Posts categorized "Calvinism"

God's Sovereignty & Man's Action: Paul's Journey to Rome

By Shane Kastler

The Apostle Paul was preordained to proclaim the gospel in Rome. This was not in doubt; because the Lord Himself appeared to Paul and told him this would be so. The book of Acts records, “But on the following night, the Lord stood near him and said, “Be courageous! For as you have testified to the truth about Me in Jerusalem, so you must testify in Rome also.” (Acts 23:11 NASB)
Paul's circumstances at this time were extremely rough, yet they were ordained of God. He was a prisoner, in what appeared to be imminent threat of death. The Jewish leaders were set to assassinate him, with several having taken a vow to not eat or drink until they had killed him. He was being held in Roman custody, albeit as a prisoner of the Jews. It was a very unique situation, in that Paul had a direct summons from the Lord saying he would testify in Rome. Yet from a human perspective it's hard to see how he will escape Jerusalem alive. And in this seemingly impossible situation, we see both the sovereignty of God and the actions of Paul transpiring. With the ultimate result being his testimony at Rome. Just as the Lord had said.

God's sovereignty and man's action are not equal in their certainty or power. God is always supreme to man. Yet doesn't always (or even often) “miracle” things into being. Typically he uses the course of human events to bring about His divine will. Such is the case here.

Paul's nephew gets wind of the plot to kill Paul and tells him. At this point, Paul could have just played the “sovereignty card” and ignored the plot, surmising that the Lord told him he would appear in Rome, so the plot against him was destined to fail. But this is not what Paul does. He has his nephew report the plot to the Roman commander. Who in turn orders a large detachment of soldiers to transfer Paul to Caesarea for his safety. The commander is not purposely trying to fulfill God's will; but fulfill it he does. Caesarea is not Rome; but it is the next step in Paul's ultimate destination.

In Caesarea, Paul is questioned by the governor and accused by the Jewish leaders. Once again, he asserts his innocence and once again the Jews hatch a plot to kill him. They request his trial be moved back to Jerusalem, since the charge against him is essentially a religious one. And the governor is willing to consider this; but Paul is not. “If, therefore, I am in the wrong and have committed something deserving death, I am not trying to avoid execution; but if there is nothing to the accusations which these men are bringing against me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” (Acts 25:11 NASB) The governor, Festus confers with his advisors and then declares, “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you shall go.” (Acts 25:12) The die was cast. The decision was made. The Lord's will would be fulfilled. Paul was going to Rome.

Anywhere along the way, Paul could have refused to act; knowing that the Lord told him he would appear in Rome. When his nephew told him of the plot to kill him; he might have blown it off and said, “They can't kill me because God says so.” He could have waited for his miracle. But instead he used “human means” to accomplish God's will. Indeed, it is usually through human means that God accomplishes His will.

When faced with the prospect of returning to Jerusalem (to be killed) or appeal to Caesar (and go to Rome); Paul used his status as a Roman citizen; both to spare his life and to set his sights on Rome. He wouldn't be coming to Rome as a conquering Christian hero; but as a prisoner of the Jews. Nevertheless he would do exactly as the Lord told him he would do and he would testify in Rome.

Sometimes God uses means we know nothing about to accomplish His will. But sometimes we are very aware and active in the outworking of God's will. Our job is not to passively wait for God to “miracle” us into His will; but rather to purposely seek His will and act accordingly. Sometimes His will is hidden from us and we're uncertain how to proceed. During such times we prayerfully trust that God will “work all things for good.” (Rom. 8:28) Other times, God shows us clearly what we are to do and we are faced with a decision of obedience or disobedience. Ultimately, God is big enough to accomplish His purpose with or without our obedience. He is not reliant upon us. But what a privilege it is to be used of God in such a way that we can boldly yet humbly say, “The will of the Lord be done.” And rest in the knowledge that this is so.

October 22, 2022 in Calvinism, Living The Faith, Theology | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

Answering an E-Mail in Response To My Belief in God's Sovereignty, Man's Responsibility, & Eternal Security

Writing_letterBy Shane Kastler

Recently I received an anonymous e-mail that took issue with my belief that God is sovereign over salvation and that those who are saved cannot lose their salvation.  While I have not published the writer's original e-mail, I am publishing my response to it below.  Hopefully it will be helpful to others who might want to explore these topics.

Hi,

Thanks for the email. By the way, my name is Shane. What's yours? I noticed the email wasn't signed, so perhaps you wish to remain anonymous. But I thought I'd try to be neighborly nonetheless.

You said in your email that if God chooses to save some while sending others to Hell – this would make God “unrighteous and unjust.” With all due respect, you and I do not get to judge what is righteous and just. That is God's domain. And if God, as our Creator, were to set a standard of holiness; He is completely within His rights to do so. And if any person falls short of the standard, God (as our Creator) has every right to condemn such a person to Hell. And if EVERY PERSON sins and fails to live by God's standard, then God would be just in sending EVERY PERSON to Hell. And finally, if God so chose to send SOME people to the Hell that they deserve, and chose to SAVE OTHERS of His own choosing, then that would be an example of God's grace. Not an example of God being unjust. Interestingly enough, your position is the very same one the Bible refutes in Romans 9, a chapter that is very germane to this question. God is not required to be gracious to all, nor is He required to be gracious to any. But He chooses to be gracious to some.

I believe many people make the mistake of not beginning with the idea of all people being spiritually “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); and thus all people deserving condemnation. If we STARTED with this truth, then the idea of God's electing grace makes a lot more sense. Most people start with the idea of man being basically good, and having free will. And when you start with the wrong premise, you will invariably be led to the wrong conclusion.

You also objected to my belief that faith is a gift from God. Your exact words were, “Salvation is a gift of God, available by his goodness to all mankind via Christ – to those who will believe his message and receive it.” While I agree with you that salvation is a gift of God. And I agree that the message of salvation should be proclaimed to all. I would ask a deeper question of you and say, “Who are those that believe and receive this message?” If man is truly “dead in his trespasses and sins” then man, by nature, will reject Christ. Of course, Jesus himself taught that sinners will not come to him by nature. But that “all that the Father gives Me, will come to Me.” (John 6:37) He furthermore, told a baffled Nicodemus that to see the kingdom he must be “born again” (John 3:3). Which is to say that the Spirit must grant life to one who is dead. And the Spirit clearly doesn't do this for everyone. Which was why Jesus told Nicodemus, “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) I fear that your argument puts you on the side of Nicodemus in John 3, and opposite Jesus in John 6; which is not a good place to be. When a sinner is “born again” they are granted faith to embrace Christ for who He is. They turn from sin, and they come to Him. The Apostle Paul reiterates that faith is a gift in Ephesians 2:8-9: "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.” (emphasis added)

Moving on now, to your complaint that I believe that those who are saved cannot lose their salvation. What some refer to as “eternal security” or the more accurate description of “perseverance of the saints.” My belief that those saved will never be lost is based on the teaching of Jesus, and goes “hand-in-hand” with my belief that salvation is a work of God and not man. While you pointed out verses that teach that some will fall away, I would contend that those who fall away were false converts who were not born again. We have all known people who professed Christ, then after a season they “fell away.” I don't see this as a loss of salvation, but rather as evidence that they never were truly converted. I base this on Jesus's words, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)

Several arguments could be made to defend my position from this passage alone. Not the least of which would be to say that if Jesus promises “ETERNAL” life then it cannot be lost. How can you temporarily possess something that is ETERNAL? If this were possible, then Jesus's use of the word ETERNAL has lost all meaning. Furthermore, Jesus's clear teaching in this passage is that no one can pluck a believer out of HIS HAND, nor the FATHER'S HAND. They are secure. You stated that there are many passages in the Bible that warn about falling away, and that if believers are truly secure then these warnings would be “hot air.” To the contrary, I believe that such warnings are some of the very ways that God uses to keep His sheep secure. Those who are truly His, will respond to the warnings and those who are not His, will ultimately reject the warnings. God doesn't need these admonitions in order to see who are His, but we need the admonitions, and the resulting responses of obedient faith to bolster our assurance. The warnings help us, not God. Since God needs no help.

As for your statement that when the Lord threatens to blot names out of the book of life in Revelation 3:5, this is teaching the loss of salvation... I disagree. I think you are confusing a general reference to “life” with what is sometimes called the “Lamb's Book of Life” as recorded in Revelation 13:8. Incidentally, this passage would also further bolster my argument that salvation is a gift of God to His elect, since Revelation 13:8 says the names were written, “BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” This ties in directly with what Ephesians teaches, that we were “chosen in Him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” (Ephesians 1:4 emphasis added)

To have one's name blotted out of the “book of life” is used frequently in Scripture to describe someone's death at the hand of God. It speaks of the temporal judgment of dying, not the loss of salvation. With all of this said, I will concede one point to you. If indeed salvation is attained by a free act of man's will, then it would also stand to reason that man could change his mind or change his ways and thus lose the salvation he chose. I believe that many Baptists are in error when they teach that salvation is an act of man's free will, but that once attained man can never lose this salvation. This teaching would be both unbiblical and illogical. Which is why I believe that the sinner's security is bound up in the fact that salvation is a sovereign act of God, and not an act of man. Since man is spiritually dead, desperately wicked, hopelessly confused, and endlessly fickle.

As for the last text you cited from Genesis 4, “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:6-7) You say this is evidence in Cain's (and thus man's) free will. I disagree. To the contrary, Cain is clearly enslaved to sin, as all people are. And both WOULD NOT and COULD NOT obey of his own volition. No one can or does, unless God grants it. Cain could only "master" sin by God's grace changing him.  Which is the only way any of us can master sin.  If God commands us to change, then our response should not be, "I can change on my own."  But rather, "God, I can change if you CHANGE ME!  Please be merciful to me, the sinner!" (see Luke 18:13) 

While I understand the difficulty in trying to reconcile God demanding something that is impossible for us to naturally do, I would argue that this is exactly what the gospel does. It commands spiritually dead sinners to come to life and follow Him. And this they will not do, unless He grants them life. This then, is what gives God the utmost glory. That He would demand something that we cannot do. He would supernaturally change us, so that we DO what He commands. And then, amazingly, He rewards us for doing what ultimately was HIS WORK in us (see Eph. 2:10). To me, this is what is so AMAZING about GRACE.

In conclusion, while you and I have clear theological disagreements; I think they partially stem from how we view the Scriptures. You have cited several verses that might seem to defend your position. I have cited verses that defend my position. Yet, hopefully we can agree that ALL of these verses are God-inspired and true. The questions then become, How do we reconcile such verses? Do they contradict each other? Are they compatible in some way? Or are they merely beyond our capacity to comprehend? While there is much about God that is beyond us, it behooves us to try as we might to understand all of His Word that we can. We may conclude that some passages are too difficult for us. But hopefully we will never conclude that our verses are right, while someone else's verses are wrong. All of Scripture is Divine truth, to the extent that it is interpreted correctly, taken in context, and applied accurately to our life.

Hopefully this email clarifies my views somewhat.

Blessings to you,

Shane Kastler

 

December 18, 2018 in Apologetics, Calvinism, Eternal Issues, Theology | | Comments (1)

| | Pin It! | |

Piper & Lecrae’s Liberal Slide Continues

Piper lecraeBy Shane Kastler

John Piper was once a bastion of Biblical orthodoxy.  In years past, his preaching and writing ministry opened the eyes of many to the sovereignty of God and the supremacy of Christ.  I can remember in the mid-1990s being amazed at his deeply doctrinal preaching, in the midst of an American evangelicalism that was largely devoted to sugary tripe.  Then in 2010, Piper invited seeker-sensitive pragmatist Rick Warren to speak at his Bible conference; and a red flag was raised as to what Piper could possibly be thinking.  The problem, so obvious to many, was why Piper would link himself with someone who had devoted his entire ministry to doing the very opposite of what Piper himself was preaching.  While Piper railed about the importance of taking God and the gospel seriously, Warren had largely turned preaching into a pathetic combination of psychobabble and amateurish stand-up comedy.  Piper had either exposed himself as someone with more liberal tendencies than most knew of.  Or he was duped by Warren famously chameleon-like “charm.”  Many of us hoped that Piper was simply duped, but that doesn’t appear to be the case as the years have shown him sliding further and further into progressive and liberal ideology. 

Yesterday, Piper penned an article in support of “Christian rapper” Lecrae’s admission that he was “leaving white evangelicalism” (whatever that is) to embrace his black heritage, or as Lecrae calls it his "racial identity development."  Lecrae supports a whole host of progressive, black supremacy movements.  And Piper made it clear that he supports Lecrae and is in hearty agreement with him.  Together, they create disunity in the body of Christ by pushing a radical, racial agenda rather than presenting a New Testament view that Christians are “one in Christ.”  It is sad to see how far Piper has fallen.  But he seems to be too proud of his progressive virtues to notice, as he throws other Christians under the bus and kisses up to the leftists of the world.

Piper also has an obvious hatred for Donald Trump.  This he has made clear time and time again, most recently in yesterday’s article where he sneeringly referred to Trump as an “unrepentant lecher” who was unqualified to be president.  Of course, this is the same John Piper who famously and publicly proclaimed that he “wept for joy" and "rejoiced" when Barack Obama was elected.  Apparently in Piper’s mind, “unrepentant lechers” are unqualified, but unrepentant baby-murders are to be celebrated.  Obama was the most radically pro-abortion president in history; but Piper brushed that aside because Obama was black.  And undoubtedly it was Obama's race that made Piper cry for joy.  Forget abortion.  Forget the gospel.  Just be sure you don’t forget black supremacy, cleverly worded as “social justice.” 

This was largely his tone in the self-adoring article he wrote in support of Lecrae.  While Piper implies that MANY white Christians are racist, HE is not. Here are his exact words (strangely speaking of himself in 3rd person): 

 “The reason I have put “white evangelicalism” in quotation marks throughout this article is that it puts too many whites in bed together.  John Piper and a few million other supposed natives didn’t vote for Donald Trump. We don’t think unrepentant lechers should be president. We don’t think Robert E. Lee is a simple embodiment of nobility. We don’t think the confederate flag can fly with impunity. We don’t think kneeling for justice desecrates the other flag. We are baffled that Philando Castile’s shooter walks free. We are dismayed at the nationwide resurgence of manifest racial antagonism. We don’t think “systemic” is an unintelligible word.”

And there you have Piper’s self-aggrandizing "virtue list" of all the progressive ideals he embraces; as he pours fuel on racial strife by dividing the church between “black” and “white.” That’s not to say some of the issues don’t have merit, and Piper is certainly entitled to his opinion.  But this appears to be nothing more than a laundry list of how liberally enlightened he is, and how any who disagrees with him should be smeared. 

In truth, when Lecrae and Piper use words like “white evangelicalism” they are promoting division and creating categories that the Bible condemns.  Take, for example, Lecrae’s breaking away from "white evangelicals” and Piper’s support of it.  The very same thing happened in the New Testament church when Simon Peter (aka: Cephas) “broke away from Gentiles” to embrace his Jewish heritage (just as Lecrae says he is embracing his “black heritage).  Far from commending Peter for his “social justice” – the Apostle Paul rebuked him openly because he elevated “race” above the gospel.  Here are Paul’s exact words:

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14 NASB)

The only difference I can see is that Peter was motivated by fear while Lecrae seems to be motivated by pride and anger.  However, the differences between Paul’s response and Piper’s are legion.  Paul and the New Testament give no place for shunning one “race” of Christians to embrace another.  Piper and Lecrae seem to disagree.  And if you think I’m making too much of this, just imagine what the reaction would be if a white, Christian singer said he was going to distance himself from the church because it is “too black.”  Piper would be incensed (and rightly so).  The Southern Baptist Convention would be in overdrive writing resolutions of condemnation.  But they have different rules for black rappers and black presidents.

Over the years I have written letters, emails, and other messages to Piper and his ministry cohorts to address my concerns.  He has never responded personally, nor would I expect him to.  He’s a busy man.  His associates have at times ignored me, and at times ridiculed me for being “insensitive.”  I can only assume they would have given Paul the same rebuke at Antioch?

While there is much theological benefit in reading some of Piper’s books and listening to his past sermons, I could not (in good conscience) recommend his ministry today.  I fear that he hooks many unsuspecting Christians with his powerful message, but then steers them into a leftward ditch, so as to proceed with a progressive agenda that would make the Democrats proud.  Hopefully, others can see through the divisive actions of such virtue-signalers as Piper, Lecrae, and the proudly condemning SBC.  Black people like Lecrae who wish to leave the “white” church; and white people like Piper who stroke their ego for doing so; do nothing but divide Christians along racial lines.  This is not the gospel.  This is not Biblical Christianity.  It is racial strife, disguised as virtue.  Hopefully Christians won’t be fooled, and drink the progressive poison.  Jesus and the gospel deserve better.

October 06, 2017 in Calvinism, Politics/Political Issues, Preaching & Preachers, Theology | | Comments (24)

| | Pin It! | |

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

Clark bookGordon 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. 

April 24, 2017 in Apologetics, Book Reviews, Books, Calvinism, Philosophy, Preaching & Preachers, Theology | | Comments (1)

| | Pin It! | |

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

  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

      3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

  • 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

  • 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. 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. 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. “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.

 

December 23, 2016 in Apologetics, Calvinism, Living The Faith | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

Martin Luther & The Economics of the Reformation: How Capitalism Destoyed Catholicism

Luther-posting-95-theses-560x366By Shane Kastler

Martin Luther was a confrontational man. He was also a true, Biblical theologian in a time when theological deceit ruled the day. He sought both to please the Pope; but insisted on speaking against the Pope's errors.  While he respected the church, he also saw, very clearly, that the church was corrupt.  He was aware that they were selling indulgences for a way to earn time out of purgatory/ (Hell) and Luther was disgusted by the practice.  He insisted on speaking out against it.  His 95 Theses posted to the door of the Wittenberg church in 1517 sparked the Protestant Reformation. God used Luther in numerous ways. But God used others as well; both people and systems. Good old fashioned “capitalism” was used by God as much as anything to elevate Luther's message and destroy his Catholic detractors. Let me explain.

In his book, "Brand Luther: How an Unheralded Monk Turned His Small Town into a Center of Publishing, Made Himself the Most Famous Man in Europe--and Started the Protestant Reformation"Andrew Pettegrew lays out the events in systematic fashion to prove the point that it wasn't only Luther's superior theological knowledge. It was also the fact the the common man, who was also a consumer, chose to buy Luther's works over and against his Catholic antagonists by a ration of almost 10 to 1. The old fashioned economic axiom of “supply and demand” played a major role in determining the outcome of the Reformation. And the facts were simple yet profound. The people wanted to buy and read Luther. And they did not have a desire to read his Catholic detractors at anywhere near the same clip. Luther won on ideas. But he also won in terms of popularity and economics. He was in demand, so the printers of the day printed his works. The Catholics were not in demand and so their books went unsold and in many cases, un-printed.

Luther lit the torch of the Reformation when on Oct. 31, 1517 he nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Castle door. Luther did not expect much of a response. A few weeks earlier he had posted a “Theses” bemoaning scholasticism in Germany and this provocation went largely unheeded. That is to say, no on really cared about Luther's view on the matter. But in God's provenience, the theses against indulgences turned out to be a much different matter. Luther shook the world when he spoke out against the Catholic practice of raising funds by selling indulgences that would knock years off of purgatory. Even before Luther, there was a bit of a backlash against Rome. Some Germans felt like they were being exploited; and Luther's words gave voice to this unrepresented mass. Luther became an immediate hero in Germany and the Catholic church fell further and further into the abyss of unpopularity.

John Tetzel was no doubt the indulgence salesman that Luther went after most vociferously. And Tetzel, who was a scholar in his own right, responded to Luther in print. But when Luther offered a counter-rebuttal to Tetezel he did something unorthodox and indeed, controversial. Rather than writing in Latin, the common language of academic debate, Luther decided to write in German so the common people could take part and share their opinion in the debate. Biographer Pettegrew records: “If this was to be a public scandal, Luther would address the public. But by doing so, taking the debate out of the academic theater and the formal process of the dissertation, he also abandoned the protection of his status as a professor. From this point on Luther would be a marked man.” (kindle location, 1328.)

By God's providence, Tetzel had not much longer to live. And Luther claimed to have written words of encouragement to him on his deathbed; though this cannot be proven. At any rate, the Reformation had begun and Luther was it's primary human agent.

Luther continued to crank out works against Catholicism from his Wittenberg post; though these went largely ignored and unheeded by a Catholic hierarchy who saw Luther as nothing more than a “fly in the ointment.” In reality, Luther was gaining in popularity and would take Germany and even to a wider extent, Europe by storm.

Luther, in his own right, had become a continental celebrity. His unrestrained railings against Catholicism had both chagrined Rome and empowered the commoners. Luther was their champion, even though he eschewed some of the excesses of the populace. When the “Peasants War” broke out in the 1520s; Luther unguarded his restraint and even wrote against the rebellious excesses of the commoners. Though he was beloved for standing up to Rome, he was also a beacon of peace unto those who would use his teaching to spark a governmental rebellion. But Luther wanted no part of this. Initially he desired to reform within the Catholic church. When that became impossible, he sought a peaceful church within what was becoming known as “Lutheranism” or “evangelicalism.”

The plain and simple fact was, at the height of the reformation, Luther was more popular and a “better sale”than his catholic counterparts. Pettegrew records: “In the years between 1521 and 1525, when the pamphlet war was at its height, Luther and his supporters out-published their opponents by a margin of nine to one.” (Brand Luther, by Pettegrew, kindle location 3219) A few months later in the Reformation, Pettegrew records: “Luther’s works outstrip those of any other author by a factor of ten; he out-published the most successful of his Catholic opponents by a factor of thirty. Even this bald statistic understates the dominant role of Wittenberg in the printed works of the Reformation. After Luther, three of the next four most published authors were Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and Justus Jonas; the only author to break into this Wittenberg cartel was Urbanus Rhegius of Augsburg.”

The demand for Luther was much, much greater than the demand for his Catholic detractors; and this as much as anything else, signaled the direction that the Reformation would take. The “supply and demand” of Luther's popularity coupled with Catholicisms unpopularity made Luther a hero and the Pope a goat. Even when the Catholic church sought to force their publications on others, it backfired on them. The common man simply refused to purchase the Catholic rebuttals of Luther. And, more often than not, the Catholic church was too “high-brow” to answer Luther in the vulgar vernacular of German anyway. They wished to stay academic and dialog in Latin; but Luther took the debate to the people; and in so doing gained a following far beyond anything the staid Catholics were willing to gain.

When it was all “said and done” Luther won the day. Evangelical reforms took hold in Germany and the church educated the children according to gospel standards, at Luther's demand. Catholicism waned in Germany, as well as other parts of Europe. Luther, for all of his faults, had won. Europe, indeed the entire world, would never be the same.

Luther would live out his days trying to give structure to the theological movement he produced. He pressed for better Christian education and he set up a structure for the new “Lutheran” church in Germany. People would no longer seek to buy their way to salvation through the purchase of indulgences. They would be taught to look to and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Apart from him we have nothing. But with him we have everything. This, as much as anything, was the message of Luther. He proclaimed a very “Christ-o-centric” gospel and as such he left the chicanery of indulgence selling behind. He upset the sensibilities of the Catholics of his day. But he rested in the preaching of the true gospel. Luther was far from perfect, but he believed in a sovereign God who saved sinner's in accordance with His perfect will and plan. Through Luther, God restored the gospel. We no longer need be enslaved to worldly salesman who see Godliness as a means of financial gain. To the contrary , we can trust in Christ and Him alone. As Luther taught. We trust in Christ and not man; but we rejoice in the men God has used to preserve his gospel. God used Luther. Let us rejoice.

December 09, 2016 in Book Reviews, Calvinism, Eternal Issues, Theology | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

BOOK REVIEW: Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer

Martin LutherBy Shane Kastler

As a professor, Scott Hendrix observed a void in the area of Martin Luther scholarship and he sought to fill that void by penning the biography, Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer. Hendrix succeeded by producing a work on Luther that is both well researched and highly readable. Since much attention will be devoted to Luther in the coming days, with the 500th anniversary of his 95 theses; Hendrix adds a pertinent layer to the available material on Luther's life that is both valuable and timely.

It would be a poor writer who would make a biography of Luther boring. His life was prodigiously interesting and exciting; and Hendrix brings that out in this book. Luther's father desired for his son to study law, but Martin's life was drastically changed when he was frightened by a thunderstorm and promised God that he would enter a monastery. While Hendrix raises doubt as to the historical accuracy of this event, the decision of Martin to become a monk is unquestioned. The zealous Luther sought to please God and assuage His wrath; and in so doing he entered the Augustinian order with fervor. Martin's father was not happy with the decision, but eventually came around and was present with a large entourage when his son was ordained. According to Hendrix, Luther's father was skeptical himself of the Catholic church and wanted his son to thus avoid the priesthood. Yet, against his father's wishes he joined; and Hans Luther would eventually rejoice at his son's rejection of Catholicism and the ensuing reformation.

Martin's legalistic Catholicism eventually clashed with what he read in the Scriptures and he famously spoke out against it. As he observed the selling of indulgences by the established church, he rightly called it out as a scam that preyed upon the fears of the common people. He sought to right this wrong by posting his 95 Theses on the castle door at Wittenberg.

It has been well established that Martin never dreamed his act would spark such a response as it did. Yet God was pleased to use Luther in ways that he never would have imagined. Luther originally sought reform within Catholicism, as opposed to the establishment of a new denomination. But time, and the Pope's edict, would soon force his hand. Luther grew more and more emboldened as time passed; and he spoke out brazenly against the Pope. At times, openly insulting, Luther eventually embraced the conclusion that the Pope was the Anti-Christ and a tool of Satan himself. This led to his defrocking. But it also led to his historical status as a reformer and legendary figure in Christian history. “Lutheranism” became powerful in Germany as the corruption of Catholicism was exposed. Still yet, some of Luther's greatest defenders were German political leaders who remained faithful to the Catholic hierarchy. Luther could have easily been executed; yet political favor and more importantly divine providence, protected him.

Hendrix's work reads almost like a novel in it's narrative; but it retains the feel of a scholarly work. He seeks to separate the Luther myth with reality and at times is forced to speculate on how events transpired. In what might be a disappointment to Luther fans, he argues that Luther had a lot of help from others during the Protestant Reformation; and that he probably gets more credit than is warranted. This is undoubtedly true, but still Luther's prominence is adequately presented in the book, albeit in a more tempered line of reasoning.

Hendrix is also unashamed to point out Luther's faults. For example, Luther was often brash, overly opinionated, and combative. These traits, which endeared him to so many, could at times serve as a two-edged sword in leading him into some fights that he might have otherwise avoided. Still yet, Luther is presented as the man that he was. Outspoken to a fault? Yes. But outspoken for what he believed to be divine truth? Certainly.

Some of Hendrix's observation's of Luther are helpful:

“Keeping quiet was never Martin Luther’s strength. He offered his opinion, sought or unsought, on most matters that crossed his desk.”

“He pronounced the world “utterly perverted” and blamed it on the absence of faithful preachers. Among perhaps 3,000 preachers, he contended, only four good ones could be found.”

“Erasmus was hurt by the accusations in Luther’s book and told him so: “The whole world knows your nature; truly you have so guided your pen that you have written against no one more rabidly and, what is more detestable, more maliciously than against me.… I would wish you a better disposition were you not so marvelously satisfied with the one you have.”

Luther's famous debates with Erasmus are well documented in the book. As are his well documented comments at the Diet of Worms where he refused to recant his views regarding the corruption of Catholicism. In time, Luther had assisted many nuns in shunning their vows, which he viewed as unbiblical; and helped them find husbands. He ultimately married a nun of his own and fathered six children with his beloved Katherine; who is presented as one who is brash in her own right and makes a good counter-punch and companion to the irascible Luther.

Eventually, Luther ran his course, kept the faith, and died in faithful service to the Lord. He had fought against several physical ailments in his later days and finally succumbed to sickness at the age of 62. His mark on Christianity was indelible. Scott Hendrix does an admirable job of presenting this most interesting life in all the grandeur it deserves. While the reader might not agree with Hendrix in all his assumptions and conclusions; it is without doubt that he presents Luther's life in a very accurate and interesting manner. The reader may draw his own conclusion; but this work will aid him in forming an accurate opinion of a man who intellectually feared no one; and “took no prisoners” in the realm of theology. Luther's fame is well deserved and Hendrix succeeds in presenting this, while also reminding the reader that Luther is still a fallible man. Luther was used of God to further His kingdom. The same might be said of Hendrix in this enjoyable biography.

November 01, 2016 in Book Reviews, Books, Calvinism, Preaching & Preachers, Theology | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

BOOK REVIEW: "One Greater Than Moses: A History of New Covenant Theology" By Heather Kendall (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

1346300753By Shane Kastler

In One Greater Than Moses: A History of New Covenant Theology, Heather Kendall examines the early events that led to the rising of what is now called, “New Covenant Theology.” For those unaware of what New Covenant Theology (NCT) is; this book will provide some much needed information. While both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are very popular theological systems among Christians in the church, seminaries, and laity; New Covenant Theology has only recently begun gaining ground. NCT is a theological system that seeks to make the text of Scripture the basis for how we understand Old and New Testament continuity and discontinuity. John Reisinger, one of the early leaders of NCT has stated that “Dispensationalism can't seem to get Israel and the Church together, and Covenant Theology can't seem to get Israel and the Church apart.” NCT seeks both, by recognizing the distinction between Old Covenant Israel as a typological picture of the church, and the New Testament church as the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. NCT also, as opposed to Covenant Theology, seeks to recognize the clear distinction made between the Old and New Covenants and the subsequent “Law” that was in effect under each covenant. NCT would find no scriptural basis for infant-baptism, given there is no Biblical warrant for the practice. Therefore, NCT is distinct from both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology in it's foundational beliefs and it's resulting practices. In NCT, the Old Testament is valued as the true “word of God” but it is rightly understood through the hermeneutical lens of the New Testament scriptures. Likewise, the Law of Moses has been fulfilled and replaced by the “Law of Christ.” Therefore, believers are to look to Jesus and His Apostles' teachings in the New Testament scriptures as the ethical standard by which they live. This clashes with the Covenant Theology idea of the “Ten Commandmants” of Moses as the unchanging “moral law” that binds all believers in all time frames. NCT rejects this, since it divides the Law of Moses into sections, in a way that Scripture never does. As for the history of NCT....

Kendall does an excellent job of reporting about how a handful of “Reformed” Baptists began questioning some of the theological positions so prevalent at the time. Men such as Jon Zens (who wrote the forward), Ron McKinney (who wrote one of the recommendations), Gary D. Long; and perhaps most prominently John Reisinger wanted to reason with their Calvinistic brethren about the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and what it meant for a New Covenant believer. Yet many times, this desire for debate was squelched by silence and the frequent accusations of “Antinomianism” (against Law) that would be levied at these men. Some opponents of NCT have declared that since it is “New” it must be wrong. But Kendall does a good job of showing the historical trace of what we today might call NCT, in some of the early church fathers. And even more importantly, we see the teaching clearly evident in the New Testament itself.

This is one of the strongest aspects of the book, for Kendall devotes two full chapters, plus an appendix to showing that NCT-type beliefs have existed from the beginning of the New Testament church. She uses ample quotations from primary sources, as well as pertinent commentary on these sources to paint the historically accurate picture of NCT-like beliefs always existing, though at times as a mere remnant among the more prevalent systems.

Kendall then goes on to trace NCT's trajectory in the 20th century and up to the present day. Some of the early articles by Jon Zens, began to “rock the boat” of how the Old Covenant Law was to be applied ( or not applied) in the New Covenant era. In the early 1980's Ron McKinney, who was then editor of the "The Sword & Trowel” magazine, along with Reisinger and others, decided to host a “Council on Biblcal Theology” in Dallas, TX. A total of three conferences were held in 1981-1983 to address issues pertaining to NCT. What this did was strengthen the resolve of some who held to NCT, while also strengthening the opposition to many who did not. Eventually The Sword & Trowel suffered a major withdrawal of subscribers. But, in spite of this, the NCT movement continued.

Another major spoke in the NCT wheel was Gary D. Long, who devoted a great amount of study time to examining the 1646 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions. While the 1689 is much more popular, having a Covenant Theology thrust to it, the 1646 is actually much more “Baptistic” and Biblical in nature when examined as a whole. The 1646 document makes many NCT-type statements in such a way, that it is clearly preferable as a doctrinal statement to the 1689. At least for those who hold to NCT. Long republished the 1646 confessional and has done a stellar job of promoting it's use and existence among like-minded brethren.

Kendall then expounds on NCT's influence in greater North America, by many adherents in Canada; as well as the world over. She also cites modern examples of growth within the movement, as young, seminary trained preachers continue to come out of the seminaries with either a NCT perspective, or at the least, views which are NCT-leaning or at least open to NCT. While in the past some church leaders have violently opposed it by declaring “we have the confessions.” Today's seminary graduate is perhaps more likely to say in response, “What saith the Scriptures?” And this has been NCT's goal all along. Not to create a “movement” but to drive Christians back to the text of Scripture as the basis for their beliefs.

Of course, NCT had it's opponents in the past and still does today. But it has gained steam as a modern theological movement. What's more, it is a movement grounded in the Scriptures, rightly divided, as opposed to being grounded in the powerful personalities that sometimes overshadow theological movements. Today, men such as Blake White, Doug Goodin, Geoff Volker, Zach Maxcey, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, and numerous others continue to write books and articles from an NCT perspective. Likewise, the seminaries have a certain amount of academic influence from NCT-leaning scholars like Tom Schreiner, D. A. Carson, Stephen Wellum, and Peter Gentry. Wellum and Gentry's recent book Kingdom Through Covenant was an excellent accomplishment as it gave NCT a legitimate voice in the academic community. Other books, such as Jason D. Meyer's The End of the Law, have followed suit. In addition to this, David Sitton's “To Every Tribe” ministry has been used of God to promote NCT in the missions world as well.

In conclusion, Heather Kendall has written an excellent “first history” of the NCT movement; and she does a fantastic job of tracing the history of the theology itself back to Scripture; as well as the modern movement and the men who shaped it. Today, NCT is not a completely united movement. There is a variety of streams and differences on some doctrinal issues. But the major core beliefs remain intact. The goal of the movement has always been to drive all Christians back to the Bible itself and allow all “systems” to be subservient to the Word. While much remains to be seen about the future of NCT, Kendall has given us a much better understanding and picture of it's past.

August 16, 2016 in Book Reviews, Books, Calvinism, New Covenant Theology, Preaching & Preachers, Theology | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

Atheism is Unnatural, But So Is Christianity: Examining Atheism, Christianity, & Theistic Unbelief

AtheismBy Shane Kastler

Atheism is unnatural.  But so is Christianity.  The only belief system that is truly “natural” is theistic unbelief.  In other words, it is normal to believe in the existence of a God that you don’t truly submit to.  The majority of people in the world today fall into this category. They believe God exists, but live like He doesn’t.  Or as Jesus said of the Pharisees, “This people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.”  (Mark 7:6) Let me further explain.

First of all, atheism is not natural because people are “hard-wired” to believe in God’s existence.  According to the Bible, atheism is inexcusable due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists in nature alone: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 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 1:18-20)

In other words, man, in his natural condition can see the rain falling and the crops growing and know there is a God.  Man’s conscience bothers him over what is morally right and wrong; and this conscience tells him there is a God.  Man knows, instinctively that he is in danger of judgement for the evils that he has committed and thought.  He knows instinctively that God will judge him one day.  But the most irrational of men and women will “suppress this truth in unrighteousness” and pretend that no such God exists. 

Ironically it is often the most educated who devolve into such irrationality.  They consider themselves too intellectual to believe in a God, in light of so many scientific discoveries.  Yet these repeated efforts of science to suppress God, only make His light shine that much brighter.  The amazing order of our world and solar system scream for the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful being who keeps the earth both spinning and rotating at a constant rate.  When atheists decry the evils of war, or crime, or poverty; they are making moral judgements which scream for a Creator who has declared what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral.  Rightly has it been said, that an atheist cannot properly argue against God’s existence without using laws of logic, science, and nature that prove God DOES exist.  An atheistic world would be a world without order. A world where laws of any kind are irrelevant.  Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” cannot begin to explain the origins of life and the meticulous detail that exists in nature.  Only a fool would declare “God is dead.”  Which is why the Bible declares, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.” (Psalm 53:1) Atheism is illogical and unnatural.  No one is born an atheist.  It typically takes decades of suppressing the truth, with the help of highly educated fools, in the educational system, to convince one to embrace the folly of atheism.  Atheism is unnatural, but then again so is Christianity.

No one is born a Christian.  According to Jesus they are “born again” as a Christian.  So, interestingly enough, Christianity is also unnatural.  Being born “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) we have no natural inclination to submit to and follow the Triune God.  We naturally know He exists.  We know we are accountable to Him.  We see evidence for Him all over the place.  But will not follow Him in our natural condition.  The sin curse which was inflicted on Adam in the garden, mars each one of us. It has dealt a fatal blow to every aspect of our being.  Our mind, will, emotions, and even our bodies are affected by it.  The Bible rightly says that, “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) Spiritually we are born dead.  And physically we shall one day die as well.  Christianity is not natural.  What it is…..is SUPERNATURAL!

True Christians have experienced an amazing gift of God’s grace, whereby they have spiritually come to life and thus know, love, and obey Jesus Christ.  This is why Jesus told the Jewish rabbi Nicodemus that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) The spiritual blindness is two-fold.  In one sense the unregenerate cannot “see” or perceive or understand the kingdom of God.  And in yet another sense, the unregenerate cannot “see” as in “entering” the kingdom of God.  Seeing Jesus for who He is and submitting to the Triune God requires a supernatural act of life granted BY GOD to the SINNER resulting in a newfound love and allegiance to the Son of God.  People simply do not do this “naturally.”  Only supernaturally. 

You might argue that you were taught the truths of Christianity all of your life and when you were older you accepted them.  Yet for every one person who accepts them, thousands were taught them and rejected them.  Hell is running over with people who grew up hearing the truths of Christianity and rejected them.  If you are a true believer, then it’s because of God’s supernatural grace bestowed upon you.  Christianity isn’t natural.  Its’s supernatural.  Atheism isn’t natural either. Its unnatural.  The only belief system that is natural is theistic unbelief.  To which I now turn.

All people know God is there.  And all people reject Him by nature.  The Bible says, “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) Apart from the Sprit granting life; and apart from the Spirit indwelling the Christian; we would know nothing of God.  Not only would we know nothing, we would reject the things about Him that are obvious, calling them “foolishness.”  The Apostle Paul echoes this same thought when he wrote, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.” (1 Corinthians 1:18) Non-Christians hear the story of a man getting nailed to a cross 2000 years ago and they cannot perceive how this has anything to do with their eternal standing.  The gospel seems foolish to the perishing.  And the reason for this is obvious.  It’s foolish to them because they are “dead in their sins” and thus have a natural hatred for God and His truth (see Colossians 1:21).  Something supernatural must happen for their defiance to change.  God must grant them life through regeneration.  Or at least, this is what Jesus taught.  Of course, Jesus also taught that all who came to Him, “he would surely not cast out.” (John 6:37) Which means if you have a desire to turn to Christ and follow Him with your life, He graciously beckons you to come.  You WON’T come unless God has granted the supernatural gift of regeneration.  But perhaps the very fact that you WANT to come is proof that God is working on you!  So I beckon every unbeliever to do something crazy and unnatural.  Come to Jesus and be saved!

As stated above, the only “natural” normal belief system is theistic unbelief.  That is, the belief in God’s existence, but a rebellion against His right to rule your life.  In this sense a person can be both a “believer” in that they acknowledge God is there.  And also an “unbeliever” in that they are not a follower of His.  And as stated above, this is the reality most people live with.  Some of them think they are justified because they believe in God’s existence.  But this won’t do, when the Son of God declares you “must be born again.”  Some of them adhere to a different God than the one of the Bible.  This won’t do either, and is in essence a subtle form of atheism.  They have embraced an idolatrous version of God that is no God at all.  And thus while they adhere to their conscience which screams to them that there is a God; they will not accept the God of the Bible.  Instead of coming to the fountain of living waters, they have hewn for themselves cisterns, “broken cisterns that can hold no water.”  (Jeremiah 2:13)

And there it is in a nutshell.  Three broad categories that tell us where everyone on the earth fits into.  Atheism is unnatural.  Christianity is supernatural.  And theistic unbelief is both natural and condemning.  If you, by God’s grace, have experienced the supernatural acceptance of Biblical Christianity then you should rejoice.  You’ve been saved from your sins.  You’ve been saved from God’s righteous wrath.  You’ve been saved from a life of endless futility, leading to death. 

If you have gone the route of atheism, you have embraced the most irrational of belief systems.  While your colleagues and your professor might praise your enlightenment; deep down you know better.  You know of the God who is there and you know you’ll one day give an account to Him.  And no doubt this makes you angry.  You’re angry at Him and you’re angry at me for telling you about Him.  Nevertheless it’s not too late for you either.  Repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

And if you fall into the category of theistic unbelief; then you are in the majority.  But just remember that Jesus said, “The wide road leads to Hell.” (Matthew 7:13-14) Come to Christ in repentant faith.  Believe on Him.  Trust in Him.  Forsake yourself and your life of sin.  Follow Him and be saved.

When this world ends, as it one day will.  The truth of what I’ve expressed today will be known to all.  Scoffers may scoff today.  One day soon the scoffing will end.  Christ will be seen for the glorious king that He is.  His followers will rejoice.  He rejecters will suffer.  But no one will have an excuse.  If you are reading these words, you’ve been warned.  And you’ve been told of the way that lead to life.  Take it now, while you still can.  Come to Christ and be saved.

July 08, 2016 in Apologetics, Calvinism, Eternal Issues, False Religions | | Comments (0)

| | Pin It! | |

Eternal Security & Perseverance of the Saints

94338992By Shane Kastler

Sometimes confusion arises over various theological terms.  For example, many Christians hold to a doctrine called “eternal security” which states that man, once saved, can never again be lost.  A very similar doctrine known as the “perseverance of the saints” teaches likewise that true believers can never be lost again.  Both of these doctrines are a correct way of stating a believer’s eternal status before God.  But both phrases are subject to misunderstanding; and the two phrases (while similar) are not identical in what they teach.

Some misunderstand the doctrine of eternal security by thinking it means that once they have “been saved” then they are free to indulge in sin all they wish.  After all, they are saved and cannot be lost again. Right?  The Bible would teach us that any so-called believer who has this type of mindset is no believer at all.  Because if a man is truly saved, and has been “born again” (John 3:3) by the Spirit then he no longer craves a life of sin like he did before.  This “new creature in Christ” longs to be like Jesus and to be with Jesus.  Sin is now a hindrance to him, not a joy.  And while he fights the flesh he does so with a changed heart that loves God and loves others.  The truly converted are secure.  But the truly converted no longer want to live a life of sin.

Eternal security is a true and biblical doctrine when understood correctly.  But the doctrine of Christian perseverance, or “perseverance of the saints” further explains a practical aspect of eternal security.  When a man is saved he doesn’t sit around like a bump on a log enjoying his “security.”  Rather, he lives a life of active obedience to Christ.  He faces trials and tribulations and he endures, looking to Christ.  Sometimes he stumbles and sometimes he falls; but he never quits in his pursuit of the Lord.  For as a true, born again believer, it is the Lord himself who carries him and empowers him by way of the indwelling Holy Spirit that lives inside of each and every Christian.  “Perseverance” as a verb, means that you continue on and “keep going” as a Christian.  Perseverance as a “doctrine” states that all true Christians will never fall away from the faith or renounce Christ. 

Of course the term “saints” needs to be defined as well.  A “saint” in Biblical terms is any and all Christians.  All true believers are “sanctified” which means to be “set apart” in Christ.  Christians are “holy” in the sense of being declared righteous by God based on the work of Christ.  Even though Christians are sinners by nature, they become saints by divine calling.  Jesus came and lived a life of sinless perfection that is credited to the believer’s life, by faith.  While the sin that separated them from God was also dealt with by Christ, as he hung on the cross absorbing the wrath that the sinner, turned saint rightfully deserves.  So it might be said that eternal security is true for the genuine believer, it is better explained and “fleshed out” by understanding the doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints.”

The Bible teaches that all true Christians will persevere until the end.  This does not mean that Christians never sin; nor be wrong on some doctrinal issues.  Nevertheless, a true Christian will not renounce the Lord and “go another route” spiritually speaking.  Any so called Christian who abandons Christ in such fashion gives proof that he never was a true Christian at all.

The reason for this is rooted in the sovereignty of God over salvation.  If salvation truly was a work of man’s will, then man could easily change his mind the next day and declare himself “un-Christian” once again.  Some Christians even adopt an odd hybrid of theological beliefs that state that salvation is man’s choice, but eternal security is God’s decree.  They say that while they were saved by something they did; it then becomes impossible for them to undo it.  This grants them peace that they will never be lost again.  But it’s a peace based on unbiblical teaching.

Indeed, the true believer will never be lost again; but it isn’t due to the fact that the man “chose” Christ.  But rather, this security is rooted in the fact that Christ chose the man (John 16:15; John 6:44).  The only way for a person to be truly secure from beginning to end is for salvation to be an absolute and complete work of God.  And this is what the Scriptures teach. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly declares salvation to be a gracious work of God, not in accordance with man’s works, lest man should boast.  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB) The Apostle Paul reminds us that “it is by His doing that you are in Christ Jesus.” (1 Corinthians 1:30)  And once you are “in Christ Jesus” then the Lord promises, “no one shall snatch you out of my hand.” (John 10:28)

Genuine, born-again believers are eternally secure in Christ because the salvation they have is the gift and work of God.  It is not their doing and therefore it can’t and won’t be undone.  If it was their doing, then they could change their mind tomorrow.  But when God changes a man and grants spiritual life to his heart, then no desire to renounce the faith ever develops.  The true believer will persevere in following the Lord until the end.  They are secure; but this security is manifested in their spiritual perseverance.

The professing Christians of our world today need to examine God’s Word to determine if they are truly saved or not.  Salvation involves a change of heart and life.  The sinner who comes to Christ has a newfound love and undying commitment to follow Jesus come what may.  Does this describe you? If so, then don’t take the credit for something God did in you.  Praise Him eternally! And if you don’t know the Lord, then repent of your sin and come to Him today.  Believe in Jesus and submit to His Lordship.  Be forgiven.  Be saved.  And rejoice in a supernatural, sovereign work of God that called you, changed you, and will “keep” you unto the end (1 Peter 1:5)

June 06, 2016 in Calvinism, Theology | | Comments (7)

| | Pin It! | |

»

Search

Categories

Listen to Past Sermons