January 22, 2012
Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
Last week, I looked at how Charles H. Spurgeon spoke peace to Arminians, based on the standard of “personal godliness” rather than on the standard of the Gospel. This clearly shows that Spurgeon was unregenerate, an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel.
This week, let’s look at Spurgeon’s denial of God’s active role in the damnation of his enemies. This quote comes from an article by Marc D. Carpenter, entitled “Unconditional Reprobation and Active Hardening: A Study on Romans 9:11-22”.
=========================================================================
It is a given that Arminians hate the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. But it might surprise the reader that most Calvinists hate this doctrine as well. They will claim to love unconditional election, yet when it comes to reprobation, they turn into conditionalists. They say that God reprobates a person based on something in the person. They say that God reprobated Esau based on something in Esau. And who better to represent and articulate this heretical notion than the most popular Calvinist himself, Charles H. Spurgeon? The following are quotes from Spurgeon’s sermon entitled “Jacob and Esau“:
“But now the second point of my subject is, WHY IS THIS? Why did God love Jacob? why did he hate Esau? Now, I am not going to undertake too much at once. You say to me, ‘Why did God love Jacob? and why did he hate Esau?’ We will take one question at a time; for the reason why some people get into a muddle in theology is, because they try to give an answer to two questions. Now, I shall not do that; I will tell you one thing at a time. I will tell you why God loved Jacob; and, then, I will tell you why he hated Esau. But I cannot give you the same reason for two contradictory things. That is wherein a great many have failed. They have sat down and seen these facts, that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, that God has an elect people, and that there are others who are not elect. If, then, they try to give the same reason for election and non-election, they make sad work of it. If they will pause and take one thing at a time, and look to God’s Word, they will not go wrong. “The first question is, why did God love Jacob? I am not at all puzzled to answer this, because when I turn to the Word of God, I read this text;–’Not for your sakes, do I this saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways O house of Israel.’ I am not at a loss to tell you that it could not be for any good thing in Jacob, that God loved him, because I am told that ‘the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth.’ I can tell you the reason why God loved Jacob; It is sovereign grace. …
“Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly–it is the same thing–created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him;
“Now, let us look at Esau’s character, says one, ‘did he deserve that God should cast him away?’ I answer, he did. What we know of Esau’s character, clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright. Do not sit down and weep about that, and blame God. Esau sold it himself; he sold it for a mess of pottage. Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, ‘I lost my birthright by decree.’ No, no. Jacob got it by decree, but you lost it because you sold it yourself–didn’t you? Was it not your own bargain? Did you not take the mess of red pottage of your own voluntary will, in lieu of the birthright? Your destruction lies at your own door, because you sold your own soul at your own bargain, and you did it yourself. Did God influence Esau to do that? God forbid, God is not the author of sin. Esau voluntarily gave up his own birthright. And the doctrine is, that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. Every man who loses everlasting life rejects it himself. God denies it not to him–he will not come that he may have life. Why is it that a man remains ungodly and does not fear God? It is because he says, ‘I like this drink, I like this pleasure, I like this sabbath-breaking, better than I do the things of God.’ No man is saved by his own free-will, but every man is damned by it that is damned. He does it of his own will; no one constrains him.”
According to Spurgeon, Esau was damned based on his own character, deserving that God should cast him away because of what he did during his life of his own free will. The astute reader would ask how Spurgeon reconciled this view with verse 11. Spurgeon used verse 11 to show that Jacob was loved before he had done anything good or evil, but he conveniently failed to mention verse 11 when speaking of Esau. Verse 11 is talking about both children. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Spurgeon said that God loved Jacob not based on anything good in Jacob, using verse 11 to do so. He then said that God hated Esau based on the evil that Esau had done during his life. What a fool he was. And what a fool any other Calvinist is who swallows this nonsense. How plain can it be? Before the children had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. The truth is simpler than the heresy! People like Spurgeon have to go through theological contortions to wriggle out of what the Bible plainly says. And if Spurgeon and his ilk were correct in their interpretation, there would not even be a need for a verse 14 answering the objection that there is unrighteousness with God:
“What then shall we say? [Is there] not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!” (Romans 9:14).
What would be the most common objection to the truth that before Jacob had done anything good, God loved Jacob, and before Esau had done anything bad, God hated Esau? It would be that God is being unfair or unjust. People who want a god who is like them, who is in their own image, want a god who will love and hate people based on what these people do. They do not want their god to love or hate anyone until those people did something good or something bad, or at least until their god looked down through time and saw that those people did something good or something bad. To just “arbitrarily” love one person and hate another person not based on anything good or bad these people did is, to them, unfair and unjust.
Suppose Paul had said in verses 11-13 that God loved Jacob because He knew that Jacob would believe in Him and would be a good person who did good things, and God hated Esau because He knew Esau would not believe in Him and would be a bad person who would do bad things. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Of course not. In this scheme, God loved Jacob because Jacob deserved to be loved, and God hated Esau because Esau deserved to be hated. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13.
Now suppose Paul had said the following in verses 11-13: God loved Jacob because of His sovereign grace, not because of anything in Jacob, and God hated Esau for the same reason He hates any man – because Esau deserved it. God did not hate Esau unconditionally from before the foundation of the world and did not cause or even influence Esau to sin; instead, God’s hatred of Esau was because Esau was a sinner. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Absolutely not. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13. Yet most Calvinists would espouse such a view.
Not only would most Calvinists espouse such a view, but they would actually be the objectors in verse 14! Paul puts forth the objection that the heretics would bring, and Spurgeon, with like-minded Calvinists who were before and after him, along with the Arminians and the open-theists and even the agnostics and atheists, are heading the charge against the true and living God. According to Spurgeon and his ilk, if one says that God hated Esau – unconditionally reprobated Esau before Esau had done anything bad – then this would be to think meanly of God, to libel God, and to dishonor God. Why? Because it would make God to be unfair, unjust, and unrighteous, which is exactly the objection that Paul addressed. The objectors say, “Paul, if this is true that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had been born, not yet having done any good or evil, then God is unrighteous! Your God is unjust, because you put a man’s damnation into the hand of God’s sovereignty!” As Spurgeon said, “God’s sovereignty is just on the side of love; His sovereignty is not on the side of hatred.” The truth is that a partially sovereign god is not sovereign at all. Either one has God who sovereignly loves and hates, or one does not have God. The objectors do not have God. They say that to believe that God sovereignly loves and hates is to think meanly of God and to libel and dishonor Him. They say that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, libels and dishonors God. This is damnable blasphemy.
=========================================================================
For more information about the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation, please see:
The Christian Confession of Faith
Marc D. Carpenter’s Sermon on Romans 9:14
January 15, 2012
Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 1
Charles H. Spurgeon was one of the most popular preachers of his time, indeed of all time. He was at least as popular in his day as Billy Graham is in our day, a fact which should at least be a little troubling to anyone who shares Spurgeon’s belief in the doctrines of Grace. Have you ever wondered how Spurgeon could believe in and preach about doctrines like Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance, all while drawing crowds consisting of thousands of people at a time? Well, let’s take a closer look at what Spurgeon really believed and preached about, in his own words.
“A man may be evidently of God’s chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe in the doctrine of perseverance. We hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus.” (Effects of Sound Doctrine, April 22, 1860)
Well, here’s one reason Spurgeon might have been able to draw those huge crowds: he didn’t believe that those doctrines like Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance, were essential parts of the Gospel. Oh, he still believed those doctrines were true, of course, but not that they were essential to the Gospel itself. This effectively removes the offensiveness of those doctrines from the mind of the audience, an approach which is noticeably different from the approach taken by Christ and the apostles (Mat 23; Gal 6:12-14).
Let’s look a little closer at Spurgeon’s arguments.
First, are there “many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling”? The Christian Confession of Faith has this to say about all those who believe the Gospel:
3. Conversion is that grace in which the Holy Spirit causes the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. The regenerate person is given a knowledge and understanding of the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone and the realization that he was unregenerate when he believed a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He counts all of his former life and deeds, whether religious or irreligious, as dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death. Conversion is the immediate and inevitable fruit of regeneration; therefore, a person may not be regenerated without being converted. There has never existed and will never exist a regenerate person who is ignorant of the gospel. Scripture rejects the lie that an unregenerate person can be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit only leads people to Jesus Christ and His righteousness as the only ground of salvation. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]
Here are some of the verses that the Confession refers to:
Isa 45:(22) Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (23) I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (24) He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him. (25) In Jehovah all of the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory.
Joh 6:(40) And this is the will of the One sending Me, that everyone seeing the Son and believing into Him should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 8:(32) And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
1Co 2: (10) But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.
A sinner is caused to believe the Gospel by a work of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Christ, not the sinner. Thus, it is impossible that the Holy Spirit would cause a regenerate person to believe doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation. Conditional Election, and Ineffectual Calling are doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation; therefore, it is impossible that a regenerate person would believe in Conditional Election, Ineffectual Calling, or any other doctrine that denies the Gospel, or glorifies the sinner in any way. So, contrary to Spurgeon, all who are savingly called really do believe in effectual calling.
Second, Spurgeon argues that “the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads”. Now, this head/heart distinction is simply foreign to Scripture; the heart is what thinks, plans, and meditates (Psa 4:4, Psa 77:6, Pro 16:9, Pro 23:7). But more importantly, what Spurgeon is really putting forth here is the idea that there is more to the Gospel than merely knowledge or doctrine, and that this something more is what really separates the saved from the lost. Notice that Spurgeon makes precisely zero effort to define what that something more actually is, but apparently it cannot possibly be doctrine. This of course, is completely anti-Scriptural:
Joh 7: (16) Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but of the One who sent Me. (17) If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or I speak from Myself.
Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
Rom 10:(1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone that believes.
2Jo (9) Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son.
The Gospel is pure doctrine, and nothing else but doctrine. Thus if a person believes doctrines that are contrary to the Gospel, then we do not simply assume the best about them. A Christian must judge them to be lost, and absolutely must “set their fallacies down to … wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus”.
Thus we see that Spurgeon was able to gather huge numbers of people to hear him, not in spite of the doctrine he preached, but because of his speaking peace to them, precisely when he should have been telling them that they were lost, and their deeds were evil.
“The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. … But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. … We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God’s work and upholding most important truth.” (Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, April 11, 1861)
Here, Spurgeon makes it explicit that the element he sees as most important in judging the state of a soul is “the vital point of personal godliness”, ie. good works. Notice that at this point, Spurgeon could not even resort to the evasion that Christians are not to judge the spiritual state of others, because he has already judged the spiritual state of Wesley and his fellow Arminians: he has judged them to be saved.
“Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see the truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we see them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.” (The Man With the Measuring Line, December 11, 1864)
I have already had much to say about the “personal godliness” of John Wesley, but even if his “personal godliness” were as sterling as Spurgeon makes it out to be, he would still be judging Wesley by the wrong standard. The correct standard is doctrine, specifically the doctrine of the Gospel. Without that standard, there is really no limit to the kinds of people Spurgeon could speak peace to:
“In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest — for I believe he is a good man, — preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling the text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, — some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus. I saw, in that church, a box for contributions for the Pope; he will never grow rich with what I put into it.” (The Proceedings of the Great Meeting in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, August 21, 1860)
Here is the logical conclusion of Spurgeon’s wicked practice of speaking peace to anyone with a form of “personal godliness”. Yes, Spurgeon denounces certain “objectionable sentences” coming from “the strong wind of Popery”, but no actual papists. This is as uncertain a sound as it is possible to make (1Co 14:8), and it all comes down to Spurgeon’s unwillingness to judge according to doctrine.
=========================================================================
For more information about the Gospel as the standard for Right Judgment, please see:
January 8, 2012
Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 4
A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. What follows is my fourth post to that e-mail group. By this point, Ken had said he wouldn’t “waste [his] time” addressing me, and Des Walter had offered a short post.
=========
Des –
I’m not trying to ‘help’ anyone. I am proclaiming the Gospel to people who are lost. Ken began this correspondence by sending out an e-mail that promoted a false gospel. No matter if he thinks he has the truth, what he is really peddling is LIES. The same goes for Anthony Buzzard; he is a blind leader of the blind.
If you “will never argue with anyone concerning truth”, then you need to think about Jude 3-4. Further, if you do not believe the Gospel, then you are lost as well, and therefore definitely NOT my brother in Christ. Here is the definition of the Gospel given in the Christian Confession of Faith:
1. The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented.[Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17]
If this is not the Gospel you believe, then I urge you to consider the Scripture references, repent, and believe the Gospel.
If Ken doesn’t wish to continue this conversation, fine. He can come back anytime he’s willing to start talking about Scripture, instead of his own traditions and preconceived notions.
Anthony –
I notice you completely failed to discuss the one Scripture reference I asked you about. If you can’t do that, why should any of us take you seriously at all?
Here is the section I’m referring to:
<<OK, Anthony, since believing that God could die is such non-sense, why don’t you answer this question that I have already brought up:
Please explain to us all what Rev 1:11-18 means, Anthony.>>
Anthony, you are lost, and a blind leader of the blind. Repent and believe the Gospel.
Chris Adams.
January 1, 2012
Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 3
A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. What follows is my third post to that e-mail group (responding to what Ken said, and to a short post by Anthony).
=========
Ken –
I have put your words in red for readability. You wrote: “Jesus pontificated and I am repeating his words.“
Really? WHERE? You have yet to cite a single Scripture reference to me. Just SAYING you have cited Scripture doesn’t mean you DID cite any Scriptures.
And you responded “——Actually Jesus and I are both right in the context of Jewish mentality. “
The Jewish mentality? Here is the reaction that the Jews had to Jesus’ statement in Joh 8:58:
(Joh 8:59) Because of this, they took up stones that they might throw them on Him. But Jesus was hidden, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
And how would the ‘Jewish mentality’ have understood the phrase “the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world”?
Also, don’t forget this display of the ‘Jewish mentality’ from John ch. 10:
(Joh 10:30-33) I and the Father are one! Then again the Jews took up stones, that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from My Father. For which work of them do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God.
The Jewish mentality was that they wanted a Messiah who was merely HUMAN; one who would save them from the Roman empire. The reason they wanted to stone Jesus was precisely because he WASN’T presenting that to them. He was presenting a Messiah who is God in the flesh (note the final 3 words of v. 33).
Earlier you wrote: “Finite man cannot commit infinite sin.“
In response, I wrote: “ALL sins are infinitely heinous, not because of the infinite glory of man, but because of the infinite glory of GOD. When man offends an infinite God, that sin is an infinite sin. The fact that you can’t see that shows thatyou have absolutely no understanding of God’s glory; your puny little god only needs man’s tears of repentance to be appeased. The true God of the Bible needs the blood of his only begotten Son, the divine mediator between God and Man, to appease his wrath over sin. That is why I say that you have committed blasphemy in preaching that Jesus was merely human, and not God in the flesh. With no understanding of the infinite glory of God, the infinite heinousness of sin, and the need for an infinite atonement for those sins, you show that you have no understanding of the true Gospel. You are lost, Ken, and your deeds are evil; you are dead in your sins. Repent and believe the Gospel.”
And you responded: “You are worse than a drama queen. I have not threatened you at all nor will I ever. This certainly is not the spirit of Jesus whom you claim you worship. So your telling me that sin is infinite..because God is infinite? Does that make sense. Sin my friend ends at the grave and then the judgment, hence sin cannot be infinite. Can you not even simply believe that God could forgive sin through a perfect man? Is he not called the 2nd Adam. Was the first Adam a God-man?“
First, just pause and take a moment to savor the irony of Ken Lokken calling me a drama queen. I think Marc Carpenter summed it up nicely when he wrote: “So in the course of just two months, Ken went from being in “full agreement” with the [Christian Confession of Faith] to showing that he held to time-lapse heresy to saying that he could no longer hold to time-lapse heresy but that it was not a damnable heresy to going back to being in “full agreement” with the CCF, even saying “I was blind but now I see,” yet still not admitting that he was lost when he held to time-lapse heresy, to being a universal atonement advocate.
Third, yes, sin is infinite because God is infinite:
(Deu 27:26) Cursed is he who does not rise to all the words of this law, to do them! And all the people shall say, Amen!
(Hab 1:13) You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and You are not able to look upon vexation. Why do you look on those who deal deceitfully? Will You be silent when the wicked swallows one more righteous than he?
(Mat 5:48) Therefore, you be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.
Fourth, no, sin doesn’t end at the grave:
(Mat 13:41-42) The Son of man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all the offenses, and those who practice lawlessness. And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
(Mar 9:43-44) And if your hand offend you, cut it off. For it is profitable for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go away into Hell, into the fire that cannot be put out, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not put out.
(Luk 16:23-24) And being in torments in Hell, lifting up his eyes, he sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosoms. And calling he said, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame.
(Rev 20:12-14) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and Hades gave up the dead in them. And they were each judged according to their works. And death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
Fifth, No, I cannot believe that God could forgive sin through one who is MERELY a perfect man, because mere men are finite creatures. Forgiveness of sin can ONLY come through one who ALSO partakes of the nature of God:
(Job 9:33) there is no mediator between us, who might lay his hand on both of us.
(2Co 5:21) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(Heb 2:14-17) Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might cause to cease the one having the power of death, (that is, the Devil); and might set these free, as many as by fear of death were subject to slavery through all the time to live. For indeed He does not take hold of angels, “but He takes hold of” ” the seed of Abraham.” For this reason He ought by all means to become like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things respecting God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of His people.
Lastly, yes, the last Adam is a God-Man:
(Joh 1:14) And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.
(1Co 15:47) The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven.
(Phi 2:6-8) who subsisting in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross.
In regard to Mat 22:41-46, you wrote: “God is addressing his servant the Messiah, who is of david’s loins and yet will be David’s Lord. Look up Adonai and Adoni“
OK, here is the definition of ‘Adoni’ [Strongs #113]: “sovereign that is controller (human or divine)”. So the verse could be rephrased as “A statement of Jehovah to my [sovereign controller]: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.” This means that David’s son is also his sovereign controller. Sorry, but you STILL can’t fit a merely human Messiah into this verse, and you STILL haven’t answered Jesus’ question (and once again, merely SAYING you have answered it doesn’t mean you DID answer it). Once again, the question is: “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”
You wrote: “Men are a little lower than the angels. Yes and Jesus was a man according to scriptures in every way. The point being this: a man sinned and brought the curse..a perfect man would die and reverse it..“
This doesn’t even begin to answer my question, which is: “If Jesus was merely human, then he was ALREADY like his brothers; so how was he “made” to be like his brothers? “
I wrote: “As for “Focus on the Kingdom”, yeah, I might have some fun refuting their nonsense.”
And your response was: “——Already you are ready to oppose others and you have not even considered their stance“
Actually, I had already been to their website. (Yes, it is nonsense.) Moreover, I have already written a pair of articles on the topic (complete with Scripture references!), so this is familiar stuff to me. Furthermore, I even quoted extensively from one of those articles, and you simply ignored it. So much for being “open minded” and “unbiased”, Ken.
And lastly, Anthony Buzzard chimed in: “I am asked to believe nonsense! An immortal God can die! … There can be no rational discussion unless contradictions like “the immortal dies” are rejected.”
OK, Anthony, since believing that God could die is such non-sense, why don’t you answer this question that I have already brought up:
Please explain to us all what Rev 1:11-18 means, Anthony.
December 25, 2011
Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. What follows is my second post to that e-mail group.
=========
Ken –
First of all, I notice that you utterly *failed* to do the one thing I asked you to do: interact with the *Scripture references* I provided. Was that too hard, or just beneath you, Ken? Your pontifications on what the Kingdom of God is all about are utterly *meaningless* without some grounding in Scripture. Yet that is the one thing you have failed to provide. Disgraceful.
You wrote: “Jesus Christ, the human Messiah began his actual existence on earth. He is not the so called 2nd person of the trinity and neither was he a pre-existent spirit”
But contrary to this, Jesus said, “And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world. ” (Joh 17:5) and “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I AM.” (Joh 8:58) Either Ken Lokken is right or Jesus Christ is right; it can’t be both.
You also wrote: “Finite man cannot commit infinite sin.”
ALL sins are infinitely heinous, not because of the infinite glory of man, but because of the infinite glory of GOD. When man offends an infinite God, that sin is an infinite sin. The fact that you can’t see that shows that you have absolutely no understanding of God’s glory; your puny little god only needs man’s tears of repentance to be appeased. The true God of the Bible needs the blood of his only begotten Son, the divine mediator between God and Man, to appease his wrath over sin. That is why I say that you have committed blasphemy in preaching that Jesus was merely human, and not God in the flesh. With no understanding of the infinite glory of God, the infinite heinousness of sin, and the need for an infinite atonement for those sins, you show that you have no understanding of the true Gospel. You are lost, Ken, and your deeds are evil; you are dead in your sins. Repent and believe the Gospel.
You wrote: “The Gospel is the good news of the Messiah and his future Kingdom on earth. It was all Jesus talked about. Only just before his closing days did he even mention that the son of man must suffer to cleanse his people from their sins. “
Really? So why was the Christ-child given the name “Jesus” in Mat 1:21? Was it because he would “usher in the Kingdom on earth”? NO. The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves”, and we are specifically told that he would save his people “FROM THEIR SINS”. So, nice try on the obfuscation, but it doesn’t work. Here is the true definition of the Gospel:
The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented. [Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17] (Christian Confession of Faith V.B.1, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm )
Next, you asked: “Can God die? “
Answer: YES.
17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. (Rev 1:17-18)
And if you doubt that the speaker is God Almighty, see how he introduces himself in verse 9: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” Compare Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.
You also wrote: “I am saying a perfect human Jew became our savior. Tell me just how would God incarnate? To do so would make him less than God. Fully God/fully man is neither fully God or fully man. “
Have you ever even READ a New Testament?! This is basic stuff, Ken!
“41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. “
The Pharisees couldn’t answer Jesus’ question, and neither can you, Ken.
Jesus was fully God and fully Man because he was begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. He partook of both the human and divine natures. Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was “was made a little lower than the angels”. How is that even possible if Jesus is merely a man? ALL men are lower than the angels, so how was Jesus “made” a little lower? Hebrews 2:17 says “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. ” If Jesus was merely human, then he was ALREADY like his brothers; so how was he “made” to be like his brothers?
You also wrote: “I am not as wise as you theologians; but neither am I looking through your lenses which I am most familiar with. “
Yeah, you’re just so exceedingly humble, Ken. Keep blowing that trumpet, so the whole world can gather around and see just how wildly humble you are.
Go read the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 23. Was Jesus being humble when he called the Pharisees vipers, whitewashed tombs, and sons of the Devil?
(Here’s a hint: YES, he WAS being humble.)
You wrote: “Perhaps you should at least give mine a try? You pride yourself in being a Berean. To search the scriptures means just that. It does not mean to uphold a bias.”
Yet, you are perfectly willing to NOT search the Scriptures, and uphold YOUR bias. As long as you’re going to live in that glass house, you should probably keep the stones to yourself. Oh, and please, please, close the curtains, Ken. Please.
As for “Focus on the Kingdom”, yeah, I might have some fun refuting their nonsense. But then, I have already written a pair of articles on the divinity of Jesus Christ: ‘A Christian View of the Messiah‘, and ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘. If you are as open minded as you seem to think you are (or as open minded as you expect me to be), you will go read them. Of course I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t care whether you recognize the Confession, Ken; that isn’t why I quoted it. What I was doing was putting forth the truth of this doctrine (the deity of Christ) as it has already been formulated. And if the Scripture references are so haphazard and misinterpreted, then why don’t you SHOW US that, instead of asking us to take your word for it? Show us how the Scripture references are misused or misinterpreted, Ken. Then you might have something resembling an argument. Apparently that’s just to much to ask for.
As for Deuteronomy 6:4 “”, here is what John Gill had to say about the passage:
” In an ancient book of theirs it is said {o} Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah (i.e. Jehovah, our God, Jehovah); these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery; “in the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”; and again {p}, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one; the three forms (modes or things) which are one; and elsewhere {q} it is observed, there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to (or of) them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu (our God) is joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth, and when they are joined they are one in one unity; which is illustrated by the three names the soul of man is called by, the soul, spirit, and breath; and elsewhere they say {r} the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah, are called one; see Joh 10:30. {o} Zohar in Gen. fol. 1, 3. {p} Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. {q} Ib. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. {r} Tikkune Zohar, Correct. 47. fol. 86. 2.Ç”
So, yeah, I’m pretty sure Moses would have no problem agreeing that God is a triune being (ie. three in ONE).
Here is some of what I wrote in the article ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘ :
“God is an infinite God and an infinitely righteous God. Therefore, all sin is an infinite offense to him (Exodus 20:5, Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, any sacrifice that is intended to atone for sin must be an infinite sacrifice. Anything less would be insufficient to turn away God’s wrath against the sins of his people. It is only as Jesus Christ partakes of the two natures, human and divine, that he is able to become the Mediator between God and Man (Job 9:33; Hebrews 2:17), able to “lay his hand” upon both at once. Therefore, the Gospel absolutely requires that Jesus Christ not only be a real human being but also be God incarnate, God in the flesh.
…
The fact that Jesus is more than a mere “creature” is inferred from the following facts:
1. Several titles applied to Jesus Christ. Jesus is called “Lord”, by Thomas and Stephen (John 20: 28, Acts 7:59-60), and Christians must confess Jesus as “Lord” (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12: 3). The Greek word here translated “Lord” is kurios, which is the word used to translate “Jehovah” in the Greek version of the Old Testament.
Similarly, Jesus is called “Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23), which means “God with us.” And in Revelation 22:13, Jesus is called “the first and the last,” a title that is given to Jehovah God in Isaiah 44:6. None of these titles could be given to a mere creature.
2. Several attributes of Jesus Christ. Jesus is described as all-knowing (John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), all-powerful (Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3), eternal (Micah 5:2), and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). And Colossians 2:9 states that in Jesus Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (NWT). None of these things can be said of a mere creature.
3. Several works of Jesus Christ. Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 5:24; Ephesians 1:7), control nature (Matthew 8:26), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), and judge the world (John 5:22 & 27). None of these things can be done by a mere creature.
4. Jesus Christ received worship. Jesus received worship from men (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38) and angels (Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:11-13). Yet worship is due to God alone (Exodus 34:14; Acts 14:11-18; Romans 1:24-25; Revelation 19:10). Jesus himself even taught this (Matthew 4:10; John 4:23). No mere creature can legitimately receive worship.
5. The Patriarchs and Prophets expected a Messiah who would also be Jehovah. The Messiah was expected to be not only David’s son, but his Lord as well (Psalm 110:1). Job said “For I know my Redeemer [is] living, and He shall rise on the earth at the last; and after my skin has been struck off from my flesh, yet this, I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26). John wrote of Jesus in John 12:37-41 that Isaiah “saw His glory, and spoke about Him.” (cf. Isaiah 6:1-5). The Patriarchs and Prophets did not expect that the Messiah would be a mere creature.
Finally, there is Revelation 1: 11-18. In this section, John sees a vision of a person who clearly identifies himself as Jehovah God (vss. 11,14,17). He also has the appearance of a “Son of Man” (v. 13). But this person goes on to say, in v. 18, “I became dead.” So how could Jehovah God die? The only possible explanation is that Jehovah God died on a Roman cross, just outside Jerusalem.“
You wrote: “Your very statement tells me you have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about. the death, buriel, ressurrection are one of the primary things concerning the Kingdom Of God.”
Oh, so I “have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about”, eh? Does this mean that I am LOST, Ken? But since I know you don’t have the spine to judge me lost, what is the point of telling me about your view of the Kingdom? If I will be going to heaven no matter what I believe about the Gospel, what is the point of preaching it, or correcting me on my misunderstanding of it?
You are lost, Ken, and so is everyone who believes this damnable heresy. I can say that with absolute certainty because of Mat 7:20. Repent and believe the Gospel.
