February 23, 2014

bible.ca vs. the Gospel, pt. 21

Posted in Steve Rudd tagged , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Last week, I wrote about the gospel doctrine of Limited Atonement. Before continuing my refutation of the e-Sword module “5 Points of Calvinism Refuted”, I will be looking this week at the related doctrine of Imputation. Read the rest of this entry »

November 24, 2013

bible.ca vs. the Gospel, pt. 8

Posted in Steve Rudd tagged , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Continuing in my refutation of the e-Sword module “5 Points of Calvinism Refuted” (see also part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7), our author next examines some verses put forth by those who believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity. And once again, let’s review the true meaning of this doctrine. Here is how the Christian Confession of Faith defines and explains it:

2. In so doing, Adam and Eve fell from their original state of innocence into a state of spiritual death and depravity. The guilt and defilement of Adam’s sin has been imputed to all whom he represented (all his natural posterity). The spiritual state of total depravity into which Adam fell has been transmitted to all whom he represented, and all whom he represented became physically subject to decay and death.[Gen 3:7-8,16-24; 5:3-5; Psa 51:5; Rom 3:10-18; 5:12-14,19; 8:5-8; Eph2:1-3; 4:17-19]

Before I get into our author’s examination of verses that teach Total Depravity, I want to make a couple of corrections. First, after doing a web search for ‘bible.ca’, I discovered a search log that contained the sentence, “Online Bible study material hosted by Steve Rudd”, and that name appears in a few other places around the website. So our author is no longer anonymous. Second, I made a mistake in my analysis of this passage:

B. Jesus inherited the depraved nature and guilt of sin like any other man, otherwise

1. Jesus had an advantage in overcoming sin that we do not.

2. Jesus was not made like his brethren in all things” Heb_2:14-18. Jesus was not tempted in all things just as we are. Heb_4:15

I assumed that Mr. Rudd was putting forth the view that Jesus was a sinner; but in context, that’s not his point at all. Instead, he is putting forth the view that this is a nasty implication of the doctrine of Total Depravity.

The objection is still ridiculous, however. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, Jesus had a sinless nature because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He could not have inherited a sinful nature. Hebrews is clear about the way in which Jesus was made like his brethren:

Therefore since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might do away with the one having the power of death, this is, the devil; (Heb 2:14)

Jesus was made like his brothers in his mortality, temptation, suffering, and death. He did not have to have a sinful nature to be ‘like’ his brothers.

Bible Texts Calvinists misuse to attempt to prove “Inherited Sin”

2Pe_3:16

“as also in all Paul’s letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

We Speak truth in LOVE

Genesis 6:5 1. Was every thought and intent of every man’s heart evil? v9 Noah was blameless

2. Doesn’t teach universal depravity, but that most men had corrupted their way and rejected God.

* If all mankind had been born “depraved” since the fall, then why would God suddenly destroy mankind at the flood?

* It was not that man was inherently wicked that prompted God’s condemnation, but the fact that they were actually engaged in wicked deeds and acts, (God “saw” the evil).

Here is the verse in question:

And Jehovah saw that the evil of man was great on the earth, and every purpose of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day. (Gen 6:5)

The doctrine of Total Depravity only applies to those who do not believe the Gospel. It doesn’t teach that believers are still totally depraved. So the state of Noah’s soul is irrelevant. But note the words “every”, “only”, and “all” in Genesis 6:5. They are there to show the universality of the natural depravity of man.

As for why God chose that specific moment to wipe mankind from the earth, we are not told anything about this, other than the fact that God ‘repented’ (literally, ‘sighed’) that he had made man. Sending a flood on the earth was a result only of God’s sovereign decision, not his reaction to unforeseen circumstances involving the sins of mankind.

Genesis 20:18

1. This verse does not say that He held the people guilty for Abimelech’s sin.

2. In fact God said himself in V6, that he did not sin.

* Calvinists fail to distinguish between spiritual & physical consequences of sin. Physical consequences do exist: pain in childbirth, swear in the field, scars of abuse. Spiritual do not.

* The closing of the wombs could have been a sign to all that Abraham was to be protected.

Note that this verse makes no mention whatsoever of human nature, depravity, or even sin. And even Mr. Rudd admits that Abimelech didn’t sin, so why even address this verse? Apparently, Mr. Rudd wants to fend off the objection that this is an instance of one group of people suffering the consequences of another person’s sin. Whether “Calvinists fail to distinguish between spiritual & physical consequences of sin” is irrelevant to me, since I’m not a Calvinist; but his assertion that “Physical consequences do exist….Spiritual do not.” is obviously false:

but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on the ones not sinning on the likeness of Adam’s transgression, … For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, … (Rom 5:14 & 19)

As the Christian Confession of Faith teaches, Adam was a representative of all his natural descendants, and therefore the state of spiritual depravity and death that he was given as punishment for his sin was transmitted to all whom he represented.

More from Mr. Rudd:

Exo_20:5; Exo_34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9

1. Eze_18:20 clearly teaches that God will not hold the son guilty for the father’s sin

2. Exactly what do they believe this verse is teaching?

* Is the guilt of sin only transmitted 4 generations? How can we be guilty of Adams sin?

* Will God condemn you to hell because your grandfather never repented of murder?

* Can anyone be saved if their father was a great sinner?

3. Calvinists faith to distinguish between spiritual & physical consequences of sin. This verse is speaking of the physical consequences of sin not that the children are spiritually guilty of the father’s sin. Addictions, various forms of abuse and laziness, the “cycle of poverty” are passed on from parent to child through a learning process not instinct.

Mr. Rudd still doesn’t seem to understand the concept of ‘imputation’. Here is a segment of Marc Carpenter’s sermon on Romans 5:

So how do all of Adam’s descendants become guilty? It’s that “I” word again: IMPUTATION. The guilt of Adam’s sin is IMPUTED to all whom Adam represented. Remember – IMPUTATION means “charged to the account of.” So the guilt of Adam’s sin is CHARGED TO THE ACCOUNT OF all whom he represented. Have you ever wondered why the sin of EVE was not charged to the account of the human race, since she’s the one who sinned first? It goes back to the idea of REPRESENTATION. Adam was the REPRESENTATIVE HEAD of Eve. Not only was he the representative head, he, as a man, was the head of his wife. So Eve COULD NOT have been the representative head of the human race, because SHE HERSELF had a head that was over her. Okay, back to the fact that the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to the account of all whom he represented. When an unborn baby is conceived, the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to the account of that unborn baby, and he becomes really, actually guilty in God’s sight and deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.

Now someone might ask, “So God will send someone to hell who has never sinned?” The answer is NO. When the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to a person, a principle of sin is IMPARTED into that person. And that principle of sin is the only principle there is in that person. Thus, whatever the person does is sinful. That person, from the moment of conception, is defiled by sin. If one of these infants dies in this state, he will go to hell. By the way, I am NOT saying that all infants who die in infancy go to hell; the Bible shows that there are some infants whom God regenerates and causes to believe the gospel, even before they are born.

Mr. Rudd continues:

Leviticus 12

1. Sin offering was made when a child was born, but it was not for the child but the mother.

2. This gives no support for infant Baptism to remove depravity.

I have already shown that baptismal regeneration is a result of the doctrine of free will, in my refutation of the theology of John Wesley:

But this doctrine [baptismal regeneration] reveals a dangerously deficient view of regeneration. It does not define regeneration as moving from a state of condemnation to a state of justification, because it does not see human nature as being in a state of condemnation. That is, it does not see human nature as wholly depraved and unable to do anything pleasing to God, or even prepare itself to receive the grace of God. Instead, it sees human nature as something that is essentially good, which only needs to be cleaned up a little; the “guilt of original sin” may be washed away as easily as you wash your hands. Consequently, this doctrine reveals a dangerously deficient view of sin: the insidiously evil nature of it, the deceitfulness of it, and the pervasive influence of it upon the entire soul of man. It sees sin as something bad, but not a thing that utterly defiles the whole man, body and soul. This is a direct result of Wesley’s deficient view of the glory of God, addressed in the previous chapter. When you have a god made in your own image, he is finite, and therefore neither infinitely glorious, nor infinitely righteous. Consequently, rebellion against him is not really infinite wickedness, nor could God have legitimately condemned all men to eternal destruction, because it is not infinitely deserved.

More from Mr. Rudd:

Job 14:1-4; 15:14; 25:4

1. Jesus was born of a woman: Gal_4:4 was He depraved?

2. Doesn’t say every women is inherently unclean or that man is born depraved, this is assumed.

* If this verse teaches that a sinner cannot beget the righteous, then can a Christian (one who has his original depravity forgiven and removed as taught by most churches) beget the righteous thereby avoiding inherited sin?

* Moses, Isaiah, Paul , Jesus, are proof that a man can be born of a woman and be “clean”

I have already pointed out that Jesus was pure because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Since that is a miracle that had never occurred before, and will never be repeated, the sinlessness of Jesus is hardly proof that human nature is pure or clean. Furthermore, in what way the births of Moses and Isaiah could possibly prove that “man can be born of a woman and be “clean”” is beyond me. We are only told about two of Moses’ sins (Exo 2:12, Num 20:11-12), and none of Isaiah’s, but what does that prove? Only that their (other) sins were not recorded in Scripture.

But Mr. Rudd’s mention of Paul here is significant. Here is what Paul had to say about his own ‘cleanness’:

in circumcision, the eighth day, of the race of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the Assembly; according to righteousness in Law, being blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss because of Christ. But, nay, rather I also count all things to be loss because of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them to be trash, that I might gain Christ and be found in Him; not having my own righteousness of Law, but through the faith of Christ, having the righteousness of God on faith, (Php 3:5-9)

It is entirely true that Paul was ‘blameless under the Law’ (v. 5-6). But he then goes on to describe that ‘righteousness’ as being nothing but ‘trash’ (v. 8), in comparison with the righteousness of Christ. Even though Paul’s conduct was in conformity to God’s law, it was still not enough to put him in God’s favor, because his character was still sinful (v.9). God’s Law still condemned even Paul’s best efforts at pleasing God.

More from Mr. Rudd:

Psa_14:1-7. This verse teaches that all men “turn aside & become corrupt” not that they are born that way.

* There have always been the “remnant” of righteous in the midst of the wicked.

* The Psalmist is not classing himself among those who do not seek after God.

Mr. Rudd admits that this verse teaches that all men “turn aside & become corrupt”. He then goes on to make exceptions to that statement. But wait! What about the old Arminian motto, “All means all, and that’s all ‘all’ means”? Is this actually an exception to that rule?

Yes it is. The Psalmist is teaching that all men have become corrupt by nature. Those who are not corrupt have had their natures regenerated by God (Eze 36:26).

Paul quotes from Psalm 14 in Romans 3:10-12. Here are Marc Carpenter’s comments on these verses from his sermon on Romans 3:9-18:

First, “there is none that understands, there is not one that seeks after God.” NONE THAT UNDERSTANDS. You’ll see here that these are absolute terms. NONE means not one single unregenerate person. An unregenerate person DOES NOT and CANNOT understand the gospel wherein the righteousness of God is revealed. Notice that this involves the UNDERSTANDING. It is a matter of the MIND. Turn over to 2 Corinthians 4:3-4:

2 Corinthians 4: (3) But also if our gospel is being hidden, it has been hidden in those being lost, (4) in whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, [so that] the brightness of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God, [should] not dawn on them.

What is blinded in those being lost? It is the THOUGHTS of the MIND. They cannot UNDERSTAND. Turn to Isaiah 6:9-10:

Isaiah 6: (9) And He said, Go and say to this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him.

These people whom God hardens can outwardly HEAR the Word of God, but they do not UNDERSTAND it. They are blinded. …

God’s people are those who understand and know God, who does kindness, justice, and righteousness in the earth. They understand how God can be just and justifier at the same time. Unbelievers do not understand this. They might be able to give lip-service to it, but they will show that they do not truly understand it. Salvation is a matter of UNDERSTANDING. Now we’ve all heard the people who say, “He really is a brother in Christ, even though he doesn’t understand the atonement.” God’s Word says if he doesn’t UNDERSTAND, then he is LOST. If he doesn’t UNDERSTAND that God is just to justify the ungodly based solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ, he is LOST. If he doesn’t UNDERSTAND that Christ’s work ensures the salvation of all whom He represented, he is LOST.

Back to Romans 3:11. The second part says, “there is not one that seeks after God.” Here is another description of every lost sinner without exception. He DOES NOT and CANNOT seek after God. For some, this is ridiculous. They see lost people seeking after God all the time! There are even “seeker services” for those who are seeking after God but just haven’t found him yet. But God says that there is not one single unregenerate person who seeks after God. Oh, they’re seeking alright, but they’re not seeking after the one true and living God. They are seeking a higher power that will tell them what they want to hear. They are seeking relief from their guilt. They are seeking anything and everything other than the one true and living God. Were they seeking the TRUE God, they would automatically realize that their own efforts form no part of the ground of their salvation, and they would automatically realize that it is the righteousness of Christ alone that is the only answer. But they won’t seek THAT God, because that would mean that they would have to get off their pedestal of self, and that is something that they WILL NOT do.

In verse 12, it says, “All turned away.” That is the opposite of seeking. Instead of going TOWARD the true and living God, they TURN AWAY from the true and living God and serve idols. They are so wrapped up in their self-righteousness that anything that would strip them of their righteousness is repugnant to them. They say to Christians, I love God, but not YOUR God. They will not have THIS God to reign over them. They REJECT the only way of salvation and rest in their works.

The next phrase is “they became worthless together.” All unbelievers without exception are nothing but vanity and worthlessness. Their thoughts, their words, and their deeds are nothing but dung. Even all their acts of kindness and charity are worthless and fruit unto death. They are worth nothing more than fuel for the fire.

The last phrase of this sentence is “not one is doing goodness, not so much as one!” Nothing they do is good. It is all evil and wicked. None of it is pleasing to God. Doing good is TOTALLY outside of their reach. Again, many would point to the outward acts of morality and kindness and charity and generosity to try to dispute this. What they do not realize is that when one is in a STATE of unrighteousness, EVERY WORK is unrighteous! God said in Hebrews 11:6 that without FAITH it is impossible to please God. Thus, no one can be a God-pleaser unless he has been given the gift of faith. And faith is belief in the true God, the true Christ, and the true gospel. Atheists can be as nice as anyone you’ve ever met, but they can do nothing that is truly good. Universal atonement advocates can be zealous and diligent in their church-going and Bible study, but they can do nothing that is truly good. Works that come from a depraved mind, which is a mind that does not believe the gospel, are DEAD works. Turn over to Romans 8:7-8:

Romans 8: (7) because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity towards God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it [be].

The unregenerate are at ENMITY with God, are TOTALLY UNABLE to be subject to the law of God, and are NOT ABLE to please God.


For more information, please see also:

Gospel Atonement

Sermon on Romans 3:9-18

Sermon on Romans 5:12-21 (1)

Essential Gospel Doctrine

November 10, 2013

bible.ca vs. the Gospel, pt. 6

Posted in Steve Rudd tagged , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Continuing in my refutation of the e-Sword module “5 Points of Calvinism Refuted” (see also part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5), our author now outlines his arguments in favor of Free Will, in opposition to the Gospel doctrine of Total Depravity. And once again, before getting into the arguments against the doctrine of Total Depravity, let’s review the true meaning of this doctrine. Here is how the Christian Confession of Faith defines the doctrine:

2. In so doing, Adam and Eve fell from their original state of innocence into a state of spiritual death and depravity. The guilt and defilement of Adam’s sin has been imputed to all whom he represented (all his natural posterity). The spiritual state of total depravity into which Adam fell has been transmitted to all whom he represented, and all whom he represented became physically subject to decay and death.[Gen 3:7-8,16-24; 5:3-5; Psa 51:5; Rom 3:10-18; 5:12-14,19; 8:5-8; Eph2:1-3; 4:17-19]” (Christian Confession of Faith, III.B.2)

Marc D. Carpenter summarized the doctrine of Total Depravity, in his sermon on Romans 3:9-18:

In a nutshell, total depravity is the doctrine that every unregenerate person is corrupt. CORRUPT is the opposite of PURE. Now when most people hear words like “corrupt” and “depraved,” what do they think of? They think of the outwardly morally bad people. They would say that terrorists like Osama bin Laden are depraved. Or they would say that child-molesters and perverts are depraved. They say, “Only a depraved mind would do this.” But to be depraved is to be UNRIGHTEOUS! To be depraved is to lack perfect righteousness! Now it’s for sure that Osama bin Laden and child-molesters and perverts are depraved. But so is EVERYONE who does not have a righteousness that equals God’s righteousness! The moral Jews were JUST AS DEPRAVED as the immoral heathen! There’s another aspect to depravity, and that is INABILITY. Those who do not have a righteousness that equals God’s righteousness are TOTALLY UNABLE to produce that righteousness or to obtain that righteousness. And not only this, they are TOTALLY UNABLE to even believe the gospel wherein the only righteousness that God accepts is revealed! They CANNOT believe it! In fact, they HATE it! ”

Now for our authors arguments:

We Speak truth in LOVE

A. The mechanism for the transmission of inherited sin false:

1. Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who

2. 1. Exo_32:31­33 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else’s sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.

3. We will be judged only by our own actions: Mat_12:36-37; Rom_2:6; 2Co_5:10; 1 Peter 1:17

4. Isa_59:1-2, “Your sins have separated you from your God” not Adams

5. Sin is committed by individually breaking God’s law: 1Jn_3:4 (Infants have done nothing)

6. Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?

Note that the second set of verses referenced above should be Ezekiel chapter 18, verses 18-20, not chapters 18-20. The important verse here is Ezekiel 18:20:

The soul that sins, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous one shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked one shall be on him. (Eze 18:20)

Note first that the context of the verse makes it clear that the Israelites were complaining about bearing the temporal consequences of sin, not the spiritual consequences:

What is it to you that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the teeth of the sons are dull? (Eze 18:2)

In verse 2 of Ezekiel 18, the Israelites were using a proverb that showed their belief that they were suffering because of the temporal consequences of their father’s sins. In verse 20, God corrected their false interpretation, and showed that the Israelites were actually bearing the temporal consequences of their own sins.

Second, and more importantly, the Israelites were not spiritual representatives of anyone. Adam was, and that is why his physical descendants inherit a depraved nature from him. This concept is fleshed out in Romans chapter 5, where the sin of Adam is contrasted with the work of Christ. Here is a segment of Marc Carpenter’s sermon on Romans 5:

So how do all of Adam’s descendants become guilty? It’s that “I” word again: IMPUTATION. The guilt of Adam’s sin is IMPUTED to all whom Adam represented. Remember – IMPUTATION means “charged to the account of.” So the guilt of Adam’s sin is CHARGED TO THE ACCOUNT OF all whom he represented. Have you ever wondered why the sin of EVE was not charged to the account of the human race, since she’s the one who sinned first? It goes back to the idea of REPRESENTATION. Adam was the REPRESENTATIVE HEAD of Eve. Not only was he the representative head, he, as a man, was the head of his wife. So Eve COULD NOT have been the representative head of the human race, because SHE HERSELF had a head that was over her. Okay, back to the fact that the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to the account of all whom he represented. When an unborn baby is conceived, the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to the account of that unborn baby, and he becomes really, actually guilty in God’s sight and deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.

Now someone might ask, “So God will send someone to hell who has never sinned?” The answer is NO. When the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to a person, a principle of sin is IMPARTED into that person. And that principle of sin is the only principle there is in that person. Thus, whatever the person does is sinful. That person, from the moment of conception, is defiled by sin. If one of these infants dies in this state, he will go to hell. By the way, I am NOT saying that all infants who die in infancy go to hell; the Bible shows that there are some infants whom God regenerates and causes to believe the gospel, even before they are born. …

Romans 5: (12) Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man,

Sin entered the world through one man, which is Adam. Notice right away that sin entered the WORLD. Adam did not sin as a private person, because if he did, the sin would have died with him. But sin ENTERED through him and was SPREAD from him. Next, let’s read the first part of verse 18:

Romans 5: (18) So then, as through one deviation [it was] toward all men to condemnation,

The one sin of Adam was TOWARD all men to condemnation. Now to the first part of verse 19:

Romans 5: (19) For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners,

Through disobedience of one man, Adam, the many were CONSTITUTED sinners. So the sin of Adam was TOWARD all, and through this sin, all were CONSTITUTED sinners. Remember back in Romans 3:22, where the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul says that the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ is TOWARD all and UPON all those believing? Here’s a parallel. The sin of Adam is TOWARD all and UPON all whom he represented. TOWARD all means given to all, and UPON all means imputed to all. If someone is CONSTITUTED a sinner because of one man’s sin, this CONSTITUTION must mean that the sin of the one man was IMPUTED to those whom he represented, especially in light of the last part of verse 19, where it says that because of the obedience of Christ, the many shall be CONSTITUTED righteous.”

Our anonymous author continues:

B. Unsaved and unregenerate men are capable of doing good and have freewill:

1. Calvinists teach that if a sinner helps an accident victim, he still sins because he does it for the wrong motive.

2. Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom_2:14-29.

3. Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Act_10:1-4; Act_10:22 yet unsaved: 11:14

4. Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Jos_24:15 “Choose this day…”

I addressed the ‘good’ works of the unregenerate in my last post. I also addressed the question of Cornelius’ state before God, but I did not deal with Acts 11:14:

who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved. (Act 11:14)

The word translated ‘saved’ in Acts 11:4 is sodzo, which means ‘to rescue, save, or deliver’. But it does have other meanings, and can also be translated ‘to heal’, or ‘to preserve’:

And He said to her, Daughter, your faith [Greek: sodzo] has healed you. Go in peace and be well from your plague. (Mar 5:34)

if we are being examined today on a good work of an infirm man, by what this one has been healed [Greek: sodzo] ,(Act 4:9)

And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [Greek: sodzo] me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (2Ti 4:18 KJV)

It is clear from Acts chapter 10 that Cornelius was “devout” and “fearing God”. At the very least, this must mean that he was familiar with the Old Testament, which reveals the Gospel in embryonic form. It is also apparent from his conversation with Peter that he had heard of the events in Jerusalem, but did not know of their significance (Acts 10:37). Thus, Cornelius and his household had heard enough of the Gospel promises in the Old Testament that they had faith (Heb 11:6), but not enough to be called Christians.

As for Joshua 24:15, notice that our author has quoted only three words from the verse. Let’s look at the whole verset:

And if it seems evil in your eyes to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods whom your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah. (Jos 24:15)

Joshua is not telling the Israelites that they have the Free Will to serve whoever they please, whether the true and living God, or idols. Instead he is being sarcastic, telling them that if they refuse to serve the true God, then there are plenty of false gods to choose from; just pick one. And when the Israelites answer, “We also will serve Jehovah, for He is our God.” (v. 18), note Joshua’s reply:

And Joshua said to the people, You cannot serve Jehovah, for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God. He will not lift up from you your transgressions or your sins. When you forsake Jehovah, and shall serve strange gods, then He will turn away and do evil to you, and consume you, after He has done good to you. (Jos 24:19-20)

Rather than affirming their free will decision, Joshua rebukes them and tells them that they cannot serve God, and God will punish then when (not if) they turn away from him.

C. God requires man to act and do something to be saved…infants can’t act or do

1. “Unless you repent you will perish”: Luk_13:3

2. “Save yourselves”: Act_2:40 KJV

3. “Repent and be baptized every one of you for forgiveness of sins”: Acts 2:38

4. Why are we told to “work out our own salvation”: Philippians 2:12

5. The spoken and written gospel message is God’s power for salvation: Rom_1:16; 1Co_1:18

Here is how the Christian Confession of Faith answers this argument:

Yet all men are responsible to obey the commands of God, because God, as the sovereign King of creation, has the right to command obedience from His creatures, regardless of their ability to obey. [Deu 10:16; Mat 12:13; 28:18; Joh 11:43; Act 17:30-31; Rom 2:12-16; 2Th 1:8]

God is perfectly just to command people to do something they are not capable of doing. Ezekiel was obeying God when he commanded the field of dry bones to rise up (Eze 47:4-7). Jesus was perfectly just when he commanded the man with the withered arm to stretch forth his hand (Luke 6:10). And Jesus was perfectly just when he commanded Lazarus to emerge from his tomb (John 11:43-44). All of these examples involve commands that the subjects could not obey, but God was still just in ordering them to obey those commands.


For more information, please see also:

Gospel Atonement

Sermon on Romans 3:9-18

Sermon on Romans 5:12-21 (1)

Essential Gospel Doctrine

March 11, 2012

Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Posted in Peter Pike tagged , , , , , 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 http://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:

Speaking Peace

“Calvinists” Forum

Deadly Ignorance

Gospel Atonement

Why we no longer endorse the Trinity Foundation

December 25, 2011

Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 2

Posted in Anthony Buzzard, Ken Lokken tagged , , , , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. What follows is my second post to that e-mail group.

=========

Ken —

First of all, I notice that you utterly *failed* to do the one thing I asked you to do: interact with the *Scripture references* I provided. Was that too hard, or just beneath you, Ken? Your pontifications on what the Kingdom of God is all about are utterly *meaningless* without some grounding in Scripture. Yet that is the one thing you have failed to provide. Disgraceful.

You wrote: “Jesus Christ, the human Messiah began his actual existence on earth.  He is not the so called 2nd person of the trinity and neither was he a pre-existent spirit”

But contrary to this, Jesus said, “And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world. ” (Joh 17:5) and “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I AM.” (Joh 8:58) Either Ken Lokken is right or Jesus Christ is right; it can’t be both.

You also wrote: “Finite man cannot commit infinite sin.”

ALL sins are infinitely heinous, not because of the infinite glory of man, but because of the infinite glory of GOD. When man offends an infinite God, that sin is an infinite sin. The fact that you can’t see that shows that you have absolutely no understanding of God’s glory; your puny little god only needs man’s tears of repentance to be appeased. The true God of the Bible needs the blood of his only begotten Son, the divine mediator between God and Man, to appease his wrath over sin. That is why I say that you have committed blasphemy in preaching that Jesus was merely human, and not God in the flesh. With no understanding of the infinite glory of God, the infinite heinousness of sin, and the need for an infinite atonement for those sins, you show that you have no understanding of the true Gospel. You are lost, Ken, and your deeds are evil; you are dead in your sins. Repent and believe the Gospel.

You wrote: “The Gospel is the good news of the Messiah and his future Kingdom on earth.  It was all Jesus talked about.  Only just before his closing days did he even mention that the son of man must suffer to cleanse his people from their sins. ”

Really? So why was the Christ-child given the name “Jesus” in Mat 1:21? Was it because he would “usher in the Kingdom on earth”? NO. The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves”, and we are specifically told that he would save his people “FROM THEIR SINS”. So, nice try on the obfuscation, but it doesn’t work. Here is the true definition of the Gospel:

The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented. [Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17] (Christian Confession of Faith V.B.1, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm )

Next, you asked: “Can God die? ”

Answer: YES.

17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. (Rev 1:17-18)

And if you doubt that the speaker is God Almighty, see how he introduces himself in verse 9: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” Compare Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.

You also wrote: “I am saying a perfect human Jew became our savior.  Tell me just how would God incarnate?  To do so would make him less than God.  Fully God/fully man is neither fully God or fully man. ”

Have you ever even READ a New Testament?! This is basic stuff, Ken!

“41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. ”

The Pharisees couldn’t answer Jesus’ question, and neither can you, Ken.

Jesus was fully God and fully Man because he was begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. He partook of both the human and divine natures. Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was “was made a little lower than the angels”. How is that even possible if Jesus is merely a man? ALL men are lower than the angels, so how was Jesus “made” a little lower? Hebrews 2:17 says “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. ” If Jesus was merely human, then he was ALREADY like his brothers; so how was he “made” to be like his brothers?

You also wrote: “I am not as wise as you theologians; but neither am I looking through your lenses which I am most familiar with.  ”

Yeah, you’re just so exceedingly humble, Ken. Keep blowing that trumpet, so the whole world can gather around and see just how wildly humble you are.

Go read the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 23. Was Jesus being humble when he called the Pharisees vipers, whitewashed tombs, and sons of the Devil?

(Here’s a hint: YES, he WAS being humble.)

You wrote: “Perhaps you should at least give mine a try? You pride yourself in being a Berean.  To search the scriptures means just that.  It does not mean to uphold a bias.”

Yet, you are perfectly willing to NOT search the Scriptures, and uphold YOUR bias. As long as you’re going to live in that glass house, you should probably keep the stones to yourself. Oh, and please, please, close the curtains, Ken. Please.

As for “Focus on the Kingdom”, yeah, I might have some fun refuting their nonsense. But then, I have already written a pair of articles on the divinity of Jesus Christ: ‘A Christian View of the Messiah‘, and ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘. If you are as open minded as you seem to think you are (or as open minded as you expect me to be), you will go read them. Of course I’m not holding my breath.

In regard to the section of the Confession dealing with the divinity of Christ, you wrote:”(I do not recognise your confession of faith based on haphazard scripture.  Anyone can take a group of scriptures and make them what they want them to appear.  the OT and the new agree as one.  Hear o’ Isreal the Lord thy God is one Lord.  Tell Moses who knew God face to face that God is 3 persons, or the prophets that the Messiah would be God himself in the flesh.  Paul the great theologian never said grace, mercy and peace from god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost.  It was always grace, mercy peace from God the Father of OUR lord Jesus Christ(Messiah).  In the early church they argued over many issues..the diety of Jesus nor the teaching of trinity ever came up.  salvation is of the Jews and no Jew would have thought Jesus the messiah as God..much less that God was 3 persons in one) “

I don’t care whether you recognize the Confession, Ken; that isn’t why I quoted it. What I was doing was putting forth the truth of this doctrine (the deity of Christ) as it has already been formulated. And if the Scripture references are so haphazard and misinterpreted, then why don’t you SHOW US that, instead of asking us to take your word for it? Show us how the Scripture references are misused or misinterpreted, Ken. Then you might have something resembling an argument. Apparently that’s just to much to ask for.

As for Deuteronomy 6:4 “”, here is what John Gill had to say about the passage:

” In an ancient book of theirs it is said {o} Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah (i.e. Jehovah, our God, Jehovah); these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery; “in the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”; and again {p}, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one; the three forms (modes or things) which are one; and elsewhere {q} it is observed, there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to (or of) them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu (our God) is joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth, and when they are joined they are one in one unity; which is illustrated by the three names the soul of man is called by, the soul, spirit, and breath; and elsewhere they say {r} the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah, are called one; see Joh 10:30. {o} Zohar in Gen. fol. 1, 3. {p} Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. {q} Ib. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. {r} Tikkune Zohar, Correct. 47. fol. 86. 2.Ç”

So, yeah, I’m pretty sure Moses would have no problem agreeing that God is a triune being (ie. three in ONE).

Here is some of what I wrote in the article ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘ :

God is an infinite God and an infinitely righteous God. Therefore, all sin is an infinite offense to him (Exodus 20:5, Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, any sacrifice that is intended to atone for sin must be an infinite sacrifice. Anything less would be insufficient to turn away God’s wrath against the sins of his people. It is only as Jesus Christ partakes of the two natures, human and divine, that he is able to become the Mediator between God and Man (Job 9:33; Hebrews 2:17), able to “lay his hand” upon both at once. Therefore, the Gospel absolutely requires that Jesus Christ not only be a real human being but also be God incarnate, God in the flesh.

The fact that Jesus is more than a mere “creature” is inferred from the following facts:

1. Several titles applied to Jesus Christ. Jesus is called “Lord”, by Thomas and Stephen (John 20: 28, Acts 7:59-60), and Christians must confess Jesus as “Lord” (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12: 3). The Greek word here translated “Lord” is kurios, which is the word used to translate “Jehovah” in the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Similarly, Jesus is called “Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23), which means “God with us.” And in Revelation 22:13, Jesus is called “the first and the last,” a title that is given to Jehovah God in Isaiah 44:6. None of these titles could be given to a mere creature.

2. Several attributes of Jesus Christ. Jesus is described as all-knowing (John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), all-powerful (Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3), eternal (Micah 5:2), and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). And Colossians 2:9 states that in Jesus Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (NWT). None of these things can be said of a mere creature.

3. Several works of Jesus Christ. Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 5:24; Ephesians 1:7), control nature (Matthew 8:26), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), and judge the world (John 5:22 & 27). None of these things can be done by a mere creature.

4. Jesus Christ received worship. Jesus received worship from men (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38) and angels (Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:11-13). Yet worship is due to God alone (Exodus 34:14; Acts 14:11-18; Romans 1:24-25; Revelation 19:10). Jesus himself even taught this (Matthew 4:10; John 4:23). No mere creature can legitimately receive worship.

5. The Patriarchs and Prophets expected a Messiah who would also be Jehovah. The Messiah was expected to be not only David’s son, but his Lord as well (Psalm 110:1). Job said “For I know my Redeemer [is] living, and He shall rise on the earth at the last; and after my skin has been struck off from my flesh, yet this, I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26). John wrote of Jesus in John 12:37-41 that Isaiah “saw His glory, and spoke about Him.” (cf. Isaiah 6:1-5). The Patriarchs and Prophets did not expect that the Messiah would be a mere creature.

Finally, there is Revelation 1: 11-18. In this section, John sees a vision of a person who clearly identifies himself as Jehovah God (vss. 11,14,17). He also has the appearance of a “Son of Man” (v. 13). But this person goes on to say, in v. 18, “I became dead.” So how could Jehovah God die? The only possible explanation is that Jehovah God died on a Roman cross, just outside Jerusalem.

You wrote: “Your very statement tells me you have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about.  the death, buriel, ressurrection are one of the primary things concerning the Kingdom Of God.”

Oh, so I “have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about”, eh? Does this mean that I am LOST, Ken? But since I know you don’t have the spine to judge me lost, what is the point of telling me about your view of the Kingdom? If I will be going to heaven no matter what I believe about the Gospel, what is the point of preaching it, or correcting me on my misunderstanding of it?

You are lost, Ken, and so is everyone who believes this damnable heresy. I can say that with absolute certainty because of Mat 7:20. Repent and believe the Gospel.

Next page

%d bloggers like this: