Confidence In Atheism Waning?

Not only has the public's trust of the Stock Market gone down but apparently Atheism's trust in science is also waning. This weekend I spent a few minutes in a Christian apologetics chat channel talking with an atheist. Within about 30 seconds the atheist said, "Whatever".

I must confess that that is a bit unusual. Most of the time atheists that would take the time to come into a Christan apologetics channel put up a pretty good fight. I usually have to really think about their arguments. This guy just seemed to not have the energy of love for atheism in him.

Dinesh D'Souza has written an article for Townhall.com offering a interesting viewpoint. He writes about the fact that science, especially in astronomy and molecular biology, has been showing the universe to be fine tuned for life. The coincidences are just too much to handle.

The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own. Moreover, there may never be such evidence. That’s because if there are other universes, they will operate according to different laws of physics than the ones in our universe, and consequently they are permanently and inescapably inaccessible to us. The article in Discover concludes on a somber note. While some physicists are hoping the multiverse will produce empirical predictions that can be tested, “for many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”

You got to love it when atheists are now defending a position that places them outside of the scientific realm. Keep in mind that this is exactly what they have been accusing Christians of for as long as I can remember.

Albert Mohler, President of SBTS, has also noticed this quite some time ago (read article here). The "New Atheism" is on the move. In my opinion, atheism is like that proverbial animal that is dying and backed into a corner. The leaders are attempting to fight back with one last stand. However, I am sensing the lay-followers have lost their zeal.

Pope Agrees With Luther...Double Talk

In this second post I want interact with the Pope's understanding of the Law verses the context of Scripture's use of it in Galatians. The article explains,

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, "we must clarify what is the 'law' from which we have been freed and what are those 'works of the law' that do not justify."

So here we see that some aspects of the Law justify and some that do not justify. But what are they?

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the "collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc."

These observances served to protect Jewish identity and faith in God; they were "a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith," he remarked.

By making this distinction between ethnic (Jewish Identity) laws and moral laws, Rome is able to say that justification occurs with a faith that works [moral laws] in love, not a faith alone that simply looks outside of one-self, looks to another and rests solely in the work of Christ alone.

In Galatians we read,

Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

With the Rome's definition of law smuggled in, many Protestant will readily accept Rome as simply another denomination. The irony is that there is a movement among Protestants called the New Perspective On Paul (NPP). This movement interprets Paul's letter to the Galatians and sees that Paul was arguing against the Judaizers that were wanting to have Gentile Christians keep the ethnic laws that were used as boundaries for the Jews. In other words, Paul, according to this view, simply wanted to break down the cultural ethnic barriers of the law that separated Jews and Gentiles, not the moral law. But is this all Paul meant by the term "law"?

Jeffery Smith's article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (vol IV, No.1) demonstrates that the NPP is in serious error. His arguments I think apply equally strong here against the Roman Pontiff. He writes

...an examination of Paul's use of the phrase "the works of the law" demonstrates that he saw in this insistence a much deeper problem that goes far beyond the mere issue of boundary markers or the social function of the law. Paul argues that to insist that justification is dependent on obedience to any aspect of the law means that we must be obedient to all that the law as a whole demands in order to be justified.

Now how do we know that Paul is referring to the entire law? Smith goes on to explain verses 3:10-14 and cites Venema's comments,

Those who would be justified by the works of the law are reminded that the law pronounces a curse upon everyone who fails to keep "all things" that are written in it.

The reference makes plain that the entire Old Testament Law must be kept or the curses of Deuteronomy would be fulfilled in the law-breaker. To make this passage refer to only "boundary markers" is to miss the point of the text itself. Paul not only includes circumcision, but also the Ten Commandments.

Think about it. Are we going to say that we may by faith keep the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" as justifying while circumcision is not? Who in the world keeps that commandment? I'll bet you broke that commandment within the last fifteen minutes. Are we really going to say that Christ has only freed us from the "boundary markers"? Why was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for circumcision? The problems with NPP and Rome's understanding of these passages in order to get round the plain teaching of Scripture only worsens the problem. God truly becomes the "cosmic child abuser" if Jesus' death on the cross is merely for racism.

To put it another way Smith writes,

...If this is the meaning of Christ being made a curse for us, then the Jews themselves had no need of a cross. The cross was only for the Gentiles, to show them that God is for them [is this not what Benedict basically says?]. The only need, then, that Jews had of the cross was with reference to their unwillingness to receive Gentiles. Thus the cross was only for those Jews who were racist and only for those Gentiles who were unhappy with the idea of having to become Jews.

Smith's comments on Romans 7 are helpful.

Some argue that it's only a legalistic obedience to the law that Paul excludes from being the ground of justification. It is only obedience out of the sinful motive of seeking to bribe God. However, they argue that evangelical obedience, or believing obedience, is not excluded from being the ground of our justification or from in some sense being the condition of our justification. But it is not merely a legalistic obedience that Paul excludes. That, of course, is excluded. Paul excludes obedience to the demands of the law period, whatever the motive.

Man is always attempting to insert himself somewhere in salvation. We just can't let go of the idea that we must do something. The common objection raised by all religions including Roman Catholicism is the same objection that was raised against Paul's teaching of Justification by faith alone.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

Or as one RC asked me, "So you believe that we are fully and completely justified by faith alone apart from any works of any kind? So you may get saved and then kill people without any possibility of losing your salvation?"

Paul's answer in the rest of chapter 6 is something I will let the reader decide. For now I will agree with Lloyd-Jones. You are not preaching the Gospel unless you are accused of preaching the free-grace of God. This Rome denies and will not do. Therefore Rome is an apostate church. She has redefined faith and the law and ultimately the Gospel, which is really no Gospel at all.

Anne Milgram Terrorizes Private Business

According to Michelle Malkin, "the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model." They now have to provide a service to homosexuals that the company was never designed to do.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.

Malkin informs us of other law-suits.

For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

As I argued with Nolan T, once you allow homosexuals super rights, how do you argue against these kinds of suits.

Basically the Attorney General's office in NJ headed by Anne Milgram will now terrorize private citizens and businesses if they don't abide by their political correctness. Their personal views of the world will now be forced on anyone they choose. So once again, the Nolan T style ignorance runs a muck. Not only do Americans have foreign enemies that hate our Constitution, we have domestic enemies as well.

Michelle Malkin offers a potential strategy. Start suing the private companies of homosexuals. There is just one problem with that idea. Most Conservatives have lives.

Pope Agrees With Luther...Not

Yesterday, the Pope announced that "Martin Luther's doctrine on justification is correct..." You may read an article by Zenit here (thanks to Algo for pointing this to me). I guess we can all close our Protestant churches and go back to the true church Jesus founded. We Protestants have been wrong for the last 500 years. If only the Pontiff of Luther's day would have said this. We could have avoided all of this misunderstanding.

At the close of the article the Pope is quoted.

Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love."

"Paul knows," he added, "that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love."

What modern Protestant would disagree with this? As a Protestant who has spoken over the years with many different sects that claim to be Christian but are not, I have learned one thing. There is a "language barrier" that must be scaled.

First, let's look at what the Pope is actually saying. Then we will look at what the Reformers taught in their confessions. Tomorrow's post we shall look at the meaning of "law" as defined by Scripture.

If you read the article carefully, you will notice there are significant qualifications that Benedict the XVI stipulates.

Martin Luther's doctrine on justification is correct, if faith "is not opposed to charity." - [emphasis mine]

What does the Pope mean by this. He clarifies with the same old Roman Catholic trick. He redefines "law".

What is law

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, "we must clarify what is the 'law' from which we have been freed and what are those 'works of the law' that do not justify."

The article then explains the meaning of this,

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the "collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc."

So what the Pope gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. It is true that Jesus' work on the cross takes down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles, such as circumcision, pure foods, and ect..

"The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary".

This is often the argument used by Roman Catholics to explain Paul's use of the Law in Galatians. According to Rome, Paul was not saying that men are justified by faith alone without works of love. They were just not justified by keeping ethnic barriers of circumcision (perhaps also eating certain clean foods and keeping certain rituals) that the Judaizers were forcing upon churches. So Rome teaches that we must keep the law of love by faith in order to be Justified. But is this the only meaning of "Law" Paul is speaking of or is this really what Luther meant by faith?

The Lutheran and Protestant Confessions as a whole reject what the Pope defines as faith that Justifies a sinner. Luther's Lectures On Romans has an interesting paragraph that deals with the external nature of Justification.

The saints are intrinsically always sinners, therefore they are always extrinsically justified; but the hypocrites are intrinsically always righteous, therefore they are extrinsically always sinners....Hence, we are extrinsically righteous in so far as we are righteous not in and from ourselves and not in virtue of our works but only by God's regarding us so. For inasmuch as the saints are always aware of their sin and implore God for the merciful gift of His righteousness, they are for this very reason also always reckoned righteous by God. Therefore they are before themselves and in truth unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because He reckons them so on account of this confession of their sin; they are sinners in fact, but by virtue of the reckoning of the merciful God they are righteous....

One must wonder if the Pope would agree with Luther. Obviously not.

The Augusburg Confession states,

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

As the LBCF states defines the historic understanding of Faith Alone,

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his Righteousness, is the (f) alone instrument of Justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving Graces, and is no dead faith, (g) but worketh by love.

And again,

But the principal acts of Saving Faith, have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon (i) him alone, for Justification, Sanctification, and Eternal Life, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace.

These quotes demonstrate that for historic Protestantism including Luther that faith without any works whatsoever saves a man. The reason is simple. It looks to Christ. It looks to another's work and righteousness alone. Yet obviously saving faith is never without works, but those works have no justifying power in any way, shape or form. This is what Benedict denies in his qualifications of faith. The Reformers did not misunderstand Rome. They knew full well the stakes involved. Once works entered into the definition of faith that justifies, then resting in Christ's work alone is not possible.

So why does the Pope say Luther was right, when he knows full well what Luther taught and knows full well that he disagrees with Luther? Deception. As Algo said to me last night, "This is double talk." Double talk is what you get with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. It is also what you are getting with Rome.

You may say, "This seems trivial." How a man is made right with God is anything but trivial. Of course if you see man as merely "sick" then, God's grace may be necessary, but it will not be sufficient until man cooperates with God. For the Reformers, God's grace is not merely necessary, but sufficient. This, tied together with man's total depravity, brings about faith alone in Christ Alone.

When a man sees he has nothing to offer God, even by faith in love, he will see salvation is By Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. To God alone be the Glory.

Court Flushes Constitution Down Black Hole

BPNews has reported that the California Supreme Court will see if the Constitution is Constitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court agreed Nov. 19 to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but -- in a win for supporters -- allowed the amendment, which prohibits "gay marriage," to remain in effect during the interim.

If you remember this was exactly my point to Nolan T back in May. Due to his ignorance of how our form of Government works, he was more concerned about whether I was homophobic than whether the basis for law was sound and solid. The fact is this case shows we have abandoned any sense of American government. If we overthrow the Constitution and allow men in black robes declare what is right and wrong, then we have truly fallen down the black hole. No one seems to know where this will end up at. Outer darkness is a dark place indeed.

Scalia and Foreign Law

Just got this from Citizen Link. I just love Justice Scalia. We need more men like him to stop Liberals from overthrowing the Constitution.


Scalia Warns Judges Against Relying on Foreign Law

by Jennifer Mesko, editor

He says the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

The U.S. Constitution is not a "living document" and should not be filtered through foreign law.

That's the message U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had for a group of judges and lawyers in Houston this week.

"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old jurist told the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Scalia called on judges to adhere to the constitutional authors' intent. He said the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Scalia is right to criticize his colleagues for relying on foreign law to justify their decisions.

"If judges are just going to make stuff up, they should have the courage to admit it," he said. "If we're not vigilant as citizens to protect our law-making authority under the Constitution, the judiciary will increasingly take that authority from us and use it to create a society in their own image.

"We must cry 'foul' whenever the court dabbles in its fondness for the use of foreign law to justify its own excesses."

Wendy Long, legal counsel at the Judicial Confirmation Network, agreed.

"The whole idea of America was that we were going to be a nation built on the consent of the governed," she told Family News in Focus. "That means we’re only governed by laws that a majority of us have assented to — that includes the Constitution."

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 6 Election

Richard Land spoke about election. The BPNews article states,

Reacting to Reformed commentaries that say "all" can't really mean "all men" because if God willed something it would have to happen, Land said, "I believe in a God who is so sovereign and so omniscient that He can break out of Calvin's box ... and He can choose to limit Himself and He can convict us and He can seek to bring us to conviction ... but He will not force us."

I constantly hear this God limiting Himself argument. This is the same mentality from the pagan movie Bruce Almighty. God creates a creature, man, in such a way in that the creature has more freedom than God does. This is simply a philosophy of man and love that is read into the Bible.

Please notice the phrase "but He will not force us." I thank God that God forced me to rise from the dead. I thank God that He recreated or regenerated my will in Christ to seek and follow Christ. I thank God that while I was a wicked rebellious God-hating sinner, He chose to convert me through the preaching of that wonderful proclamation of the Gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation.

Of course when I say these things, the other side hears "robot" or a chatty Cathy doll. They see the "free agency of man" being violated. Yet this is their Tradition speaking, not Scripture.

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 5 Perseverance

Ken Keathley spoke on the subject of Perseverance and assurance. The article states,

While the Reformers taught that assurance is the essence of faith, the doctrines of the hidden will of God, limited atonement and temporary faith undermine this assurance, he said. Some argue that final justification is obtained by perseverance.

"Doesn't this come close to a works-based salvation?" he asked.

Keathley said the only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ, and that saving faith perseveres or remains until the day when it gives way to sight.

"Any model that begins with Christ but ends with man is doomed to failure," he stated.

I am not really certain why assurance and perseverance are considered as the same thing. They are not. The irony in the above statement is that Calvinists were accused of having faith in faith earlier in the article. Yet that is exactly what we get with "Once Saved Always Saved". We have perhaps millions of Christians who are told never to question their faith. They are simply to believe that they believe, therefore they are saved. How Calvinists become the target of this argument is beyond my comprehension.

It is true that Luther and Calvin seemed to say that "assurance is the essence of faith", yet not all would agree. Sam Waldron discusses the idea that assurance and faith (listen here) are not the same thing even though they are inextricably linked together. Albert Mohler has an article on assurance that I believe is helpful in understanding the Christian's responsibility in his growth in Christ.

Dealing with assurance or perseverance or whatever he is trying to address is a little more complicated that just saying Calvinists start with God and end up with man. This is simply not helpful to the discussion at all. The article says,

"Some argue that final justification is obtained by perseverance."

Who are these "some"? The article does not mention. There is a movement within the Reformed community to abandon Justification as historically taught. Sam Waldron's dissertation is a helpful read.

Since there seems to be all of this confusion on Perseverance being equated with assurance and final justification, allow me to cite the London Baptist Confession on what the doctrine actually is verses what we are told it is by those that have constantly misrepresented the Reformed Faith.

Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints

1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
( John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6 )

2._____ This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
( Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40 )

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )

Anyone see assurance in this section? That's because assurance is dealt with in another section. Again, they are not the same thing. Here is the section on Assurance, which is oddly enough (surprise surprise) the next chapter.

Chapter 18: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation

1._____ Although temporary believers, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God and state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
( Job 8:13, 14; Matthew 7:22, 23; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 3:14, 18, 19, 21, 24; 1 John 5:13; Romans 5:2, 5 )

2._____ This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith founded on the blood and righteousness of Christ revealed in the Gospel; and also upon the inward evidence of those graces of the Spirit unto which promises are made, and on the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; and, as a fruit thereof, keeping the heart both humble and holy.
( Hebrews 6:11, 19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 2 Peter 1:4, 5, 10, 11; Romans 8:15, 16; 1 John 3:1-3 )

3._____ This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it; yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of means, attain thereunto: and therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; -so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
( Isaiah 50:10; Psalms 88; Psalms 77:1-12; 1 John 4:13; Hebrews 6:11, 12; Romans 5:1, 2, 5; Romans 14:17; Psalms 119:32; Romans 6:1,2; Titus 2:11, 12, 14 )

4._____ True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light, yet are they never destitute of the seed of God and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are preserved from utter despair.
( Canticles 5:2, 3, 6; Psalms 51:8, 12, 14; Psalms 116:11; Psalms 77:7, 8; Psalms 31:22; Psalms 30:7; 1 John 3:9; Luke 22:32; Psalms 42:5, 11; Lamentations 3:26-31 )

Just in case you missed the first sentence in paragraph 3 it says exactly the opposite of that which is claimed by Keathley. Read again.

"This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it..."

It says assurance does not belong to the essence of faith. So much for refuting Calvinists. This reminds me when Dr. Wilkins debated Dr. White on this subject. After the debate Dr. Wilkins tried to question Dr. White about the London Baptist Confession. Dr. White asked point blank if Wilkins had ever read it. After being asked a couple of times, Wilkins finally had to admit that he had not read the Confession, to which Dr. White responded by saying, "You don't know what you are talking about." I have a sense that Keathley is in the same boat.

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 4 Irresistable Grace

When I heard Steve Lemke speaking on Irresistable Grace I knew exactly what would be coming. The article states,

"Salvation is tied in some measure to our response," he said, citing several biblical examples of what he said were people resisting God. For example, in Acts 7:51 the Jewish men who stoned Stephen were said to be "always resisting the Holy Spirit."

Lemke knows better or at least should know better. To think this is an argument is foolish. Of course men resist the Holy Spirit. We all do prior to our conversion. Are we really going to argue that the Almighty Spirit of God is not able to give the new birth in the preaching of the Gospel? Keep in mind, we are speaking of the Third Person of the Trinity who not only wrote Scripture but also created the world from nothing and raised Christ from the dead.

Lemke is quoted.

"It doesn't seem to me that [the effectual call] helps in this particular situation, because the Jews after all were God's chosen people, they were under the covenant. If you have a covenant theology, then these people would seem to be among the elect ... it is precisely these divinely elected people who are resisting God."

Ahhhhh, what?! This guy knows nothing about Covenant Theology. First, he ought to read real Covenant theologians such as Nehemiah's Coxe's and John Owen's Covenant Theology, From Adam To Christ.

Also, Calvinist believe Paul's teaching in romans 8-11 that speaks directly to this topic. Apparently Lemke doesn't understand the doctrine.

In Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34, where Jesus longed to gather His people as a hen gathers her chicks, Lemke said the Greek verb "to will" has an even sharper contrast, so Jesus is saying, "I willed but you were not willing."

Is anyone actually willing to quote Matthew 23:37 accurately? Last I checked, these men claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Yet they mishandle the Word of God constantly. When it is pointed out to them that their Traditions and philosophies of man are being read into the text, they simply seem unable to grasp what seems so basic in other areas of Biblical studies. Would they allow a Jehovah's Witness get away with discussing the Trinity by isolating Biblical texts in this fashion? I doubt it.

Lemke also addressed the question as to whether a man is saved because he believes in Christ, or whether he believes in Christ because he's saved. He said that irresistible grace reverses the biblical order of salvation, so that regeneration precedes conversion.

This has been answered so many times I can only conclude that men like Lemke are simply not interested in being truthful about this point. John 1:12 was cited to prove this point.

John 1:12, "But as many has received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God, even them that believe on His name."

What does verse 13 say? Maybe going to the text would be helpful.

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Debates would be most helpful. The problem with Jerry Vines and others is that they are afraid to open the Scriptures and allow a full discussion to take place. Vines could have done this. He obviously was not interested. This was an anti-Calvinism conference and nothing more.

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 3 Atonement

Under the section of Limited Atonement, John Beehler quotes David Allen's presentation.

Allen named a long list of Calvinists, including John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, who did not hold to limited atonement. Martin Luther and the early English reformers held to universal atonement, which means Christ bore the punishment due for the sins of all humanity.

It is my understanding that Calvin didn't address the subject. So I am not certain how one gets Calvin to support either side. It seems to me that many confuse the universal language of the Reformers in the universal proclamation and free offer to all as being the same as substitutionary Atonement. This is typical of the non-Calvinists to equivocate terms. My friend James Swan over at Beggars All Blog has explained some of the problems with this kind of argumentation in a very thorough manner. Read here.

The other claim that says Luther held to universal atonement could be misleading. Timmy Brister at Strange Baptist Fire has also found an interesting quote from Luther.

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God's sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

So again, I think the problem arises when we see universal language and impose the language of a debate that has come about after their time. We then read our modern debate back into their words. We should allow the Reformers to say what they meant in their own context.

Allen is also quoted as saying,

"The debate is very much about the sufficiency of the atonement," Allen said. "In the high Calvinist position on limited atonement, Christ is only sufficient to save those for whom He suffered ... the non-elect according to that position are not savable, and the reason they are not savable is because Jesus didn't die for them ... they are left without a remedy for their sins."

Again keep your eye on the ball. The last sentence has an assumption that Calvinists do not share. The assumption is that there is this entire group of people that we want to share the Gospel with but can't be saved because they are not of the elect. I don't know of any Calvinists as defined historically that thinks this way. The free offer of the Gospel is to be made to all without distinction.

But there is another more heinous assumption in the last statement. It assumes that there is this entire group of people that want to be saved but cannot be saved because Jesus did not die for them. This is just ridiculous. Again, straw-men are easy to burn.

Allen said,

If "world" means the "elect" in John 3:16, "whosoever believes shall not perish leaves open the possibility that some of the elect might perish," Allen said. "That's a problem."

To this moment I am sitting here wondering how anybody can say this silliness. Is it referring to the word "might" as meaning maybe? If so, this is simply wrong. This is not exegesis. I expect more from a pastor. I would simply refer the reader to Owen's Death of Death that deals with John 3:16.

Allen said,

"Limited atonement is built on a faulty exegetical foundation," Allen said, citing verses such as 2 Corinthians 5:15 and Romans 5:18. "... There is no statement in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the elect."

Again, to cite Romans 5:18 as proof for universal atonement is to ignore the text. Exegesis would show the contrast between Adam's sin being imputed to all men and Christ's righteousness to all men. According to Allen's logic, if one is true, then so is the other. Therefore, all men will be saved since all men have the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

The "all" of the text is defined by their head. The head of the fallen human race is Adam. Christ is the head of the church. Therefore, just as there is a difference between Adam and Christ, there is a difference between the "all".

Allen again,

In his concluding remarks, Allen expressed concern about the effect of five-point Calvinism on preaching and evangelism. "Anything that makes the preacher hesitant to make the bold proclamation [of the Gospel] to all people is wrong," he said.

This has not been my observation at all. In fact, I find Calvinists more willing to witness to those who appear to be reprobate because we do not believe the power is in us or our presentation style, but in God who uses the proclamation to change hearts. In other words, it is the Gospel with the power of the Spirit that raises the dead.

Allen,

"Calvinism is not the Gospel," he said. "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel."

When Allen learns what Calvinism is verses what he thinks it is, maybe he'll make a better judgment. Actually, when Allen learns to exegete the text without being blinded by his own Traditions being read into the text, maybe we'll get somewhere.