"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Rejoicing In Wrath?

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…” (Galatians 3:13)

We don’t typically think of wrath as a good thing.  The idea of wrath usually conjures up images of an out-of-control lunatic who doesn’t have the maturity to control his emotions.  But God’s wrath is different.  When the Bible speaks of the wrath of God it is referring to how God has determined he will respond to sin.  Those apart from Christ will suffer the wrath of God eternally in Hell.  Indeed we see the wrath of God displayed in this temporal earth even now, as “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…” (Romans 1:18)  But can you imagine joyfully singing about the wrath of God?

Recently, during a worship service, I found myself doing just that.  A line from a worship song called “In Christ Alone” goes like this:  “Till on that cross as Jesus died/ The wrath of God was satisfied / For every sin on Him was laid/ Here in the death of Christ I live.”

I couldn’t help but think of how odd this would seem to a non-Christian who doesn’t understand the idea of Christ’s atoning work on Calvary.  As a Christian I can sing joyfully of God’s wrath because I know it’s a wrath that I deserved.  But God is so gracious; he took that wrath upon himself in my place.  As Jesus Christ (God the Son) hung upon the cross, the wrath of God the Father was poured out upon him to pay the price for his elect people; those who would repent and submit to Christ as Lord.

It is a staggering concept to ponder, that God would graciously do such a thing.  That as a sinner; I deserve eternal wrath - - But as a Christian; I know that Christ absorbed that wrath in my place.  And now I not only get to spend the rest of my days on earth praising him for his love and grace.  But that I will also spend eternity praising him in Heaven as well.

Wrath is a scary thing.  But it is glorious to consider the grace of God that poured his wrath on a substitute who hung in my place, so that I could live.  The idea makes me want to sing.  Hopefully it does the same for you.

The Sin of Unbelief

Some people are of the belief that mankind at its core is basically good. The Bible teaches otherwise.  According to scripture, people are sinners by their very nature, and though they may be trained to do nice things, they are still enslaved to sin from birth.  A person’s specific sins are merely the fruit of a sinful heart.  The temper, or the lust, or the selfishness is simply the natural outflow of a depraved heart. 

One of the ways in which sin is most clearly manifested is in the rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord over one’s life.  Jesus said, “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19 NASB)  The Light of Jesus Christ and the gospel came into the world, but man in his natural depravity rejects that light.  The Bible further states that “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB)

This natural rejection of Christ is also known as the sin of unbelief.  Sinners are called in Scripture to repent and turn from this heinous spiritual crime and submit to the Lordship of Christ over their life.  But sinners will never do that because it goes against their nature.  So how is anyone saved?  Answer: God graciously grants a new heart to some sinners by the miracle of regeneration.  Jesus told Nicodemus “you must be born again” (John 3:3), and when this happens, the sinner’s nature is changed from one who rejects Christ to one who embraces Christ.  And since that change came about by God’s power rather than man’s; God receives all the glory for the salvation.

            Have you experienced this change in your life?  Are you a genuine “born again” follower of Jesus Christ?  If so, then praise God for changing your heart.  He didn’t have to do that, he freely chose to do that.  And if it’s clear that Christ is not the Lord over your life, repent and turn to Him.  For its only by his grace, that you will be changed and one day enter in to glory because of His merciful provision.

After Darkness Comes The Light (A Poem on Suffering & Salvation)

A world in sin with mournful groans,

We need a Savior to redeem,

The blood of bulls cannot atone,

All hope is lost, or so it seems.

Yet God’s plan is to condescend,

Into the most unlikely place,

A child is born in Bethlehem,

And He will pay for Adam’s race.

For centuries we needed Him,

A substitute to win our fight,

The sting of death would do us in,

But after Darkness comes the Light.

 

Born depraved, no hope to see;

Blindly groping for a way;

Yet content with thoughts of me;

We want the Lord to stay away.

Darkness ever choking out,

Any spark of the Divine,

Dead within and dead without;

Pursuing sin, that shall be mine.

Then comes the Spirit, with the Word;

Born again, with such delight!

Sovereign grace, that’s from the Lord,

And after Darkness comes the Light.

 

And so begins the narrow road,

With joy and pain now intermixed.

Some days feel like a heavy load.

Yet through it all our hope is fixed.

Upon the One who conquered sin,

Because of Him we persevere,

And one day soon, we’ll enter in;

Till then, our laughter’s mixed with tears.

Testing for the godly one,

Yet only for a season might,

Make us crawl instead of run,

But after Darkness, comes the Light.

 

Then He ordains the ending trial,

That every Christian’s bound to face.

We all must walk the final mile.

We all must finish up the race.

Again it feels like darkness grim,

As flesh and bone give way to pain,

But now we have the strength from Him,

What seems like loss, in fact is gain.

And for the final time we leave,

The darkness of that closing night,

Into the splendor, we’re received,

And after Darkness, comes the Light!

A Critique of Infant Baptism & A Review of Douglas Wilson’s book: “To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God”

In his book,  To a Thousand Generations:  Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God, Douglas Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho attempts to make a Biblical case for infant baptism.  He begins by setting the bar impossibly high when he states:  “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism.” (pg. 9, italics in original).  The problem here is obvious.  Wilson is attempting to show that the Bible requires something that it never even mentions.  Infant baptism is never commanded, modeled, suggested, described, displayed, or spoken of in a single verse of Scripture, Old Testament or New.  So any attempt to suggest its “commanded” will require a certain amount of creative exegesis, illogical logic, and massive leaps to inferred assumptions that have no Biblical support.  Even most paedobaptists will admit that the Bible never speaks of infant baptism and the case must be made from assumptions and church history, rather than explicit exegesis.  This utter lack of infant baptism in the Bible has always been the “elephant in the room” for the paedobaptists; and after reading this book one can be assured that the elephant remains, as big and obvious as ever.

Wilson is a former Baptist who has changed his views on several issues, including baptism.  No doubt motivated by the Reformers cry of Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming); Wilson has sought to examine church and life in light of Scripture and humbly (and commendably) seek to make changes accordingly.  But to jettison Believer’s baptism in favor of infant baptism is to reform in the wrong direction.  He’s abandoned the clear Biblical teaching in favor of a church tradition view rooted in Roman Catholicism.  In this book, he takes it a step further by attempting to accomplish the impossible and make a case for the Biblical mandate for infant baptism, when it nowhere exists.

One of the main debates between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians centers on the understanding of the “Covenant.”  Presbyterians will invariably say that Baptists don’t understand the Covenant; and Baptists will say that Presbyterians don’t understand the New Covenant.  Under the Old Covenant, Israel was a “type” of the elect under the New Covenant.  The sign under the Old Covenant was circumcision, which was required of all Israelite males.  In the New Covenant the sign is baptism which is required (for obedience, not salvation) of all members of the New Covenant.  To receive the sign under the Old Covenant you had to be born.  To receive the sign under the New Covenant you have to be “born again” (John 3:3).  Wilson muddles the two covenants together and argues for the New Covenant sign to be administered to infants, just as the Old Covenant sign was.  But to do this is to miss the typological nature of Old Testament Israel.  All Israelite males received the sign because they were a type of the Elect (i.e., Christians) who likewise receive the sign of the New Covenant.  To force the sign upon an infant in the New Covenant would be akin to taking an unwilling pagan (not a slave or convert) from a nation other than Israel, and forcing circumscision upon them in the Old Covenant.  Such “circumcision” would be pointless and invalid because the recipient is not really a part of “Israel” just as an unregenerate infant is not really a part of the “church” in any genuine sense; and should therefore not receive the New Covenant sign until some sort of evidence exists that they possess saving faith and are indeed a part of the New Covenant.  To say that they are included because of their parent’s faith is to grossly misapply the scriptural passages which speak of “promises to your children.”  And such misapplication occurs throughout this book.

The title for the book comes from Deuteronomy 7:9, “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.”  Wilson uses this passage and other similar ones to attempt to show the generational promise of the Covenant.  Of course the promise in this passage speaks to those who “love Him and keep His commandments” which requires regeneration.  In other words the promise is not to those born, but to those “born again.”

Likewise Psalm 103:17-18, which Wilson cites:  “But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children’s children, To those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.”  Again notice the promise is to ‘those who fear Him…..those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.’  That is, obedience, from a pure heart of reverent love for God, which would not describe an infant.

One of the quintessential Old Testament passages describing the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 34: 33-34:  “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”   In the New Covenant, everyone “knows” God, because everyone in the New Covenant is born again by the Spirit, indeed they have the Spirit living within them.  They possess saving faith and have God’s law “within them.”  When we see these people coming out of spiritual death into life in the New Testament we also see them obediently receive the sign of the New Covenant by being baptized….as believers, by immersion.  And not one of these is a sprinkled infant.  The Biblical case for infant baptism is simply non-existent.

Rather than begin with the Scriptures and proceed forth to practice, Wilson begins with Infant baptism then backs his way into the Bible, with many curves and sharp turns by way of creative logic; followed by a couple of quantum leaps over obvious inconsistences to land on a handful of texts that never really mention infant baptism.  Wilson is clearly a very intelligent man and a skilled philosopher and debater.  Indeed one would have to use great philosophical talent to argue for something that exegesis will not prove. 

In a nutshell, Wilson’s argument is this:  although infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, the covenant sign of circumcision was still practiced and required of Jewish Christians, but not Gentile Christians.  And since Jewish babies were receiving a sign you would also have to administer a sign to Gentile babies to include them in the church as well.  And since circumcision was clearly not required of Gentiles they must have done a different sign, namely infant baptism.

            But the philosophical house of cards Wilson builds is itself based on the incorrect assumption that Jewish Christians were required to circumcise.  Was it required?  Not according to the Apostle Paul, who unleashed a vitriolic, Holy Spirit-inspired diatribe against the very thing Wilson is claiming.  “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:2-6 NASB)  While Wilson may be right to conclude circumcision was still practiced by some early Jewish Christians; it would be incorrect to say it was required.  And if you remove circumcision as a requirement for Jewish Christians in the early church, then Wilson’s entire house of cards falls because it eliminates his basic premise for requiring infant baptism for Gentile Christians.

With the issue of baptism, we are talking about one of only two ordinances that Jesus instituted in the New Testament.  We are not talking about an obscure text on the validity of snake-handling, or trying to decipher how Endor’s witch conjured up Samuel.  Given the importance of baptism as a perpetual ordinance commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission, one would think the Bible would clearly state how it is to be administered.  Indeed the Bible does.  The word “baptize” means to immerse; and every example of it in Scripture is of a person old enough to profess faith in Christ.  Wilson’s arguments that “baptize” can mean things other than “immerse” is unconvincing, being largely based on the use of “baptize” regarding Spirit baptism, which when compared to water baptism is like comparing apples to oranges.  If infant baptism was meant, and certainly if it’s required, then why is the New Testament completely silent about it?  Why is there not one single example of it?  Why is there no commandment for it?  Why is it that the only way to justify it is to lurch into a long, confusing dalliance on the nuances of Covenant Theology coupled with examples from extra-Biblical sources from church history?  Again, this is a church ordinance.  Why is the Bible utterly silent on its application to infants?

            Certainly, Christian parents are to love and nurture their children; raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  No Christian parent can look at Scripture and deny their responsibility to raise their children to be godly.  But it is no insult to a child to withhold from them an ordinance that Scripture doesn’t say to administer to them.  It would be equally fallacious to somehow see a child with Christian parents as being any way “in covenant” with God more than a child with non-Christian parents.  While there’s no denying the advantage to being raised by godly parents in a Christian home, the child of Christians is just as depraved and unregenerate as the child of pagans.  And both will remain that way apart from the regenerating, electing, grace of God.  An electing grace, I might add, that is unconditional, as Wilson knows full well and teaches (as a Calvinist).

            I’ll conclude by saying Douglas Wilson is obviously a very intelligent man, whom I have no doubt loves the Lord greatly.  In many areas I would stand in complete agreement with him and I have in the past enjoyed and been edified by some of his writings.  His well-known debate with Christopher Hitchens (‘Collision’) is a stellar example of Van Tillian Presuppositional apologetics at work.  His adherence to the five points of Calvinism would further make him a theological comrade.  And his apparent disdain for the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in many Baptist circles would find a hearty agreement with me.  But he also seems to be given to extreme positions on this, and other issues (i.e., Federal Vision theology).  If one quickly breezes through this book they may come away saying, “he must be right” although they’ll likely have a headache trying to follow the logic.  But if one reads the book slowly and actually looks up the cited Bible verses to read them in context, one will see that more often than not the verses were not used by the Biblical writers to say what Wilson is expounding.  Perhaps Wilson is hoping the reader will simply take his word for it and be dazzled (confused?) by his skills for argumentation, rather than study this issue more deeply.  Whatever his motivation, the reality is that the argument for infant baptism falls flat in this book; and it will always fall flat with any book that purports to prove, from Scripture, that infant baptism is required.  It’s not required.  It’s not taught.  It’s not modeled.  It’s not even mentioned in passing.  Believer’s baptism is all of the above, and therefore the “elephant” of Biblical silence unfailingly remains in the room for all paedobaptists, and Believer’s baptism should remain (and will hopefully abound) based on clear, Biblical teaching.

The Truth of TULIP: Why Jesus Was a Calvinist - Date: 8.21.11 (Sermon Audio)

Did the 5 points of Calvinism originate with John Calvin? Or are they Biblical?  In this message, we look at Scriptural teaching, including teaching from Jesus in the gospels to show that the Doctrines of Grace were taught by our Lord and Savior. 

CLICK HERE FOR SERMON AUDIO.

This message was preached at Heritage Baptist Church, 3501 Ernest St., Lake Charles, LA.

 

A Defense of Calvinism & A Critique of Steve James' Sermon 'Theology From a TULIP"

As a Calvinist, I have long ago ceased to be surprised by attacks upon my beliefs.  The “five points of Calvinism” also known as “the Doctrine of Grace” or “Reformed Theology” have been argued and debated for centuries.  And I certainly haven’t got the time nor desire to refute every attack I read or encounter.  But when my beliefs are misrepresented from a church in the same city as me, it seems a response is in order.

            Recently, Steve James, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Lake Charles, Louisiana preached a message entitled, “Theology from a Tulip” in which he criticizes Calvinism and bemoans its resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.  Not knowing Pastor James, I can only assume that he is a godly and gracious man who has a true love for the Lord and a desire to see the Kingdom expanded.  I very much suspect this is true, but in his sermon against Calvinism he resorted to the age old practice of presenting an incorrect, caricaturized, “straw man” that he then proceeds to tear down.  Much of what he states about historic Calvinism is simply not true.  He uses several old, stale arguments that have been proven wrong time and time again.  But since the volleys were lobbed, I’ll attempt to respond to a few of them with truth, and hopefully grace; since I very much believe in both.

            For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, it is a theological belief system, taken from the Bible (not John Calvin) that is summarized with the acrostic T.U.L.I.P.  The “T” stands for Total Depravity, which states that people by nature are “dead in their sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and will not come to Christ on their own. (1 Corinthians 2:14) The “U” stands for Unconditional Election which teaches that “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” (Ephesians 1:4). The “L” is for Limited Atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) which teaches that Christ’s death on the cross made a definite payment for the elect, rather than a hypothetical payment for all sinners. (John 10:11) The “I” stands for Irresistible Grace (also known as “overcoming grace”) which teaches that the elect will come to Christ in repentance because God will overcome their resistance to the Spirit’s drawing by granting them a new “spiritual” birth (as Jesus taught in John 3 and John 6:37 ‘all the Father gives me will come’).  And the “P” stands for Perseverance of the Saints which teaches all true believers are kept by the Spirit and will persevere unto the end. (Mark 13:13)  In other words, salvation cannot be lost if it was every truly attained; and though a Christian still fights sin, his life will be marked by holiness and an undying commitment to Christ.  For those who might like to hear more on these doctrines, I preached a 5-part series devoting an entire sermon to each point, which you can download here.

            Perhaps the most common attack on Calvinism is that it squelches evangelism, and not surprisingly this is one of the arguments Pastor James makes.  He argues that since Calvinism teaches that God chooses who will be saved, the Calvinist feels no need to evangelize.  Historically, this has not been the case.  In fact, the very soil on which Pastor James’ church stands is surrounded by Christians today, because of the Calvinistic Puritans who brought the gospel to America hundreds of years ago.  Furthermore, his denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was founded, almost exclusively, by Calvinists.  Pastor James further states that Calvinists within the SBC have an attitude of “God will save the elect without your help.”  The great irony of this statement is that there was a man from church history who had that very phrase used against him and that man was William Carey…..who was a Calvinist.  The phrase was used by a hyper-Calvinist (one who doesn’t believe in evangelism) when Carey felt led to overseas missions.  To hear James tell it “hyper-Calvinism” is the norm today, when in all honesty “hyper-Calvinism” is extremely rare and largely unheard of.  To the contrary, Calvinism teaches a very zealous evangelism that takes the gospel to the world knowing that some will be saved because God has ordained it so.  The Apostle Paul was assured of God’s electing some to salvation when he went to the pagan city of Corinth.  Though afraid, he was reassured by a sovereign God who told him, “I have many people in this city.” (Acts 18:10)

            Pastor James states that those who lean towards Calvinism are weak in their “soul-winning” yet when you look at most major Missions movements, and many of the more evangelistic churches from church history you see that they were started and led by Calvinists.  Would anyone ever dream of accusing Charles Spurgeon of being weak on soul-winning?  The Metropolitan Tabernacle that he pastored in London was the largest church in the world during the 19^th century and he ended every sermon with an appeal for sinners to repent and come to Christ.  And Spurgeon was an adamant 5-point Calvinist.  The Great Awakening in colonial America was sparked largely through the preaching of George Whitefield, who preached the gospel with tears streaming down his face, begging the lost to repent and come to Christ.  And Whitefield was a 5-point Calvinist.  Those with even a cursory knowledge of Church History know that Jonathan Edwards’ preaching led to the conversion of many souls in colonial New England.  And Edwards was a 5-point Calvinist.  Pastor James defines a Calvinist as anyone who holds to the doctrine of election, and by using this definition, many of today’s most evangelistic preachers would be considered Calvinist including: David Platt, Francis Chan, Tim Keller, John Macarthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Paul Washer, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Voddie Baucham, Mark Driscoll, and Matt Chandler.  While I may differ with some of these men on various issues, would anyone who has heard them preach or observed their ministries say they are “weak on soul-winning?”  Pastor James criticism is unjustified.  The fact is that many Christians, both Calvinist and Arminian, are shamefully weak when it comes to sharing the gospel.  To suggest that a belief in God’s sovereignty feeds that has been proven false by the facts of church history.

            I found it interesting that Pastor James attacked those Calvinists who believe they were “lucky enough” to be chosen before the foundation of the world.  Several times he used the phrase “chosen before the foundation of the world” to describe the Calvinist.  But he never mentions that the phrase actually comes from the Bible (Ephesians 1:4). He essentially seems to take the common approach that God has only ordained the “way” of salvation through Christ, but that God leaves it up to the individual to accept or reject the gospel.  Pastor James speaks of the “outward call” to be saved that a preacher makes, and the inward call of the Spirit to come to Christ.  While I certainly would agree that the outward call is to be extended to all, what do we make of the inward call?  Does God “call” all people inwardly the same way?  The obvious answer is no, based upon a verse that ironically, Pastor James cites in his message.  “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30 NASB)  Pastor James correctly states that “foreknow” here means more than to simply know something. It means God ordains something.  But all of these words are linked together.  In other words ALL who are called are also justified and glorified.  Therefore this verse is either teaching universal salvation (which it’s not) or its teaching that God “calls” some people in ways that he doesn’t call others.  By His Spirit there is an “effectual call” that accomplishes what God wants it to accomplish.  The call is effectual and the grace is “irresistible.”  This whole notion Pastor James rejects.

Pastor James then spends a lot of time proving that God’s grace can and often is resisted.  But the 10 minutes he spends on this is largely wasted time, because Calvinists don’t dispute the fact that sinners resist God’s Spirit.  In fact, that’s the whole point of “Irresistible Grace” that in some cases God overcomes that resistance by granting the sinner a new nature.  Pastor James puts forth the age-old argument against Calvinists that they teach some are saved against their will while others are rejected who desire salvation.  Calvinism teaches nothing of the sort.  Rather, it teaches, as do the Scriptures, that all are invited to come to Christ, but NONE will do it because of their sin nature.  That God owes salvation to no one, but offers it to all who repent.  And since NONE WILL, God grants regeneration (‘you must be born again’ – John 3:3) to those whom He chooses, and they are saved.  This is clearly what Jesus taught when he reminded the disciples that “you did not choose me, but I chose you out of the world.” (John 15:16)

            Pastor James’ arguments against the doctrine of limited atonement follow a predictably well-worn path of using verses that speak of Christ dying for the “world.”  It was somewhat surprising that he never addressed the verses in which Christ speaks of dying for “some.”  For example, Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11 NASB) and “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28 NASB)  These verses, at the very least, imply that Jesus died for a specific group of people (i.e. “the sheep”) and that his death was a ransom for “many” (but not all).  Pastor James never addresses these verses.  Undoubtedly because they don’t mesh with the erroneous view of Calvinism he is trying to put forth and attack.  Instead he quotes John 3:16: “For God so loved the world…” But even if it’s conceded that God loves the world, it doesn’t therefore imply that God will save all those in the world.  Indeed he doesn’t.  One has to wonder why Pastor James didn’t begin reading John 3 a few verses earlier when Jesus is explaining to the baffled Nicodemus that he cannot be saved unless the Spirit grants him a new birth.  In fact Jesus is so “Calvinistic” with Nicodemus that he tells him flatly:  “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

            The fact is that often times in scripture the word “world” is used in a general sense to mean “all the nations of the world” rather than “every individual in the world.”  In the overwhelmingly Israel-centric day in which Jesus lived it was common to see Israel as the only nation with hope for salvation.  But Revelation speaks of there being a throng in Heaven from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” (Rev. 5:9)  In other words there will be those saved from every nation.  There will be those saved in all the “world.”  I’ve written on “limited atonement” in the past (which you can read by clicking here).  And I’ve preached on it, addressing Bible verses on both sides of the argument as opposed to just those verses that seem to support my view (which you can listen to here).

            I don’t expect Pastor James to hold to limited atonement.  I realize that most Christians don’t.  But to simply dismiss it without even addressing the most pertinent verses only tells half of the story;  the “Arminian” half that he wants to defend.  He states that the Apostle Paul “clearly didn’t hold to limited atonement.”  While that is a very debatable statement, the Calvinist could just as easily state that Jesus DID hold to limited atonement based on the verses cited above.  My own view is that Jesus and Paul never contradicted one another because I believe all of the Scriptures are inspired by God.  I suspect Pastor James believes this as well.  If so, then all of the Scriptures must be taken into account, rather than simply the ones that seem to support our personal view.  Many of which are taken out of context to begin with.

            On the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, Pastor James surprisingly does an about-face and illogically refutes everything about Calvinism he had just attacked.  While Calvinism teaches that we are saved and kept completely by God’s grace.  Pastor James contends that we are saved “by our choice.” Then he attacks the Calvinist view of perseverance by saying they believe they are kept by their own doing; as though the perseverance were attributed to them.  I have never known a Calvinist (and I know many) who believes what Pastor James espouses.  To the contrary every Calvinist I have ever known (including myself) believes that our perseverance is due to the work of the Spirit in our lives who keep us until the end.

            My critique will end with what I considered the most disturbing part of Pastor James’ sermon.  Towards the end of the message, he speaks at length to the fact that God “needs” us to accomplish his evangelistic purposes.  This is very dangerous water in which to tread.  To imply that there is anything good in us that God “needs” is quite arrogant.  And to imply that there is anything "lacking" in God that must be completed by us is unfortunately… quite blasphemous.  When Paul evangelized the pagans on Mars Hill he told them clearly that “God is not served by human hands as though he needed anything.” (Acts 17:25)  I must confess that I cringed as I listened to Pastor James conclude his message by boasting of the amount of personal evangelism he does, and of the numerous mission trips he has gone on, and how he’s led the church to be so evangelistic.  While these acts of service are very commendable, it was extremely uncomfortable to listen to a man proudly “toot his own horn” - especially when he does it in the context of expounding how desperately God “needs him” to fulfill his purposes.  Undoubtedly Pastor James is a very humble man, but sadly he came across as quite puffed-up and arrogant in this regard.  To hear a politician expound his own worthiness is expected.  To hear it from a preacher in the pulpit is nauseating.

Let us be clear:  God most assuredly DOES NOT NEED anyone to accomplish His will.  But God does choose to graciously use us as instruments in his global evangelistic purposes.  When God saved Paul on the Damascus road he did not say “I need Paul” he said Paul was “my chosen instrument.”  (Acts 9:14) Far from giving us cause to boast, the fact that God uses redeemed sinners like us should be a reason for tremendous humility that He would allow us any part in His Kingdom purposes.  God could choose to save sinners by any means He wanted.  He chose to use other sinners, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, to proclaim the gospel to a perishing world.

In conclusion, I don’t expect this refutation of Pastor James’ sermon to be widely read, or even acknowledged.  But perhaps there may be some who would like to hear another take on Calvinism.  If anyone would care to put Pastor James’ opinions to the test, I would encourage them to come worship with us on a Sunday at Heritage Baptist Church (3501 Ernest St.) here in Lake Charles.  If you desire to be told God “needs” you I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed with our preaching.  But if you want to hear the truth of an overwhelmingly sovereign God who “ordains all things after the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11) ….if you want to hear of a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing…..if you want to hear of a God who owes you nothing, but grants you everything you have…..if you want to hear of the true God of the Bible who in His justice will punish all sin….but in His grace chooses to punish His own Son in the place of His sheep. Then come see us.  We meet every Sunday morning at 11 am.  Our people are warm and friendly.  Some may even be described as “humble” since after all, we joyfully believe that we are worthless, apart from the grace of God.  And rather than celebrating ourselves, we celebrate God and His grace each and every week.  We know full well, that apart from that grace we perish, but because of that grace WE LIVE!  For salvation is wholly of the Lord, as it is written: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB)

......................................................

 P.S. -- Here's the link to a sermon I preached which offers a different perspective on  Calvinism:  TITLE: The Truth of TULIP – Why Jesus Was a Calvinist – Text: Various – Date: 8.21.11

....................................................

Regeneration: The Work of God Alone

(This article is scheduled to appear in the Oct. 27 edition of the Linn County News.)There was once a man named Nicodemus, who came to Jesus secretly to inquire about the Kingdom of God.  Ironically, Jesus told Nicodemus that he must do something that he was incapable of doing.  “You must be born again.” (John 3:3)

            Not surprisingly, Nicodemus was confused as his thoughts immediately turned to physical birth.  But Jesus was speaking of a spiritual birth.  While we have no control over our physical birth, it is equally true that we have no control over our spiritual birth either.  At least this is true according to Jesus who went on to tell Nicodemus: “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8 ESV) 

Interestingly enough, Nicodemus argued with Jesus over this aspect of God’s sovereignty; and Jesus responds with a rebuke.  “Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can these things be?’ Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:9-10 ESV)  Nicodemus was considered one of the greatest teachers in Israel, yet he did not understand God’s work of granting new life to the spiritually dead.

The big word for “born again” is regeneration; and it is a sovereign act of God.  You cannot conjure up a new birth, no more than you conjured up your physical birth.  Jesus’ analogy of the wind teaches us much about the new birth.  We have no control over it, but we see the effects of it.  The effects of regeneration are repentant faith.  In other words, when God brings new life to a heart, the heart responds by turning from sin and placing an eternal faith in Christ as Lord.  Regeneration is not a work of man, for dead men do not determine to come alive.  Only God can bring them alive.  Dead men do not simply choose to repent.  God grants them repentance. (See Acts 11:18)  The work is God’s; therefore the glory is God’s.

            So in closing, I’ll do as I usually do and call you to repent and trust in Christ.  Many will ignore this call because they are dead in their sins.  But some will respond:  those whom God chooses to awaken and to grant the new birth.  Do you want to go to Heaven?  You must be born again.

 

 

Job's Arrogant Friends

(NOTE: This article is scheduled to appear in the Feb. 3 edition of the Linn County News.)

The book of Job is well known because it speaks of intense suffering.  Though Job is described as a righteous man he loses almost everything he has.  At the beginning of the book we are shown a scene between God and Satan, where Satan accuses Job of only loving God because he is blessed.  God allows Satan to torment Job with an eye towards proving whether or not Job’s faith is simply based on blessings from God…or God himself.

    Once Job has suffered for a while, his friends come on the scene to comfort him.  Anyone who has studied the book knows that Job’s friends are the type of friends he could have done without.  Rather than encourage Job they accuse him of being unjust.  They assume that since he is suffering God must be mad at him.  Clearly they were in error, but in some ways their theology was correct.

    Job’s friends speak of God’s sovereignty and his justice.  They speak of him rewarding the good and punishing the righteous.  These are all genuine truths about God.  But Job’s friends error in some ways.  First, they misapply the theology of God’s justice in a way that demeans Job and elevates themselves.  While it’s true that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, it is not necessarily true that just because someone is suffering they are being punished by God.  The Bible makes clear that often times the righteous will suffer in this world.  In fact many times the righteous will suffer in this world, because they are righteous.  Job was described by God himself as “blameless and upright” (Job 1:1)

    When we see people suffering in this world, we can’t simply assume that we know all the facts behind the suffering.  All people are sinners, therefore all deserve God’s judgment.  But what Job’s friends should have realized was that they too were deserving of God’s judgment.  Job was being tested.  At times all of us are tested.  And when we are tested, we must humbly submit to God’s sovereignty and trust in his ultimate goodness to bring his will to pass.  And when we see others suffering we must not always assume that it’s God’s punishment upon them.  It may be, but it could just be a test as well.

    All of us need the grace of God found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Apart from Christ we will be judged eternally by a righteous God.  Have you turned from your sin in repentance and committed you life to Christ as Lord?  If not, do so today.  Then don’t be surprised if suffering comes your way.  In this world the righteous often suffer.  If you don’t believe me….ask Job.

 

 

Is God Really In Control?

Sometimes in life you might be tempted to wonder if God is really in control.  When we see tragedies unfold on the world scene, not to mention the trials of our own personal life, we can be tempted to despair.  We might question God’s goodness, or we might question his power.  If God is good, why doesn’t he change my circumstances?  Or, is it because he doesn’t have the power to?

    Regardless of what you might be facing, it probably pales in comparison to what Job endured in the Old Testament.  He was a righteous and godly man, yet the Lord allowed him to be tested in numerous catastrophic ways.  He lost his money.  He lost all of his children. And eventually, he lost his health.  Yet through it all his thoughts about God remained accurate.  Though he may have questioned why some things happened, he never doubted who was really in control.  In Job 42, he cried out to God saying, “I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” (Job 42:2 NASB)

    Satan inflicted great harm upon Job, but Job knew, just as Scripture teaches, that Satan does nothing without a sovereign God allowing it.  This might cause you to ask why God would allow evil things to occur.  But once again the Bible teaches us by reminding us that God can even take things that are evil and use them for good. (see Romans 8:28)

    The best example of this can be seen in the cross of Jesus Christ.  Certainly everyone would agree that the public execution of an innocent, indeed a perfect man is evil.  Yet the crucifixion was a part of God’s perfect plan to pay for sinners who would turn to him in repentance and faith.  The Pharisees meant it for evil.  The Romans meant it for evil.  The Devil meant it for evil…..but GOD used it for good.  And after all, it is HE and no other…who is really in control.

    Have you come to the place in your life where you believe this?  Have you submitted your life to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith? He and no other, has the power to forgive sins and eternally save.  He and no other can change your heart from dirty to clean.  Because it is of him and no other that we can truly say:  “no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.”

 

 

How God Draws Sinners

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44)

The Bible teaches that all people should turn from their sin and place their faith in Christ as Lord. And while the offer stands, the question remains: “who will come to Christ.” Jesus taught a very sobering reality that the answer to that question is “no one.” Indeed because of the devastating effects of the sin curse no one will naturally turn to Christ. They need supernatural help. The Apostle Paul taught that: “The natural man does not accept things taught by the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

For any person to be saved, their spiritually dead condition must be altered. They must be brought to life. Or as Jesus taught, they must be “born again.” (John 3:3) This supernatural act is brought about by God. If you have any desire to turn from sin and embrace Christ; it is because God first drew you to Himself. He convicted you. He gave you a new nature; and he gave you a spiritual re-birth. The cold hard truth is that you would have never come to Christ without God first working in your heart through the power of the gospel.

Have you given your life to Christ and submitted to him as Lord? Seek the Lord while he may be found. Pray for his grace to come to your heart. Perhaps as you read this, God is at work drawing you. Maybe he’s convicting you of the sin in your life. Rejoice that he would show a sinner like you such mercy! Repent! And turn to Him. No one comes to Him unless the Father draws them. Is the Father drawing you?