe about a year ago, I spoke to a woman who believed that because she tithed a full 10% every Sunday, God was faithful to her and had blessed her, and seemed to hint that if she stopped doing so then God would not be as faithful as He had been before.

Judging from these various examples, works salvation can be summed up in this manner: we do, so God must do as well. Some have even suggested that if we don't do (that is, fail even a little in our obligations), we lose our salvation.

This line of thinking is, in fact, very unscriptural.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness [Romans 4:1-5; NASB]
Our justification before God is not because of something we do, as Paul emphasizes here. The one who does work does not receive a reward but what is simply due to them. That is, when we go to our job and do what our employers expect of us, our paycheck is not a gift but what we're expecting to get for it. Our employers do not give us our paycheck because they love us unconditionally, but because we have offered our services and so they, by legal binding, must comply with the paycheck for which we worked. Unfortunately, this is how many Christians perceive their works to be: we go to church, we pray, we read the Bible so that at the end of our lifetime shift God will say, "OK, good job, here you go." Rather, it is a gift given to us without any merit on our part other than faith.

Within scripture, a very different scheme is found, one which involves two key grammatical concepts: indicatives and imperatives. An indicative is precisely what it sounds to mean: it indicates something is or something has happened. An imperative often denotes a command; it means something that must happen. Many who remember my review of The Shack may recall that I pointed out that Christ's command to repent in Matthew 4:17 was an imperative in the original Greek. It was not an indicative, where a person could freely decide if they want to repent or not with no consequences - rather, it was a command that demanded a response with consequences for the wrong decision.

In scripture, especially in the epistles where the plan of salvation has already been carried out and is now being seen in practice, a familiar pattern arises with these terms: indicative first, imperative second. To give one example, from Colossians 3:1:
(Indicative) Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ...

(Imperative) ...keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
Note the order: because you have been raised with Christ, you must keep seeking the things above. It does not say, "If you keep seeking the things above, you will be raised with Christ." The believer justified by God has already been raised - the "seeking the things above" is simply a sign that they have been raised.

To again turn to Colossians 3, this time verses 12 and 13:
(Indicative) So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved...

(Imperative) ...put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone...

(Indicative) ...just as the Lord forgave you...

(Imperative) ...so also should you.
Note again, in the first example from the verses, that we don't put on a heart of compassion, etc., in the hopes of being chosen by God, but because we are the chosen of God. That is: because we are the chosen of God, we must put on a heart of compassion, etc. Note also the second example from these two verses, regarding forgiveness. The point made is this: Christians do not forgive to be forgiven, but we forgive because we have been forgiven. The Lord has already forgiven us the great debt we owed Him; we simply have no excuse to not forgive the lesser transgressions given by another.

Earlier we stated that works salvation is "we do, so God must do as well." However, we can now see that the biblical definition of our relationship with God can best be summed up in this manner: God did, so we must do. This scriptural theology is very God-centered, not man-centered. It is not dependent upon us and what we do, but on God from whom all our faith and love is given.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Scriptural Examinations of Inclusivist Proof Texts

Before we begin, it might be best to present some definitions of what we're talking about. Inclusivism might be differentiated from universalism in the sense that whereas universalism teaches that everyone will be saved outside of faith in Christ, inclusivism teaches that at least some might be saved outside of faith in Christ. Admittedly, I have, in the past, been confused over the difference between the two, but recently have come to a better clarification between them (with a special H/T to Kevin over at Wesleyan Arminian).

All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." [Luke 12:47-48]

This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.

I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." [John 3:17]

The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [John 3:18]
When Christ says "God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world," that does not mean there isn't any kind of judgment taking place. The Son does not have to judge - we are all already under condemnation. No one goes to hell because they don't believe in Jesus - they go to hell for the righteous judgment of their sins. It is Christ who saves us from that hell.

Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." [John 9:40-41]

The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.

The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32]

I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:

1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.

2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.

3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." [Acts 10:34-35]

This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:

...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.

...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.

...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.

In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20]

Let's look at the full context:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21]
Paul is beginning his attack against the pagan mindset of the world, which will lead into his condemnation of the hypocrisy of devout Jews in chapter two, and eventually the condemnation of everyone in the opening of the third chapter. Paul is not saying, "People see God in everything, so they'll be saved," he's saying, "It's obvious creation has a creator, yet they choose to worship creation instead." This is a statement of condemnation, not inclusivism.

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 2:12]

The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."

We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. 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; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [Rom 2:9-13]
Paul's point is not that unbelievers will be held to a different standard - Paul's point here (and in the verses that follow) is that those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law, and those who are outside the Law will perish (note that they are not saved - they perish) without the Law. No one will have an excuse. The Gentile unbelievers from Romans 1 will not be able to say, "Well we didn't know the Law!", and the Jewish hypocrites of Romans 2 will not be able to say, "But we're the Jews! The Law belongs to us, so we should get a free pass!"

This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]
This is yet another popular passage to cite for many inclusivists. I'd already touched on this in my review of Rob Bell's book Love Wins (where it was used to support universalism), but I'll touch on it again here.
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]
Paul urges that Timothy lead his congregation in "entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" on behalf of all men (v. 1), specifying "kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). This, Paul says, is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), who "desires all men to be saved" and "come to a knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). That is, all kinds of men, even those who are kings and those in authority. Christians at that time were living under pagan and unbelieving authorities (as most still do today), and the temptation might be not to pray for them in thanksgiving or petition. Paul's contention is that God desires even such men as these to be saved.

Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession. 

In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John 2:2]

Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).

John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands [Revelation 7:9]

Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.

...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.

...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Answering Rob Bell's Questions

Some time ago the video advertising Rob Bell's upcoming new book hit the internet (link). In the video he asks a series of questions concerning hell, and as I listened I couldn't help but think, "Hey, I might know a few answers to those." So for the benefit of Mr. Bell, his fans, and my readers, I thought I would provide some...but not from my own personal opinion, but from scripture.

Will only a few select people make it to heaven, and will billions of billions of people burn forever in hell?
"For many are called, but few are chosen." [Matt 22:14]

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED" [Rom 9:27]

In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. [Rom 11:5]
And if that's the case, how do you become one of the few?
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." [Acts 2:37-38]

"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" [Acts 3:19]

"And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." [Acts 10:42-43]
Is it what you believe?
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [John 3:18]

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." [John 3:36]

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" [John 11:25]
Or what you say?
"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." [Matt 10:33]

...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved [Rom 10:9]

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. [1 John 2:23]
Or what you do?
"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS." [Matt 11:29]

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." [John 6:29]

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness [Rom 4:4-5]
Or who you know?
So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also." [John 8:19]

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." [John 14:6]

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." [John 17:3]

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. [1 Cor 2:2]

For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. [Col 3:3-4]

...the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power [2 Th 1:7-9]

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20]
Or something that happens in your heart?
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." [Jer 31:33]

"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." [Eze 36:26]

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." [Matt 6:21]

"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man." [Matt 15:18]

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. [Rom 2:29]
Or do you need to be initiated or baptized or take a class or converted or been born again?
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." [John 3:3]

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. [1 Cor 12:3]
How does one become one of these few?

As we've seen, scripture gives us clear answers.

Unfortunately, one can only get the feeling that Rob Bell, like conspiracy theorists, is simply asking questions to try to lead the listener to his own intended conclusion.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

White Horse Inn: Abrahamic Faiths

The gentlemen at White Horse Inn discuss the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and how they relate to God's plan of salvation according to scripture.

WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog

Thursday, January 27, 2011

The Jesus of Our Own Mind

In these days of debates over health care or Obamacare (whichever side you rest on), something I've heard repeated over and over again is that Jesus would support health care. Some have even claimed Jesus was a socialist, and that His care for the sick and poor would be enough proof of this. On Facebook, responding to a friend's post about this, I entered a brief exchange with someone else over whether or not Jesus would indeed support free health care. He stated that he "completely disagreed" with my assertion to the negative, and said that from his studies Christ would indeed support a national health care system, even proclaiming that he had read the New Testament in the original Greek. I replied that I too had read the New Testament, and in the original Greek. As I had already quoted scripture to make my case, I asked, like Martin Luther did to his Roman Catholic accusers, that he convict me with scripture. He immediately backtracked, stating that he didn't really quote scripture, and when I pressed him further he began to simply argue that you could say anything you wanted about faith. In the end, of course, what all this meant was that he had simply invented a Jesus of his own mind.

This doesn't begin or end with politics, of course. On another website, I had entered a brief conversation with a girl who claimed that she didn't follow the Bible, she just sought after God "in her own way," and that all she had to do was follow Jesus. I tried to make her understand that all scripture was God-breathed, and asked her, gently, where she thought she was better than God. She took offense to that, saying that she had heard a voice that calmed her nerves long ago, and that she felt happier than she ever did before, and I had no right to judge. When I tried to bring her back to what I was talking about, she got more upset and ended the conversation. She did not want the true Christ because, in reality, she worshiped a Christ of her own mind.

These days it's popular to entertain a Christ of your own imagination, one who does not judge, who does not care what you do as long as you're OK, and through which any person can enter into heaven. Press these same people to quote scripture and they either cannot or they can only do so sparingly, and often out of context. Christ was not a series of proof texts or vague ideas - He was the very source of Divine Truth, and the Way to the Father, and in Him we have Life (cf. John 14:6).

I wonder how many people who use the name of Jesus to support left-wing beliefs and cite the example of His healings would likewise concur with His belief that marriage was identified as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5)? Or that there is only one true religion, as established through Him, and therefore not all roads lead to heaven (Matt 10:33; Luke 9:26; John 3:36)? Or that just looking at someone in lust was the same as committing the act of adultery (Matt 5:27-28)? I wonder how many looking at His healings would realize that they were done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6), and that they were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11), thereby proving His divinity? In fact, I wonder how many people name-dropping Jesus would agree with His own assertion that He was deity (John 8:58, 17:5)? The answer to all these questions is...probably very few.

Due to the fact that Christ is often associated with the word religion, people who follow a universalist and "open-minded" opinion of faith therefore believe they can, in essence, play with the teaching and beliefs of Christ as much as they want. The problem is that Christ is not only a vague word known as "god," but is also a historical figure. You cannot play with what He believed and taught any more than you can any other historical figure. If I went to an American history professor and began to make up stuff about what I thought Thomas Jefferson would believe in, he could readily disprove me with the writings of Jefferson and his colleagues. What am I to say to this? Could I say, "It doesn't matter, I can believe about Jefferson whatever I want." No, of course not. That would be inane. Likewise, it is just as inane, if not more so, to claim that you could believe whatever you wanted about Jesus, regardless of what eyewitnesses and His direct followers wrote that He said and taught.

The fact is, when we proclaim that we don't need Holy Writ and that we can believe what we want, we are saying that we understand God better than He does. Indeed, we proclaim judgment on affairs to the same God who told Job, "Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8). On the day of judgment we will all be judged before the throne of God (Rev 20:11-12), where we will stand before the glorified Christ and the legions of angels. Where, then, will our fictitious theologies be? Where will our man-centered, man-made thoughts be written? Will the Christ of our mind save us? Those who put their trust in their arm of flesh will find it to be broken and in shatters before the angels...but those who trusted in the true Christ will find themselves able to enter paradise with the host of saints.

There is only one Christ - the one who died on the cross, and on the third day rose again, and who ascended to heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father. From Him we have forgiveness of sins and life after lasting. He is not a buffet to be dissected and picked apart, but a full Deity to be worshiped and magnified. He is true God of true God, and under no other name on earth can we be saved. Amen.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Our Victory by Christ's Cross

In Romans 7:24-25, the apostle Paul declared: "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin" (NASB).

The following is taken from Charles Spurgeon's sermon on these two verses.
And now, turning aside for a minute, I shall conclude by making an observation or two to many now present. There are some here who say, "I am never disturbed in that fashion." Then I am sorry for you. I will tell you the reason of your false peace. You have not the grace of God in your hearts. If you had you would surely find this conflict within you. Do not despise the Christian because he is in the conflict, despise yourself because you are out of it. The reason why the devil lets you alone is, that he knows you are his. He does not need to trouble you much now; he will have time enough to give you your wages as the last. He troubles the Christian because he is afraid of losing him; he thinks that if he does not tease him here, he shall never have the chance to do it in eternity, so he will bite him, and bark at him while he may. That is why the Christian is vexed more then you are. As for you, you may well be without any pain, for dead men feel no blows. You may well be without prickings of conscience; for men that are corrupt are not likely to feel wounds, though you stab them from head to foot. I pity your condition, for the worm that dieth not is preparing to feed upon you; the eternal vulture of remorse shall soon wet his horrid beak with the blood of your soul. Tremble; for the fires of hell are hot and unquenchable, and the place of perdition is hideous beyond a madman's dream. Oh that you would think of your last end. The Christian may have an evil present, but he has a glorious future; but your future is the blackness of darkness for ever. I adjure you by the living God, you that fear not Christ, consider your ways. You and I must give an account for this morning's service. You are warned, men; you are warned. Take heed to yourselves, that ye think not this life to be everything. There is a world to come; there is "after death the judgment." If you fear not the Lord, there is after judgment eternal wrath and everlasting misery.

And now a word to those who are seeking Christ. "Ah!" says one, "sir, I have sought Christ, but I feel worse than I ever was in my life. Before I had any thoughts about Christ I felt myself to be good, but now I feel myself to be evil." It is all right, my friend; I am glad to hear you say so. When surgeons heal a patient's wound, they always take care to cut away the proud flesh, because the cure can never be radical while the proud flesh remains. The Lord is getting rid of your self-confidence and self-righteousness. He is just now revealing to your soul the deadly cancer which is festering within you. You are on the sure road to healing, if you are on the way to wounding. God wounds before he heals; he strikes a man dead in his own esteem before he makes him alive. "Ah," cries one, "but can I hope that I ever shall be delivered?" Yes, my brother, if you now look to Christ. I care not what your sin nor what your despair of heart; if you will only turn your eye to him who bled upon the tree, there is not only hope for you, but there is a certainty of salvation. I myself, while thinking over this subject, felt a horror of great darkness rush over my spirit, as I thought what danger I was in lest I should be defeated, and I could not get a glimpse of light into my burdened spirit, until I turned my eye, and saw my Master hanging on the tree. I saw the blood still flowing; faith laid hold upon the sacrifice, and I said, "This cross is the instrument of Jesu's victory, and shall be the means of mine." I looked to his blood; I remembered that I was triumphant in that blood, and I rose from my meditations, humbled, but yet rejoicing; cast down, but not in despair; looking for the victory. Do likewise. "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners: believe that. You are an awakened, conscious and penitent sinner; therefore, he came to save you. Believe his word; trust him. Do nothing for your own salvation of yourself, but trust him to do it. Cast yourself simply and only on him; and, as this Bible is true, you shall not find the promise fail you—"He that seeketh findeth; to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

May God help you, by giving you this new life within! May he help you to look to Jesus, and though long and hard be the conflict, sweet shall be the victory. [source]

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Relationship-Driven Christianity and Evangelism

Over the past few months, I've encountered many instances of what I'd like to call "relationship-driven Christianity." That is, the belief that Christianity is a relationship not only between us and Christ, but ourselves and others. Therefore, the correct way to spread the gospel is to form relationships with others over a period of time, giving them encouragement and essentially "enticing" them into a life with Christ. You don't have to present the Law to them, or convict them of their sins; simply show them that a God-loving community makes one feel loved, and therefore they will hopefully join in. In fact, any attempt to use the Law is seen as harsh, and those who do open-air evangelism are often mocked by those who prefer the relationship-driven approach.

Before I continue, it might be best if I elaborate on what this line of thinking does not get wrong. Part of the Christian lifestyle is indeed a relationship not only between believer and Savior but fellow believers. A person who hates his brother cannot sincerely love His God, just as the beloved apostle John wrote: "the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). It is likewise not a bad thing for a believer to become friends with an unbeliever, but it should be emphasized that this is done along with the evangelism.

Where this mindset conflicts, then, is that it takes an addition to evangelism, makes it the sole methodology of evangelism, and essentially falls into the trap of being seeker-sensitive. I've heard those who follow this relationship-driven mentality say that the Law offends, and therefore you cannot win anyone honestly with it. Therefore, one essentially skips Law and runs to Grace, displaying the affects of it by example and inviting others to join in. Christianity essentially becomes a better way of life, no different than a vegan diet or a therapeutic medicine.

The greatest fault in this mindset is that part which says the preaching of the Law offends - to this I answer: of course it does. By the Gospel's very nature, it offends. As the apostle Paul wrote: "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Part of the Gospel message is that mankind is in need of God, for "there is none righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). All are under Law, and the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has been given the righteousness of God apart from the Law (cf. Rom 3:21). However, how can a perishing individual come to know this unless they are first taught the truth of the matter? Without the Law, one cannot know sin. This is why the apostle Paul likewise wrote, "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). This is where, having realized the depths of our sin, we come to know Grace: "what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3).

Those who would propose skipping the Law and running to Grace seem to forget that, as we've seen here, the two go hand in hand. The Law might be "bad news," but it is necessary to show just how good the "good news" truly is. Those who think we should simply skip the bad news seem to forget that in the epistle to the Romans - one of the greatest expositions of salvation - Paul spends three-and-a-half chapters of bad news before finally getting to the good news.

Those who would likewise propose a relationship-driven evangelism seem to forget that there is no scriptural model for this. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was not followed by the apostles slowly making relationships with various people in Jerusalem; instead, they preached to those gathered there and told them to repent (Acts 2:38). Paul, traveling throughout Asia Minor, often began ministry in a town by going to the nearest synagogue and opening debate with those who were inside. Likewise, the first act of Paul upon entering Athens was to invite everyone to the Areopagus, say their beliefs were wrong, and tell them to repent (this often doesn't get covered because, as we've seen, Acts 17:22-23 gets quoted in isolation).

Personally, I believe much of this comes because of the condition of health and lifestyles in the western world. That is, the average person in the western world lives to about 80-years of age, and unless you die in a car crash or some other unforeseen accident, death doesn't become an immediate concern until much later on in life. Is it any wonder, then, that we think we can slowly convert people with relationships, since in our own minds we believe we have all the time in the world? There is no sense of urgency because our lives, as a whole, do not feel urgent.

In the olden days, things were far, far different. Up until perhaps 150 years ago, there was a very good chance you would die of one reason or another. It was very rare for a person to die of natural causes after a long life. Certainly many great theologians passed away due to reasons beyond old age: John Calvin burst a blood vessel in his lungs from which he died a slow death, and Jonathan Edwards died of an infection from inoculation. The common man was simply prone to death. During the Black Death, one out of three people in Europe died, so that even those who were left alive had a sense of what it meant to be mortal. Man's temporal nature was ingrained on the minds of those who had eyes to see.

Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most fiery preachers to ever live come from this time period? John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards...all preaching to the common man as if they were soldiers about to go off into battle and may not be alive come dusk. They understood full well that life was not eternal, and that God's judgment should always be on one's mind. Edwards, in fact, took the funeral of one of his daughters as a chance not to talk about how sweet her temporal life had been, but as a chance to remind the community that death could come at any moment, and after death we will have to stand before our Lord and Creator. These great Christian men would be shocked to hear the current mode of evangelism in many western churches, which seems to instead preach: "Form a relationship with a person first, share the Gospel later."

The other major issue that may be causing this is the decreased understanding of just what that judgment will entail: that is, those who reject Christ will in turn be rejected by Him (Matt 10:33). While I fully believe that Christ knows His sheep (John 10:14) and His sheep cannot be lost (John 10:28), how would it seem to our conscience if we meet a person who does not know Christ, forgo the Gospel out of fear of offending, and then later that day the person were to die by some unforeseen circumstance? How would we be able to stand before the Almighty God and confess that we were too ashamed of His words (cf. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26) to share the good news of eternal salvation with an individual? How can we, like the slave who hid the mina and did not invest in it (Luke 19:11-27), hide this salvation given to us as a gift from our Lord and meant to be shared with others?

The fact is, we are taught to preach and evangelize to others, and part of sharing the Gospel is sharing the Law and the condemnation which all mankind finds itself under (Rom 3:9). Many will be offended, but the pleasure of man should not be in the forefront of our thinking. Our priority is to spread and nurture the seed; God will cause the growth (1 Cor 3:6). We are to become the instrument by which the Good Shepherd calls out to His sheep, and His sheep will hear His voice and follow (John 10:3). We should treat every encounter as a chance to preach, and treat every instance with a person as if we will never see them again, and this is our one opportunity to let them know about the glory and majesty of God. Amen.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The Golden Chain of Redemption

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]
Many people exegeting this passage hone in on the word "foreknew." In fact, I've seen blog posts which will put the word in bold and go on for paragraphs about it while seemingly forgetting everything that comes after. "Foreknew," however, is not said in isolation, and in fact is said in a series of verbs in what is known by many as "the golden chain of redemption." The order is:
  • Foreknew
  • Predestined
  • Called
  • Justified
  • Glorified
The first question to bring forward: does God truly know foreknow what will come? The easy answer is: yes, God does know what will come, having perfect knowledge of all that has been, is, and soon will be. All knowledge, wisdom and understanding comes from the perfect knowledge, wisdom and understanding of God (cf. Prov 2:6). This is why the blessed apostle begins this section of his epistle with "those whom He foreknew." Those who jump to this word immediately argue that God already knew what was going to unfold, and therefore conclude that God merely reacted to the libertarian free will of man. However, no where does this text say that God reacted to that which the person did, only that He foreknew their existence beforehand.

What the synergistic conclusion also forgets is that the apostle Paul moves on from this perfect knowledge of God to God acting upon that knowledge. Those "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." God, seeing Person A and Person B, both of whom He knew would be in the fallen state of Adam, predestined Person A to "become conformed to the image of His Son." Note this: if God simply foreknew Person A would become a Christian, there would ultimately no need for this predestination, for it was already known that Person A would, in the far future, become a Christian.

After this, we have a further procession: from this predestination for conformation comes the order of how this conformation comes about. That is: "these whom He predestined, He also called," then "these whom He called, He also justified," and finally "these whom He justified, He also glorified." We have here four actions - predestination, calling, justifying, and glorifying - overlapping one another in a true chain. One thing is absolutely certain in this case: those God has predestined will in the end be glorified. Nowhere in this entire chain is it ever suggested that those predestined would not end up being called, nor that any of those called would not be justified, nor that any of those justified would not be glorified. Those God had chosen through predestination to be called and justified will in the end be glorified. A perfect case, if any, for Perseverance of the Saints.

Many would still interject here with: "But the word foreknew! God foreknew all this would happen, which means He simply reacted to the free will!" I reiterate again, however, that if God already had perfect foreknowledge of what the person was going to do, then there would be no need for predestination to conformation. If the person was already set in stone to be conformed into the image of Christ, God would not have to predestine the matter. If we argue that he was conformed because of God's predestination, then the argument for libertarian free will is simply turned on its head. That is, if we say God foreknew He would predestine the person, then that leaves God in complete control of the situation. If we say God foreknew they would become Christian, and so he predestined, but he foreknew because of the predestination...then we simply argue in circles. To even suggest the foreknowing is from God's foreknowledge of His predestining is likewise still placing the authority upon God.

In this regard, it must be noted that God is said to be the only active party here. By that I mean that God is the enabler and causation of all the actions. The apostle Paul writes: He predestined, He called, He justified, He glorified. Everything happens because of God and God alone. This is not man acting down the corridor of time and God merely reacting. This is God carrying out His divine decree.

Many reacting to this conclusion will jump to the assumption that this exegesis essentially turns God into a great puppeteer with mankind nothing but marionettes, and others will claim that it turns mankind into robots. However, this is not the case. It is not that a man's actions are controlled completely by God's will, but that God's will is sovereign to mankind's free will. The man going through the golden chain of redemption will be free to do whatever he pleases, but only within those parameters. A man predestined cannot refuse the call; a man called cannot deny himself justification; and a man justified cannot forsake glorification.

Many more will call this unfair, as anyone glorified cannot resist God's will, while those left perishing are not able to receive that glorification. Ironically, this was precisely the argument Paul posed later on in the same epistle...and then answered:
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. [Romans 9:19-24; NASB]
Mankind is in a perishing state, and no one does what is right in the eyes of God. That God chose to save any of us through His Son is enough of a sign of mercy. If our Lord were "fair" in the strictest human sense, then we would all be in hell. God, however, as Potter, is the Perfect Artist, and the Golden Chain of Redemption is but one example of the Perfect Artist going about His handiwork with His glorious creation.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

LOLcats and Calvinism

I saw the image on the left at an internet forum, used in someone's signature. In case anyone is unclear what it is, it's a "LOLcat" featuring a kitten in a garbage bin with the words, "What Calvinism says God wants [to] do with people" (obviously I've cleaned up the spelling). The immediate implication is that Calvinism says God throws people in the garbage. Whether intended for humor or not, this metaphorical argument is entirely wrong. Let's examine the situation according to what Calvinism really teaches, and keep it within the parameters of the metaphor being used. I'll be using TULIP as the model...

Total Depravity: The cat is in the trash can because he wants to be there. He wants to be compacted with the garbage. He has no desire, intentional or not, to get out of the garbage can. If you were to try and take him out, he would, by his very nature, hiss and claw and scratch at you. He is not there because God has placed him there, but because, through his self-destructive will, he has placed himself there. Indeed, there is nothing which merits the cats being saved from the garbage at all.
Unconditional Election: God takes the cat out of the garbage can. The cat does not leave because he personally wants to, but because God has enabled him. There is no bargaining between the cat and God, nor is there any discussion in which God can lose. When God chooses a cat, He chooses a cat completely, and the cat's salvation from being in the garbage is assured.
Limited Atonement: God knows and reserves a number of cats to be saved from the garbage cans. No one knows this number save for God, but the number itself is not important. Indeed, it is not that it is shocking God has chosen to elect some angry, feisty cats seeking self-destruction, but rather that God has chosen to elect any angry, feisty cats seeking self-destruction. God does not try His hardest and fail 50% of the time, with some cats going into the compacter because of His inability, but rather God knows who to save, and by His will those cats are saved.
Irresistible Grace: The cat will not be hissing and clawing when God takes him out of the garbage. Rather, as stated before, God will enable the cat to desire to get out of the garbage, and when God reaches in to take the cat out of the garbage, the cat will no longer be hissing and scratching. In fact, the cat will be purring and ready to fall asleep on God's lap as soon as he is taken out.
Perseverance of the Saints: All cats taken out of the garbage cans will never find themselves in the garbage again. God will not allow them to jump back in, and though they may have their cat-like moments outside the garbage, it will never be so bad that they will find themselves in the garbage again. They will find themselves getting better and better in a life beyond the garbage, and will find eternity nestled snugly with God. He will not allow any of them to be lost again.

When seen under the context of which Calvinism defines itself, we realize just how large a misrepresentation this image is.

I now present an alternative, courtesy of my cell phone camera, the family cat and my own UBS Greek New Testament...