Yesterday’s post on Athanasius and the Arian heresy got me started thinking again about something that has been on my mind a lot lately—the Trinity. In particular, I was thinking about a statement made by someone in one of the large apostate denominations attempting to remove “sexist” language from our understanding of the Trinity. The proposal was to refer to the members of the Godhead as “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and “Sustainer.” While I immediately rejected the discarding of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” I saw no problem with “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and “Sustainer.” At least they weren’t calling God “Mother.” However, since then I have been prompted to consider the nature of the Trinity more carefully (thanks, Jonathan), and I have concluded that these designations lack the necessary precision for describing the individual persons of the Godhead. I present the following propositions:

“Much of the reason that Christians lack full assurance of their salvation is because they do not possess a right understanding of the purpose of salvation. Most Christians think their salvation is first and foremost about them. When I begin premarital counseling with a couple in our church, one of the first things we talk about is the purpose of marriage. I usually astonish the couple when I tell them that their marriage is not about them. After the initial shock, the young man and woman usually just look at me with blank stares. I then go on to explain that marriage is first and foremost about God and his kingdom (Ephesians 5:30&ndash32). We spend some time talking about the creation ordinance to be fruitful and multiply, and, considering the possibility that the couple may not have children in the future, I explain that their marriage is intended to bring glory to God as each fulfills his or her covenant role in the relationship. I explain that they are getting married not just to live under the same roof with the same last name, but that their relationship is to reflect the relationship between Christ and his bride (5:25–29). When the couple understands that, they have a solid foundation on which to build a loving and full marriage.”

—Burk Parsons, Assured by God, p. 26

Many Christians who are members of Bible-preaching, evangelical churches have been duped somehow into thinking that their perseverance in the faith is dependent on their own natural abilities to endure to the end. They have become practical deists, thinking that after God make us a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) he simply left us to our own devices while he just sits back observing us through life’s difficulties, waiting to see if we will make it to the end.
   In his first wartime address, delivered at Guildhall in London on September 4, 1914, Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) said: “Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer. You have only to persevere to save yourselves.” Considering what Churchill accomplished during his life, he proved this statement to be entirely appropriate. The British Prime Minister’s wartime victories demonstrated time and again his ability to persevere to the end he overcame great odds, and his self-sustained resilience enabled him to endure all the struggles of leadership during the Second World War. And while his assertion is accurate, it is accurate only insofar as it pertains to our natural human abilities. Churchill’s call to persevere in order to save oneself is by all means applicable to soldiers in wartime. It is a stern charge to fight to the end in order to overcome the enemy. Moreover, It conveys a similar exhortation found in the Bible. In Hebrews, we are called to run the race set before us (12:1). The apostle Paul likewise admonishes us to endure so that we might “reign with [Christ]” (2 Timothy2:12). And while teaching his disciples, Christ himself said: “The one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22). In these passages and others, the Bible’s teaching is clear; we must persevere to the end in order to be saved. However, this is only one part of the biblical equation. If our perseverance in the faith is dependent upon us, we will surely fail and will by no means finish the race set before us. Moreover, our assurance of salvation will waver each and every day if we are counting on ourselves and our own natural abilities to persevere to the end (Romans 4:20; Hebrews 10:23). In order to have full assurance, we must be entirely dependent upon Christ and his Word, which he has provided for us as our only infallible rule to faith and life (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.2). In his letter to the Colossians, the apostle Paul writes to the saints and faithful believers in Christ at Colossae:

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:1-3)

—Burk Parsons, Assured by God, pp. 20-21

In my reading of Willam Gurnall’s The Christian in Complete Armour, I came across the following statement:

“. . . [Satan] stands under thy closet-window, and hears what thou sayest to God in secret, all the while studying how he may commence a suit against thee from thy duty.”

Is that true? Can Satan read our thoughts? I tend to think not, but I don’t recall any Scripture that answers this question. Satan is not omniscient, but what does he know?

I've been feeling a little under par lately (I know, under par is actually good. I didn't coin the expression.), so I haven't been very productive. I haven't been wasting my time entirely, though. One of the things I've been doing while doing nothing is listening to The History and Theology of Calvinism by Dr. Curt Daniel, available free of charge as mp3 or pdf files. The book appears to be out of print.

The theological system called "Calvinism" is widely misunderstood. I would venture to say that the vast majority of those who oppose it really know little about it. I would even say that there are many who call themselves Calvinists who have simply inherited it or accepted it because someone they respect believes it. Don't be one of those people!

There are many common misconceptions about Calvinism, and two in particular that have annoyed me. First, I don't know how often I've heard or read words like these: Calvinism began when John Calvin wrote his "Five Points of Calvinism," which he arranged in the acrostic "TULIP." I've even read that in books by Calvinists! That, of course is incorrect. For those who don't know, the "Five Points" were written after Calvin's death by the Synod of Dordt. Not only were they not arranged to spell "TULIP," they were not systematized in that order. Second, I'd love to have a nickel for every time I've been told that "John Calvin burned Servetus at the stake." These are only a couple of historical issues Dr. Daniel covers.

The History and Theology of Calvinism is an excellent presentation of both the history and the theology of this system, and I highly recommend it. Whatever you believe, don't believe it ignorantly!

Divine Justice and the Doctrine of Election

G1577 ekklesia
Thayer Definition:
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
1b) the assembly of the Israelites
1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564
Citing in TDNT: 3:501, 394

The last Name that Quote I posted was exceedingly obscure. So obscure was it that I should have offered a prize to the one who could identify the speaker (no one could). Today’s quote is much less so, and so it would be unfair to offer a prize this time.

Phillip Way's post yesterday, What Day Was Jesus Crucified? reminded me of my own post last year, What Day Was the Crucifixion? So, having nothing to say for myself today, I would like to draw your attention to these two posts. You can pretend mine was written this year instead of last, and that Pastor Way got the idea from me (as if...).

The long list of email addresses in the header of this email tells me that I am not special. However, I am in some good company.

“There is nothing you can do to save yourself. Everything necessary for your salvation has been done through the death of Jesus Christ. All you must do is believe. Now, the choice is yours: to believe or not.”

Over the last week or so I have posted three questions: Under Law or Grace?, Obedient to What?, and What Is Obedience?. These questions have been intended to provoke thought leading up to today’s topic.

Last week I asked the questions, Are Christians under law, or grace? and if we are not under law, what are we to be obedient to?

The answers to yesterday's post, Under Law or Grace?, were not too surprising. As expected, couple of commenters touched on the question I am asking today.

Are Christians under law, or grace?

John Piper writes,

On July 2, [1505,] on the way home from law school, [Luther] was caught in a thunderstorm and was hurled to the ground by lightning. He cried out, “Help me, St. Anne; I will become a monk.” He feared for his soul and did not know how to find safety in the Gospel. So he took the next best thing, the monastery.

I was thirty years old before I actually encountered anyone who called themselves Christians and denied the Trinity. I had heard that such people existed, but outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I didn’t know who they were. Then, when we moved to this small town in North Dakota, we met a character who had recently left the same church that we began attending. He was a self-styled teacher with a very overpowering personality who had managed to gather a small group of very committed disciples and formed his own “church,” renting a church building in a neighboring town. A few years ago, this little cult built its own facility just a few blocks up the street from our house.

I suspect the Lord may have told Phil Johnson to post this quote from Spurgeon, but I can't say for sure. I can only speak for myself: the Lord told me that Spurgeon was right.

There has been a lot written lately on the subject of “Lordship Salvation”. For quite some time now, Jonathan Moorhead has been antagonizing challenging a few of his readers who hold to what they call “Free Grace” theology. More recently, Pulpit Magazine has been posting articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, more to come…) by John MacArthur, Bible teacher on Grace to You and author of The Gospel According to Jesus. In a corresponding series, Phil Johnson is writing How I got drawn into the Lordship debate (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, more to come…), chronicling his journey to his involvement in The Gospel According to Jesus and his present position at Grace to You. Nathan Busenitz has offered his input (1, 2, 3) as well at Pulpit Magazine.

Update: The audio for this conference is now available here.

I don't know anything about the Brandon Biblical Theology Conference, except that it took place in Brandon, Florida on the 12th-14th of this month and that it featured a stellar line-up of speakers (Phil Johnson, Pastor Chris Pixley, and Dr. Robert Reymond). O yes, and JD Hatfield (Voice of Vision) was in attendance and is now home and blogging his notes. It looks more interesting than anything going on here, so what are you waiting for? Start clicking:

“For too little doth he love Thee, who loves any thing with Thee, which he loveth not for Thee.” –Augustine

I had to read that quote from Augustine’s Confessions two or three times to really get the gist of it. When it had sunk in thoroughly, I was soundly smitten by the profound truth it expresses. If I love anything, even something that God loves, but do not love it primarily because God loves it and receives glory from it, I do not love God enough.

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?
Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture
Part 5: To Abstain or not to Abstain

In this post, I will answer questions and objections that have been brought up in the comments on this blog, as well as those I have encountered elsewhere. Some of this will be redundant, it may be a bit rambling and unorganized, and it might get long. As I address some of the comments that have been left on this blog, it should not be construed as singling out the commenters as stupid or foolish. The objections I will address are common ones that have been around as long as people have been promoting abstinence. All of them have represented my point of view in the past. For every time I have used the word “ignorant,” I must confess to having been ignorant myself. Ignorance is no cause for shame. An unteachable spirit is. With that stated, I will dive in.

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?
Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture

“I know there’s nothing wrong with alcohol, but I abstain for the weaker brother.”

What is wrong with that statement? Absolutely nothing, in the right context. However, if that means abstinence as a lifestyle, and categorizing everyone who disapproves as the weaker brother, it demonstrates ignorance of the Scriptural principle involved.

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?

In the last installment of this series, I established the fact that wine and strong drink are a good gift from the Lord that should be received as such with gratitude and joy, as should all gifts from God's hand. Now I want to turn to the issue of abstinence according to Scripture. Does Scripture ever call for abstinence, and if so, under what circumstances and for what purpose?

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC

In this installment, I will bring Scripture to bear on the assertions I have made. To systematically go through every mention of wine or strong drink in Scripture is a long and tedious process. I know, I’ve done it. I won’t bore you with every one of them. The comments to this post will be the place to bring up passages that you believe I have overlooked or avoided. I will attempt to answer objections in a later post.

As I mentioned in part 1 of this series, this issue has been raised in the last few weeks because the Southern Baptist Convention has passed a resolution expressing “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages.” Please take the time to read the resolution for yourself.

This is a topic that I have never intended to write on, primarily because of the inevitable knee-jerk reactions it will provoke. Those reactions will be along the lines of, “Yeah, right. Here’s another libertine trying to justify his sin, another carnal Christian (a fictitious character, by the way) indulging his flesh in the name of Christian liberty.” In a post on another blog, and in the subsequent comments (the provocation for this post), the observation was made that the only people who seem to care about this issue are precisely that kind of person. That observation, which in my experience has been accurate, was intended to demonstrate that only the unsanctified and self-centered would defend such an indefensible practice, but the spiritually mature know better. I believe the commenters who questioned the motives of those who defend this practice were sincere, but very often that charge is little more than a way of disqualifying their opponents by attacking their character – Clearly, if you were more holy, you would see it my way - so, because of the very predictable ad hominem, very few are even willing to take on the argument. Well, like a modern day Mighty Mouse, here I come to save the day!

The Old Testament Patriarchs did it. The Prophets did it. Jesus and the Apostles did it. The Early Church Fathers did it. The Reformers did it. The Puritans did it. Then, in the last century or two, someone figured out what all of them had missed for those thousands of years. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, but one thing troubles me. Why did God not providentially place a couple of Southern Baptists in Cana of Galilee on that fateful wedding day to prevent his son from doing such a foolish thing?

Update:
Read How Does It Feel To Exclude Jesus From Your Denomination? by Brent Thomas.
Read The Sword and Spirits, Drinking with Jesus, & Akin on Alcohol by Joe Thorn (HT: Timmy Brister).

This post requires a disclaimer: I am not an expert in Biblical languages. In fact, I barely know anything at all about them. I know nothing at all of Hebrew, and what I know of Greek could fit in a shot glass. I am basing my opinions on my references to Strong’s and BDB lexica, and I am aware that there are more nuances to translation than simple lexical definitions indicate. With that in mind, I welcome comments on this post from anyone who knows what I do not. I am not looking for opinions from those with a casual, “what’s the difference?” attitude. I am definitely not interested in the opinions of those who do not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. This post will be nothing but picayune quibbling to you.

From Albert Mohler's blog:

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," says the Right Reverend N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham.

On which day was Jesus crucified? It seems like an odd question, doesn’t it? The gospels give a clear record of a Friday crucifixion, so why even ask? Well, that is what I said too, but there are some who claim that Jesus must have been crucified on Wednesday or Thursday, and they are not entirely without justification. A Friday night burial and Sunday morning resurrection allows only one full day and two nights in the tomb, when Jesus clearly said that he would be in the grave for “three days and three nights”. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, under divine inspiration, clearly chronicled a Friday evening burial and Sunday morning resurrection. So, who is wrong? Consider the Gospel accounts:

In our Lord’s Day posts we are presently going through John Bunyan’s exposition of Genesis. At the end of this week’s installment, Loki noted that we don’t necessarily agree with all of Bunyan’s interpretations of the text. Today I want to question his interpretation of the creation account, specifically his spiritualization of the events.