May 27, 2012

Darwin Fish vs. the Gospel, pt. 2

Posted in Darwin FIsh tagged Bible, Common Grace, Covenant, Gospel, Justification, Paradox, Universal Atonement at 4:00 am by chriswadams

The following is part two of an e-mail I wrote a few months ago. The first part can be found here.

=========================================

Darwin continues:

It is flat out a lie. In Gethsemane, Jesus, the Son of God, God Himself (John 1:1), prayed an illogical paradoxical contradictory prayer. He prayed, “Take this cup away from Me” (Mark 14:36). That request was against the logic of God’s perfect eternal plan for both Christ and the salvation of mankind. It was paradoxical to be asking for that which cannot be. It was contradictory to God’s prophetic word (e.g. Daniel 9:26; Isaiah 53; etc.). Sovereign Redeemer Assembly (outsidethecamp.org) has a god of their own making. They have “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptiable man” (Romans 1:23).

Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane may not be easy to understand from a human perspective, but it hardly demonstrates that God is “illogical paradoxical [or] contradictory”, especially when it was accompanied with the request, “Yet not what I will, but what You will .” Christ was in perfect submission to the will of the Father, and for Mr. Fish to suggest otherwise is simply repulsive.

In this confession under “II. God, C. Divine Attributes” they write,

“1. God is all-knowing, everywhere present, unchangeable, and not able to be limited.”

The last phrase, “not able to be limited” is again a lie, as Jesus said in His impossible prayer in the garden, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You” (Mark 14:36). The eternal infinite all-powerful God can be limited. His ability to be limited is well illustrated in His wrestling match with Jacob. Even after dislocating Jacob’s hip, the Lord still requested for release saying, “Let Me go, for the day breaks” and Jacob refuses saying, “I will not let you go unless You bless me” (Genesis 32:26). The Lord then blesses him, and Jacob releases him. Jacob “struggled with God” and prevailed (Genesis 32:28; Hosea 12:3-4).

Evidently, Darwin is getting as irrational as he thinks God is. How the story of Jacob wrestling with God proves that God can be limited is beyond me.

Under “II. God, D. Predestination. 1. Election” they write,

“d. When Scripture speaks of God’s covenant, it does not mean a conditional agreement or contract between two parties; rather, it means a bond of friendship and fellowship that is unilaterally enacted by God. [Gen 15:12-21; Lev 26:44-45; Deu 4:31; 7:6-8; Jdg 2:1; 2Ch 13:5; Psa 89:3; Isa 54:10; 55:5; Heb 6:17-18; 8:10]“

They lie here as well when they say, “it does not mean a conditional agreement”. God’s covenant is both unilateral (e.g. Romans 8:29-39; etc.) and conditional (Romans 11:20-22; 2 Timothy 2:11-12; Hebrews 10:26; etc.). Of course, when you are stuck on one’s own idea of logic, contradiction, and paradox, then truth is therefore rejected based on a man-made standard of logic, contradiction, and paradox.

And now we see why Darwin wants to have a God who is irrational: he wants a covenant that is both unilateral (thereby exalting God’s grace), and at the same time conditional (thereby exalting Man’s free will). Again, notice that Mr. Fish makes no effort whatsoever to deal with the verses put forth by the Confession. Let’s look at a few of those verses:

Deu 7: (6) For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God. Jehovah your God has chosen you to be His own treasure out of all the people on the face of the earth. (7) Jehovah did not set His love on you or choose you because you were more in number than any people, for you were the fewest of all peoples. (8) But because Jehovah loved you, and because He kept the oath which He swore to your fathers, Jehovah has caused you to go out with a strong hand, and redeemed you from the house of slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Isa 54: (10) For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My mercy shall not depart from you; nor shall the covenant of My peace be removed, says Jehovah who has pity on you.

Heb 8: (10) Because this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

These verses describe God’s covenant with his people, and there is no conditionality here whatsoever. In fact, these verses demonstrate that the covenant God made with his people is completely unconditional.

Now for the verses that Mr. Fish refers to:

Rom 11: (20) Well! For unbelief they were broken off. And you stand by faith. Do not be highminded, but fear. (21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear that it may be He will not spare you either. (22) Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God: On those having fallen, severity. But on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise, you will also be cut off.

God’s covenant with his elect is not actually in view here. The context of this quote is the cutting off of the Jewish nation as the exclusive people of God, and this verse deals with the bringing in of the Gentiles as a whole, not the election of individual Gentiles. The nature of God’s covenant with elect individuals is spelled out a few verses later:

Rom 11: (27) And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins. … (29) For the free gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.

Darwin also refers to:

2Ti 2: (11) Faithful is the Word: for if we died with Him , we also shall live with Him ; (12) if we endure, we shall also reign with Him ; if we deny Him, that One will deny us;

The non-conditional nature of this verse is actually shown in the very next verse:

2Ti 2: (13) if we are unfaithful, that One remains faithful; He is not able to deny Himself.

Finally, Darwin also refers to:

Heb 10: (26) For if we are willfully sinning after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice concerning sins,

The people being spoken of here are not those who were truly converted, but only said they were, perhaps even deceiving themselves. They are like the seed that is sown on stony ground (Mat 13:20-21): they had “received the word with joy” and had “the full knowledge of the truth” but they “had no root in themselves”, so when persecution arose they fell away and left the assemblies (Heb 10:25). That didn’t show that they failed to meet a condition of any kind; instead it showed that they had never been regenerated to begin with.

Darwin continues:

Under “II. God, D. Predestination. 2. Reprobation” they write,

“e. God does not have any love toward the reprobate or any desire to save them,”

That is in direct opposition to Jeremiah 8:19-9:6; Micah 1:3-9; John 3:16; Romans 11:32; 1 Timothy 2:4; etc..

Let’s take a look at the verses Darwin mentions:

Jer 8: (19) Behold, the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people from a distant land! Is not Jehovah in Zion? Or is not her king in her? Why have they provoked Me with their carved images, with foreign vanities? (20) Harvest has passed; the summer has ended, and we are not delivered. (21) For the breaking of the daughter of my people, I am broken. I mourn; horror has taken hold on me. (22) Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no healer there? Why then has the healing of the daughter of My people not come? (9:1) Oh, that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! (2) Oh, that I had a lodging place for travelers in the wilderness, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous ones. (3) And they bend their tongues, their bow is a lie. And they are not mighty for the truth on the earth, for they go from evil to evil. They also do not know Me, says Jehovah. (4) Let everyone be on guard against his neighbor, and do not trust any brother. For every brother will supplant, and every neighbor will walk as a slanderer. (5) And everyone will deceive his neighbor, and they will not speak the truth. They have taught their tongue to speak lies. They weary themselves to commit iniquity. (6) Your home is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know Me says Jehovah.

Mic 1: (3) For, behold, Jehovah is coming out of His place, and He will come down and walk on the high places of the earth. (4) And the mountains shall melt under Him, and the valleys shall cleave themselves, as wax before the fire, as waters poured out on a steep place. (5) All this is against the transgression of Jacob, and against the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob? Is it not Samaria? And what are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jerusalem? (6) And I will make Samaria into ruins of the field, planting places for a vineyard. And I will pour down her stones into the valley, and I will uncover her foundations. (7) And all her carved images shall be beaten to pieces, and all her gifts for harlotry shall be burned with fire. And I will make all her idols a desolation. For she gathered it from the reward of a harlot, and they shall return to the reward of a harlot. (8) Because of this I will wail and howl; I will go stripped and naked; I will make a wailing like the jackal, yea, mourn like the daughters of an ostrich. (9) For her wounds are incurable; for it has come to Judah; it has reached to the gate of my people, to Jerusalem.

These two lengthy sections show God’s sorrowing over the apostasy of national Israel, but by no means shows that God loves those who go to Hell. National Israel was symbolic of God’s spiritual Israel, who will never end up in Hell.

Joh 3: (16) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Ti 2: (4) who desires all men to be delivered and to come to a full knowledge of truth.

These two verses were already explained in the Confession in section II.D.2.e:

Scripture, in speaking of God’s love for “all men” and “the world” is not speaking of all men without exception. Rather, these words refer to God’s love for all men without distinction – that is, regardless of their nationality or status.

Lastly:

Rom 11: (32) For God shut up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all.

As I said above, God’s covenant with his elect is not actually in view here. The context of this quote is the cutting off of the Jewish nation as the exclusive people of God, and this verse deals with the bringing in of all the nationalities of the Gentiles.

If God loves those in Hell, then he will be eternally sad that he couldn’t save everyone he wanted. Poor God. Poor, helpless, ineffective, powerless God. If that is the ‘God’ that Darwin Fish wants, he is welcome to it. I prefer the God of the Bible, who does what ever he pleases, and noone can oppose him (Psa 115:3, Dan 4:35, Rom 9:21).

Darwin continues:

Under “III. Man. B. Human Nature After The Fall and Before Regeneration” they write,

“1. Adam and Eve sinned by believing the devil’s lie and eating the forbidden fruit. [Gen 3:1-6]“

Adam did not believe the devil’s lie (1 Timothy 2:14).

Here is 1Ti 2:13-14:

1Ti 2: (13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression;

Notice the context: Paul’s point isn’t even about Adam; it’s really about Eve, and the reason for her subjection to Adam in the family order. Adam was not directly deceived by the Devil as Eve was, but he certainly “believed the devil’s lie”, as the Confession says.

But according to Darwin, the devil didn’t even lie:

Under this same section in “3.” speaking of the serpent’s words to Eve they write,

“according to the devil’s lie, ‘You shall be as God.’”

That was/is not a lie. It was true on that accord what the devil said. They would indeed “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5) as the text further illustrates. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and when they ate of it they became as God knowing good and evil.

Adam and Eve did indeed come to “know good and evil” in that they themselves became evil, but that’s not at all what the devil was implying. The implication was that God was lying, and Adam and Eve would not ever die from eating the fruit, but become “as God” in everything. So, yes, the devil did lie, as Jesus himself testified:

Joh 8: (44) You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

Darwin continues:

Under “IV. Jesus Christ, C. His Work” they write,

“2. . . . while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell.”

The Bible does not teach it “was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell”. They should not be adding a concept to God’s word that is not there (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Well, let’s see if the concept is in God’s word:

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.

Gal 3: (13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written, “Cursed is everyone having been hung on a tree;”

1Pe 3: (18) Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;

In order to be a substitute for his people, Jesus had to suffer what his people deserved. And what they deserved was the torment of eternal hell for their sins. Thus “Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell.”

Mr. Fish continues:

Moreover, Sovereign Redeemer Assembly prove themselves to be devils (slanderers, διαβολοι [diaboloi] “devils” 2 Timothy 3:3) under “IV. Jesus Christ. C. His Work” where they write,

“6. Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one glories and boasts in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]“

In the above quote they slander those who believe the truth (Christ did die even for those in hell) and falsely accuse them of being “blasphemers” who “believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation”. They accuse them of denying that “Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins”, of trampling “underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value”, and not being “a child of God”. Believing Christ died for even those in hell does not in any way dictate such slanderous accusations. But, according to their logic, it does.

If Christ died even for those in Hell, then his work on the cross was, in and of itself, insufficient to save everyone for whom it was intended. And that is blasphemy. It denies that Jesus made full satisfaction for sins, treats the blood of Christ as a thing of no value (especially when compared with the Almighty Free Will), and is a glorying and boasting in self. It is self that makes the difference, rather than the work of Christ.

In condemning the Christian Confession of Faith, Darwin Fish has shown us that he has a bible that is full of paradox and contradictions, a god who will be eternally sad that he was unable to save vast multitudes of people he loves, and a christ whose blood was unable to pay the sin-debt of vast multitudes of people he loves. Then he wonders why we call him and his brothers in Satan blasphemers. Darwin Fish’s false gospel of a powerless christ, uncertain promises, and the worship of man’s Free Will is from the pit of Hell, and will carry him back there if he dies believing it. Let everyone who believes it repent and believe the true 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]

-Christopher Adams.

=========================================

For more information, please see:

Gospel Atonement

The Christian Confession of Faith

Sermon on Romans 3:24-25

The Wicked Westminster Confession of Faith

Permalink Leave a Comment

May 20, 2012

Darwin Fish vs. the Gospel, pt. 1

Posted in Darwin FIsh tagged Bible, Common Grace, Covenant, Gospel, Justification, Paradox, Universal Atonement at 4:00 am by chriswadams

The following is part one of an e-mail I wrote a few months ago.

=========================================

Recently, my attention was brought to a website that offers a critique of the Christian Confession of Faith. The following blog post (http://www.atruechurch.info/archivedblog2.html, 2/12/2012) is written by Darwin Fish (elsewhere on this site, he assures us that, yes, that is his real, given name).

Mr. Fish begins with an e-mail he received that enquires about his view of the “Outside the Camp” website:

=========================================

From: jeremyj1515@***.com
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:40 PM
Subject: ?

Hello,

Have you ever researched”outside the camp”?(ousidethecamp.org)Please give me feedback .I have known mass delusion is everywhere. Including me.The Holy Spirit has testified of Jesus to me.But I can’t find the truth.I know it is all my fault .I am self-seeking in my seeking.Anyway please provide feedback on this site.Itseems to have something.–Thanks-Jeremy Jenkins

=========================================

Now here is Darwin’s reply:

From: Darwin
To: jeremyj1515@***.com
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: ?

“I am self-seeking in my seeking.”

Unless that changes, you will perish. See Romans 2:6-10.

In regards to that website, you have given ear to false lips (Proverbs 17:4). They are false.

So, right off the bat, Darwin has judged us to be “false lips”. This is promising; I respect someone who makes judgements of true and false, so long as they are based on the correct standard. Sadly, as we will see, Darwin Fish not only has a false, but a paradoxical and illogical standard for judging.

For one, they admit to being ecumenical. They write in the preface of their “Confession Of Faith” that their confession is,

“truly ecumenical in the good sense of the word.”

There is no good sense of the word in our venacular …

Here is the full sentence that Darwin has quoted from:

“From the outset, it was our mission to make a Confession with which every true Christian could agree in full, thus making it truly ecumenical in the good sense of the word.” (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfpreface.htm)

The preface of the Confession was written by Marc Carpenter, and there is a reason he specifically wrote that the Confession would be “truly ecumenical in the good sense of the word.” That reason is to make it obvious that he was talking specifically about an ecumenicity that is based on the Gospel, (which is something that “every true Christian” believes) and not false standards like experience or emotions. There really is a “good” sense of this word whether Mr. FIsh wants to recognize it or not.

Darwin continues:

… nor in their context, since they also claim in this preface regarding their “Confession of Faith”,

“The other Confessions leave room for their adherents to speak peace to those who believe false gospels; this Confession does not.”

Since their confession is not exaustive regarding the “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9), and since the Biblical “gospel” is “the word of truth” (Ephesians 1:13, i.e. “every word of God” Matthew 4:4), their claim is actually a lie and it most certainly does “leave room for . . . adherents to speak peace to those who believe false gospels”.

First, notice that Darwin doesn’t spell out what precisely the Confession is missing with regard to the “doctrine of Christ.”

More importantly, however, the Gospel is not “every word of God”, as Darwin has misquoted Mat 4:4. Man certainly is “to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, but that doesn’t mean that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is the Gospel.

Here is a quote from Marc Carpenter’s sermon “The Gospel – What It’s Not” that addresses the erroneous view that the Gospel is the entire Word of God:

It’s a very popular notion among those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace to define the gospel as everything that is contained in the Bible. Now what difference does this definition make? Isn’t it true that the entire Bible records the very words of God? Yes. Isn’t it true that God’s Word must be believed? Yes. Isn’t it true that the gospel is contained in God’s Word? Yes. Isn’t it true that the gospel is throughout God’s Word? Yes. So why is defining the gospel as the entire Word of God such a horrible error? Well, let’s think about it for a little while. If the gospel is the entire Word of God, then how is the gospel preached? Does the preacher have to read or preach the entire Bible in order to preach the gospel? Well, the advocates of this definition have a little out that they will always mention eventually. They will say, “No! A preacher doesn’t need to read or preach the entire Bible; instead, a preacher can read or preach ANYTHINGin the Bible and still preach the gospel.” So they believe that the power of God unto salvation isANYTHINGin the Bible. Now notice what this means about BELIEVINGthe gospel. Mark 16:16 says that those who do not believe the gospel will be damned. If they were consistent, they would have to say that those who do not believe EVEN ONE PARTof the Bible are lost. And, as I mentioned in last week’s sermon, you can’t believe what you don’t know. So, if they were consistent, they would have to say that someone who doesn’t know that Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah,” which is from Numbers 26:33, they are lost. But no – they do not say that someone who doesn’t know about a particular truth in the Bible is lost. Instead, they say that WHEN THIS MESSAGE IS PREACHED, they will believe it. And UNTIL IT IS PREACHED, a believer can be ignorant of it. Now this is all well and good, when it comes to the daughters of Zelophehad. But what about when it comes to the work of Christ that demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented? Here we get to the bottom of it all, and the real reason why some would want to define the gospel in this way. They use the SAME REASONING for the daughters of Zelophehad as for the atoning work of Christ. After all, since it’s ALLthe gospel, one passage of Scripture is no different than any other passage of Scripture when it comes to salvation.

The very word “gospel” means good news. God’s Gospel is not just news about every subject in the Bible, but good news about a very specific subject – the person and work of Jesus Christ. Trying to shoehorn the entire rest of the Bible into the Gospel is a bringing in of another gospel (Gal 1:8-9).

Darwin continues:

In fact, they themselves speak peace to an aberrant gospel, limited atonement. In their confession under “II. God, D. Predestination. 2. Reprobation” they write,

[e.] “Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobate in any sense,”

Under “IV. Jesus Christ. C. His Work” they write,

The gospel teaches exactly that. Christ did indeed die for people who perish (those in hell). See Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; Hebrews 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1; etc..

Now, section IV.C.6 is an odd choice to show that we believe in the doctrine of Limited (or Effectual) Atonement. Section IV.C.2 is a much better choice, since it actually puts forth that doctrine:

The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]

Darwin’s quote of section IV.C.6 rather than IV.C.2 raises some interesting questions. Since section IV.C.2 puts forth an effectual, rather than merely a limited atonement, is Darwin unable to refute the doctrine of Christ’s effectual atonement? And since section IV.C.6 really talks about Universal Atonement advocates being lost, is he actually offended more by that than by the doctrine of Effectual Atonement? That would be pretty hypocritical, considering he seems to judge us as lost. It’s not beyond some people, though.

Let’s take a moment now to look at the Scripture verses Darwin produced in favor of Universal Atonement:

Rom 14: (15) But if your brother is grieved because of your food, you no longer walk according to love. Do not by your food destroy that one for whom Christ died.

Even assuming that the “destruction” spoken of here is eternal destruction, Paul is not putting forth a case of an actual person for whom Christ died being destroyed, but merely a theoretical person. His point is to show the fearful effects of this theoretical case, if it were possible.

1Co 8: (11) And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died.

Again, even assuming that the “falling” here is eternal falling, Paul is not putting forth a case of an actual person falling for whom Christ died, but merely a theoretical person. His point is to show the fearful effects of this theoretical case, if it were possible.

Heb 10: (29) How much worse punishment do you think will be thought worthy to receive, the one trampling the Son of God, and having counted common the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of grace?

Although Paul is again putting forth a mere theoretical person, rather than an actual person, the word “sanctified” here simply means “set apart”; that is, someone who was set apart from the world and its corruptions, but only superficially and not spiritually.

2Pe 2: (1) But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The word that is here translated “Master” is not “Kurios” (Strong’s #G02962, translated “Lord”) but “Despotes” (Strong’s #G01203, meaning “absolute power”). This shows that the “purchasing” is not with the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but simply refers to the power which God has over them as Creator.

The Scriptures do not teach that Jesus died in any sense for those in Hell. This is because his work on the cross is effectual to save all for whom it was intended. If Darwin would like to deal with the verses put forth by the Confession in favor of effectual atonement, he can be my guest. (He could even start by dealing with the verses put forth in section IV.C.6, which he seems to have conveniently cut from his quote of the section.)

March 11, 2012

Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Posted in Peter Pike tagged Arminianism, Gospel, Imputation, Judgement, Justification, Speaking Peace at 4:00 am by chriswadams

Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.

This is the fourth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.

Our 1st exchange;

Our 2nd exchange;

Our 3rd exchange.

Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.

=========================================

From: <debate@thecalvinist.com>

To: <Christopher Adams>

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: Child of Satan?

Actually, Mr. Adams, I am being very *DELIBERATE* in my actions here. I have a reason for what I am doing. You accused *ME* of being a child of Satan. It does not matter what the Arminian believes. It matters what *I* believe, because your comments were directed *AT ME*.

You wrote:

<<< As written, I agree with your post on 11/14/02. The problem is that you don’t think a person has to believe it to be considered regenerate. >>>

Remember what is going on here, Mr. Adams. You called me a child of Satan. You have as much as said that I am damned and unregenerate. All this DESPITE the fact that you agree with everything I said in my post. I just gave you the mechanics of what God does to save a person, and it is *IDENTICAL* to your beliefs (or so you claim)–and yet I am damned? And for what? Simply because I said that a person does not have to agree with Reformed Soteriology to be saved.

Let’s examine why I say this using my previous post from 11/14/02.

I wrote:

<<< God the Father, in eternity past, did foreordain all things that come to pass. He chose a certain people, not on the basis of anything found in them, but solely on His good pleasure. Christ was slain (before the foundation of the earth) for their sins, meaning both Christ’s death and all whom God intended to save were in mind before the earth was even created. Christ came to accomplish that purpose. He lived a perfect life so His righteousness would be imputed to the Elect. He died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect. >>>

Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.

Now when Christ died on the cross, were His Elect saved *AT THAT POINT*? Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.

But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what. So if you accept this notion, then you have already proven me right in saying that salvation is *NOT* dependent upon knowledge.

I do not accept that notion of the atonement, however, so let me continue:

<<< Since God ordains the means as well as the end, He ordains that the Elect shall be justifed by faith (alone) in the Gospel (justification being the actual judicial declaration by which God declares a sinner just). >>>

Justification, Mr. Adams, is the point when God *LEGALLY* declares that a sinner is just. That is, while Christ died on the cross and His death served as an atonement for the sins of the Elect, the Elect person himself is not *ACTUALLY* declared just in the sight of God until he is justified. Therefore, before justification, the Elect is a sinner and is viewed as such–*even though Christ already died for him!* This is why salvation is by grace *THROUGH* faith, and this is why it is *FAITH* that justifies the sinner, *NOT* the atonement.

We continue:

<<<He then appoints preachers, etc, to proclaim the Gospel and brings them to the Elect. When the Elect hear the Gospel, the Spirit regenerates them because, like all men, the Elect are born depraved. >>>

Because the Elect are born depraved, they *NEED* to be regenerated. Therefore, Christ’s death on the cross has not yet saved them. They are NOT regenerate, they are NOT justified, they are NOT saved–EVEN THOUGH CHRIST DIED FOR THEM. Though they *WILL* be saved, the atonement itself does not save them or they would *ALREADY* be saved!

<<< The regenerated man responds in faith to the Gospel, whereby the Father justifies him. The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action. Thus, there is no condemnation for those who are justified even though there is no subjective change in the person at this point! The Spirit then works in the life of a justified person to sanctify that person and conform him to Christ. >>>

I must add something I forgot in the first time I posted this. “The regenerated man responds in faith, that faith *ALSO* being a gift of God, to the Gospel.”

Now what is key about this? The Elect is dead in sins. The Spirit regenerates him. He is “born again” at that point. He *RESPONDS* in faith to the Gospel, because God has enabled him to do so. God has given him faith. When faith is present, God declares the sinner “justified.”

But the key is this: “The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action.” Why is this important? Because justification occurs apart from works and is not dependent upon them. It occurs apart from anything that man does. Look at the chain:

The Elect are *RAISED* to spiritual life by the Spirit. God gives them faith. God declares them justified by the basis of their faith. THEN: Man does good works.

At what point does man enter the equation? *AFTER* he is already justified! And because justification does not subjectively change a person, that means (as Luther illustrated in his snow-covered dung heap analogy) that the sinner is *STILL* intrinsically a sinner, but he has been covered with a blanket of righteousness so that God does not *SEE* his sin, but instead sees Christ’s righteousness.

Thankfully, the Spirit doesn’t leave us in this condition, but then moves to change us from a pile of dung into a pile of gold through the work of Sanctification. But at the point of conversion, the Elect is simply a person who is *SUBJECTIVELY* a sinner, yet *LEGALLY* righteous.

What does all this mean? It’s really quite simple. When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. Until that time, they are *NOT* saved, even though the end conclusion is unavoidable.

Now one more point. You wrote:

<<< On 11/15/02, you asked: “Is a person saved the moment he is justified?” If by “saved” you mean “regenerated”, I would say yes. >>>

If regeneration is the same as salvation, then you here have regeneration occuring *AFTER* justification (after all, salvation entails God’s declaration that a sinner is just), which means that regeneration occurs *AFTER* faith because justification is *BY FAITH*. In other words, what you said above makes faith a work man does *BEFORE* he is regenerated. And that, as we all know, is impossible if faith is a gift from God!

Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved? And in regards to calling *ME* a child of Satan, consider the following:

If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? If you believe I *CAN* be saved in the future, then you are saying yourself that Christ’s atoning work on the cross *DOES NOT SAVE*. Rather, something else must happen too (ie: justification). So, unless you are going to say that every Elect individual is saved *FROM BIRTH* then you do not believe in an atonement that saves and by your own standards you are damned! But if you say that the Elect are saved from birth and yet they STILL live their life (before justification) as if they were sinners, then salvation is *NOT* dependant upon whether or not a person believes the atonement because the Elect are saved from birth DESPITE the fact that they do not believe the atonement. In either case, Iam proven right and you are proven wrong.

PWP

http://www.thecalvinist.com

=========================================

From: “Christopher Adams”

To: “<debate@thecalvinist.com>”

Subject: Child of Satan?

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:44:50 -0500

Mr. Pike:

Let me make a few things clear.

1. I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. Nowhere is this idea to be found on the OTC website. You have made this accusation several times, several times I have asked for proof, yet you continue to simply make accusations. I have already pointed out an article that answers this accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm

2. I have NEVER said you were damned. I DID say that you are a son of Satan, ie. unregenerate. This does not mean you are predestined for Hell, only that you are not now regenerate. Please see this article: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/fte34.htm

3. I made the accusation that you are unregenerate because you speak peace to unregenerate people.

“I firmly believe (unlike the hypercalvinists, such as those folks at www.outsidethecamp.org) that Arminians are saved, so long as they are actually Arminians and not Pelagians. “

http://www.thecalvinist.com/theology/ 9/20/02

4. Therefore, what Arminians believe really does make a difference, because you speak peace to them. If they are regenerate, then I have sinned grievously. But if they are unregenerate, then you, as well as they, are lost (Jer 8:11, 2Jn 10-11). This is why I have asked you several times what the Arminians believe about the Atonement. Oddly enough you STILL haven’t answered those questions.

You speak peace to Arminians knowing how blasphemous their theology is. Your website says:

“Arminianism itself is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be.” 10/22/02

Moving from a “man-based theology” to a “God-based theology” is NOT a matter of “growing in grace”, or becoming more Christ-like. It is a matter of BELIEVING THE GOSPEL (Isa 45:20, Rom 1:16 & 10:3). Arminians not only “elevate [themselves] above what man should be”, they also spit in the face of Jesus Christ, and count his blood and his cross as POWERLESS to save. They are ENEMIES of God. And yet you count them as your friends. They are children of the devil, and you count them as your brothers. Is it starting to become clear why I called you a child of Satan?

Now for some things you wrote in your latest post (11/20/02):

“Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.”

and

“Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.”

and

“When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. “

Yes, I agree. But you make all these points INVALID because you think a person (the Arminian) can be judged saved when they believe the exact OPPOSITE. Why in the world would God regenerate a person, and then cause that person to believe that the Christ did *not* die specifically for the elect, that it is *not* all settled, that he did *not* have the elect in mind, etc. etc.? In short, why would God regenerate a person WITHOUT glorifying himself in that person’s heart?

Again, you wrote: “But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what.”

If this were true, then not only would we have to reserve judgement concerning Arminians, but also Pelagians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists, and child-molesters. Mr. Pike, noone is saved BECAUSE of what they believe, but God ***ALWAYS*** glorifies himself in the hearts of his regenerate people, by causing them to believe the GOSPEL, a Gospel which glorifies him as a just God and a Savior. The Arminian ‘gospel’ does the exact OPPOSITE, as you yourself have testified. This is why I judge Arminians lost (and consequently you, since you embrace them as brothers).

Again you wrote: “Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved?”

Mr. Pike, my answer is: NOWHERE. I have never said this, or even implied it. Now, kindly answer one of my questions: Why would God regenerate a person *without* glorifying himself in that person’s heart?

Again, you wrote: “If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? “

Mr. Pike, as I stated above, this is SLANDER. Either repent of this sin, or produce some proof.

I have never said you are damned, but that you are unregenerate. *IF* you are one of the elect, God has *not yet* regenerated you. Perhaps he will use me to do it, perhaps not. But until he does, you have *NO* reason to think that Christ did in fact die for you.

Christopher Adams.

========================================

For more information please see:

Why we no longer endorse the Trinity Foundation

Permalink Leave a Comment

September 26, 2011

John Wesley vs. the Gospel, pt. 5

Posted in John Wesley tagged Adam, Christ, Christology, God, Holy Spirit, Imputation, Jesus Christ, John Wesley, Justification, Son of God, The Cross at 9:13 pm by chriswadams

IV. Christology – The Doctrine of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ

Having examined Wesley’s view of Scripture, God, and Man, the next doctrine to be examined is Wesley’s view of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Person of Christ

Here is how The Christian Confession of Faith summarizes the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ:

There is only one man among the descendants of Adam born without a sinful nature, and this is Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son incarnate. 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. [Isa 7:14; 53:9; Mat 1:25; Luk 1:31-35; 2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26-27; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:5]

Jesus of Nazareth is really and truly God as well as really and truly human. He is the only descendant of Adam with two natures, human and divine. These two natures are continually without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Scripture rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was merely human and not fully divine. It likewise rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being but not fully human. [Deu 18:15; Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 9:6; Luk 2:7; Joh 1:1,14,18; 3:16,18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; Act 20:28; Rom 1:3; 1Co 15:47; Gal 4:4; Phi 2:6-8; Col 1:15; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-5; 5:5; 1Jo 4:9, 15; Rev 1:17-18]¹

These two sections of the Confession teach that Jesus was both God and Man. The first section teaches that Jesus is “God the Son incarnate”, and that he was born of a virgin, and thus did not receive any “guilt or defilement from Adam”. The second section describes the relationship of his two natures (“without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation”), and refutes the twin heresies that Jesus was either human, but not divine, or divine, but not human.

Anyone who reads the Bible with any seriousness will immediately recognize the great importance of the doctrine of Christ’s person. 1John 2:22-23 displays the life or death issue of believing in the person of Jesus Christ:

1Jo 2: (22) 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. (23) Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The [one] confessing the Son also has the Father.

Anyone who truly believes in the Jesus of the Bible is saved, while anyone who does not is lost. Wesley himself seemed to understand the vital importance of this doctrine:

Not that I can at all believe the ingenious dream of Dr. Watts concerning “the glorious humanity of Christ,” which he supposes to have existed before the world began, …. And I am afraid it was the grand means of turning that great man aside from the faith once delivered to the saints; — that is, if he was turned aside; if that beautiful [sic] soliloquy be genuine which is printed among his Posthumous Works, wherein he so earnestly beseeches the Son of God not to be displeased because he cannot believe him to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. (6:273, Sermon 62 The End Of Christ’s Coming)

Notice that, although he is willing to reserve judgement in case the “soliloquy” is a forgery, Wesley is still able to judge Watts lost if the “soliloquy” was genuine; because in that case, Isaac Watts did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. As far as Wesley was concerned, this fact alone would be enough to judge Isaac Watts lost. And most professing Christians would probably agree with Wesley’s assessment.

But “confessing [the] Son”, as John puts it, involves a lot more than merely confessing that Jesus is both Man and God. It involves believing in the doctrine of his person (both human and divine) and the doctrine of his work of justifying his people on the Cross (Isa 45:24, Jer 9:24, Gal 6:14).

It is exactly at this point that many professing Christians (even those who claim to believe in the Effectual, or Limited, Atonement of Christ) will balk, because it means that those who make a profession of faith in Christ will have to be judged based on their belief of doctrine! And yet this is exactly what the Bible commands in places such as:

Mat 7: (15) But beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside they are plundering wolves. (16) From their fruits you shall know them. Do they gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? (17) So every good tree produces good fruits, but the corrupt tree produces evil fruits. (18) A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. (19) Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and is thrown into fire. (20) Then surely from their fruits you shall know them.

Joh 7: (24) Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment

1Jo 4: (1) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

Judging a professing Christian according to the doctrine he holds is absolutely essential for judging saved and lost, since it is impossible to believe in a doctrine-less God, a doctrine-less Christ, or a doctrine-less Gospel. Isaac Watts is a perfect example of this; if the so-called “soliloquy” is genuine, Isaac Watts did not believe in the doctrine of the deity of Christ. And Wesley made his judgement of Watts based on this doctrine. It follows then, that when a professing Christian is willing to make judgments of saved and lost based on the doctrine of Christ’s person, but refuses to make judgments of saved and lost based on the doctrine of Christ’s work, that person is not really refusing to make judgments based on doctrine alone, as they often claim. In reality, they are simply making judgments based on selected doctrines; ie. doctrines that they select for themselves, rather than letting themselves be guided by the doctrines that are put forth in Scripture as standards for judgment. And, as we shall see, Scripture puts just as much emphasis on the importance of the effect of Christ’s work as it does on the importance of his divinity.

It must be said that John Wesley was sound in his view of the person of Christ². He believed that Jesus Christ was both Man and God. Therefore, my judgment of him has nothing to do with his belief in the doctrine of Christ’s person, and everything to do with his view of the doctrine of Christ’s work. What we shall see is that Wesley believed in the doctrine of Universal Atonement (ie. the teaching that the blood of Jesus Christ atones for the sin of all human beings without exception). But before discussing Wesley’s view of the work of Jesus Christ in greater detail, let’s review what the Bible and the Christian Confession of Faith have to say about the work of Christ.

The Work of Christ

The work of Jesus Christ to justify his people is a necessary consequence of the Justice of God. God the Father imputed the sins of his elect people to Jesus Christ, and then poured out the full wrath of his offended Justice upon Christ (2Cor 5:17, 1Pet 3:18). God was therefore just in punishing a man who, in his own character and conduct, was completely innocent (Luk 23:14-15, Heb 7:26, 1Pet 2:22). Furthermore, God imputed the righteousness of Christ to the elect, so that even though they are sinful in their character and conduct, he may bless them justly (Psa 85:10, Rom 5:9, Col 2:13). The righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the blood that symbolizes it, is therefore central to the Gospel message, because according to the Justice of God, the righteousness of Christ demands the salvation of any person to whom it is given (Rom 8:34). If God were to give that righteousness to a person, and then send that person to Hell anyway, he would be unjust in doing so; he would, in effect, be demanding double payment for the same sins. Further, he would also be unjust in requiring that his Son suffer for the sins of a person, and then refusing to give his Son the reward which was promised (Isa 53:12).

The Biblical doctrine of the work of Christ is summarized in the Christian Confession of Faith:

When He became incarnate, Jesus Christ was made subject to the law of God and obliged to obey all its precepts. He did this perfectly, to the minutest detail. [Psalm 40:8; Isa 50:5; Mat 3:15; 2Co 5:21; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14-15; 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:4-5]

Let’s look at some of the verses that the Confession refers to, and notice what they have to say about the work of Jesus Christ. In particular pay close attention to what the Bible has to say about what the work of Jesus Christ accomplishes on behalf of all people for whom it was intended:

Exo 12: (13) And the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you [are]. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you. And the plague shall not be on you to destroy, when I strike in the land of Egypt.

The blood of the lamb, which typifies the blood of Jesus Christ, caused God to pass over the house. The blood was not put on every house in Egypt, but only on the houses of Israelites. And the blood did not fail to cause God to pass over the house; no Israelite had to add his works or decisions to the blood on the doorposts, because the blood alone was sufficient to cause God to pass over the house. Each and every house that had the blood of a lamb on the doorposts was saved from destruction; there were no exceptions.

Now consider how this verse relates to the doctrine of Universal Atonement. If Universal Atonement were true, then the blood of Jesus Christ ought to cause the wrath of God to “pass over” the sins of all human beings without exception! Yet, as even Wesley would admit⁴, it manifestly does not.

Isa 53: (11) He shall see [the fruit] of the travail of His soul; He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge the righteous One, My Servant, shall justify for many, and He shall bear their iniquities.

The work of Jesus Christ caused many people to be justified. It did not potentiallyjustify a people, if only they would do their part; it actually justified many people, just as Jesus actually bore their sins. Each and every person whose sins were borne by Jesus Christ was justified by his work.

Now consider how this verse relates to the doctrine of Universal Atonement. If Universal Atonement were true, and the work of Jesus Christ were intended for all people without exception, then the work of Jesus Christ ought to have justified all people without exception. But again, as even Wesley would admit, it manifestly does not

Rom 5: (9) Much more then, being justified now by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through Him.

The blood of Jesus Christ justifies his people, and saves them from the wrath of God. Each and every person who is justified by the blood of Christ is saved from the wrath of God. And again, if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended to justify every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “saved from the wrath” of God. Yet they are not.

2Co 5: (18) And all things [are] from God, the [One] having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and having given to us the ministry of reconciliation, (19) as, that God was in Christ reconciling [the] world to Himself, not charging their deviations to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us.

Jesus Christ reconciles his people to God. Each and every person for whom the blood of Christ was poured out, is reconciled to God, and does not have their deviations charged to them. If Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended to justify every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “reconciled to God”. Yet they are not.

Gal 1: (4) who gave Himself for our sins, so that He might deliver us out of the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

All for whom Jesus Christ gave himself for their sins are delivered from the present evil age. And if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended for every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “delivered out of the present evil age”. Yet they are not.

Heb 5: (9) and having been perfected, He came to be [the] Author of eternal salvation to all the [ones] obeying Him,

All for whom Jesus Christ died receive eternal salvation. And again, if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended for every person without exception, then every person without exception would “receive eternal salvation”. Yet they do not.

This selection of verses is only a small fraction of the verses which show the effectual benefits of the blood of Jesus Christ towards all for whom his blood was intended. Every one of those verses gives the lie to the doctrine of Universal Atonement, because those benefits are plainly intended for all people for whom Christ died, yet they plainly do not extend to all people without exception.

This goes back to what the work of Christ shows us about the justice of God revealed in the Gospel: the righteousness of Christ demands the salvation of all for whom Christ died (Rom 8:34). Any doctrine that denies this basic truth is a denial of the Gospel.

Wesley’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ

So exactly what did Wesley believe about the work of Jesus Christ? What did he believe about the blood and righteousness of Christ? Did his views glorify or deny the justice of God? Did he believe it secures full remission of sins, fellowship with God, and final glory in Heaven, for all whom Christ represented? Or did he consider it worthless, securing only a conditional pardon for those who exercise their Free Will?

Wesley obviously believed that the Grace of God was “bought for every child of man,” but not given to every child of Man, as the justice of God would require. He believed that Jesus Christ suffered the unmitigated fury of God against the sins of all men without exception, but that God refuses to accept this suffering on behalf of millions of people for whom it was intended. He believed that Jesus Christ suffered the just penalty that God’s law and justice demanded for the sins of all people without exception, but then God refuses to reward Jesus with the souls of the people he (supposedly) redeemed. Wesley believed that the Grace of God is “actually given to every one that believeth” and withheld from every one that believes not, regardless of the fact that Jesus (supposedly) already purchased the gift of God’s grace on their behalf. Wesley’s blasphemous doctrine of Universal Atonement utterly denies the justice of God revealed in the work of Jesus Christ.

Justification & Imputation

This brings us to the twin doctrines of Justification and Imputation. The Christian Confession of Faith describes imputation in this way:

The perfect righteousness that Jesus Christ established is imputed to every one of God’s people in time. Because of this imputed righteousness, they are declared blameless before God and reconciled to God. Christ’s righteousness imputed demands God’s favor and fellowship toward them. [Job 29:14; Psa 32:2; 85:10-11; Isa 53:11; 61:10; Jer 23:5-6; Rom 3:21-22; 4:6-8; 5:9-11,17-19; 8:1,31-39; 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:18-21; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:6-7]⁵

Imputation is a legal term, meaning “to charge to the account of another”. It is a legal concept, denoting the “counting” or “attributing” of something to a person. This concept can be seen in the following verses:

Mar 15: (28) And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was numbered with [the] lawless.”

Rom 8: (36) Even as it has been written, “For Your sake we are killed all the day; we are counted as sheep of slaughter.”

Mark 15:28 says that Jesus Christ was “numbered” or “counted” with transgressors. While Jesus was never a transgressor himself (1Pe 2:22), he was legally “numbered” or “counted” with transgressors in the light of God’s law and justice. Romans 8:36 says that Christians are “numbered” or “counted” as sheep for the slaughter. While Christians are the people that God loves and cherishes, they do not hold their own lives as more important than the glory of God, and are willing to “count” themselves as sheep to be slaughtered. This is what it means to “impute” or “attribute” or “charge to the account of” a person.

Similarly, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the account of his people is shown in the following verses:

Psa 32: (2) Blessed [is] the man to whom Jehovah does not charge iniquity, and in whose spirit there [is] no guile.

Rom 4: (6) Even as also David says of the blessedness of the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

2Co 5: (21) For He made the [One] who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become [the] righteousness of God in Him.

The perfect righteousness which Jesus Christ established on the cross is “imputed”, or “charged to the account of” every single believer. It is because of this righteousness that God “does not charge iniquity”, and “counts righteousness apart from works”. It is because of this righteousness that Christians “become [the] righteousness of God in Him”.

We have already seen that God is so holy that he cannot have fellowship with anyone who has the slightest taint of sin; therefore sinful human beings can only enjoy fellowship with God if righteousness is charged, or imputed, to their account by someone else. That righteousness can only be established by someone who is himself completely without sin. The only human being who could possibly establish such a righteousness is Jesus Christ. The imputation of his perfect righteousness is effectual to secure the favor and fellowship of God, for all to whom it is given. This is taught in the Christian Confessionof Faith:

At the same time a sinner is regenerated, he is adopted into God’s family and set apart from the world. He is counted to be as holy and acceptable before God as Jesus Christ Himself, is made to be at peace with God, and enters into fellowship with God based on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. [Job 29:14; Psa 85:8; Isa 26:3; Isa 32:17; Isa 61:10; Joh 1:12; Joh 17:21-23; Rom 3:22; Rom 4:6-8; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 5:19; Rom 8:14-17; Rom 8:33-39; 1Co 1:30; 1Co 6:11; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:26; Gal 4:5-7; Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:14-19; Eph 3:11-12; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:20-22; 2Th 2:13; Tit 3:7; Heb 2:10-11; 1Jo 1:3; 1Jo 3:1; Rev 21:7]⁶

Just as the righteousness of God demands that he show wrath and judgment towards those who have sin charged to their account, so also his righteousness demands that he show favor and fellowship towards those who have righteousness charged to their account. Once the righteousness of Jesus Christ is charged to the account of a person, those sins can never again bring him under the wrath and condemnation of God. The justice of God demands that that person cannot be punished for those sins, because Jesus Christ has already been punished in that person’s place, and satisfied the requirements of the justice of God on the sinner’s behalf. This imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer is therefore the effectual means of the justification of a believer. It is this imputation, and subsequent justification, which establishes peace and fellowship between the believer and God, because the believer is cleared from the sin that is charged to his account by the law of God.

But even this imputation could not happen without a second imputation, the imputation of the sins of the believer to the account of Jesus Christ. Although Jesus was completely sinless in his own character and conduct, he was, in the eyes of God’s law and justice, charged with the guilt and defilement of the sins of his people. It was for this reason that the only man who was ever truly and completely innocent in his own character and conduct, could suffer the just wrath and fury of God, and die the death of a criminal. God’s righteousness demands that no innocent person should suffer the just penalty which sin deserves. Yet Jesus suffered the penalty which sin deserves, and died upon the cross, not for his own sins, but for the sins of his people which were charged to his account. The only way in which the suffering of Jesus Christ could be consistent with the justice of God is if the sins of his people were imputed to him. This is taught in the Christian Confessionof Faith:

It is here that we can most vividly understand the justice and righteousness of God. His holiness and righteousness demands that all sin and rebellion against him should be punished to the fullest. God hates sin with the utmost hatred, and will never allow it to go unpunished, even when it is charged to the account of the son whom he loves (Joh 3:35). Jesus suffered in indescribable agony (Mar 15:34) to propitiate the wrath of God against the sins of his people, which were charged to his account.

Wesley’s Doctrine of Imputation& Justification

The doctrines of Imputation and Justification that Wesley preached were very different from the kind which the Bible teaches. But rather than teaching an outright denial of the Scriptural doctrines of Imputation and Justification, Wesley taught that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was given to all human beings, but that the blessing of justification did not necessarily follow from that imputation.

Wesley believed that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to all men without exception, but the blessing of justification would not be given to all men without exception. This, of course, is impossible. If God were to impute the righteousness of Christ to the account of a sinner without justifying that sinner, then he would be unjust himself, and so would cease to be God. The justice of God demands that all who have the righteousness of Christ charged to their account be justified in the sight of God.

Furthermore, it is simply not possible that the righteousness of Christ could be imputed to a person, and atone merely for the sin of Adam, while leaving the actual sins of that person untouched. Either the blood of Christ is effectual to atone for all the guilt of a sinner, or it is powerless to atone for all the guilt of a sinner. It cannot merely atone for part of the guilt that is charged to a sinner’s account. The justice of God demands that all who have the righteousness of Christ charged to their account be justified and declared wholly righteous in the sight of God.

The impossibility of God’s imputing the righteousness of Christ to the account of sinners, and then failing to justify those same sinners can be seen from Wesley’s answer to the question, why do some sinners go to Hell?

How came this rich man to be in hell? It does not appear that he was a wicked man, in the common sense of the word; that he was a drunkard, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, or that he lived in any known sin. It is probable he was a Pharisee; and as such was, in all the outward parts of religion, blameless. How then did he come into “the place of torment?” If there was no other reason to be assigned, there is a sufficient one implied in those words, (“he that hath ears to hear, let him hear!”) “Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things;” — the things which thou hadst chosen for thy happiness. Thou hadst set thy affection on things beneath: And thou hadst thy reward: Thou didst receive the portion which thou hadst chosen, and canst have no portion above. ” (6:248-9, Sermon 112 Dives And Lazarus)

9. If then you fear bringing damnation on yourself by this, you fear where no fear is. Fear it not for eating and drinking unworthily; for that, in St. Paul’s sense, ye cannot do. But I will tell you for what you shall fear damnation;– for not eating and drinking at all; for not obeying your Maker and Redeemer; for disobeying his plain command; for thus setting at nought both his mercy and authority. Fear ye this; for hear what his Apostle saith: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.” (James 2:10.) (Sermon 101)

The problem with that answer is that unbelief is a sin; but according to the theory of Universal Atonement, that sin is already paid for, so it shouldn’t be a barrier to justification at all. So Wesley, and every other advocate of Universal Atonement must either admit that all people will eventually go to heaven, or Jesus did not die for the sins of all people without exception.

The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer is the effectual means of the justification of a believer. Therefore, without the twin doctrines of Imputation and Justification, the Gospel simply would not be good news. It would be no “Gospel” at all. And that is a perfect description of Wesley’s false gospel. It is not good news at all, but the filthy rags of self-righteousness, disguised as Christianity.

The State of Those Who Deny the Effectual Work of Christ

The Christian Confession of Faith goes on to describe the terrible state of those who deny the biblical teaching of the effectual work of Christ:

Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception, including those in hell, deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one boasts and glories in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]⁸

The gospel is not merely the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it were, then the death, burial, and resurrection of any mere man would have sufficed. What makes the death of Jesus Christ so important is not the fact of it, but what was accomplished by it. The death of Jesus Christ secured the salvation of all for whom it was intended. The Atonement atones. It doesn’t just make sinners saveable, it saves. To say that Jesus poured out his life blood for someone who goes to Hell anyway is intolerable blasphemy of the first order. It insinuates that Jesus Christ is powerless in bringing about what he desires. It shamelessly teaches that Jesus endured the torment which the wicked deserve, only to have God refuse to pass over them, even though the blood of the Lamb (supposedly) covers them. Thus, rather than Limited Atonement, it is really Universal Atonement that makes God unjust; he requires the penalty for sin first from the hand of Jesus Christ, then at the sinner’s hand as well. Wesley saw the blood of Jesus Christ as virtually worthless. It only secured the possibility of any sinner being saved. It only made sinners savable. It certainly did not mean the difference between Heaven and Hell. The vast majority of those for whom it was intended eventually go to Hell. It was poured out for all without exception, and was only made effectual by the will of Man. To put it simply, this is blasphemy. And the state of those who deny the effectual work of Christ in saving all those for whom he died is the same as those who deny that Jesus is God in the flesh: they are lost, unregenerate, and without God. If they die in this horrible state, as Wesley apparently did, then their reward will not be eternity in heaven, but in the torments of Hell, along with all the other unrepentant enemies of God.

1Christian Confession of Faith IV.A.1-2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

2See for example, Sermon 77 (Spiritual Worship), Notes on the Old Testament (Isa 7:14, in loc), and Notes on the New Testament (Joh 1:30, Rom 1:3, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 7:26, in loc)

3Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.1-2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

4See the first two quotes from Wesley, below.

5Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.3;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

6Christian Confession of Faith V.C.2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

7Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

8Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.6;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

Permalink Leave a Comment

March 27, 2011

Alex Aquino vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Posted in Alex Aquino tagged Christ, Christ Jesus, Eternal Justification, God, Grace, Judgement, Justification, Predestination, Sola Gratia, Speaking Peace at 9:28 pm by chriswadams

A few months ago, I came across a website of a group in the Philippines called “Bastion of Truth Reformed Church”. I sent a mass e-mail to the group, and what follows is the next round of my debate with one of their members, Alex Aquino (Mr. Aquino’s comments are in blue ):

============================================

Mr. Aquino:

You wrote: <<AA: You add nothing to faith when salvation is by “grace alone” (Sola Gratia). It is grace alone when justification is eternal and is therefore already there prior to the bestowal of faith; when it is given even before eternal times: “the One having saved us and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace GIVEN to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times” (2 Timothy 1:9). So justification is not only purposed for the elect but also already given when it was purposed in eternity. You might object of course that the apostle says “grace” not justification. If you do that I would assume that you believe that there is a “grace” of God apart from the righteousness (justification) of Christ.>>

Grace was given to the elect before time began in the eternal counsel of God – as was predestination, calling, justification, and even glorification (Rom 8:29-30). These blessings were not actually bestowed on the elect until AFTER time began – and some of the elect STILL have not received all of those blessings. But in God’s eternal purposes, they are as sure and certain to happen as the crucifixion.

You wrote:<<Acts 20:28; Romans 5:10; Galatians 3:13:Why? Why? Why? I have answered that question in my last mail. We are “by nature” children of wrath, under the curse of the law, dead, enemies of God, without God in this world, etc. etc.>>

How can the elect be “under the curse of the law”, and yet ALSO justified? Either they are cursed or justified, it can’t be both (Luk 16:13, 2Co 6:15).

More to the point, does the work of Christ in justifying his people DEMAND God’s favor and fellowship towards them? If yes, then why are the elect (supposedly justified before the foundation of the world) “enemies of God”? If no, then what exactly DOES the work of Christ accomplish?

You wrote:<<As a believer in the Biblical doctrine of eternal justification I wholly agree that God maintains His immutability in eternally loving His Son in His natural “condition” as the perfect eternal Son. I agree that God maintains His immutability in His holiness and justice by judging sin through His Son Who in his “legal status” (not in His natural condition)—One without sin made sin—suffered the wrath of God based on the imputed sins of His elect. I don’t see why this should oppose the truth of the eternal righteousness of Christ for His elect (even in their unregenerate condition). The elect (regenerate or unregenerate) are in their sinful nature—that is in their sinful “condition”—hateful to God. Yet because they are eternally “in Christ” (that is, in “the sphere” of Christ and all His benefits) the elect are by “legal status” eternally and always loved by God. He did not change in His love for His Eternal Son who was without sin made sin to justify all His elect, so that He will not change His love for those elect. God indeed does not change whether it concerns His Son or His own elect.>>

So “The elect (regenerate or unregenerate) are in their sinful nature … hateful to God.” eh?

Then how can the elect be “hateful to God”, and yet ALSO justified? Either they are cursed or justified, it can’t be both (Luk 16:13, 2Co 6:15).

I wrote: <<So, according to you, when the elect were unregenerate, and believed blasphemous things about God, were enemies with God, hated Christ and his righteousness, and were blasphemously going about to establish a righteousness of their own, they were completely justified, righteous and holy in God’s sight, and under God’s blessing rather than his curse? That says it all. >>

And you responded: <<AA: True. Otherwise, God, in His wrath should purposely and perpetually blind them to the Gospel; draw them away from its sound preaching; cause His Providenceto keep them away from His love. Again the blessing and the curse are “by nature” only. Your Ephesians 2:1-3 is very helpful here. You should know better.>>

God CANNOT bless those who are in rebellion against him (Exo 20:5, Hab 1:13, Rom 2:8-9). This shows that you have NO understanding of what the atonement accomplished.

You wrote:<<I see no problem with your complaint. The eternally justified need to be called to faith and repentance and also need to be given faith and repentance. It is unworthy of God to allow His eternally justified elect to remain in their impenitence and unbelief. The righteous Judge will not pronounce an inmate “not guilty” and then leave him to rot in prison forever.>>

A TRULY righteous judge will not pronounce an inmate “not guilty” and leave him to rot in prison FOR EVEN A SINGLE SECOND. Yet you would have God leaving his justified people to rot in prison for YEARS and DECADES prior to their “conversion”.

You wrote:<<The Bible speaks of two aspects of sonship: (1) God adopted His elect from His eternal counsel: “predestinating us to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved” (Eph. 1:5, 6). Now, if you object that this is a mere eternal counsel to be fulfilled only in time future, so that the elect become adopted sons only at conversion you must admit also that God did not love His elect in His eternal counsel, but only when they are converted. >>

This is a total non-sequitur. Saying that the elect become adopted sons only at conversion in no way implies that God did not begin to love them until they were converted.

You wrote: <<Another verse, if you will: “because whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). (2) Your verses are magnificent! They tell us that the elect actually experience through regeneration (by faith) their eternally decreed adoption based on Christ’s imputed righteousness through the cross. Eternal justification is a loyal friend to those verses of yours.>>

Interesting! So why can’t you see from THE VERY SAME VERSE that, in time, the elect actually experience their eternally decreed JUSTIFICATION based on Christ’s imputed righteousness through the cross? Eternal justification is an insidious ENEMY of this verse.

You wrote: <<Let’s put this simply. Your doctrine is “NO FAITH: NO JUSTIFICATION (no instrument: no product, or so) and NO JUSTIFICATION: NO FAITH (no cause: no resulting instrument). Your position cannot hold both for they are an absurdity, if not a contradiction. Only eternal justification can honestly and consistently hold both. Not even talking time element here, just logic. There is justification (eternal) prior to resulting faith which “experientially” unites the regenerate elect to Christ and is the instrument so that that precious eternal justification grounded on His cross is put in the consciousness of the regenerate elect.>>

It absolutely IS possible to hold those positions that seem contradictory to you, and here is how: there is NO CONDITION FOR FAITH, the very opposite of what you slanderously accuse us of holding to.

You wrote: <<I know you would mention that. Yet I’m not as indolent as you may think to fail to make my position square with those wonderful clauses in Rom. 8:1. Your exegesis then would twist the inspired text and take it to mean, “No condemnation… WHEN they do not walk according to flesh…” They do not tell us WHEN the elect are never condemned but WHO MANIFEST themselves to be those never condemned on the ground of their being “in (the sphere of) Christ.” Those who walk according to the flesh (whether elect or reprobate) don’t manifest themselves as never ever condemned.>>

Your exegesis hasn’t gotten any better. “They do not tell us WHEN the elect are never condemned…” ?? Then what is the word “now” doing in the text? As in “There is therefore NOW no condemnation …” If the elect were really “never” condemned, how is it even possible to describe “WHEN” they were “never” condemned?

You wrote: <<And don’t you see the connection? “Elected us IN HIM (in [the sphere of] Christ)…” (v. 4) and “IN WHOM (in [the sphere of] Christ) we have redemption…” (v. 7). Do you therefore at Sovereign Redeemer Assembly confess an election or grace or love of God apart from the sphere of the righteousness (justification) of Christ? This is Heresy!>>

The elect are not regenerated by being in the sphere of Christ, but by the blood of Christ. That is the connection here. And, not coincidentally, that is the reason the blood is actually mentioned in Eph 1:7. So your accusation of heresy falls apart, again.

I wrote: <<Romans 8:30 says “But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; but whom He justified, these He also glorified. ” In what way does God call his people? Why does the calling come BETWEEN predestination and justification? And when does God glorify his people? It is true that God’s predetermined plan is so certain to come true that he speaks as if the calling, justifying, and glorifying have already happened. But does that mean that ALL of God’s people are therefore called, justified, and glorified? Of course not.>>

You wrote: <<Why do you trouble yourself too much with these verses for my sake? I have no problem with them. They teach justification (together with calling and glorification) in the aspect of the elect’s experience in time. Remember that I believe in temporal justification also but not in temporal justification exclusively (OTC’s / SRA’s heresy).>>

So why does the verse (in your view) go from discussing God’s work before time began right to the experience of the elect in time? That doesn’t make the least amount of sense. And why does the verse present ALL of these events (predestinating, calling, justifying, glorifying) as occurring in the PAST (predestinated, called, justified, glorified)? The whole verse is talking about God’s work in eternity PAST, and presenting each event (including glorification) as being so sure and certain to happen that God can talk about them as if they had already happened.

You had not mentioned temporal justification before. But so what? The “justification” you see happening in time is only the elect being given an understanding of how they were justified from eternity. It didn’t change their standing before God in any way. So even though you CALL it justification, it is really nothing but an illusion.

I’ll give you this though: you really are a slippery character. If I show you a verse that demonstrates justification happening in time, you can say that you agree, because you also believe in temporal justification. Very convenient. But since your version of “temporal justification” is no justification at all, rest assured that any time I present you with a verse that demonstrates temporal justification, it smashes eternal justification to bits.

I wrote: <<When someone is legally holy and righteous, God’s holiness and righteousness DEMANDS his favor and fellowship toward them (Psa 32:2, Isa 53:11, Rom 3:22, 5:9 & 18). Yet you believe that God’s (unregenerate) elect are LEGALLY righteous, but NATURALLY unrighteous. Therefore, according to this scheme, there are people out there who are unregenerate, walking according to the flesh, believing blasphemous things about God, yet enjoying favor and fellowship with God. Talk about only seeing what you want to in Scripture. >>

You wrote: <<Of course they don’t enjoy a favor and fellowship with God. They are children of wrath “by nature” (remember the key phrase). Being unregenerate, they hate God and they sense the just hatred of God against them. They need to be regenerated in order to actually experience and enjoy those blessings. But that doesn’t mean they are actually hated by God.>>

The work of Christ in justifying his people DEMANDS God’s favor and fellowship towards them. God CANNOT justify his people and then leave them to walk in their sinful nature (Psa 32:2, Isa 42:8 & 53:11, Rom 4:6-8 & 5:11).

You wrote: <<Exactly Mr. Carpenter’s accusation against me: “That I do not believe that I was never a worker of iniquity. How proud of me.” Oh I am a worker of iniquity by nature and I shudder at the thought of it! You are presently and personally a worker of iniquity yourself and you claim that the only reason that God cannot hate you is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The eternal righteousness of Christ is also my reason why God will not legally hate His unregenerate elect, much more when they are regenerated. So what’s the problem?>>

If you are “a worker of iniquity” then does God hate you? This is precisely the reason I quoted Psa 5:5: “The boasters shall not set themselves before Your eyes. You hate all workers of iniquity.” You can’t have it both ways. Either you are a worker of iniquity AND God hates you, or you are NOT a worker of iniquity and God doesn’t hate you.

As for me, I WAS a worker of iniquity, and God hated me. Then he caused me to believe the Gospel, and now he does NOT hate me, because I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s work on my behalf DEMANDED that I receive all the blessings of God’s favor and fellowship towards me, including my regeneration, faith, and belief of the Gospel.

God says he hates ALL workers of iniquity. You say there are some workers of iniquity he doesn’t hate. You are fighting against God and calling him a liar – THAT is the problem.

You wrote: <<You’re beginning to reveal yourself as a snake winding with your subtle words in order to slip away from your own embarrassment. Eternal justification is not an issue whether God shows favor or fellowship to His elect in their unregenerate condition but whether God actually LOVES them in that condition. It is quite clear that OTC’s position is that God HATES the unregenerate elect. Ephesians 2:4 and 5 says God LOVES (with a great one) His elect even they being dead in deviations. Your heresy is mounting up Mr. Adams. You are now saying that there is a love of God for His elect APART from the righteousness (justification) of Christ. You are in effect saying God can choose and love His elect apart from Christ (contrary to Eph. 1:4). On what ground then does He love them? Their inherent worth? That’s contrary to the Gospel of absolute Grace!>>

JUSTIFICATION certainly IS an issue in regard to God’s favor and fellowship – in fact it is the only issue. (1) God CANNOT show favor and fellowship where there is no justification (Exo 20:5, Hab 1:13, Rom 2:8-9). (2) God MUST show favor and fellowship where there is justification (Psa 32:2, Isa 53:11, Rom 3:22, 5:9 & 18). If either (1) or (2) were not true, God would not be just, and therefore unfit to be God.

But God CAN set his love on his elect people, even before they are justified, purely of his own good pleasure. When God imputed the sins of his people to Jesus Christ, he LOVED Christ, but did NOT show favor and fellowship towards him, because Christ was legally charged with those sins.

You wrote: <<Come on, be honest, Mr. Adams. You devoid the Word of God of its power and relevance. The verse taken from its historical context answers why Isreal (Jacob) did not perish when a paranoid king bent on destroying the nation hired a false prophet to hurl curses upon them. There is a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate (elect and reprobate [I don’t mean that God loves the reprobate]; infants and adults) in that nation who are rebels, idolaters and murmerers. If God would treat only the regenerate as justified, all the unregenerate then and there would have perished through the curses. But there was no reason (in the eyes of Yahweh) why the curses should actually destroy the people. No one can curse whom Yahweh has blessed. He sees no iniquity (in the regenerate and unregenerate elect) in Jacob.>>

Now who is being dishonest? On what basis do you say that God blessed the rebels, idolaters, and murmurers? There is not a shred of evidence for that anywhere in this prophecy (or anywhere else in Scripture, for that matter – Pro 25:21-22, Mat 13:10-15, Joh 15:22)!

When God speaks of blessing “Israel”, he is NOT blessing physical Israel, but SPIRITUAL Israel (Rom 2:28-29 & 9:6)!

You wrote: <<That’s obvious historically. But here’s a case of wasted ink and wasted inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So what’s the author’s point in saying that the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” instead of “the Lamb appointed to be slain (crucified) in the appointed time? You not only rob Scripture of its power but you also rob the elect of their assurance whose names were written in the Book of Life of that Lamb who secured their life (in time oppressed by the God’s enemies) by the fact that He was already slain from the foundation of the world for them. The Lamb slain from eternity just proves that there is justification from before the foundation of the world for God’s elect and even for them as saints in the Old Testament prior to the historical event of the cross.>>

The author’s point is to express the sure and certain promise of God to his people, to save them by the blood of the Lamb; that that salvation was planned by God from eternity past, and was so certain of being executed that their names were already recorded in heaven, even though they themselves had not yet been glorified. Thus the apostle grants them the full assurance you think I am trying to take away.

As for the OT saints, well let’s look at one of them, shall we?

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.”

When does it say that Abraham was counted righteous? Before time began? Nope. When he was granted faith.

You wrote: <<There’s OTC’s raw nerve: speaking peace. The REAL heart of the matter is whether you are qualified at all to police Christian orthodoxy. You just have revealed your own heresy, remember.>>

Really? Well then, let’s look into this, what you call the “REAL heart of the matter”: Am I qualified to police Christian orthodoxy?

1 Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

Joh 7:24 Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Co 11:19 For there must also be heresies among you, so that the approved ones may become revealed among you.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should announce a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Wow, it looks like I AM qualified to police Christian orthodoxy!! How about that! Who would have guessed? (Answer: anyone who reads the Bible.)

With that out of the way, I would like to ask what gives YOU the right to complain about us “policing Christian orthodoxy”? Earlier, you said that my soul was in “grave danger” because I denied eternal justification. That sounds like “policing Christian orthodoxy” to me. Not coincidentally, it also sounds like utter hypocrisy.

I also notice that you have completely FAILED to provide so much as a shred of evidence for your accusation that we at OTC damn men.

You wrote “I see that you hold to temporal justification and reject the Biblical truth of eternal justification not much because of the truth itself but because you are too anxious for its consequences which you can capitalize upon to justify your unbridled and relentless damning of men you suspect in the slightest hint of tolerating a tolerant who tolerates a tolerant who tolerates… and so on.”

Part of my response was: <<And here is something else you won’t find any proof for: that we damn anyone to Hell (let alone that we do it in a “relentless and unbridled” way). We do NOT judge anyone to be reprobate. If someone confesses a false gospel, I do not judge that person to be predestined for Hell. But I DO judge that person to be UNREGENERATE. And if that person CONTINUES in that unregenerate state until they die, then they will go to Hell. But I do not know if God will grant him or her repentance later in life. >>

If you can’t bring forth any proof for your accusation, then either repent of violating the ninth commandment, or at least admit that you are continuing to do it intentionally.

You wrote: <<The more you become apologetic here, the more and clearer you reveal your slanderous spirit. You slandered Mr. Pedersen based merely on his refusal to answer you. You made his silence say a thousand words. In this context the obviousness of the desired answer makes the question stupid. It’s like asking “Do you eat food?” or “Do you breathe air?” or “Do you think thoughts?” It’s just plain stupid. I’m no defender of Mr. Pedersen at this juncture but I think your rash judgment revealed that he whom you judge an unregenerate proved to be wiser than the one who claims to be regenerate: Proverbs 26:4, “Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you.” I think you should put some sort of a clarification on OTC’s homepage (not hidden in other pages) that by “LOST” you don’t always mean reprobate but unregenerate. If you don’t do this, the more I will be convinced that OTC and Sovereign Redeemer Assembly is a synagogue and pit swarming with slanderous snakes under the sway of that Ancient Serpent and Archslanderer.>>

I’m not the least bit apologetic about what I said about Pedersen. And I didn’t slander him, because I told the truth about him: he refused to answer a question that even you called stupid. Well, if it really is so stupid, then why couldn’t he just answer it?

You don’t seem to grasp the whole nature of “slander”. “Slander” is when someone deliberately tells a lie about someone else. So, for example, when I told the TRUTH about Pedersen, it wasn’t slander; but when you accuse us of “relentlessly damning” people, that is a LIE. And when you see that it is a lie, and you intend to keep spreading it, that is SLANDER. See the difference?

So while I admit you have more familiarity than I do with being “under the sway of that Ancient Serpent”, accusing us of being under the sway of the “Arch slanderer” is pure hypocrisy.

You wrote: <<AA: Come on, come on… You are clutching at thin straws Mr. Adams. The point is NOT whether we now know that Christ LOVED that unregenerate man or that He sent the man away not showing favor and fellowship to him. The issue is whether Christ obeyed or disobeyed His Father Who (as you represent Him) actually shows WRATH to that unregenerate man. So you really admit that Jesus Christ LOVED the person to whom His Father shows WRATH? Your proud article says…

“So there is a time in each elect person’s life that he is loved by God as considered in the eternal decree of God and temporally under God’s wrath before the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him… God shows wrath toward His elect people in time before they have the imputed righteousness of Christ, and He shows love when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them.”>>

OF COURSE Christ obeyed the father; he did it BY sending the rich young man away. God was showing wrath to the rich young man THROUGH the preaching of Christ:

Joh 15:22 If I had not come and had not spoken to them, they had no sin. But now they do not have excuse as to their sin.

You wrote: <<AA: I guess I have said enough to point your absurdity and contradictions. Premise 1 and the whole syllogism are just sound and true. You just don’t have an eye for the Truth.

What do you make of these syllogisms?

Syllogism # 1:

Premise 1: God HATES the elect in time prior to imputed righteousness

Premise 2: Christ LOVED an elect prior to imputed righteousness

Conclusion: God and Christ contradicted each other>>

OK. Premise #1 is true:

The boasters shall not set themselves before Your eyes. You hate all workers of iniquity. (Psa 5:5)

Unless you are willing to say that the elect prior to regeneration were NOT workers of iniquity, premise #1 is TRUE: God HATES the elect prior to regeneration. His hatred for them is a result of the fact that they are “workers of iniquity”. It is based on their present condition.

Premise #2 is true, but Christ’s love for the man is a result of the fact that that man was one of the elect. It was based on the rich man’s eternal predestination, not his present justification. That is precisely why Christ did not show any favor or fellowship towards the man. So premise 1 is true in a different sense than premise 2. It’s like saying that (1) a Christian is sinful, and deserving of Hell, and (2) a Christian is righteous and deserving of Heaven. Both statements are true, but in different senses. This makes the syllogism false, because in order for a syllogism to be true, both premises must be true in the same sense.

You wrote: <<Syllogism # 2:

Premise 1: Christ is qualified to be a saviour if He is a perfectly obedient Son

Premise 2: Christ disobeyed His Father by loving a person whom His Father hates.

Conclusion: Christ is not qualified to be a savior>>

Since your first premise is drawn from the faulty conclusion of your first syllogism, the second syllogism is also faulty.

You wrote: <<Syllogism # 3:

Premise 1: Anyone who believes a Christ who cannot save because he contradicts his Father is not saved.

Premise 2: OTC and Sovereign Redeemer Assembly believes a Christ who cannot save because he contradicts his Father.

Conclusion 1: OTC and SRA are not saved.

Conclusion 2: OTC and SRA are hypocrites in damning anyone whom they judge heretics>>

Since Premise 2 is drawn from the faulty conclusion of your first syllogism, both conclusions are faulty.

You wrote: <<I respond by quoting your own words: “We do NOT judge anyone to be reprobate. If someone confesses a false gospel, I do not judge that person to be predestined for Hell. But I DO judge that person to be UNREGENERATE. And if that person CONTINUES in that unregenerate state until they die, then they will go to Hell. But I do not know if God will grant him or her repentance later in life.” Then I add to that: If God does not grant you repentance even to your death, then I judge you not ETERNALLY JUSTIFIED.>>

OK, good. So now you can see why I insisted on that distinction. It wasn’t just me squirming out of the crushing grip of your logic, was it? There is an important distinction between someone who is PRESENTLY unregenerate and someone who is predestined for Hell.

You wrote: <<Just because Satan quotes Scripture doesn’t mean that what he said is truth. In the same way, just because a person like you who holds to a fundamental gospel heresy quotes Scripture and calls upon people to repent doesn’t mean he says the truth and that he is truly sent from God.>>

True. The actual standard to judge an argument is whether it conforms to the whole of Scripture. Notice that when Satan did quote Scripture, he only used a verse that was isolated and out of context (Mat 4:6).

Funny how you can come to this conclusion about me, but won’t even consider it when it comes to Pedersen, Calvin, etc.

By the way, thanks for admitting that my arguments are based on Scripture!

<<You reveal your ignorance, rashness and pride in your fallacious and impoverished view of the Protestant Reformation. Your fallacy consists in taking the meaning of the word Reformation (as a movement; a mighty and legitimate work of God) from a definition taken from a Webster’s or Oxford’s dictionary (“improve by change”; “modify”). What you are doing is like saying that just because a “pineapple” consists of the words “pine” and “apple” you conclude that a pineapple is actually an apple of a nature of that of a pine, or an apple produced from pine trees, and so on. The Reformation is a “coming out” of the false church. In coming out it seeks to return (“reform” = return to the original form) to the Old Paths—to the apostolic teachings.>>

The Reformers SAID they were coming out of the false church, but when you break down their arguments, the GOSPEL they were peddling was essentially the same: Jesus did as much for Judas as he did for Peter, Jesus died sufficiently for all but efficiently for the elect, etc. So they really DIDN’T come out from the whore church.

<<Now OTC and the Sovereign Redeemer Assembly seem to convey an impression that it does not come out at all from a false church. But it actually RESURRECTS a DEAD church. I ask you, where, or rather WHO was the true Church in the whole of history before OTC and SRA came to be? and who judges men in the manner that OTC does? That’s why I asked you whether you have someone you endorse in the past. You only gave a few links by persons who are as proud as you are. If you claim to be the only true church besides that of the apostolic times then you contradict Christ’s Words: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her: (Matthew 16:18). You’re saying that there was no true Church (what you call Assembly) nearly 2,000 years prior to OTC since apostasy, heresy, death, persecution, etc., “prevailed against” it. Another heresy!>>

Those who were preaching the true Gospel would NEVER have been as popular as the well-known Reformers. Very few people would have wanted to buy their works, so their sermons probably never got printed. They would have been especially unpopular if they dared to condemn compromisers like John Calvin. People might even have accused them of being “under the sway of that Ancient Serpent and Archslanderer.”

<<These are your heresies so far:

1. Theology: God changes

2. Christology: Christ is not perfect (because of His disobedience)

3. Soteriology: (a) You teach a love, election, grace apart from the righteousness of Christ; (b) You believe you are saved by a disobedient Christ (inferred by your own proud doctrine)

4. Bibliology: You make Scripture a vile book of contradictions and therefore not infallible and not trustworthy

5. Ecclesiology: The Church through the ages after the apostles was actually extinguished contrary to the declaration of Christ in Matthew 16:18.

Repent Mr. Adams and believe the Gospel that truly gives God all the glory.

Alex>>

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like “policing Christian orhtodoxy” to me. But of course you would never do that, would you?

Anyway,

God never changes. In his UNCHANGEABLE hatred of sin, he must show wrath towards all who are unrighteous, and grace towards all who are righteous. Your god, however, would UNRIGHTEOUSLY keep justified people in the prison of unregeneracy for years.
I have proven that Christ is not disobedient to the Father. But your christ shed his blood for NOTHING, since his blood utterly FAILS to secure the father’s blessings toward ALL his justified people.
The elect were elected as Christ’s people, but they are not justified until Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them.
You have yet to prove that I have made a single contradiction. Nice try though.
I believe that the church was HIDDEN, not extinguished. You, however, apparently believe that anyone who could spout words like “predestination” and “reformation” were part of the true church. With a standard like that, you can’t even condemn Catholics.

The need for repentance is yours, Mr. Aquino. I would rejoice to see you repent and believe the Gospel.

But until you do, this correspondence is getting us nowhere. Please don’t write back unless you repent of your eternal justification heresy.

Chris Adams.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Gospel & Its Enemies

May 27, 2012

Darwin Fish vs. the Gospel, pt. 2

May 20, 2012

Darwin Fish vs. the Gospel, pt. 1

March 11, 2012

Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

September 26, 2011

John Wesley vs. the Gospel, pt. 5

March 27, 2011

Alex Aquino vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Search this Blog

About Me

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Follow “The Gospel & Its Enemies”