"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

If and Is

By Shane Kastler

People live in an unknown world with an unknown future. But God doesn't live in this type of reality. For us, there is always a question of “if.” If I do this.....then that will happen. If I work hard, then I might get a promotion. If I exercise, then I might lose weight. If I drive fast, then I might get a speeding ticket.

Of course this also applies to spiritual matters. If I turn from my sin and trust in Christ, then I will be saved. If I spend time in Bible study and prayer, then I will grow in Christ. If I resist temptation, then I will not sin. Looking at life from our perspective, all we see is “ifs” – But God's perspective is different, because there isn't anything past, present, or future that God doesn't already know.

When God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, Moses asked Him what His name was. God simply referred to Himself as “I am.” (Exodus 3:14) This phrase is in the present tense, because God exists outside the corridors of time. He doesn't reflect on the past as we do, nor does He wonder about the future. All of time is a present reality to Him because He lives outside the realm of time. He lives in “eternity.”

Thinking of God in eternal terms is difficult for limited creatures like us to do. In our world, everything is based on time and the unknown. In God's world, nothing is. While this may be difficult to comprehend, it is nevertheless how God is and how we should view Him. We should not be surprised that He is above and beyond us. But we should be amazed at His sovereign power and believe in Him accordingly.

Do you know the God who calls Himself, “I am”? Do you know the God who always “is”? The only way to know God the Father is by trusting in God the Son, Jesus Christ. And when we trust in Christ, then God the Holy Spirit comes and lives inside us. God always “is” and God is Triune in nature. Which opens up a whole new aspect of mind-boggling, divine characteristics.

Your world is full of “ifs” – But God's world is full of “is.” And though you don't know what tomorrow holds, you can trust in Him today. If you come to Jesus in repentant faith, He promises to not cast you out. (John 6:37) And that's an “if” that you can take to the bank.

Is Christianity a Myth?

By Shane Kastler

The gospel of Luke tells us that several women who were followers of Jesus went to his tomb and encountered angels that told them of Jesus's resurrection. The women then went and told the apostles, but they did not believe them. One of the apostles is famous for his unbelief in the resurrection. “Doubting Thomas” insisted on seeing Christ before he would believe, but he was not the only one that doubted. The Bible says that all of the apostles did. Luke records their reaction to the news of the resurrection, “These words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. (Luke 24:5 NASB) The Greek word, translated as “nonsense” literally means “fairy tale.” In other words when the women told the apostles that Jesus was alive they thought it was too far-fetched to take seriously. Jesus's death was a public execution and no one would believe that he arose from the dead. Of course, Jesus told them he would; so they should have believed him.

It is interesting to note that the apostles' reaction to the resurrection is the same reaction a lot of people have to Christianity today. They see it as a bunch of made up stories, or fables that teach a moral lesson. The creation account, Noah's ark, and the parting of the Red Sea are all historical accounts from Scripture that modern man scoffs at as mythical. Likewise the life and death of Jesus. But if God is real and is the creator of all things, then no miracle is impossible for Him. God can do anything, including raising the dead.

Every person who has ever lived must figure out what they will do with Jesus. Will they embrace him and follow him? Will they ignore him? Or will they oppose him? The Bible teaches that he is the only one who can save us from our sins. “The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14) But he only saves those who come to him with repentant faith. He only saves those who turn from their sin and submit to his lordship. He only saves those who become believers.

The apostles eventually believed in Jesus. They even accepted the resurrection. Doubting Thomas had his doubts erased when he saw the risen Christ. But Jesus told him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:28) Hopefully you fall into the last category of those who did not see, yet still believe. Because one day you will see and it will be too late. We will all appear before the Lord on Judgment Day and those who know Christ will be welcomed into Heaven. Those who don't will not. Christianity is not a fable, it is supernatural truth. Believe it. Embrace it. And be saved. 

The Unseen God

By Shane Kastler

“Though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.” (1 Peter 1:8) 

The late theologian R.C. Sproul was once asked what separated the God of Christianity from the gods of other religions.  Sproul’s simple, yet profound answer was, “The God of Christianity actually exists.”  While other religions might reject this statement as false and overly simplistic; it is what sets Christian belief apart from other faith systems.  Many forms of paganistic religions point to a physical object of some kind as their “god.”  Even the Israelites of the Old Testament sought an object to worship.  And this they did after seeing God perform numerous miracles in delivering them from Egyptian bondage.

There is a famous expression that says, “Seeing is believing.”  But genuine faith involves believing in something you can’t see. At least not with physical eyes.  God is probably not going to walk into your living room and sit on your couch today.  But His existence is more real than the couch itself.  Physical items are created, exist for a time, then are destroyed.  But God is eternal.  He has always been and always will be.  And though you don’t physically see Him, the evidence for His existence is all around you.

Have you ever wondered how the earth spins at a constant rate for centuries?  How there is such consistency in our days and months and seasons?  How our planet can be the perfect distance from the sun, while sitting suspended in space?  How do we not draw closer to the sun and burn up?  Or drift further into space and freeze?  Scientists might describe this with fancy formulas and explanations of gravity.  But why should we expect gravitational pull to be consistent, unless there is an all-powerful Creator and Sustainer behind it all?

Though you can’t see God, He is everywhere.  Indeed, He is all around you.  The Bible teaches that God not only provides for our physical needs, but also our spiritual ones.  Though we are all sinners by nature who have rebelled against our creator; God has been gracious to us by sending His son Jesus Christ.  Jesus came and lived a perfect life and then died on the cross to sacrificially pay the eternal price for all who trust in Him.  Have you turned from your sin in repentance and committed your life to Christ by faith?

While you don’t physically see God today, one day you will.  We will all appear before the Lord in judgment and we will all either spend eternity in His glorious presence or experience His righteous wrath.  Today, while you can’t see God you should prepare for the day in which you will.  He is all around you.  Turn to Him today.

BOOK REVIEW: “C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity: A Biography, By George Marsden” (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

If you have an interest in people, then biography is a compelling genre for you.  To learn the background, childhood, education, career, and later years of an historical figure brings great interest.  But, have you ever considered reading a book that is a “biography” of a book rather than a person?  That is what you’ll find in the Lives of Great Religious Books series by Princeton University Press.  And recently I had the joy of reading C. S. Lewis’s "Mere Christianity": A Biography, by George Marsden.

Marsden is an imminent scholar and author, having written the Bancroft Prize winning biography, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, in 2004. In Marsden's latest work, however, his subject is a book itself rather than an individual.

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, has gone down in time as one of the most read and re-read introductions to the Christian faith. What some may not realize about the book is that it originally was birthed as a series of radio addresses Lewis gave on the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) during World War II. As Britain, and all of Europe, were in the throes of war, Lewis laid out, in 15 to 20 minute segments, what the basic tenets of Christianity were. As a masterful storyteller (most notably seen in his Chronicles of Narnia series) Lewis was able to provide vivid analogous examples to describe the basic foundations of the faith. This, coupled with his past history as an atheist, gave him a good background in skepticism, so as to speak to the skeptics that were so prominent in Britain at the time.

Of course, when writing the biography of a “book” it is impossible to not also write a semi-biography of the man who wrote the book. Lewis was an instructor in English Literature at Oxford University when he gave the talks that would become Mere Christianity. And the response to his radio talks was mesmerizing, in both good and bad ways. Many people desired to hear them again and reconsider the Christian faith. Others, rationalistic in nature, abhorred Lewis's archaic religious beliefs and ridiculed him for both the radio addresses and the ensuing book. This was one of the most enlightening aspects of the book for me, the realization that Lewis was intellectually persecuted for his Christian faith by British liberals in general, and by his Oxford colleagues in particular. In fact, Lewis's adherence to the faith, perhaps cost him promotions from within the university.

Lewis's life was forever changed with the publication of Mere Christianity. He incorporated the help of his faithful brother Warren (Warnie) to answer the correspondence he received as a result of the radio broadcasts and the book itself, which emerged from a desire by so many to re-read what Lewis had said. From Mere Christianity, Lewis went on to pen several, short philosophical works devoted to various aspects of the Christian faith. While many modern day evangelicals would disagree with Lewis on several issues, it could also safely be said that his book has been used of God to bring many an atheistic skeptic to reconsider their stance on Christianity. Some of these well known Christian figures (Charles Colson for example) are mentioned in the book. It should also be noted that Lewis went to great pains to ensure the book presented as “basic” a view of Christianity as possible. He was not interested in drawing sharp doctrinal and denominational lines. And this can be seen throughout the work. If you are expecting a sharp-tongue polemic for your branch of Christianity, you will be disappointed. But if you desire, a more vague introduction to the faith, then Mere Christianity will satisfy. Lewis claimed that he was simply trying to bring unbelievers into the vestibule of the faith, and that whatever specific “room” they chose was up to them. As an Anglican himself, he was not trying to win unbelievers to Anglicanism. But rather to coax unbelievers to consider Christianity as a whole.

After having been passed over one too many times at Oxford, Lewis eventually accepted a promotion at the rival Cambridge University. His latter years were spent in study and in the late-in-life marriage to American Joy Davidman, who succumbed to cancer in 1960. Lewis himself died on November 22, 1963, largely overshadowed by the assassination of John F. Kennedy, on the same day.

Marsden's book is an interesting read that presents an aspect of Lewis's life and of Mere Christianity that might not be known to the reader. Never boring, Marsden weaves an interesting narrative about Lewis and how the book came to prominence. If you have not yet read the book itself, it would behoove any Christian (or even skeptic) to read Lewis's Mere Christianity. Then read Marsden's biography of the book itself. The historical context, extenuating circumstances, and the author, Lewis himself, make for a fascinating read. Marsden succeeds in writing a readable and interesting “biography” of Mere Christianity. I would highly recommend both Lewis's original work, and Marsden's biography of it.

My Twitter Debate With an Atheist Over The Existence of Evil

By Shane Kastler

 

I recently had a Twitter debate with an atheist over the issue of "evil." My premise was that atheism cannot explain an evil act like the Las Vegas shooting; since atheism has no moral foundation with which to call anything "good" or "evil."  The atheist, "Daniel" disagreed.  We had a short, but productive dialog.  The contents are below.   To read my original article click here.  To see it on Twitter, click here

 

One final note. Winning intellectual arguments is not the same thing as winning a soul to Christ.  God uses reasoning faculties to change hearts.  But only God can truly change hearts. Therefore, pray for Daniel. Whoever he is, and wherever he is.

 

Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler

 

#LasVegasShooting shouldn't make u question God. Instead question #Atheism & #Evolution which cannot define evil.  http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2017/10/atheism-evolution-cannot-explain-evil-like-the-las-vegas-massacre.html

  

 

 Daniel

What? Of course we can explain it (though not calling it by the religious term "evil"). Mental illness makes stuff like that happen.

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

 

So there is no "evil"....only "illness"? Who gets to decide what is classified as "illness"?

 

 

 

 

Daniel Oct 13

 You are misquoting me. I did not say "illness" was the only cause of bad acts. I was talking about *that* one. (Las Vegas.) Nice try, though

 

 

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

Sorry. Wasn't trying to misquote. Just clarifying. Would you still call his acts "evil"; even if he is mentally ill?

  

 

  Daniel

No. I don't use the word "evil.". People do bad acts for many reasons: coercion, desperation, confusion, ignorance, illness, and more.

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

I notice you did use the word "bad" - Are you using it the same way I use "evil"? Do you believe "bad" exists then?

 

 

 Daniel

 I see them with different connotations. To me, "bad" means "contrary to behavior standards set by society." "Evil" means "contrary to God."

  

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

I see. Thanks for clarifying. How does society determine these standards of good and bad? Or would u not use the word "good"?

 

 

  Daniel

 

 I hate the 140-character limit.

  

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

Ditto on the 140.

Your racism example is a good one.  You would say that such racist talk was considered "good" in the 1850s, but "bad" today, based on societal norms.  I would argue that it was "bad" even in 1850.  If society determines what is "good" and "bad" then aren't we always subject to the prevailing notions of the day? Theoretically, if a society determined rape to be "good" then no one could argue with the notion.  After all, society has spoken. Isn't this a problem for you?

 

  Daniel

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

 

Enjoyed chatting with you...

Actually, I just posted an article on my Twitter feed.  You responded, and I'm glad you did.  You find your explanation acceptable to you.  That is fine.  But it doesn't necessarily make your explanation correct, or rational.  The argument for morality based on societal norms doesn't work, and I think you and I both know that.  Your racism example proves my point.  How can something be good in 1850 and bad today?  Either, society was WRONG THEN (in which case your whole argument on morality based on societal norms falls apart); or there must be a moral standard apart from the consensus of selfish creatures.....It was nice visiting with you. Have a good weekend.

Atheism & Evolution Cannot Explain Evil Like The Las Vegas Massacre

By Shane Kastler

After tragedies such as the Las Vegas shooting occur, people often question God. Sincere debates arise in people's minds as to how this unspeakable horror could occur. Is there a God? If so, is he powerful enough to prevent such tragedies? And if so, then why doesn't he? But before any of these questions can be addressed, we should consider the question as to what is “good” and “evil.” And how can these categories exist, if there isn't a God who establishes a righteous standard? Las Vegas shouldn't make us question God. It should make us question atheism.

Since the shooting, I've heard two different atheists make very interesting statements. One of them claimed that he could not believe in God, since such evil exists in the world. The other one explained the shooting by making the statement, “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” I would like to consider both of these statements, and point out how they expose the atheist worldview as a worldview that cannot adequately explain reality. In short, atheism is illogical and these two statements prove it to be so.

First of all, let's examine the idea that God cannot exist if such evil is present in the world. Before we can debate the issue of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility; or God's power over evil; we have to establish how there can be categories such as “good” and “evil” in the first place. Atheism attempts to provide a moral standard for the world by presenting an irrational worldview that cannot adequately define or explain the evil around us. Sometimes, atheists will say that “good” is defined as whatever brings the most amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. But such “majority rules” types of standards hold no water. What if the “majority” of people decide that rape makes them happy? Does this make rape righteous? Of course not. And while some may claim I'm using an absurd example to make a point, my point remains nonetheless. There was a time when the “majority” of Americans believed slavery was acceptable. Did this make it so? The atheist cannot consistently argue against this, especially if they believe in evolution; as most atheists do.

If atheism is true, then the Las Vegas shooter's actions could not be called evil. How can categories of “good” and “evil” exist in a world with no God to establish a righteous standard? Categories of “good” and “evil” make no rational sense in world devoid of God. In all honesty, the very fact that our sense of justice wells up within us in the wake of tragedies like the Vegas shooting is proof that God is there. And that he has given us, in some measure, a sense of right and wrong; flawed though it may be.

Likewise, evolution cannot adequately explain the heinous actions of the Las Vegas shooter. At least not from a moral perspective. After all, if evolution is true, then the Las Vegas shooter could not be held accountable for his actions, as it would simply be an example of “survival of the fittest.” He's nothing more than an evolved monkey who learned to shoot. Evolution itself is based on a chemical chaos that cannot be explained by the world around us. If molecules randomly appeared, exploded, and evolved into self-aware creatures capable of rationalizing what is “good” and “evil”; then how can we blame a human who is as “off-kilter” to the point of mass murder? At best he would be a warped mutation. At worst, he is merely an example of what all “evolved creatures” are capable of. This thought is both scary and irrational.

Atheism cannot adequately define or explain evil. Nor can evolution. But atheistic evolutionists know full well that evil exists. Being created in the “image of God” they have enough of the stamp of the divine on their soul that they can express shock and profound sadness when they experience evil, which explains the second statement I heard an atheist utter: “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” My answer to this atheist, is that he is EXACTLY right! And in making this statement, he is exposing the fact that deep down, even he knows his worldview is hopelessly flawed. Deep down he knows that God is there. That good exists. And that evil is truly evil. By nature, man knows God is there; but because of sin he “suppresses” this truth in unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18) When an atheist speaks of a “fallen” world; what “fall” is he referring to? Regardless of whether or not he would admit it, he is referencing the “fall of man” that occurred in the Garden of Eden, when our first parents disobeyed God and brought a sin curse upon us all. This curse is exemplified daily in countless ways. What happened in Las Vegas is one graphic example and deep down, even the atheist knows this to be true. Indeed sinful man has “fallen” and we all feel the daily effects of this spiritual plunge.

Even the atheist can see the evil around them, just as they can recognize acts of kindness. But they cannot explain either. Random evolutionary “chance” produces neither good nor evil. Neither kindness nor cruelty. It simply produces chaos that cannot be described in moral terms. To be sure, there is indeed chaos around us. But the chaos is produced by created beings who rebel against their Creator and harm their fellow creatures......sometimes fatally. This moral chaos is Biblically defined as sin; that unrighteous act that is described as “unrighteous” because there is a God who has determined it to be so.

After a tragedy like the one that occurred in Las Vegas, emotions are raw, sorrow is deep, and the questions are many. And in the light of such depravity it is normal to seek explanations for the evil that exists all around us. But atheism cannot explain it. In fact, atheism cannot even define evil as evil. But “theism” - or more specifically, Christian “theism” can. Christianity alone can give you the moral categories to understand the world in which you live. Christianity defines sin, explains evil, and presents a remedy for it in the gospel of Jesus Christ; who came to earth and lived and died so that sinners such as us might be forgiven and know God in a profoundly saving way. Atheism will do nothing but fill your mind with unanswerable questions. Christianity will answer the unanswerable, give life true meaning, and plant deep within you an eternal hope that no bullet can take away.

BOOK REVIEW: "The Presbyerian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark" by Doug Douma (Reviewed by Shane Kastler)

Gordon Haddon Clark was one of the most influential, though unheard of, Christian philosophers of the twentieth century.  A Calvinistic Presbyterian, he was educated at the University of Pennsylvania and taught philosophy there, and later at Wheaton College and Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Within evangelical circles he is probably best known for the controversies he was involved in.  The “Clark-Van Til” controversy involved opposition to Clark’s ordination by fellow Presbyterian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, over what many would consider a minute theological disagreement.  Clark’s ordination in the Philadelphia presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was eventually thwarted by the Van Til faction; and Clark moved to Indiana where he had a distinguished career as a philosophy professor at a largely secular university.  In his later years, Clark moved to Colorado and taught at Sangre de Christo Seminary until his death in 1985.  Clark is the subject of Doug Douma’s biography, “The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark.”

Douma’s book is both highly readable and well researched with copious footnotes and annotations.  Having written with the blessing of Clark’s family the work is also described as an “authorized biography” which no doubt gave the author access to more information of both a personal and professional nature.

The book gives a good overview of Clark’s life in the church and the academy, but also delves into his family life.  While the primary topic involves the various denominational controversies Clark was involved in, we also learn something about the personalities of not only Clark, but his wife and children as well.  A highly educated and devout family, Clark’s wife and two daughters were involved in both church life and Christian ministry as well.

One of the stronger points of the book is Douma’s explanation of some of the more tedious nuances of the theological minutiae that Clark fought for.  The average lay person would look at Clark and Van Til as two men who agreed on almost everything.  Yet what divided them was mammoth in their own eyes.  To both Clark and the Van Til faction, the debate centered on the nature of God and was thus of great importance.  But Clark’s controversies were not always theological in nature.

Clark at times disagreed with his denomination over whether or not they should work with other Christian denominations, or even whether or not they should merge with other Presbyterian denominations.  Over the course of his life he was a member of several different Presbyterian denominations and was thus active and opinionated in denominational matters.  While this aspect of his character is interesting to consider, some of his scruples will be lost on those who are not interested in Presbyterian denominationalism.  Nevertheless, Douma excels at providing relevant information without becoming verbose or mundane.

Ultimately, Clark is known not as a preacher, professor, denominational or educational leader per se; but rather as a Christian, who happened to be philosopher and spent his life defending theologically Reformed Christianity in a secular world.  While Clark might have preferred training Christians to defend the faith by serving as an apologetics professor at a seminary; he instead taught philosophy at Butler, a secular university with a religious background.  In God’s providence, Clark’s contribution to Christianity involved the critique of non-Christian philosophies which he was able to combat with his sharp mind and philosophical training.  With that said, most of his writings are of an unmistakably Christian nature.  In his later years, he devoted much of his time to writing commentaries on the New Testament that were non-technical and accessible to the average believer.

Clark’s life is an interesting one to consider.  As stated above, he is unknown in many Christian circles, yet much could be learned from a discovery of his life and writings.  The late John Robbins, founder of the Trinity Foundation, did much to see Clark’s works published in the 1980s and 1990s.  With the advent of the internet, Christians now have access to books and articles that were heretofore unattainable.  Clark’s life is worthy of study and Douma has done the church a great service in producing this biography.  While the reader may find themselves disagreeing with Clark’s positions on various issues, they are largely left to decide for themselves as Douma, in most cases, sticks to the facts rather than meandering into personal opinions.  There is no doubt that the author admires Clark greatly, yet he still manages to produce a biography that cannot be accused of being a mere “puff piece.”  I recommend the reading of this book for those who wish to understand the life and thought of an influential Christian philosopher, churchman, and family man.  Well-written, well researched, and interesting; Douma achieves his goal of introducing those unaware of Clark to his life; and giving those familiar with Clark more information on who he was and what made him tick. 

My Exchange Between Leighton Flowers (& others) on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention

Here is an online exchange I had between Leighton Flowers, (President of the SBC of Texas Youth Ministry) myself, and a few others over the topic of Calvinism. The specific topic was whether or not Calvinists believed that God was "fatalistic" and thus programmed all of us like robots.  My initial article that Leighton quoted can be found here.  His article in which he rebuts me can be found here.  My comments begin at the 2:04 am mark of Dec. 16 (and they are listed below), for those interested.  A later debate between he and James White can be found here.  Below are the comments between Leighton, myself, and a few others; as we kicked around these issues.  Hopefully it was all done in a spirit of Christian charity.

 Shane Kastler

• December 16, 2015 at 2:04 am

  I appreciate your kind tone in referencing my article above. Obviously I think you misunderstood or at least misrepresented what my article said. By isolating one paragraph from my article out of the context of everything else I said you prop up a “Calvinistic straw man” to tear down. You conclude the following: “If you go back and re-read the Calvinistic explanation posted above you will notice that there is no difference in the actual claims of the Calvinist and the Theistic Fatalist.” If you had read my entire article it defends the exact opposite proposition that you make. The difference between a Calvinist and and a Fatalist is that a Fatalist would care nothing about evangelism since all is “pre-determined.” Theologically speaking they are “Hyper-Calvinists.” A Calvinist believes that God’s ordained means for saving the elect involve activity on the part of the believer through gospel proclamation. And as my article went on to say; the Apostles, as well as church history, bear this out. Calvinists and Fatalists do agree on some things. Just as Calvinists and Arminians do agree on some things. But there are many differences as well.

  Like

  Reply
  1. soteriology101

     December 16, 2015 at 4:48 am

     Shane, I did read your entire article and it was well written.

     You said that I misrepresented your article when I claimed there is no difference in the actual claims of the Calvinist and the Theistic Fatalist, but that’s not all I said. I argued that there is no difference in the belief that God ordains the ends as well as the means…in other words both would affirm God is in meticulous deterministic control over the ends and the means. But the only difference (which I DID acknowledge) is how one chooses to apply that common belief. Hyperists choose not to care about evangelism and good Cals (like you) choose to care about evangelism but you both have the SAME view of theistic determinism (which is what you pointed to as if it was a distinction).

     So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to be hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose, Shane?

     Liked by 1 person

     Reply
     1. rhutchin

        December 16, 2015 at 1:16 pm

        Pastor Flowers writes, “So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to by hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose,…”

        That God is at work in His people seems to be acknowledged by all – A pastor or evangelist speaks of God calling him into the ministry (of course, some, under sin’s deception, make such claims when God has never called them). People in general speak of praying for God’s leading in a decision. Believers all seem to believe that God is active in their lives and if not determining fully what they do (as Calvinists say), at least helping to determine what they do (as non-Cals say). All believers are somewhat deterministic in their thinking.

        What about the anti-evangelistic – those whom God has not called to the ministry. Has God determined their disobedience by not calling them. Well, of course. God leaves many people to their own desires and rather than pulling them one way or the other toward Him, He merely restrains them so that they can only go one way or the other away from Him.

        God is either actively involved in a person’s life determining them for good or God is passively uninvolved in a person’s life restraining them from greater evil than that which they desire.

        Like

     2. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 2:40 pm

        Leighton, in response to your question: “So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to be hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose, Shane?”

        This is, in essence, the very same question Paul’s opponent raises in Romans 9 (which some have already mentioned). If God is truly as sovereign as we say, then “Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?” Of course, whatever Paul’s answer to that question is should also be our answer to that question, since ultimately, we want to be informed by the Bible beyond anything else. Paul’s answer was not, “Yes, you are destined for Hell so don’t worry about it.” Rather, Paul’s answer was, “Who are you, O Man, to question God?” I don’t think it’s an accident that Paul uses the phrase “O Man” because in so doing he blatantly points out our status as creatures contrasted with God’s status as the Sovereign Creator. Paul never questions that God determines what comes to pass. And if Paul, writing under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration doesn’t question this…..Should we?

        Of course this raises many questions for us; as you have done quite well in your article. One question is this: How do we respond to the information we’re given about God’s absolute sovereignty? Paul’s response was still to evangelize and to try and “persuade” unbelievers to come to Christ. How could he do this when he knew full well that God was sovereign over all things? I think the answer lies in the fact that Paul submitted to what the Lord said, rather than arguing that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility didn’t make sense. Logic can be a good servant, but it makes a lousy master. At the end of the day our logic will only take us so far, then we need to submit to what the Word says and simply admit that many things about God are “past finding out.” Does this mean my response to God’s sovereignty was pre-determind by God? Yes. Does it mean someone else’s rejection of this is pre-determined as well? Yes. But it might also be pre-determined that the rejector changes their view and comes to embrace a Biblical view of God’s sovereignty. And the Bible never calls me to try and figure out who God will change. The Bible simply calls me to proclaim the truth and leave the results in God’s hands.

        So why does God reveal things to us that baffle us? There are several reasons, but the simplest reasons are that it glorifies Him and it humbles us. My conclusion is that while it is good to wrestle with these questions, my final answer must be to submit to the teaching of Scripture and live my life and base my beliefs in accordance with this truth.

        Like

     3. soteriology101

        December 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm

        Shane,

        Thank you for your reply. Appealing to Paul’s rebuttal to a hardened Jew in Romans 9 has become the “escape hatch” for Calvinists on this problem, as it was for me for many years.

        But I believe this is a very bad case of eisegesis. In my commentary over Romans 9, I go through the entire text line by line to show that the interlocutor is not in reference to:

        1. A reprobate born unloved and unwanted by their Creator who has no hope of willingly responding to the gracious appeal of the gospel.

        2. Nor is it (as your application above suggests) a hyper evangelistic theistic determinist who has no hope of wanting to evangelize because God decreed it to be that way.

        No, the interlocutor is an Israelite who once was able to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing but has now (because of his own free choices) grown calloused (Acts 28:27-28), and God has judicially hardened them (sent them a spirit of stupor, 11:7-14) in their rebellion to accomplish redemption through their disobedience.

        The exact same interlocutor in Romans 9 appeared in Chapter 3:1-10 too, and clearly that is a hardened Jew being used by God in his rebellion in order to bring about God’s redemptive plan.

        So, for Calvinists to take the example of God judicially blinding a group of already calloused Israelites in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world, including those very ones who have been hardened, as an example to prove that God meticulously determines every desire, thought, and action of all creatures is beyond the pale. It is the textbook example of eisegesis.

        Like

     4. brianwagner

        December 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm

        The problem is Shane, the Scripture does not teach that everything is predetermined! You have no clear reference for such. And all the conditional statements, universal invitations, and verses about God still making determinations after creation, make such a belief in the predetermination of all things just plain wrong and an view that distorts the perspicuity and authority of Scripture!

        The “Man” in Romans 9 was resisting God’s will as evident by Paul’s response. Paul’s rebuke was so that that hypothetical man would humble himself under God’s sovereignty, because Paul believed God’s mercy was available to him to do so (Rom 11:32)! That God’s plan includes His suffering loss, is clearly seen in the incarnation! So belief in the resisting of His will should be a no brainer! But belief in His loving provision for all to have the opportunity to receive His gift of mercy is a no brainer also!

        Like

     5. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 3:30 pm

        Brian — Not only do I agree with you that man can resist God; I would even further and say that resisting God is ALL MAN EVER DOES in his natural condition. The question is whether or not God can and does OVERCOME this natural resistance in the case of some. Clearly He does in the case of the elect. Regarding Rom. 9, you did a wonderful job of changing Paul’s answer to the question for him. Paul’s response was not to tell the man he has it within him to change. He answers “Who are you to question God?”

        As for your statement: “Scripture does not teach that everything is predetermined! You have no clear reference for such.” This is simply absurd as evidenced by some of the passages I cited earlier (Eph. 1:11 for example). You may not like the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty; but you cannot rightly argue that such a belief is not taught in Scripture.

        Like

     6. brianwagner

        December 16, 2015 at 4:00 pm

        I do like the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty as it is Scripturally defined, Shane! You seem to like to make Eph 1:11 say more than it actually says about God’s present working with all things according to His plan from His desire. But what I itemized as His clear revelation of how He is presently doing that work should not be undermined by the false statement that all things were predetermined before creation!

        Like

     7. Les Prouty

        December 16, 2015 at 3:40 pm

        I do receive the replies vie email and read along. When I have a few minutes, I’ll jump in.

        “In my commentary over Romans 9, I go through the entire text line by line to show that the interlocutor is not…”

        Ok, you have your commentary. Of course you are aware that Lin by line commentaries have been written over the centuries expounding exactly what Shane has put forth. Really so many commentaries on Shane’s view that the number is beyond counting.

        So there’s your commentary and there are other commentaries. Simply waving off Shane’s (and thousands of other commentaries) as “beyond the pale” is well, beyond the pale. We disagree on the interpretation. We each have scriptural reasons for our respective views. Well ok.

        Like

  2. dizerner

     December 16, 2015 at 6:20 am

     There’s a subtle difference going on between two claims that sound alike when you say:

     The difference between a Calvinist and and a Fatalist is that a Fatalist would care nothing about evangelism since all is “pre-determined.”

     There is argument one: Because all things are determined I should not care.
     Then there is argument two: Because all things are determined my lack of caring is unalterable.

     I would agree argument one is flawed, but two seems to stand. This is quite a puzzle to me under determinism: How can the man in Romans 9 say anything *but* “Why did you make me like this?” That’s the way he was *made.* In other words, God’s response should be “Yep, that’s my pot for destruction there saying exactly what I decreed it to.” But Paul seems to get frustrated and say “This logic doesn’t work.” The question is why doesn’t it work? I try to get right down to it with no “BS’ing” in this short commentary on Romans 9 https://dizernerblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/an-arminian-dares-to-read-through-the-text-of-romans-9/

     Like

     Reply
     1. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm

        Leighton, while Paul may be addressing a hardened Jew, it’s important to notice the example Paul uses of “determinsim.” It is of Pharaoh that Paul, quotes GOD in saying: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion.” (vs. 15) And Pharaoh was not a hardened Jew, he was pagan King. Paul then goes onto say in the very next verse: “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Those verses alone drive a nail in the coffin of your view. This passage is not an “escape hatch” for Calvinists, nor is it eisegesis. And you and I both know that Paul argues in Romans that all (both Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God and deserving of judgment. Furthermore, Romans 9 is not the only place in Scripture where God’s absolute sovereignty is taught. “He ordains all things after the counsel of His will.” (Eph. 1:11) “For no one can stay his hand or say to Him ‘what have you done’” (Dan. 4:35) “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48) It seems as though the absolute sovereignty of God was rarely questioned in the early church. They simply accepted it as fact. I suspect living under Roman rule gave them a much better understanding of a sovereign King than most of us have.

        Like

     2. dizerner

        December 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm

        Just a note you replied to the wrong person here, I hope Leighton sees this.

        Like

     3. soteriology101

        December 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm

        The “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy” quote is not in reference to Pharaoh. It was a quote taken from Exodus when the Israelites were being unfaithful but God mercied them in order to carry out his promise

        See Rm 3…God promise doesn’t depend on the faithfulness of Israel.

        Please take time to read the commentary as I don’t have time to restate it all here, but I assure you Paul is not support theistic determinism in this diatribe. The fact that you acknowledge the interlocutor is a hardened Jew virtually disavows the entire Calvinistic application of this text as proof for their soteriological position. For if its a Jew God desires to be saved (9:1-3; 10:1; 21; 11:14-23) but who grew calloused over time (not born rejected/reprobate) then the objection were raising has NOTHING to do with the objection you’re applying it to.

        Like

     4. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 5:02 pm

        In veses 17-18, Paul applies the concept to Pharoah.”For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

        Maybe Paul should have consulted with you first😉

        Like

     5. soteriology101

        December 16, 2015 at 5:14 pm

        You really need to read the commentary, not because it will convince you of anything, but because comments like this reveal you have no clue how we interpret Paul. I say that with respect, but in order to engage we need to understand each other first.

        The Exodus event with the golden calf is an Historical example of God mercying Jews when they deserved to be killed so as to accomplish his promise through them.

        In Pauls day however God is hardening, instead of mercying, the rebellious Jews to accomplish that same purpose. Pharaoh is a foreshadowing of this event, for just as God hardened rebellious Pharaoh to accomplish the first Passover, so too God hardened rebellious Israel to accomplish the real Passover. (Irony at its finest)

        Like

     6. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 5:38 pm

        So unless I agree with you, then I have “no clue how to interpret Paul”? Does that just apply to me or to the numerous Bible scholars who also disagree with you? This sounds very prideful. I think we should be able to disagree more amiably than that.

        Like

     7. soteriology101

        December 16, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        Shane, you misread my comment. I said you have no clue how we interpret Paul in Rom 9 which makes it difficult to engage over our actual points of disagreement. (I.e. We talk past each other)

        Like

     8. soteriology101

        December 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm

        Shane, please let me know that you understood my comments rightly because I don’t want you leaving thinking that I said what you represented me saying above. Anyone who knows me knows that one of my greatest desires is to remain amiable in conversations with my brethren.

        Like

     9. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 11:40 pm

        Leighton – Yes, I understood what you were saying and I thank you for clarifying it.

        Liked by 1 person

• Robert

  December 16, 2015 at 3:46 pm

  Shane,

  By your comments it appears that you are confusing “sovereignty” with **complete control of every action and thought”.

  You ASSUME that sovereignty means that God directly and completely controls every action and thought” of every person. But THAT is not sovereignty.

  In the Bible the sovereignty of God means that ****He can do as He pleases in any and all situations**** and that no one can stop him from doing something that he purposes or decides to do. We all believe in sovereignty when we pray (e.g. if we are praying for the healing of a seriously ill person, we will pray for that person to be healed knowing that God can do so if He chooses to do so, He can also choose not to heal that person, THAT is sovereignty, that the decision is up to Him).

  “It seems as though the absolute sovereignty of God was rarely questioned in the early church.”

  Yes, they believed that God was sovereign, not that he directly controlled every thought and action. It is interesting that even your own illustration undercuts your assumption about sovereignty and supports the biblical notion:

  “They simply accepted it as fact. I suspect living under Roman rule gave them a much better understanding of a sovereign King than most of us have.”

  Look at any King in history (including Roman Emperors), any “sovereign King” as you put it, and none of them directly controlled every action and thought of the people they were sovereign over. These Kings had power and authority, including sometimes the power of life and death over subjects. But they did not completely control their subjects. Subjects could still rebel, question the King, even assassinate the King.

  These Kings had authority over their subjects, but not total control.

  So your illustration fails to support your assumption that sovereignty means total control. It never has meant that, either in history with Kings and their subjects or in scripture with God and human persons.

  Liked by 1 person

  Reply
• Robert

  December 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm

  Shane,

  You made a comment earlier, that also contradicts the notion that sovereignty means that God completely controls the thoughts and actions of people:

  “Not only do I agree with you that man can resist God; I would even further and say that resisting God is ALL MAN EVER DOES in his natural condition.”

  Shane if God directly and completely controls the thoughts and actions of people, then how are these people resisting God???

  You say that is ALL that they do, how are they resisting all the time if God is completely in control?

  Or put it another way, how are they resisting all the time if God **is** sovereign?

  How is their resisting all the time compatible with God being sovereign???

  Liked by 1 person

  Reply
  1. Shane Kastler

     December 16, 2015 at 4:04 pm

     Their resistance of God is compatible with the sovereignty of God the same that Pharoah’s was. The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and it also says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. As for your earlier statement about Roman emperors not having complete control over their subjects, I would obviously agree with you. You pushed my analogy beyond the limits of what any analogy will do. All analogies we use to try and understand God will eventually break down. I simply meant that those living under Roman rule understood sovereignty better than most of us today…… As for your statement that I was confusing sovereignty with determinism; that was the reason I used the phrase “absolute” sovereignty. Eph. 1:11 says that God “ordains all things after the counsel of His will.” You say that God has the ability to do anything, but chooses not to. If this is true, then He is still determining what comes to pass. If God has the ability to change your heart, then CHOOSES not to do it; then He is determining that you stay unregenerate. The only way you can eliminate God’s absolute sovereignty is to limit His power to intervene (not just His desire to).

     Like

     Reply
     1. brianwagner

        December 16, 2015 at 4:28 pm

        Your Calvinist “slip” is showing, Shane!🙂 You said – “Eph. 1:11 says that God ‘ordains all things after the counsel of His will.’” Is that from a new Calvinist translation that I haven’t seen yet,🙂 or just what you think that you see beneath the surface of what Paul actually said? And if you are to be consistent with your subconscious reworking of the text, you should have said “God ordained”, if you are tying to prove from this text that all things have been predetermined. But the Holy Spirit must have allowed the truth to creep out, for the verse is about what God is doing now… He is “working with” all things, and one determination for those in Christ, but no further details about His plan, like how detailed or open it might be.

        The verse only talks about one thing having been “ordained” for those who are “in Christ”… that they will receive His inheritance for sure!

        Like

     2. Shane Kastler

        December 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm

        “Works” all things after the counsel of His will can also be “ordains” – And you said “this verse only talks about one thing” – I think your conclusion is odd because the verse says “all things.” I do agree with you that those in Christ will receive the inheritance for sure! And why is that? And how did they come to be “in Christ”? According to vs. 4 it’s because “he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”😉 — It’s been nice chatting with you all. I must go for now. Blessings to you.

 

Faith, Science, & Salvation

By Shane Kastler

The world abounds with various theories about how we all got here. Did life spring up gradually through some form of evolutionary process? Was there a “big bang” that caused life as we know it to spontaneously spring into existence? Or has mankind, as we know it, simply eternally existed? All of these theories, or variations of them, have been put forth over the years by scientists. But for those with the faith to accept it, the Bible tells us how things came into being: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” - Hebrews 11:3

God created everything out of nothing. While man needs some sort of pre-existing material to create something; God does not. God has the power to speak things into existence. And in this regard the “big bang” theory might be somewhat true. When God said, “Let there be light!” (Genesis 1:3) There was immediately light! Perhaps that also created a “big bang.”

Some say that Christianity is based solely on faith, while science is based on facts. But the truth is that Christianity is also rooted in factual observations. And most scientists hold to their theories in a “faith” like way. Since no one today was actually present when the world was created, anything a person believes must be based on faith. To believe in evolution is to accept something “by faith.” But sadly it is not “saving” faith. It is faith in a lie; and because of this; it is a “faith” that cannot save.

The Bible tells us that there is ample evidence for believing in God and His creative power. The book of Romans states: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NASB) One need only to look at the uniformity of nature to see the evidence for a sovereign God. The earth spins at a constant rate. The earth rotates the sun at a constant rate. Water boils and freezes at a set temperature. This shows order and design. This show evidence for God.

The evolutionist is inconsistent. They say that everything came into being in a chaotic display of “chance.” But then they wish to cling to certain scientific laws that show the very opposite of chaotic chance. Either things exist by design or they do not. It can't be both.

God created everything out of nothing. Our world is orderly, but sinful. And as a result of sin we all need a savior. God also provided for that by sending His Son Jesus Christ into the world. All those who turn from their sin in repentance and commit their life to Jesus by faith will be saved. Or you can put your hope in a sinking ship. You can believe the lies of this world. Lies about creation. Lies about people. And lies about salvation. Someday everyone will know the truth about God. But “someday” it will too late to do anything about it. Trust in Christ today. His word is truth in a world full of lies.

 

Believers Stop Believing Because They Aren't Really Believers

By Shane Kastler

Why do people leave churches? Why do children, who grow up in church, abandon the faith when they go off to college? Why do some adults who once embraced Christianity grow skeptical and eventually reject it? These are questions that modern church growth gurus and statisticians frequently try to answer. They poll apostates to find out why they left. They besmirch churches that “run people off” by relying on the Bible. And they attack God's Word, as the reason for why people leave. In numerous odd attempts to explain unbelief, the so-called experts of today miss the “elephant in the room.” Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. In other words, the reason why some people grow up to reject the Christian faith they grew up being taught is because they were never true believers in the first place. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)  Jesus said, “Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom.” (John 3:3) The problem with those who leave the church is not that they are dazzled by 21^st century arguments against Christianity. The problem is that they are “dead in their sins.” (Ephesians 2:1) And when the spiritually dead lose interest in the Christian faith it simply proves the reality of their spiritual deadness.

Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley, of North Point Community Church in Atlanta, doesn't see it this way. He considers the Bible to be the problem and has recently increased his attacks on Scripture as an authoritative voice for Christianity. In a recent message, Stanley said: “Perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, ‘Jesus love me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’ That is where our trouble began.” This shocking statement is merely the latest salvo from Stanley in his attacks on Christianity. He goes on to argue that the Bible cannot be defended as historically accurate and therefore Christians should stop trying to do so. He argues that adults leave the faith because of a childish notion they were taught growing up that the Bible is God's Word. Once they become enlightened they realize the Bible is full of holes and they reject it. Stanley's solution, is to go along with their rejection and instead point them to “historical” Christianity. Of course the reality is we would know very little of “historical Christianity” apart from the Bible. In Stanley's worldview the idea of having faith in the unseen God is too simplistic for modern man to accept. To him, teaching a “God-inspired” and infallible Bible is a dead end for churches. To him, Christians who believe in the maxim “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so” are making a grave mistake. And to him, this reliance on the Bible is “is where our trouble began.” In an article refuting Stanley, Albert Mohler states that Stanley is pushing “an apologetic disaster that would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe.”

Stanley's argument is eerily reminiscent of another opponent of God's Word from a bygone era. “Hath God said?” is an attack as old as the world itself. Satan tempted Eve by questioning God's Word and God's authority in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1). Stanley tempts modern believers with the exact same attack today. And therein lies the truth that these attacks on God's Word are old, stale, and common. Stanley's heresy is nothing more than a modern day version of the same theological liberalism that has plagued the church for eons. It's root lies in the oldest of rebellions against God, and it's father is the “father of lies.” Sadly, many will fall for Stanley's deception because of his fame, his name, and his church size. Many will gladly accept this attack on God's authority because they have no desire to live under God's authority. And they will salivate over a pastor who smugly tells them they don't need to. The Apostle's Paul's admonition to Timothy is prescient: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4 NASB) Truly that time has come.

The true hope for the church is the exact thing that Stanley rails against. Far from downplaying the importance of Scripture, the church needs to go back to the Bible to understand how God saves sinners. While God uses preachers and the proclamation of the gospel, it is not by man's clever manipulations that people are saved. Spitting on the Bible in a vain attempt to woo unbelievers is not the way God has seen fit to bring spiritual life to the spiritually dead. In fact, the Bible warns against the very type of evangelism that Stanley and so many modern gurus espouse: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1Corinthians 1:21) The world considers itself too intellectual to accept the “foolishness” of the gospel. But it is this “foolish” gospel and this “foolish” gospel alone that tells the sinner of salvation. Is it too simplistic of a message for people to believe? Is it too naive to expect modern man to embrace this message on the authority of the Bible? Stanley says yes. God says otherwise.

It is very telling that the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that he PURPOSELY avoided the very thing Stanley preaches: “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5) Does Stanley believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified? He says he does. But he arrogantly attacks the very place where this truth is taught. And he clearly rejects the means by which people come to understand this truth. Stanley wishes to sweet-talk the unbeliever into the kingdom, but you can't sweet-talk spiritual corpses. You lovingly tell them the truth, but only God can give them life.

Unbelievers don't continue on in their unbelief because of a need for modern methods that attack the eternal truth. And so-called believers don't grow up to drift away because of the insufficiency of the Bible. They drift away and reject the faith because they were never born again in the first place. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools.” (Romans 1:22) Sometimes those fools sit in the congregation. Sometimes those fools stand in the pulpit. In both cases, their assumed wisdom is nothing more than the evidence of their spiritual death.

The church needs to rediscover what Paul called, “a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” The church needs to proclaim a God who is sovereign and a sinner who is helpless. The church doesn't need to jettison the Scriptures. The church needs to stand upon them and proclaim them and know the truth of what God has said. Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. But TRUE believers persevere unto the end. TRUE believers trust in Christ and rest in His work. TRUE believers do more than profess the Lord with their lips, they also proclaim Him with their life. TRUE believers keep believing because the “work” that was done in them was an eternal work performed by God. Their faith is not undone by modern persuasive arguments. Their faith is not undone by secular attacks on the Scriptures. And their faith is not undone by false shepherds who boast of knowing God's hidden truth, while attacking God's revealed word.