|
Biblical Repository and Princeton Review, 23 (1851),
308-19, Charles Hodge
From an early period in the history
of the Church, there have been two great systems of doctrine in perpetual conflict. The one begins with God, the other with
man. The one has for its object the vindication of the Divine supremacy and sovereignty in the salvation of men; the other
has for its characteristic aim the assertion of the rights of human nature. It is specially solicitous that nothing should
be held to be true, which cannot be philosophically reconciled with the liberty and ability of man. It starts with a theory
of free agency and of the nature of sin, to which all the anthropological doctrines of the Bible must be made to conform …
Every man, according to this system, stands his probation for himself, and is not under condemnation until he voluntarily
transgresses some known law, for it is only such transgression that falls under the category of sin. In regeneration, according
to the principles above stated, there cannot be the production of a new moral nature, principle or disposition, as the source
of holy exercises. That change must consist in some act of the soul, something which lies within the sphere of its own power,
some act of the will or some change subject to the will. The influence by which regeneration is effected must be something
which can be effectually resisted in the utmost energy of its operation. This being the case, the sovereignty of God in the
salvation of man must of necessity be given up.
From these theoretical views, others
of a practical nature necessarily follow. Conviction of sin must accommodate itself to the theory that there is no sin by
in the voluntary transgression of known law; a sense of helplessness must be modified by the conviction of ability to repent
and believe, to change our own heart and keep all God’s commands … The view which this system presents of the
plan of salvation, of the relation of the soul to Christ, of the nature and office of faith, modifies and determines the whole
character of experimental religion.
The system antagonistic to the one
just described has for its object the vindication of the supremacy of God in the whole work of man’s salvation, both
because He is in fact supreme, and because man being in fact utterly ruined and helpless, no method of recovery which does
not so regard him is suited to his relation to God, or can be made to satisfy the necessities of his nature. This system does
not exalt a theory of morals or of liberty over the Scriptures as a rule by which they are to be interpreted. It accommodates
its philosophy to the fact revealed in the divine Word. As the Bible plainly teaches that man was created holy, that he is
now born in sin, that when renewed by the Holy Spirit he receives a new nature, it admits the doctrine of created holiness,
innate sin, and of infused or inherent grace. It acknowledges Adam as the head and representative of his posterity, in whom
we had our probation, in whom we sinned and fell, so that we come into the world under condemnation, being born the children
of wrath … It admits that by this innate, hereditary, moral depravity men are altogether indisposed, disabled and made
opposite to all good; so that their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.
It recognizes justice as distinguished from benevolence, to be an essential attribute of God, an attribute which renders the
punishment of sin necessary, not merely as a means of moral impression, but for its own sake. It, therefore, regards the work
of Christ as designed to satisfy justice and to fulfill the demands of the law by His perfect obedience to its precepts, and
by enduring its penalty in the room and stead of sinners …
There are three leading characteristics
of this system, by which it is distinguished from that to which it stands opposed. The latter is characteristically rational.
It seeks to explain every thing so as to be intelligible to the speculative understanding. The former is confessedly mysterious.
The Apostle pronounces the judgment of God to be unsearchable and His ways past finding out … The system which Paul
taught was not a system of common sense, but of profound and awful mystery. The second distinguishing characteristic of this
system if that its whole tendency is to exalt God and to humble men. It does not make the latter feel that he is the great
end of all things, or that he has his destiny in his own hands … It is not the wise, the great, or the noble whom God
calls, but the foolish, the base, and those that are not great, that they who glory should glory in the Lord. Thirdly, this
system represents God as Himself the end of all His works both in creation and in redemption. It is not the universe, but
God; not the happiness of creatures, but the infinitely higher end of divine glory, which is contemplated in all these revelations
and dispensations. For of Him, through Him, and to Him are all things: to Whom be glory for ever. Amen.
The
Bubba and Herschel Letters
By
Miles McKee
Miles
McKee Ministries
Box 50395, Henderson,
NV,
89016
milesmckee@cox.net
Dear
Bubba,
Just
the other day I ran into the new preacher in town, Pastor Epop. He was a pleasant
kind of chap with a cheerful and warm face. Having introduced myself, I said I was keen to know what his church believed.
He told me and I thought I’d report my findings to you.
The first
doctrine Pastor Epop held was that his church was the only true church on the face of the earth. In fact it was, according
to him, the very church that Jesus had come to found. I thought this to be a strange and boastful claim but felt I shouldn’t
mention it. After all, he was new to town and the Lord, I’m sure you’ll
agree, wants us to be loving and nice to other Christians.
I then
asked him about salvation and he told me that it is a very important subject. Salvation,
he said, was, in point of fact, to be found by belonging to his church. Apparently, he has been invested with some kind of
magical or supernatural power to enable him and all the other pastors he ordains to change wine into blood and little round
wafers into the actual body of Jesus. He is able to then offer up Jesus for our sins in some kind of bloodless sacrifice.
I was kind of taken aback by this since I thought the Bible said that Jesus had been offered once for all but he insisted
that without taking part in this ritual of eating and drinking the actual body and blood of Jesus, as administered by him,
I could not be saved.
I began
to say that eating flesh and drinking blood sounded very much like cannibalism but before I got the words out he said that
the one thing that would help me understand his view on things was to realize he was Christ’s representative. I suggested to him that all Christians were His representatives but he said that while that was true to
a certain extent it was not what he meant. What he meant was that when Jesus went back to heaven, he appointed Pastor Epop
as His visible and very present representative on earth.
I was
not sure if I was listening to some form of religious lunacy but he was serious and plausible and besides I didn’t want
to be rude because we are all one in the Spirit, aren’t we! Even though
I found his opinions very disconcerting, I asked him if taking his form of communion would completely save me. As it turns out, vital as this ceremony is, there were up to six more ceremonies that I had to participate
in. One of them was baptism. I quickly informed that I had already been baptized,
once by the Presbyterians, as an infant, and a second time by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ when I became a believer
and then I went to the local Baptist church where they dunked me. I told him that I thought by this time I had all bases covered.
But, according to him, at no time was I actually baptized because the churches in which I was baptized with water were not
under his authority or approved by him and the Holy Spirit would only baptize me into Christ when I underwent a ceremony performed
by him or his approved representatives. .
I was
quite understandably puzzled that anyone could imagine such a thing when he then explained that since he was Christ’s
personal representative he had power and authority over every other church in town. In fact, he went on to say that if we
refused his rulership and control we were completely going against God. God, he said, although He was kind, would not tolerate
our disobedience.
Well,
by this time, I was somewhat knocked for six and asked him if there was any chance he could be mistaken. The answer was a firm and resolute no! You should have seen it when I asked him this. The smile left his
face and a cold steely look came to his eyes as he stubbornly stated that every time he spoke on matters of faith and doctrine
he was infallible and could not make a mistake. I’m not sure if I grasped
what he was saying but it seemed that, since he was Christ’s representative on the earth, when he decreed a doctrine,
God was pleased to and maybe even obliged to endorse it.
But you
know Bubba, it’s not for us to judge. I didn’t like what he was saying but he says he hates abortion so he can’t
be all bad. Do you think it would be right to attend his meetings?
My problem
is that I suspect someone making all these claims has surely lost the plot. I went to my pastor and he agrees. He says that someone coming to town and opening up a new church which teaches these things should be shunned.
And besides that, he told me that these positions are already held and promoted in every detail by the Church of Rome. It
seemed apparent that Pastor Epop had stolen his ideas from them.
So now I’m even more confused because my pastor says that pastor
Epop is evidently an evil worker, false prophet and deceiver but next Sunday evening the local churches are having an ecumenical
gathering at St. Bridget’s Roman Catholic Church. So why give Rome a pass on her teachings? If Pastor Epop’s teachings are condemned
and these teachings are just the same as the Church of Rome’s why do we still accept Rome?”
As the Bible says, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”
I‘ve
racked my brains on this one. The only thing I can come up with is that Pastor Epop is wrong because when I asked him how
many followers he had he said he was just starting out and didn’t have that many at the moment. Rome, on the other hand, has millions of followers and has been around for ages. Mind you, my neighbor, Brother G. Truth, told me that just because an error or heresy is ancient and popular
it doesn’t make it any less of a heresy. So perhaps that means the Roman
Catholics wouldn’t be any more right or any less wrong than Pastor Epop.
Anyhow, I’m not really sure what to do. Please advise. If pastor Epop or someone like him came to your town would you accept him or oppose him?
Please give me your insight!
Best
regards
Herschel
Dear
Herschel,
What
an amazing conversation you had with that Pastor Epop. Obviously the man is not
in full possession of his faculties. I quite agree with your pastor that he should
be shunned. How can anyone claiming such absurdities possibly be anything other
than a wolf? However, I disagree with your pastor about the Church of Rome being
similar to Pastor Epop’s lot. I know many Roman Catholics and they are very nice people.
Some of them, I’ll admit, are RC in name only but others of them take their faith seriously and love Jesus. I’m
sure your pastor is quite wrong to equate Pastor Epop’s teaching with that of Rome.
Anyhow if he really thinks that Rome is so whacked out in her doctrine why does
he accept them as a valid church?
Cheers
Bubba
Dear
Bubba,
Thanks
for your letter. Since last you wrote, I ran into Pastor Epop again. What a nice guy! You know, that has to speak volumes. He’s really very gentle and mild mannered. When I come to think of it, he’s friendlier and more pleasant than many of the
folks in our church.
However, I asked him for more of his time so that I could better understand his doctrinal position. I needed to clarify
this business of going to heaven and asked him if I became a member of his church
and took the 7 ceremonies would I get to heaven.
I was
quite amazed at his answer. He replied that absolutely in no way no. The only people who would go to heaven straight away, he said, were super saints. The rest of us had to go to an intermediate state called Tory-Purga.
I didn’t
much like the sound of that and he must have seen it in my face because he then said that Tory-purga was a temporary abode
for the dead and after we had been punished there for our sins we would be released. You know Bubba, I didn’t like that
prospect one little bit and wondered why any right minded person would sign up for this kind of religion.
However, Pastor Epop then told me that he and his other pastors had power to shorten time spent in Tory-Purga. Yes indeed, according to Pastor Epop the time in torment could be shortened if we
paid money for a certain ceremony to be performed. Now what was the name he gave to that ceremony? Well you know me---head
like a sieve----but you know the one I mean, the one where he magically turns bread into Jesus. I wondered to myself what the poor would do for, after all, poor folks have no money and it’s money
which shortens the length of time their relatives spent in Tory-Purga. It seems to me that Pastor Epop’s church favors
the rich and mighty because they are the ones who can afford to have this ceremony performed.
But you
know, Bubba, Pastor Epop is such a nice man. He hates abortion and divorce and all the other things that are killing our society. Boy, what a strong advocate he is for returning prayer to schools. I think, at the back of it, we have a lot in common.
One thing
that troubles me is that Brother G. Truth tells me that our Lord Jesus Christ paid for the sins of His people at the cross
and to say that people had to go to Tory-Purga is an attack on the Lord Jesus Himself.
According to Brother G Truth this doctrine, promoted by Pastor Epop, undermines the very heart of the Gospel. But you
know Bubba, sometimes I wonder about Brother G Truth. Sometimes I think he takes the Bible too literally.
Do you
have any thoughts on any of this?
Best
regards
Herschel.
Dear
Herschel,
Once
more thanks for your note. It’s really good to have fellowship with you so often.
Yes I know what you mean about Brother G. Truth. He often takes things
too seriously. Mind you, behind it all, he really is a heck of a nice guy. I think, however, he fails to realize that at the end of the day there is fault in
every church. There is no one whose doctrine is absolutely accurate.
However,
I’ll be the first to admit that, on the other hand, Pastor Epop’s teachings seem to totally contradict scripture.
But we must all remember, there none of us qualified to judge. The thing is, that God looks at the heart not at the doctrinal
statement.
Best
regards
Bubba
Dear
Bubba,
That’s
profound! I never thought of it in that way. I must remember that. God looks at the heart and not the doctrinal statement….cool!
A bit
of bad news. Brother G. Truth has withdrawn from our church because of our meeting with St Bridget’s. He told me that
in good conscience he could not accept Rome as being other than a perverter of
the faith. The guy is a bit of a dinosaur and really out of touch with what the
Spirit is doing. He also says that Rome
is not the only one he refuses to endorse. According to him, and for the same reasons he wants nothing to do with Rome,
he refuses to give any semblance of support to Pastor Epop. For him, Epop is
the same cat with different whiskers!
Well
as for me, I think on this one Brother G Truth is right. I can’t see the difference either. But, my problem is, if we accept Rome we should accept Pastor
Epop also. After all, they are saying the same things and if it is outlandish
and wrong for Pastor Epop to claim these beliefs it is equally wrong for Rome
to hold to her teachings. Yet among my friend there is not one who doesn’t accept the Roman Catholics as fellow Christians.
It’s as you say, a matter of heart and not doctrine.
But,
Brother G. Truth says that Rome and Pastor Epop blaspheme in equal measure and
that to fellowship with either of them is to look Jesus in the face and spit on Him.
He says, however, that we should be loving and kind to individual Roman Catholics and members of Pastor Epop’s
congregation: But, he says, until they come to see that Christ alone is the only savior and redeemer they need to be evangelized. According to Brother G Truth, salvation is by grace alone and this grace is not, nor
can be infused into us by the taking of religious sacraments or ceremonies.
Brother G Truth is way out there! He says there can be no visible unity
unless there is doctrinal unity in the Gospel. For Him, the one true Church is found in Christ alone. Christ alone is our
righteousness, he says, and to look to anyone or any church to save us is an act of unbelief and disloyalty.
It’s
all getting far too heavy for me. I think we should all just love one another
for that’s what Jesus wants.
Mind
you one thing does nag at me and that is something that Brother G. Truth mentioned. He said that it is obvious that Pastor
Epop’s teachings are erroneous, dangerous, deceitful, destructive and dishonoring to the Savior and His gospel. However
these teachings are the very same as those of Rome except for the fact that the
Pope has been replaced by Pastor Epop. Other than that, the two churches and their doctrines are identical. There is a great
outcry from Bible Believers against Pastor Epop because he’s the Johnny come lately; but why is there no outcry from
the same people against The Church of Rome?
I’ll
write another time.
Herschel
Dear
Brother Herschel,
It will
do you no good to think too deeply into things. There isn’t one church on the face of this earth which has it completely
right. We are all looking in the glass darkly. The issue before us is, can we
love one another. The Holy Spirit is bringing all kind of believers together today in love to show the world that Christianity
is right.
Mind
you, I don’t think Pastor Epop’s flock qualify as they have obviously just make up their doctrines as they go
along. I can’t accept them as being a genuine church. As for Rome teaching
the same thing, I very much doubt this. While I concede that in some of her older statements, they may have been a bit over
the top, nowadays she is doing a fine job of bringing the gospel all over the world.
Just look at what Mother Teresa did. She was splendid. And John Paul 2 talked all the time about loving Jesus. We are one in the Spirit. Many of my
Catholic friends have had the same experience of being born again as we have had.
All the
best
Bro.
Bubba.
Dear
Bro Bubba,
You,
as always, raise great points. I showed your letter to Brother G Truth and he said that whereas he agreed there was no perfect
Church he said there was one thing that we needed to be clear about and this was the matter of attaining right standing before
God. We had to be crystal clear about it, there could be no room for error, he said.
I agreed with him and told him that Jesus said we must be born again and if we weren’t born again we could not
enter into the Kingdom. Bother G Truth then turned to me and asked me what I
was trusting to get into heaven. He asked me if I died and found myself face
to face with God and God asked me why He should let me into heaven what answer I would give.
I just
smiled for I knew what he was getting at. I’ve been saved long enough and have heard enough sermons to know that you
can never boast of any works you have done. Most people, you see, will try to
tell God about all the good things they have done so I wasn’t going to fall for that one. So I told Brother Truth that if God asked me that question I would simply reply that I had asked Jesus
into my heart. Brother Truth then asked me where I got the authority to say that. I wasn’t sure what he meant so he asked, what scripture verse told me that we
get to heaven by asking Jesus into our hearts.
I told
him it was all throughout the Bible but he said to just give him one instance. You
know Bubba, I have to admit I’m a bit confused now. I always thought that if you had said the sinner’s prayer
that you would be saved but Brother G Truth says that the sinners prayer is just a tradition of men. So I’ve been looking for a verse….can you help me here?
Brother
G Truth then said that I didn’t know and love the Gospel and it was for this very reason that I could possibly tolerate
Rome and Epop.
Any advice?
Herschel.
Dear
Herschel,
Don’t
let Brother G Truth alarm you. As we have already agreed, he is just not clued
into what the Lord is doing. He really belongs in another era. And as for furnishing him with just one scripture, try giving him two;
1)Ye
must be born again.
2) Behold
I stand at the door and knock If any man hear my voice and open the door I will come into him and sup with him and he with
me.
If it
is anyone who does not understand what’s going on its Brother G Truth! If he understood more about love then he would
see that we are all one and that includes the Roman Catholics.
Blessings
to you and yours
Bubba.
Dear
Bubba,
Thanks
for the note. I showed Brother G Truth the two scriptures and he disallowed them
both. The one in Revelation was not, he said, anything to do with an unbeliever
asking Jesus into his heart. It was, he said, a scripture written to the church.
Apparently, this is borne out by the context.
As for
the passage in John 3 about being born again, we read through it together and he pointed out there was not one mention of
asking Jesus into our hearts. He then asked me again what my hope of heaven was. I told him I had had an experience of the Lord but this time I was careful not to
use the expression, “I asked Jesus into my heart”. He then shocked me by saying that I could very well go and
fellowship with the RC’s and Pastor Epop’s group for we were basically all hoping and trusting in the same thing.
He went on to explain that God is holy and demands a perfect righteousness
from us. But this righteousness can not be found within us. No experience whether religious or life changing can put enough
righteousness into us to satisfy God‘s righteous standard. However, he went on to explain that the righteousness that
we needed was to found in Christ alone and could be made ours by faith alone.
He said
that it was the failure to grasp this that left Christians open to seduction by false religions such as Catholicism and Pastor
Epop’s group.
I thought
it a bit extreme to call them false religions but he then took me to the book of Galatians and showed me where people who
preached another Gospel were actually accursed. He went on to say that he had
real and genuine love for the people caught up in these deceptions and because he loved them he was trying to give them the
Gospel. According to him, when we hug and embrace these folk and call them brothers
in the Lord, this is the very opposite of love for we are helping them along the very road to damnation. If we love them we
will, he said, give them the true gospel.
Well
Bubba, I need to finish for the moment. I’ve got to leave town for a few
days so there’s no point in replying to this till next week.
Blessings
Herschel
Dear
Herschel,
Much
learning has made Brother G Truth mad. I’m saved because I’ve had an experience with the Lord. I’ve had a relationship with him ever since I decided to ask Him into my heart. My friends from the
Catholic Church are Catholic Evangelicals. We are evangelicals and so are they
so there is no difference.
Brother
G Truth says he loves these Catholics and so he should for they are brothers in the Lord.
For him to say they need to be evangelized is out of order and obviously a product of a judgmental spirit.
We need
to pray for him that He sees the light!
Cheers
Bubba
Dear
Bubba,
I do
indeed pray for Brother G Truth. I’ve noticed that he really makes his
point with much passion. Perhaps he’s becoming un-hinged.
He does
however say that he believes in the necessity of regeneration (being born again). Well
at least that is one good thing. Then he told me that pastor Epop teaches the
same thing as Rome teaches concerning being born again. According to him, they both teach that a baby is born again when it is baptized by the priest.
But he
said that that was not the biggest issue. The issue, according to Him was how
does a sinful man find right standing before a Holy God. He insists that it never was nor will be through regeneration. He insists that our right standing before God is found not in ourselves but in another,
the Lord Jesus. Furthermore, he said that our righteousness is where we need
it most. I asked him where that was and he said that our righteousness was in heaven in the person of Christ. That is why Christ can represent us and why the Father can treat us as being already perfected.
Pastor
Epop, according to Brother G Truth, along with Rome has twisted the Scriptures and while they praise
Christ Jesus they actually plunder Him by denying His finished work at Calvary and his unique position
as our mediator.
I don’t
think I’m making much headway with him. He just doesn’t get it.
Blessings
Herschel
Dear
Herschel,
Forget
about him. He’s probably got a bitter spirit. It’s obvious that the Roman Catholics are saved. And
no I don’t mean all of them any more than I would say all Baptists are saved.
There are nominal believers in both camps so what’s the difference. As for Epop and his lot their claims are
outrageous and by them they disqualify themselves from being accounted as Christians. At least Brother G Truth is right on
that one
But do you know what? All this business about doctrine just gives me a
headache and leaves me cold.
Blessings
Bubba
Dear
Bubba,
I shared
you last note with Brother G Truth and he hopes your headache has improved. However
he says that you are in grave danger of apostasy because of your failure to take the scriptures seriously. However, he also suspects that you actually have no real clue what Rome
is all about so he gave me some quotations from their leader
Cardinal Manning, former head of the Roman Catholics in England
writing on behalf of the Pope says: "In Christ's right I am Sovereign. I acknowledge
no civil superior: I am the subject of no Prince, and I claim to be the supreme judge on earth, the director of the consciences
of men; of the peasant that tills the field and the Prince that sits on the Throne: of the household that sits in the shade
of privacy and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdom. I am the last sole supreme judge on earth of what is right
and wrong."
Cardinal Heenan, former Archbishop of Westminster, declared: "Ecumenism does not mean pretending that all denominations are equally true; it does not mean that the [Roman] Catholic
Church has nothing more than other churches. The ultimate object of ecumenism is to unite all Christians under the Vicar of
Christ--the Pope."
He also says that if you have friends who are members of the Church of Rome who say they love Jesus you
should tell them to leave and come out from among them. After all, you would do the same if you found friends of yours attaching
themselves to pastor Epop’s Church. For Brother G Truth the issue is loyalty or disloyalty to the only king
and head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessings
Herschel
Dear Bubba,
That man G Truth is a trouble maker. Avoid him. He’s
got a bad spirit. He’s much too dogmatic for his own good. The Pope says he loves Jesus and that’s good enough for me. Jesus is my mediator and I’m sure
is the Pope’s mediator too. End of story.
Blessings
Bubba
Dear Bubba,
Brother G truth says this will be his final word to you. He thanks you for saying he is dogmatic for it reminds Him that his savior was also dogmatic when He said,
“I am the way the truth and the Life, no one comes unto the Father but by me.
He also says that Paul was dogmatic when he said that there was only ONE mediator.
Rome and pastor Epop have two mediators.
According to Brother G Truth, Rome teaches that Mary is the mediator and
is also responsible for salvation. This is pure apostasy as it violently attacks the Lord Jesus. Don’t say you love
Him if you continually attack Him. He asks that you ask God for a teachable spirit.
Perhaps God will be kind enough to show you that you the blasphemies of you thinking.
Here’s what he asked me to show you.
Leo XIII, in his ‘Jucunda Semper’, 1894, said, "When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with him
the painful atonement on behalf of the human race ... (at the foot of cross) she willingly offered him up to the divine justice,
dying with him in her heart, pierced by the sword of sorrow."
Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, 1904: "Owing
to the union of suffering and purpose existing between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix
of the lost world, and for this reason, the dispenser of ALL favors which Jesus acquired for us by his death . . .
Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918: "To
such extent did Mary suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal
rights over her Son for : man's salvation . . that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
Plus XI, 1935, in a prayer to close a jubilee, we find Mary declared as a
co redeemer with Christ: "O Mother of love and mercy who, when thy sweetest Son was
consummating the Redemption of the human race on in the altar of the cross, didst stand next to him suffering with him as
a Co-redemptrix."
Plus XII, in a radio broadcast in 1946: "Mary,
for having been associated with the King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperatrix, she
remains forever associated with him, with an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of graces which flow from the Redemption."
Paul VI, Christi Matri. "The Church
... been accustomed to have recourse to that most ready intercessor, her Mother Mary ... For as St. Irenaeus says, she 'has
become the cause of salvation for the whole human race."
Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849: "For God
has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every
hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary."
Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus, 1883:
"O Mary, the guardian of our peace and the dispenser of heavenly graces."
Plus X, Ad Diem Illum, 1904: "It was
granted to the august Virgin to be together with her Only-begotten Son the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix of the
whole world. So Christ is the source . . . Mary, however, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel, or she is the neck
by which the Body is united to the Head... through which ALL spiritual gifts are communicated to his Body."
Benedict XV, In a decree on Joan of Are: "In
every miracle we must recognize the mediation of Mary, through whom, according to God's will, every grace and blessing comes
to us."
Plus XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928: "Confiding
in her intercession with Jesus, "the one Mediator of God and man, who wished to associate his own Mother with himself as the
advocate of sinners, as the dispenser and mediatrix of grace."
Plus XII, Superiore Anno, 1940: "As
St. Bernard declares, 'it is the will of God that we obtain favors through Mary, let everyone hasten to have recourse to Mary."
John Paul II, Dives in Misericordia, 1980, "In fact, by being assumed into heaven she has not laid aside the office of salvation
but by the manifold intercession she continues to obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation."
Second Vatican Council: "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 56.
“The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded
by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman
should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely
cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became
the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with
him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through
her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, “She
it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha
to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - “
Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 58. “Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her
Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of
his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this
victim which was born of her. - -
Pope John Paul 2, Salvifici Doloris, “ . . . it was on Calvary
that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point
of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. - - “
Pope John Paul 2, Salvifici Doloris, Mary made "a contribution to the Redemption of all---------------------. it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from
a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world.
I told him that you probably wouldn’t read so many quotations but he
just smiled and said, “If Bubba is hungry for truth he will do his research. If
he is not hungry for truth, then he is just a religious man masquerading as a Christian.” He wants you to decide Bubba whether or not the Roman Catholic teaching is a direct attack on our wonderful
savior. You must choose, he says, whom you will serve. There is no room for compromise.
Just to think, this all got started by running into the new preacher
in town. He’s not having an easy time of it as people say it’s ridiculous
that any man could be Christ’s visible representative and that Christ has delegated salvation to him to grant or to
withdraw. He also, like Rome, believes that all grace is mediated through Mary and
by sacraments. People are just not buying all his prayers for the dead and the
like.
By the way we are having great meetings at St Bridget’s every other
Sunday night. The priest there has such a sweet spirit and a great sense of humor. Try to make it over to see us all some time.
Blessings
Herschel
Extent of the Atonement, Miles McKee, 2002
This is a letter in response
to a believer of the Arminian persuasion who has an issue with both the extent of the atonement and the actual word "atonement."
Dear Bubba,
Thank you so much for your letter. I am indeed in excellent health and enjoying the Lord
immensely and thank you for your kind inquiry.
Regarding the questions under discussion concerning the effectiveness
of Christ's death, I have no wish to enter into a polemic that would lead to strife and contention. There is a place,
however, for reasoning together ("come now let us reason together saith the Lord" Isa. 1:18) so I therefore propose
to try to conduct this discussion in a temperate matter and to answer some of the issues you raised.
The great
issue in the believer's life ought to be the exaltation of Christ through the proclamation of the Gospel. Indeed I find
the older I grow the less time I have for debate and argument. I'd much rather occupy myself with preaching the gospel.
One final point before I begin is that while I accept, as you point out, human reasoning alone can not determine
our doctrinal position, I also believe God does not expect us to cut our heads off in order to read the scripture. The first
and great commandment, after all, calls us to worship the Lord with, among other things, 'all our mind'.
If at any time I seem forceful or sarcastic be assured that I am speaking only in concepts and not leveling personal attacks.
The Arminian position, which you repeated to me in your letter and which you obviously hold, is in fact no new
invention but rather a re-gurgitation of the old error of semi-Pelagianism. This doctrine gained in popularity in the early
17th century but was thoroughly condemned as heresy by the Reformers at the Synod of Dort in 1618. (I might add that the Papal
church embraced semi-Pelagianism at a very early stage of her development, and as such, no Protestant who had been freed from
her tyranny would easily have embraced this view).
The Pelagian/Arminian view is that man has the ability to respond
to the gospel at any time he wishes. This view proclaims a Christ who did nothing more by His redeeming work than make it
possible for us to save ourselves by believing. (Their preachers don't always say it as clearly as that but in reality
that's what it boils down to). Redemption, according to this point of view, did not redeem; rather it merely gives us
the possibility of redemption. God's love is reduced to a general willingness to receive those who respond "properly"
to his message. The Gospel of Christ is not seen as the power of God unto Salvation since it actually has no power in and
of itself to save unless a depraved and fallen rebel son of Adam wills it to save. The Father and the Son are depicted not
in splendid Sovereignty, but in subjection to the wishes of sinful man. He is a God who wills for every individual to be saved
but, when it comes right down to it, has no ability to save without their assistance. God, according to the Arminian, does
not sovereignly draw men unto His Son by His Spirit, but rather waits in quiet impotence at the door of their hearts, wistfully
waiting for them to let Him in. This is then how Arminian preaching actually presents God and as such the Bible is firmly
against it.
(By the way, I would say at this point that I'm not on a crusade to establish people as Calvinists.
I'm not a 'card carrying' Calvinist, as I don't believe everything John Calvin taught. As a believer, however,
I am honour bound to defend the Glory of God. Also I want to stress I have arrived at this view of the atonement by thorough
Bible Study and not by reading John Calvin. I will also admit that as I began to understand the extent of the atonement, I
did not like what I was beginning to see the Bible as teaching. But why should that matter? God does not ask me to like what
He does, rather what he expects from me is to accept what He does. He is the potter, I am the clay, and shall the clay argue
with the potter about how he does things - see Paul thoughts on this in Romans 9.
But I digress, back to what
I was saying. These Arminian positions which you hold merely glorify man, exalt man's will and as such are humanism in
a nicely pressed religious dress. While claiming man's right to become a member of the Bride of Christ at will, Arminians
deny the Father His right to choose a bride (for His Son) at will. Such arrogance! Leave it to man and he'll set himself
up against God every time!
Further, as I have studied this Arminian position (which I once held) I have seen it
holds to, among other things, the following propositions:
1) Man is not so depraved or so completely ruined by
the Fall that he cannot savingly believe the Gospel when presented to him. Therefore the Fall did not ruin him completely.
2) Man is never in a position where He can not resist the Holy Ghost. God can never conquer him without his willing
compliance and consent. God's purpose and word is therefore not invincible.
3) God's choice of those who
are saved is based on His foreknowledge and foreseeing of those who of their own accord respond to the Gospel.
4)
Christ's death did not guarantee the salvation of anyone. It did not accomplish salvation for anyone nor did it secure
the gift of faith (for such a gift does not exist). What it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everybody
if they believe.
5) It is the responsibility of the believer to keep himself in the faith once he has believed.
Overall, this wretched doctrine makes man's salvation dependent on himself and presents saving faith as man's
own work and not God's.
I don't intend to address all these points listed above as all were not raised
in your letter. Further, I do not have the time available for such an endeavor. For more than adequate answers I would refer
you to "The Works of John Owen," Vol. 10, especially the sections "A Display of Arminianism" and "The
Death of Death In The Death Of Christ."
Owen, one of the leading Puritan theologians, has not yet been answered
or refuted in his defense of the Doctrine of 'Particular Redemption'.
But to the matter at hand: The Bible
presents a God who saves and not a God who enables man to save himself.
Here then is the "bible" according
to the Arminians:
"Fear not for I have made it possible for you to be redeemed I have potentially called
you by my name" Isa 43:1 ... compare that one with the real Bible (and by the way read this verse in the K.J.V. or any
translation of the Textus Receptus and not in one of the smorgasbord translations which jump from manuscript to manuscript
to find a word which suits the ideas of their translators).
"For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel
thy potential Saviour" Isa. 43:3
"I even I am the Lord and beside me there is no Saviour, except, that
is, for those who were spiritual enough to respond to me and thereby save themselves so, just in case you were wondering,
I'm not therefore the only Saviour" Isa 43:11
"I have declared and have saved ... well actually,
not really; I have made it possible to be saved" Isa. 43:12
"I will work and who will let (prevent)
it apart from anyone and everyone who wants to prevent me accomplishing my will" (Isa. 43:13)
"They
have not known nor understood for He hath shut their eyes that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand
... Just kidding!" Isa 44:18
I could cite numerous scriptures which declare God to be the Saviour, yet can
not find one scripture which, when taken in its context, says that man is to undertake or partner in his eternal redemption.
I'm sure, in reality, you do believe that God is your Saviour. Certainly, at least, you do so when you are
in prayer. I'm sure you don't pray by saying "Thank you Lord for saving me and thank you ME for making the right
choice." Something strange however happens when you and your fellow Arminians get off your knees and onto your feet for
then your thinking suddenly reverses and you once more become contributors to your redemption. But why don't you try praying
in a consistent manner with your theology? I challenge you to get on your knees and thank God that you made the right choice
in this matter of salvation. Thank Him that you are not as other men who did not have the insight and spiritual inclination
to accept Him as Saviour. You really ought to reward yourself ... Oh no, you don't have to, since God will reward you
with Heaven because of your choice of Him. But then again if it's a reward, it's not grace!
You don't
seem to believe in Christ plus nothing but rather in Christ plus your choice of Christ.
Alas, you should cut Eph
2:8 out of your Bible. You remember that verse? "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself it
is the gift of God." You obviously don't believe that scripture, if your letter to me was sincere, for you very much
believe salvation is of yourself ... it's because of your will and your choice. Faith, for you, is an act of the will
rather than a grace gift from God.
And verse 9 of Eph.2 equally does not apply to the card carrying Arminian for
it says "Not of works lest any man should boast." But if you get to Heaven by your choice and your will then you
will have grounds for boasting. Mind you, you'll be the odd man out for the redeemed will join in the Heavenly anthem
"Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood" (Rev 5:9). And you'll be duty bound to say "What
nonsense is this? He only made it possible for me to be redeemed. He didn't actually redeem me at the cross. My redemption
didn't take place until I believed." Maybe some kind saint of God will then put his hand on your shoulder and point
out the relationship between "slain" and "redeemed". Slaying and actual redeeming happened same time,
same place.
Nor will you be able to agree with John when he says "Unto Him who washed us and cleansed us
by His blood be Glory and honour and praise." Your song will be, if you stay true to your theology, "unto Him that
made it possible for me to be washed and cleansed by His blood."
Your Christ doesn't actually redeem
by the blood which was shed on Calvary. That blood, according to your thinking, only made redemption possible.
Furthermore,
your Christ, the Christ of the Arminians, was doing nothing on the cross. His finished work finished nothing! Your Christ,
according to your theory, could actually have been the biggest failure in history for He could have come to this earth and
accomplished nothing. No one might actually have gotten saved. Maybe, and it is just possible, no one would have chosen to
believe in Christ.
This kind of Christ, however, seems far removed from the Sovereign God who said His word would
not return unto him void but would accomplish that which He pleased and prosper in the thing whereunto it was sent (Isa. 55:11).
If Christ's death accomplished redemption for no one in particular then he came into the world for no one in particular
and for no particular purpose. He was like a boxer going into the ring just for the sake of being there but not for the purpose
of winning.
A Christ who comes with no particular purpose!!!!!!! The idea is too far fetched! We should then read
Lk.19:10 as saying ... "I have come perhaps to seek and to try to save that which was lost" rather than "I
have come to seek and to save that which was lost." (By the way, and I digress, you might as well drop "Amazing
Grace" from your repertoire of Hymns since no good Arminian could admit to being so lost and so blind that he couldn't
find his way. It wasn't grace which saved you but rather your choice of and proper response to that grace.)
Don't sing it if you don't believe it!
The Bible, however, presents us with a God who is both Maker
and King. Old Spurgeon said it well, and I paraphrase, "Arminians, it seems, don't mind a God who potters around
in His workshop creating occasional worlds and planets, but when He ascends to His Throne and purposes to save His people
and choose a family and Bride, then they lift their voices in protest crying 'freewill freewill' and try to exercise
some supposed veto on the Almighty."
The Bible presents us also with a Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Father chooses, the Son fulfills the Father's will by redeeming these people and The Spirit reveals this redemption
and draws these men and women invincibly to salvation. The God of the Bible saves from beginning to end. He is the Author
and the Finisher of faith. He is the one who calls to Salvation and whom He calls He also Justifies and whom He Justifies
he also Glorifies (see Rom 8:30). Evidently you don't believe Rom 8:30 either, for you tell me He calls everyone, but
only justifies those who exercise their free will and faith correctly. But read that verse carefully and yes ... think about
it! Whom He calls He justifies and glorifies. If people don't end up justified (saved) and glorified (in Heaven) then
obviously they weren't called. Why? For whom He called He justified, etc.
You would do well to distinguish
between the general call which can be resisted (God commands all men to repent ... but they don't) and the effectual call
which can not be resisted (exemplified in Zacchaeus, Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened," and Saul of Tarsus).
Go ahead then cut Rom.8:30 out of the Bible and while you are at it take the scissors to Rom 9:15 where salvation
is presented as "not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God That sheweth mercy." You and your friends,
in true humanist fashion, take issue with the Almighty for you insist that salvation is indeed of him that willeth. God's
mercy only comes, you say, when you 'will' His salvation.
The God of the Bible is the Saving God. Sinners
do not save themselves, no not even slightly. Salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of
the Lord, to whom be Glory forever and ever. Alas the god of the Arminians, by his puny redemption, only secured the right
for God to make the offer of salvation. The Arminian redemption actually redeems no one and ensures salvation for no one.
Christ's death only created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith and no more. But this is a far cry from that
which is presented in the Bible. Paul says "the Son of God loved me and gave His life for me" (Gal.2:20). This is
no general redemption he speaks of but rather of a particular love and mercy. Christ actually saved at the cross. He actually
became a real (not potential) substitute at the cross. He effected a real (not potential) reconciliation at the cross. Our
title to eternal life was secured at the cross. " ... He entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal
redemption for us" (Heb.9:12). The Cross and Christ's subsequent intercession, based on that work at the cross are
a double guarantee that all who have this title will be brought to faith and their salvation made actual.
The
Christ of the Cross saved us when he hung on the Cross. No Arminian could admit this! The Arminian, however, pays lip-service
to the cross and says "Without Calvary I could not have gained my salvation" ... Well good for you, give yourself
a biscuit! The genuine Grace believer, on the other hand says "Christ gained my salvation at Calvary." Again, and
once more I digress, I hope you don't sing the hymn:
"My Jesus I love Thee, I know Thou art Mine"
for there's a verse in there that should make you choke; it says ...
"I love Thee because Thou hast first
loved me, And purchased my pardon when nailed to the tree"
... Don't sing it if you don't believe
it!
The Bible reveals God's power to save, not His impotence. His salvation is not a hypothetical one for
hypothetical believers. It is a real redemption and an effectual salvation accomplished by a Saviour who actually saved sinners
on the cross.
Fallen man can not bear to face the fact that he is not master of his destiny and captain of his
own soul. He can not bear to face the fact that the God of the Bible saves and that He saves those He has chosen to save.
He detests to think that He saves by Grace apart from any and all works so that no man may boast even slightly. He is so blind
he can not see that salvation comes to him in the person of a perfect Saviour and that this whole salvation flows to him from
the Cross where the work of redemption was finished.
The death of Christ was not a mere ineffectual wish on God's
part, depending for its fulfillment on man's willingness to believe. The cross of Christ really does save. Its saving
power does not depend on faith being added to it; rather its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The cross secured
full salvation for all for whom Christ died. Grace believers wholeheartedly, therefore join with Paul when he says "God
forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal.6:14).
So far from magnifying
the love and grace of God, the Arminian position turns redemption into a monumental failure. God is dishonoured and His purpose
turned into an impotent wish. No Arminian who understands his theological position could ever say "Christ died for me."
But, as in prayer so in his giving of testimony he will not admit his "Self-Saviour" position and claims that Christ
has indeed died for him. Were he to testify of his self-saviourhood, not one of the listening redeemed, in their hearts, could
agree with him. But he likes to have it both ways. He calls God his Saviour while at the same time claiming he wouldn't
have been saved at all had he not made the proper response to the gospel. In other words, by his choice and free will he enabled
God to become his Saviour. God was only his Saviour in that God was willing to save. God however was not able to save until
He got the nod and the wink from the fallen, cursed, depraved and spiritually dead son of Adam. So the sinner, according to
the logic of this position, in actuality enabled God to become the Saviour. Sounds to me that the the believer, if you are
right in your position, should be held to be a co-Saviour with the Almighty. Come to think of it, perhaps we ought to stop
referring to God as Almighty since that designation obviously should not apply to one who can not save without our help.
But back to the extent of the atonement. Perhaps this is a time to ask what kind of sophistry is this you propose
when you say that the blood of Christ did not atone for there is, you say, no atonement in the New Testament. It's a clever
sounding argument you put forward until one looks at what you say.
Atonement, you should know, if you are going
to enter the lists, was a word coined by William Tyndale when he translated the Bible in AD 1526. There was at that time no
word in the English language which meant reconciliation. Tyndale had to coin one such word: at-one-ment. This word came then
to stand for the benefits which Christ brings to believers through his death on the cross. But, you say the word does not
appear in the New Testament! What is it doing then in Romans 5:11 " ... we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom we now receive the atonement." Here it stands for reconciliation (a word now commonly used today).
God indeed had no pleasure in the Old Testament sacrifices. Their effectiveness was only partial being accepted only in
as much as they pointed to and typified the coming Saviour and his saving work. The atonement of the Old Testament was merely
a shadow ... But a shadow of necessity must be a shadow of a substance or, better yet, a shadow of a reality. It's odd
to me that you accept the atonement as a shadow in the Old and not as a reality in the New, for indeed the shadow could not
even have existed in the Old if there was no actual reality yet to come in the New. To say there is no atonement in the New
Testament is as daft as saying there is no Mercy Seat in the New Testament. Now I'm sure you wouldn't say such a thing
for you well know that, although the literal mercy seat did not survive, Christ is our New Testament Mercy Seat. In the Old,
the Mercy Seat was a shadow of the reality to come and again I say it could not have been a shadow except it was a shadow
of a coming reality.
Once more you, if you really in your heart hold the position you stated, are bound to stand
in silence when the rest of us rise to sing "Man of sorrows what a name." It's verse three against which you
are bound to cavil ...
'Guilty, vile and helpless we
Spotless lamb of God was he
"Full
Atonement" can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Saviour'
Don't sing it if you don't believe
it!
But back to the extent of the atonement. If Christ died for every individual, then every individual will be
saved unless, that is, there was no saving power in that death. Yet the Arminian says he died for every individual, while
at the same time holding that he died for no one in particular. Why doesn't he clarify his position and stop speaking
out of both sides of his mouth?
In his attempt to magnify the saving grace and mercy of God the Arminian says
redeeming love extends to every man and Christ has died to save every man. Then to avoid universalism (the belief that everyone
goes to Heaven) he says that nothing Christ has done actually saves without us adding something to it. The decisive factor
in salvation therefore becomes our believing. According to this theory then, faith becomes the Saviour rather than the means
of receiving the salvation which was accomplished on our behalf at Calvary.
He criticizes the Reformed believer
for limiting the scope of the Atonement while at the same time himself limiting the power of Atonement. And all the while
singing with Cowper ...
"Dear dying Lamb Thy precious blood
Will never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God
Be saved to sin no more"
A "ransomed" church?
Don't sing it if you don't believe it!
When dealing with the Death of Christ we need to know (1) what
God intended by it and (2) what was accomplished by it.
Jesus, who both knew his own mind and the secrets of the
Father, told us what his particular purpose here on earth was when He announced He had "come to save that which was lost"
(Matt 18:11). The Apostles also proclaimed this divine intention for Paul tells us "This is a faithful saying and worthy
of all acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners" (1Tim1:15).
Which sinners are these?
The ones of whom Jesus spoke in Matt 20:28 "The Son of Man came.....to give his life a ransom for MANY." This "many"
is in other places called "us" to distinguish the redeemed from the world. He "gave himself for our sins that
he might deliver us from this present evil world according to the will of God and our Father" (Gal.1:4). We are told,
also, that His death was for a particular group for we read in Eph.5:25-27 "Christ ... loved the church (not every individual)
and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present
it a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing " ... Again in Titus 2:14 "He gave Himself for us
that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous for good works."
Hey do you know what? It sounds like God had a purpose in all this after all, namely to save us, deliver us, wash us and
make us holy and zealous for good works. Not just to make it possible if we added our two cents worth, but to actually do
it. But the God of the Arminians doesn't seem to have the will, purpose or the ability to even get to first base. He can't
even save without our help.
Then we must ask, what did Christ's death accomplish?
Among other
things, the first thing it did was to accomplish reconciliation (at-one-ment) between us and God. Rom 5:10 says "When
we were His enemies we (not all individuals) were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Again, "God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19). And we'll look
at your misinterpretation of that word "world" upon which you base so much of your argument in just a moment. But
back to the matter at hand ...
Redemption was also obtained "He redeemed us from the curse of the law being
made a curse for us" (Gal.3:13).
Also Justification "we are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:23).
Sanctification was obtained for we read "to sanctify
the people with his own blood he suffered outside the gate" (Heb.13:12).
If the Arminian position is true
and Christ's death is for all individuals then all individuals must be reconciled, redeemed, justified and sanctified
or else, as stated earlier, Christ's death is only a toy death void of all power and particular purpose. Nothing was intended
by it and nothing accomplished.
Do you suppose God is like the men of Babel who intended to build a tower to Heaven
and purposed that its top would reach heaven? In spite of their best intentions, they could not perform the task. Is this
what God is really like? He wants to save, but can't without permission.
Why was the Tower of Babel not built?
It's simple, God was not willing for it to be built. He over ruled the will of men and placed his veto on their activities.
Is it not strange to you that in the Bible we see The Sovereign Omnipotent ruler of the universe thwarting the
purposes of sinful men and yet today you would have us believe that the positions are reversed and sinful men may at will
thwart the very purpose and intentions of an all powerful God?
Well then, let's look at John Owen's three
propositions to which, if I remember correctly, you seem to take exception.
He said only one of the following
three propositions could be true:
1) Christ died for all of the sins of all men
2) Christ died for
some of the sins of all men.
3) Christ died for all of the sins of some men.
If it is proposition
#2 which is true then all men will have sins to answer for and no one will be saved. For "If the Lord should mark iniquities
who should stand" (Ps.130:3).
If proposition #1 is correct why then do men go to Hell? "For unbelief
and not for their sins since their sin have already been paid for" you say. Interesting! Since when has unbelief been
taken off the register of sins? Israel, as I recall, suffered greatly by the sin of unbelief (Rom.11:20).
Is unbelief
no longer a sin today? If it is not a sin how can it be the cause of eternal ruin and damnation. According to you, men are
sent to Hell for something that is not even a sin. If, however, you admit unbelief as a sin, then you can't consent to
proposition #1.
Surely the Bible speaks of unbelief being equated with things evil for it talks of an evil heart
of unbelief which departs from the Living God (Heb.3:12).
"They reject the free gift of salvation" you
say "that's why they go to Hell. They don't go to Hell for their sins, as they are already paid for." What
manner of madness is this? Since when is rejection of Christ not a sin? It cost, as I mentioned, the Jewish nation dearly.
Since when has the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost (rejection of Christ) become something which God winks at? And since when did
we discover that God doesn't send people to Hell because of sin? Who made this discovery? What was his name? I'd like
to ask him where he got his information. It was certainly not found in the Bible!
That sinners are punished in
hell for and because of their sins is evident for ...
"The wicked shall be turned into Hell" Ps. 9:17
The guests of the immoral woman are in the depths of Hell (Prov. 9:18). Why are they in Hell? For their wickedness?
Not according to your theory, for you insist no one goes to Hell because of sin as Jesus has died for the sins of everyone.
Yet the Bible warns that the very act of going into a prostitute leads to Hell. But this can not be so if Christ has paid
for that sin!! And thus we must conclude you to be right and the Bible wrong. Not!
"And if thy right eye
offend thee pluck it out ... for it is profitable for you that one of thy members perish and not that thy whole body should
be cast into Hell" (Matt.5:29). Is this saying that the only way to end in Hell is for not accepting the gospel? Far
from it, your body can be the cause of Hell deserving sin according to this verse!
"The Son of man shall
gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and all that do iniquity and shall cast them into a furnace of fire ... so
shall it be at the end of the world; the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just and shall cast them
into the furnace of fire ..." (Matt.13:41,42,49).
The wicked, in those verses, are the ones "who do
iniquity." If you argue that the iniquity is their rejection of Christ (which interpretation the text will not allow)
you are still left with rejection of Christ being designated as iniquity - a much stronger word than sin! So either way your
theory, that no one goes to Hell for sin, crumbles like the straw man it is.
"But the fearful and unbelieving
and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death" (Rev.2:18). But that scripture is an impossibility, if your theory is true, for you say Christ
has already paid the price for lying and sorcery and whore-mongering!
How odd that Christ paid for everybody's
sins yet here we read of people for whom you say Christ died being hauled off to the Lake of fire to be punished for those
same sins. Obviously, if your theory is true, God has no concept of Justice since the sin is being paid for twice. Not only
did God punish Christ for these wretched sins he also takes the actual sinner who committed them and punishes him also. Amazing!
Is there no end to this fury? It must be that God was not satisfied with the death of His Son. And Christ was obviously mistake
when he cried out at the cross "It is finished." It is finished means, in modern jargon, "Mission Accomplished"
... but if your theory is true then nothing is accomplished.
Think about it my friend and don't let pride
cause you to defend a position for no other reason than it's your position.
But we must continue. Proposition
3 is the only one which withstands Biblical scrutiny.
Why So? First, let us consider Christ in His office of Mediator.
As you well know the book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ's intercession is based upon His finished work of Calvary
for "Christ being come an High priest of good things to come, ... by His own blood entered once into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb.9:11-12). Notice, He OBTAINED eternal redemption for us at the cross
and then embarked on His High Priestly ministry of mediation for us.
Where did he go with His blood? "He
is not entered into holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear
in the presence of God for us" (Heb.9:24). Mark this down, He is the High Priest for everyone for whom He died. He is
appearing in Heaven for all those He redeemed.
His very act of death (His oblation) was done as a High Priest
- "Nor yet that He should offer himself often as the High Priest entereth into the Holy place every year with blood of
others; ... but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb.9:25-26).
If he died for everyone's sins, He is therefore everyone's High Priest.
Further, as our High priest in
Heaven, He intercedes to ensure all the benefits of His death are applied to those for whom He died. This is the purpose of
His intercession. This intercession continues till we reach Glory and is brought into effect even now for we read "If
any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1John2:1).
It is evident from
scripture that all for whom He died must have the benefits of His death applied to them. But if your theory holds true, Christ,
as High priest, is not able to effectively apply all the benefits of His death to each of those for whom He died. According
to you there are many for whom He died who will never enjoy the benefits of that death. Thus you hold that Christ is an ineffective
High Priest.
But how can we be so sure His intercession is effective? How do we know He is an effective High Priest?
First we must ask, does the Father pay attention to Christ's prayers? Well, unless Christ was lying when He
said to the Father, "I know that thou heareth me always" (Jn.11: 42) we can be assured that His intercession is
comprehensive, powerful and effective. Furthermore we discover that "He is able to save them to the uttermost that come
to God by Him seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb.7: 25). That means everyone for whom He intercedes
as High Priest will be saved. In other words the people for whom He intercedes will have the benefits of Calvary applied to
them.
Does Christ intercede for everyone? Well actually no! He point blank refused to pray for the world! "I
pray not for the world but for them thou hast given me" (Jn.17: 9). Are we to believe then that Christ died for men for
whom He refuses to pray? I can't get my head round that one! That would make Him only half a High Priest because He neglects
a major part of His role.
If you think He died for people for whom He does not afterwards interceded then you
must think redemption is so undervalued in Christ's eyes that He could pour out His precious blood without any care taken
of what happens afterwards to those for whom He shed that blood! If He intercedes for every individual then every individual
will be saved if indeed He's any kind of High Priest.
But the Arminian High Priest is an ineffectual advocate
who is not able to save everyone for whom He died. He's not one to be trusted for He's neglectful of His office and
obviously has no real will to save. After all the Father hears Him always. And this is not surprising since the Father and
the Son are One thus making disagreement between them impossible. Furthermore, Christ always prays according to the will of
God since He is God. Yet you would have me believe that He is High Priest for the millions who will perish.
How
can that happen? Well maybe the Father doesn't really hear Him - that's impossible! Or maybe His requests are refused
- again impossible. Or maybe He's praying out of the will of God - impossible. Well then what? Obviously, if you and the
Arminian/Humanist bunch are right and millions perish for whom Christ died, there's an insincerity or ineffectiveness
about Christ's intercession. If news of this ever gets out to the Christ haters they will have a field day!
Actually the truth is that the people who perish, perish because Christ is not their High Priest. Let's look briefly
at the some aspects of the work of Christ as a High Priest.
As a High Priest he offered Himself as a sacrifice
for sins and to intercede, by appearing in the presence of God, for those for whom He has died.
If people perish
it's because Christ hasn't prayed for them. If He doesn't intercede for them its because He hasn't died for
them.
Listen to the New Testament, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand
of God who also maketh intercession for us" (Rom.8: 33-34).
If every individual is elect, then Christ intercedes
for every individual. If every individual is elect, everyone now living can, with confidence, be assured that Christ is interceding
for them and that no one, according to this scripture, shall lay anything to their charge. But we know that those who perish
have plenty laid to their charge ... So how can you say Christ died for them? If he died for them why didn't He pray for
them?
Furthermore, it is the Father's purpose for Christ to bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10) and to this
end Christ prayed "Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am" (Jn.17:24). In that
great chapter of Jn.17 Christ prays for His own. Who are His own? The same ones who were given to Him by the Father. Who are
they who were given to Him? The same ones for whom He died and the same ones for whom He appears in the presence of God with
His own blood. But which ones are these? Does the scripture mean everyone who ever lived? If it does, then The Father's
gift to the Son and Christ's intercession are both ineffectual. Why? Because, since multitudes perish in Hell, the Father's
gift and the Son's intercession obviously don't guarantee anything.
In case you didn't pick up on
the inseparable link in Hebrews between Christ's death and His priestly and effective mediation on behalf of His people;
let me direct your attention to the prophesy of Isa.53:11 when the Spirit moved the great Seer to write: "By His knowledge
shall my righteous servant justify many for he shall bear their iniquities." That His mission to the cross was to be
a success was also prophesied and guaranteed in verse 12 of the same chapter " ... and He was numbered with the transgressors
and He bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."
Now we need to ask for which transgressors
did he intercede ? Was it for every transgressor who ever lived? No! The answer is in the text! He interceded only for the
ones whose sin he bore ... and they are here called "many". These verses put to flight the notion of universal redemption,
but are ignored by the humanist who wants to honour his own image of his self-created God.
Lest there be any doubt
the benefits of Christ's death are applied to those for whom He died, Isa. 53:5 further tells us "and with His stripes
we are healed."
But why aren't all healed spiritually if this verse is true? Why do men yet perish? Is
it because Christ's oblation and intercession are ineffective? Such a notion blasphemes God and imputes to Him both impotence
and lack of particular purpose. I don't know of a better way to subtly make a sham of the cross than to hold to such a
theory as yours which limits the power, intentions and purpose of God.
Also, Rom 8:32 must also be considered
at this time. It says, "He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely
give us all things." According to this verse, all for whom He died will have the benefits of His death given to them.
You don't believe me? Read the verse again!
Here these benefits are called "all things." This again
is a declaration of the power of Christ's intercession. To say, however, that He died for every individual leaves us with
the question "Why does He not give every individual grace and glory?" After all, God delivered Christ for our offences
but, according to you, nothing was effectively and actually accomplished by that.
According to you, Christ's
offering at Calvary, is of no avail unless we sinful rebels who were dead in sin and iniquity added our two cents worth (our
acceptance of the offer) to the equation.
Your whole theory reminds me of the Popish fable of St. Denys. According
to Rome, this great man was martyred by some angry pagans who, infuriated by his preaching, cut off his head . Undeterred,
the mighty Denys stood up, picked up his head and walked 500 miles to a site where finally stopping and admitting he was dead,
he collapsed. And there, on that very site, they built a church, which I'm told stands today, to commemorate and perpetuate
his noble memory and achievement.
Now why do I have a problem believing that story? Do I have difficulty believing
he could walk 500 miles with his head under his arm? No not at all! That's not the problem I have. My problem is believing
he could take the first step after having his head severed from his body. The man was dead at that point. After all if he
could take the first step then 500 miles would be a thing of nothing for a man like that. My problem is, I just can't
believe a dead man can get up and take the first step.
Which brings me back to your theory. I just can't see
how a dead man can add anything to the saving work of Christ. How can a dead man make a decision? How can a dead man make
the right choice? Yet you say he can, even though the scripture plainly says we were dead before salvation "and you hath
He quicken who were DEAD in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1).
But back to the main thought. If every individual
is not saved, and Christ died for every individual, we must conclude Christ to be a failed High Priest whose prayers are ineffective.
Or, on the other hand, we must conclude, He has no influence in Heaven, or perhaps the Father does not hear Him.
Mind you no believer who thought that way would dare to pray, for where would his confidence be? To pray successfully we
must come to the Father in the mighty name of Jesus in full confidence that our High Priest has the ear of His Father and
that His Father always hears Him.
But I must proceed.
You base much of you argument on the word WORLD.
By this term you assume the Bible means every individual who has ever lived. If that is what it means then it means that every
time it is used. But let scripture interpret scripture and let's see if your theory holds water.
Matt 16:26
"For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Are we then to understand this to
mean what does it profit a man if he gains every individual who has ever lived?
LK 2:21 "And ... there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Are we to understand by this that every individuals
who had ever lived or even every individual alive on planet earth at that time was to be taxed? Not everyone alive lived in
the Roman Empire. (Here the word world refers to the known Roman World and excludes all the people in China. It certainly
does not mean every individual alive at that time).
Jn. 12:19 "The Pharisees said....behold the whole world
is gone after him." Again you can see this does not mean every individual alive in A.D.33. Not every individual then
alive was in Jerusalem at that time.
Jn 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you not as the
world giveth give I unto you." Need I ask it? Does every individual who has ever lived give some kind of inferior peace
to us?
Acts 19:27 "Diana...whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Is that a fact? This must mean
all the Chinese and Pygmies worshiped her if World means every individual.
Acts 24:5 "A mover of sedition
among the Jews throughout the whole world." Where was this whole world? Was Paul inciting the Jews in Japan and Mexico
to sedition ... or does the world in this verse mean an area around the Mediterranean ?
Rom 1:8 "Your faith
is spoken of throughout the whole world." Did every single person then alive on the planet speak of the faith of the
Roman Christians? Did even every person in the Roman Empire speak of their faith?
The point I am making here is
that the word world is an ambiguous term with many and varied meanings. You simply can not attribute one meaning (i.e., every
individual) otherwise it will be a screwball Bible doctrine you come up with.
In Acts 17:24 the word world stands
for the whole created universe (not individuals)
In Jn 13:1 world stands for the earth (As in Eph 1:4) (not individuals)
In Jn 12:31 it is used for this "world-system" (not individuals)
In Rom 3:19 it is used
for every individual
In John 15:18 it is used for humanity minus believers (Therefore not every individual who
ever lived)
Rom 11:12 it is used of the Gentile world as opposed to to Jewish world (therefore not every individual)
In John 3:16; "God so loved the World" is a reference to the non-exclusive nature of this new covenant.
In other words, God has burst out of the confines of Israel and is now the new Covenant God of both Jew and Gentile (the whole
world). It is not a statement that Christ died for every individual.
In Jn. 6:33-35 world is used for every believer.
In John 12:47-48 it is again evident that world refers to the world of believers.
Well my friend,
I've written enough on this and will try to send this letter off. Due to the nature of my work I have only been able to
write occasionally in response to you. However I trust there's enough in what I said to give you food for thought.
Till He Comes
Miles
Excerpts from C.H. Spurgeon's Sermons
C.H. Spurgeon's First Words at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London:
"I would propose that the subject of
the ministry in thos house, as long as this platform shall stand, and as long as this house shall be frequented by worshippers,
shall be the person of JESUS CHRIST. I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of
Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, "It is Jesus Christ." My venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill,
has left a body of divinity, admirable and excellent in its way; but the body of divinity to which I would pin and bind myself
for ever, God helping me, is not his system, or any other human treatise, but Christ Jesus, Who is the sum and substance of
the gospel, Who is in Himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth, the all-glorious personal embodiment
of the way, the truth, and the life."
Away with universal redemption:
Until God can be unjust,
and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy the soul for whom Jesus died. "Away goes universal redemption,"
says one. Yes, away it goes, indeed. I am sure there is nothing about that in the Word of God. A redemption that does not
redeem is not worth my preaching, or your hearing, Christ redeemed every soul that is saved; no more, and no less. Everyone
that shall be seen in heaven Christ bought. If He had redeemed those in hell, they never could have come there. He has bought
his people with his blood, and they alone shall He bring with him. "But who are they?" says one. You are one, if
you believe. You are one if you repent of your sin. If you will now take Christ to be your all in all, then you art one of
His; for the covenant must prove a lie, and God must be unjust, and justice must become unrighteousness, and love must become
cruelty, and the cross must become a fiction, ere you can be condemned if you trust in Jesus.
Calvinism:
It
is no novelty, then, that I am preaching no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by
nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make
a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing
up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries
all alone. Here and there a heretic, of no very honorable character might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things
to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren.
I have my own private opinion
that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism.
I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and
nothing else. I do not believe we preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless
we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable,
conquering love of God; no do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ
made for His elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called.
That doctrine which is called Calvinism did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of
all truth. We use the term, then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines.
We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which
on the whole would be as consistent with fact.
You cannot vanquish a Calvinist. You may think you can, but you cannot.
The stones of the great doctrines fit into each other, that the more pressure there is applied to remove them the more strenuously
do they adhere. And you may mark, that you cannot receive one of these doctrines without believing all.
Predestination:
There is a difference between the predestination of an intelligent, all-wise, all-bounteous God, and that blind fatalism
which simply says, "It is because it is to be." Between the predestination of Scripture and the fate of the Koran,
every sensible man must perceive a difference of the most essential character. We do not deny that the thing is so ordained
that it must be, but why is it to be, but that the Father, God, Whose name is love, ordained it; not because of any necessity
in circumstances that such and such a thing should take place. Though the wheels of providence revolve with rigid exactness,
yet not without purpose and wisdom. The wheels are full of eyes, and everything ordained is so ordained that it shall conduce
to the grandest of all ends, the glory of God, and next to that the good of His creatures.
Salvation:
I
know as assuredly that whenever there is a genuine prayer, God gave it; that wherever there is a seeker, God made him seek;
consequently if God has made the man seek and made the man pray, there is evidence at once of divine election; and the fact
stands true that none seek who shall not find.
"The salvation of the righteous is of the Lord" in the planning,
in the providing, and in the applying. Every line of it, from consummate wisdom to infinite love, can be found nowhere but
in the Lord. He is first and foremost in salvation, and though we gladly run when He calls, yet His call comes first, and
His choice (not ours) comes before the call. Salvation is of God, and of God only. God the Father planned it; God the Son
was provided for our purchase price; God the Holy Spirit applied it to the dead corpse of our souls and enabled our first
breath towards God. If you do not make salvation to be wholly of the Lord, depend upon it - you will have to clip salvation
down, and make it a small matter. It is a pity that you should attempt this, for thus you rob Christ of His power, God of
His glory, and the saints of their comfort.
That is the awkward point about a salvation which is of man: it is worth
nothing when you get it. We want an eternal salvation. We want a salvation which does really save. We want something which
is not made up of "ifs and ans," and "buts," and "peradventures," and "may be," and
"if you do this," and "if you do that." We need sure, immutable, abiding, unchanging salvation; and this
is what we get, and what we are not ashamed to preach, while we thunder out this truth, "The salvation of the righteous
is of the Lord." When we get to heaven, and look back upon our life below, we shall then see the wonders of delivering
grace which at this time we do not fully appreciate.
Redemption:
What do we mean by redemption? Most certainly
we do not mean the possibility of redemption, for we have learned to distinguish between the possibility of a thing and the
thing itself. We do not preach and cannot preach, gathering our teaching from the Bible, a possibility of redemption. We proclaim
a redemption. Now do we mean by redemption a contingency of redemption, which again, is contingent upon a third thing. We
have learned to distinguish between a contingency and a certainty. We proclaim a certain redemption, and we speak of theat
which is not ossible but positive, not contingent but certain. Neither do we mean by redemption such on outgrowth of the man's
own power or goodness as shall enable him to burst his way through every bondage and to get forth free; sucn an elevation
of human nature, whether by the education of others, or by his own works, as to enable him at last to stand free. If we meant
that, we should use the word escape, but not the word redemption.
Atonement:
For whom did He die? In whose
place and stead did He stand? If He stood in the place and stead of the whole world, then He made atonement for the whole
world, and the whole world will be saved. If he stood in the place and stead of His Church, then He made atonement for His
Church, and the whole Church will be saved. We believe that Christ took the place and stead of every believer, that the believer's
sin was put on Him, and thus the ex-sinner can go forth free. Did He die for the whole world? Then justice cannot demand this
again. Did He die for part of the sins of the whole world? Then the rest of the sins will still condemn the world; then must
Christ have died in vain. We believe that He took all the sins of some men ... His sheep, God's people. I could not go and
preach the gospel upon any other theory, for I dare not go on that fool's errand of preaching a redemption that might not
redeem, and delcaring a salvation that might not save.
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, 1995, Second Renaissance Books
What is this doing on a Calvinism page, you might ask, especially since Ayn Rand was not a Christian? It is my conviction
that free will in the act of salvation (as taught by believers of the Arminian persuasion) is not found in the Bible, but
rather has its source in humanistic philosophy. I am a fan of Ayn Rand's works, in spite of her atheism, so I use her system
as my example of how philosophy created the "axiom of free will" which humanistic believers have unwittingly accepted and
read into (eisegesis) Scripture.
This is a perusing of a 24-hour series on cassette tape that I listened to on a road trip from Phoenix to Kansas City.
I wrote down highlights while driving, so it is not what you’d call a comprehensive review of the topic. I agree with
the social, economic and political tenets of Objectivism. As a Christian, however, with the additional faculty of faith perception
given to me as a gift from God, I do not agree with Ayn Rand’s atheism.
What struck me at the outset and kept me listening to this series was the uncanny similarity between the philosophical
concept of free will and that espoused by many well-meaning, but misguided believers. Of course everyone recognizes that man
has volition, or free will, but how free is it, is it independent of God, and what powers does it actually possess? It is
my belief, supported by millions of Christians who have adhered to the teachings of the Protestant Reformation, that experientially
man has free will, but positionally man has no free will.
This is a grossly oversimplified statement, as many of my comments on this series would likewise sound to Mr. Peikoff.
The method I’m going to use is to quote him on a given topic by a preceding AR designation, and my comments afterwards
with a WB. This is primarily a timesaver for me, since I won’t have to put everything in quotes and refer to the source
by name. The AR refers to a teaching by Ayn Rand as communicated on these tapes by Leonard Peikoff.
Reality
AR: Of the information provided on this tape series - 1/3 of the people who attended voted it as indispensible,
1/3 thought it was confusing, and the other 1/3 had no opinion.
WB: If only Bible doctrine had odds as good as this!
AR: Reality according to Objectivism is a combination of rationalism and empiricism, with many improvements
and occasional additions along the way.
WB: There is no faith perception in Ayn Rand’s system, only rationalism and empiricism. As a
matter of fact, virtually no philosophical system acknowledges faith perception, even though it is indispensable to our learning
process as children.
AR: Three basic axioms of Objectivism are entity, identity and causality.
WB: The biblical doctrine of the inherited old sin nature does not exist in Objectivity. The effects
of the sin nature, therefore, do not affect her view on causality.
AR: The metaphysical primacy of objectivism (and philosophy in general) is man, not God. Belief in
God is a state of non-reality.
WB: The existence of God is ruled out from the very start. The vast majority of philosophers throughout
history did not know God, and therefore ruled His existence as highly doubtful.
AR: God does not exist, because He is not objectively verifiable.
WB: Man, therefore, is the center of the universe and therefore of philosophy.
AR: Emotions are not reality, but are choices.
WB: Emotions are good when they are under the authority of (responders to) the intellect. When they
take control of the mind and soul, they are in a state of rebellion and are not good.
AR: Being is the study of metaphysics. Knowing is the study of epistemology.
WB: "Salvation by means of grace through the instrument of faith" is the crucial metaphysical step
into Christianity. Intake, metabolization and application of Bible doctrine is the Christian study of epistemology.
AR: Things can be inherent (always has been, always will be, absolutes), but there is no God.
WB: God created all absolutes.
AR: God is mystic intuition, not objective reality, reject the concept: no identity, no existence.
WB: God is apprehended through the faculty of faith perception, not mystic intuition. He embodies objective
reality.
AR: There is no true consciousness of God. No axiom can be made if everyone doesn’t perceive
Him. The concept cannot require specialized knowledge, implicit awareness, nor intuitive concept formation.
WB: God exists (metaphysics). Ayn Rand had no perception of Him. Therefore she excluded Him from her
epistemology.
AR: There is no God, just meta-energy.
WB: God exists, and He is the originator of all energy.
AR: Order is inherent in identity, therefore there is no need for God.
WB: God created and sustains both order and identity. He is crucial for our continued existence.
AR: You cannot find out about reality through introspection.
WB: Agreed. But Ayn incorrectly assumed that was the means of believing in God.
AR: Since God is experienced inwardly (mysticism) and can’t be observed or studied externally,
the concept of God is rejected outright by Objectivism.
WB: God was observed in action and studied externally in the Person of Jesus Christ.
AR: Objectivism rejects Aristotle’s Prime Mover, believing consciousness is the primary (faculty
of awareness) rather than the deductive proof for God.
WB: Mathematics uses deductive reasoning. Objectivism holds mathematics in high regard. Aristotle’s
use of deductive reasoning to prove the existence of the Prime Mover (God) is logically defensible.
AR: God is an example of false concept formation – the ability of the conscious to take all the
existing elements and rearrange them into a "creation" by God. Therefore God is a subjective concept like emotions and all
other religions.
WB: Because Ayn Rand did not acknowledge the faculty of faith perception, her philosophical system
was forced to the conclusion that belief in God is subjective rather than objective. To those of us who have apprehended Him
through the grace gift of faith perception at salvation, his existence is objective.
AR: God, subjectivism (emotions) and socialism are all rejected by the same argument: not objective,
not observable, can’t be evaluated, can’t be proven as reality.
WB: The existence of God is objective through faith perception, was observable in the man Christ Jesus,
and is evaluated every time a believer studies the Bible. Objectivism rejects faith perception because God (in their opinion)
must be accepted without evaluation. Ayn Rand didn’t have the faculty for perceiving God because He didn’t give
it to her.
AR: There is no such thing as determinism. There is only free will and uncertainty – just choices
you control.
WB: Objectivism, therefore, rejects the sovereignty of God. Philosophy enthrones free will and will
not tolerate determinism (a sovereign Creator).
Sense perception
AR: The universe wasn’t created, so quit looking for God. It just "is."
WB: Kant: Reality is there, but we can’t know it by rationalism or empiricism, the two major
components of Objectivism. Objectivism is 2-dimensional and therefore incomplete; Christianity is 3-dimensional, having faith
perceptive functions, and is therefore complete. Philosophers are only running on 2 of 3 cylinders. They are incomplete as
humans, having faulty sense perception.
AR: Objectivism’s axioms are self-evident.
WB: Objectivism’s axioms are not self-evident, because the denial of God "is" an axiom. Ayn Rand
reconstructed human knowledge without faith perception, without God, and therefore without divine determinism. She had no
awareness or receptivity to God, because that awareness and receptivity must be given by God as a grace gift.
AR: "Totality is" and can’t be reduced further by rationalism or empiricism. The attempt to infer
God is nothing but subjectivity, degenerating into imagination – a misuse of volition by rejecting other axioms. This
is reality according to Objectivism.
WB: Instead of "faith perception," Objectivism says EVERYONE must be able to experience God (empiricism)
or reach Him by concept formation (rationalism) or He doesn’t exist except in the imagination. According to Objectivism:
God is either --- imagination (rationalism)
--- sensory illusion (empiricism)
AR: At best, God is an abstract concept that can’t be proved.
WB: Without faith perception, God would indeed remain an abstract concept. Philosophy considers the
idea of faith perception to be internal and subjective because none of them have this dimension.
Volition
AR: Free will is an axiom of Objectivism.
WB: If there is no God, then free will must be an axiom. But there is a God.
AR: Relationship of volition to causality. Since there is no god, all causality is related to volition.
Free will decisions are causality.
WB: Believers in Jesus Christ are saved by grace (not everyone is given the apparatus) through faith
(faith perception is the apparatus). Sovereign grace (God) got there first by providing the apparatus. Causality is determined
by a sovereign and omnipotent God. Free will decisions by man are not the be-all and end-all in life. Man’s volition
is not truly "free" because it is under the dominion of the old sin nature. God has the only truly "free" will, because His
will is not enslaved by an old sin nature.
AR: Human volition does not require an antecedent (goal, purpose, cause, necessity).
WB: According to philosophy, human volition is on the throne – there is no God, or if there is,
He is on the sidelines.
AR: Man must be free. The mind must focus with intent (volition) without constraints (no God).
WB: Man’s demand for complete freedom is colossal arrogance. In order for man to be truly "free,"
there must be no God, no Satan, no spiritual death, and no old sin nature. Because free will is set up as an axiom, determinism
is regarded as self-refuting. It can’t exist because God’s will would violate the "man’s free will" axiom.
AR: There’s either an omnipotent being or the "law of identity" – they are mutually exclusive.
WB: If you believe man’s will is truly free, in effect, man becomes god … his own Prime
Mover.
AR: "Totality is" requires no antecedent causality, no need (necessity) for God.
"Totality is" is an irreducible principle.
WB: Philosophy rejects the concept of a necessitated choice, since necessitated (sovereignty) and choice
(free will) are mutually exclusive. The Gospel, however, is the one exception, since it is a necessitated choice.
AR: An axiom (in this case: man’s free will) is fundamental and cannot be disputed.
WB: So by the rules of the philosophical game, there can be no such thing as determinism (God’s
sovereignty in salvation and daily affairs) since it is self-refuting (violates the philosophical axiom of man’s free
will). Arminian believers (as opposed to Calvinistic believers) swallow this atheistic philosophy entirely and end up rejecting
many profound doctrines in Scripture (God’s active sovereignty, determinism, providence, foreloving and man’s
passive free will) in favor of an atheistic axiom (man’s free will and God’s passive foreknowledge).
AR: Philosophy says the concept of God and especially the concept of God being deterministic reeks
of mysticism and the supernatural.
WB: God does exist, He is deterministic (not man’s volition), and He is indeed supernatural.
Concept Formation
AR: Concept formation is synthesis, rather than analysis. It establishes reality.
WB: Objectivism’s establishment of reality does not allow God because it can’t verify Him
by rationalism or empiricism.
AR: Objectivism integrates the similarities and differentiates the dissimilarities. God does not exist
because He has no verifiable attributes.
WB: Objectivism’s way of organizing data excludes the supernatural, i.e. God, because God is
beyond the perceptive ability and frame of reference of philosophers. This is how the mental process works:
No faith perception of God, then no awareness that He exists.
No awareness that He exists, then no way of measuring His attributes.
No way of measuring His attributes, then no cognitive omission can occur.
No cognitive omission, then no way of synthesizing the concept.
No way of synthesizing the concept, then He does not exist.
Around and around the merry-go-round they go.
AR: God is not in the consciousness of Objectivists, either implicitly or explicitly, because He cannot
be observed by ALL men, i.e. something EVERYONE has in common.
WB: Rejection of some information makes your knowledge of "the whole" a hole. If Objectivists admitted
the possibility of the existence of God, they would have to discard their old formation. They would have to integrate this
"new information" into their system and change their prior error.
AR: You must continually integrate or you cut-off the process of discovery.
WB: By eliminating the existence of God and placing man’s volition as fundamental axioms, Objectivists
have become completely cut-off from reality.
AR: Objectivism must have human volition as an axiom (human viewpoint).
WB: Christianity has the sovereignty and omnipotence of God as axioms.
Reason
AR: Reason is acquiring knowledge rather than talking about knowledge.
WB: Agreed.
AR: There is an "abstract" concept of omniscience in Objectivism based on logic, cognition of facts,
and existence.
WB: There is no "true" concept of omniscience, sovereignty or omnipotence in Objectivism because there
is no such thing as God and He alone would possess these attributes.
AR: Omnipotence and sovereignty are concepts that the existence of "man" revokes because it violates
his concept of volition.
WB: God says: I created man’s volition and I can interrupt or change it as I wish since I am
the Creator.
AR: An omnipotent Creator cannot exist because He would violate the "law of volitional responsibility."
WB: Man says: You cannot violate my volition. I won’t allow it! God violates man’s volition
whenever it suits His plan and purpose. Miracles, which the Objectivist denies, are a perfect example. The new birth itself
is a miracle, because God Who created the "law of volitional responsibility" overides it, like other laws He created. For
instance, making planets stand still, walking on water, raising the dead. The saving power of the Holy Spirit by means of
grace (miraculous) mechanics through the instrument of faith perception that has been (miraculously) supercharged by divine
omnipotence is another example.
AR: Reason denies the possibility that human volition can be overridden by deity.
WB: Reason observes itself making daily decisions and believes they are all free from divine influence
and power.
AR: Man’s volition is an axiom. "God does not exist" is an axiom.
WB: Arrogant creatures demand total freedom and when faced with Scriptures that say his volition is
not 100% free, he impugns the Almighty with sin, unfairness, and injustice for interfering with his (man’s) sovereignty.
AR: Belief in God is an emotion.
WB: Emotion kicks in when human volition is enthroned and God is dethroned. Emotion kicks in when Scriptures
teaching sovereignty and omnipotence in salvation are rejected and satan’s rebellious philosophy is accepted. Satan’s
original sin was: I will be like God; I will be a god. This was the sin of placing his own volition and independence over
and above God’s will.
AR: Man’s reason is abandoned by the belief in a "floating abstraction" called God.
WB: Man’s "super faculty" of reason is overtaken by emotional arrogance when he is unwilling
to recognize the "floating abstraction" that God controls both His creation and the people in His creation.
AR: Man’s volition is a certainty. An omnipotent God is an unreality.
WB: xWhen arrogant, independent, sinful man enthrones his volition as an axiom, he reasons/emotes that
God’s sovereignty and omnipotence is a floating abstraction that either does not exist (unbeliever) or does not apply
itself in daily life (some believers). Both the unbeliever and the Arminian believer places man’s volition on the throne.
AR: Man’s volition is free from all obstruction.
WB: Man’s demand for a free and independent will is a repetition of Satan’s sin. His original
sin was his demand that his volition be free from God, that he can do as he pleases. Adam’s original sin was essentially
the same. The "knowledge of good and evil" is closely integrated with a volition that demands it independence from God. Man’s
arrogance demands a will free from divine influence, because his depraved mind of reason believes the sovereignty and omnipotence
of God is a contradiction to laws he believes cannot be broken, even by God Himself. Like Satan, man cries "unfair" and rebels,
instead of submits.
AR: Man’s volition is deterministic.
WB: God’s will is deterministic. Man’s original sin, tied as it was to his created volition,
demands independence from the will of God. God says: Don’t do it! Mans says: I’m going to do it anyway! Therefore,
man’s original sin (as well as Satan’s original sin) was an arrogant demand for volitional independence from God.
AR: Reason denies all alleged accounts of the miraculous.
WB: Salvation by grace is a miracle. Sinful man, even after having been saved by the sovereign grace
of God, often refuses to acknowledge that God did the saving through His omnipotence. With his volition still on its throne
(the philosopher’s axiom), man demands that he saved himself by his own volition, and God merely helped him out when
he ran out of power to complete the act of salvation. Man continues to begrudgingly give credit to God even for his own salvation.
AR: The existence of a sovereign God violates the law of volitional responsibility.
WB: For unbelievers the existence of a sovereign and omnipotent God violates his volition, his identity
and his reason. For rebellious believers, God is only allowed to be sovereign and omnipotent on two occasions: birth and death.
After birth, man’s volition then occupies the throne, while the Creator goes on vacation.
This is not Biblical truth. This philosophy is merely the reoccurring come-uppance that began with
Satan, was enthusiastically embraced by fallen angels, later grasped by Adam, and is now espoused by unbelievers and anthropocentric
believers.
AR: Reason cannot integrate a sovereign Creator and the axiom of volition.
WB: Believers who wholeheartedly acknowledge God’s sovereignty and omnipotence, not only at birth
and death, but in life … realize their arrogance and sinfulness when their volition demands autonomy from their Creator,
and they confess this as a KNOWN sin. Believers who reject God’s sovereignty and omnipotence in daily affairs and opt
for an free will that cannot be interfered with by their Creator, unknowingly sin and when they confess known sins, this UNKNOWN
sin (arrogant demand for autonomy) is also covered.
This is how free-will theists can continue to grow in their spiritual life in spite of their repeating
the original sin of rebellious autonomy from God. They may utilize vast quantities of Bible doctrine and grow to supergrace
even while denying God’s sovereign and omnipotent control over His creatures, and in particular, over man’s own
sense of an autonomous volition. It is an honest error. But notice the similarity between the Arminian’s concept of
volition and the Objectivist philosopher: both deny God’s sovereignty and omnipotence IN OPERATION by dismissing it
as a violation of the laws of volitional responsibility.
AR: Volition is an axiom. God does not exist.
WB: The humanistic Christian believes God exists, but does not allow Him the use of His divine attributes
if they interfere with man’s volition. The essence of God is denied in order to keep the philosophical tenet of "man’s
free will as an inviolable law" in tact.
AR: The volition of man determines his destiny.
WB: Sinful man approaches God with his head up, as under his own authority, and attributes his own
salvation to himself due to the wise use of his volition. The wise man approaches God with his head bowed in submission to
God’s authority in genuine humility, attributing his own salvation to the sovereign grace of God.
Arrogant believers confuses the instrument used (human volition) with the mechanics of sovereign grace.
They allow God to control human history from 10,000 feet as long as He doesn’t control the decisions of man. How this
illogical notion operates is a mystery to those who acknowledge God’s overriding presence in human affairs.
AR: Belief in God is a floating abstraction [man-centered].
WB: Belief in man’s free will is a floating abstraction [God centered].
AR: As a philosopher, I must deny the operation of divinity in daily life, including the Christian’s
mystical concept of a new birth.
WB: As a Christian, I must deny the sovereignty and omnipotence of man’s volition in daily life,
including the initiation of the new birth.
AR: According to reason, volition is a philosophical certainty.
WB: According to revelation, the sovereignty and omnipotence of God are a biblical certainty.
AR: God is non-knowable and therefore irrational. There is no certainty of his existence that can be
observed and shared by ALL men. Attempts to measure God are arbitrary; He can’t be validated, He can’t be integrated.
There is no legitimate evidence.
WB: God is knowable, but He must first give you the grace gift of faith perception before you can know
of His existence.
AR: Christians make an error by believing in something that has no certainty of existence.
WB: Philosophers make an error by claiming God doesn’t exist (atheism) or that God may exist
but they aren’t for sure (agnosticism). This error stems from a lack of the perceptive faculty required to acknowledge
His existence.
The Good
AR: The good is the means and end of ethics. Life must have value – goals with precepts and principles
to get you to those goals, in order for it to be good.
WB: God’s plan and purpose for Christians is good, but is centered on His glory instead of man’s
personal goals.
AR: Altruism is ultimately self-destructive, a delusion, and a denial of personal responsibility. Man
must plan for long-term consequences – the probable outcomes of a set of morality and ethics. There are no absolutes.
Man is the beneficiary.
WB: God has a plan for the believer’s life. It is based on His absolutely perfect protocol plan.
Both God and man are the beneficiaries.
Virtue
AR: Virtue is achieving your goal by using practical applications of accumulated knowledge and taking
primary responsibility for self. It involves fundamentals of common sense and cause/effect, as well as honesty, self-preservation,
truth, reality, and fact over desire.
WB: Add the power of the Holy Spirit and Bible doctrine to this equation and we are in agreement.
AR: Evaluation must be done on reality, not on wishful, idealistic thinking.
WB: Evaluation must be done by comparison to divine norms and standards.
Happiness
AR: Happiness is pursuing and achieving your purpose, i.e. success.
WB: Happiness is occupation with Jesus Christ.
Government
AR: The purpose of government is to protect man’s inalienable rights. It includes capitalism
as a key necessity. Socialism is immoral, unethical, intellectually indefensible, and rationally incoherent. Socialism violates
human freedom and responsibility, and is usually practiced by forceful theft or confiscatory taxation. Socialism violates
the freedom of many in order to support the unmet and undeserved needs of the few.
WB: Agreed.
AR: Morality requires self-effort, self-motivation, and independence from government. Socialism has
none of these qualities.
WB: Agreed.
Capitalism
AR: xCapitalism is the ONLY moral social system. It is a system of objectivity, the only flourishing
system long-term, because it depends on freedom, existence, consciousness, and an objective reward (wage) for an objective
behavior (work).
WB: Agreed.
AR: Liberals try to impute virtue into "the public good," but there is none. Socialism’s promulgation
of the public good has failed in every single attempt throughout history, regardless of flavour.
WB: Agreed.
AR: Some people complain that the free market is unfair because ignorant slobs can make money. Count
these ignorant, money-making slobs and compare them to the percent of those who aren’t. Is the free market really so
bad?
WB: Give ignorant, money-making slobs their due. It may be the only piece of heaven they will ever
know.
AR: Read some of Adam Smith’s famous quotes out loud, with vigor. Then read some of Hank Reardon’s
socialism out loud in the same manner. Which one sounds moral?
WB: Capitalism is moral. Socialism and the public good are evil concepts.
AR: Capitalism can be worked backwards through this entire tape series and becomes a self-evident corollary
to Objectivism itself.
WB: Capitalism can also be found throughout the entire Bible, so Christianity and Objectivism share
some basic establishment principles.
|
