reforming 'the Way'

THE GOSPEL as Spoken by Spurgeon

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:24:00 +0000

"Now if you are not clear as to the plan of salvation, you will have many jolts, much shaking, many doubts, many fears. Let me ask and entreat you, then, to search the Scriptures. For in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify of Christ. And let me beg you to endeavor, by God’s help, always to keep in mind a clear view of the fact that you are to be saved, if saved at all, by trusting in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ, alone. The plan of salvation is, “Trust in Jesus.”

Make mistakes about other things, you will suffer inconvenience. But make a mistake here and it will be fatal to you. Methinks I hear some man saying, “Sir, I have longed to be saved, but I am still uneasy and troubled in my mind. I think if I were to do good works and then to save myself by them, I might trust in Christ.” Stand back, Uzzah, stand back! You are about to touch the ark of God, beware, lest you should die while you are doing it. Other mistakes will make you uneasy—that mistake will be fatal to you. Touch the atonement of Jesus Christ and there is no salvation if you touch it with a legal hand, seeking to add to it your own self-righteousness—

“None but Jesus, none but Jesus,
Can do helpless sinners good.”

He wants no help from you. Leave Him to do it all. Take Him as He is and go to Him just as you are—do not seek to bring anything—but go as you are and you will be saved. Seek to help Christ and saved you cannot be. Until you have done with that thought, you must abide in your sorrow and in your death. No mixing with Jesus. He never came to be a makeweight. Christ must be All and you must be nothing at all. If you attempt to patch His perfect robe, that robe shall never cover your nakedness. It is covered with jewels—put one paste jewel of yours upon it and it is not yours. You must have a whole Christ and nothing but Christ.

You know the old proverb, “Betwixt the two stools he came to the ground.” When a man hopes to rely partly on Christ and partly on himself, he will come to the ground with a vengeance. Rest on Jesus simply and you are saved. Rest on Christ and self and you are like Uzzah—you have touched the ark, you have sought to mingle man’s works with God’s works—man’s merits with Christ’s merits. And tremble, lest the wrath of God should come forth against you and destroy you.

But after all, my dear Friends, you have no merits. Christ freely offers Himself to you, if you will take Him for nothing. You thought to buy Him with your merits. Why you have no merits! Shall I tell you a little parable which shall show you your position. There was a rich man who had a generous heart and once upon a time he resolved to give a large estate to a poor neighbor, so he sent for him and said, “My friend, I am willing to give you a large estate for nothing.” The man felt grateful and retired home, but as he lay in his bed he thought, “I should like that estate, but I should not like to be beholden to anybody for it. I think I will pay for it.”

So he set out the next morning with a heavy bag on his back and when he came to the rich man’s door and the friend came out, he said, “Sir, I value your estate very highly. You promised to let me have it for nothing—but I do not want to be obliged to you—so I have brought a bag all full of gold to buy it with.” The rich man said, “I never offered to sell it to you. I said I would give it to you. But come, let us look at your bag of gold.” So the poor man opened wide the mouth of the sack. He blushed and stammered and said, “Oh, Sir, be not angry with me. Now that I see it, it is nothing but a bag of silver.”

The friend said, “Look at it again.” He looked again and blushed and cried, “Let not my lord be angry, but I find it is nothing but a bag of copper.” “Look once more,” said he. He looked once more into it and he fell down on his knees and said, “Forgive me, forgive me. I find, Sir, it is a bag of filth. You see I have brought you a bag of filth with which to buy your rich estate.” You know the meaning of that parable, do you not? You have brought to God what you thought were good works, golden works—look at them—you will see them pale before you and you will say, “My Lord, they are not so good as I thought they were, they are only silver works after all.”
Look at them again and they will become dirty, brown, copper works. “Oh,” you say, “they are not worth more than a farthing now.”

Look again and you will see that your prayers, your tears, your good works, are nothing better
than filth, after all. They are only another form of sin, another shape of iniquity. Oh, Sinner, take Christ as He is—take Him now—just as you are. The Gospel is just this—trust Christ and you are saved. Rely on what He did and you are delivered. Just leave off trusting to any ceremonies, to any doctrines, to any forms, to any works, but rely on Jesus and you are saved.

“Well,” says one, “but what if I go on in sin.” After you have relied on Jesus, you cannot go on living in sin—believing in Jesus will stop you—nothing else can. “No,” says another, “but I have nothing in the world; no reason why I should be saved, I have no good thing.” Just so, I know you have not. But still you are told to trust Jesus whether you have any good thing or not. Methinks I hear someone say, “I must not trust Jesus, I have no right to do it.” But, my dear
Friend, you are commanded to do it. “God commands all men everywhere to repent.”

This is the commandment—that you believe on Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Is not this the very Gospel—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”? Now what God commands me to do I have a right to do! It cannot be wrong for me to do what God tells me to do. The minister who tells a man he has a right in his own sense of need, makes the sinner look to himself. But if he tells him, “Feel or not feel, God has commanded you to believe,” that makes the sinner turn to Christ and Christ, only. This turns his eye from himself to the Savior.

To conclude, I will tell you a little anecdote which I have often told before—it brings to mind more clearly than any other—our right to believe in Christ. I am speaking to those who say, “I have no right to trust Christ.” But if Christ commands you to do it and if, moreover, He tells you, “you are condemned already because you do not believe,” you certainly have a right to believe.
Sitting one day in Court with a Judge, interesting myself with some trials that were going on, there was wanted a witness. I am not clear about his name, but I think it was Brown. So it was said from the bench that Brown was wanted next. The usher down in the Court cried out “Brown!” Someone nearer the door cried, “Brown!” and I could hear them calling out in the street two or three times, “Brown! Brown! Brown!”

The Court was very crowded. By-and-by there came in at the Court door with a great deal of difficulty, a little, ugly, mean-looking creature. He came pushing and elbowing his way. There was a fine tall gentleman standing in the Court, looking on. He did not like to be pushed about and he said in a very peremptory manner, “Who are you?” “Brown,” said the man, “I am Brown.” “Well,” said the other, “Who is Brown?” “Nobody,” said he, “only I was told to come.”
It was wonderful how everybody made way for Brown, because he was told to come. They just cleared a lane for him and I do not suppose for my lord and duke they would have made room—they were so tightly packed—but Brown must come in anyhow, because he was wanted. It did not matter how poor he looked, how ragged, how greasy, how dirty—Brown was wanted and he had a right to come.

So now, God commands you to trust Christ. But you say, “I have committed a great big sin.” And He says, “Who are you?” You say, “A poor sinner.” “And what is a poor sinner?” says He. “Nothing at all,” you say, “but Jesus Christ told me to trust in Him. If He is wrong I leave the blame with Him, I will not keep back from Him.” He says, “Leap into My arms.” I am at the top of a burning house, Jesus Christ cries, “leap and I will catch you.” Then down I go. Dashed to pieces, or saved, I have no other way of salvation—down I go into His arms.

I am sinking, the floods are ready to swallow me up. Christ says, “Lay hold of that rope.” It looks like a frail rope, but I lay hold of it. Sink or swim I will not lay hold of anything else—but that and that alone—and I am safe. Do that, poor sinner, whoever you may be. If you have not entered a place of worship for the last six months, trust Christ now. Now, I beseech you, while the accepted hour is here, may God the Holy Spirit enable you to trust Christ.

And, though you have come in here covered with sin, you may go out with your sin washed away, peace and joy in your hearts, because the Spirit of God has sweetly led you to trust Jesus and you are saved.

May God now add his blessing, for Jesus’ sake. Amen."

The preceding quote was from an excellent sermon (which I highly recommend to you) titled "Importance of Small Things in Religion". Read the entire sermon here.

Why Is Preaching So Important?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:52:00 +0000

I read a fascinating article today that I want to share with you underscoring the importance of sitting under true biblical preaching. The title of the article is Dangerous Times for the Church. It is by Mike Ratliff, a member of the discernment team at Christian Research Network. Here is an excerpt:

Being Reformed in my theology, I adhere to the Sovereignty of God in all things. He keeps remnants of believers even in the most apostate of times. He always has pockets of genuine believers who know their Lord by His grace through the faith He gives no matter what darkness is attacking the Church.

In this post we will look at the different epochs or eras that have not only come to attack the Church down through the ages, but have remained and are still with us now. They have accumulated now so that there is much overlap between them and this complicates the task of explaining these things to you my brethren. However, it is vital at this time that we take the covers off of what is hidden behind religiosity in order to direct our devotion to the Lord alone, not a local church or a pastor or a denomination or a certain set of religious rules or any other thing that are in actuality only distractions sent from the enemy to muddy the waters and draw believers into a from of Christianity that neither edifies us or glorifies God.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the source of the rough outline for what is to follow. I was driving to work this morning as I listened to John MacArthur on Bott Radio here in the Kansas City area. He is working through a series on the necessity of preaching and in today’s sermon he gave a form of the following outline. This outline has 10 main points and gives us a general breakdown of 10 definable eras or epochs or seasons that have attacked the church since the end of the Apostolic and Church Father eras. It is based on the following passage.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. (2 Timothy 3:1 ESV)

The Church was persecuted from the beginning and this has continued in all parts of the world into our own time, however, persecution of the Church actually strengthens it. It cleanses it in the sense that false believers flee while God grows the faith of those who go through it. This does not sap the strength of the Church, it actually makes it deeper and stronger. On the other hand, our enemy continually attacks the Church from within using false prophets and the doctrines of demons to cause the dry rot of apostasy to do its evil work. In this we have 10 general eras that would be ages of apostasy that have stayed, accumulated and are each still attacking the Church.

The first era began when the Roman Empire ceased persecuting the Church and made it the state religion of the Holy Roman Empire. This ended the persecution, which actually took away the one thing that God was using to strengthen it. This was replaced with an era of Sacramentalism. This period is also called the Dark Ages. In this time, the Word of God was taken away from the people. Sermons were in Latin. Only the Church itself was allowed to hold and interpret Scripture. The people were taught that to be a Christian they must perform external things like lighting candles, genuflecting, bowing, praying according to some beads, and even enduring self-inflicted pain. This is externalism and those who are part of this are walled off from knowing or even hearing about the Gospel itself. If one is simply in good standing with the “Church” through sacramentalism then they are considered good Christians. Is this still with us today my brethren?

The second era began in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation recovered the Gospel and put the Word of God into the hands of the people. This was a time of light and a move of the Church back into the truth. The attack to counter this came soon after this through things like the Renaissance and the Age of Reason. This second era is called Rationalism. It is actually a worship of the Human mind. This is most certainly still with us in the form of liberal, dead churches and denominations that were neutralized by the encroachment of liberal theology that has taken over Europe’s and America’s seminaries and Churches to the point that these people do not believe the Bible is the Word of God nor do they believe in the Deity of Christ. It is all about what men can do.

After this attack of rationalism, there was another push back by men such as Charles Spurgeon. During this time, Bibles became even more plentiful. However, the third era of attack on the Church began. It is the era of Shallow Spirituality and Dead Orthodoxy. It is from this that we have the Fundamentalist movement that began with the right motives, but soon succumbed to this shallow spirituality as the focus of their being together was simply to express anger over the attack by Rationalism. They lost their focus and became a self-focused religiosity that was all about having the right Bible version, the right clothes, the right building, the right rules…et cetera. I have ministered to many people who have escaped from these churches and from that I learned that pharisees are still with us. This dead orthodoxy only puts people into the bondage of religiosity.

The fourth dangerous era for the Church is Politicism. This started in the 20th Century. This is the era of the state Church. These have political and social agendas. From this we have inherited things like the Social Gospel, Liberation Theology, et cetera. This era is most definitely still with us because it and the era of Shallow Spirituality are combined with the later eras in ways that makes untangling them very difficult.

The fifth dangerous era for the Church is Ecumenicalism which began in the 1950’s. Have you noticed how the time span between the eras has shortened? The Ecumenicalism era was all about God being love and so we just need to follow the parts of the Bible that speak of His love. Then we can work with other religions and simply get along because all we will do is just love, love, love one another. This is the era in which sentimentalism and tolerance became the byword of the Church. Doctrines were viewed as unnecessary and actually the cause of divisiveness in the Church. Now, is this still with us today my brethren?

The sixth dangerous era for the Church is Experientialism. This started in the 1960’s. This is the era in which the Church went after knowing God through experience. This is the era from which we get the emphasis on speaking in tongues and having ecstatic experiences and this defined the validity of ones profession of faith. To these people truth is in the experience. We are still dealing with this in the Health, Wealth and Prosperity “gospel” as well.

Continue reading entire article here.

Here is the link to the sermon by John MacArthur that was referenced above.

HT: DefCon

Sovereign Mercy

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:42:00 +0000

We live in a generation when it seems that many (most) evangelical preachers are preaching a savior and christ that is not the Savior and Christ of the Holy Scripture. This christ that is commonly preached is a christ that is sovereign over all of creation but not over the will of man. It is said that he loves us so much he would never impose his will on us in regards to our salvation. It must be our choice. Can you picture it? This loving savior is begging and pleading that his creation (man) will choose to love him and accept him as lord. He would love to save you if you will just let him. Well who is really sovereign is this setting? Obviously, it is the will of the man.

THIS IS NOT THE CHRIST OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE. Nowhere in scripture do we see such a weak attribute of our God and Savior. He is omnipotent from Genesis to Revelation. He is Author and Finisher. He is Alpha and Omega. He is Almighty and Glorious and worthy of infinitely more glory and honor than the vast majority of professing believers even attempt to ascribe to Him. He is not a God in bondage to the will of man. He will have mercy on whom He will and He will harden whom he will. To be Sovereign is to be sovereign over all! And friends, all means all.

In his book, The Sovereignty of God (Chapter 4), A. W. Pink stated:

What was there in the elect themselves which attracted God's heart to them? Was it because of certain virtues they possessed? because they were generous-hearted, sweet-tempered, truth-speaking? in a word, because they were "good," that God chose them? No; for our Lord said, "There is none good but one, that is God" (Matt. 19:17). Was it because of any good works they had performed? No; for it is written, "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12). Was it because they evidenced an earnestness and zeal in inquiring after God? No; for it is written again, "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). Was it because God foresaw they would believe? No; for how can those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" believe in Christ? How could God foreknow some men as believers when belief was impossible to them? Scripture declares that we "believe through grace" (Acts 18:27). Faith is God's gift, and apart from this gift none would believe. The cause of His choice then lies within Himself and not in the objects of His choice. He chose the ones He did simply because He chose to choose them.

"Sons we are by God's election
Who on Jesus Christ believe,
By eternal destination,
Sovereign grace we now receive,
Lord Thy mercy,
Doth both grace and glory give!"

I understand that the Lord Jesus Christ is also a gentle Shepherd. I understand that He exemplifies what it means to truly love. I understand that He has many tender qualities. But, to focus on some of His attributes without considering all of His attributes which are revealed in scripture is misrepresent who He really is (remember the golden calf incident?). To misrepresent Him is to make an idol out of what becomes of the remaining attributes. It is likely that most churches on Sunday morning are paying homage to an idol that they have created in order to appease what their itching ears want to hear. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4: 3-4, NASB).

Here are some recommended sermons for more on Sovereign Mercy:

Soli Deo Gloria!

A. W. Tozer on Worship

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:13:00 +0000

A. W. Tozer had much to say to his generation regarding worship practices that were being embraced by most churches. God had given him discernment to see what was creeping into churches in the name of worship. The warnings he spoke in his day need to be boldly proclaimed today.

Tozer on Worshipping God

For thirty-one years A. W. Tozer was pastor of Southside Alliance Church in Chicago. Few preachers then, much less today, were more penetrating in what they had to say, to both unbelievers and believers. Indeed, those who have read any of Tozer’s more than forty books often do so because they learn truths from him that they don’t hear from anyone else.

Prior to his death in 1963, Tozer declared his belief that "worship acceptable to God is the missing crown jewel in evangelical Christianity." He intended to write one last book, a book focusing on attitudes, beliefs, and practices in Christian worship. He did not have the opportunity to write that book, but in 1962 he preached a series of messages entitled, "Worship, the Chief End of Man." He was very concerned about the fact that the "war" had been lost, a reference to the invasion of the world into the church. His use of the word "war" in this context was almost prophetic to what would be, decades later, termed the "worship wars." Tozer strongly believed that in the early 1960s in America’s churches, "Christianity has been watered down until the solution is so weak that if it were poison it would not hurt anyone, and if it were medicine it would not cure anyone!" Because Tozer died in 1963, he did not live to see the rise of seeker-sensitive worship services, but he did live long enough to observe the beginnings of an emphasis on "entertainment" and "self-centered" worship, and the danger of worshiping a god who is not God.

Of course, this problem has significantly increased since Tozer’s day. For example, the title of Steven J. Lawson’s book echos Tozer’s warning: Made in Our Image: What Shall We Do with a "User-Friendly" god? (Multnomah, 2000), as does that of a book edited by D. Brent Laytham: God is not...Religious, Nice, "One of Us," an American, a Capitalist (Brazos, 2004). However, even though such books have been around for many years, most people in the church think man-centered worship and theology is someone else’s problem, not their’s, and few of these books sell very well.

Always known for his frank and straightforward preaching, Tozer referred to such worship as "irresponsible, amusement-made, paganized pseudo-religion which passes today for the faith of Christ and which is being spread all over the world by unspiritual men employing unscriptural methods to achieve their ends" (Tozer, The Root of Righteousness, 110).

Tozer’s insights and warnings from his writings and sermons about worship practices that have been increasingly popular since the early 1960s have been helpfully compiled and edited into two books: Tozer on Worship and Entertainment (WingSpread Publishers, 2006), compiled by James L. Snyder, and Whatever Happened to Worship: A Call to True Worship (WingSpread Publishers, 2006), compiled and edited by Gerald B. Smith. Every pastor, associate pastor, youth pastor, and worship leader who reads these two books will, without question, feel like he or she has been under a penetrating light of revelation and judgment. But, given how far modern evangelicals have moved away from biblical worship, our tendency is to easily push aside Tozer’s warnings and condemnations and argue they are dated. Even so, it is embarrassing to explain why modern evangelical worship has so much in common with pagan worship, and ignores clear biblical teaching on how the God of the Bible should be worshiped.

In his writings and sermons, A.W. Tozer repeatedly emphasizes that many people in the church today "worship" God and are satisfied with that worship, moved by such "worship," inspired by such "worship," encouraged by such "worship," but, in reality, they are not worshiping the God of the Bible. This is exactly the problem dealt with by Lawson and Laytham, as well as many other evangelical authors whose books have never made the best-seller lists. In his day, Tozer declared many churches were growing and adding hundreds and thousands of members, but they were not leading people to worship the biblical God. He said the people may be satisfied, uplifted, and excited by their "worship," but the fact remains that they do not have a clue to the nature of worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Wow! There is little doubt that if Tozer were on the scene today in America, his criticism would be even more blunt and direct, all in an effort to help the church see the "ditch" (grave) it is digging for herself.

In perhaps his most classic book, The Pursuit of God, Tozer articulated his belief that entertainment in worship is a symptom of idolatry:

This is the cause of a very serious breakdown in modern evangelicalism. The idea of cultivation and exercise, so dear to the saints of old, has now no place in our total religious picture. It is too slow, too common. We now demand glamour and fast-flowing dramatic action. A generation of Christians reared among push buttons and automatic machines is impatient of slower and less direct methods of reaching their goals. We have been trying to apply machine-age methods to our relations with God. We read our chapter, have our short devotions and rush away, hoping to make up for our deep inward bankruptcy by attending another gospel meeting or listening to another thrilling story told by a religious adventurer lately returned from afar.

The tragic results of this spirit are all about us: shallow loves, hollow religious philosophies, the preponde-rance of the element of fun in gospel meetings, the glorification of men, trust in religious externalities, quasi-religious fellowships, salesmanship methods, the mistaking of dynamic personality for the power of the Spirit. These and such as these are the symptoms of an evil disease, a deep and serious malady of the soul (Tozer, The Pursuit of God, 62-63).

Regarding the pressure on pastors to produce "successful" or growing churches, Tozer wrote:

Pastors and churches in our hectic times are harassed by the temptation to seek size at any cost and to secure by inflation what they cannot gain by legitimate growth. The mixed multitude cries for quantity and will not forgive a minister who insists upon solid values and permanence. Many a man of God is being subjected to cruel pressure by the ill-taught members of his flock who scorn his slow methods and demand quick results and a popular following regardless of quality. These children play in the market-places and cannot overlook the affront we do them by our refusal to dance when they whistle or to weep when they, out of caprice, pipe a sad tune. They are greedy for thrills, and since they dare no longer seek them in the theater, they demand to have them brought into the church (Tozer, The Next Chapter After the Last, 8).

Long before today’s worship wars, Tozer made it clear where he stood as an evangelical in the holiness tradition:

A church fed on excitement is no New Testament church at all. The desire for surface stimulation is a sure mark of the fallen nature, the very thing Christ died to deliver us from. A curious crowd of baptized worldlings waiting each Sunday for the quasi-religious needle to give them a lift bears no relation whatsoever to a true assembly of Christian believers. And that its members protest their undying faith in the Bible does not change things any. "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Tozer, The Next Chapter After the Last, 14).

In a sermon entitled, "The Holy Spirit," (Sermon #6, on Romans 12:1-2), Tozer declared:

The old writers talked about the dark night of the soul. A time of emptying. A time when it became dark all around us. But we’re too carnal to allow our hearts to get dark longing for God now. We’re so determined we want to be happy that if we can’t be happy by the Holy Ghost we’ll drum up our happiness. Religious "Rock and Rollers"! We’re going to get happy somehow if we’ve got to beat it up with a tom-tom. You can have that kind of happiness if you want it, but if you don’t want it and are dissatisfied with it and you want the joy that comes out of Joseph’s new tomb open now forever, if you want the joy that comes from the Holy Ghost, a well of water springing up within you forever, then you will likely have a loneliness and an inner darkness and a despair with self and you’ll wonder what happened to you and you’ll say, "Am I backsliding?" No, you’re not backsliding. You are going on with God (Tozer, "The Holy Spirit," Sermon #6, Romans 12:1-2, Toronto).

In another sermon based on Hebrews, Tozer contrasted believers seeking entertainment to taking up Christ’s cross:

There is a cross for you and me and there is a cross for every one of us. And that cross is subjective and internal and experiential....That cross is that which we voluntarily take up - that’s hard and bitter and distasteful - that we do for Christ’s sake and suffer the consequences and despise the shame....

But the evangelicals of which we are a part say, "Let the cross kill Jesus but we will live on and be happy and have fun." But the cross on the hill has got to become the cross in the heart. When the cross on the hill has been transformed by the miraculous grace of the Holy Ghost into the cross in the heart, then we begin to know something of what it means and it will become to us the cross of power (Tozer, Sermon #40 on Hebrews, Toronto).

In Tozer’s day there was some debate about whether or not worship and entertainment overlapped to any degree. As the above quotations illustrate, Tozer argued there is a distinct difference and no overlap. For example, he did not view the singing of a hymn as entertainment. He wrote:

When you raise your eyes to God and sing, "Break thou the bread of life, dear Lord to me," is that entertainment - or is it worship? Isn’t there a difference between worship and entertainment? The church that can’t worship must be entertained. And men who can’t lead a church to worship must provide the entertainment. That is why we have the great evangelical heresy here today - the heresy of religious entertainment (Tozer, Success and the Christian, 6-7).

Sounding much like Os Guinness in his book, The Grave-digger File: Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church (InterVarsity, 1983), Tozer was very concerned in his day that modern culture was modifying (subverting) and changing the Christian faith. Tozer said:

The devil is busy brainwashing us and conditioning us little by little and feeding his ideas into the church. The counsel of the ungodly comes and as the ideas of the ungodly enter the church the ideas of God go out. My crusade in the day in which I live is to wake the church and rouse it to the fact that it is being brainwashed and propagandized into accepting that which it would never accept if it were a law in Washington (Sermon, "Resisting the World’s Propaganda," General Council).

In one of his many books, Tozer talked about the effort to make Christ popular:

The modern effort to popularize the Christian faith has been extremely damaging to that faith. The purpose has been to simplify truth for the masses by using the language of the masses instead of the language of the church. It has not succeeded, but has added to rather than diminished religious confusion (Tozer, The Set of the Sail, 159).

Long before modern evangelical authors begin to articulate the dangers of bringing popular culture into the church in order to attract seekers, Tozer was vocalizing the same warning. The "health and wealth" gospel of Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and Kennth Copeland would come after Tozer, but that teaching had its precursors all through Tozer’s lifetime. In emphasizing holiness, the "deeper life," and the place of suffering in the faith, Tozer wrote:

Another reason for the absence of real yearning for Christ’s return is that Christians are so comfortable in this world that they have little desire to leave it. For those leaders who set the pace of religion and determine its content and quality, Christianity has become of late remarkably lucrative. The streets of gold do not have too great an appeal for those who find it so easy to pile up gold and silver in the service of the Lord here on earth. We all want to reserve the hope of heaven as a kind of insurance against the day of death but as long as we are healthy and comfortable, why change a familiar good for something about which we actually know very little? So reasons the carnal mind, and so subtly that we are scarely aware of it.

Again, in these times religoin has become jolly good fun right here in this present world, and what’s the hurry about heaven anyway? Christianity, contrary to what some had thought, is another and higher form of entertainment. Christ has done all the suffering. He has shed all the tears and carried all the crosses; we have but to enjoy the benefits of His heartbreak in the form of religious pleasures modeled after the world but carried on in the name of Jesus. So say the same people who claim to believe in Christ’s second coming (Tozer, Born After Midnight, 134).

I strongly encourage you to finish reading this insightful article here. It is very applicable in our day.

Excerpted from the Nov. 2008 bulletin of Sylvania Christain. (Note: Though this is a very good article, I do not know enough about this church to give it a hearty endorsement.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Generational Curses by Bob DeWaay

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Biblical Answers to Questions Raised by the phrase "visit the inquities to the third and fourth generation"

“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Exodus 20:5,6)

“Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.” (Deuteronomy 7:9,10)

Oftentimes when a passage is unclear it is used to support false teachings. Because when many Christians are unsure of the meaning of a passage, they are less able to discern erroneous teaching based on the verses in question. This is surely the case for the popular teaching on generational curses that is based on the Biblical passages cited above. Many popular books published in the last thirty years claim that Christians are subjected to unknown generational curses that have detrimental effects on their lives. The writers of the books offer their special knowledge that can break the curses.

In this article we will examine the Old Testament passages about generational curses. By careful exegesis centering around the whole counsel of God, we shall show that these passages do not support the idea that Christians are cursed because of the sins of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. We shall also make it clear that these verses do not teach that demons have the right or ability to inhabit Christians because of generational curses nor that Satan has the right to inflict curses upon Christians because of ancestral sins. On the contrary, Christians have the “blessing of Abraham” because of their relationship to Christ.

The Sins of the Fathers

The first passage in the Bible that mentions God's warning about the consequences of idolatry affecting the third and fourth generation is found in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). It says “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:5b). This is a warning about the grave consequences of worshiping other gods. The Old Testament record is replete with such warnings as well as narrative passages that describe the horrible consequences of idolatry in the life of Israel. Even this warning is tempered with a greater promise of God's mercy: “But showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments” (verse 6). This will be important to our understanding of the second commandment and similar passages.

At Sinai, God entered into a covenant relationship with Israel and took her to be His own people. They were to honor that covenant from their hearts, by loving God and obeying Him. Worshiping other gods was covenant-breaking in its worst form, analogous to spiritual adultery. They were persistently warned of the consequences of such behavior, yet it was all too common. The consequences would even mean that God would “visit the iniquities to the third and fourth generation.” What does this mean? On the surface it appears that God would punish the children and grandchildren for sins that they did not personally commit. But Deuteronomy 24:16 provides good reason to reject this interpretation: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.” Later we shall examine Ezekiel 18 which deals with this issue in more detail.

Biblical scholars have pointed out that if the children turn to God they shall avert this punishment. For example, John Calvin commented about Exodus 20:5 that, “[W]hen God declares that He will cast back the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of the children, He does not mean that He will take vengeance on poor wretches who have never deserved anything of the sort; but that He is at liberty to punish the crimes of the fathers upon their children and descendants, with the proviso that they too may be justly punished, as being imitators of their fathers.1 Contemporary Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser writes, “Children who repeat the sins of their fathers evidence it in personally hating God.”2 Kaiser takes “those who hate Me” to apply to the children as well as the fathers. The children themselves carry on with hating God as shown by their continued idolatry and covenant breaking. God is just and merciful and nothing in this passage suggests otherwise.

Jewish scholars make several interesting points concerning the sins of the fathers being visited to the third and fourth generations. One is based on this passage in Jeremiah:

'Ah Lord God! Behold, Thou hast made the heavens and the earth by Thy great power and by Thine outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for Thee, who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. The Lord of hosts is His name; great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds; (Jeremiah 32:17-10)

Here is a Jewish interpretation of this passage: “Perhaps the strongest Scriptural support for the interpretation that ‘poqed 'avon abot 'al banim’ [visits the iniquities of fathers on sons] applies only to children who continue the sinful ways of their father has been brought from Jeremiah 32:18-19. There, in two consecutive verses, the prophet cites God's attribute of cross-generational reward and punishment immediately followed by the principle of individual accountability.”3

There is another mention of this principle in a passage that suggests that the key point is God's mercy, not His wrath. In this following section of Torah, God shows His great power through His mercy and pardon, with reference to the idea of the third and fourth generation:

“But now, I pray, let the power of the Lord be great, just as Thou hast declared, 'The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.' Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Thy lovingkindness, just as Thou also hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now." So the Lord said, "I have pardoned them according to your word.” (Numbers 14:17-20)

What is so interesting here is that Moses cited the passage from the second commandment that warned about the consequences on the third and fourth generation when pleading for mercy and pardon from the Lord. This is strong evidence that Moses himself considered the passage to show a limitation on God's wrath and evidence of His mercy. Some Jewish scholars have seen it this way: Some have interpreted the concept of cross-generational retribution as associated with God's mercy. In Numbers 14:18 Moshe cites this characteristic of God in his prayer for forgiveness. This may be understood as asking God in His mercy to postpone punishment to later generations, to allow the present generation the opportunity to mend their ways or at least to keep the Covenant alive.4

As a matter of fact, in the case of those who came out of Egypt, God judged the parents for idolatry and unbelief, but it was the children who actually entered the promised land.5 God showed great patience with His chosen people. Rather than wipe out the unbelieving and idolatrous generation that grumbled in the wilderness, God allowed them to live and raise their children, so that the promise would be kept alive through a future generation that would be faithful to the covenant. As we shall see, God’s mercy goes much farther than his wrath. (Continue reading here.)

For Whom Did Christ Die? & What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:36:00 +0000

by John Piper ©Desiring God Ministries. Website: www.desiringGOD.org. Email: mail@desiringGOD.org. Toll Free: 888-346-4700.

The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense

Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.

The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially." (Continue reading here.)

HT: Monergism

Augustus Toplady on Arminianism

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:00:00 +0000

"One great contest, between the religion of Arminius, and the religion of Jesus Christ, is, who shall stand entitled to the praise and glory of a sinner’s salvation? Conversion decides this point at once; for I think, that, without any imputation of uncharitableness, I may venture to say, that every truly awakened person, at least when he is under the shine of God’s countenance upon his soul, will fall down upon his knees, with this hymn of praise ascending from his heart, “Not unto me, O Lord, not unto me, but to Thy Name, give the glory: I am saved not for my righteousness, but for Thy mercy and Thy truth’s sake..”

And thus it will be when God has accomplished the number of His elect, and completely gathered in the fulness of His redeemed kingdom. What, do you think, your song will be, when you come to heaven? “Blessed be God, that He gave me free-will; and blessed be my own dear self, that made a good use of it”? O no, no. Such a song as that was never heard in heaven yet, nor ever will, while God is God, and heaven is heaven. Look into the Book of Revelation, and there you will find the employ of the blessed, and the strains which they sing. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

Thou art worthy, for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, by Thy Blood, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 9:10)."

Link to Augustus Toplady Bio

Gnostic Worship by Michael S. Horton

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:32:00 +0000

Americans are often accused by foreigners of expressing a "greasy familiarity," even with people they have met for the first time. Similarly, there is a greasy familiarity inherent to Gnosticism, based on the belief that we have direct and immediate access to God whenever and however we want. Whenever the children in the public school pray to whomever and however, God has to hear, and whenever sincere people gather in a building to worship according to their own personal tastes and opinions, God is impressed that we took the time and cared enough to worship from our hearts. It was real, and we were vulnerable, honest before God. Greasy familiarity.

Calvinism is the fundamental enemy of the American Religion. This is argued in nearly every recent work on the subject. Harold Bloom cites Swiss theologian Karl Barth and Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen as two major antagonists of American Gnosticism. Similarly, Anne Douglas, Philip Lee, and Wade Clark Roof, flanked by a host of historians, all argue that the repudiation of Calvinism led to the feminization of religion and culture.

Ann Douglas, professor of English at Harvard and Columbia University, in her latest book, on New York City in the 1920's, writes,

"Calvinism...had suffered 'the most spectacular defeat in the history of American religious life.'...The Calvinists' liberal nineteenth-century descendants insisted that God was less a father than a mother,...an 'indulgent Parent' (the term is that of the clergyman Noah Worcester), offering love, forgiveness, and nurture to all who seek Him. The Connecticut theologian Horace Bushnell, known as the 'American Schleiermacher,' explained that true religious experience meant falling back 'into God's arms,' pressed to the divine breast, 'even as a child in the bosom of its mother.'"

God, she says, became "well behaved, even domestic." (1) In her provocative book, The Feminization of American Culture, Douglas demonstrates that Calvinism was unseated by an Arminian and Gnostic tidal-wave that refused to believe any longer in the value of matter, the depravity of the self, helplessness in salvation, total dependence on divine sovereignty, freedom, or mercy. Just as the mainline evangelicals failed to stand by J. Gresham Machen in his struggle for the Presbyterian Church during the 20's, and only rose up in defiance when theological error finally created moral compromises, many of today's evangelicals are ready to attack the blatant Gnosticism of "Sophia" worship in the mainline churches, while less obvious but equally disastrous forms of Gnosticism plague the evangelical world itself. (2)

It would seem that the critics of modern American religion are basically on target in describing the entire religious landscape, from New Age or liberal, to evangelical and Pentecostal, as essentially Gnostic. Regardless of the denomination, the American Religion is inward, deeply distrustful of institutions, mediated grace, the intellect, theology, creeds, and the demand to look outside of oneself for salvation. This, of course, has enormous implications for the Christian life and worship, as well as theology.

In this article we will first pursue the major Gnostic trends in Christian worship, then analyze these trends in the light of Scripture, concluding with suggestions for disentangling ourselves. (Continue reading here.)

HT: Cal.vini.st

Words4Life

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:24:00 +0000

"Remember the perfections of that God whom you worship, that he is a Spirit, and therefore to be worshipped in spirit and truth; and that he is most great and terrible, and therefore to be worshipped with seriousness and reverence, and not to be dallied with, or served with toys or lifeless lip-service; and that he is most holy, pure, and jealous, and therefore to be purely worshipped; and that he is still present with you, and all things are naked and open to him with whom we have to do. The knowledge of God, and the remembrance of his all-seeing presence, are the most powerful means against hypocrisy."

RICHARD BAXTER

1615-1691

The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:44:00 +0000

HT: Grace Online Library

Jerry Falwell calls him 'one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham.' I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney's work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. Finney is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, by both Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis (Sojourners' magazine), and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse, but in reality are merely heirs to Finney's legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the church growth movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise-Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, 'Finney lives on!'

That is because Finney's moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes--from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women's rights and the prohibition of alcohol. At the turn of the century, with an influx of Roman Catholic immigrants already making many American Protestants a bit uneasy, secularism began to pry the fingers of the Protestant establishment from the institutions (colleges, hospitals, charitable organizations) they had created and sustained. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of 'Christian America' (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the-century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to 'Americanize' immigrants, enforce moral instruction and 'character education.' Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.

That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism, evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today's greatest challenges within the evangelical churches themselves; namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.

Who Is Finney?

Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God's Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to 'make a decision.'

Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the 'Second Awakening,' as it has been called. A Presbyterian lawyer, Finney one day experienced 'a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost' which 'like a wave of electricity going through and through me...seemed to come in waves of liquid love.' The next morning, he informed his first client of the day, 'I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and I cannot plead yours.' Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter), Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was, 'Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.'

Finney's one question for any given teaching was, 'Is it fit to convert sinners with?' One result of Finney's revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His 'New Measures' included the 'anxious bench' (precursor to today's altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other 'excitements,' as Finney and his followers called them. Finney became increasingly hostile toward Presbyterianism, referring in his introduction to his Systematic Theology to the Westminster Confession and its drafters rather critically, as if they had created a 'paper pope,' and had 'elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost.' Remarkably, Finney demonstrates how close Arminian revivalism, in its naturalistic sentiments, tends to be to a less refined theological liberalism, as both caved into the Enlightenment and its enshrining of human reason and morality:What's So Wrong With Finney's Theology?

First, one need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney's entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters one through five are on moral government, obligation, and the unity of moral action; chapters six and seven are 'Obedience Entire,' as chapters eight through fourteen discuss attributes of love, selfishness, and virtues and vice in general. Not until the twenty-first chapter does one read anything that is especially Christian in its interest, on the atonement. This is followed by a discussion of regeneration, repentance, and faith. There is one chapter on justification followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write a Systematic Theology, but a collection of essays on ethics.

But that is not to say that Finney's Systematic Theology does not contain some significant theological statements. First, in answer to the question, 'Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?', Finney answers:

"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground." (p. 46)

Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that

"...full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" (p. 57).

With the Westminster Confession in his sights, Finney declares of the Reformation's formula 'simultaneously justified and sinful', 'This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world.' For, 'Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost' (p. 60).

We will return to Finney's doctrine of justification, but it must be noted that it rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam's guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, 'We sin because we're sinners': the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.

Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an 'anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma' (p. 179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.

The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: 'If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?' (p. 206). In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, 'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.

That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone--but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that 'The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless' (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the 'moral influence' theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which '...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone' (p. 217).

Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that 'regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,' as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p. 224). 'Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence' (p. 236).

Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack 'the article by which the church stands or falls'--justification by grace alone through faith alone.

The Protestant Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek,'to declare righteous,' rather than 'to make righteous') was a forensic (i.e., 'legal') verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else's righteousness (i.e., Christ's) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once-and-for-all verdict of right-standing at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end.

The key words in the evangelical doctrine are 'forensic' (meaning 'legal') and 'imputation' (crediting one's account, as opposed to the idea of 'infusion' of a righteousness within a person's soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd...As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners...As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

To this, Finney replies:

"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.' After all, Christ's righteousness 'could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf.' This 'representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many' "(pp. 320-322).

The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is 'the antinomian view,' Finney asserts. 'We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification.' Furthermore, 'present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject' (pp. 326-327). Each act of sin requires 'a fresh justification' (p. 331). Referring to 'the framers of the Westminster Confession of faith,' and their view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wonders, 'If this is not antinomianism, I know not what is' (p. 332). This legal business is unreasonable to Finney, so he concludes, 'I regard these dogmas as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system of theology' (p. 333). He concludes in this section against the Westminster Assembly:

"The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law" (p. 339).

This he calls 'another gospel.' Insisting that Paul's rather realistic account of the Christian life in Romans 7 actually refers to the apostle's life before he had experienced 'entire sanctification,' Finney surpasses Wesley in arguing for the possibility of complete holiness in this life. John Wesley maintained that it is possible for a believer to attain full sanctification, but when he recognized that even the holiest Christians sin, he accommodated his theology to this simple empirical fact. He did this by saying that this experience of 'Christian perfection' was a matter of the heart, not of actions. In other words, a Christian may be perfected in love, so that love is now the sole motivation for one's actions, while occasionally making mistakes. Finney rejects this view and insists that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection--that is, 'conformity to the law of God entire,' and not only is the believer capable of this; when he or she transgresses at any point, a fresh justification is required.

As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His 'New Measures,' like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.

It is upon Finney's naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, 'There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God' (emphasis in original). Thus, as the new birth is a natural phenomenon, so too a revival: 'A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.' The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. 'No doctrine,' he says, 'is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd' (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp. 4-5). When the leaders of the church growth movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney. When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that 'it works' and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney, as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of 'its cash-value in experiential terms.'

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney's Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney's pragmatism: 'Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that 'works,' and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume.' As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented in The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1950), the stretch of territory in which Finney's revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that 'works' for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow's disillusioned and spent super-saints.

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Not only did the revivalist abandon the material principle of the Reformation (justification), making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity; he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.

I do not point these things out with relish, as if to cheerfully denounce the heroes of American evangelicals. Nevertheless, it is always best, when one has lost something valuable, to retrace one's steps in order to determine when and where one last had it in his or her possession. That is the purpose of this exercise, to face with some honesty the serious departure from biblical Christianity that occurred through American revivalism. For until we address this shift, we will perpetuate a distorted and dangerous course. Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Westminster divines whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is 'another gospel' in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?

Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).

Author

Dr. Michael Horton is the vice chairman of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. Dr. Horton is a graduate of Biola University (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.A.R.) and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (Ph.D.). Some of the books he has written or edited include Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Beyond Culture Wars, Power Religion, In the Face of God, and most recently, We Believe.

Recommended Sermon

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:47:00 +0000

The Wedding Garment (pdf)

by C. H. Spurgeon

More On Decisional Regeneration

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:28:00 +0000

Video by Mark Kielar, the founder of CrossTV and creator of the Word Pictures series. Additionally, he hosts many of the Word Pictures programs. CrossTV, a religious programming company produces the Word Pictures series, a collection of over 40 videos addressing Biblical and Christian concepts, theology and issues. He is currently serving as pastor / teaching elder at First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Florida.

Link to "Decisional Regeneration" video here.

'Decisions For Christ' - The Measure of Success?
by Jim Bublitz of Old Truth

Trophies for "decisions" are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God's blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we'll explore the claims, concept, and counting of "decisions for Christ".

Within a few days of the annual Christmas musicals this last year, church-blogs everywhere began to light-up with claims of success. So often however, I noticed that "success" was being defined mathematically; here's an example of one church who reported 72 decisions for Christ that night. But it's not just a Christmas phenomenon; these conversion-reports are wide-spread in evangelicalism today. Here are some more examples:

A pastor of one seeker sensitive church claimed 1,879 decisions in a single year. Being enamored with these 'results', he declared: "There have not been in all of church history that many churchesthat have touched as many lives", unquote.
Another pastor preached a sermon on "Your Best Life Now" (apparently based on Joel Osteen's book), and said afterwards - this produced many decisions for Christ.
One pragmatic pastor who offers input on my blog occasionally, insists that all of this represents a great modern revival. Here are some more examples:
A basketball ministry that claims 6,000 decisions in one year.
There's a Superbowl outreach that produced 1,200 decisions.
A movie that led to 2,300 decisions in one weekend.
The Power Team even makes conversion predictions ahead of time.

The most dramatic example I've seen, is the account of one man, who was said to have influenced over one million decisions for Christ in his lifetime. That's Bill Bright. And we are told that a movie that he created lead to more than 200 million decisions.

Let's bring an historical element into this discussion. I'm amazed at how long some of history's greatest missionaries waited before seeing their very first convert. Why didn't they quit in discouragement, and how many of today's pragmatic pastors would have been willing to wait this long?:

William Carey was in India for seven years before he baptized his first convert.
David Livingstone served eight years in Africa before seeing anyone converted.
Adoniram Judson in Burma, six years.
Hudson Taylor in China, waited ten years!

Now with that bit of information from church history in mind, consider some of these claims:

A group of students on one recent missionary excursion in Buenos Aires claimed 1,477 decisions in a single day.
Another missionary trip saw thousands of decisions for Christ in a single week.

How can we explain the fact that a group of students ended up being radically more effective in initial outreach than the most well-known missionaries in church history? Were the missionaries of the past simply not smart enough to come up with innovative and culturally relevant outreach techniques? Could it be that there is really some massive revival going on today, that wasn't going on during the greatest century of missions? The more likely explanation is that Christian ministers of past centuries looked at lasting conversions, where as today - the short-sighted focus is on counting immediate "decisions".

Going back in church history, we see a more discerning attitude, that resisted making immediate conversion claims. George Whitefield, who was a leader in the 18th century Great Awakening, made it a practice to delay judgment until months or years down the road. Whitefield's reasoning for this was, you simply can't know right away. He said:

There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm".

A century later, Charles Spurgeon was also very outspoken against potentially boastful and self-validating conversion claims, saying:

"Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battle-field? "Last night, 14 souls were under conviction, 15 were justified, and 8 received full sanctification". I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime". [read more]

He had the same common-sense that Whitefield had a century earlier. It's a common-sense that seems to be very much lacking today:

"It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over". [Continue reading ...]

What's Going On?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:41:00 +0000

The following is an excerpt of an article written by Timmy Brister at his site, Provocations & Pantings. I think his analysis regarding church culture and false conversions is accurate and telling. It serves as an indictment of modern church practices. In my opinion, this is THE issue of our generation: proclaiming the True Gospel and recovering the lost doctrine of True Regeneration. Even within the Southern Baptist Convention, the battle will be (already is) fierce.

We have seen contemporary evangelicalism produce everything under the sun in Jesus’ name, and yet we are living in a post-Christian culture. I am convinced that what our society has experienced has not been true Christianity, although there are exceptions. Indeed, I believe it can be argued that our post-Christian culture is really a post-false conversion culture that has rejected the substandard approaches to being followers of Jesus. When conversion is reduced to praying a prayer, walking down an aisle, squeezing my hand, or getting little children to assent to “accept Jesus into their hearts,” you will engender generational nominalism fostered by a truncated gospel that is followed through with unbiblical responses.

We are consistently hearing of new discipleship methods that are attempting to promote growth only to wear out in a short period of time. Churches are actively engaging in the culture war against postmodernism and the growing divide between the American way and the Christian way as evangelicals seem to play a smaller and smaller role in shaping the world around us.

What’s going on? Are our strategies and methods just not effective? Do we need to just do more “revivals” and get people excited about Jesus? The answer to the ethical question is not found in the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Richard Land. The answer is found in the gospel and Jesus Christ. The answer to the evangelism decline is not revivalism and Billy Graham. The answer is found in the gospel and Jesus Christ.

Simply put, the situation we are in today is fundamentally due to our loss of the gospel and failure to understand what constitutes genuine conversion. The problem is not discipleship, evangelism, or morality; the problem is what we have made of conversion. You cannot expect a sinner to pursue holiness if they do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. You cannot expect a sinner to be evangelistic if they have not first rightly responded to the evangel. You cannot expect there to be growth where there is no life. And when we point the finger at unconverted people in our pews complaining of a lack of obedience, we are no different than admonishing a dead man for not having picked himself up from his bootstraps.

We can miss biblical conversion in any number of ways. If a person is converted only in the mind, he will substitute repentance and faith with mental assent and assume that the mere acquisition of more knowledge (intellectualism) will guarantee salvation. They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great profundity for sure. If a person is converted only in the heart, he will substitute repentance and faith with emotional experience (experientialism) and assume that more mountaintop experiences (or rededications) will guarantee salvation (by “nailing it down”). They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great passion no doubt. If a person is converted only in the will, he will substitute repentance and faith with determination and resolve to do better (legalism) and assume that self-improvement (self-righteousness) brings him acceptance before God. They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great persistence as you could expect.

Contrary to all this, a truly converted sinner will be transformed by the Spirit of God with a change evidenced by turning from sin (repentance) and turning to God (faith) which encompasses their entire being–mind, heart, and will. In recent years, we have all but taken God out of the equation so that conversion is not the miraculous working of God but a mere decision by man. Now, certainly one has to “decide” and respond in faith and repentance, but if there is not a true understanding of the gospel and a true gracious working of regeneration in the heart of a sinner, then no trick, technique, or trend will be able to accomplish what God has determined Himself to do. Conversion is not merely “our part” or something we contribute in salvation apart from God’s sovereign work of effectually drawing and applying the new covenant promise of transforming our lives from within. Everyone to whom God begins the “good work” will bring it completion (Phil. 1:6), and there should be distinguishing marks of the saving, sanctifying, and persevering grace of God in the converted sinner being daily conformed into the image of Christ.

We are living in a post-Christian culture who has looked at a version of Christian to a large degree comprised of falsely converted people and said, “If that’s what Christianity is about, then what’s the difference? Why would I want that?” They have seen the intellectual Christians (mind only), the mystical Christian (heart only), and the moral Christians (will only), but many not seen the Spirit-ual Christians–those marked, indwelt, and changed by the Spirit of God. Trinitarianly speaking, if you do not have the Spirit you do not have life (John 6:63); if you do not have the Son of God, you do not have the life (1 John 5:11-12); if you do not know the only true God, you do not have eternal life (John 17:3). The converting work of a sinner from death to life is a miracle wrought by our Triune God, graciously opening our eyes to see and our ears to hear and giving us a heart to follow and obey.

If we are to innovative and engaging in a post-Christian world, our first step is to revisit what it means to be–and more specifically how one becomes–a Christian. We do not need another evangelism strategy or to be trendy and talk about sex for 60 straight days. What we need is for the day of programming false conversions and perpetuating false assurances to come to an end. Those words of Jesus need to haunt us until we are awakened to the reality that missing it here means missing it for an eternity. Let us create a culture where we are regularly examining ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5), working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-13), diligent to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). I am persuaded that what we do “in Jesus’ name” will then flow out of who we truly are as a result of Jesus’ transforming grace in lives that marked by repentance and faith. (Read entire article here.)

Another Gospel by A. W. Pink

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:00:00 +0000

Those who are trusting to an outward form of godliness, such as baptism or "confirmation!"; those who are religious because it is considered a mark of respectability; those who attend some Church or Chapel because it is the fashion to do so; and, those who unite with some Denomination because they suppose that such a step will enable them to become Christians, are in the way which "ends in death"—death spiritual and eternal. However pure our motives, however noble our intentions, however well-meaning our purposes, however sincere our endeavors, God will not acknowledge us as His sons, until we accept His Son.

A yet more specious form of Satan's gospel is to move preachers to present the atoning sacrifice of Christ and then tell their hearers that all God requires from them is to "believe" in His Son. Thereby thousands of impenitent souls are deluded into thinking they have been saved. But Christ said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). To "repent" is to hate sin, to sorrow over it, to turn from it. It is the result of the Spirit's making the heart contrite before God. None except a broken heart can savingly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, thousands are deceived into supposing that they have "accepted Christ" as their "personal Saviour," who have not first received Him as their LORD. The Son of God did not come here to save His people in their sin, but "from their sins" (Matt 1:21). To be saved from sins, is to be saved from ignoring and despising the authority of God, it is to abandon the course of self-will and self-pleasing, it is to "forsake our way (Isa 55:7). It is to surrender to God's authority, to yield to His dominion, to give ourselves over to be ruled by Him. The one has never taken Christ's "yoke" upon him, who is not truly and diligently seeking to please Him in all the details of life, and yet supposes that he is resting on the Finished Work of Christ" is deluded by the Devil.

In the seventh chapter of Matthew there are two scriptures which give us approximate results of Christ's Gospel and Satan's counterfeit. First, in verses 13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Second; in verses 22-23, "Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied [preached] in Thy name? and in Thy name cast out demons, and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" Yes, my reader, it is possible to work in the name of Christ, and even to preach in his name, and though the world knows us, the Church knows us, yet to be unknown to the Lord! How necessary is it then to find out where we really are; to examine ourselves and see whether we be in the faith; to measure ourselves by the Word of God and see if we are being deceived by our subtle Enemy; to find out whether we are building our house upon the sand, or whether it is errected on the Rock which is Jesus Christ. May the Holy Spirit search our hearts, break our wills, slay our emnity against God, work in us a deep and true repentance, and direct our gaze to the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. (Exerpt from Another Gospel by A. W. Pink)

Click here to read the entire article.

Foolishness of Preaching vs. Preaching of Foolishness

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:32:00 +0000

We have arrived at a point when churches are constantly pushing the envelope for exciting and entertaining services in order to make sure the attendees do not become bored with just preaching. We are an entertainment driven society and many pastors are pulling out all of the stops so that they will appear to be relevant and hip. For the remainder of this post I will contrast the difference between the foolishness of preaching spoken of in Scipture and the contemporary method of preaching foolishly.

Cultural Preference: The Preaching of Foolishness

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2Tim.3:3-4, ESV)

Apparently Paul was telling Timothy about our culture. Below are some examples of pastors trying to be relevant to seekers. (What they are seeking could be debated for some time.) Below are some actual news stories:

Church service ends on crash-A Kokomo pastor is recovering after crashing a motorcycle during a Sunday church service.

Pastor fined forshooting arrow- A pastor and parishioner have been cited by police for shooting an arrow during a church service in Sheboygan Falls.

Pastor's Sex Challenge For Congregation- The pastor of a Dallas-area mega-church challenged married congregants during his sermon Sunday to have sex for seven days in a row -- and says he's practicing what he preaches.

Godly or gimmick? Churches offer free gas- Carol Umsted got more than the word of God during services this summer at the Congregational United Church of Christ of Valley City. She also got $50 worth of free gas, thanks to winning a raffle...

Woman wins house by attending church on New Year's Eve- The chance to win a new $120,000 home wasn't the reason Tammy Woods attended her church's New Year's Eve service.

ENOUGH, Enough, enough! Please!

A. W. Tozer wrote of The Great God Entertainment in his book Root of the Righteous (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955, p. 32-33). Here is an excerpt:

"A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.

Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.

If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many." (Continue reading here.)

HT: Slice of Laodicea

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9, ESV)

Biblical Precedent: The Foolishness of Preaching

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1Cor. 1:21, KJV)

In the Founders Journal, Fred A. Malone wrote an article titled, Is Preaching Foolish Today?, where he stated the following:

"It takes little Bible study to see that preaching, the proclamation of God’s Word, was God’s chosen method for evangelism and edification by the Old Testament prophets, our Lord and His apostles. The question is: “Is preaching foolish today?” Should we follow the example of the prophets, our Lord and His apostles? Is it necessary to obey Paul’s command to Timothy: “PREACH the word!”

In the Bible, preaching is the proclamation (heralding) and explanation of God’s revealed Word to man. It is an outward call to all men to “be still, and know that I am God.” It is a call to be still and listen to God’s revelation to man; to quit dwelling on our own thoughts and start thinking about God’s truth. It is God’s chosen way and authoritative charge to reveal, herald, His truth to mankind (2 Timothy 4:1–2).

The New Testament provides many examples of proclaiming God’s Word. These include the Sermon on the Mount, Peter’s message at Pentecost, Paul on Mar’s Hill and the Epistles read in their entirely to the attentive and listening churches (Colossians 4:16). This act of “proclaiming” is different from activities such as personal witnessing and interactive teaching, which the apostles did as well. Preaching is not about equal interaction between the speaker and the hearer. It is about being still and listening to God’s proclaimed truth which is wiser than man’s thoughts.

Do you believe preaching is the God-ordained means to bring sinners to bow before Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Do you believe preaching is the God-ordained means to edify and strengthen the faith of God’s people as they gather for congregational worship? I would venture to say that most Baptist preachers would give a hearty “Amen” to these questions. However, all is not well in our Baptist Zion.

The Regulative Principle and Preaching

Preaching is often regarded as “foolish” today. It is being set aside in many churches in favor of more culturally “relevant” methods to evangelize the lost and edify the saints. Many consider plays, athletic displays, panel discussions, musical extravaganzas, movies, multi-media presentations, clowns, puppets and sacred dance as “more relevant” to our media generation than a “long and boring” sermon from the Bible heralded by one man speaking to men. Yet, with his last words, Paul commanded, charged, Timothy: “Preach the Word!” He did not call him to adapt this method of proclamation to the entertainment methods of his own contemporary culture. In Paul’s day Greek plays, athletic contests, magic shows, circus acts, give-and-take debates were all popular forms of entertainment. Yet Paul did not encourage churches to wed the gospel to such forms for the sake of evangelism or relevance. No! Paul held to preaching, the proclamation of God’s Word to men—to the very end of his life—no matter the culture, Jew or Gentile.

He commanded Timothy to “Preach the Word”, to herald the revelation of God to men, no matter what the hearers think or desire:

'Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:2–5).'

Even in a first-century A. D. culture of sports, drama, philosophical debate and inductive educational discussion, Paul steadfastly observed “the regulative principle” of Scripture. That is, he practiced what God had commanded and regulated by revelation to him: preaching God’s Word! Our Lord commanded Paul to preach and Paul commanded Timothy to stay with God’s method no matter what the hearer thinks." (Continue reading here.)

For more on the regulative principle: here, here, here, and here.

Be careful, the foolishness of preaching will likely be costly....

Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham- A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham (U.K.).

Evangelist preaching sparks student outcry- Two non-denominational Christian preachers calling for the repentance of gays attracted attention from hundreds of students on Tuesday, many of whom protested their presence.

Mob Brutally Attacks Missionaries- A large mob of anti-Christian extremists brutally attacked two Gospel for Asia-supported missionaries in Himachal Pradesh, India, on Saturday, March 14. After stripping them naked and beating Murari Jay and Atul Rajesh, the vicious group burned all their belongings and then had the missionaries arrested.

These are just a few examples of outrage that can be caused by the foolishness of biblical preaching. Also, I want you to be aware that there are many biblical preachers proclaiming the Truth of the gospel every day. Many of their sermons are available in mp3 formats for you to download and listen at your convenience. See the links on this page for solid biblical teaching. Be careful, though. If you have been attending a circus church, the Truth may be hard to digest, but it will be worth the effort.

Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. (John 15:20, ESV)

Does Making a Decision for Christ Lead to Salvation?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:58:00 +0000

I am posting an article by James E. Adams on Decisional Regeneration. Due to the importance placed on this act in modern evangelism, I am posting the entire article.

Decisional Regeneration
by James E. Adams

What is Regeneration? 'Except a man be born again (1), he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3). Our Lord Jesus Christ taught that the new birth is so important that no one can see heaven without it. Mistakes concerning this doctrine have been very destructive to the Church of Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God. It is not a work of man. It is not something that man does but something that God does. The new birth is a change wrought in us, not an act performed by us. This is stated so beautifully by the Apostle John when in the first chapter of his Gospel he speaks of the children of God as those 'which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' (v. 13). What is 'Decisional Regeneration'?

The history of the Christian Church has seen many errors concerning the new birth. These teachings depart from Scripture by attributing to man the ability to regenerate himself. When these false concepts of man and the new birth are adopted, churches soon become corrupted with false practices. The Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church and many other churches have all been corrupted at different times and to different degrees with the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration. Because of this erroneous teaching on regeneration, these churches have embraced false practices.

In the nineteenth century few controversies were so heated as the one over Baptismal Regeneration. It is interesting to note that C. H. Spurgeon (1836-1892), the most prolific preacher of that century, had printed in 1864 more copies of his sermon denouncing Baptismal Regeneration than of any other sermon. Baptismal Regeneration teaches that the new birth is conveyed by the waters of baptism. The sacrament is performed by man and is in his control.

But the twentieth century Church has, in 'Decisional Regeneration,' a more subtle falsehood to combat. 'Decisional Regeneration' differs from Baptismal Regeneration only in the fact that it attaches the certainty of the new birth to a different act. This doctrine, just as Baptismal Regeneration, sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that can be performed by man. What is here called 'Decisional Regeneration' has in its deceptive way permeated much of the Christian Church.

Our Purpose

The methods and theology of those that practice 'Decisional Regeneration' need to be examined—not with a malicious spirit, but with a fervent desire that all of God's people may be one in doctrine and practice for the glory of God. We love all that are in Christ. But we agree wholeheartedly with Charles Spurgeon that 'the best way to promote union is to promote truth. It will not do for us to be all united together by yielding to one another's mistakes. We are to love each other in Christ; but we are not to be so united that we are not able to see each other's faults, and especially not able to see our own. No, purge the house of God, and then shall grand and blessed times dawn on us,' (2). So then our purpose is not to question the sincerity of some Christians or to malign them, but to unite Christians in the truth as it is in our Lord. This alone is true Christian unity.

As we earnestly seek to bring unity to the Church of Christ let us turn from falsehood unto God's truth. The practice of-'Decisional Regeneration' in the Church must be exposed in order to save men from the damning delusion that because they have 'decided' or 'signed a card,' they are going to heaven and are no longer under the wrath of God. The purity of the gospel is of extreme importance because it alone is the power of God unto salvation and the true basis of Christian unity.

Decisional Regeneration and Counseling

Some may still not understand exactly what is here meant by this term 'Decisional Regeneration.' Perhaps some are unfamiliar with the counseling courses that are being taught by many organizations in this country and abroad, and with the numerous 'Soul Winning Conferences' that are taking place. In these meetings counselors are instructed that successful counseling must conclude with an individual's absolute assurance of salvation. Counselors are often instructed to assure an individual that his salvation is certain because he has prayed the prescribed prayer, and he has said 'yes' to all the right questions.

We have an illustration of 'Decisional Regeneration' when a popular present-day preacher prescribes a counseling procedure. He directs 'Mr. Soul Winner' to ask an unconverted 'Mr. Blank' a series of questions. If 'Mr. Blank' says 'yes' to all the questions, he is asked to pray a prescribed prayer and is then pronounced saved, (3). For the most part this counseling results in an individual being 'regenerated' through a decision. This is essentially the same counseling method used in large evangelistic crusades across the world. These campaigns are like huge factories turning out as many as ten thousand 'decisions' in a week.

Mr. Iain Murray, in his timely book The Forgotten Spurgeon, points out that this same type of counseling is used in youth work 'For example, a booklet, which is much circulated in student evangelism at the present time, lays down 'Three simple steps' to becoming a Christian first, personal acknowledgment of sin, and second, personal belief in Christ's substitutionary work. These two are described as preliminary, but 'the third so final that to take it will make me a Christian. . .I must come to Christ and claim my personal share in what He did for everybody.' This all-decisive third step rests with me; Christ 'waits patiently until I open the door. Then He will come in....' Once I have done this I may immediately regard myself as a Christian. The advice follows 'Tell somebody today what you have done,' '(4).

There are many variations of this type of counseling, but they all have in common a mechanical element such as the repeating of a prayer or signing of a card upon the performance of which the individual is assured of his salvation. Regeneration has thereby been reduced to a procedure which man performs. How differently did Jesus Christ deal with sinners. He did not have any instant salvation process. He did not speak to people with a stereotyped presentation. He dealt with every individual on a personal basis. Never in the New Testament do we find Christ dealing with any two persons in the same manner. It is enlightening to compare how differently He dealt with Nicodemus in John 3, and then with the woman at the well in John 4. Counseling needs to be personal.

There are a number of other problems with a mechanical counseling. Mr. Murray has pointed out the fact that on the basis of this counseling 'a man may make a profession without ever having his confidence in his own ability shattered; he has been told absolutely nothing of his need of a change of nature which is not within his own power, and consequently, if he does not experience such a radical change, he is not dismayed. He was never told it was essential so he sees no reason to doubt whether he is a Christian. Indeed, the teaching he has come under consistently militates against such doubts arising. It is frequently said that a man who has made a decision with little evidence of a change of life may be a 'carnal' Christian who needs instruction in holiness, or if the same individual should gradually lose his new-found interests, the fault is frequently attributed to lack of 'follow-up,' or prayer, or some other deficiency on the part of the Church. The possibility that these marks of worldliness and falling away are due to the absence of a saving experience at the outset is rarely considered; if this point were faced, then the whole system of appeals, decisions and counseling would collapse, because it would bring to the fore the fact that change of nature is not in man's power, and that it takes much longer than a few hours or days to establish whether a professed response to the gospel is genuine. But instead of facing this, it is protested that to doubt whether a man who has 'accepted Christ' is a Christian is tantamount to doubting the Word of God, and that to abandon 'appeals' and their adjuncts is to give up evangelism altogether.' (5)

The counseling of 'Decisional Regeneration' produces statistics that would encourage any Christian—until he follows up the so- called converts. In one heartbreaking experience forty 'converts' of such counseling were contacted and only one person of these forty was found who appeared to be a Christian. One lady may have been reached, but what were the effects of the encounter on the other thirty-nine? Some of them may believe their eternal destinies were determined by their decisions, which is a fatal confidence if no change was wrought in their hearts and lives. The others may have concluded that they had experienced all that Christianity has to offer. Failing to feel or see any promised change in themselves, they have become convinced that Christianity is a fake and that those who hold it are either self-deluded fanatics or miserable hypocrites.

Robert Dabney, one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, made some very penetrating observations concerning the disillusionment of people that have been counseled for a decision. Some of these individuals, he said, 'feel that a cruel trick has been played upon their inexperience by the ministers and friends of Christianity in thus thrusting them, in the hour of their confusion, into false positions, whose duties they do not and cannot perform, and into sacred professions which they have been compelled shamefully to repudiate. Their self respect is therefore galled to the quick, and pride is indignant at the humiliating exposure. No wonder that they look on religion and its advocates henceforward with suspicion and anger. Often their feelings do not stop here. They are conscious that they were thoroughly in earnest in their religious anxieties and resolves at the time, and that they felt strange and profound exercises. Yet bitter and mortifying experience has taught them that their new birth and experimental religion at least was a delusion. How natural to conclude that those of all others are delusions also? They say 'the only difference between myself and these earnest Christians is, that they have not yet detected the cheat as I have. They are now not a whit more convinced of their sincerity and of the reality of their exercises than I once was of mine. Yet I know there was no change in my soul; I do not believe that there is in theirs.' Such is the fatal process of thought through which thousands have passed; until the country is sprinkled all over with infidels, who have been made such by their own experience of spurious religious excitements. They may keep their hostility to themselves in the main; because Christianity now 'walks in her silver slippers'; but they are not the less steeled against all saving impressions of the truth.' (6)

Dabney penned these words a hundred years ago, long before the days of the 'mass evangelism' and highly organized campaigns. If a hundred years ago the country was 'sprinkled all over with infidels, who had been made such by their own experience of spurious religious excitements,' what must be the situation today? This is a serious question for every Christian. To have led men, even sincerely, into false hope will be an awful condemnation for a Christian when he stands before Almighty God.

Decisional Regeneration and Altar Calls

One may read thousands of pages of the history of the Christian Church without finding a single reference to the 'old-fashioned altar call' before the last century. Most Christians are surprised to learn that history before the time of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) knows nothing of this type of 'invitation.' The practice of urging men and women to make a physical movement at the conclusion of a meeting was introduced by Mr. Finney in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Dr. Albert B. Dod, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary at the time of Mr. Finney's ministry, pointed out the newness of the practice and showed that this method was without historical precedent. In his review of Finney's Lectures on Revival, Professor Dod stated that one will search the volumes of church history in vain for a single example of this practice before the 1820's, (7). Instead, history tells us that whenever the gospel was preached men were invited to Christ—not to decide at the end of a sermon whether or not to perform some physical action.

The Apostle Paul, the great evangelist, never heard of an altar call, yet today some consider the altar call to be a necessary mark of an evangelical church. In fact, churches which do not practice it are often accused of having no concern for the lost. Neither Paul nor Peter ever climaxed his preaching with forcing upon his hearers the decision to walk or not to walk. It is not only with church history, then, but with Scriptural history as well that the altar call is in conflict.

One may ask, 'How did preachers of the gospel for the previous eighteen hundred years invite men to Christ without the use of the altar call?' They did so in much the same way as did the apostles and the other witnesses of the early Church. Their messages were filled with invitations for all men everywhere to come to Christ.

Surely it will be admitted that the first sermon of the Christian Church was not climaxed by an altar call. Peter on the Day of Pentecost concluded his sermon with these words 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.' Peter stopped. Then the divinely inspired record tells us 'Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' ' (Acts 2:36-37). This response was the result of the work of the Spirit of God, not of clever appeals or psychological pressure. That day the apostles witnessed the conversion of three thousand people.

C. H. Spurgeon invited men to come to Christ, not to an altar. Listen to him invite men to Jesus Christ 'Before you leave this place breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, 'God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon Thy name....Lord, I am guilty, I deserve Thy wrath. Lord, I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to do of Thy good pleasure.

Thou alone hast power, I know
To save a wretch like me;
To whom, or whither should I go
If I should run from Thee?

But I now do from my very soul call upon Thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon Thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of Thy dear Son.... Lord, save me tonight, for Jesus' sake.' ' 'Go home alone trusting in Jesus. 'I should like to go into the enquiry-room.' I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, at once, ere you stir an inch!' (8)

Invitations such as Spurgeon gave directing men to Christ and not to aisles are needed today. George Whitefield's sermons were long invitations to men to come to Christ, not to an altar. The same may be said of the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, of the Reformers and of others in the past who were blessed with a harvest of many souls using Scriptural means of inviting men to Christ. Today the altar call has become the climax and culmination of the entire meeting. Many stanzas of a hymn are usually sung, during which time all kinds of appeals are made to the sinner to walk the aisle, and the clear impression is given to the sinner that his eternal destiny hangs on this movement of his feet.

'Just As I Am,' the precious hymn perhaps most frequently sung for the altar call, was written in 1836 by Charlotte Elliott

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bid'st me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

The phrase, 'O Lamb of God, I come, I come,' has been widely used to encourage people to 'come' down the aisle. But it is significant that Miss Elliott wrote the hymn for the infirm and that it first appeared in a hymnal prepared especially for invalids, (9). To Miss Elliott, coming to Christ was not walking an aisle.

Although most who use the altar call realize that coming to Christ is not synonymous with coming to the altar, they do give the impression to sinners that the first step in coming to Christ is walking the aisle. I am purposefully being very careful not to misstate the case. I understand the sincerity of those who practice the altar call, it having been a part of every service from my earliest memory until college. In fact, I grew up in Christian circles unaware that evangelical Christianity existed without the altar call. In many services during this time my mind was centered on the glorious person of Christ and His suffering on the cross only to find the whole focus of the worship service suddenly changed at the conclusion from seeing the glories and sufferings of Christ to walking an aisle. Many others have spoken of the same experience —that the altar call and the clever appeals at the conclusion of meetings, the decision to walk or not to walk and the wondering how many will respond, have distracted them from seeking Christ and from worshipping God in spirit and truth.

Do you remember how the crowds physically followed our Lord Christ until He began to preach some unpopular truths? Then the crowds turned back (John 666). Why? Had they not come to Jesus with their feet? Yes, but this is not the coming to Him that is necessary for salvation. Christ said, 'All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out' (John 6:37). And again He said, 'No man can come to me except the Father draw him' (John 6:44). In neither of these instances was Jesus speaking of the physical movement of the feet. Men today need to be reminded that coming to Christ is not walking an aisle, but is casting oneself on Christ for life or death. May God cause the Church to return to the Scriptures for its methods of winning men to Christ. May sinners be charged not to come forward in a meeting but to come to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Decisional Regeneration and Preaching

The false teaching of 'Decisional Regeneration' has polluted even the structure of the sermon. Jack Hyles, considered by many to be an authority on preaching, gives the following advice to his fellow-ministers 'Many of us in our preaching will make such statements as, 'Now, in conclusion'; 'Finally, may I say'; 'My last point is . . .'. These statements are sometimes dangerous. The sinner knows five minutes before you finish; hence he digs in and prepares himself for the invitation so that he does not respond. However, if your closing is abrupt and a lost person does not suspect that you are about finished, you have crept up on him and he will not have time to prepare himself for the invitation. Many people may be reached, using this method,' (10).

At the first reading of such a teaching one mignt believe, or at least hope, that he misread Mr. Hyles. The second, third and fourth readings, however, confirm that Mr. Hyles actually teaches that men may be converted to Christ as a result of some clever method a minister uses in his sermon, and that one's eternal destiny may be determined by the impulse of an unguarded moment. This idea that a man's salvation may depend upon his being 'crept up on' and giving his unwilling consent is in direct conflict with what the Scriptures teach concerning the receiving of Jesus Christ. In reality the kind of Preaching that tries to creep up on sinners results for the most part in bringing people to religion, not to Christ. Can there be any more terrible result of a sermon than the bringing of people to something other than our Lord Jesus Christ?

True preaching is not a clever device of man, but a demonstration of the Spirit of God as the truth of God is proclaimed. I can never forget hearing Dr. David Martyn Lloyd- Jones illustrate what true preaching is with an account of George Whitefield preaching in the church of Jonathan Edwards 'There was this genius Jonathan Edwards listening to Whitefield, who wasn't in the same field, of course, from the standpoint of genius and ability and so on. But as he was listening to Whitefield, his face, says Whitefield, was shining. Edwards' face was shining and tears were streaming down his face. Edwards was recognizing this authentic, authoritative note—this preaching. Whitefield was in the Spirit. Edwards was in the Spirit, and the two were blended together. The whole congregation and the preacher were one in the hand of God. That is preaching. May God enable us to practice it and experience it,'(11). The preaching of which Dr. Lloyd-Jones is speaking of and which the New Testament speaks is far removed from the trickery used in much modern preaching. Biblical preaching declares that men are not born again by the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13).

'Decisional Regeneration' does not bring men to Christ any more than does Baptismal Regeneration. It is true that some are converted under such preaching, but this is in spite of the false methods used, not because of them. The Bible is clear in its declaration that only by the Spirit of God can men be born again. True repentance and saving faith come as the result of the new birth and are never the cause of the great change. Repentance and faith are the acts of regenerated men, not of men dead in sins (Eph. 2:1, 5). However, God does not act for us; He does not believe for us; and He surely cannot repent for us—He has no sin for which to repent. We must personally, knowingly and willingly trust in Christ for salvation. Nor are we saying that preachers should not urge, yea, plead with men to repent and believe. Any preaching which merely rehearses the facts of the gospel without calling men to repentance and faith in Christ as a merciful and mighty Saviour of sinners is not biblical preaching.

The apostles taught that God saves His elect through the foolishness of preaching. All new methods devised by man can only fall far short of this ordained means of converting the sinner. The Church must forsake its carnal inventions and once again be guided by the teaching of Scripture if it is to expect God to bless its efforts and multiply its harvest. The Scriptural means of evangelizing is to 'preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God' (I Cor. 1:23-24).

Decisional Regeneration and Theology

Whether it is openly recognized or not, there are always certain doctrinal presuppositions which underlie the methods used in evangelism. What kind of teaching, then, has allowed the Church to depart from historic Christianity and to take up these new devices?

The new birth according to our Lord Jesus Christ is sovereign work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man (John 38). Yet in conflict with Christ's teaching, one of the forefathers of this new evangelism states that 'Religion is the work of man.' This is a shocking statement, especially since it is found on the very first page of Lectures on Revivals of Religion, the most influential of all of Charles G. Finney's writings, (12). The great theological difference between modern evangelism and biblical evangelism hinges on this basic question whether true religion is the work of God or of man. At best, the doctrine of 'Decisional Regeneration' attributes the new birth partly to man and partly to God.

J. H. Merle d'Aubigne (1794-1872) in his history of the Reformation in England states that 'to believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism,' (13). One of the greatest American theologians, Charles Hodge (1797-1878), also points out the danger of this teaching 'No more soul- destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves, and repent and believe just when they please. . . As it is a truth both of Scripture and of experience that the unrenewed man can do nothing of himself to secure his salvation, it is essential that he should be brought to a practical conviction of that truth. When thus convicted, and not before, he seeks help from the only source whence it can be obtained.' (14)

In both the above statements stress is put upon man's helplessness to be born anew, and the necessity for God to create life. It is especially in these two areas that the doctrine of 'Decisional Regeneration' deviates from the biblical doctrine of regeneration. This brings us to the foundational issue of 'Decisional Regeneration' What is the spiritual condition of man?

Can a man be born again by answering 'yes' to a certain group of questions? Can a man be born from 'above' by walking to the front of a building? Can a man become a true Christian by responding to an invitation as a result of being 'crept up on' unawares? Your answers to these questions will be determined by your view of man's spiritual condition. What is man's spiritual state?

The grand old Scottish theologian Thomas Boston (1676-1732) very vividly illustrated man's spiritual condition by comparing the unconverted person to a man in a pit. He can only get out of the pit in one of two ways he may through much toil and difficulty scale the sides of the pit to the top, which is the way of works; or, he may grab hold of the rope of grace let down by Christ and be pulled out of his misery. Yes, he may decide to pull himself up by the rope of the gospel, 'but, alas! the unconverted man is dead in the pit, and cannot help himself either of these ways.'(15)

Man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and cannot please God (Eph. 2:1; Rom. 8:8). Our Saviour Himself portrayed man's condition as one of utter helplessness 'No man can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him'; 'No man can come to me except it were given to him of my Father' (John 6:44, 65).

This state of death and bondage to sin cannot be changed by making a decision or by walking an aisle. A man cannot make himself a Christian. Only the Spirit of God can create a new man in Christ. God in His grace gives men new hearts. Only then can they willingly repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. God Himself has stated this truth by saying 'A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes...' (Ezek. 36:26, 27). Jesus Christ also clearly said, 'For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he wishes' (John 5:21).

The greatness of God's power in saving sinners can only be seen against the background of man's desperate condition. What a glorious doctrine is the new birth to the helpless sinner! May the Church return to biblical doctrine so that it may evangelize again to the glory of God.

How helpless guilty nature lies,
Unconscious of its load!
The heart, unchanged can never rise
To happiness and God.
The will perverse, the passions blind,
In paths of ruin stray;
Reason, debased, can never find
The safe, the narrow way.
Can aught, beneath a power divine,
The stubborn will subdue?
Tis Thine, almighty Saviour,
Thine, To form the heart anew.
O change these wretched hearts of ours,
And give them life divine!
Then shall our passions and our powers,
Almighty Lord, be Thine!
Isaac Watts

What Must we Do?

It is not a time to be silent; it is time to speak out. We have kept quiet too long, somehow feeling that if we opposed these unbiblical practices we might be hindering the good work of evangelism, believing that among the multitudes of 'decisions' there are some genuine conversions. But with every passing week thousands are being counseled into a false hope! Men are directed to walk aisles when they should be pointed to Christ alone. The high calling of preaching has degenerated into a series of gimmicks and tricks. These false practices have resulted from the perversion of biblical doctrine. In the midst of this darkness let us pray that God may be pleased to revive His Church again. This revival can come only through Christ. Men must turn afresh to His directions for counseling, to His free invitations to sinners and to the preaching of His gospel. Only then will our labors bring glory to God; and if God grants, many sinners will be converted for His glory.

Endnotes:

(1) The word 'again' is better rendered 'from above.' It points to the ultimate source of the new birth, the Triune God.
(2) C. H. Spurgeon, The New Perk Street Pulpit (London, 1964), Vol. 6, p. 171.
(3) Jack Hyles, How To Boost Your Church Attendance (Grand Rapids, 1958), pp. 32-35.
(4) Iain H. Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (London, 1966), p. 110.
(5) Ibid, p. 111.
(6) Robert L. Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (London, 1967), Vol. 2, p. 13.
(7) Albert B. Dod, 'The Origin of the Call for Decisions,' The Banner of Truth Magazine (London, Dec., 1963), Vol. 32, p. 9.
(8) Murray, op. cit., pp. 107-109.
(9) John Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology (London, 1907) p. 609.
(10) Hyles, op. cit., pp. 43-44.
(11) Recorded in shorthand from a sermon, 'The Responsibility of Evangelism,' preached at Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pa., in June, 1969.
(12) For the clearest statement of Finney's theory of regeneration read his sermon, 'Sinners Bound To Change their Own Hearts,' Sermons on Various Subjects (New York, 1835). For a detailed examination of Finney's theology see 'Review of Lectures on Systematic Theology,' The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (Philadelphia, 1847), Vol. 19, pp. 237-Z77; also Benjamin B. Warfield, 'The Theology of Charles C. Finney,' Perfectionism (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 166-215.
(13) J. H. Merle d'Aubigne, The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98.
(14) Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1970), Vol. 2, p. 277.
(15) Thomas Boston, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State (London, 1964), p. 183.

James E. Adams Bio (Click here)

Audio of "Decisional Regeneration" by James E. Adams

HT: Grace Online Library

Words4Life

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:43:00 +0000

Truth is never determined by looking at God's Word and asking, "What does this mean to me?" Whenever I hear someone talk like that, I'm inclined to ask, "What did the Bible mean before you existed? What does God mean by what He says?" Those are the proper questions to be asking. Truth and meaning are not determined by our intuition, experience, or desire. The true meaning of Scripture--or anything else, for that matter--has already been determined and fixed by the mind of God. The task of an interpreter is to discern that meaning. And proper interpretation must precede application. (John MacArthur, The Truth War, p. xx-xxi)

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:46:00 +0000

by Charles Spurgeon (edited)

An evil is in the 'professed' camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted Christian can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years this evil has developed at an alarming rate. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments!

The devil has seldom done a more clever thing, than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out the gospel, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses!

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel'.

No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him. Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people, or because they confronted them? The 'concert' has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the apostolic Church to the world? "You are the salt of the world", not the sugar candy; something the world will spit out, not swallow.

Had Jesus introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into His teaching, He would have been more popular. When "many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him," I do not hear Him say, 'Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow; something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it! Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!'

No! Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them!

In vain will the epistles be searched to find any trace of the 'gospel of amusement'. Their message is, "Therefore, come out from them and separate yourselves from them... Don't touch their filthy things..." Anything approaching amusement is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, 'Lord, grant unto your servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are'.

No! They did not cease from preaching Christ. They had no time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down; that is the only difference from today's church.

Lastly, amusement fails to effect the end desired. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer! The mission of amusement produces no converts!

The need of the hour for today's ministry is earnest spirituality joined with Biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods!

HT: GRACE GEMS

Behold! The Fruit of Man-Centered Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:39:00 +0000

1. Most Americans Pick and Choose Religious Beliefs
By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jan. 12 2009 01:22 PM EST

The majority of American adults pick and choose their religious beliefs to create, in essence, a “customized” religion rather than adopting the set of beliefs taught by a particular church, a new study found.

By a three to one margin (71 percent to 26 percent), Americans say they are more likely to personally develop their own set of religious beliefs than accept a comprehensive set of beliefs taught by a church or denomination, a Barna study, released Monday, shows.

Among those who describe themselves as Christians, for instance, nearly half believe that Satan does not exist, one-third say that Jesus sinned when He was on earth, two-fifths say they do not have a responsibility to share the Gospel with others, and one-quarter dismiss the idea that the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings – beliefs that are contrary to most church teachings. (Continue reading here.)

2. An Unlikely Gay-Straight Alliance
Campus Crusade launches HIV/AIDS outreach with campus gay-lesbian group.
Amy Green, Religion News Service posted 1/13/2009 08:14AM

Josh Spavin knows the stereotypes about evangelical Christians: judgmental, sanctimonious, narrow-minded. He may not buy into the image, but at the same time, he knows how real — and damaging — it can be.

So that's why Spavin, a recent graduate of the University of Central Florida and an intern with the UCF chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ International, wants to launch an HIV/AIDS outreach with a campus gay-lesbian group.

"Because of the way they perceive us," said Spavin, 25. "What we wanted to do is find common ground where we can serve along side with them. … We don't necessarily agree with their choices, because that's not part of our faith, but we still love them." (Continue reading here.)

*****Caution: The next article contains some graphic language****

3. Evangelical Pastors Questioned for Highlighting Seattle's R-Rated Pastor at National Conference
Contact: Cathy Mickels, 360-387-8150

SEATTLE, Jan. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerns about Mark Driscoll, the controversial pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church, are being circulated in an eleven page memo raising many questions regarding why Driscoll will be speaking on "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" at The Gospel Coalition's Conference this coming April 21-23 in Chicago. (See http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about)

"I am astonished that evangelical pastors would highlight a pastor not only known for his crudeness and careless handling of Scripture, but a pastor who also credits foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock with teaching him how to preach," stated Cathy Mickels, former Washington state president of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: The Dumbing Down of Christian Youth.

In response to those who will claim Driscoll is doctrinally sound, Mickels states, "Since when is it doctrinally sound to refer to Jesus as some 'dude' who tells 'knock-knock jokes'?" Since when does Biblical doctrine tolerate the description of the Old Testament as 'a red-neck hillbilly comedy' containing mocking comments about Noah and Jeremiah?"

Quoting from Driscoll's book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Mickels states, "It also appears Mark Driscoll discovered early on that talking about sex could help him build his church. In fact, Driscoll wrote, 'I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horney, so I went out on a limb... Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, ...oral sex, sacred stripping and sex outdoors...This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like penis and oral sex is unusual, and before you could say aluminum pole in the bedroom, attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week.'" (Continue reading here.)

How to Approach a Church Heading Into Apostasy

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:21:00 +0000

Posted at Herescope by Discernment Research Group

Jeremiah Burroughs, who was a minister of the Gospel in the 1600s, authored an extensive commentary on the book of Hosea titled An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea.[1] This massive work has been republished in our era in an 8 ½ X 11 book over an inch and a half thick, with tiny script to boot! Yet it is a precious gem for our era, a profitable exercise in eating the solid meat of the Word. Plus, it permits us a peek into the sunshine and shadows of the Reformation 100 years after its inception, when persecution was subsiding and complacency and worldliness were settling all-too-comfortably into the church.

The book of Hosea is a study for our times. Hosea's wife is an intense illustration of how individuals and churches leave their First Love and wander off pursuing lovers and lusts, passions and idolatries. Burroughs’ commentary on the phrase “Plead with your mother, plead” is insightful and pertinent to those who find themselves in the rapidly apostatizing churches of today. (Continue reading here.)

Examine Yourselves!

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:46:00 +0000

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Cor. 13:5, ESV)

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt. 7:13-14, ESV)

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' (Matt. 7:21-23, ESV)

The preceding verses are some of the most terrifying in all of Scripture. These words are spoken to the religious, those who thought they would go to heaven. After all, they were doing what they had been taught by the religious leaders of the day. Your religious leaders are not the authority. Scripture is sufficient for all you need to know regarding salvation. How do you know you are believing truth and are not being deceived? Examine yourself!

For more info:

True Assurance (Pt. 1)

True Assurance (Pt. 2)

Narrow is the Way

What is the Gospel?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:20:00 +0000

ARE YOU SURE YOU LIKE SPURGEON?

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:40:00 +0000

... by Alan Maben

Praised by many evangelicals as a great preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon is considered a successful and "safe" example of a "non-theological" ministry. His works are recommended as a means to lead many aspiring pastors into developing their own successful ministries. His Lectures to My Students are often used for this purpose, emphasizing the "practical" aspects of evangelism. But while the form of Spurgeon's successful preaching is often studied by would-be pastors, the content of this Christian giant's preaching and teaching is often ignored. Rather Spurgeon is popularly thought to have heartily approved of the same theology that is presently dominating American culture: Arminianism.

Many Christian leaders, for instance, like to point out Spurgeon as one who also had no formal college training. They ignore the fact that he had a personal library containing more that 10,000 books.1 It is further argued that the success of his ministry in the mid-to-late 19th century was due to his anti-intellectual piety, "his yieldedness to the Spirit," and his Arminianism. The fact is, Spurgeon was not anti-intellectual, nor did he entertain delusions of being so holy that he could allow God to work only if he was "yielded." Most importantly, he was not an Arminian. He was a staunch Calvinist who opposed the dominant religious view of his day (and of ours), Arminianism.2 Even toward the end of his life he could write, "From this doctrine I have not departed to this day." 3 He was grateful that he never wavered from his Calvinism.4 "There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrine of grace than do I..."5 Reading Spurgeon's beliefs, one will see that this tremendously fruitful ministry was built upon the preaching of the biblical gospel. (Continue reading here.)

Does God Save His Elect Through Extra-Ordinary Means? - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:06:00 +0000

by Nathan W. Bingham

Those who have been following this blog for any length of time will appreciate that Andrew and I are convinced of the importance of doctrine and theology in a believer’s life, as it is from one’s theological presuppositions that we all make decisions of discernment and practically live our lives or serve in ministry. Therefore, I am beginning a short two-part series which will attempt to answer the question, “Does God Save His Elect Through Extra-Ordinary Means?” The reason for this short series is simple; in both real life conversations and online communications, it has become clear that some who would identify themselves as Reformed have come to conclusions that are radically inconsistent with foundational Reformation theology in the area of soteriology.1

Today’s post will positively affirm the extra-ordinary work of God in saving His elect. Consequently establishing that for one to suggest a potential need for any extra-ordinary means is for one to deny the sufficiency of God’s work in the effectual call and regeneration. (Continue reading here.)

Easy Believism

noreply@blogger.com (Truthseeker) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:43:00 +0000

Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matt. 7:14, NKJV)