BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 2 Original Sin

In the Article by BPNews under the Total Depravity section Dr. Paige Patterson says,

"Does that mean we are born guilty before God?" Patterson asked. "I do not think that can be demonstrated from Scripture. We are born with a 'sin sickness,' a disease that makes it certain that we will sin and rebel against God." The Bible says people are condemned for their own sins, he said.

I must confess that my eyeballs about fell out of their sockets. Is Patterson denying Original Sin? If not, the language comes very close in doing so. To say man is born with a sickness is to depart Reformational theology and start running down the road to Rome at high speed. If these guys are not paying attention to the Roman Catholic from Protestantism converts, they better. Foundationally speaking, his view of man fits right at home with Rome. This seems semi-Pelagian at best.

Patterson goes on to say,

"Look at what dead men do," Patterson continued, citing Ephesians 2:1: "... [Y]ou were dead in your trespasses and sin.' If you are dead, then you can't do anything to respond to God." Patterson pointed to verses 2-3, which says, "You walked according to the course of this world ... you once conducted yourself in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and mind...."

"This is analogy, you are dead in trespasses and sin, and pressed too far, you will make it say more than it says," he stated.

I guess we are borrowing theology from the movie Princess Bride. We are "mostly dead"? How does one push the analogy too far? Obviously Paul is using this term in a manner with spiritual death. Patterson has made this argument for the last several years. Calvinists have been offering sound answers. Without having listened to the sermon I do not know if he has answered the objections, but knowing the consistency of their nonresponse, I would venture a guess he didn't.

As for the text, I am not certain what more Paul could say to describe man's complete inability. Paul specifically tells us that we were walking according to our flesh. We were walking according to our sinfully enslaved will, not God's. The text tells us that God elected and God raised us to spiritual life. The analogy is clear. We are not sick and made better. Instead, we were raised from the dead!!!!

I thank Jesus Christ that by His death and resurrection, He has called me out of my grave by His power and His power alone. That when I was dead, He raised me to spiritual life.

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 1

Non-Calvinists/Arminians/Biblicists never seem to get tired of repeating their same old worn out false understandings of Calvinism. Baptist Press News (BPNews) has an article on the John 3:16 Conference sponsored by Jerry Vines. The Conference was supposedly done as an informational tool for non-Calvinists. I think it might be educational to see what these non-Calvinists have to say and interact with the statements made.

If you read the article and you're a Calvinists, don't pull your hair out in frustration. These guys will simply never get it unless they go to God's Word first. Since they won't, Calvinists must call for real dialogue. Allow me to offer a few examples.

The article explains,

He emphasized the importance of starting with an exegesis of scripture, working forward to find a biblical theology and then attempting to develop a systematic theology.

Please notice the paragraph right before this quote. Vines said,

Vines said that the Greek word for "whosoever," which occurs more than a thousand times in the New Testament, carries the idea of "anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whosoever believes in Him is John's normal way of describing saving faith."

I have to chuckle here. There is no Greek word for "whosoever" in John 3:16! (This was the verse being referenced.) Why men like Vines refuse to deal with the arguments of Calvinists, or at least deal with the text I may not ever understand. Nevertheless, please notice two things about this idea of "whosoever".

a) Notice the assumption being made here. Whosoever is being equivocated with ability. Everyone has the ability to choose Christ of their own freewill. How is this definition "exegeted" from the text? It is not. Therefore, we have a terrific example of a human tradition being substituted as God's Word itself.

b) Could "whosoever" mean something else? Does the text give us a different view? The text actually gives us the information needed. "Whosoever" could have the connotation that anyone that is believing will be saved. This does not refer to "ability" but is rather descriptive of the intention of God's saving power. God will save all who are believing, whether they be Jew or Gentile or anything else.

Vines goes on to assert,

"In Scripture God commands men to believe," Vines said, asserting that God would not command people to do what they cannot do.

This is asserted all the time. I have yet to hear a Biblical argument for this. So again, both statements are given with the foundational position of "exegesis". Yet none is offered? Where in the Bible does the Bible teach that God can not command men to do things that he currently does not have the ability to do?

I agree that man had the ability to keep God's laws in the garden prior to the fall. Yet man is now enslaved to sin. Are God's Laws not binding upon him simply because man has fallen into sin and death? Are God's Laws not binding upon him because his nature has been enslaved to sin? What evidence is there for this? If we are going to follow Vines' logic, would he not also deny Original Sin? How is God able to hold me accountable for a sin Adam committed?

I am not certain Vines and his contemporaries are even able to grasp Calvinism, much less Biblical exegesis.

More From Poythress

I am always amazed at how relevant the Old Covenant ceremonial laws are for the Christian. So many today ignore the Old Testament since it is basically Law while the New is all Gospel. Such is actually not the case. Both Law and gospel run through the entire fabric of Scripture together.

Although I have written in the past about calling the laws of God "principles", the point that Poythress makes here is important and needs to be understood. Here are a few more quotes from Poythress on the moral law in contrast to the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant.

The Ten Commandments are not moralism or a legalistic way of salvation, but a call to life motivated by gratitude for God's compassion and deliverance...Egypt is a "type" or foreshadowing of the domain of sin. Redemption from Egypt is a kind of foreshadowing of redemption through Jesus Christ. Consequently, we who are redeemed are to be motivated to obey God's commandments just as Israel was.

He then comments on the relevance of the ceremonial aspects of the law.

Such laws are generally classified as ceremonial because Christians are not bound to observe them literally...Nevertheless, these laws still express permanent principles. "Touch no unclean thing" is quoted by Paul as a backing for his injunction not to be yoked together with unbelievers...because it embodies the general principle of separation from moral disorder.

His conclusion,

Thus it seems wisest to me not to draw a sharp distinction between ceremonial and moral law, but to study all of the law most carefully in the endeavor to appreciate its depth, the richness of its connections, and the unity of its purpose in foreshadowing Christ.

Therapy for Post-Election Blues

Mark Chanski posted this at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog. I didn't ask for persmission. So sue me.

Therapy for Post-Election Blues

In Reformed Baptist Fellowship on Friday, November 14, 2008 at

So, you’re discouraged and downcast about the outcome of the presidential election? You’d hoped for better. You’re concerned that we’ve taken a huge step backwards on such crucially important morality issues like abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research. You fear our nation is culturally slipping into a season of ethical darkness. You’re tempted to think that evil has somehow snuck up into the heavenly throne-room, seized, gagged, and bound God in a celestial corner, while unchecked wickedness will now trash history for a four-year term. You may feel the onset of spiritual depression.

Don’t go there. The children of God have every reason to rejoice in their Father’s undisturbed and sovereign reigning over the events of the November election. The Bible is clear. The decision was ultimately the LORD’s. “For not from the east, nor from the west, nor from the desert comes exaltation; but God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another” (Psalm 75:6-7). We ought to hold to the deep conviction that Barack Obama is God’s man for the Whitehouse.

The carpenter holds his power drill. He’s finished with the drill bit for boring holes. He removes and puts down the boring bit, passes by the screw-driver bit, then selects and inserts the sanding bit. He has purposeful and important work to do. Likewise, the Lord has put down Bush/Cheney, passed by McCain/Palin, and exalted Obama/Biden. He has work to do.

Maybe the church in America needs a serious sanding down of unspiritual rough edges that have arisen over many years of pampering prosperity. Maybe God’s people need to be placed in the fire in order to get rid of a careless lukewarmness. Maybe the worsening of evil in American society will enable the gospel to grip with an even better traction.

Commenting on Romans 8:28, and the fact that God always “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God”, Octavius Winslow (Evening Thoughts) writes: “In God there is no evil, though at times it would appear He places Himself in an attitude of hostility toward believers, to stand in their path as with a drawn sword in His hand. . . Yet the darkest seasons of the church’s history have ever been those from which her brightest luster and shine has arisen, and those most threatening events have somehow conspired to the highest good and best welfare of the church.”

This is no time for God’s people to be depressed. The Carpenter from Nazareth is now at the Right Hand on High, and is busily building his church. “The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; Let the many islands be glad. . . Be glad in the LORD, you righteous ones; And give thanks to His holy name” (Psalm 97:1, 12).

Let’s go out into our Father’s garden every morning, with our hoes swung over our shoulders, joyously whistling the old sweet song, “This is my Father’s world, O let me ne’er forget, that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”

Mark Chanski

Reformation Weekend Conferences Now Available

The MP3s are finally available online. For Reformation Weekend we went to FBC in St. Francis. This year's speaker was Dr. David Sills of Southern Baptist Seminary. The theme was Calvinism and Evangelism.

Dr. Sills was clearly passionate about evangelism. His five sermons on the subject are worth your time. What was interesting was that he started with The Calling of Abraham.

Last year Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology, also from SBTS, spoke on the Glory of God in the Face of Christ.

In 2006, Dr. Roy Hargrave spoke on Calvinism. He literally hit the ground running.

In 2005 Dr. Phil Newton spoke on the Church. This was some serious study on a subject many just assume is not necessary.

I have greatly appreciated the fact that four godly and well known men would take the time to come out to North-Western Kansas and speak to a small gathering. Go to the site and download them to your MP3 player/I-Pod. Enjoy!

The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses

The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses is a little on the difficult side. Nevertheless, it is a good read and well worth your time. In the seventh chapter, The Law and Its Order, Prefiguring Christ, the author has a great section discussing the clean and unclean portions of the ceremonial aspects of the Law.

Have you ever wondered why eating certain kinds of foods were wrong for Israelites and not for Gentiles? Here are a couple of paragraphs I thought might be worth citing here. Keep in mind that there is much food for thought that is foundational to these paragraphs.

The laws concerning clean and unclean also embody the themes of life and death, often on an indirect, symbolic plane. Contact with the dead body of a human being is of course direct contact with human death, the primary curse of the fall. It creates maximum defilement, requiring seven days for cleansing (Numbers 19:11-19). An animal that has died by itself is a more distant mirror of the curse of death; accordingly, it requires only part of one day to become clean again (Leviticus 11:24-40). Creatures that crawl on the ground are indirectly associated with the curse on the ground and the curse on the serpent. Hence, they are unclean and unsuitable for food (Lev 11:41-45).

All the things described in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are unclean for Israel. But Deuteronomy 14:21 explicitly allows Israelites to sell carcasses to aliens and foreigners. What is prohibited to Israel is not prohibited to others. Rather, the prohibition rests on the fact that "you [Israelites] are a holy people to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 14:21). The world has been contaminated with curse and uncleaness originating in the fall. The Gentile nations participate in this uncleaness through their contact with unclean animals. But such uncleaness is not in itself sin. It is merely symbolic of sin. And separation from uncleaness accompanies symbolic holiness. Israel alone is required to observe a special ceremonial cleaness, because they are the holy people. Their special access to God makes it necessary for them to maintain special distance from the fall and its curse. At the same time, all these special observances serve to reinforce their consciousness of being a unique nation. They are thereby reminded not to participate in the idolatry and moral corruption of the surrounding nations.

At the end of the chapter Poythress writes,

Thus Jesus Christ perfectly kept the law, perfectly embodied it, and perfectly exemplified it. The mystery and wonder of His work is even greater than what we can express. Christ's work does not come as an afterthought appended to an already self-existing, self-sufficient law. The law of the Old Testament is not a mere datum or a mere code book, but the personal word of the great King of the universe. And who is this King? From eternity to eternity the Word was with God and was God (John 1:1). The King is the trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God the Son was always at work from the beginning. The law of Moses is a reflection and foreshadowing of the absolute perfection and righteousness of Christ, rather than Christ being a reflection of the law. This conclusion confirms what we have already seen through the tabernacle. Both tabernacle and law express in complementary ways the communion with God that achieves full expression only through the coming of Christ and His uniting Himself to us by faith.

I am only a fourth of the way through this book, but it offers insights into the Old Testament showing that all of God's Word demonstrates the Glory of Christ and the wonders of His perfect work.

Wacko Libs Pose As Terrorists

Could you imagine if anyone on the Right to have done anything even remotely compared to this not making the news? Yet I have to hear about this through Blogs. My personal opinion is that the men of this congregation should have been doing some tackling (some bloody noses were certainly in order, really, what is the difference between this and mailing flour posed as anthrax? One is a terrorist action, and this isn't?), but then again it is Michigan. Perhaps there aren't any men left?

Now I must confess that from the article they may have not been dressed like the picture when they attacked this church. The article states,

This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went.

Yet this picture seems to have been taken from a journalist that had been tipped ahead of time. I guess this journalist, Nathan Harris, would have followed the Terrorists of Flight 93 to his death.

If Stalinists Persist, Let's Line Up For Battle

People who think like this guy are scary. Stalinists they be. If Conservative ideas may be compared to pornography then we know this guy's true motivations. Don't defeat your opponents ideas, eliminate them from the field.



I say to Schumer to bring it on. All Conservatives need to file complaints against every TV program and get air time to explain Conservatism. Any station that has any show that has anything remotely to do with expressing liberal views about anything (and what show doesn't?) must receive constant phone calls. If they can do this to Conservatives, turn-about is fair play. If the Stalinists want this, then let's dance.

Conservative Politics Just Bugs Me

Although this is more political than I normally like to discuss here, I am wondering what in the world is Matt Lewis talking about. First, if you are a Conservative I suggest reading his post at Town Hall.com. His entire post is so pragmatic I am left standing on the sidelines befuddled. I feel as though I am on a high school football team waiting for the coach to call in a play only to have a delay of game penalty charged, and somehow it is my fault.

First Matt makes the point that the Republicans are divided. One side has "ceded the war, and, in essence, are hoping to negotiate the best deal possible." Agreed! While the other side chooses "to bury their heads in the sand." He's lost me.

The McCains have joined the pragmatism of the Country Club Republicans. If you watched Republican Sam Brownback run for President he sounded like Newt Gingrich accepting Global Warming as he cozied up to Hillary on health care. So many Republicans like McCain have ceded the war.

Yet what is it about those on the other side? Is he saying there are no ideas or strategies? For instance he writes,

- The GOP must become the Party of science and math. This might include new energy ideas, a major investment in educating our children to compete with China in science and math, space exploration, etc.

I say great. Many of us would love this. But what does he mean? Uh oh, the play clock has run out. I guess we'll have to back up four years to find out. The fact is, the Democrats control education. Is he saying Conservatives all need to pull out of the Public School system, and Conservative leaders will now start calling on Big Corporations to fund real education? Somehow I doubt that. So again, I am left on the sideline wondering how in the world will internet access save the day without a real Conservative plan that is founded on Conservative Ideology.

But then Matt says the rest of us need to modernize. We need to use technology. I am not exactly sure what he means. I would not even know about Matt Lewis if it were not for the internet. Should I be making Conservative video games to win libs over to our side?

Michael Medved also criticizes Conservatives in another post at TownHall.com saying,

"Frankly, I can't find any example to prove that "running on principle" and ignoring independents and moderates actually brought political success this year. "

He claims in the post that McCain lost because he didn't win the moderates. I am puzzled even more now. McCain was the only guy that supposedly could win the moderates. So what gives? He doesn't say it, but he is saying McCain was not liberal enough? Is he saying that McCain wasn't reaching out to both sides? Is he blaming Palin like the rest of the Conservative snots? He says no but then he writes,

As I made abundantly clear at the end of my previous piece, what needs to change isn't substance, it's style. You can't reach the American majority (which is a center-right majority, not a right-right majority) with anger, nastiness, smugness, or fratricidal warfare.

Where was the nastiness? It was on the Left, not the Right. McCain spent more time demoralizing members of his own party than his political enemies (if they are his enemies). Also, McCain is principled and idealistic? I must have been zapped to Mars. McCain is anything but a Conservative idealist.

Why is it these guys just can't see the obvious? If you try to make friends with your enemies, they always let you on to their turf only to slaughter you. McCain hasn't learned a thing and neither has this guy (assuming I have understood him correctly).

But it's no less hateful and stupid to turn on McCain -- who freely admitted his own mistakes (and yes, there were plenty of 'em) but still ran a strong and energetic race in the midst of overwhelmingly unfavorable circumstances.

McCain ran a race? I must have missed it.

I am truly thankful that I am a citizen of another Kingdom whose King is perfectly righteous. The two shall never meet.

I Felt Guilty, So I Voted For Papa Smurf

Albert Mohler wrote about Obama's election to the office President earlier this week. One paragraph has me wondering if racism will never end. He writes,

Every American should be moved by the sight of young African-Americans who -- for the first time -- now believe that they have a purchase in American democracy. Old men and old women, grandsons and granddaughters of slaves and slaveholders, will look to an African-American as President.

This statement seems to be saying that for the "first time" we Americans can get past our racism. I think Mohler greatly under estimates the race industry. The fact that we have to constantly look at Obama not as a man, who is judged by his deeds as opposed to his race, shows we are still stuck where we were many years ago. As my brother-in-law said, "Why does Mohler care what color he is. I don't care if he's Smurf blue. What does the man believe and is it good for America?"

I am also curious about the many successful black men, who through hard work have achieved the American dream. Do they see Obama as advancing African-Americans? Do they see Affirmative Action hurting or helping? What are we to think of men such as Shelby Steele or Walter Williams (Williams has substituted for Rush Limbaugh on his radio program many times). What conservative would not want them as President? Should we look at them as a couple of lucky black guys or as men who have worked hard overcoming the racial inequities and helping other black men to see real achievement as a means of overcoming racism?

Steele wrote earlier this week in the LA Times,

"Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency."

In other words, to not vote for Obama is to be racist. Therefore, racism is still very much a part of our culture whether we like it or not, and it is coming from those who promise to bring its end. Further in the editorial he writes,

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.

This pretty much states exactly my point. Race was the ticket to Obama's victory. Therefore race must be used to keep the victory. We didn't vote for Obama because of his public policy for as Steele says his policy is "quite unremarkable".

If I remember correctly, there was a charismatic black/African-American man running for President in 1992. His name was Allen Keys. He spoke at the church I was attending. His understanding of the Pro-life issues was outstanding. His view of taxes agreed with conservative ideas. He was a man who truly stood for liberty and true justice. I simply did not care if Keys was Smurf blue. He was a man with sound ideas, and I would have voted for him to be President. He certainly was not the product of Affirmative Action as Obama is. Keys can read and understand the U.S. Constitution. Obama clearly doesn't care what the Constitution says.

Ideas. Ideas. Ideas. The fact we have an entire post by Mohler dedicated to Obama whose only argument for celebrating Obama as President is that he is black skinned is not overcoming racial inequities. They will only further the race industry's Left-wing agenda. I hope I am wrong. I hope we Americans may truly get past the evils of racism. Yet with men still seeing colors, I only see that someday we will guilt ourselves in voting for Papa Smurf simply because he is blue.