John MacArthur Defends the Gospel

Watch John MacArthur as he defends the gospel on live televison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ-N4pruFo

The Israel of God in Prophecy

This is a quote by Hans K. LaRondelle in his excellent work The Israel of God in Prophecy. This quote always refreshes my soul and encourages me to think biblically when studying the Bible, specifically the prophets.

"The New Testament has been written as the ultimate norm for the fulfillment and interpretation of Israel's prophecies. A Christian would deny his Christian faith and Lord if he reads the Old Testament as a closed entity, as the full and final message of God for the Jews irrespective of the cross and ressurection of Jesus, the Messiah, and apart from the New Testament explanation of the Hebrew writings.......Those modern interpretations of the prophetic Word which exlude Christ, His saving grace, and His new covenant people from the center of Israel's end time prophecies basically miss the divine mark and exalt a torch of false prophecy."

-Hans K. LaRondelle [The Israel of God in Prophecy]

The Gospel According to the Puritans...

The word "puritan" is not held in high esteem by the world and even by some churches today.
"Puritanical" is a term of derision used to describe someone who is lifeless, emotionless, legalistic, proud, and anti-sexual. I'm ashamed to say that before understanding the Puritans and their theology, I was ignorant of who they truly were and shared some of the very same misconceptions about them with the world. I'm convinced that the root of the problem lies in a profound ignorance of who the Puritans were, and a sloppy revisionist history advocated by scholars and ministers alike. I remember reading "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards in my 11th grade English class immediatley after reading The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Hawthorne had already poisoned the students' minds about the Puritans, and the unscholarly and revisionist rantings of our teacher didn't help. The teacher would say things like, "Look at Edwards' beautiful metaphor's, his iron sharp logic, and his wonderful use of vocabulary! Yet look at his exlusive and hate filled theology!" Her contention was that the congregational church which Edwards had been apart of had grown much much better by the time Hawthorne wrote the Scarlet Letter. The church in Edwards' day just wasn't practical, wasn't loving, and wasn't inclusive enough. I have to admit, this blatant attack on Edwards and on other Puritans frustrated me much at times. I had read Edwards and other Purtians for myself and knew firsthand that the popular notion that the Puritans were scary, legalistic, and proud was a blatant lie. That's why I chose to do my senior project on Cotton Mather (an American Puritan), clearing up some of the misconceptions about him. Let me say this...I have never been influenced by any writer more than I have been influenced by the Purtians, specifically Jonathan Edwards. After reading the Religious Affections at the end of my 11th grade year in high school, I knew that God had used that particular work to change my life in many ways. After reading this and other works, I came to this realization...the Puritans were not proud, they were some of the most humble and gracious people to ever walk the face of the earth! The Puritans were not legalistic! Their heavy emphasis on the neccessity of "heart religion" and "experiential, Christ centered, affections", permeates their writings. Rather than being like the Pharisees who created an inumberable amount of extra-biblical rules an regulations for daily living, the Puritans cherished the Reformed doctrine of "sola Scriptura", and manifisted in their preaching, a love for expositional preaching and Biblical doctrine. The Puritans were not filled with hatred! After rigorously studying the life and theology of Cotton Mather, it was clearly evident that the Salem Witch Trials in 1692 has a lot to do with the current assumption that the Purtians were hateful and mean-spirited people. Granted, some of the Puritans during that time were overly superstisious...I learned they (specifically Mather) have been vilified and torn apart unjustly. The Puritans loved God and loved their neighbors, reading up to 20 chapters of the Bible every day, living without much sleep, for the sole purpose of enhancing their joy in Christ and their love for mankind. If you're reading this post and have only heard others talk about the Puritans, I would suggest that you read them for yourself. Never will you read a more rich, deep, and joyful piece of literature. I love the Purtians because the Puritans loved Jesus and devoted their lives to loving Him with all of their hearts. Their heartfelt and disciplined devotion is an example to me and an encouragement in times of spiritual laziness. I want to include a quote by Richard Sibbes who was one of the early Puritans. This quote is especially fitting in light of some of the misconceptions of them that abound in today's world and church. Sibbes is describing Christians in all times, but think about the Puritans specifically as you read this quote:

It has been an old imputation to charge distraction upon men of the greatest wisdom and sobriety. John the Baptist was accused of having a devil, and Christ to be beside Himself and the Apostles to be full of new wine, and Paul to be mad. The reason is because as religion is a mystical and spiritual thing, so the tenets of it seem paradoxes to carnal men; as first, that a Christian is the only freeman, and other men are slaves; that he is the only rich man, though never so poor in the world; that he is the only beautiful man, though outwardly never so deformed; that he is the only happy man in the midst of all his miseries. Now these things though true seem strange to natural men, and therefore when they see men earnest against sin, or making conscience of sin, they wonder at this commotion for trifles. But these men go on in a course of their own and make that the measure of all; those that are below them are profane, and those that are above them are indiscreet. By fanciful affections, they create idols, and then cry down spiritual things as folly. They have principles of their own, to love themselves and to love others only for themselves, and to hold on the strongest side and by no means expose themselves to danger. But when men begin to be religious, they deny all their own aims, and that makes their course seem madness to the world, and therefore they labor to breed an ill opinion of them, as if they were madmen and fools.

My Response to an Antinomian Objection...

After writing my post on Charles Ryrie, I received a comment from a specific person who objected to my main argument that Charles Ryrie's "easy believism" was nothing more than a false gospel. Since it is not my purpose to rigorously "expound" my belief in Lordship Salvation, I do not feel the need to write an in depth response treating all of the antinomian objections to the biblical position. This has already been done by men like John MacArthur, Ernest Reseinger, and pretty much every single orthodox theologian of the past. This is my statement to the person who objected to my comments. His objections are italicized.

The thing is, the proof of a position is in the treatment of texts.

I would absolutely agree with you! Yet I included the texts I did because they are some of the clearest Scriptural texts dealing with the issues of obedience and faith. The reality is, the New Testament witness concerning obedience and faith is this: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME! Take Heb. 3:16-18 for example. Because I've been accused of "proof texting" and "ripping texts out of their contexts", let me first saying something about the book of Hebrews. Hebrews was written to a group of struggling Christians with the intent of 1) teaching them about the nature of Christ's Sonship and High Priestly ministry 2) exhorting them to persevere in the midst of a strong temptation to embace the types and shadows of the Old Testament which had been fulfilled in Christ. In a word, Hebrews contains 1.) a rich doctrinal emphasis on the person and work of Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest and 2) strong hortatory passages emphasizing the absolute neccessity of obedience and faith in the midst of temptations of various kinds. Having said that let me mention this passage. (By the way...the objector has accused me of ripping texts out of their context and not treating them properly. I believe in the clarity and perspecuity of Holy Scripture. That's not to say that we are to simply "proof text" passages and "rip them out of thier contexs. Careful, patient, experiential study is a solemn duty and joyous delight for the Christian to practice everyday. Having said that, it's not my purpose to act as a commentator in treating the texts I have mentioned. I think that they speak for themselves and it is my contention that it is the lawless "free grace" advocates themselves who twist the Scriptures that I have listed.)

Heb. 3:16-17
16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

This is another strong text which I failed to mention previously. Notice how the writer here uses disobedience and unbelief as synonomous words. Disobedience is said to be the very same thing as unbelief. On the other hand, unbelief is said to be the very same thing as disobedience. This is a good starting point for understanding the Bible's teaching on obedience and faith. The texts I listed speak for themselves. If you want an in depth commentary on the texts I mentioned, read John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus.

You probably ought to be ashamed of yourself for using texts so obviously ripped out of their context to make your point.

Let me say this: I am not ashamed of myself. My assertions concerning the heresy of antinomianism are the fruit of years of study specifically pertaining to this issue. I by no means claim to have everything figured out, and I by no means claim to be an expert on these doctrines. But I BY NO MEANS am ashamed for listing the texts that I did. They speak for themselves and if this antinomian objector thinks that they are "ripped out of their contexts", I'm curious as to what he thinks these texts mean. Yet coming from a person whose profile contains a picture of Zane Hodges' book of heretical babbling's "Absolutely Free", I probably already know his interpretation of these verses.

Could you even expound one of those texts by a well-reasoned exposition of it?

Yes I could expound one of these texts reasonably, rationally, and contextually. Yet I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's not the purpose of this blog to exegetically delve into the meaning of every single text I mentioned. Most of my thoughts and ideas come from my interaction with the works of John MacArthur and Ernest Reseinger. Likewise, many of the biblical texts (which have been the center of controversy in this debate) have come from those specifc authors' treatment of them. I suggest that you read their works if you want a "well reasoned expostion" of those texts. This is a BLOG not a commentary and the purpose of this blog is not to handle every single aspect of the issues.


Can you give a biblical argument supporting the position that the conditions for discipleship are conditions for everlasting life?

If you are understanding me as saying that obedience to the law is the means by which we obtain eternal life, you are misunderstanding me and misconstruing my words. Try reading my words in their context. What Jesus, the Apostles, and all orthodox theologians throughout church history have advocated is this: We are justified before God by faith alone (sola fide) but the faith by which are justified is never alone. This is what these biblical texts are teaching. Repentance, obedience to the law, fidelity, and love for God and man are the natural and joyful manifestations of a heart that has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. You want to talk about absurd interpretations? The classic dispensational interpretation of these texts (especially those in the gospels) are that 1) faith is intellectual assent and that obedience is merely an option for those who desire to be "spiritual" Christians as opposed to "carnal Christains." 2) Those texts in the gospels which speak of repentance and obedience were written within the context of the "dispensation of law." Since we are now living in "the age of grace" these condtions no longer apply. This irresponsible compartmentalizing of the Bible is absurd and even laughable. The burden of proof for the postion that obedience is optional lies upon the antinomian, not upon the advocate of Lordship salvation. The Bible is perspicuous on this matter.


Do you not think it is possible for a Christian to not be in fellowship with God, not practive the truth?

I know both from experience and from the Scriptural testimony that indwelling sin is a reality which we all will fight against until we dwell with Christ in glory. Yet an absence of fellowship with God and a refusal to practice the truth, manifested continually and willfully, is a stong evidence that a person is unconverted and still in their sins much like the people described in
1 John 2:19-

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

I am afraid that your proof-texting is no better than that of the average Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. A text without a context is a pretext.

And I'm afraid that the heretical antinomianism of Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges is both a disgrace and an embarassment to the community of believers who desire to live their lives in obedience to God's revealed will.

-Jordan

The Olney Hyms...

I am currently meditating on the great book of hymns written by John Newton, William Cowper and other hymn writers called, "The Olney Hyms." I am studying the book of Hebrews right now and came across this hymn based on Heb. 4:2. Unlike many of the gospel songs we grew up with, these kinds of hymns were written by theologians and pastors. The reason they are so delightful is becuase they beautifully set forth the objective truths of the gospel in poetic form. Also, unlike many of the more contemporary songs written today, these hymns were radically Christ-oriented. I'm absolutely shocked by some of the "worship songs" that we sing today. Many of them are individualistic, man-centered, shallow, and lacking in theological depth. I think this hymn in the Olney Collection is a great example of the kind of texts we need to sing and meditate upon in corporate gatherings. Our affections must be grounded in theological truth. Otherwise, we're worshipping a "god" of our own making, not the God of the Bible. Hymns that testify of the whole counsel of God are what the church needs most, not shallow, man-centered ditty's with half truths and ugly language. We need beauty and it's the truth that is beautiful. I hope you find this hymn as encouraging as I did...

Israel in ancient days,

Not only had a view

Of Sinai in a blaze,

But learn'd the gospel too:

The types and figures were a glass

In which they saw the Savior's face.

The paschal sacrifice,

And blood besprinkled door,

Seen with enlightened eyes,

And once applied with pow'r;

Would teach the need of other blood,

to reconcile an angry God.

The Lamb, the Dove, set forth

His perfect innocence,

Whose blood, of matchless worth,

Should be the soul's defense:

For he who can for sin atone,

Must have no failings of his own.

The scape goat on his head

The peoples trespass bore,

And to the desert led,

Was to be seen no more:

In him, our Surety seemed to say,

"Behold, I bear your sins away."

Dipt in his fellows blood

The living bird went free,

The type, well understood,

Expressed the sinner's plea;

Described a guilty soul enlarged,

And by a Savior's death discharged.

Jesus I love to trace

Throughout the sacred page;

The footsteps of thy grace,

The same in every age!

O grant that I may faithful be

To clearer light, vouchsafed to me.

My Response to the Question Concerning Heb. 1:3-4

The question that my professor asked was this..."In v. 4, what is the name which Christ inherited?" Here's my response.

After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb. 1:3-4)
I included the last part of v. 3 because I think that the content of this particular verse gives us some clues into how we should interpret the statement that Christ’s name is more excellent than the angels. I don’t claim to completely understand this verse but I think that I have come away with a number of specific conclusions after studying this verse, its surrounding context, and other verses which might help us understand it better.First, as we learned in class, the author of the book is preparing his audience for a pretty dense teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood. Instead of immediately beginning by teaching about Christ’s priesthood, the author instead begins with certain theological concepts which would have been more familiar to the audience. The reason he does this is becuase the idea of Christ’s High Priestly Office might have been novel to the hearers. So, instead of beginning the “word of exhortation” by teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood, he sets forth the more familiar idea of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This is clearly seen in the heavy emphasis upon God’s speech, his word, his declaration that Christ was indeed superior to the angels because he is the Son of God.-(v. 5) For to which of the angels did God ever say,”You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?

-(v. 6) he says,”Let all God’s angels worship him.”
-(v.7) Of the angels he says…
-(v.8,9) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed youwith the oil of gladness beyond your companions
-(v.13) And to which of the angels has he ever said…

As we learned today in class, the heavy emphasis upon God’s declarative word relating to Christ’s eternal Sonship is significantly important. Therefore, in light of the fact that v. 4 finds itself in a section where Christ’s Sonship is continually emphasized, and that God is seen declaring Christ the Son of God, we can conclude that the “name” which is superior is “Son of God.” In the ressurection of Christ, God declared in a very visible way the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. Yet at the same time, I think that this passage has many more implications than merely that of Jesus’ Sonship. Look at the end of v. 3. The writer says that after making purification for sins Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. In order to properly understand the statement that Christ, “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, it is important to be familiar with the Davidic Covenant, the New Testament’s revelation on the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, and the significance of the ressurection and the phrase “right hand of God” as it relates to Christ’s Kingship. First, 2 Sam. 7 contains the sum and substance of God’s covenant with David. It reads,
"
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.”

The sum and substance of God’s covenant with David is this: Out of David’s offspring will come forth a King. This descendent’s kingship would be different from any other king in that his reign would be everlasting and God would personally see to it that this kingdom would flourish forever. Has this covenant been fulfilled? I have to tread on eggshells here because I am an amillenialist attending a very dispensational, pre-millenial institution. Yet I recognize that many people here do in fact believe that the Davidic Covenant has been fulfilled and that Christ is now presently reigning within the hearts of believers. I know that many students in this Hebrews class will consider themselves dispensational and would believe that Christ’s reign will not be inagurated until the “Millenium” so please understand that it is not my desire to debate with you on this issue as we come from an entirely different set of pre-suppositions. These next few comments are written with the hope that this won’t become an issue of division and argument, as this blog shouldn’t be a platform for aruging dispensationalism and Reformed Theology. Having said that, I firmly believe that the Davidic Covenant, described above, has been fulfilled with the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. Why do I believe this? And what does this have to do with Heb. 1:4. Here’s what I think. First, we must examine the New Testament evidence concerning the Davidic Covenant and it’s fulfillment. The very first verse of the New Testament sheds light on the Davidic Covenant and its fulfillment. “Matt. 1:1-A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” Jesus is the very descendent of David who would fulfill the covenant made hundreds of years before with David. Regardless of when this covenant is fulfilled, it is signficant that Matthew immediately labels Christ “the Son of David.” There are a number of texts in the gospels where Christ himself and others (like John the Baptist) proclaim that the Kingdom of God had come. Then we turn to Acts 2 perhaps the most theologically rich passage in the New Testament with regards to the Davidic Covenant.

Acts 2:29-35 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand35until I make your enemiesa footstool for your feet.”

I can’t adequately describe how important this text is for our understanding of the kingdom. Note first v. 29 where Peter mentions God’s covenant with David. He then proceeds to tell the congregation that Jesus Christ is indeed the promised Messiah who would sit on David’s throne. (v. 31) Look at v. 30 and 31 together. Peter reveals an intimate and inseparable connection between Christ’s ressurection and His Kingship. Verse 30 says concerning David,
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Simple: God promised that God would place one of David’s descendents on the throne. This descendent who would sit on the throne is Jesus Christ Himself. Now look at v. 31:

Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

When David foresaw the coronation of the King he looked to what? The Future Millenial Kingdom maybe? Absolutely Not! Instead,He looked forward to “the ressurection!” Peter intimately connects Christ’s ressurection with His office as King. The ressurection event and the Kingship of Jesus cannot be separated as Peter masterfully teaches. In light of this truth, look at what Peter says regarding “the right hand of God.”

(v.33) Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

The author then quotes the very same verse in Psalms (Ps. 110:1) that the writer of Hebrews quotes in the first chapter. My point is this: Peter inseparably connects Christ’s Kingship with his ressurection to the right hand of God. In light of this truth, the assertion in Heb. 1:3 becomes clearer. If Jesus was proclaimed the Messainic King who was prophesied about in 2 Sam 7 BY his ressurection, then it obviously reveals that Christ’s name, in conjunction with his ressurection and Kingship, also has reference to the title of King. The right hand of God cannot be separated from Jesus’ office of King. The fact that Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, reveals that at that point of time, he was declared to be both 1) the Son of God and 2) the prophesied Messainic King in fulfillment of the covenant made with David. It is my contention that the writer of Hebrews has in mind Jesus’ office of King in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as well as his position of Son. I firmly beieve that Christ is our reigning King and that this very verse in Hebrews re-inforces that beautiful truth.-Semper Reformanda

The Gospel According to Dave Hunt...

Huntianism-A radically Pelagian theology, advocated by Dave Hunt, which seeks to disprove Calvinism by...
a.) misrepresenting Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and pretty much any other person he happens to disagree with b.) revising history to suit his own theological agenda c.) Attacking Calvinists themselves rather than attacking their theological stance d.) approaching theology in the most irrational, unscholarly, and prideful manner that it never fails to shock me! e.) creating lies about faithful men of God from the past in an attempt to disprove their theology f.) making judgements about the personal character of men who lived hundreds of years ago. This pretty much sums up Dave Hunt!

Never have I read a more foolish, unscholarly and outright prideful writer as Dave Hunt. His writings are filled with venom, his characterization of the Reformers are nothing but lies, and he ignorantly builds straw man arguments, using them to "disprove" what he believes is wrong. And what does he believe? Dave Hunt is a radical Pelagian who despises Calvinism and creates lies about historical Calvinists in order to "disprove" their theology. Here are just a few quotes from Dave Hunt himself:

-“Calvinism presents a God who fills hell with those whom He could save but instead damns because He doesn’t love them” (What Love is This?)

-“Calvin drew from a badly polluted stream when he embraced the teachings of Augustine! How could one dip into such contaminating heresy without becoming confused and infected?” (What Love is This?)

- “Calvin’s conduct day after day and year after year was the very antithesis of what it would have been had he truly been led of the Spirit of God” (What Love is This?)

-"Charles Spurgeon could not accept the teaching that regeneration came before faith in Christ through the gospel.” (What Love is This?)

-"Am I denying that Calvin was saved? No, only God knew his heart. But if all he believed was (as he taught) that Christ died only for the elect, and that his infant baptism into the Roman Catholic Church proved that he was one of the elect, then he never got saved no matter how eloquently he wrote about Christ’s sufferings on the Cross for our sins." (From the Mind of Dave Hunt)

-“Most of those today, including evangelical leaders, who hold Calvin in great esteem, are not aware that they have been captivated by the writings of a devout Roman Catholic newly converted to Luther’s Protestantism only two years previously (in the early part of 1533). Oddly, in spite of its paramount importance and his voluminous writings, we have no clear testimony in Calvin’s own words concerning his salvation. He refers only to ‘a sudden conversion’ which subdued his ‘over-much hardened’ heart, but gives no description of how or what happened. … By any standard, this young man, though unusually bright, was far from mature in the Christian faith. … Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed evangelical understanding of Scripture. Instead, they came from the energetic enthusiasm of a recent law graduate and fervent student of philosophy and religion, a young genius devoted to Augustine and a newly adopted cause. … At the time of writing his Institutes Calvin, far from being an apostle like Paul, was a brand-new convert to the faith who had scarcely begun to walk with the Lord. Therefore, it could not have been spiritual maturity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that brought forth the Institutes, but the power of Calvin’s brilliant legal mind.” (Debating Calvinsim)

-"Calvinism offers a special definition of human depravity: that depravity equals inability -- and this special definition necessitates both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. … There is not a verse in the Bible, however, which presents Calvinism’s radical idea that the sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel which offers him forgiveness and salvation and yet he is condemned by God for failing to believe. … To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character.” (Debating Calvinsim)

-“Take a human understanding of ‘dead,’ mix it together with the young John Calvin’s immature understanding of God’s Word, tainted by Augustinian philosophy, stir it up and out comes the theory of Total Depravity.” (Debating Calvinism)

-“There is no escaping the fact that in Calvin’s entire Institutes of the Christian Religion there is not one mention of God’s love for the lost!” (Debating Calvinism)

-“One of the sad features of Calvin’s Institutes is the demeaning language he continually employs (much like Luther) to vilify all who disagree with him.” [note: I find this quote particularly funny! Anyone who has read even a little of Dave Hunt's writings can observe how venemous, deceptive, and outright prideful they are.]

-“Tragically, Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God has caused many to turn away from the God of the Bible as from a monster.”

-“Rather than any natural brilliance, Calvin’s arguments reflect a bias toward the sacramentalism he learned as a Roman Catholic from Augustine, which he elaborated upon and thereafter was compelled to defend. His logic often betrays a spiritual immaturity. Incredibly, Calvin argued: ‘… But if baptism was of God [referring to the Catholic infant baptism he received as a child], it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ.’ These astonishing statements reflect a sacramentalism which maintains that the physical act of baptism has spiritual power and imparts regeneration. To be baptized by Roman Catholic priests who were not even Christians but held to and promoted a false gospel, was perfectly acceptable to Calvin because they used the name of God when they administered it!” [note: I'm so glad that Dave Hunt is so spiritually mature and has such a great knowledge of John Calvin's character as to label him "spiritually immature." I'm sure he's qualified to make those judgements. I'm sure Dave talked to Mr. Calvin a number of times and came away with firm convictions about his spiritual immaturity! (a hint of sarcasm there). Also notice how Dave Hunt completely twists Calvin's own words in an attempt to prove that he trusted in his baptism as a means of acceptance with God. Calvin merely states that baptism depicts, in a visible and tangible way, the promise of forgiveness, mortification, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ.]

Dave Hunt is a joke. The foundation of his Pelagianism lies in unscholarly straw man arguments which are both deceptive and preposterous. He is an embarassment to those Arminians who have worked through the issues thoughftfully, and He is a revisionist historian whose mischaracterizations of John Calvin, Augustine, and others are just plain lies. John Calvin thought that his baptism was the basis for his acceptance with God? This sure isn't the John Calvin I've been reading, whose love for the doctrine of justification by faith alone permeates all of his writings. Charles Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist Mr. Hunt? Are you serious? Do you honestly desire for me to take you seriously? Spurgeon was one of the strongest Calvinistic Baptists throughout history and if you don't believe me, pick up some of his sermons and READ! Hunt feels qualified to merely sweep away Augustine's theology by saying that he was a Roman Catholic whose teachings were influenced by Manicheism. Has Dave Hunt actually read the Confessions, or The City of God? The truth of the matter is, Dave Hunt is not a theologian, a scholar, or even a true student of God's word. Dave Hunt is a deceptive Pelagian whose extreme man-centeredness is actually closer to Roman Catholicism than anything I've ever read by a "Protestant." He is ignorant of church history, prideful in his deceptive assertions, and heretical in his teaching concerning salvation. A word to those who have ever considered reading Dave Hunt: DONT WASTE YOUR TIME! If you want to understand Pelagianism, read a Pelagian author who has actually thought through the issues rationally. God remains sovereign in the salvation of sinners despite the attacks of mindless men like Dave Hunt. He sovereingly chose us before the foundation of the world, sent His Son to purchase redemption for His people, gave us the Holy Spirit of promise who regenerated our depraved and sinful hearts, and will keep us to the end, producing in us obedience and devotion. I close this post with a quote by Charles Spurgeon who according to Hunt was an Arminian. Ahh...this nonsense makes me laugh.

"... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does, of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men."
-C.H. Spurgeon (from a sermon entitled...Free Will a Slave)

The Gospel According to Charles Ryrie...

I attend a college where most of the people here love Charles Ryrie. He was the keynote speaker at our Bible Conference last year and his many books are required reading for many of our classes. Many of the students at my college are former students of Word of Life where Ryrie has taught for years. In light of these realities, I have to tread on eggshells when discussing my personal convictions about Ryrie and his theology. I do not wish to attack Charles Ryrie. I'm confident that he is a godly man and that his teachings on some topics are sound. Yet I will not hesitate in attacking Ryrie's teachings on salvation which I believe to be heretical, decieving, and un-orthodox. Let me start by analyzing some of Charles Ryrie's statments in light of the Bible.

Ryrie: "People who reform have repented; that is, they have changed their minds about their past lives, but that kind of repentance, albeit genuine, does not of itself save them. The only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. People can weep; people can resolve to turn from their past sins; but those things in themselves cannot save. The only kind of repentance that saves anyone, anywhere, anytime is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. The sense of sin and sorrow because of sin may stir up a person's mind or conscience so that he or she realizes the need for a Savior, but if there is not change of mind about Jesus Christ there will be no salvation" (So Great a Salvation)

Scripture: "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:6-7).

Ryrie: A person does not have to submit to God in every area of his or her life in order to be saved. (So Great a Salvation)

Scripture: "Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 'If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:25-27).

Ryrie: "The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel." (Balancing the Christian Life)

Scripture: "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." (Matt. 7:16-20)

Ryrie: "If only committed people are saved people, then where is there room for carnal Christians?"

Scripture: "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

These are only a few statements of Charles Ryrie which startingly reveal his unorthodox and heretical views on salvation. His doctrine of "easy believism" is deceptive and dangerously harmful to the minds and hearts of Christians. I'm a sinner saved by grace, and I by no means claim to be a model of repentance and faith. Yet still, I am convinced that the easy believism of Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and others is unbiblical. Jesus calls us to a life of repentance and commitment. Faith itself is much more than mere "intellectual assent", the kind of "faith" the demons and Satan himself possess. Charles Ryrie is advocating this "demonic faith", and in doing so, deceives many. I pray that our Sovereign Lord of grace would change this man's theology and correct the tragic consequences of the shallow nominalsim he advocates.

The Gospel According Too...

Throughout the past few years, I've been listening to conversations in my church and college circles and have heard a number of theologians talked about (good things and bad). In my next few posts, I want to analyze the theological beliefs of certain men in light of the Scriptures. The first few posts will analyze the specific theological beliefs of men who I believe to be unbiblical in their presentation of the gospel. The later half will deal with some of the saints throughout history who have taught sound, othodox, biblical theology. My intent is not to attack any one theologian. My intent is to attack the theology that is taught by these theologians. Likewise, my intent is not to exalt any specific theologian. My intent is to present the orthodox theology of men who have enabled us, by God's grace, to see and savor Christ through their sound presentation of the gospel.
-Soli Deo Gloria

Thomas Schreiner on Paul

I picked up Thomas Schreiner's book on Paul yesterday and found this quote very helpful in my understanding of Paul as a whole. Schreiner expresses concern about limiting Paul's theological emphasis to one specific subject like justification or reconciliation. He asserts that to limit Paul's theology to one benefit of the gospel rather than focusing on the God of the gospel Himself, is to do injustice to Paul and his theology as a whole. He uses the metaphor of a house, saying that the foundation of Paul's theology is God himself while the structure or theme is the gospel in all its various blessings. On the side, some of you might be wondering about my recent hospital stay. I was admited into the E.R. last night because of severe abdominal pain. I stayed the night and am much better now. I guess I had an adhesion which is somewhat normal considering the surgeries I had this summer. Please keep me in your prayers.

"Such an illustration (of the house) also highlights the importance of salvation history, what is often called the "already not yet" dimension of Pauline theology. When we speak of salvation history, we think of the fulfillment of God's saving plan and promises. The fulfillment of God's plan in history is announced in the Pauline gospel. The promises made to Israel in the Old Testament have now become a reality in and through the ministry, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. God's saving promises are already a reality for the believer in Jesus Christ- in this sense God's plan is "already" being fulfilled. The gift of the Holy Spirit, for example, demonstrates that God's covenant promises are now a reality for those who have faith. On the other hand, believers still await the consummation of salvation history; in this sense we do "not yet" enjoy all that God has promised. Believers who have the gift of the Spirit still struggle with sin and await the day when their bodies will be ressurected. Salvation history, then, could represent the remodeling of the house, for the new covenant fulfills what was promised in the Old. The image of 'remodeling' is misleading if it suggests that God 'starts over' with the church. Perhaps we should think of the Old Testament as the framing of the house and think of the fulfillment of salvation history as the completion of the inside of the house. We could also say that the theme of salvation history is the gospel of God (Rom 1:1). Hence, the image of the house nicely captures various dimensions of Paul's theology- the foundation is God in Christ, salvation history portrays the progress being made on the house, and the theme of the house is the gospel."

-Thomas Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ, A Pauline Theology

Good News for Losers

I recently picked up Michael Horton's new book, "Too Good to be True" and found this quote by Nietzsche in Horton's chapter entitled, "good news for losers." I found this quote very intriguing.

"The Christian movement is a degeneracy movement composed of reject and refuse elements of every kind...It is therefore not national, not racially conditioned; it appeals to the disinherited everywhere; it is founded on a rancor against everything well constituted and dominant: it needs a symbol that represents a curse on the well-constitued and dominant. It also stands in opposition to every spiritual movement, to all philosophy: it takes the side of idiots and utters a curse on the spirit. Rancor against the gifted, learned, spiritually independent: it detects in them the well constituted, the masterful. Dionysus [the god of revelry who was cut in pieces] versus the "crucified": there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom- it is a difference in the meaning of it... The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return again from destruction."
-From The Will to Power

Modernity's Corruption of the Gospel...

Throughout the past few months, I've been learning a lot about the culture we live in and how this culture effects the way that I view the gospel. I've tended to focus entirely upon post-modernity as the enemy of Christianity, and I am persuaded that post-modernity is indeed a culture with dangerous implications and erroneous presuppositions. Yet it wasn't until lately that I've discovered how modernity is just as equally an enemy of the gospel as post-modernity. I disagree with those whose analysis of the culture leads them to believe that the context in which we live is entirely post-modern. Modernism is still a dangerous worldview which has spread throughout our churches like gangrene and the sad thing is, people are unaware of the problems.
You see it in churches all the time. The pastor walks to the pulpit and announces that the topic of his message is "5 Steps to Becoming a More Effective Spiritual Leader." Throughout this message, little or nothing is said about the nature of God, the beauty of truth, the transformation of our minds, etc. etc. In fact, little or no emphasis is placed upon the mind at all! By the end of the message, we have observed our situation and have concluded that something isn't right. We then have searched the Bible for specific verses which will help us in our pursuit of leadership and then we are presented with the 5 easy steps to becoming a more effective spiritual leader.
It is my contention that this intense focus upon method, solution, control, and power is destructive and incredibly harmful to the soul's of God's people. The God of the Bible has been exchanged for the cheap substitutes of self motivation and utilitarian power trips. We've subsituted scientific methodology for Christocentric beauty. And the result? A group of people who walk around obsessed with buzzwords like "leadership" and "purpose." The problem is that as humans, we are totally depraved. Granted, as followers of Jesus we are now partakers of a new nature. Yet this partaking does in no way relinquish our inability to change. Therefore God must transform us and this transformation doesn't take place by following a list of do's and don'ts. This renewal must be radically God oriented. We must, with the eyes of faith, see and savor something more beautiful than ourselves. We must be transformed first by the renewing of our minds not the renewing of our wills. Will is indeed important and we are responsible to actively mortify the indwelling sin in our lives. Yet beauty and knowledge must first be understood before the process of renewal occurs. Sanity, freedom, reality, relationships, connectedness, humility, servanthood, beauty, truth, Christ...all these things have been sorely neglected because of our modern approach to Christianity. I pray that God would renew our minds thus enabling us to cast off the old man of modernism. I pray that Christians would look more like Jesus rather than businessmen calling themselves disciples of Christ.
Soli Christo

Critical Spirits v.s. Loving Hearts

In my last post I emphasized the absolute neccessity of discernment in the lives of all Christians. In this post, I would like to briefly talk about the neccessity of love in the lives of all Christians. As I've said before, I am a Reformed/Amillenialist student attending a very dispensational college. Many of the students and faculty at this college are very turned off to Reformed Theology because of reformed students in the past who have (with good intentions) been argumentative and divisive. I see a dire need for students (whether dispensational or reformed) to beseech the Lord for a spirit of grace and love as they attempt to point others to the truth of the gospel. I was thinking about this today: Reformed Christians should be the most humble, gracious, and loving people that this world has ever seen! The truths of Reformed Theology are wonderfully humbling and should produce in us a spirit of grace, humility, and love not bitterness, "righteous anger", or divisiveness. Like I said in my previous post, this does not mean that we aren't to be discerning. We are indeed responsible to defend the sacred truths of the gospel and to recognize error when error is taught. It is indeed my conviction that dipensationalism in an erroneous system of doctrine which is foreign to Biblical teaching and potentially harmful to the mind and hearts of Christ's people. Yet in all our interactions and conversations we must be gracious and humble. If this humility and grace isn't present within our lives, then we have failed to truly and properly understand the truths of the Reformation which are none other than the truths of the Bible.
Deus Pro Nobis

Critical Thinking v.s. a Critical Spirit: The Importance of Discernment

Postmodern thinking pervades our culture and has even influenced those churches who claim to be opponents of pragmatism and post-modernism (the seeker movement and the "emergent church." One particular manifestation of this spirit of ecumenicism is in the commonly stated assertion that, "people need to stop being so critical of other teachers." Granted, bitterness and militant dogmatism is a dangerous extreme to which all Christians should flee. Yet at the other end of the spectrum there is a mindset which seems at first sight to be noble but turns out to be nothing but mindlessness and anti-intellectualism. The reason I bring this up is because I attend a small Baptist college where people are constantly confusing critical thinking with bitterness. If you happen to disagree with the theology of a particular chapel speaker, then the verdict is this: you're unloving or you're not gracious or you're a nitpicking dogmatist. It is my fear that many of these students are fallaciously confusing Discernment and Bitterness. They are not the same. We must be discerning! We must graciously defend the truths of the gospel with loving hearts and discerning minds. The church of Jesus Christ cannot merely sit back while some teacher disgraces the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and makes a mockery of the inspired Word of God from the pulpit. And Beware! Wolves in sheeps clothing are not always easy to spot. We must love and defend, speak words of kindness and words of correction. Discerning truth from error is the solemn responsibility of a Christian and an "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude towards teaching will destroy the church. Sadly, many churches have already been destroyed through this lack of discernment. Let us stand for truth and continually reform our hearts and minds.
Soli Deo Gloria

A Comment on Gospel Centered Hermeneutics

I've noticed that a common objection to Christocentricity is that it is synonymous with “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” I think it would be helpful if we define allegory. An allegory is a story of symbollism whose characters and events represent certain realities or main ideas. The Pilgrims Progress isan example of allegory. On the contrary, reading the Bible through the lenses of the gospel IS NOT allegorizing, it is the mandate of Jesus in Luke 24:44. If someone follows the reasoning that Christ should only be found in those passages which explicitly testify of him, then it is impossible to find Christ in either the law, prophets, or the Psalms. Anallegorical interpretation is world’s away from a theological interpretation which views the New Testament as the guiding norm for interpreting the Old. Otherwise your interpretation of the Old Testament is no different than a Jewish interpretation. I apologize if my previous statements indicated that I believe every single text of Scripture testifies to Jesus Christ. I do believe that we can find specific Christocentric, gospel centered, applications for our lives in every text yet I don't believe that every text and every word reveals Christ. For example, I believe that the Songof Solomon is a beautiful portrayal of covenent love within the context of marriage. What I AM saying is that if we believe that the nature of revelation is indeed progressive, and that the New Testament provides a commentary or "interpretive grid" through which we can understand the true meaning of the Old Testament, we will see that the New Testament views the Old Testament as much more than just containing “redemptive threads.” Sometimes I hear the objection, "If you desire to be gospel centered and only preach Christ, then you're leaving out the other members of the Trinity when they need recognition."This indeed might have some legitimacy at first glance, but it is my contention that to view the Trinity in this way is to view the Trinity in categories that are radically foreign to the Bible's teaching on the Trinity. What these kind of statement's implicitly affirm is that there is some kind of rivalry within the communion of the Trinity, and that if Christ is exalted inour exposition, then the other members of the Trinity are somehown jealous. What this kind of statement fails to see is that God the Father andGod the Holy Spirit are working within the Trinitarian communion of joy to exalt and glorify Jesus Christ. Likewise, the Holy Spirit and the Son are both working together to glorify the Father. The question is, "Through what means is the god-head as a whole supremely glorified?" I believe that God (three in one) is supremely glorified through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Rom. 3:21-26 testifies to the fact that it is only through Christ that God the Father can be both "just and justifier." Thus it is only through Jesus Christ that God the Father can be seen and savored in all His glorious excellencies. We should preach the triune god-head in our messages indeed. Yet the Father cannot be talked about APART from the light of the gospel and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the Father’s desire is TO BE glorified through Jesus Christ His Son. Preaching the Father apart from Christ leaves you with nothing but justice, wrath, and condemnation. There's no hope when you preach the Father apart from Christ. There are two ways that the Father can deal with the problem of sin. He can sweep it under the rug and thus cease to be just, holy, righteous, etc. Obviously this is not an option for God. He can condemn the human race to an eternity in hell. Or, he can remain just and justifier by dealing with sin in the person of Christ and pouring out His wrath for our sins upon him. We see the Father through the person and work of Jesus Christ, there is no other way.Preaching the Holy Spirit apart from Christ often leads to a"touchy, feely" approach to Christianity with little or no substance.. Apart from Christ there is no gospel and if there is no gospel then there is no hope. If we take Christ out, what are we left with? If we fail to preach "Christ and him crucified" then what’s left is a moralistic approach to Christianity without the essential component of the gospel. A common dispensationalist claim is that the central theme of the Bible is the glory of God and not redemption. This fits nicely into their seven dispensation schematic with different "programs" at different times. My question is this, "Can we bibically and faithfully make this dichotomy between redemption and the glory of God?" Obviously redemption is not the only means by which God glorifies Himself. I believe God's election of certain individual's salvation is "to the praise of his glorious grace" while his passing over of others is "to the praise of his glorious justice." Yet I would assert that making this dichotomy between the glory of God and redemption does not do justice to the Bibe's view of redemption. I would assert that the central theme of the Bible is redemption through Jesus Christ starting from Genesis 3:15-Rev.22. The gospel promise of redemption is the first message proclaimed after man fell into sin. This gospel promise is the foundation for all God’s future interaction with man. Back to the question of the glory of God as relates to redemption... The redemption of man and the glory of God are never dichotomized in the Bible. If someone approaches the Bible from a semi-Pelagian, Arminian, perspective, then redemption would indeed be man centered. Yet I’m a Calvinist and I believe that the Bible’s view of redemption is radically God centered. Rom. 3:21-26explicity testifies to the fact that redemption is about “the righteousness of God.”

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it-the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a proptitation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Paul’s view of redemption is radically God centered. Redemption can be summarized like this: God died for God so that the church might be redeemed to put on display the glorious wonders of God throughout all eternity. A Redemptive approach is anything BUT man centered. I would rather be of the persuasion that an Ethnocentric interpretation of the Bible as found in dispensationalism could logically be categorized as "man centered." Yet this kind of ethonocentrism as found in the writings of some dispensationalists, is not found in the writings of all dispensationalists so please don't misinterpret me as thinking that all dispensationalists view the Bible within the context of ethnocentrism. I don't think that redemption is merely about "getting saved." "Getting saved" is a subsequent end not an ultimate end. Being saved "to the praise of His glorious grace" is an ultimate end and the end for which God created the world. Tim, I would definitely agree with you that all of history and eternity are about the renown of God's name. But I would ask you a question, "Is God glorified in Scripture apart from Christ? Or rather, is it the desire of the Father to be glorifed apart from Jesus Christ? I think that the end of Romans 11 was mentioned to substantiate the point that all of history is about God. In this particular verse, Paul is arguing in the context of theprevious 11 chapters in Romans which testify more explicitly than any other New Testament book the gospel of God revealed in Christ.Ultimately the issue boils down to this: HOW is God glorified? Through what means is God the Father most supremely exalted? I think the Bible teaches that God the Father is glorified through Jesus Christ His Son.

Response to Another Question About Hebrews...

In Luke 24:44 Jesus tells his disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” This has implications for how we interpret not just law, prophets, Psalms but ALL of Scripture. Obviously Jesus Christ and the gospel are not explicity set forth in the Old Testament Scriptures. This has led many preachers to ground their expositions of key Old Testament passages in moralism rather than Christ. The fear of allegorizing the Bible and , trying to squeeze the Biblical text into our premeditated molds, is legitimate. Yet at the same time, Jesus’ words must be heeded. Those passages that don’t explicitly teach about Him ARE indeed about Him! Even more so in Hebrews, those hortatory commands that stress our obedience and fidelity to Jesus are to be interpreted in light of the surrounding context of Jesus’ High Priestly ministry. The church has suffered greatly, especially in dispensational circles, because of this refusal to preach Christ in passages which don’t explicitly testify of Him. You have two options: You preach Christ or You Preach Man. Which one will it be? I’ll take the latter.
Soli Fide

Confident Expectation

"The object of our hope lies in the reality that we have faith and that we will persevere."

What is the object of our hope? Is it faith itself or the assurance of our perseverance? According to a particular person I heard speaking this morning, the object our hope in times of trial rests in our faith and perseverance. I'm sure that many students who heard this statement thought it was great. Faith is precious to us right? What's wrong with saying that? What they might not understand is that the whole orientation of this message was radically man-centered. Talking about faith, without talking about the object of our faith, is vain and harmful. According to Paul, the object of our faith is Jesus Christ. The foundation of our "confident expectation" is that "at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly." I am of the persuasion that any message which exludes the good news of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and ressurection, is not a message even worth preaching. We would be better off without it. Our confident expectation rests in the gosepl and if we exlude Christ from our preaching, there is no reason to even call ourselves Christians. Let us exalt the flaming torch of Christ centered exposition and learn to place our hope in the Savior who purchased that hope for us on the cross.

Morals Driven v.s. Gospel Driven

[This was written as a response to an objection raised against a gosepl centered approach to the book of Hebrews.]
I grew up in Sunday Schools who often used Bible Stories as a way to spur the children on to obedience.. Is this kind of approach familiar with anyone? Joshua was a strong leader therefore you go and be a strong leader. Enoch walked with God and never died therefore it is your duty to walk with God. What do you notice about this kind of approach to teaching? I think that it is radically man-centered and hopelessly Christ-less. I don’t think that it’s God’s intention for us to learn “by example.” Paul resolved to preach nothing but “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” If the gospel is not the center of our preaching, exhorting, interpreting, studying, and living, then our lives will be hopelessly stuck in the quicksand of moralism and man centered ethics.
If the message of hope lies in the reality that “not everyone hardened their hearts” then our “message of hope” excludes Jesus Christ and ignores Heb. 8:1-2. This kind of reasoning is typical of the Arminian driven approach to Christianity preached in many of our pulpits and churches today. It’s dangerous because it places the power of faith and godliness within the hands of men and ignores the past and present work of Christ for his people. Faith is the most supernatural, beautiful, and wonderful act that a Christian possesses. To say that man can conjure it up in his own strength and “through example” live a life of fidelity towards God is both preposterous and radically semi Pelagian. Only God can sovereingly work both justifying and sanctifying faith within us. He uses the Word of God and the Spirit of God to direct our minds towards Jesus whose work (past and present) enables us to worship, grow, obey, and love. Hebrews is written to exalt Jesus Christ and to present Him as the glorious high priestly King whose vicarious life and death is the foundation for our justification and whose present high priestly ministry is the foundation for our sanctification.