Is God Fair?

We are in no position to judge God, but He is our judge and we have no right to question His fairness, for what's fair is what He decrees as fair by its very nature and definition.  One recalls the parable of the Prodigal Son whereby the elder brother is dispirited at the grace shown the younger one and thinks it's unfair.  He should've celebrated the fact that he had always been the son and never suffered estrangement.

Too many Christians think that it is unfair that criminals who make deathbed conversions can get saved when they lived their whole life for Christ.  They should've noted that they get to live for Christ, not had to live for Him.  It is a privilege to live for Christ and one should be thankful for all the opportunities and be stewards of them.  He has become the recipient of greater reward, as God rewards according to our deeds whether we are in Christ a short time or long time.  We don't have to be Christians, we get to be Christians!  Many who are first shall be last, according to Christ, and the last, first.  The classic example of deathbed conversion is the famed thief or malefactor on the cross on the right side of Christ and to whom He said, "Today, thou shalt be with me in paradise."

In the final analysis, life may not always be fair because some people's portion is in this life and others have to learn the hard way--but God will make it all fair in the end at the judgment and He is just in all His ways.  And so, who's to say that inequity defines unfairness?  God is the moral center of the universe, thank God!  Soli Deo Gloria!

Does God Woo All?

NOTE: I USE THE TERM ARMINIAN TO REFER TO THOSE WHO DENY THE TULIP FORMULA OF CALVINISM  (OR REFORMED THEOLOGY) BUT SOME THEOLOGIANS CLAIM TO BE FOUR-POINTERS, DENYING THE LIMITE OR DEFINITE ATONEMENT SCHEMA. THERE ARE ONLY TWO INTERPATIONS OF THE GOSPELS OF GRACE: ARMINIAN AND CALVINIST AND MOST FALL SOMEWHERE INBETWEEN, LIKE ARMINIANS WHO AFFIRM ETERNAL SECURITY. 

There is no question that we cannot come to Christ apart from the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives to make us able and willing to believe ("This is the work of God, that you believe..." according to John 6:29).  Some theologians of the Arminian persuasion do admit to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and even have a name for the pre-salvation work of Christ in our hearts, known as prevenient grace, whereby God makes you able to respond to the gospel. Calvinists or Reformed theologians subscribe to an efficacious grace or as it is called irresistible grace (cf. Rom. 5:21). 

God doesn't try to save sinners, He saves them.  He doesn't offer to save us but saves us.  The word for wooing in Koine (Greek )is elko, which means to compel or drag.  You can picture drawing water from a well.  God has the power to make the most unwilling willing, and to turn hearts of stone into hearts of flesh! God literally drags us into the kingdom and makes believers out of us!

The big issue is whether God draws all and if He does, does He draw them equally? And if all are wooed, why do some not respond?   The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:29-30 says that whom He foreknew He called.  There is a general gospel call given to all the world (cf. Titus 2:11), but the inner calling of the Holy Spirit is only given to the elect. (cf. Acts 2:32).  "The elect obtained unto it, and the rest were hardened,"  (cf. Rom. 11:7). "As many as were elected believed..." (Acts 13:48).  We are commanded to call all because we do not know whom the elect are, but God looks on the heart and knows those who are His.  God doesn't draw all equally, because some need more work than others and are given more grace ("Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more," according to Rom. 5:20).

The Arminian will not admit that God doesn't draw some at all, but leaves them in their sin. (Passing them by is called preterition).   God reserves the right to have mercy on whom He will have mercy according to Romans 9:15.  No one can resist God's will according to Romans 9:19 and if God decides to save someone, they will get saved--He is determined to bring about the salvation of the elect at the appointed time.  This brings up the issue or doctrine of preterition, which is when God passes over the non-elect so that they will receive the justice of God and not the mercy of God. He doesn't work fresh evil in their hearts but simply lets them go their way of sin and follow their hearts in the flesh, enslaved to sin.

"No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them," (cf. John 6:44).  We cannot respond to the gospel apart from the wooing, and this wooing  guarantees that we will respond to the gospel message--the Greek word elko means "to compel by irresistible superiority." Arminians like the word "woo" because it doesn't sound authoritarian, but that is downgrading God's omnipotence and sovereignty.  Arminians believe God may only draw those He sees will respond, but cannot say why God doesn't woo the others who fail to come to Christ.  Perhaps it is the intensity of the wooing! We cannot attribute some merit to ourselves for responding to the wooing ministry, for salvation is by grace alone.

The big question is why some people respond and others don't.  According to Scripture, we are called according to His purpose and grace and to the pleasure of His good will, nothing inherent in us to boast of.  "What do you have that you didn't receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7).  We have no inherent virtue or wisdom to qualify us for the kingdom. The only explanation is that faith is a gift from God and the result of regeneration not the cause of it--we don't conjure it up, but faith is not achieved but given.  We believer through grace. (Acts 18:27).  

However, the Arminian believes some respond favorably because of something in them such as being less biased or smarter, which makes salvation is ultimately based on their merit and works and not grace and faith.  If  you can come to God in faith without being regenerated, what good is it?  There is a tug on the heart as the elect hears the gospel message ("Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word of God" according to Rom. 10:17).        Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is Saving Faith?

You gotta have faith!  How big is your God, not how big is your faith?  It depends on the strength of our God, not our faith.  Without faith, you cannot please God! (Cf. Heb. 11:6).  A real, genuine faith is one that grows and is not static or going nowhere.  True faith consists of right knowledge (you cannot subscribe to heresy), assent or agreement, and trust or reliance on it.  We don't have blind faith, for we have sound reasons to believe and don't believe in spite of the evidence.  We don't believe something we know isn't true--there is ample and compelling circumstantial evidence for the open-minded and willing person--no one can say there is lack of evidence.  We don't have faith in faith, but in the object of Christ (the object saves not the faith).  Faith is a verb and entails action:  "By faith Abraham obeyed ..." and so forth.  It is a matter of the will--it is volitional.  We choose to believe of our own ("If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know..." (cf. John 7:17, ESV), but God quickens faith in us and makes us alive--dead people cannot believe!

We must take the leap of faith from the seed planted.  Faith is not a work (if it were we would have merit before God, but we are not saved by works).   If it were a work, we would foul it up somehow!   The faith you have is the faith you show:  Paul says, "I'll show you my works by my faith," while James says, "I'll show you my faith by my works."  We are saved by faith alone, according to the Reformation doctrine, but not by a faith that is alone.  Works are no substitute for faith, but only evidence of it, as we are saved unto works, not by works.

The theological axiom applies:  "Only he who is obedient believes, only he who believes is obedient." Obedience is the only true test of faith and they are correlated in Hebrews 3:18 and John 3:36. The obedience of faith separates the bogus profession of faith and the reality of faith as seen in Acts 6:7 ("... [M]any of the priests became obedient to the faith") and Romans 1:5.  You must trust and obey! (Mark 10:9 says, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder.")

Faith is given, not achieved--it is the gift of God and we do not conjure it up.   It is the work of God as His gift, but we must use it and take the leap.  "... [H]e greatly helped those who through grace had believed" (Acts 18:27, ESV).  But there is a difference between head belief and heart belief:  the demons also believe and tremble!  The first step to faith is a positive attitude expressed in listening, then understanding with the mind, then believing with the heart, and finally trusting and relying on will or volition.  The result:  "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope"  (Romans 15:13, ESV).

What is the progression of faith?  Openness to the truth (unbelievers reject the truth), acceptance of the gospel message, willingness to obey God's will in relinquishment, surrender to the Lordship of Christ, and self-denial and willingness to follow Jesus.  We must give up, surrender, and commit to what we know is true.  The elements of faith in progression are:  Knowing, reckoning, yielding, obeying, trusting, delighting, committing, waiting, and anticipating.

Its logical conclusion is a relationship with Jesus with a love for Him--"[T]hough you have not seen him, you love him (cf. 1 Pet. 1:8, ESV). Faith begets fruit and works, no fruit, no faith!  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"  (John 14:15, ESV).  Note that no one has perfect faith:  God requires only sincere, unfeigned faith according to 1 Tim. 1:5 says:  "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (ESV). Final Caveat: Beware of easy-believism whereby one thinks he is saved by merely believing without submitting to His lordship.  Soli Deo Gloria!

On Cloud Nine

Is it realistic to expect Christians to always have their minds literally focused on Christ?  Hebrews 3:1; 12:2 says:  "Looking to Jesus...."  He is our Exemplar and the one to emulate.  Put everything in respect to the Lord first.  The only philosophy or worldview that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point and premier focus.  We are not to be so heavenly minded, we are no earthly good, it is well said. This means don't have the perspective of man but see things through Christ's eyes and remembering Him at every opportunity--keeping the door of prayer open. We can be doing the most menial task and do it with the Lord in mind, as unto the Lord and in the name of the Lord, but we must concentrate on the job at hand and not try to multitask.  "Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD with slackness..." (Jer. 48:10, ESV).

Being a believer doesn't entail that we neglect the mundane because it is not spiritual.  Scripture warrants no distinguishing between sacred and secular duties--they are all to be done as unto the Lord! We need a disciplined mind that redeems the time for the Lord and makes the most of the opportunity given us. You cannot walk in the glow of some mystical or surreal experience for the rest of your life and think that is being spiritual.  God honors faith and a faith walk more than going by feelings or being dependent on them. Faith is what pleases God (cf. Heb. 11:6).

When we bring glory to God through our works we are minding heavenly things.  The goal of our thoughts and the pleasure of our thinking should be heavenly as we delight in the things of God in heaven: "Delight yourself in the LORD..." (cf. Psalm 37:4).  As we walk with the Lord in fellowship we enjoy His presence and blessing on our life, and we can see things in light of eternity as we have a more abundant life and live life to the fullest. 

Cloistered virtue is no virtue:  The monks of the dark ages would escape from the world to meditate in monasteries and their retreat from the world's cares was thought to make them "holy." ("Holier than thou" is more like it!)  God has put us in the world, but we are not part of it (cf. John 15:19).

We do not live for the here and now, as the heathen do, but in light of eternity and in preparation for the coming of the Lord.  When we see things from the divine viewpoint in Christ's perspective, we can live confidently and keep focused on what's really important--"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..." (cf. Matt. 6:33).   I know of no greater joy than of doing the Lord's work and if I can see that what I am doing has His blessing I enjoy it all the more--we live for the approbation and applause of our Savior, not man's approval.  If we are ready to meet our Maker we have certainly gotten our minds focused on the eternal and have put everything into perspective.

The more we treasure things in heaven and the more we have at stake here, the more focused we will be on heavenly things.  Once you've experienced the joy of the Lord, you will not settle for the cheap thrills of this life and what it has to offer.  We don't chase earthly fantasies or dreams that have no spiritual benefit. We need heavenly goals and a divine purpose, setting our plans on something that will outlast this life and count in eternity. 

An example of a heavenly philosophy would be:  I want to be a great Christian with a great commitment to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.  Having the right mindset (getting our thinking straightened out) will give us endurance and orientation to face the trials and tribulations of life--our attitude counts.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Going By The Rules

"And Samuel said, 'Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?  Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams"  (1 Sam. 15:22, ESV).

"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye" (Psalm 32:8, ESV).

"The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip"  (Psalm 37:31, ESV).

"... [T]o bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all nations"  (Rom. 1:5, ESV).

"... [A]nd a great number of priests were becoming obedient to the faith"  (Acts 6:7, NASB).

"And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him"  (Acts 5:32, ESV).

"But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" (Luke 11:28, ESV).

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (James 1:22, ESV).

"You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14, ESV).

"Make me to know your ways, O LORD, teach me your paths" (Psalm 25:4, ESV).

God is angry at the people of Judah because of their ignorance ("Therefore, my people go into exile for lack of knowledge" per Is. 5:13, ESV and "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ...," Hos. 4:6a, ESV).  Jeremiah 8:7 (ESV) says in a similar vein:  "... [B]ut my people know not the rules of the LORD."  The people of God do not know the way:  "Then I said, 'These are only the poor; they have no sense; for they do not know the way of the LORD, the justice of their God'" (Jeremiah 5:4, ESV).  Micah echoes a similar controversy of the LORD:  "But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD; they do not understand his plan...."   Hosea says "a people without understanding shall come to ruin" in verse 4:14 (ESV).

The very essence of knowing Jesus is applying that knowledge in doing what Jesus would do; however, one must first know Him and learn of Him to do that (What would Jesus do?).  But we don't imitate Jesus, we let Him live through us.  "I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20, ESV).  This defines a life of inhabitation, not imitation.  According to the aforementioned passage, the Christian life is about relinquished life, the exchanged life, substituted, inhabited, and the surrendered life.

Remember what is says about the Israelites in Judges 21:25, where each man did what was right in his own eyes, for they had no king. Obedience is the true test of faith according to Dietrich Bonhoeffer:  "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he is obedient who believes."  See how they are correlated and can be distinguished, but not separated, as seen in Heb. 3:18 (ESV):  "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?  So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief." "Obey your leaders and submit to them ..." (Heb. 13:17, ESV).  We have an easier yoke than the Jews in obeying the will of God and not the yoke of the Law.

There are some legalistic Christians who can't have enough rules and measure their spirituality or piety by how well they keep them--basically inclined to refrain from doing pleasurable things, and not following the Lord in the positive things.  The problem arises when they make up their own rules that "go beyond that which is written" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6, ESV).  Baptists have always been known as being rule-obsessed and for what they don't do, rather than what they do do.  The Pharisees of Jesus' day were also ruleS-obsessed and had over 600 additional prohibitions and commands to the 613 laws of Moses. You practically had to be a scribe or lawyer to be able to know your way around the law and its loopholes.

On the other hand, Jesus' yoke is easy and His burden is light.  Their rules were simply traditions of men and nullified the grace of God and made their worship in vain    ("[I]n vain do they worship me teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," says Mark 7:7 in the ESV). For instance, they had made the Sabbath a burden when Jesus said in Mark 2:27 that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man!  There were not supposed to be any hard and fast rules as to what was forbidden and God never defined what "work" was.  Salvation is not Jesus plus obeying church rules such as tithing, nor Jesus plus Sabbath keeping, nor Jesus plus asceticism, fasting, or self-denial, nor Jesus plus secret knowledge, nor even Jesus plus church, nor Jesus plus anything--we must realize that it is by Jesus alone since our faith must be in Christ alone.

In Martin Luther's time, the Antinomians arose who said, "Freed from the Law, O blessed condition, now I can sin all I want and still have remission."  The point of salvation is that we are freed from the power of the law and sin and are no longer under the law--the law cannot condemn us, claim us, nor control us (see Romans 8:1-4)!  As Christians, we are not under the law (see Romans 6:14), but we are not lawless.  We are not free to do as we want, but as we ought!  We have been given the power to obey God and to overcome sin, instead of being its slave.  The problem arises when we go beyond that which is written according to 1 Cor. 4:6 and make up our own laws as we go along, instead of obeying the Word.  The only test of faith is obedience and the Christian has a supernatural yearning to obey the Lord through the Word in love as a motive ("... The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love," says Gal. 5:6, ESV).

To cite an example, let's say that you don't believe in drinking.  It may be a no-no for you! Fine, but you cannot make an ironclad biblical case for being a teetotaler.  Paul clearly says in 1 Cor. 6:12 that all things are lawful, but we are not to be enslaved by anything.  The point is that we don't want to be brought under the power of any sin (Psalm 119:133 says not to let any sin have dominion over us). Some sects are known for being highly "religious" or legalistic and forget that Christianity is about knowing the Lord, not following rules that are unbiblical. True, Christianity is not about a list of do's and don'ts or some catalog of rules or being moral and ethical.  It can be said:  Evil is being good without God, and that is where some people err in believing the essence of Christianity is about obeying the Golden Rule.

There are many commands in the Bible and God's moral code has not been rescinded--we are not free to covet our neighbor's wife, just because we are not under the law.  But true believers don't do it because they have to, or even want to, but because they feel they get to--we get to go to church, we get to pray, we get to witness for Christ.  If you haven't reached that point in spirituality where you want to please your Maker and Lord you may just see the Christian life as a list of rules.  If Christianity were just about rules you could compare your "performance" with another's and measure thereby your spirituality, but Paul says:  "Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves.  But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding" (2 Cor. 10:12, ESV).

The Bible never gives us the right to do what is wrong, nor sanctions us the right to do what is right in our own eyes as spiritual lone rangers. The problem arises when we obey the letter of the law without respect to the spirit of the law.  Antinomians have a distaste for the law and are anti-law. They think that freedom meant license to sin or disobedience to the moral code.  "Do we then overflow [make void] the law by this faith?  By no means!  On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31, ESV)  Romans 6:1 (ESV) says, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means!  How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

Even though the essence of Christianity is a relationship with the living God, the New Testament does list rules to live by and guides to our spirituality (i.e., praying without ceasing, in everything giving thanks, abstaining from all appearance of evil, etc., per 1 Thess. 5:17ff).  We are not to become morally lax simply because we are free in Christ.  People who are rule-obsessed tend to major on the minors and miss the point of a relationship with Christ.  We have to beware of elevating tradition to the level of law and binding people where they ought to be free.  Christianity is not about making bad people good, but dead people alive (in a vital relationship with Christ).

Christians are regenerate but also have two natures: The old nature knows no law; the new nature needs no law.  The question is which one will they let rule their life?  To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life, says Paul.  The Christian lives by a higher law: The law of love and knows that love is the fulfillment of the law!  "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8, ESV).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Critique Of The Catholic Tradition

Back in 1517 the professor and Augustinian monk Martin Luther said in effect, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest" to the church of Rome and nailed the famous 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church All Souls in Wittenberg, Saxony, on Halloween night.  Since then there have been irreconcilable differences between the faiths and this started the Reformation, which brought about the Counter-Reformation of the Catholics at the Council of Trent, 1545-63.  In effect, they condemned the Protestants and anyone who believed in their formula of salvation dogma (church accepted doctrine) which is salvation by faith alone (they pronounced them "anathema" or cursed). Justification by faith alone became the battle cry of the Reformation.  Note that the Catholics condemn Protestants, and not the reverse as they said in Vatican Council II that one cannot be saved apart from the Church or that "it is necessary for salvation." What Protestants rejected was that Roman Catholicism is mainly a religion because it adds merit to grace and works to faith and doesn't rely solely upon Christ alone in faith, but faith also in the Church or Pope.  Catholicism is primarily a tradition that adherents follow without questioning authority.

The point of disagreement lies not in the deity of Christ or the infallibility of Scripture but in the doctrine of soteriology or of the study of salvation.  We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and the authority is in Scripture alone.  Catholics take issue at all these points:  They add merit to grace; works to faith; faith in the Church or Pope to Christ; and tradition and the Church to Scripture. Catholics believe that the instrumental means of salvation are the sacraments and as the Church administers them in baptism Holy Communion.  Protestants believe the instrumental means is faith and this is a gift of God so that we cannot boast.  Protestants see Christ as our Mediator (see 1 Tim. 2:5) while Catholics have declared Mary as Co-Redeemer or and Co-Mediator or Mediatrix. Protestants see all believers as priests unto God and we don't need a priesthood.  All believers have the authority to interpret Scripture, however, the responsibility and obligation to do it correctly, and not just the priest, for no prophecy of Scripture is of a "private interpretation" according to  2 Pet. 1:20.

Protestants have nothing against tradition as long as it complies with Scripture or doesn't contradict it. For example, where Catholics have unbiblical traditions or are out of sync or harmony with Scripture are traditions such as:  Believing the Church is built on Peter, the first Pope; there is a purgatory to purge of sin; prayers can be said to Mary and the dead saints (invocation of saints); images are made to kneel and pray before; the mass and sacraments are needed for salvation; salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church; in communion, the elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation); penance is for the restoration of fellowship; the notion that indulgences are made for the dead in purgatory; veneration and worship of Mary; holy water; canonization of saints; the celibacy of priests; and the repetition of the Rosary.  None of these are based on Scripture and in fact contradict sound doctrine.

Other traditions include the addition of nuns, monks, monasteries, convents, Lent, Ash Wednesday, Holy Week, All Saints Day, declaring the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church (per Col. 1:18 Jesus is Head), the infallibility of the Pope, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. Basically, the problem lies in the fact that they attribute tradition as having equal authority as Scripture.  Whereas, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees:  "... [T]heir teachings are but rules taught by men."

Vatican II said in the 1960's on the Ecumenism:  "For it is through the Catholic Church alone, which is the all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."


This is where contention arose:  Their spirit of exclusion and condemnation which is not based on Scriptural support but only edict and tradition of Rome [declared at the Council of Trent] and the Papists.  Read the blasphemy of Pope Pius the Ninth, the first "infallible" Pope in 1870:  "I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor to the apostles and Vicar to Christ.  I alone have the mission to guide and direct the ship of Peter.  I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  They who are with me are with the Church.  They who are not with me are out of the Church."   The Bible says that Christ is the Rock and there is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:4 that "that Rock" was Christ.  They see Peter as the "rock" but Christ only called him "Petros" or rock in Greek, and the truth he expressed as "Petra" or foundation rock" in Greek that would be the Rock of His church.  This church position is highly sectarian (Paul condemns sectarianism in 1 Cor. 1) and is exclusive.

Their veneration of the Virgin Mary as the tradition was declared at the Vatican in 1994 as follows:  "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.  The church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.  ... The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary."  [Mat. 1:25 says that Joseph had "no union" with Mary until "she gave birth" implying losing her virginity, while Mark 6 and Mat. 13 list Jesus' brothers.] Praying to Mary contravenes the example of the Apostles and seeing her as sinless contradicts her addressing God as her Savior in the Magnificat. The obeisance to Mary was exemplified by Pope John Paul II in May of 1991 when he went to Fatima in Portugal and placed a crown of diamonds on a statue of Mary for saving his life from an assassination attempt. This is no less than the so-called hyper-elevation of Mary and seeing her as without sin through the immaculate conception and crowned as Queen of Heaven.  Pope Leo the Twelfth said, "No one can approach Christ except through the Mother."  He also said, "... [Nothing] according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary."  None of these dogmas are warranted in Scripture and undermine the gospel and the Incarnation.

In short, Rome has declared that there is no higher authority than the Pope, who they see as the direct successor of Peter, who they say was the first Pope [But Paul put him in his place, even accusing him of hypocrisy] and is head of the Church, and in order to be saved one must be subject to his authority, making Protestants heretics.  Relying on Mat. 16:18-19 they say Peter was given "the keys" but Jesus makes it clear in John 20:23 that the right to forgive was given to all the apostles and this was clearly delineated in Scripture--Acts 10:43 says all who believe in Jesus are forgiven!  Roman Catholics always refer to Mat. 16:18-19.  Catholics say Jesus was just talking to Peter when He gave authority, but Peter is the subset of the larger band of disciples and this is reading into the Scripture or eisegesis and to justify their understanding of the church and of the legitimacy of a Pope,  they are taking the verse out of context--the full analogy of Scripture, that is; for Scripture is its own interpreter (see John 20:23) and it never contradicts itself. It isn't wrong to call someone a heretic if you can prove it by Scripture, but they just declare it by church dogma and tradition and cannot base it on any biblical authority. Protestants believe the Bible is sufficient to rule our faith and we don't need tradition, which is acceptable only as it is concordant with Scripture and not in conflict with biblical dogma.  In sum, Roman Catholics believe there is no higher authority than the Pope and it is necessary to be subject to him for salvation [decreed by Pope Boniface the Eighth, in his Bull of 1302].  The reason they accept this is tradition and they believe in tradition as equal validity as the Bible.  Everyone must ultimately ask himself:  What is your rule of faith?

In the final analysis, if you find yourself compromising your faith or not believing sound doctrine is important and worth sticking to, or not sticking to your guns, you are on the way to a falling away. You must be in the know or be privy to what this religion stands for so you will be prepared when God opens the door for you to testify of the truth--He who is of the truth will listen. The adage it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere is fallacious.  Paul spoke of Israel as having a "zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (cf. Rom. 10:2, ESV).   We do not judge Catholic counterparts, but we must be willing to take a stand for the truth when the time is right.

As a quick litmus test of orthodoxy, ask a Catholic friend if he believes in free will.  Augustine said we did with reservations:  We have a free will, but we are not freed.  We are set free upon salvation, not born free--i.e., we don't have liberty, but are voluntary slaves of sin.   Rome has condemned anyone who doesn't affirm the Catholic doctrine of absolute free will--they believe the will is not affected by the fall of Adam, in other words, but remains in a neutral position freely able to choose Christ apart from God's intervention and aid.  Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (cf. John 15:5).  If left to ourselves, none of us would've chosen Christ!

Free will introduces merit and makes some worthy of salvation by their free choice.  A pertinent verse is Romans 9:19 which says, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'"  Another is John 1:13 which says we are not saved by the will of man but of God! If you came to Christ on your own, you probably left Him on your own!  Jesus plainly said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him"  (John 6:44, ESV).  And:  "... [T]his is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father"  (John 6:65, ESV).  This is commonly called the "wooing" or drawing ministry of the Holy Spirit who empowers us unto faith by quickening our spirit and opening our eyes.  We didn't choose our nature and we are only clay in the Potter's hands, but we are free to act according to our God-given nature, disposition, or temperament.  Who said we need free will to be saved--we need our wills made free!  "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure"  (Phil. 2:13, ESV).

The Bible says not to be unequally yoked, and this means you must have a mutual respect and understanding in your faiths, but not necessarily to be of the same denomination.  You must be able to pray together if you want to stay together.  If there is one thing that'll change your theology in a hurry it's falling in love!  Caveat:  The husband is in the role of the spiritual head of the family and must not be derelict or remiss in his duties to take charge and lead.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Suffer The Little Children

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven"  (Matt. 19:14, KJV).  Jesus welcomed children with open arms and blessed them when his disciples thought to rebuke them that He had no time in a day when children were of little worth in a man's world. The kingdom of God belongs to them in the sense of being grandfathered in to be included in God's blessings until they reach the age of accountability and know good from evil (per Isaiah 7:16).  We are to consider them in and treat them that way.  Children have the faith of their parents and haven't really developed a personal relationship with Christ--they are just beginning to know Him through those who teach and their family members.  You must have faith in Christ alone and that means not in Christ plus your parents or plus family ties--where would that faith be if the family fails.  Children can even be confirmed in the faith and not be saved, just having gone through the motions and memorized the Dance of the Pious.

Children can comprehend a great deal of spiritual truth and be enlightened, and even taste of the heavenly gift, and share in the Holy Spirit per Hebrews 6 (but these matters do not prove salvation), and love of Bible stories or preaching without coming to a complete spiritual apprehension--which is pending their decision to follow Christ and deny themselves. Even having the ability to discuss Bible doctrine or knowing one's way around Scripture is no proof of salvation.  They are incapable of making a decision to take up a cross at such an early age and their faith isn't confirmed until it is tested by God as if by fire, because it is more valuable than silver or gold. The gospel message must be presented clearly enough to be rejected, but not an easy-believism, which undermines it.  You aren't saved until you get convicted, realize you are lost and are converted through saving faith and genuine repentance, and most children cannot adequately articulate how they met Jesus and it transformed their life--for giving public testimony of Jesus is part of salvation ("For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved," says Romans 10:10, ESV).

Just liking church, doing church, or loving Jesus (you aren't saved by loving Jesus or your idea of Him) and so forth are not salvation--they are responding to their own world as they know it, and would love Buddha or Confucius if they were Asian--our emotional experiences can be duplicated in other religions.  Children are very impressionable and can be influenced even to be suicide bombers at that age of innocence.  The point is that we should bring them up in the training and nurture of the Lord and in the fear of God and God promises that our efforts of teaching them will bear fruit some day.  "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it," (cf. Prov. 22:6).  This refers to exposure to the admonition of the Lord.

Don't be so quick to believe a superficial testimony of a child who is incapable of discerning true spiritual truth.  What happens is that they have their parents faith and haven't developed their own until they get out on their own and in the real world and get tested.  Just because Parents stand in loco Dei or in the place of God and represent His authority as authority figures don't mean they can lord it over them without biblical sanction.  Children owe their parents due respect and affection just the same. In my estimation, it is next to impossible to "save" your children, however, you can lead them in the way of truth--and commend them to God and the Word of truth.  They are just the first lesson of relationship that the children are exposed to and must pass this test to go on to know the Lord.

All you can hope is that your labor was not in vain and God will take care of them, as you submit to His nurture and providence.  We instill truth in them as seeds that God will cause to grow and germinate someday unto salvation.  We are to treat all children as if they belong to the kingdom, and woe unto him that causes one of these to stumble in whatever faith he has.  But I believe that there comes a time to leave the bosom of the family, and they call it that because it's a sheltered environment, and then you must prove your faith is genuine and not just second-hand.  Jesus said we must be willing to renounce our family ties and allegiance to all other loyalties, and even love Him more than father or mother.  Remember, Christianity is not a way of life, but a vital, vibrant, and growing first-hand and personal relationship with the living God and Savior.  And it is no easy step to leave the hearth and cut the umbilical cord to find one's true identity in God without the aid of the familiar domicile.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Beginning Afresh

I have been asked if I wanted to start my own church or even religion, because I have a way of making impressions on people with my so-called "knowledge." If you want to start a church, you must wonder if you are a control freak and refusing to submit to one another in the body of Christ. I have been known to leave a church or two out of disagreement that could've been settled, but I admit I wanted things my way. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself:  "Who do you think you are?" By whose authority are you founding a church?  Are all the gifts of the Spirit available? Consider 1 Cor. 14:26 as an example of a church meeting where all gifts contribute.  Having a preacher doesn't make a fellowship a church--the church is a family and an organism with all parts of the body active and using its various spiritual gifts.  Just what gift do you think you have?  You never win by quitting because God isn't a quitter. I have heard it said that it doesn't matter who's right, but whose left!  The goal is faithfulness: "He who endures to the end shall be saved." If you start the "perfect church" it isn't perfect because you are in it!  "Loyalty is better than sacrifice" according to 1 Sam. 15:22.

Sectarian or cult leaders usually manifest a few given traits:  They warp the truth with their own personal take on doctrine;  they are sheep-stealers or proselytizers who don't begin with converting the unsaved; they are on a side-issue or invested in a novelty that distorts the truth to fit their fancy; they never are members of a larger fellowship, but think they have cornered the market on truth; they usually are led by charismatic figures or ones with a great personality and are devoted to them; and they don't see themselves as belonging to Christ alone, who purchased them. You must ask:  Is this a sect, or a bona fide church?

The issue at hand is whether the average Christian has the authority to start his own church just because he is in disagreement and is not content for some reason--it is really the sin of rebellion against authority duly established by God.  Cult leaders like the Rev. Jim Jones of the People's Temple were in rebellion long before their church slid into apostasy without the anchors of God's authority through the Word--they thought they were getting God's Word right from the horse's mouth! Church splits, which are really sectarianism, are always wrong and God has only allowed them for the same reason He permits divorce--due to the hardness of men's hearts.  Paul always urged church leaders to get along and work things out, not to react and go overboard to start all over from square one by building a new church.  New churches are not to be built on someone's else's territory but from where Christ in not preached--it is the cults who proselytize and steal sheep.  Even members of your own family are not your sheep but the church's at large and to pull the rug from under them is to uproot what God has done and destroy His work and labor of love.

Just think if everyone who disagreed with church policy or the pastor's sermon decided to begin a new church.  We don't need more churches, we need the truth--so take a stand!--and more Christians. The church is an institution in loco Dei (in place of God) and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft according to 1 Samuel 15:23.   In determining morality the end or purpose has to be considered as well as the motive or methodology--both the means and the ends have to be justified.  You should ask yourself:  What if everyone did it and wanted his own way?  What kind of precedent are you setting?

When we come to faith in Christ we are making a commitment and that is realized largely through interaction with the church community. There is a degree of loyalty to the church that we owe because we are fed and in their spiritual care.  Lack of church loyalty is a sign (though not the absolute standard) that a person is disloyal to Christ and unwilling to accept authority.  When you join a new church you are, in effect, starting all over and beginning afresh spiritually from the bottom of the ladder to success.  When you start a new church you must wonder whether you have authority to start at the top and whether you have God's blessing on what you are doing and it isn't just a whim.

There are times when we must begin all over, but this is after apostasy or backsliding.  The Bible doesn't admonish us to start in a new church but to face the music and do the responsible and adult thing like admit your failure and seek help.  We are not to run away from our problems, or worse yet, run away from God Himself!  Sometimes people have invested a lot in us and to write them off or to give them the shaft is not the loving thing to do and means we don't love our brother.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The One And Only

Are there any parallels between Jesus and any other great man of religion? Muhammad amassed an army of 10,000 to set out to conquer (killing thousands), while Jesus conquered hearts in His invisible kingdom through love ("My kingdom is not of this world"). Buddha, which means "Enlightened One," (while Jesus claimed to be the Light) and Buddha's real name was Siddhartha Gautama, and he came from an affluent Hindu family and lived a sheltered life in childhood. Muhammad and his followers looted and pillaged caravans, while Jesus had no flaws in morality and his followers aimed to live by his code of love.  Jesus was from a working-class family, while Buddha had privilege, Muhammad, a camel driver, married a rich woman 15 years his senior and then took to meditation.  Buddha left his wife and son to become an ascetic, while Jesus never married, was tempted of the devil for 40 days in the wilderness, and had a close-knit band of followers, both male and female to the very end, and Muhammad set out with his army in at least 66 battles.  Buddha was appalled at the suffering of his day, while Jesus was a man suffering, and acquainted with grief, even dying on a cross willingly. Buddha set out merely to reform Hinduism, while Christ was the fulfillment of Judaism and the prophecies.  Buddha claimed that his mother was impregnated by a six-tusked white elephant, while Jesus was born of a virgin woman in fulfillment of a prophecy made 700 years prior--the kind of life He lived would be consistent with this.

George Gordon, Lord Byron, the great Romantic poet, said that "if ever a man were God or God were a man, Jesus was both!"  John Stuart Mill, considered by some to be the most intelligent man to have ever lived, said Jesus was the "guide of mankind." Bertrand Russell, the atheist philosopher, said that "what the world needs is more Christian love and compassion"--people emulate Jesus like no other man as the epitome of love in action.  Will Durant said that Jesus is the dominant figure of Western Civilization.  No one predecessor is His equal and no successor meets His standards of perfection and lawlessness.

Jesus, Himself, challenged His enemies to convict Him of sin.  Even the Koran says that He was without sin.  The crassest heretics have not denied his sin-free life either. He was flawless, whereas Muhammad had his flaws. Buddha couldn't have been perfect and didn't even claim it--he was agnostic--because he claimed to have come to "Enlightenment" after his search under the bo tree near the river Gaya, and therefore couldn't have always known the way, while Jesus confounded the Pharisees at the age of 12 and knew the business of His Father, and didn't claim to know the way but to be the way--Buddha didn't believe in God, and said that, if there was one, He couldn't help you find enlightenment, because you must find it on your own.

You cannot compare Jesus with any other man (you can only contrast), for He is alone and incomparable:  His character was unique (flawless, without sin, and it is said that He is in a moral category by Himself, and it has been well said that His character supports His claims); His conduct was unprecedented (He forgave His enemies on the cross, and He invariably practiced what He preached); His claims were unparalleled (made Himself the Son of God--no other religious leader such as Muhammad or Buddha, an agnostic, has said this); and His credentials were unequaled (His life didn't belie but confirmed His claims, His miracles were true signs and consistent with his nature, and not just for show or selfish reason of profit, and even His enemies acknowledge His character). The caliber of His life was such that no one could challenge His answers and authority, and accuse Him of wrongdoing or sin.

The founders of other faiths are known for what they said, Jesus is primarily known for who He was and what He did--that He claimed to be the Son of God, died on the cross, and rose from the dead! Any man can claim to be God for instance, (but you need credentials and character), but to prove it by rising from the dead is quite another!  It has been said that the kind of life Jesus lived verified His claims and you would expect the Son of God to behave like Him--there is no ungodliness or weakness in His person. There is everything we would want in a man to worship and adore and He doesn't fall short of any ideal or standard, but only inspires even the greatest of men--even Napoleon proclaimed Him to be no mere man and he claimed to know men.

Jesus lived in obscurity as a common man without privilege: He had no army, yet He conquered millions; He never wrote a word, yet He inspired more books and inspired more literature than anyone else; He had no riches, yet He made many rich; He had no formal education, yet He was the greatest teacher to have ever lived.  Jesus was not born into privilege or opportunity, but into an average working family and knew what the average man went through in daily life from personal experience.  He confounded the Pharisees with His brilliance at the age of twelve with His questions and answers concerning the Scriptures.  There was no duplicity in Him, for He practiced what He preached, yet He condemned hypocrisy in others.  Though men have conquering armies, Jesus conquered hearts and many millions would die for Him.

Who was the greatest leader of all time? Who has done the kind of miracles that have never been duplicated?   Who was the greatest teacher? Who gave us the highest ethic or moral code to live by? Who lived the holiest life of all men?  Who has the most followers and worshipers of all time? Who was the greatest philosopher or "un-philosopher" of all time?  Who has done the best for mankind? Who had the greatest personality of all time? Who sets the highest standards to live by? Who had a more profound impact on civilization, either direct or indirect (inspiring the building of hospitals, universities, orphanages, charities, and missions)?

All other men pale in comparison to Christ and no one can meet His standards of holiness.  Usually, familiarity breeds contempt, but not so with the disciples who were near Him--they never stopped admiring His perfection and even worshiped Him.  What Jesus did, no man can do and we don't compare Jesus with others but contrast them:  We don't say, "Jesus the Great," though we say Alexander the Great, or Peter the Great, for even that is an insult and do Him injustice; what we do is contrast Jesus with others and make Him the standard to judge all of mankind by.  If God became a man, what kind of man would you expect Him to be?

Of the greatest men who have ever lived, none have dared to claim to be God in the flesh or the one and only way to God.  Jesus didn't claim to be the best way to God, nor one of many ways, but the one and the only way to the Father.  Only Jesus had the "words of eternal life" and showed us the Way. He didn't claim to be telling us the truth, but that He was the incarnation of truth itself  ("I am the truth").  He said that all who are "of the truth" will hear Him, but unbelievers are those who reject the truth. In all of recorded history, no one has matched His personality and life! Many books can claim to be true, but only God's Word is Truth with a capital T, and the testimony is this: nature forms you, sin deforms you, education informs you, prison reforms you, but only Christ transforms you!

The New Testament books are not to be compared with the writings of other religions where so-called miracles are attributed, for they were written within a generation of the events and by eye-witnesses--not compiled centuries later.  The difference between Christ's miracles and those of other faiths is that they were signs of His deity, and not just fantastic, for a show, or for personal advantage. You can take the miracles out of Islam, for example, and the religion remains intact, but if you remove the miracles from the Bible you disembowel it and make it nothing.  Without miracles, Jesus would have only been a footnote in history and not worth following.   Even Muhammad believed Christ performed miracles and he did none himself (there are none in the Koran)--only years later did writers ascribe some to him.

After the crucifixion, His own followers were ready to write Him off and go on living as if they had wasted three years of their life.   It was the miracle (the great sign that He would give) and the fact of the resurrection that turned a disbanded and demoralized group of followers into roaring lions of the faith, who were not afraid of the authorities anymore, nor of death itself.  If God were to become a man, you would expect Him to be like Jesus and do miracles and Jesus foots the bill and doesn't let us down on any count.  It is one thing to claim to be God and quite another to prove it and have people die for your claims! "He spoke like no other man ever spoke"--with authority (He didn't say, "Thus says the Lord, but, "I say unto you.").

The Christian scholar Philip Schaff portrays Christ graphically as follows:

This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Muhammad, and Napoleon; without science and learning shed more light on matters human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

Nothing can explain Him, except the profound hypothesis that He is the living Son of God!   We don't compare Christ, we contrast Him who is in a league of His own as the one who claimed to be God in the flesh or incarnated--you can rest assured of this:  No one will ever improve on Jesus! As John Stuart Mill (considered one of the most brilliant minds of all time and an atheist) said he is "a unique figure not more unlike all his predecessors than all his followers,"

The problem with most would-be messiahs is that their character doesn't support their claims and the problem is that familiarity breeds contempt with men, but there is no discrepancy with Christ--his character does not disprove His deity, but it is consistent with it and confirms it.  No one, not even a psychiatrist could analyze Him as unbalanced despite His claims.  Christ is beyond our analysis (no one can figure Him or peg Him) and we can only be in awe as we wonder what kind of man would we expect the Son of God to be.  Who can understand a man who washes His disciple's feet, yet claims to be the Judge of mankind?   Soli Deo Gloria!

Consequences Of The Resurrection...

If Christ has not risen, our faith is in vain according to the Apostle Paul.  The resurrection is the Rock of Gibraltar of Christianity, the linchpin and crux of the matter you might say because it all depends on this one event to verify Christ's claim and to give us reason to believe in an afterlife at all.  All of Christianity depends on this truth and will come tumbling down without it.  The resurrection attests to the deity of Christ as the Son of God or God manifested in the flesh, becoming man and that He won the battle that we were in.

The historicity of Christ is not questioned by any reputable historian; even atheist secular historian H. G. Wells admits the New Testament gospels were written between ca. AD 50 and AD 75--within a generation of the events and within the time-frame of there being witnesses still alive to verify the written record. Secular Humanist historian Will Durant vouches for the historicity of Jesus and dismisses the possibility of it being legend or myth, for example. Many men of learning have tried to disprove this historic event and no one has ever succeeded--some have even converted after examining the evidence that demands a verdict.  Many theories have been debunked and it all ends up showing the reliability of the record.

History by its very nature is nonrepeatable and you cannot use the scientific method to verify an event.  The substantial historicity of the resurrection is more variously proved than any other event in antiquity.  What you have to examine is the credibility and reliability or veracity of the witnesses and the dependability or accuracy of the written record not being corrupt, but preserved intact as written, The eye-witnesses were putting their lives on the line by standing up for Jesus and proclaiming His resurrection--they often were fed to the lions or burned at the stake, stoned, or crucified if they didn't recant that Jesus is Lord and admit Caesar is Lord.

Note: The test of the veracity of these apostles was their willingness to die for the faith and men usually tell the truth on the deathbed.  It is hard to keep a lie going among several men (as Watergate proved in 1973 when the most powerful 12 men in our nation couldn't keep a lie going for 3 weeks, according to Chuck Colson, Nixon's dirty-tricks man), but note that there are no inconsistencies in their testimonies--the eye-witnesses, without collusion, do not contradict each other and still tell it their own way.

The greatest sign and miracle that proves the resurrection is the way it turned a bunch of cowardly and timid, disbanded, demoralized men into roaring lions of the faith and willing to die for it as they were no longer afraid of death (why?  they believed in the resurrection!).  The authorities could tell that "these men had been with Jesus."

There are many questions that the skeptic needs to answer:  Who moved the stone?  Where was the body?  What about the numerous appearances over a period of forty days?  What about the changing of the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day in tribute? What about the way the world was turned upside down or topsy-turvy? What about the way the faith spread like wildfire in forming the church, which soon became a worldwide outreach and phenomenon?  What about the guards? What about the undisturbed grave clothes?  And what about the historical record left by eyewitnesses? Finally, how did so many believers come about?

It is because of the resurrection that we believe in an afterlife that is glorious and superior to this one and not just a spiritual existence.  It proves the Father was satisfied with the passion of Christ.  You must realize that before this most Jews were unsure whether there was a resurrection or afterlife at all!

Either this event was one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or it is the most wonderful fact of history--in fact, its climax or turning point (paraphrased from acclaimed apologist Josh McDowell).  It was no idle tale perpetrated by deliberate liars--the gospels are not the rantings and ravings of madmen or deluded diehards.  Would you risk your life for a lie? Do you know how difficult it is to perpetuate a plot and keep a lie going without a smoking gun getting out to show its falsity? You cannot rule it out by saying you don't believe in dead people coming back to life--the opposite of Christ's resurrection is that He didn't rise that people don't rise in general (He is God and not just "people").

Saying you don't believe in the resurrection does not constitute evidence in a court of law, for you are not a qualified witness of what transpired that day--and your testimony is irrelevant.  Evidence by definition is a fact that is allowable in a court of law as bona fide datum either for or against the allegation.  It has been said by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, and one of the world's leading experts on evidence said that any unbiased courtroom would declare the resurrection to be a historical fact (note that facts can be ascertained and verified by other than just the scientific method, including testimony by credible witnesses).

No matter what stand you take, it takes a leap of faith and one is believing something he cannot prove either way scientifically--the question ultimately rides on the philosophical issue of whether there is a God, and knowing that God can do whatever He desires and with Him nothing is impossible. Another factor to consider:  There is a difference between a fanatic dying for what he believes and an eye-witness dying for what he knows and is in a position to know whether it is true or not--he will not willingly die for a lie.

In the final analysis, there have been multiple theories put forth such as the disciples stealing the body, or they had hallucinations, or that Christ didn't really die, but fainted or swooned, or that the authorities stole the body; however, the record makes it clear that none of these arguments hold water and are easily dismissed--in a court of law the verdict would have to be rendered, without prejudice, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead.  Soli Deo Gloria!