May 13, 2012
Bill Twisse vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
This article is one I posted to a message board called “theChan”. The site has since been reformatted, and this posting deleted. The first half of this article is posted here.
================================
Bill Twisse’s next problem with the CCF is the teaching that Adam was innocent:
<<This teaching is a bulwark of paradox theology. An innocent person without impulse to sin plunged all humanity into sin. No further comment needed, as I have discussed this extensively in the past.>>
[CA] Since I have not seen Mr. Twisse’s “extensive discussion” of the innocence of Adam, I will not respond to it here, except to list some of the verses referred to in the CCF, and note that they teach that God made man “upright” and “in His own image”. In what way can it be said that Adam and Eve were made “in the image” of God, if not in their innocence?
Genesis 1: (26) And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. (27) And God created the man ***in His own image*** ; in the image of God He created him.
Ecclesiastes 7: (29) See, this only I have found, that ***God has made man upright*** , but they have sought out many inventions.
James 3: (9) By this we bless God and the Father; and by this we curse men having come into being ***according to the image of God***.
Bill Twisse next takes issue with the CCF position on “Grace”:
<the declaration of favor conferred in the atonement——outside of the experience of the sinner.>>
[CA] This makes me wonder how closely Bill has read the CCF. Here is what it actually says:
“In covenanting with Jesus Christ, God the Father covenanted with all the elect in Jesus Christ, to be their God and to reveal His divine love, mercy, grace, and wisdom to them by saving them through the work of Jesus Christ their Redeemer. … Further, as part of the terms of this covenant, the Father decreed to send the Holy Spirit to indwell His elect people. “ II.D.1.b & c
“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.”V.B.1
“Regeneration (also known as the new birth) is that grace in which the Holy Spirit brings a sinner from spiritual death to spiritual life, … Regeneration is never preceded by any condition the sinner meets, can meet, or is enabled to meet. ” V.C.1
Nothing here even implies that Regeneration is anything BUT a “benefit resulting from grace”. Nothing here even implies that Regeneration is itself a saving grace, or that it is not a work of God.
Bill’s assertion that “Grace is the declaration of favor conferred in the atonement——outside of the experience of the sinner.” is equivocation. Grace is ALWAYS experienced by the sinner; it can never be experienced by anyone BUT a sinner. However, grace is NEVER *MERITED* by the sinner – as the Confession clearly says.
<<Paradox theology is almost always employed to explain the justice of hell. Two contradictory propositions:
.All the sufferings of hell can never pay for even one sin (so why do they exist in relation to sin?)
.Sin offends an infinitely holy God; thus it is an infinite crime deserving infinite punishment.
The scriptures cited do not even begin to prove these two propositions in the way that they are stated. >>
[CA] First, the CCF clearly repudiates paradox theology:
“God is a logical being, and the knowledge that He imparts to His people is logical and noncontradictory. God is not paradoxical or illogical, for God cannot be against Himself.” II.A.7
Second, there is no paradox here. The second statement (“Sin offends an infinitely holy God; thus it is an infinite crime deserving infinite punishment”) is an explanation of the first (“All the sufferings of hell can never pay for even one sin”).
Here is what the Confession teaches about the doctrine of Hell:
“All for whom Jesus Christ did not die will live eternally in the pit of Hell and will be eternally tormented for their sins. Souls who are tormented in the next life will never suffer enough to even begin to pay for as much as one sin. Scripture rejects the lie that souls in Hell cease to exist or cease to be tormented, as this is a denial that offending the infinitely holy God is an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment. Scripture also rejects the lie of Purgatory as well as the lie that those who perish denying the doctrines of the gospel will finally accept them in heaven.” VII.B.
Third, I will print out some of the verses listed in support of the doctrine of Hell, and let the reader decide if they prove the disputed propositions.
Deuteronomy 32: (22) For a fire has been kindled in My anger, and it burns to the lowest Sheol, and consumes the earth and its produce; and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Deuteronomy 32: (41) If I have sharpened My glittering sword, and My hand lays hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My foes, and I will repay those who hate Me.
Psalms 9: (17) The wicked shall be turned to Sheol, all the nations forgetting God.
Proverbs 27: (20) Sheol and destruction are never satisfied, so the eyes of man are never satisfied.
Isaiah 33: (14) The sinners of Zion are afraid; terror has seized profane ones; who of us shall tarry with consuming fire? Who of us shall tarry with everlasting burnings?
Matthew 13: (41) 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. (42) And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Mark 9: (43) 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 unquenchable fire, (44) where their worm does not die, and the fire is not put out.
Luke 16: (23) And being in torments in hell, lifting up his eyes, he sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. (24) 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.
Romans 2: (5) But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up to yourself wrath in a day of wrath, and revelation of a righteous judgment of God?
2 Thessalonians 1: (6) since it is a just thing with God to pay back tribulation to the ones troubling you, (7) and to give you, those being afflicted, relief with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven with angels of His power, (8) in flaming fire giving full vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Jude 1: (6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; (7) as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.
Revelation 14: (11) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And those worshiping the beast and its image have no rest night and day, even if anyone receives the mark of its name.
[CA] Bill Twisse concludes his section on the CCF’s teaching of Hell by saying:
<elect will never experience it themselves.>>
[CA] This is fine, so far as it goes, but it doesn’t tell us what, if anything happens to the non-elect. Did Jesus suffer for them, too? Do they experience the wrath of God? Are they destroyed by it?
Finally, Bill Twisse offers some examples of “omissions” from the CCF. The first “omission” has to do with Jesus’ impeccability:
<is said about Christ’’s impeccability. This is a major omission if one is intent on honoring the Christ of revelation in the darkness of all of today’’s heresy>>
[CA] Actually, the Christology section DOES have something to say about Jesus’ impeccability:
“He was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, contracting no guilt or
defilement from Adam. He was totally and completely without sin.” IV.A.1
The second “omission” is this:
<<Legal additions to the gospel that ultimately result in denying it are not condemned: Sabbatarianism, tithing, sacraments, sacred buildings, systems of false prophetic interpretation, ‘‘steps’’ to holiness, worldly promotional methods.>>
[CA] While none of these things are mentioned by name, the CCF does have something to say about relying on works as a means of gaining or maintaining God’s favor:
“The gospel, which is clearly revealed within the Scriptures, is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing. No man ever has, or ever can be, saved apart from the knowledge of this gospel, for it is this gospel and this alone that glorifies God in all His redemptive attributes. Scripture rejects the lie that a regenerate person may be ignorant of the gospel or that the people of God were saved by various other means under various other dispensations (such as the keeping of the law in the time of Moses, etc.).” V.B.3
“Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. No man is justified before God by works. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is diametrically opposed to salvation by works. Scripture rejects the lie that man is able to keep the law of God or even a mere summary of the law as a means of gaining God’s favor, let alone that he is able to obey the law beyond what God requires.” V.C.4
“A believer’s assurance does not lie in his obedience to the law, his continued repentance, or anything else but in the sure and certain promise of God through the work of Jesus Christ alone received by faith.” V.C.6
[CA] Thus, the CCF clearly teaches that no keeping of the Law can ever bring anyone favor with God, or assurance of his favor.
If anyone would like to ask questions, or otherwise correspond, my e-mail is c_adams@s******m.net
Christopher Adams.
================================
For more information please see:
May 6, 2012
Bill Twisse vs. the Gospel, pt. 1
This article is one I posted to a message board called “theChan”. The site has since been reformatted, and this posting deleted.
================================
Response to Bill Twisse
On January 19, 2004, a lengthy critique of the Christian Confession of Faith was posted by Bill Twisse. This article will be a response to that critique. All quotes from Mr. Twisse will be enclosed in <>. Unless otherwise noted, all other quotes are from the Christian Confession of Faith ( www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm , February 13, 2004)
Mr. Twisse begins by saying:
<the content of the statement itself. Other issues, such as Arminianism and Tolerant Calvinism, will be dealt with later if need be. I will make one preliminary observation. The habit of using ‘‘Arminianism’’ as a label, in reference to all attempts of synthesizing free-will philosophy with the Christian gospel, this is false. >>
[CA] The last sentence of this quote makes no sense, unless Twisse is referring to his own use of the word “Arminianism” in the second sentence. The words “Arminian” and “Arminianism” nowhere occur in the Confession. This was done for a reason, namely to avoid giving the appearance that we are opposed merely to the beliefs of a single man, or group of men. What we oppose in the CCF is Free Will, and Universal Atonement, and these terms both occur in the CCF.
<churchian dogma as unregenerate. In using this term, they are failing to expose the heresy of 1400+ years of dogma before Arminius, who taught merely one version of free-will heresy.>>
[CA] Apparently Bill has never read the Cannons of Dordt:
“Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those … Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them. For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.” Head II / Rejection of Errors #3
[CA] Note that these words were formulated in response to the doctrines taught by Arminius’ own students. The delegates to the Synod of Dordt (1618-19) realized that the Arminian heresy was merely a subtle version of the Pelagian heresy.
<<In this critique, I will not quote from the OTC confession, since reproduction is forbidden and I do ‘‘obey the rules.’>>
[CA] Actually, this is untrue. The title page of the confession says this:
“Permission is granted to reprint any parts of the Christian Confession of Faith, providing that the citation includes the title of the document and the mailing address and web site address of the publisher.”
[CA] So, you could very easily quote from the Confession. In fact, it would be helpful if you did, since we could get down to specifics regarding where you think the confession is wrong.
<may be assumed to be 100% accurate. I agree with the great majority of the OTC confession. In fact, on many points it is superior to almost all other confessions. But I will never cross the line into the territory of unquestioned submission to everything that a teacher promotes. That would be revering a certain teacher as on the level of Christ. Paul condemns this schismatic attitude in 1 Cor. 1.>>
[CA] Then why do you think this confession wasn’t named the Carpenter Confession? Why the CHRISTIAN Confession of Faith? Because this Confession was written specifically to put forth the essential doctrines necessary to, or implied by, the GOSPEL. When we wrote it, we were very careful to exclude anything not strictly related to the Gospel, such as the mode of baptism, or the relationship of the church to the magistrates. Show me which point of doctrine the Confession puts forth that is NOT essential to, or necessarily implied by, the Gospel.
<<The greatest sin of the OTC confession is an underlying assumption that the words of a person always express the beliefs of the mind and heart. If this were true, a Christian believer would be sinless in mind. The fact is: remaining sin will always manifest itself in wrong acts and expressions in word. >>
[CA] This is equivocation. There is a world of difference between someone who differs with us on the exact wording we used, and those who differ with us on the CONTENT of the Confession. Believe it or not, after the Confession was first published we accepted some criticism of it from a man who disagreed with us over the WORDING, but agreed with the SUBSTANCE of the Confession. We didn’t consider him lost, or cut off communication with him; in fact we ADOPTED his suggestions!
There are certainly many things that regenerate people can disagree over. But there are some things (eg, the Deity of Christ) that regenerate people can NEVER disagree over! When God causes one of his elect to believe the Gospel, he sovereignly CAUSES that person to believe the necessary doctrines of the Gospel. Each person may have a different way of expressing the same doctrine, without differing on the doctrine itself. There may be many words and phrases to express (for example), the divine nature of Jesus Christ, but saying “Jesus was a created angel” is not among them.
Suppose someone actually came to your fellowship and wanted to join; but he stated that he believed Jesus was a created angel. Would you admit him to your fellowship? After all, he could merely be using wrong expressions because of his remaining sin, right? Furthermore, you wouldn’t want him to unquestioningly submit to everything you teach, right?
This quote is from an article Marc wrote for OUTSIDE THE CAMP (Vol 4, No. 2):
“Another example of a contrast between the regenerate and the unregenerate is in Matthew 7:15-20 and Luke 6:43-45. Christ Jesus uses very strong and clear language to describe the impossibilities in both cases: “A good tree CANNOT produce evil fruits, NOR a corrupt tree good fruits.” “For there is NOT a good tree that produces bad fruit, NOR a bad tree that produces good fruit.” Christ Jesus is here speaking of an IMPOSSIBILITY. It is JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE for a regenerate man to produce evil fruit as it is for a totally depraved man to produce good fruit!! Do you see the impact of that statement? We know about the impossibility of totally depraved man to bring forth good fruit (and we need to keep hearing it!). But in the exact opposite direction, and just as strongly, it is impossible for a regenerate man to bring forth bad fruit! Is this talking about sinless perfection? Obviously not. Luke 6:45 gives us the answer: “The good man brings forth good out of the good treasure of his heart. And the evil man brings forth evil out of the evil treasure of his heart, for his mouth speaks out of the abundance of his heart.” This is not talking about all the thoughts, words, and deeds of either the regenerate or unregenerate man; it is talking specifically about what GOSPEL the men believe and confess. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a regenerate man to believe and confess a false gospel!! Those who are in the flesh bear fruit unto death, and those who are in the Spirit bear fruit unto God (Romans 7:4-5), and it is JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE for one who is in the Spirit to bear fruit unto death as it is for one who is in the flesh to bear fruit unto God.”
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/presgrace.htm , January 22, 2004
<<The words that I have expressed so far will immediately become perverted by a different group who don’’t want to accept the whole of biblical revelation. >>
[CA] Really? Where? Would you kindly point out some specifics?
<constitutes the revelation of scripture is not clearly defined. My assumption would be that it is the 66 books. However, the issue of ‘‘original manuscripts’’ vs. possible corruption by interpolation needs to be addressed.>>
[CA] Again, not true. It was dealt with in section I.B.:
“B. Preservation
It has been God’s special care to providentially preserve the Bible whole
and unblemished through every age. [Deu 31:11; Psa 12:5-7; 111:7-8; 119:152;
Isa 40:8; 59:21; Act 15:21; Rom 3:1-4; Eph 2:20]”
<<There is no question that scripture teaches a plan and purpose of redemption among the Trinity before human time. The issue is whether the scriptural revelation of covenant applies within the Godhead itself. The scriptures cited all apply to covenants that God made unilaterally with estranged humans during the course of earthly history.>>
[CA] One of the verses referred to is Galatians 3:16-18. Here is verse 17 (emphasis mine):
Galatians 3:17 And I say this, A covenant having been ratified before ***TO CHRIST BY GOD***, [the] Law coming into being four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul the promise, so as to abolish [it].
Sure sounds like a covenant within the Godhead itself to me.
<<Also, not all covenants that God has made were unilateral. There was one exception (see Exodus 19)>>
[CA] Apparently Mr. Twisse is referring to Exodus 19:5:
Exodus 19:5 And now if listening you will listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth [is] Mine.
[CA] I don’t see any exception here. God told Moses he would make the Israelites his special treasure if they obeyed him. This requirement is not something that God and the Israelites arrived at jointly, it was UNILATERALLY imposed on the Israelites by God.
<reveal to the elect God’’s saving love. … The true position of scripture is that God purposed reprobation strictly for his own good pleasure, as he purposed redemption for his own good pleasure. The saints receive pleasure from this because they share Christ’’s reign and rule over the lost.>>
[CA] Again, one of the verses referred to is Romans 9:21-23 (emphasis mine):
Romans 9:22-23 But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, (23) and ***THAT HE MAKE KNOWN THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY ON VESSELS OF MERCY*** which He before prepared for glory,
[CA] As the Confession itself goes on to explain:
“Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine of reprobation does not make believers exalt themselves over other men; instead, it humbles them and causes them to tremble before Almighty God, thankful that He has graciously numbered them among the elect rather than the reprobate. [Rom 9:15-16,23, 29; 1Co 4:7; 2Th 2:11-13]” (II.D.2.g)
<infralapsarian false teaching.>>
[CA] First, as explained above, the Confession explicitly teaches that the “doctrine of reprobation does not make believers exalt themselves over other men; instead, it humbles them and causes them to tremble before Almighty God, thankful that He has graciously numbered them among the elect rather than the reprobate” (II.D.2.g)
Second, noone is bypassed, as II.D.2.d teaches:
“God actively causes the reprobate to hate His glory, persecute His people, and oppose His gospel, that He may justly punish them. [Exo 7:3; 9:12; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:25; Psa 105:25; Rom 9:18; Rev 17:17]” (II.D.2.d)
[CA] Third, II.D.2.c explicitly teaches that God planned to cause the elect and reprobate to become unrighteous together, the very OPPOSITE of infralapsarian teaching:
“The Father determined to include the elect and the reprobate in one common fall, that they should be equally ruined and undone, equally guilty and defiled, and equally in need of a righteousness that neither could produce on their own. [Rom 3:9-12,23; 5:12-14; Eph 2:3]” (II.D.2.c)
[CA] Infralapsarianism is the teaching that God planned who would be his elect out of “a common mass of fallen humanity.” The Confession teaches that God planned who would be his elect and who would be reprobate BEFORE he planned that they would all be equally unrighteous. Note that this order is LOGICAL, not TEMPORAL, because it all took place before time began.
Bill Twisse’s next problem with the CCF is the teaching that Adam was innocent:
<<This teaching is a bulwark of paradox theology. An innocent person without impulse to sin plunged all humanity into sin. No further comment needed, as I have discussed this extensively in the past.>>
[CA] Since I have not seen Mr. Twisse’s “extensive discussion” of the innocence of Adam, I will not respond to it here, except to list some of the verses referred to in the CCF, and note that they teach that God made man “upright” and “in His own image”. In what way can it be said that Adam and Eve were made “in the image” of God, if not in their innocence?
Genesis 1: (26) And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. (27) And God created the man ***in His own image*** ; in the image of God He created him.
Ecclesiastes 7: (29) See, this only I have found, that ***God has made man upright*** , but they have sought out many inventions.
James 3: (9) By this we bless God and the Father; and by this we curse men having come into being ***according to the image of God***.
================================
To Be Continued …
For more information please see:
April 22, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 4
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is DeYoung’s final response to me. Note that he outright refused to discuss any biblical issues unless I first spoke peace to him. Note that he also accused me of being “unwilling” to discuss any biblical issues! Talk about hypocrisy.
================================
From: Mark DeYoung
To: Chris Adams, Ken Lokken, Vic Sciavone, etc.
January 27, 2012
Re: Emailing: There is One Elohim
Ken and Vic,
Jesus warned us of people like Christopher…
Because he will not listen, Jesus said there comes a time we must shake the dust off of our feet, take the peace with us that is given by our God and His son Jesus.
There is never a time that such angry belligerence is considered acceptable, especially in the discussion of the Bible, our faith and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Here is Jesus words of instruction and also word of warning!
Matthew 10:13-20 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. (14) If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. (15) Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (16) ”See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (17) Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; (18) and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. (19) When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; (20) for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Christopher, I have spent the last few days since your last email that I was aware of being sent out, as to my response.
Your refusal to “Come and let us reason together” concerning the Word of God, and your constantly foul spirited lambasting of anyone that refuses to accept your definition of God and the plan of salvation, has caused me to realize that this is the best time to say, “Good Day to you sir.”
Mark D.
================================
At this point, Chris Duncan (who runs the outstanding blog Agrammatos) jumped in, nicely summarizing the debate to that point:
================================
From: Chris Duncan
To: Mark DeYoung, Chris Adams, etc.
January 28, 2012
Re: Emailing: There is One Elohim
It looks to me like Mark DeYoung is exhibiting angry belligerence toward my brother in Christ, Christopher Adams. Initially, DeYoung was willing to count a Trinitarian as his brother in the Lord since, evidently, he believes the true identity of Jesus Christ to be a non-essential doctrine over which true Christians may disagree. What kind of sense does it make to solemnly warn a person over a non-essential or secondary doctrine?
Does Vic Schiavone think the true identity of Jesus Christ is a non-essential doctrine, over which true Christians may disagree? It seems so, since he just wished nothing but blessing upon him, in his last e-mail. DeYoung is belligerently warning Christopher, and Schiavone is “lovingly” blessing Christopher. DeYoung and Schiavone cannot get on the same page regarding someone who stubbornly refuses to relinquish his belief in a doctrine they believe to be non-essential.
In John 8:24, Jesus connects disbelief in His true identity with a person dying in their sins — evidently, a very small hint of mean-spirited and unChrist-like belligerence is being exhibited here.
More angry, impatient belligerence:
“Who is the liar, except the one denying, saying that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father” (1 John 2:22-23; emphasis mine).
Is a Son who merely came into existence at the time of Bethlehem being described here by John? Does it look like John thinks the true identity of the Son is something over which true Christians may disagree? Not unless, you believe John is calling true Christians antichrists, liars, and those who do not have the Father. So, unlike some of the non-Trinitarians on this list, the apostle John does not believe this is a secondary issue.
Do the non-Trinitarians believe that Trinitarians such as Christopher Adams and myself are denying the Son? How about you, Mr. Buzzard? I’ve seen your debate with James White and Michael Brown (both damnable heretics, by the way), where they voiced “concern” for you and your debate partner — but they lacked the spiritual spine to actually go as far the apostle John went (James White even referenced the apostle John’s words). Mr. Buzzard, in the debate, you had seemingly echoed their “concern” as well:
Sir Anthony: “… same as we. I’ve been told I don’t believe in God because I believe there’s a devil. I’ve been told I don’t speak in tongues enough so I couldn’t be saved. I’ve heard this from every single denomination. This is nothing new….”
Same as we? What does that mean? Are you saying that you, likewise, are “concerned” over the souls of tolerant Calvinist heretic James White and Arminian heretic, Michael Brown? What’s with the lack of certitude on your, James White’s, and Michael Brown’s parts? Why not come right out and say it like the apostle John did? Can’t bring yourselves to be that mean and belligerent?
Chris Duncan
================================
April 15, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 3
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is DeYoung’s response to my first email.
================================
From: Mark DeYoung
To: Chris Adams
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Christopher,
Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come torepentance.
Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.
Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. If these are acceptable terms then we will continue.
We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.
But let’s discuss one thing at a time, I’m a full time pastor of a church and my time is limited when it comes to email correspondence.
=======================================
From: Chris Adams
To: Mark DeYoung
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Mark –
You wrote:
“Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come to repentance.”
What I was trying to show you is that the “simpleton … go[ing] blindly on” referred to in your own signature, is in fact you. I was hoping to shake you out of your simplicity, and show you the true nature of the danger you face.
As for my “lack of God’s love”; in the first place, God does not want all men without exception to come to repentance (Rom 9:17), but all men without distinction (Col 3:11, 1Ti 2:1-4).
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.”
Col 3:11 where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman, but Christ is all things and in all.
1Ti 2: (1) First of all then, I exhort that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all the ones being in high position, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet existence in all godliness and dignity. (3) For this is good and acceptable before God our deliverer, (4) who desires all men to be delivered and to come to a full knowledge of truth.
Of course, you’re not complaining about God’s lack of love, but about mine. The problem is that you apparently equate love with me telling you that everything is right with your soul, and everything is right between you and God. But it isn’t, and I won’t lie, and tell you it is.
If a man was sleeping in a burning house would it be more loving to let him enjoy his restful slumber, or would it be more loving to shout and annoy him?
Was Christ being loving towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel being unloving towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul being unloving when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
Mat 23: (14) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour the houses of widows, and pray at length as a pretext. Because of this you will receive more abundant judgment. (15) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you go about the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte; and when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves. (16) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the Holy Place, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Holy Place is a debtor. (17) Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the Holy Place that sanctifies the gold?
Eze 16:25 At the head of every highway you have built your high place, and have made your beauty despised. And you have parted your feet to all who passed by, and have multiplied your fornications.
Gal 5:12 I would that the ones causing you to doubt will cut themselves off.
Mark, I do hope that you will come to repentance, but that means that you need to repent; that is, you need to be saved. How else should I tell you to come to repentance, except by telling you that you are lost? If I told you that you were saved, there wouldn’t be any need for repentance.
But there’s more. In previous correspondence, Ken Lokken told me this: “I dare say if you continue in your beliefs now that you are informed..you certainly will not be part of the kingdom and that means you are LOST!” So, Mark, are you going to rebuke Ken, tell him that this was uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love, and desire for all men to come to repentance? If so, I want to be on the cc list.
You wrote:
“Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
Mark, you don’t believe the Gospel. Therefore, you are not my brother in Christ. Your father is the devil, and you are an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel.
You also wrote: “If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.”
This is the opposite of the truth. See Eze 3:18-19. I have delivered my soul, and the responsibility to repent is now yours.
Eze 3: (18) In My saying to the wicked, Surely you shall die; and you do not warn him, and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But I will require his blood at your hand. (19) And you, because you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his way, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But you have delivered your soul.
You also wrote:
“Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. ”
Again, was Christ using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul using compassion, gentleness, and meekness when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
The answer to all three questions is: Yes, they were. And if you disagree, then you need to adjust your concept of compassion, gentleness, and meekness, or else admit that God inspired these men to say and write sinful things (which would be blasphemy).
You also wrote:
“We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.”
It seems like not too long ago somebody said this to me: “Christopher I hope you don’t mind the copy and paste, but why should the wheel be reinvented? ” Well, good question. Why should I reinvent the wheel? For this post, I have pasted in the passages I referred to, but I have also already written a good deal of stuff that is relevant to this argument, including the Christian Confession of Faith, a couple of articles, and a dozen pages of correspondence with Ken Lokken. Do you really want me copy and paste all of that here? If you’re willing to read all of that, it’s just as easy to click a link.
Furthermore, you’re not the only person that that post was sent to. There are quite a few names on that cc list, and if any of them were interested in the previous material, they deserved to have the link.
If you want to continue this exchange, fine, but this is not a friendly discussion between brothers in Christ. Nor is it a discussion about trivial matters. It is a discussion about the fundamentals of the Gospel, and that has eternal consequences. If you believe in a false Gospel to your dying breath, you will spend eternity in hell.
Mar 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.
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.
Christopher Adams.
=======================================
See also:
April 8, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is my response to DeYoung’s first email.
================================
To: Mark DeYoung
From: Chris Adams
January, 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Mr. DeYoung —
Well, I have to hand it to you Mr. DeYoung, at least you have the integrity to include some discussion of Bible verses with your e-mail. Ken Lokken flat out refused to discuss any verses that I offered, then offered me exactly one verse, and even that one I had to drag out of him. Anthony Buzzard refused to discuss even one verse. Let’s see if you fare better than they did.
First, discussing Deu 18:15-16, you wrote:
“So in this passage the Jewish people would understand that the “one” Moses was referring to was a human being, simply a man.”
Well, this is both wrong and right at the same time. SOME of the Jewish people were expecting that the Messiah would be “simply a man”. But the remnant, like Abraham (Joh 8:56-58), Job (Job 19:25-26) and Isaiah (Joh 12:37-41), were expecting a Messiah who was more than human; one who was God in the flesh.
Next, on Psa 2:7, you wrote:
“Nothing in this says that this is the essence of God. Your jumping through hoops to make it say that. In fact the definition of “begotten” according to Strong’s #H3205 יָלַד yalad {yaw-lad’} A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage. In this case the “causatively to beget” is the part that is applicable.”
Actually, it is the whole definition of ‘yalad’ that is applicable, including the “causatively to beget” and “specifically to show lineage”. God was proclaiming that the Messiah would be his “Son”. Now let’s look at what happened when Jesus claimed to be “the Son of God”:
Joh 5: (18) Because of this, therefore, the Jews lusted the more to kill Him, for not only did He break the sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal to God.
Joh 10: (33) 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.
You are definitely correct to say that the Jews (at least some of them) were expecting a merely human Messiah. But that isn’t what Jesus claimed to be, and the Jews knew it. Note that in claiming to be the “Son of God” the Jews understood that Jesus was not merely claiming to be a ‘ “mighty hero” or “divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty” ‘ as Brown-Driver-Briggs put it in their lexicon — he was “making himself equal with God”.
Of Psa 110, you write:
“God didn’t promise that He in human flesh would appear or be born for that matter”.
True. Which is why that isn’t the point. The point is that David referred to his son as his Lord. I addressed this in my previous correspondence with Ken Lokken, which I linked to, below. Jesus’ own question to the Pharisees, and my question to you, is: “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”
In your discussion of Isa 9:6, you quote from several commentators, and while I don’t endorse any of them, the first one had some interesting points. Grotius says that “not all Trinitarians understand the verse as a reference to Christ only” — in other words some Trinitarians refer the verse to both Hezekiah AND to Christ. Further, he says that “This passage is acknowledged … to relate in the same manner, but in a more excellent sense, to the Messiah.” Saying that the verse refers to BOTH Hezekiah as a type of Christ, AND Jesus as the anti-type, in no way detracts from the truth that Jesus is “the Mighty God”.
As for the word “god”, yes, it is definitely used to refer to some people, such as in Psa 82:6, as the quote from Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates. But since you quoted next from John Calvin, let’s see what he had to say on Psa 82:6:
“Christ, with the view of rebutting the calumny with which the Pharisees loaded him, quoted this text, John 10:34, 35, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” By these words Christ did not mean to place himself among the order of judges; but he argues from the less to the greater, that if the name of God is applied to God’s officers, it with much more propriety belongs to his only begotten Son, who is the express image of the Father, in whom the Father’s majesty shines forth, and in whom the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells.”
Again, I am no more endorsing Calvin than Grotius, but it does show what Calvin REALLY thought of the use of the word ‘god’ in Psa 82:6.
As for Calvin and Servetus, please refer to my article about them.
Of Luk 2:7, you wrote:
“there is no mention of a God-Man in this passage!”
Well, no kidding. But what there is in this passage is mention of Jesus’ humanity, a point that is essential to the Gospel. He is both God and Man, and is therefore able to “lay his hand” on both (Job 9:33).
Of Joh 1:1 you wrote:
“The text simply reads, “In the beginning was the word,” not “In the beginning was the Son.””
True, but here’s what the verse does say:
Joh 1: (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So in what way was the “Word” both with God and at the same time, the Word was God? And in what way was this “Word” (who both was God, and was with God) “made flesh and tabernacled among us”?
As for calling you on the phone, I prefer to keep this exchange written. This format is much more conducive to thinking, logic, and study.
Finally, I notice that you have this in your signature:
“Proverbs 22:3, A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.”
That’s a very appropriate verse, Mark. And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:
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]
I urge you to repent and believe it.
=======================================
For more information, please see:
The Christian Confession of Faith
