The Heritage Anglican Network

I have been in contact by e-mail with another Reformed and Evangelical and confessing Anglican named Robin G. Jordan. The Reverend Jordan has a blog for dialogue and discussion among likeminded Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans at The Heritage Anglican Network. Rev. Jordan has also published articles at the Virtue Online website. While I am probably more separatistic than Rev. Jordan, I would highly recommend the discussion and dialogue. If a new province is formed, I share Rev. Jordan's concerns that it will simply be another version of the old Episcopal Church without the out and out liberalism. Eventually, however, any semi-pelagian and man-centered theology will end up back in theological liberalism and philosophical relativism.

Peace,

Charlie

The "god" of Arminianism, by Augustus Toplady

I dare say, that, in such an auditory as this, a number of Arminians are present. I fear, that all our public assemblies have too many of them. Perhaps, however, even these people, idolaters as they are, may be apt to blame, and, indeed, with justice, the absurdity of those who worship idols of silver and gold, the work of men's hands. But let me ask: If it be so very absurd, to worship the work of other men's hands what must it be, to worship the works of our own hands? Perhaps, you may say, "God forbid that I should do so. Nevertheless, let me tell you, that trust, confidence, reliance, and dependence, for salvation, are all acts and very solemn ones too, of divine worship: and upon whatsoever you depend, whether in whole or in part, for your acceptance with God, and for your justification in his sight, whatsoever, you rely upon, and trust in, for the attainment of grace or glory; if it be any thing short of God in Christ, you are an idolater for all intents and purposes.

Very different is the idea which Scripture gives us, of the ever-blessed God, from that of those false gods worshipped by the heathens; and from that degrading representation of the true God, which Arminianism would palm upon mankind. Our God (says this Psalm, verse the third) is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he pleased. This is not the Arminian idea of God: for our free-willers and our chance-mongers tell us, that God does not do whatsoever he pleases; that there are a great number of things, which God wishes to do, and rages and strives to do, and yet cannot bring to pass ... Is their god the Bible-God? Certainly not. Their god "submits" to difficulties which he "cannot help" himself out of, and endeavours to make himself "easy" under millions and millions of inextricable embarrassments, uncomfortable disappointments, and mortifying defeats. ...This said scheme ascends, on the ladder of blasphemy, to the mountain top of atheism; and then hurls itself from that precipice, into the gulf of blind, adamantine necessity, in order to prove mankind free agents!

... One great contest, between the religion of Arminianism, and the religion of Christ, is, who shall stand entitled to the praise and glory of a sinner's salvation? Conversion decides this point at once; for I think that, without any imputation of uncharitableness, I may venture to say, that every truly awakened person, at least when he is under the shine of God's countenance upon his soul, will fall down upon his knees, with this hymn of praise ascending from his heart, Not unto me, O Lord, not unto me, but to thy name, give the glory: I am saved not for my righteousness, but for thy mercy and thy truth's sake.

Equality at the Cross: Covenantal Relationships and Racism

The history of race relations within the United States of America is a long and complicated one and, because of total depravity and the corruption of the human ability to reason according to God's Word, historical revisionism has occurred on all sides of the issue. There are more races here in the United States besides just Caucasoid and Negroid. There are native Americans and Asians and Arabic and Indian peoples. We have Hispanics of all sorts of cultural backgrounds. The short of it is that sinful human beings often tend to discriminate against those who are different and this is true of all races and cultures and ethnic groups. Every person is a born sinner and is inherently flawed and corrupt and on that basis everyone discriminates against others and is a "racist."

While it is absolutely true that whites in the Deep South treated blacks horribly after the Civil War ended, it is also true that discrimination occurred in the North as well. Jim Crow laws, segregation laws, and laws designed to prevent blacks from exercising their 15th amendment right to vote are all examples of the terrible abused suffered by blacks in this country.

It is not my purpose to rehash here the history of the Civil Rights movement which won great freedoms for African-Americans in this country in 1965. What I do wish to put forth is a brief understanding of the biblical doctrine of equality and fellowship based on the cross of Jesus Christ and how that should relate to Christians among the various Evangelical denominations, particularly the Reformed and Anglican Reformed churches. (The latter group is very tiny since many Anglican/Episcopal continuing churches are heterodox or heretical because of the Tractarian heresy).

First of all, the Bible says that when we come to faith in Jesus Christ, we are all equal before God. The Apostle Paul in particular says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one:

Galatians 3:23-29 (ESV)23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

What we have here, theologically speaking, is the apostolic argument made by Paul which does away with the exclusivity of salvation for the Jews only. In the Old Testament there was only one true God and only one people of God which was chosen by God from among all the nations of the world at that time. The initiation of the covenant with Abraham was the beginning of a particular election of a peculiar people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. While all the other nations of the Ancient Near East were committing gross sins of infant sacrifice, idolatry and all sorts of wickedness, including sexual immorality like bestiality, homosexuality, and incest, the nation of Israel was given the law of Moses to set them apart from the rest of the world.

Salvation was only through Israel in that time and the nation of Israel is really a type of the New Testament Church as Paul says:

Galatians 6:14-16 (ESV)14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Here Paul is speaking of the New Testament church and his argument throughout the epistle to the Galatians is that there is no longer a division based on the Jewish race or the nation of Israel as the only way of salvation. Though Paul places this argument within the context of the law, i.e., the ceremonial and judicial laws of the ancient nation of Israel, Paul is arguing secondarily for an equality of all Christian believers regardless of their ethnic or social or cultural background. Salvation does not even come through keeping the moral law, according to Paul, since all of our good works cannot withstand the severity of God's judgment. (See also Article XII of the 39 Articles of Religion). The New Testament church replaces the nation of Israel as God's way of salvation and the divine election is for the church instead. The church is literally "the Israel of God," according to Paul.

However, lest I should neglect to be thorough I should point out that Paul's theology is not simply out of thin air. In fact, there are prophetic foreshadows of Paul's teaching within the patriarchal period of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and also in the Pentateuch and the mosaic law. The covenant with Abraham involves a change of name. Abram is no longer just Abram but now he is called Abraham, the father of many nations. (See Genesis 12:1-4; 15:3-6; 17:1-8). This prophecy is two fold since other nations not of Israel later claim to be descendants of Abraham, including Ismael's line and the Edomites who come from the line of Esau. But Paul argues that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are believers in the covenant and live by faith.

Another precedent for the church is the acceptance of foreigners, sojourners, and proselytes among the Israelites. In fact, the law of Moses provided for the proper treatment of foreigners and that they should suffer no injustices while they lived among the Israelites. This is not only a precedent for the church but also for the civil laws of nations today. We are not to discriminate against those who are different from us in race and culture. However, we must acknowledge that the resident aliens in ancient Israel were required to observe the religious practices of the Hebrews, including the sabbath. Moreover, proselytes who intended to live permanently with the Hebrews and observe the Passover were required to convert and to be circumcised to become full members in the covenantal community and the nation of Israel. (See Deuteronomy 10:18; Exodus 12:43-49; Leviticus 19:33-37). It is obvious that even in the Old Testament there is a principle of loving your neighbor and the stranger, even if they are not fully believers in God. Though Israel did not openly evangelize or proselytize there is at least a provision made there for conversion.





In the New Testament, however, we see the way opened for all men and all nations and all races to be accepted into the church by faith in Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28:18-20; Revelation 5:9-10; 7:9-10; 14:6-7). In the church of Jesus Christ there is no room for racism whether it be from blacks who hate whites or whites who hate blacks. There is no room for any race to hate another. Some blacks are prejudiced against Jews and Koreans. Some Chinese do not associate with Japanese or Koreans. While some of this may be due to language and cultural barriers, the truth is that all Christians who believe in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of justification by faith alone have some basis for fellowship through the blood of Jesus Christ.





When Peter disfellowshipped himself from the Greek and Gentile believers in the church, Paul openly rebuked him to his face. (See Galatians 2:11-14). Sadly, today there are few integrated churches here in America. We see black churches and white churches and Chinese and Korean churches. Part of the reason for this is doctrinal differences resulting in different denominations. Another reason is cultural differences and language barriers. While there are some notable exceptions within the Pentecostal movement where blacks and whites worship together the general tendency is for churches to remain predominately segregated. This is difficult to understand given that the communion of saints includes both those on earth and those saints who have departed this earth and are in heaven with our Lord. In heaven there are multitudes of souls worshipping God together in harmony. On earth our communion remains shattered and fragmented with only small glimpses of eternal glory to come.



Blacks tend to feel ostracized by a majority white culture and like to worship with others who share their experience and their culture as African-Americans. While some whites feel so hated by blacks that no matter how far the whites go to extend the hand of fellowship, friendship, and mutual respect and understanding, that they still feel a deep resentment and suspicion on the part of blacks. No matter how much the white population does they are never forgiven and they can never do enough to please the black people who hate them because of the sins of the past.

While it is true that we all bear some guilt for what the white majority did to blacks in the past, it is also true that each individual does not bear all the guilt for the sins of the fathers in the past. If we wish to view this problem biblically we have to see that we are all guilty of Adam's original sin. As the federal head of the human race, including all the ethnic groups, tribes and races, Adam represented us all before God and Adam's rebellion brought the curse of the law upon us all.

It should be pointed out that the black race is not without this same guilt of original sin and has inherited the same total depravity and corruption of the human nature that all humankind has. Thus, we can observe around the world evidences of this. The most glaring examples that the black race has a total corruption of the human nature is the genocide in Rwanda, Africa in the 1994 massacre of perhaps 1,000,000 Tutsi by two Hutu militias. (See Rwandan Genocide). Other notables are Idi Amin, who ruled in Uganda in the mid 1970's. Under Amin's regime perhaps 500,000 people were killed for political reasons.

Other examples of the sinfulness of the black race and their own inherent racism would include at least one black nationalist group, the Nation of Islam. Louis Farrakhan, the current head of the cultic organization which is not related to the Islamic religion in doctrinal teachings, holds the view that white people are blue eyed devils and that Jews are to be hated and despised. The past of the United Christian Church, where Barack Obama was a member for over 10 years, awarded Louis Farrakhan with a lifetime achievement award. This is the same man who believes that white people in the United States government has tried to exterminate black people by deliberately spreading AIDS in the black community. The Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton have both referred to the Jewish sections of their communities as "Jaime town." (Pronounced HI-mee). There are also examples of black aggression against Korean store owners in New York City.

And what white person is safe in black neighborhoods which are dominated by gang activities? And what of black on black crime, which is acknowledged by all as a problem overwhelming the black community? The short of it is that while blacks want to continue to dwell in past they too have perpetuated sinful and criminal activities against other races both here and abroad. There is none righteous, no not even one! We are all sinners and in need of repentance and forgiveness. And if we would be forgiven, Scripture tells us that we too must forgive. If there is ever to be harmony among us then we must put the Bible first and focus on our love for our neighbor regardless of his or her skin color, race, or culture.

While I could go on with examples, we should not forget that we are all sinners and all have fallen short of God's perfect mark in the moral law. We are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Furthermore, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. The book of James says that we war against each other because of covetousness and because we do not truly worship God.

James 4:1-3 (ESV)1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

Romans 7:23 (ESV)23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

1 Peter 2:11 (ESV)11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. (See ESV online).

If there is ever to be peace on earth, it will only come as we come to worship and adore Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It will only come as we give God the glory. It will only come as we lay aside our sinful striving after selfish gain and learn to love each other as fellow human beings created in the image and likeness of God, regardless of race. We should never forget that we are all descended from Adam are therefore related to one another by natural generation. What might be even better would be that we all come to worship God together here on earth in integrated churches, not just studying together in integrated schools and integrated workplaces and integrated neighborhoods. Rodney King once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?" We know that sinners who do not know Jesus Christ do not get along. But those of us who claim to know Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior have no excuse for avoiding our fellow believers in Christ. Every church, whether it be predominately black, white, Asian or Latino, should be seeking to integrate its congregation as an example to the world that all of us are one in Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Boston Legal on ABC Chooses Death Over Life

"The demands of those who require that religion, and especially Christianity, should be ignored in our national, state, and municipal laws, are not only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical."

[Charles Hodge. Doctor of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, around 1840(?). ]

Last night, November 10, 2008 on the program, Boston Legal, the ABC network put forth its ungodly propaganda in favor of abortion. The legal case was that of a 15-year-old Chinese girl who wanted to exercise the judicial bypass law of her state where she could overrule her mother by going before a pro-choice judge. Truly we live in the last days.

Not only did the program openly mock Christianity but it upheld the right of the state to indoctrinate the children of Christians and to prevent Christian parents from having a say in whether or not their daughters who are still minors in their care should kill their unborn child or not. This is blatantly an interference between church and state and the freedom from government interference in religious matters of the church and of individual citizens. One of the lawyers said something about not taking the case and then remarked in a derogatory and sarcastic tone of voice that this teenage girl would "go to hell" for aborting her baby.

The real issue here is not whether or not the girl will go to heaven or hell or what she believes. What this really involves is the power of the state to violate the moral law of God against murder of the unborn. Does the state have a God-given right to pass legislation or make judicial decrees which violate natural law and divine moral law? To any Bible believing Christian the answer must always be no. As John Calvin and the other Reformers said, the civil law cannot regenerate a soul or bring true repentance or saving faith. However, the civil law does put fear into the hearts of the wicked by an outward restraint of their wickedness (See Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11).

When the wicked and the ungodly rule a nation Christians are still obligated to obey the law except when that law violates the law of God. In the case of the state interfering with the religious freedom of Christians to raise their children according to the Bible and their own conscience, then the state must be disobeyed at all costs. By whatever means necessary the state must be opposed when the state oversteps its authority and tries to impose unjust and ungodly laws upon Christians.

In the case of the judicial bypass law, Christians should seek whatever legal remedies necessary and Christians should vote for political leaders who oppose such legislation. It is indeed a travesty when Christian parents could face possible prison sentences if they interfere with their child's "right" to murder her own unborn child. A possible scenario would be a parent charged with "kidnapping" or worse for preventing a child from going to an abortion clinic. Is this freedom I ask you? Or is this not a foretaste of a developing totalitarian government which will not tolerate the rights of its own citizens to have and to hold their own moral laws and values within a Christian worldview?

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to freedom of religion yet that right is limited by the right of the state to interfere with the rights of Christians to teach their children right from wrong and to keep their children from violating the law of God by murdering their own unborn child. If this is any indication, a further erosion of the Christian's right to freedom from government interference in religious matters is occurring before our very eyes. I believe the frog in the kettle illustration is appropriate here. We're in the kettle and the heat is gradually being turned up so no one notices what is going on. However, soon the water will be boiling and it will be too late to leap out of the pot.

Already in Canada it is illegal to publicly declare homosexuality is a sin. What will be next?

Sadly, even though the Boston Legal episode gave lip service to the regrets of an abortion and pretending it is a difficult decision, their bottom line was that abortion is a necessary "evil" because of "freedom." I ask you how this is freedom when it blatantly destroys the freedom of the unborn child and the freedom of parents to decide what is best for their own minor daughter? Does the state have a divine right to decide who lives and who dies? Does the state have a divine right to decide what Christian parents may or may not do in the best interest of their own minor daughters?

Ironically, the female lawyer, played by Candice Bergen, pointed out that in China daughters are aborted because of a bias against girl babies. She even called it a holocaust against women. But the lady judge in the final analysis asked, "Do we really want to go down that road?" In other words, anything that might interfere with a woman's "right" to an abortion must be opposed at all costs, even if it IS a holocaust against women and the unborn. Licentious and perverted evil masquerading as "freedom" is not freedom at all. Rather it is genocide justified by an immoral, ungodly, and atheistic society which is totally ignorant of the fact that even nations must one day give an account to God.

In Holy Scripture we see over and over again where nations rise against nations in war and that such wars are often the means by which God judges or punishes ungodly nations which refuse to acknowledge the moral law of God and which oppress and murder its own citizens. (See Dt. 8:17-20; Acts 7:7, 45). In this case the oppression involves overruling the rights of Christians to oppose the murder of their own grandchild! It involves the murder of an unborn child who is also a United States citizen with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Ironically, political and theological liberals claim to be helping the poor by their social engineering agenda. Often this agenda is even disguised in the garb of civil religion as represented by the liberal mainline churches and the so-called "evangelical left." But in the closing of the show, James Spader remarks to William Shatner that abortion is mostly utilized by the poor to prevent unwanted babies. Whether or not this is accurate is questionable since many middle and upper class women abort their babies for the sake of convenience.

Be that as it may, Spader's justification is that the poor commit more crimes and children in poverty grow up to be criminals in prison, etc. So ironically, according to Bader's character, in the 1990s the crime rate dropped because of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. So, according to this logic, the end justifies the means. If killing unborn children, no matter how dispicable the holocaust, lowers the crime rate then it must be right. What is particularly appalling here is the blatant disregard for the lower classes. Not only is it prejudice and bigotry to assume that the lower classes are nothing more than low class criminals who deserve to be either aborted or thrown in prison, but it ironically, like China imposes government sanctioned abortion laws to get rid of the less valuable human beings in society. In China, girls are devalued. Here in the USA, according to ABC's Boston Legal, the poor and the lower classes do not deserve to live. Instead, the government should promote a propaganda campaign to get rid of the less desirable lower classes.

Another irony here is the shortage of workers for industry and construction and agriculture. We are importing illegal workers by the millions who come here to supply the missing labor force which was aborted by the pleasure of selfish women's rights advocates in the name of a perverted view of "freedom." The bigotry against poor blacks and poor whites here is so obvious only a fool could not see it.

Once the dam develops a hole it is only a matter of time before the trickle becomes a fountain and the fountain becomes a river. Then the inevitable breach of the dam occurs. Once the government begins to infringe upon the religous freedoms of Christians it is only a matter of time before political oppression and persecution begins. The sort of vitriolic hatred for Christians and Christian values we see in the media today is only the tip of the iceberg, the first trickle before the dam breaks.

The real question here is not whether or not moral views are being legislated and whether evil is restrained or not. The real question is what is the moral law of God and who is properly upholding it? Is it the atheistic and secular forces who wish to outlaw Christian values and the divine right to life? Or will it be Christians rising up in a unified opposition to evil, immorality and the totalitarian state we see developing before our very eyes?

My constant prayer is that God will change America and bring our nation back to the Christian values, culture and society we once had. Once it is lost it will be almost impossible to regain.

From the Book of Common Prayer:

"Almighty God, whose kingdom is everlasting and power infinite; Have mercy upon this whole land; and so rule the hearts of thy servants, Barack Obama, the President-Elect of the United States, Charlie Crist, the Governor of the State of Florida, and all others in authority, that they, knowing whose ministers they are, may above all things seek thy honour and glory; and that we and all the people, duly considering whose authority they bear, may faithfully and obediently honour them, according to thy blessed Word and ordinance; through Jesus Christ our LORD, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever, one God, world without end. Amen."

I might add that this prayer does not assume that Obama or any other governmental leader is a Christian or born-again. But it does assume that they will acknowledge their responsibility before God to do what is right and just. So far it appears that Obama will side against the unborn and for murder, genocide and injustice. Let us pray that God will change Barack Obama's heart and mind on this issue? Let us pray for his salvation and for the salvation of our nation before the judgment of God falls upon us all.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Charlie

I Have a Dream

Happy Birthday Video

Is this the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died for? Is this the dream that President-elect Barack Obama stands for? May God have mercy on us all. (See blackgenocide.org).

It is ironic that those who support the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. do not really believe those words. There was a time in this country when Jim Crowe laws and segregation laws were used unjustly to oppress and torment the Negro race. And in the face of such injustice one man arose to challenge the immorality and cruelty of such laws. That man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Recently, this country elected its first African American man as President of the United States of America. While we have struggled with national sins like the mistreatment and even genocide of native America Indian tribes and the institution of slavery and the injustices inflicted upon the black race, the glaring irony here is that no one really believes the "I have a dream" speech. That speech quotes from the United States Constitution and says that all men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But I ask you today, do the unborn children in their own mother's wombs have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And what race is excluded from this incomprehensible onslaught against the most innocent among us, the most helpless to defend themselves? Yes, black babies and white babies and Chinese babies and native American babies and Japanese babies and Korean babies and Latino babies and babies of every race and ethnic group in these United States are slaughtered and murdered by the million every year in this country. On what basis do we justify murdering a child that would otherwise be alive if it were just delivered from the womb of his or her own mother? A child who is granted either life by one doctor who delivers it from the prison of his or her mother's womb or a child who is partially delivered then murdered with a pair of scissors stabbed into her helpless head by another doctor dedicated to death, dismemberment, and the slaughter of the unborn.

And on what basis do we justify such cruelty, such murderous acts? It is on the basis of individual freedom and justice we are told. So a mother has the right to slaughter her own baby for the sake of convenience and her own freedom, her own right to life while at the same time denying life, liberty and a bright future to her own child who is already alive and capable of living outside his or her mother's womb.

A country or a society in this world with no conscience for the fragile and innocent life of a baby shall not long endure. Ironic indeed is it that such societies stand for the rights of Negroes while allowing the murder of Negro babies yet viable and capable of life outside the womb. Ironic indeed is it that the rights of the perverted are upheld so that they may marry or change their physical appearance to one of the opposite sex while innocent children are sacrificed on the altar of antinomian licentiousness masquerading as individual freedom.

Those who struggle to preserve the environment as a legacy for future generations yet condone and fight for the right to murder unborn children as if children are less valuable than a tree or an endangered species of animal. Those who would save the whale would destroy a million babies every year and cast their tiny bodies into trash cans as if they were merely so much garbage to be disposed of without thought or conscience or regret. Those who love the long leaf pine hate and despise people who are yet unborn but crying for the right to live, to breathe, to become the man or woman God intended for them to be.

Yes, unfortunately, when freedom becomes perverted and twisted, when freedom is no longer rooted and grounded in God's revelation of Himself in Holy Scripture, the result is a godless atheism which masquerades as a champion of human rights. It is a godless atheism which no longer believes in God or the Bible but pretends to be the moral conscience of a nation which has no conscience. In the name of a sentimentalized view of perversion it runs roughshod over the rights of Christians to speak the name of Jesus Christ, to worship freely, and to preach the Biblical doctrine of moral law freely. They would call us do-gooders who stand for the rights of the unborn child as equal to the rights of his or her own mother who with malice, forethought, and cruelty pays a doctor and an abortion clinic to dismember her baby and "get rid of it."

We live in a country where good has been called evil and where evil has been called good, all in the name of a God they do not really believe in. Where the concept of a personal God becomes merely a myth to be manipulated by society for propaganda purposes all sorts of evil and immorality prevails in the name of individual freedom. Such freedom is not truly freedom at all. It is a bondage, an addiction to evil and a principality of evil which enslaves human freedom to a despicable evil which can never be justified no matter how many popular leaders speak in its favor to their own political gain.

When a nation pretends to be the moral conscience of the world, an example to the world of human rights and human freedom while at the same time murdering its own infants capable of human life if they were but one step outside of their mothers' womb, it is the utmost and penultimate hypocrisy of self delusion and self deception. When a nation no longer bases civil law upon the moral law of God and upon the natural law revealed even in human reason, then the result is every sort of perversion of good one can imagine. It is the perversion of marriage between one man and one woman. It is the perversion of the gender and physical attributes of male and female in the name of individual freedom. It is the perversion of life in favor of the killing of innocent babies. It is the genocide of the least able to defend themselves. It is the mercy killing of the elderly in the name of convenience.

We have become a nation unwilling to sacrifice our own time for charity, for love of neighbor so that we may endlessly pursue our own individual freedom and happiness which is no happiness at all. True joy and happiness can only come at the price of loving God and neighbor as you love yourself. Loving your unborn baby more than lost opportunities and loving your elderly parents more than your own individual freedom is a moral obligation instilled within each human heart which is created in the image and likeness of God our creator. Even Abraham Lincoln instinctively believed that all men were "created" equal. And if unborn children are "created" by God and have certain inalienable rights, who then can without conscience and with malice kill such delicate creatures as if they were merely just so much refuse to be cast aside as rag dolls or used as lab materials for human experimentation?

Yes, the irony of the first African-American President of the United States is beyond all doubt the greatest hypocrisy of all human history. We have a man who claims to stand for the rights of all--the rights of gay and straight, male and female, rich and poor, and white and black--yet openly and without shame promotes the legal right of women to murder with the approval of the United States of America their own helpless children moving within their own wombs. I agree with the so-called "reverend," Jeremiah Wright. The chickens are coming home to roost. God may yet damn America if it does not repent soon.

African-Americans like President-elect Barack Obama, who claim to believe that all human beings are created equal, have merely become oppressors, tyrants, and murderers if they promote the right of a woman to murder her own living child within her own womb. A child should be safest with his or her own mother but in this nation it is the most dangerous place to be for over 1.2 million children every single year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. When will the holocaust stop? When will the war against innocent babies be over? I pray that God will change the hearts and minds of Americans so that they will see how great their sin and their hardness of heart has become.

May God have mercy on us all!

Charlie

Soli Deo Gloria!

John Gill on Romans 5:18

The
CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH.

Part 1

Section 34—Romans 5:18.

Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.

These words stand as a proof of general redemption; and the sense given of them is,[1] that Christ died for the justification of all men; and that justification of life was procured by him for, and is offered unto, all men; it being apparent that the apostle is comparing the condemnation which is procured by the sin of Adam, with the free gift of justification procured by the second Adam, as to the extent of persons concerned in both; all men, in the first clause, being to be taken in the utmost latitude, the same word in the latter clause must be taken in the same manner, or the grace of the comparison is wholly lost. To all which I reply;

1. These words say nothing at all about the death of Christ, or of his dying for any persons or any thing, but speak of his righteousness and the virtue of it, to justification of life; by which righteousness is meant his active obedience, as appears from the following verse: nor do the Scriptures anywhere say, that Christ died for our justification, but that he died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. It is true indeed that justification is procured by the death, as well as the obedience of Christ; as that we are justified by his blood as well as by his righteousness; but it cannot be said, with any propriety, that justification of life is offered to any; since justification is a forensic, a law term, and signifies a sentence pronounced, or declared, and not offered. A judge, when he either acquits or condemns, he does not offer the sentence of justification or condemnation, but pronounces either: so God, when he justifies, he does not offer justification to men, but pronounces them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and when Christ procured justification, it was not an offer of it, but the blessing itself. These words then are not to be understood either of Christ’s dying for justification for any, especially for every individual man; since all men, in this large sense, are not justified; many will be righteously condemned, and eternally punished; and consequently his death, respecting them, must be in vain, were this the case; nor of the procuring of justification, still less of the offer of it, but of the application of it to the persons here mentioned.

2. It is apparent, that the apostle is here comparing the first and the second Adam together, as heads and representatives of their respective offspring, and the effects of sin, to the condemnation of those that sprang from the one, with the grace of God to the justification of such that belong to the other, and not the number of persons concerned in these things. His plain meaning is, that, as the first Adam conveyed sin, condemnation, and death, to all his posterity; so the second Adam communicates grace, righteousness, and life, to all his posterity; and herein the latter has the preference to the former, and in which lies the abundance of grace here spoken of; that the things communicated by the one are, in their own nature, to be preferred to the other; and particularly, that the righteousness, which Christ gives to his, not only justifies from the sin of the first Adam, and secures from all condemnation by it, but also from all other offenses whatever, and gives a right to eternal life, wherefore it is called the justification of life, which the first Adam never had. Were the comparison between the numbers of such who are condemned by the sin of the one, and of those who are justified by the righteousness of the other, the numbers being the same, the grace of the comparison would be wholly lost; for where would be the exuberance when there is perfect equality?

3. Admitting that the apostle is comparing the. condemnation which, was procured by the sin of Adam with the free gift of justification procured by the second Adam, as to the extent of persons concerned in both; this extent cannot be thought to reach to more than such who respectively spring from them, and belong to them. No more could be condemned by the sin of Adam than those who naturally descended from him by ordinary generation. The angels that fell are not condemned for Adam’s sin, from whom they did not spring, but for their own personal iniquities. This sin reached not to the man Christ Jesus, nor was he condemned by it for himself, because he descended not from Adam by ordinary generation; so no more can be justified by the righteousness of Christ, nor does that reach to the justification of more than those who are Christ’s, that belong to him, and who are in time regenerated by his Spirit and grace, and appear to be his spiritual seed and offspring.

4. All men, in the latter clause of this text, can never design every individual of mankind; for if the free gift came upon all men, in this large sense, to justification of life, every man would have a righteousness to be justified, be secure from wrath to come, have a right to eternal life; and at last be glorified and everlastingly saved; for such who are justified by the blood of Christ, shall be saved from wrath through him (Rom. 5:9; 8:30); and whom God justifies, them he also glorifies. Now it is certain, that all men, in the utmost latitude of this phrase, have not a justifying righteousness; there is a set of unrighteous men who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, are not, nor will they ever be justified; but the wrath of God abides on them, and will be their everlasting portion: could it be proved that the righteousness of Christ is imputed by the Father, and applied by the Spirit, to the justification of every man, and that every man will be saved, we shall readily come in to the doctrine of universal redemption by the death of Christ. But,

5. The apostle is the best interpreter of his own words, and we may easily learn, from this epistle, who the all men are, to whom the free gift by Christ’s righteousness comes, to justification of life; they are the elect whom God justifies, through the righteousness of his Son, and secures from condemnation by his death (Rom.8:33, 34); they are all the seed to whom the promise of righteousness and life belongs, and is sure (Rom. 4:16); they are the all that believe, upon whom and unto whom the righteousness of Christ is manifested, revealed, and applied by the Spirit of God (Rom. 3:22); and they are such who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness (Rom. 5:17); and, in a word, the gift comes upon all those that are Christ’s, and belong to him to justification, even as judgment came upon all to condemnation, through the offense of Adam, that belong to him or descend from him. The text in 1 Corinthians 15:22, for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, in which the same comparison is made between the two heads, Adam and Christ, and their different effects, and which is sometimes used, in favor of general redemption, is foreign to the purpose, since it speaks not of redemption by Christ, nor of spiritual and eternal life through him, but of the resurrection of the dead, as is evident from the whole context; and that not of every individual man, only of such as are Christ’s, and who sleep in him, of whom he is the first-fruits, verse 20, 23; who will be raised by virtue of union to him, and come forth unto the resurrection of life; which all will not, for some will awake to shame and everlasting contempt, yea, to the resurrection of damnation, which, by the way, is a proof that the word all does not always design every individual of mankind.

ENDNOTES:



[1] Whitby, p. 113, l17, 118; ed. 2. 111, 115, 116.

John Gill on 2 Peter 3:9

The CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH.

Part 1

Section 56—2 Peter 3:9.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise (as some men count slackness), but is long suffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This scripture appears among those which are said[1] to be very many clear and express ones for the doctrine of universal redemption; and it is observed,[2] "that tineV, opposed to panteV, is a distributive of all, and, therefore, signifies, God is not willing that any one of the whole rank of men should perish" But,

1. It is not true that God is not willing any one individual of the human race should perish, since he has made and appointed the wicked for the day of evil, even ungodly men, who are foreordained to this condemnation, such as are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; yea, there are some to whom God sends strong delusions, that they may believe a lie, that they all might be damned, and others whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not and their damnation slumbereth not (Prov. 16:4; Jude 1:4; Rom. 9:22; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:3). Nor is it his will that all men, in this large sense, should come to repentance, since he withholds from many both the means and grace of repentance; and though it is his will of precept, that all to whom the preaching of the Gospel is vouchsafed should repent, yet it is not his purposing, determining will, to bring them all to repentance, for who hath resisted his will? (Rom. 9:19.)

2. It is very true that tineV, any, being opposed to panteV, all, is a distributive of it; but then both the any and the all are to be limited and restrained by the us, to whom God is longsuffering; God is not willing that any more should not perish, and is willing that no more should come to repentance than the us to whom his longsuffering is salvation. The key, therefore, to open this text lies in these words, eiV hmaV, to us ward, or for our sake; for, these are the persons God would not have any of them perish, but would have them all come to repentance. It will be proper, therefore,

3. To inquire who these are. It is evident that they are distinguished from the scoffers mocking at the promise of Christ’s coming, (vv. 3, 4), are called beloved, (vv. 1, 8, 14, 17), which is to be understood either of their being beloved by God, with an everlasting and unchangeable love, or of their being beloved as brethren by the apostle and other saints; neither of which is true of all mankind. Besides, the design of the words is to establish the saints in, and comfort them with the coming of Christ, until which, God was longsuffering towards them, and which they were to account salvation (v. 15). Add to this, that the apostle manifestly designs a company or society to which he belonged, and of which he was a part, and so can mean no other than such who were chosen of God, redeemed from among men; and called out of darkness into marvelous light; and such were the persons the apostle writes to. Some copies read the words di umaV, for your sakes; so the Alexandrian MS. the Syriac version, ˆwktlfm, for you, or your sakes; the same way the Ethiopic. Now these persons were such who were elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:2); and such, as these, or who belong to the same election of grace they did, God is unwilling that any of them should perish, but wills that all of them should have repentance unto life; and, therefore, he waits to be gracious to them, and defers the second coming of Christ. The case stands thus: there was a promise of Christ’s second coming, to judge the world, delivered out; it was expected that this would have been very quickly, whereas it has been a long time deferred. Hence scoffers shall arise in the last days, charging the Lord with slackness and dilatoriness concerning his promise, though he is not slack with respect to it, but is long-suffering towards his elect, waiting till their number is completed in effectual vocation, and for their sakes bears with all the idolatry, superstition, and profaneness that are in the world; but when the last man that belongs to that number is called, he will stay no longer, but descend in flames of fire, take his own elect to himself, and burn up the world and the wicked in it.

4. It is indeed[3] said, "that the apostle, by the elect, to whom he writes, does not mean men absolutely designed for eternal happiness, but only men professing Christianity, or such as were visible members of the church of Christ: since he calls upon them to make their calling and election sure, exhorts them to watchfulness, seeing their adversary the devil goes about seeking whom he may devour, and to beware lest they fall from their own steadfastness; yea, he speaks of some of them as having forsaken the right way; and also prophesies that false teachers should make merchandise of them, neither of which, it is observed, can be supposed of men absolutely elected to salvation; and, also, that the church at Babylon was elected, together with these persons, which could not be known and said of all its members." To all which I reply, that calling upon them to make their election sure, does not suppose it to be a precarious and conditional one, as I have shown in a preceding section that exhortations to sobriety, and vigilance against Satan, and cautions about falling, are pertinent to such who are absolutely elected to salvation; for, though Satan cannot devour them, he may greatly distress them; and, though they shall not finally and totally fall from the grace of God, yet they may fall from some degree of steadfastness, both as to the doctrine and grace of faith, which may be to their detriment as well as to the dishonor of God: that it is not true, that the apostle speaks of any of these elect he writes to, that they had forsaken the right way, but of some other persons; and though he prophesies that false teachers should make merchandise of them, the meaning is, that, by their fine words and fair speeches, they should be able to draw money out of their pockets, not that they should destroy the grace of God wrought in their hearts. As to the church at Babylon being said to be elected with them, the apostle might say this of the church in general, as he does, in a judgment of charity, of the church at Thessalonica, and others, though every member of it in particular was not elected to salvation, without any prejudice to the doctrine of absolute election. Besides, the persons he writes to were not visible members of any one particular church or community, professing Christianity, but were strangers scattered abroad in several parts of the world, and, were such who had obtained like precious faith with the apostles, and is a strong evidence of their being men absolutely designed for eternal happiness. And whereas it is suggested, that these persons were come to repentance, and therefore cannot be the same to whom God is longsuffering, that they might come to repentance; I answer, that though they are not the same individual persons, yet are such who belong to the same body and number of the elect, on whom the Lord waits, and to whom he is longsuffering, until they are all brought to partake of this grace, having determined that not one of them should ever perish.

5. Hence it follows, that these words do not furnish, out any argument in favor of universal redemption, nor do they militate[4] against absolute election and reprobation, or unfrustrable grace in conversion; but, on the contrary, maintain and establish them, since it appears to be the will of God, that not one of those he has chosen in Christ, given to him, and for whom he died, shall ever perish; and, inasmuch as evangelical repentance is necessary for them, and they cannot come at it of themselves, he freely bestows it on them, and, by his unfrustrable grace, works it in them; and, until this is done unto and upon every one of them, he keeps the world in being, which is reserved unto fire, against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENDNOTES:

[1] Remonstr. in Coll. Hag. art. 2. p. 160, 181, 196; Curcellaeus, p. 364; Limborch, p. 333; Whitby, p. 113; ed. 2. 111.

[2] Whitby, p. 124; ed. 2. 121.

[3] Whitby, p. 125, 126; ed. 2. 122, 123.

[4] Whitby, p. 13, 75; ed. 2. 74.

Charles Hodge, Christianity, and Civil Government

"The demands of those who require that religion, and especially Christianity, should be ignored in our national, state, and municipal laws, are not only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical."

The following is from Charles Hodge's Systematic theology. Click on the title to see the chapter online at Reformed.org.

When Protestant Christians came to this country they possessed and subdued the land. They worshipped God, and his Son Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, and acknowledged the Scriptares to be the rule of their faith and practice. They introduced their religion into their families, their schools, and their colleges. They abstained from all ordinary business on the Lord's Day, and devoted it to religion. They built churches, erected school-houses, and taught their children to read the Bible and to receive and obey it as the word of God. They formed themselves as Christians into municipal and state organizations. They acknowledged God in their legislative assemblies. They prescribed oaths to be taken in his name. They closed their courts, their places of business, their legislatures, and all places under the public control, on the Lord's Day. They declared Christianity to be part of the common law of the land. In the process of time thousands have come among us, who are neither Protestants nor Christians. Some are papists, some Jews, some infidels, and some atheists. All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal fights and privileges. All are


PART III. CH. XIX. -- THE LAW.

allowed to acquire property, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all offices, and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see fit. No man is molested for his religion or for his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faith, or to join any religious association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done.

The Demands of Infidels are Unjust.

The demands of those who require that religion, and especially Christianity, should be ignored in our national, state, and municipal laws, are not only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical. It is a condition of service in connection with any railroad which is operated on Sundays, that the employee be not a Christian. If Christianity is not to control the action of our municipal, state, and general governments, then if elections be ordered to be held on the Lord's Day, Christians cannot vote. If all the business of the country is to go on, on that as on other days, no Christian can hold office. We should thus have not a religious, but an anti-religious test-act. Such is the free-thinker's idea of liberty.11 But still further, if Christianity is not to control the laws of the country, then as monogamy is a purely Christian institution, we can have no laws against polygamy, arbitrary divorce, or "free love." All this must be yielded to the anti-Christian party; and consistency will demand that we yield to the atheists, the oath and the decalogue; and all the rights of citizenship must be confined to blasphemers. Since the fall of Lucifer, no such tyrant has been made known to men as August Comte, the atheist. If, therefore, any man wishes to antedate perdition, he has nothing to do but to become a free-thinker and join in the shout, "Civil government has nothing to do with religion; and religion has nothing do do with civil government."

The Free Offer Controversy

"We would remind our readers at this point that we have no objection to the word "offer"as such. It can be and is used in a Biblical sense. Our objection is to those who use the word to teach that God expresses in the Gospel a desire for the salvation of all men without exception and tries to give that salvation to them." Rev. Ron Hanko.

This is the html version of the file http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/REV%20RH%20FR%20OFFR.pdf.Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1

The “Free Offer” Controversy

by Rev. Ron Hanko

Minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches of America

This article was first published in the British Reformed Journal
No. 7 for July - September 1994

In the March/April 1994 issue of the periodical, Reformation Today, there was an article by Tom Wells with the same title as that above. In his article Mr. Wells defends the notion of a free, well-meant Gospel offer over against the views of the Protestant Reformed Churches (hereinafter PRC). The article was printed in Reformation Today as part of general attack on the views of the BRF, who hold substantially the same position as the PRC regarding the Gospel.

Though the article is supposed to be a defence of the so-called free offer of the Gospel," it actually "damns with faint praise" (Alexander Pope) the position it is supposed to be defending. It all but admits (1) that the free-offer position is open to the charge of being Arminian and not Calvinist, (2) that there is a problem with the free-offer in relation to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, and (3) that there is little Scriptural ground for the idea that the Gospel is a well-meaning and sincere offer of salvation to those who hear.

Consider the following. Mr. Wells admits that the doctrine of a well-meant offer finds ready acceptance outside the Reformed camp. Other Christians (those who are not Reformed or Calvinists)," he says, "Would wholeheartedly embrace the free-offer doctrine without further discussions..." This alone should make a Reformed believer suspicious. Any teaching on grace and the Gospel that is readily acceptable to those who are outside the Reformed camp is wide open to the charge of not being Reformed. Grace and the Gospel are two of the main areas of difference and disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians, between the Reformed faith and free-willism. Is it, therefore, even possible to be teaching things about grace and the Gospel that are "wholeheartedly embraced . . . without further discussions" by Arminianism and free-willism without being suspected of falling away from a strict Calvinism?

We would remind our readers at this point that we have no objection to the word"offer" as such. It can be and is used in a Biblical sense. Our objection is to those who use the word to teach that God expresses in the Gospel a desire for the salvation of all men without exception and tries to give that salvation to them.

Mr. Wells goes on to admit a difficulty between free-offer teaching and the Reformed doctrine of election:

“The difficulty over the free offer may be put like this: since God has chosen to save some and pass others by, how can it be said that that he offers salvation to those he has decided not to save? Doesn't this make God of two minds, wanting all to be saved on one hand, and desiring only his elect to be saved on the other? Anyone who cannot see that there is some difficulty here must have done very little thinking about theology. Indeed, for some, this is the rock upon which the whole idea of election as understood by Calvinists founders.”

We are thankful that Mr. Wells at least sees the difficulty, though he makes no effort to resolve it. Most defenders of the free-offer would answer, “Yes” to the questions posed by Mr. Wells. When confronted with the difficulty, which he clearly sees, they quickly take refuge behind what they call "mystery." Their mystery, however, is a blatant contradiction, that God wills and does not will the salvation of the lost, that He hates and loves the reprobate and loves and hates the elect as well.

This is Barthianism, not Calvinism. It was Karl Barth who first taught unequivocally that God both loves and hates all men. That was not difficulty for him because he was a kind of mystic for whom faith was a blind leap in the dark, able to hold without difficulty all sorts of irreconcilable contradictions. These men, like Barth, have abdicated as theologians and become mystics with all their talk of "mystery." The”mystery” is nothing but a contradiction of the sort Barth gloried in.

Mr. Wells tells us at this point that the question must be settled by Scripture. That is well and good. We, too, believe, that the whole free-offer controversy will only be settled by careful attention to Scripture. It will not be settled by appealing to the writings of men, particularly those of John Calvin, for whom the whole matter was not even an tissue.

It is a bit ironic, then, that Mr.Wells admits that "relatlvely few texts speak to the subject directly." He himself deals only with the Ezekiel passages (18:23, 32, 33:11) and two from Deuteronomy (5:29, 32:28-29). One is tempted to ask if these are the only passages that "speak to the subject directly" If so, the passages are not "relatively few" but "almost none."

Nor have we found any of the defenders of the free offer who have been willing to reckon with this fact. We have pointed out before that there are NO passages of Scripture that use the word "grace" in reference to the non-elect (the offer of salvation to all is supposed to be grace to all). The same is true of God's love. One must "scrape and scratch" to find passages that even suggest a love of God for all in the Gospel (the free offer is also supposed to be a revelation of God's love).

Yet there are very many passages that speak of a particular and exclusive love of God, and give no indication that there is any other kind - many more that teach that the grace that brings salvation is for the elect only.We ask the readers who doubt the truth of what we say to look up in a good concordance the many references to God's grace and love in the Old and New Testaments. They will see that grace and love are for the elect and for no others.

Nor is the word "offer" or any similar term used in Scripture to describe the preaching of the Gospel. This, in itself, proves nothing. We recognize that. We too, use in theology many terms that are not taken from Scripture. But in this case the Gospel is consistently described as something very different from an offer (command, call, exposition, proclamation, declaration, answer, ministry, teaching, testimony, witness, power, ambassage). The terms used in Scripture to describe the Gospel do not even suggest the idea of an offer.

What is more, the '"relatively few"passages that the proponents of common grace, universal love, and the free-offer bring forward are those that have always been used by the enemies of predestination and sovereign grace. This, too, should give us pause. Ezekiel 18: 23, 32 and 33: 11 are notorious in this respect. Calvin deals at length with Ezekiel 33:11 in his Institutes (III xxiv 15). He refutes there the teaching of those who deny that "election is confirmed by the divine call" (i.e., that the Gospel reveals the same will of God as does election).

In his The Cause of God and Truth John Gill says that "this passage of Scripture is frequently used by the patrons of free-will and the opposers of God's grace (I, xxi ). Concerning Deuteronomy 32:29 he adds: "These words were made use of to contradict the doctrines of absolute election, particular redemption, and unfrustratable grace in conversion.” (I, x).

John Owen also puts those texts in the mouths of the Socinians (Arians or Unitarians), Arminians, and Amyraldians. He says, for example, concerning Ezekiel 18:23, 32 that "our adversaries are frequently knitting knots from this place to inveigle and hamper the simple."And again: “I have often admired how so many strange conclusions for a general purpose of showing mercy to all, universal vocation (another name for the free-offer) and redemption, have been wrested from it”(Works, vol. X, pp. 386-388).

What Owen says in explaining these verses is a classic of faithful exposition:

“First, then, let us consider to whom and of whom these words are spoken. Is it to and of all men, or only of the house of Israel? Doubtless these last; they only are intended, they only are spoken to: ‘hear now, O house of Israel.’ verse25. Now will it follow that because God saith he delights not in the death of the house of Israel, to whom he revealed his mind, and required their repentance and conversion, that therefore he saith so of all, even those to whom he never revealed his will by such ways as to them, nor called them to repentance, Ps. 147: 19, 20?”

* * * * * * * * * *

“Secondly, ‘God willeth not the death of the sinner,’ is either, ‘God purposeth and determineth he shall not die,’ or ‘God commandeth that he shall dothose things wherein he may live.’. If the first, why are they not all saved? whydo sinners die? for there is an immutability in the counsel (will) of God, Heb.6:17; ‘His counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure,’ Isa 46:10. If the latter way, by commanding, then the sense is, that the Lord commandeth that those whom he calleth should do their duty, that they may not die (although he knows that this they cannot do without his assistance).”

These words were written over against the Arminians and Amyraldians. He gives a similar exposition of Ezekiel 18:31, 32 against the Socinians ( Works vol. 12, p. 559):

“It is true that God inviteth many to repentance, and earnestly inviteth them, by the means of the word which he affords them, to turn from their evil ways, of whom all the individuals are not converted, as he dealt with the house of Israel (not all the world, but) those who had his word and ordinances, Ezek. 18:31, 32, affirming that it was not for his pleasure but for their sins that they die; but that this manifests a universal love in God in the way spoken of, or any thing more than the connection of repentance and acceptation with God, with his legal approbation of turning from sin, there is no matter of proof to evince.”

There is a deeper problem here, however. We believe that free offer theology has a very un-Biblical view of the preaching of the Gospel - that it cannot even be reconciled with the Biblical view of preaching. The Biblical teaching concerning the preaching of the Gospel is that it is the "power of God unto salvation," the great means God has appointed for granting the grace of repentance, faith, and sanctification to the elect (Rom. 1:16, 10:17, I Cor. 1:18-24, II Cor. 2:15, 16). This does not make the preaching of the Gospel unnecessary as far as the reprobate are concerned, for it is also a "power" in their case - the power of God to harden and condemn thern (cf. Is. 6:9-12, Acts 28:25-27, II Cor. 2:15,16).

The very idea that the Gospel is an "offer" contradicts this, for an offer is, in the nature of the thing, not a "power." It is impossible for the defenders of the free-offer to maintain that the Gospel is "the power of God" especially in the case of the reprobate to whom the Gospel is preached. A free, well-meant offer of grace and salvation cannot be reconciled with such passages as II Corinthians 2: 15, 16. It is at this point, therefore, that offer teaching diverges widely from the Reformed view of preaching and approaches the view of preaching held by free-willism and Arminianism, i.e., that the Gospel is only an empty appeal to the unsaved to exercise their free-will in accepting or rejecting Christ in the Gospel. We would add, too, that the "grace" which is revealed in this offer is much more like the "grace" of the Arminians, frustratable and resistible.

Let it be clear, though, that in rejecting the free-offer view of preaching, we do not deny that the Gospel is the "sweet savor of Christ" (II Cor. 2:15, 16), made known to all who hear the Gospel. Christ is always sweet and altogether lovely, also in the preaching. That some of the reprobate reject Him in the preaching, is for that reason, their greater condemnation. Nevertheless, that sweet savour (smell) of Christ has in it no hope for those whom God has not chosen. For them that sweet smell is and will always be "the savour of death unto death."

They are like captives in a triumphal procession (the figure Paul is using in II Cor. 2:14 - note the word "triumph") on their way to slavery, the arena, or execution, to whom the sweet smell of the sacrifices, the flowers, the incense, all offered in commemoration of victory are but the smell of doom. When the Gospel is preached to them and the sweet smell of Christ is in their nostrils through the Gospel they are already doomed (a captivity led captive) by predestination and by the work of Christ on the cross. They are no different in that respect from the demons who are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude, 6). Mr. Wells suggests that our view of the Gospel is a new development in Reformed theology and an illegitimate devolopment at that. We plead Calvin, Gill, Owen, and others, but especially the Scriptures, that we are only "standing in the (old) ways" and "asking for the old paths." May God in His mercy grant it.

Against Dispensationalism

Anonymous Comments Disabled

I have disabled anonymous commenting. If you wish to comment from now on, you will have to make yourself known. I have put my ideas and my theological thinking out there at the risk of being publicly attacked by those who oppose traditional Reformed theology. Sadly, that seems to include neo-Reformed folks who think anyone who disagrees with their spin on common grace and God's hatred of the reprobates. The Bible clearly says that anyone outside of Christ is under His wrath and are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3; John 3:36; Romans 5:9). Even the elect who have not yet been converted are hated by God and under His wrath, though God also loves the elect and effectually calls them into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ at a subsequent point in time.

It is truly saddening how Evangelicalism at large has mostly gone in a liberal direction and attacks those who are more on the conservative side of Evangelicalism. The evidence is indisputable.

Beyond Culture Wars: A Critique of Michael Horton's Wrong Doctrine

For since the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so obstinate that it can scarcely be restrained by all the severity of the laws, what may we expect they would do, if they found themselves at liberty to perpetrate crimes with impunity, whose outrages even the arm of secular power cannot altogether prevent? 

 

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV.xx.1

[Click here to see Mike Horton's original article.]

[Please note that my views change over time and I no longer advocate co-belligerency with unbelievers or those who promote another gospel.  I allow my previous articles to stand as written to show the change in my thinking over time.  The truth of Scripture itself, however, never changes.  Psalm 119:89.   Charlie J. Ray.  March 22, 2015].

Though I greatly admire Dr. Michael Horton and his call for Christians to return to the confessional roots of the Protestant Reformation, I must strongly and vehemently disagree with his position regarding Christian involvement in the political affairs of this country. I must further state that I am neither a theonomist nor am I a reconstructionist. I do not believe that this country ever was nor will it ever be a "Christian" nation.

That being said, however, I would agree with Horton that civil religion and the Gospel must never be confused. God does not give blanket endorsement to any political party or social class of the American culture. We shall all be judged by God's moral law as it is stated in the ten commandments and in the other places in Holy Scripture where moral commands are made binding upon us by Christ, the apostles, and the prophets. Only the ceremonial laws and the judicial/civil laws of the ancient nation of Israel have passed away.

Where I strongly disagree with Horton is the idea that Christians in general cannot and should not try to "legislate" morality. Horton seems to think that legislating morality is a compromise of the doctrines of grace and the very Gospel itself. This could not be further from the truth. Even if we operate under the two kingdoms theology advocated by Horton, it would not follow that we cannot be co-belligerents with Roman Catholics, heterodox sects, or even Mormons on issues like abortion, gay rights and capital punishment. In fact, I would argue that Horton is guilty of the sin he is accusing the religious right of committing. Horton is advocating legislating morality. The problem is Horton's view of morality is heretical. Horton seems to think that Christians are morally bound to shut up and let the wicked rule the worldly kingdom, otherwise we risk confusing civil religion with the Gospel. But this is a non sequitur. Christians in every era have always believed that they should be about persuading the world that it is wrong on moral issues.

Where it is possible to change ungodly laws for laws which are more in line with natural law and with moral law, then Christians of all denominations should come together to make these changes. It does not follow that if I work with conservative Muslims, Mormons and Roman Catholics for more moral national laws that I must then compromise the Gospel or my witness in order to bring about a more general good for the nation. Co-belligerency on political/ethical/moral issues in the civic realm does not mean that I must then accept the doctrines of those with whom I am fighting to reform an unjust and immoral society. Thus, Horton's entire premise in this article is not only a red herring but is also a non sequitur. It does not follow.

I would also disagree with Horton when he says that, "Now one might argue that one's position on abortion must be consistent with his profession of faith, and I do believe that every Christian ought to seek the end of this worldwide holocaust, but abortion is not in the Apostle's Creed! It is not an article of Christian faith!" And this is precisely where Horton is absolutely and unequivocally WRONG. Abortion falls into the category of moral law; the moral law is NOT optional for the truly converted Christian. Abortion is not in the Apostles' Creed but it IS in the Decalogue! According to the Westminster Confession the purpose of God's law is to:

Chapter XIX Of the Law of God

V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

I would further argue that Horton misses the point. While Christians are not under the law as a means of justification before God, they ARE obligated to live a Christian life as guided by the moral law. This is a fruit of true conversion, though not the basis for our justification before God. One would think that someone as educated as Horton would be able to avoid non sequiturs like suggesting that, because "some" Christian leaders who live immoral lives in contradiction to their outwardly confessed convictions and theological positions, that somehow makes it wrong for all Christians to try to influence the morality which is legislated in this country. While it is true that the law of the land cannot force anyone to be converted or to have a change of heart, Calvin himself said that the civil laws of the nation restrain the wicked so that there is not total anarchy, and so that that society is not as wicked as it might be. Therefore, it is not only anti-Christian to oppose the legislation of Christian morality, but it is also anti-Reformed! Both Luther and Calvin would have rejected our modern views on separation of church and state and would be appalled that Horton apparently takes the Anabaptist position where Christians should not be involved in politics.

Horton is so wrong on this position that it makes him look foolish to say the least. It is more than obvious to me that Horton's commitment to liberal politics has caused him to try to influence Christians away from the Christian Right and more in the direction of the civil religion of the liberal left. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the civil religion of theological liberalism where sin is openly institutionalized, approved, and endorsed--all in the name of God. While I would not say that God is on the side of the Republicans, I can without a doubt say that God is on the side of the unborn! I can without a doubt say that God hates homosexuality and the homosexual! I can say this because God hates the reprobate wicked and all the unsaved elect who have yet to be converted.

Horton is also inconsistent with Reformed theology when he says that AIDS is not part of God's judgment against homosexuals. Horton does not want to offend homosexuals with any idea of God's wrath against them or their sin. While I might agree that AIDS is not directed only against homosexuals, I disagree that it is not part of God's judgment against sin. All diseases in this current world are a result of God's judgment against mankind because of Adam and Eve's rebellion. Furthermore, AIDS is a judgment against those who practice sexual immorality whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment for the violation of God's moral law. And those who contract the disease as a result of drug abuse are likewise suffering judgment for their sins. As for those who get the disease by no fault of their own, they suffer God's judgment because of the sins of others. To suppose that sin does not affect others, our neighbors and our relatives is not only naive, it is ignorant. Horton seems to imply a deistic approach where God is not providentially or sovereignly in control and stuff just happens.

As a further indictment of Horton's theology, I would have to say that his concerns about how we persuade the homosexual to conversion is misguided. How will we persuade dead men to repent unless God first raises them from the dead? How does trying to influence public policy confuse the moral law? Whether we preach the law in church or whether we try to change public laws which go against the moral law, we are still preaching the law, without which there can be no Gospel! The law and the Gospel go hand in hand and without the law there can be no conviction or revelation of sin. If society approves, institutionalizes, and endorses sin it makes the job of preaching the gospel even harder because no there is no public shame for sins otherwise universally seen as sinful! By observing the secularization of the European countries we can see the results of secularization and a rejection of moral law. Horton is utilizing wishful thinking if he thinks withdrawing from the cultural war is somehow an advantage to preaching the Gospel! And Horton seems to ignore the doctrine of total depravity. Moral persuasion cannot work with homosexuals. So why is he worried that changing the criminal and civic laws will offend them? They are wicked and unsaved. So what if the moral law offends them? Is it right to give in to sin just because sinners protest? Of course not! This is the silliest argument I have ever seen Horton make. If that be the case, we should give up preaching the Gospel because the Gospel offends as well as the law offends. Without the law there is no understanding of sin. Both the law and the Gospel offends the lost sinner. This has absolutely nothing to do with making the laws of our nation more in line with the "general equity" understanding espoused by Calvin himself!

I am wondering as well how Horton can say that abortion is not a heresy? Horton says in his conclusion, " Being pro-choice I believe is morally wrong, but it is not heretical." To the contrary, the Apostle Paul clearly says that sound doctrine is necessary for true Christianity to exist and more to the point, Paul says this in the context of morality! Therefore, to promote institutionalized immorality IS a heresy since Paul says:


1 Timothy 1:8-11 (ESV)
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.  (See Also:  1 Timothy 1:8-11 KJV).

It seems to me that Horton's real concern here is not civil religion or the compromise of the Gospel with political agendas. Rather, Horton is trying to sneak in his own politically liberal views couched in the hidden language of Reformed theology, which really is not Reformed at all! Horton is guilty of trying to influence Christians away from fighting the culture war and to surrender to an evil and wicked generation. But Paul and the original apostles turned the world upside down for the cause of Christ. Christianity did not compartmentalize its theology but sought to reform the whole world according to the law of God. While political change alone cannot save even one soul, it can and does lay the groundwork for the preaching of the Gospel by making God's moral law the general understanding of right and wrong in the culture. Where the culture has no understanding at all of God's law, then we wind up with secular atheism and dead churches like the situation we observe in Europe. The Gospel has for all practical purposes died out in Europe. Surrendering morality to the wicked here in the United States is to surrender the Gospel as well. We must never move beyond the culture wars. Rather we must fight to win the culture wars and then to preach the doctrines of grace and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to confront both pelagianism and civil religion. What Horton is promoting will lead to an ineffective church and a morally depraved national culture which in turn makes preaching the cross even more difficult than it already is. Even so, we should never forget that God is the only one who can elect, regenerate, justify and convert a lost sinner.

May God convert the nation and bring it to repentance before His judgment falls!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Calvin on the Civil Government:

I. Having already stated that man is the subject of two kinds of government, and having sufficiently discussed that which is situated in the soul, or the inner man, and relates to eternal life, we are, in this chapter, to say something of the other kind, which relates to civil justice, and the regulation of the external conduct. For, though the nature of this argument seems to have no connection with the spiritual doctrine of faith which I have undertaken to discuss, the sequel will show that I have sufficient reason for connecting them together, and, indeed, that necessity obliges me to it; especially since, on the one hand, infatuated and barbarous men madly endeavour to subvert this ordinance established by God; and, on the other hand, the flatterers of princes, extolling their power beyond all just bounds, hesitate not to oppose it to the authority of God himself. Unless both these errors be resisted, the purity of the faith will be destroyed. Besides, it is of no small importance for us to know what benevolent provision God has made for mankind in this instance, that we may be stimulated by a greater degree of pious zeal to testify our gratitude.....

And:

II. Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole system of civil government as a polluted thing which has nothing to do with Christian men. Some fanatics, who are pleased with nothing but liberty, or rather licentiousness without any restraint, do indeed boast and shout, "Since we are dead with Christ to the elements of this world, and, being translated into the kingdom of God, sit among the celestials, it is a degradation to us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those secular and impure cares which relate to things altogether uninteresting to a Christian man." Of what use, they ask, are laws without judgments and tribunals? But what have judgments to do with a Christian man? And if it be unlawful to kill, of what use are laws and judgments to us? But as we have just suggested that this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and internal reign of Christ, so it ought to be known that they are in no respect at variance with each other. For that spiritual reign, even now upon earth, commences within us some preludes of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and transitory life affords us some prelibations of immortal and incorruptible blessedness; but this civil government is designed, as long as we live in this world, to cherish and support the external worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite for the society of men, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and tranquillity; all which I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists in us, extinguishes the present strife. But if it is the will of God, that while we are aspiring towards our true country, that we be pilgrims on the earth, and if such aids are necessary to our pilgrimage, they who take them from man deprive him of his human nature. They plead that there should be so much perfection in the Church of God, that its order would suffice to supply the place of all laws; but they foolishly imagine a perfection which can never be found in any community of men. For since the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so obstinate that it can scarcely be restrained by all the severity of the laws, what may we expect they would do, if they found themselves at liberty to perpetrate crimes with impunity, whose outrages even the arm of secular power cannot altogether prevent?

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV.xx.1

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/OCG.HTM

The Providence of God and the Ignorance of Unbelief

It really does not surprise me that the news media these days hate conservative Christianity. We stand against the immorality of murdering the unborn, even those who are viable outside the mother's womb. We stand against gay marriage and against the licentious abuse of civil and religious freedoms paid for with the lives of American soldiers. Of course, this is not a Christian nation and never has been. However, a nation stands or falls based on its overall worldview and its protection of morality and basic human rights.

Unfortunately, this nation is more and more siding against Christianity and with ungodliness and wickedness. It's now ok to murder you own child in the womb. It's ok to be an adulterer, a fornicator, or a homosexual. And if anyone dares to suggest that God is sovereign and providentially guides human history and even controls natural disasters, famines, earthquakes, storms, and even nations rising against nation in war, that person is labeled a religious "fundamentalist" or a "fanatic." The truth is, however, that Christianity in general, and Reformed/Calvinist Christians in particular, believes that God is not just up in heaven somewhere with no control over nature or historical events. That would be deism. Rather, God is in control of all that happens. This is called "providence."

Calvinists in particular should have no problem saying that the 9/11 terrorist attack was God's providence in action. And it should be no surprise that this attack could also be said to be a part of God's judgment against an increasingly ungodly nation. In the Old Testament when the nation of Israel rebelled and worshipped other gods, God continually judged Israel. In fact, the Northern Kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 B.C. as a result of God's judgment. Judah, the Southern Kingdom, fell to Babylon in 586 B.C. as a result of their unfaithfulness to God.

The Bible also mentions that God judges ungodly nations like Babylon and Assyria and Egypt by having other nations attack and conquer them. We are also aware of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and prior to that, the fall of the empire of Alexander the Great.

In opposition to Abraham Lincoln, nations on earth do cease to exist. They cease because of the judgment of a Holy God against the sinfulness and wickedness of nations which refuse to repent or to accept the moral law of God. And the Apostle Paul says that even people who have not heard the Gospel are without excuse because God is revealed to them in creation and in their own conscience (See Romans 1:18-32; Romans 3:1-27).

I find it particularly disturbing when so-called Christians or Evangelicals openly endorse and vote for political candidates who openly and loudly proclaim their immoral stands in favor of homosexuality, the murder of the unborn, and the restriction of rights of conservative Christians to free speech and freedom of religion from government interference.

Already we see Canada and European nations passing laws that make it a hate crime to preach the biblical message that homosexuality is a sin and should be repented of. We see those in the media openly and vehemently spouting hate speech against conservative Christianity while other religions that are liberal or less exclusivist on the matter of salvation are openly supported as "tolerant." Apparently, the only religion they cannot tolerate is a religion which actually believes that Jesus Christ is literally God and man and literally and physically rose from the dead. They cannot tolerate a religion that actually believes there is theological and revelational truth from God which is morally binding upon all humankind.

If morality is not rooted in the nature of God, then it is ephemeral, shifting and about as definite as jello pinned to the wall. Whatever man decides is right will become right no matter how perverted, twisted or wicked it may be from the biblical perspective. Those who call themselves Christians should be voting for those who will most uphold the biblical worldview, not theological liberals who believe almost nothing the Bible says or teaches. How any Christian could vote for a pro-choice candidate or a pro-gay rights candidate is beyond me.