Back from Bakersfield

We came back around 6:30 PM yesterday. Pretty good trip. My father-in-law will be an excellent missions and out-reach pastor.

Heading up to Bakersfield

My wife, our two kids, and myself, will be driving up to Bakersfield later today. Going to see our good friends and family up there. Have to show off our latest little potato.

Layman's TULIP: Total Depravity

The 'T' stands for Total Depravity. That's merely theological lingo for the sinful condition of man's nature due to the sin of Adam. Adam sinned in Eden. That sin caused his nature to be fallen. Because his nature was fallen, all men subsequently became fallen at birth. Or, as Paul puts it, "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" (Rom. v.12). And again, "as by a man came death" and "as in Adam all die" (1 Co. xv.21-22).

You say, "Wait. Arminians believe the same thing. What's the difference?" Good question! Think about the phrase: Total (complete, absolute, without lack, none excused, 100%, all) Depravity. Arminians believe that a part of the human nature did not fall with Adam. Reformed theology teaches that we completely fell. Arminians believe there is enough of this libertarian free will, by which we are judged as being liable for our sin, in each of us that we ultimately have to choose.

Look at the Scriptures:

As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom iii.10-12)

even when we were dead in our trespasses (Eph 2:5)

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a major document and confession for reformed believers (but not on par with Scripture, contrary to some of the railings and attacks by "many"), says the following:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. WCF ix.3

The idea is that man is fallen, in sin, at enmity with God, and unable to do what is good, to turn to God, by his own will because his will is enslaved by sin. Many a non-reformed believer will say, "Jesus offers salvation to every human, but each human has to stretch out his or her hand and take the gift, to accept it as his or her own." The problem is a dead person cannot stretch out their hand. Someone who hates God will not, by their own volition, simply go to God.

TULIP Revisited

What about a look at the old Calvinst acrostic: TULIP? Honestly, is there a better smelling "flower" in Christendom? (I don't know what I really mean by that either.)

I have read many articles and postings on how Calvinists want the acrostic changed. Why? Why would we want to change something that truly identifies some of the core beliefs of the Reformed faith? Many are concerned the terms we've been using are too confusing: Limited Atonement should be "Definite Atonement" or "Particular Redemption"; Irresistable Grace should be "Effectual Grace"; and so on.

Personally, I don't like the idea of getting rid of the acrostic merely because some terms may confuse a reader or listener. From well before I even became a Calvinist, the mere mention of TULIP caused discussion. That's what I like to see. Bring up a doctrine like Limited Atonement and you are bound to discuss the Gospel, be it with a Mormon or an Arminian or Universalist. Wait, Mormons are Universalists and Arminians...hmmm.

Well, if everyone else goes away from TULIP, I'll stick with it. What I will go through here, as time permits, is what I like to call the Layman's TULIP (yeah, not too clever, but simple...I am a layman). This will be a simple look at the Five Points of Calvinism. I don't have the high education, and would like to be able to present these doctrines to folks who cannot get into the heavy works of Gerstner or Murray or Owen or Edwards. Let's see what we can come up with.

Of course, we must start with what the five points are. TULIP stands for:
T otal Depravity
U nconditional Election
L imited Atonement
I rresistable Grace
P erseverance of the Saints

I'll just go in order. I pray the Lord uses these simple explanations and Scriptural expositions to reach the hearts of many.

The Scriptures v. JST....again

Well, I ran into another vital contradiction between the Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation. So far I have not received a response.

Here is what I found while reading through Romans iv.2-5. In the Bible, we see:

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

That is taken from the KJV, but the Greek confirms the translation. Now, here we have the same four verses from the JST:

2 For if Abraham were justified by the law of works, he hath to glory in himself; but not of God.

3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The most astounding statement out of there (I know, there are quite a few you can pick out) was in verse 5: "but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly."

Wha!?! Wha!?! What was that? Surely these cannot run perpendicular? Surely only one of these "translations" can be correct? Will the LDS take the position they often take (not in public however) and say the JST is correcting the corrupted text of the Bible? Or will they call to question what the JST says? Does God justify the ungodly or not?

ADDENDUM
I just received a response from one particular Mormon. He said that either rendition fits in LDS teaching. Hmmmmmm. What? I guess in a Calvinist way this can be true, contingent on God's choosing who to justify (in some way), but I just don't think so. This is yet another problem with respect to LDS "apologists," professional or amateur, who are simply not intellectually honest. They would rather not deal with the text in question.

Tough Times

Here's an e-mail I sent to a prayer group of my church.

My manager had the meeting with the head of Human Resources yesterday. While they liked my work, they were not willing to give me a raise. I have my annual review in mid August; she told my manager, "Make sure he has a good review." (Good reviews are the only regular way to get a raise in pay here, and also nowhere near enough for us right now; nor, as we have felt, adequate compensation for what I do.)

We are in need of prayer for our hearts right now. Yesterday was pretty tough. What else came out of the meeting is what really felt like a kick in the side. We can take a no; we've done that before. But, she told my manager that he is the only manager with an Admin Coordinator. And, while they could give me a raise, "they could also take me away," i.e. eliminate my position. There is very recent precedent for this. If there is something that is bucking their system, and they have the chance to do so, they will just eliminate the position. That statement was directed at Darrell (my manager), and not myself. I just happen to be the collateral damage.

Now, this does not mean that they will be eliminating my position. But, it does mean (along with everything else I have learned about the administration of the hospital; I'm in a unique position where I know what goes on behind the scenes) that they find my position expendable. Couple this with the fact that our department recently received a recommendation (which hospital administration is not listening to but puts them on edge) to cut out 19 full time positions (we have a total of 40 full time employees), I realize that if they choose to start "saving money," why not start with the job least needed?

Anyway, I am personally not in fear of losing my job. I am dissappointed. I simply have to look for another job. The Lord is with us, and He is sovereign. A similar thing went on while we were in Bakersfield, and that's how we arrived here. Sometimes, God sends you through the down time to make you realize how He can pick you up. We sought God's will, and I believe that's what happened.

St. John Paul II

So, it took a little longer than I thought, but faster then usual. Benedict finally lit the match to start the process of eventually giving the world Saint John Paul II.

Maybe he's trying to win some favor from those who don't like him. I don't know. Oh well.

Awesome Giveaway

Well, I never win these things, but maybe you do.



Sure would be a great pickup.

Tim LaHaye's Bible

I attended the graduation ceremonies for the Christian Heritage College (CHC) seniors this morning. The major announcement was that CHC has officially changed their name, following in the footsteps of the sister institution Southern California Bible College and Seminary (SCBC&S) who are now known as Southern California Seminary (SCS). CHC is now San Diego Christian College (SDCC).

The second announcement was that the school had found a President, allowing David Jeremiah (Interim President, Senior Pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church) to step aside from those duties and responsibilities. The new President is an alumni, Jerry Huson.

The third thing to note was the key note speaker: Tim LaHaye, founder of the original CHC, and co-author of the very popular Left Behind series. David Jeremiah introduced Tim LaHaye, and talked about his writings. Here's an intriguing portion of the intro:

"The Left Behind series is the top selling in the world . . . behind only the Bible. And you know why that is? Because it is the Bible."

Now, don't mistake David Jeremiah for saying that the Bible was the Left Behind series. There was not blasphemy on that level. But, what did he say? What did David Jeremiah mean? He was presenting the eschatology found and presented in the book series as what is found and exhorted in Scripture. Do I agree with the eschatology of LaHaye? No way. Premillenial, pre-trib rapture and all truly is the Johnny-come-lately.

Still, come on, Dr. J. That all maybe hype and intended not to be exposition while at the podium during a graduation ceremony, but it was still said. And words have impressions on people. It's a fictional story. People like it, and it sells a lot of copies. But the Bible it is not.

sola fideFulness

You have salvation by faith alone versus salvation by faithfulness alone. This is just a great way to look at the salvation sola fide (non)debate. I don't remember exactly where I read this idea--probably from a blog somewhere--but I thought it was perfect.

Eerdmans and . . . Thomas Nelson?

I'm sure everyone by now has become aware of the controversy boiling over because of the decision by Eerdmans, a Christian book publishing company, to put out and sell A Different Jesus? If you are not upto date on the situation, I suggest you check out James White's blog on the issue. Also, you can read Eric Svendsen's article on this. Here is a snippet from James White's blog that will give you a quick summary of the situation:

You could find this kind of work at your local LDS bookstore, but thanks to Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, now you will be able to find it in your Christian bookstore, too! Yes, friends and neighbors, not only has Richard Mouw apologized for all of us mean-spirited folks who have labored to witness the true God and the true Christ and the true Gospel to Mormons for decades, but now he has made sure to provide a "Trojan Horse Apologetic," a work that attacks the Trinity, deity of Christ, sola scriptura, justification by grace through faith alone, the sovereignty of God in salvation, the finished work of Christ on the cross---OK, like I said, it is an LDS work of apologetics, so it is pretty well opposed to sound theology at just about every point---and he has made sure that book will be right there in your local Christian bookstore (how many bookstore owners will recognize it for what it is?

But, is there a similar situation going on with Thomas Nelson publishers? You see, Thomas Nelson--the same company that puts out editions of, get this, the Bible--publishes the book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by radio personality and political commentator Michael Savage. Savage openly gave his thoughts of how the world is in relation to God. To preface this, he spoke with Jerry Fallwell and disagreed with Fallwell on the Christian concept of exclusivity. Savage did not like the idea that people of other faiths could not make it to God simply because they did not follow Christ. So, after his rejection of a basic teaching of Jesus, he gave his commentary on God.

Savage described it kind of like this: picture a wheel (and many of you will know where this is going; start with a wheel and end up flat). Then put a smaller wheel inside. The smaller wheel is God. There are spokes connecting the smaller wheel to the larger one. The five main spokes are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. All lead to God.

And who put his book out? Oh yeah! The same company that publishes different editions of the bible, e.g. the MacCarthur Daily Bible, the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, and A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (maybe that one says all roads lead to God? Uh...maybe?).

And, who is selling books like A Different Jesus?, an explicitly LDS apologetic work? Christian bookstores? Nah...really? Just check cbd.com. Check your local Bereans. So far Family Christian Stores hasn't sold out, but I'm still checking back.

Studying the confessions...

Well, I am undertaking a new study. Yes, I must be crazy. I am presently studying:

• John vi.44: really, I'm looking at verses 35-45; I am doing an exegesis, my focus and audience being members of the LDS church
• Romans iii-v: another exegesis; again, my focus is to retort with the Scriptures to the claims of the LDS church
• Mark: this is through the weekly Bible study/fellowship time on Tuesday nights; we just started the Gospel
• The doctrine of justification by faith alone

Now, I have started a study of the early and developmental Reformed creeds. I will be going through the Belgic Confession, Lambeth Articles, Canons of Dordt, Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confessions. Of course, in studying those I will have to look at the other confessions around their time, e.g. the articles of the remonstrants (1610) which led to the Canons of Dordt (1619).

John vi.44 says what?

Contrary to popular belief, John vi.44 is in the Bible (I know I'll get a lot of folks saying "huh?" to that, but that's ok). Contrary to popular interpretation, Jo. vi.44 intensely speaks of human inability and election which is not based on foreseen faith and choice by man. If you want to know what Calvinism teaches, just look here to what Christ teaches. This particular passage is in the forefront of my mind and heart right now because I am presently discussing (if you can call it that) this with members of the LDS church. So far, I have not received any reasoned responses from the actual text. There has been rhetoric and straight opinion; but not one look at the Scriptures, not one attempt to deal with the text. Well, let me do so once again.

First, let's look at what the text says. In Jo. vi.44 Jesus says, "No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up in the last day." Let me also put here the Greek text; this will be important as we look into this passage:

ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον καγω αναστησω αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα

There are a few different aspects of this short verse that we have to understand in order to grasp what Christ said. What does it mean to come to Crist? What does "the Father draws him" mean? What's the significance of "unless?" Does the Greek really help understand the text?

What does it mean to "come to Christ?"

Christ here said, "No one is able to come to Me." Earlier, as recorded in Jo. v.37-40, Jesus told unbelieving Jews,

And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Life is to be found in Christ. Only those who go, or "come to" Him, will receive it. And these Jews, even as they were searching the Scriptures to find Christ, rejected Who the Scriptures revealed (the Christ standing right in front of them) and therefore would not come. As Christ reiterated in Jo. vi.47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." And, again:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him.) And He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (Jo. vi.63-65)

Only those who believe will come; and those who believe will definitely come. Those taught by the Father Himself will come to Christ, because they believe in Him Whom the Father sent (see Jo. vi.45). So as Christ said, "No one is able to believe in Me, to come to Me in faith, unless the Father Who sent Me draws him." Unless a man is drawn by the Father to Christ, that man will not come.

What does "unless the Father draws him" mean?

You will notice in the LDS Joseph Smith Translation, John 6:44 (and, yes, I use a different format for my references; for the Bible, I use the classic roman numerals, my way of extra respect for God's Word; for the JST I use the regular reference style) reads as follows:

No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me.
And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the
Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the
will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just.

Well, how is that similar? The JST was created to restore the truths that have been lost or corrupted in the original Bible.

To be continued...