A Paper on Total Depravity

             In my English class, we were given a block of reading from the introduction of James Sire’s Discipleship of the Mind, and write a reaction to it. Not that I’m trying to be overly in-your-face about my theology in my first year, but when I saw that Sire dealt with the question “What is a human being?” I had to jump on it. The paper was supposed to be a page and a half. I made it five pages. After condensing it back down, I turned the page and a half copy into my teacher. I received a 100 on it, but I have no doubt that it was because of the way it was written rather than the subject that I dealt with. The following is the five page copy, which she also appreciated. Enjoy.

            In his book Discipleship of the Mind, author James W. Sire makes an interesting proposition. He states that the question “What is a human being?”[1] is a key question to answer in forming “the foundation of all our thought.”[2] The question of what constitutes a human being is one that is never seriously considered by most church-goers in western evangelicalism. This has led not only to a lack of concern for what the Bible has to say on this particular topic, but a severe misunderstanding of our fallen nature. One example of this is the church’s nearly unanimous endorsement of the modern, overly narcissistic, self-esteem driven approach to psychology. This lazy approach to determining what is a proper biblical anthropology is not acceptable for the Christian. With regard to Sire’s question, the Christian must determine what the Bible says humanity’s current state is and what its implications are.

            The current state of humanity is most important to study, because it is of little relevance what we were if we are currently something entirely different. The Bible teaches that we are strikingly different from how we were originally created. Due to the sin of Adam, we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). For the Christian, there is no denying this. The only dispute lies in the question of what such a statement entails. One might say that man is prone to sin but is still free to choose or not to choose his own resurrection from that seemingly final state. Someone else would say that he needs a little help along the way and receives this help from the Holy Spirit. Another still would say that he needs an effectual call and spiritual reviving in order to be able and willing to receive spiritual resurrection. Just which answer is most biblical will be the question that I will concern myself with first, before I delve into the implications.

            There are those who make the argument that man is essentially good and can thus choose or not choose God at his own behest. These people are typically termed Pelagian after the 4^th century scholar, Pelagius, who originally drafted this doctrine in opposition to Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. Pelagians will typically claim that man is not born sinful, but with a “clean slate.” Adherents of this viewpoint often state that man can choose Christ or not choose Him according to their own natural will and desire apart from any work of the Holy Spirit beyond an ineffectual call.

            This view is not biblical whatsoever. Rather, in going against the doctrine of original sin, it likewise goes against Paul’s teachings to the Romans (Romans 5:12-17) and the Corinthians (1Corinthians 15:22). Adam being the federal head of all who would follow after him not only brought the sin nature, and thus death, upon himself, but brought sin and death upon us all. None of us is born with a clean slate. King David even goes so far as to assert that our guilt before God started at conception, when he repents of his sin with Bathsheba (Psalm 51:1-5). Thus, there is a real sense in which we are not only sinful, but we are born sinful and in need of a certain degree of aid from the Holy Spirit in responding to the gospel.

            One group, a rather large one, which holds to a view of original sin we will call Semi-Pelagians. This group can differ from one another in many ways, but they all hold that both Pelagius and Augustine were wrong to some degree. We can best examine this group in light of the doctrines that were ironed out at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). These doctrines are known as the Canons of Dort, but are most commonly termed as the “Five Points of Calvinism”. The first of these five points has historically been touted under the banner of Total Depravity. The other four points of Calvinism help complete the picture of the Calvinistic view of God’s role and Man’s role in salvation. Where the Semi-Pelagian stands on Total depravity, and the other four points, helps them determine just how Pelagian or Calvinistic they are. I say Calvinistic, because Calvinists and Augustinians do not necessarily agree on all matters of the doctrine salvation.

            In the 1600s, the Remonstrance rose as the latest wave of Semi-Pelagianism. Its adherents were a group that referred to themselves as Arminians, after Jacobus Arminius, their champion. They contended, among other things, that man was not dead in his trespasses and sins, but merely ill. Since he was simply ill, all he needed was a divine Physician to cure him and show him the way. This, in the Arminian’s view, was the universal consequence of original sin. This view, however, stands in direct contrast to Ephesians 2:1 and a whole host of other passages of Scripture.

            The Bible tells us not only that man is dead in his trespasses and sins, but also that man’s heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9), there is none that seeks God (Romans 3:11) and we must be born again (John 3:3). This all testifies to the hopelessly incapable state of man as it regards his ability and desire to save himself apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the doctrine of Total depravity, as laid out in the Canons of Dort, is the biblically correct view of the fallen human nature.

            So, what are the implications of this view? There are many implications that either aid or hinder each of the different views of regeneration, the most significant of which belong to the view of Total Depravity as laid out in the Canons of Dort. The first implication of Total Depravity is that it takes responsibility for salvation out of the hands of the fallen, depraved, finite human being and places it squarely in the hands of the sovereign, all-powerful, infinite King of kings. Another implication is that it enables us to pray as we do; “God, please cause Susan to repent and believe in Your Son, Jesus Christ.” It emboldens us in evangelistic encounters by reminding us that the results have absolutely nothing to do with our oratory skill or our methods, but are totally dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the doctrine of Total Depravity gives the ultimate glory to God.

            Many do not want to part with the idea that they somehow had some part in their own salvation experience. This in large part can be blamed on our modern, emasculated view of what it is to be a real gentleman, as well as our insistence that the role of gentleman be somehow ascribed to God, lest He be an evil God. “Surely, God would not rush into the burning building and drag me to my freedom from death against my will. Such a God would be a monster!”

            In light of the fact that God’s word says that our hearts are deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9), it should not be desirable to be left to the whims of our fallen hearts to determine our final state. Rather, we should take comfort in the fact that God Himself has secured our salvation for us; the Father electing us before time began, the Son living the perfect life that we could not live, dying on our behalf and raising from the dead so as to atone for our sins, and the Holy Spirit regenerating our spirits so that we are now willing and able to give the “Amen!” to the glorious, saving gospel. What an amazing God He is!

            It is for this reason that, when we pray, we are consistent to ask for someone to be saved. Were it up to the person, God could only go so far. After a certain point the person’s salvation would be left up to them rendering our prayers for their salvation pointless. Rather than praying that the Holy Spirit might convince them and convict them, the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian would be more consistent to pray that God make our arguments convincing and convicting enough to win them to Him. Then, another dilemma surfaces. If their arguments are not made convincing and convicting enough, do they then say that God did not choose that person for salvation and thus annul their choice in the matter? The doctrine of Total Depravity enables us to be consistent in theology and prayer.

            Consistently praying in this way, we can be assured that the results of our evangelistic efforts are in the hands of God. Were we to rely solely on our own efforts and abilities, we would be hopeless. We would be like Ezekiel standing and looking over the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) wanting desperately to revive the dead but helpless to know how. We then joyfully place all hope for the success of our evangelism in the hands of God, that He will do a mighty work for His name’s sake.

            Ultimately, the most glorious of all the implications of Total Depravity is that it brings glory back to God. The idea of Calvinism and, arguably, the Bible is that all things go forth from God with the sole purpose of accomplishing His will which is to bring the utmost glory back in to Himself. It is a beautiful cycle in which all things, even the depravity of humankind, are so orchestrated by God to exact the purpose of bringing the greatest honor to His name.

            So, can we say that there is any credence in allowing someone to believe that it is advantageous to strive for the highest possible self-esteem? Not if we want them to be realistic about their state before God. I would assert that the opposite is true. We should encourage parishioners to search their Bibles and ask themselves two questions; “What is the biblical view of man?” and “What are the implications of holding such a view?” In doing so, we can be confident that the majority will be surprised at how much it contrasts their current beliefs. Just what impact this has on the individual and society as a whole is yet to be seen, but if history is allowed to be viewed as prophetic, perhaps we can ascertain what possibilities may be.

---

[1] James W. Sire, Discipleship of the Mind (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 30.

[2] Ibid.

Arminianism vs. Calvinism (Part One: John 3)

The following was taken from a conversation that I had with a friend of mine, on facebook.com. I have respectfully left his name out of the post so as not to cause any issues between he and I. I’m posting it here because I know the people that read this blog and would like your contribution to this argument. Please feel free to ask questions, post comments or just tell me what a loser I am for wasting time on this stuff. I’m open.

Friend –
let’s start with John 3, vs 16 – 21.
God so loved the world…
…but to save the world through Him….

my mind is open and ready to question, go!

Me –
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:16-21; NASB)

Sorry I didn’t respond quicker. I’ve been swamped at school this week and haven’t been able to get on.

Okay. Wow. This passage is gonna take a while. I’m probably gonna have to take this one verse at a time, but I will be faithful to the immediate context, John’s intent in writing what he wrote and the overall context of Scripture.

Let’s start with what the passage doesn’t teach before we get into what it does teach.

1) The passage does not teach universalism.
There is a specific group of people that are designated as those who will partake in eternal life; “whoever believes”. This limits the effect of the atonement. The question then becomes, “Who is limiting the atonement?” Those who don’t believe or God Himself? We will address that.

2) The main purpose of the passage is not to teach a Calvinistic understanding of Limited or Definite Atonement.
For a Calvinist to approach this scripture passage with the intent of extracting the Calvinist view of the atonement would be an intellectually dishonest way to approach Scripture. The faithful expositor must approach Scripture with the expressed desire to discover the “intended” message of the author. Nothing more.

3) Though the passage does not overtly teach the Calvinistic understanding of atonement it doesn’t do it damage, either.
This will not be the main focus of my argument, but I will spend a little time, in the beginning explaining how I have arrived at this conclusion so that we are on equal footing.

4) The main purpose of the passage is not to teach an Arminian understanding of Limited Universal Atonement (that is, atonement that is universally available, but limited to those who “of their own will” choose to believe).
I will spend a little time on this as well.

5) The main purpose of the passage is not to overtly deny the Arminian view of the atonement.
Arminianism and universalism were not systematized doctrines in the first century, so we would be foolish to say that Jesus, in this passage, is “responding to the fallacious arguments of John Wesley”. However, as we will discuss, the passage does teach a “limited” view of atonement. Our main purpose, which I also think was one of Jesus’ purposes, will be to determine whom is limiting the atonement.

Friend –
ok, I appreciate that you are establishing parameters for the basis of this study but you may move on. I am not a baby in Christianity, or it’s history, theology, doctrines, etc. and all of the perspective provided above is glaringly obvious. I know a true Calvinist, just as a true Arminian, is trying to see the truth in the scripture, not twist it., I also know that the Calvinist perspective is that this passage does not teach universal atonement, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I also know that Jesus was not responding to John Wesley, give me a break. ;-p

please, continue, but unless you truly desire to define everything you are going to speak on, there is no need, I do not desire a message on Calvinism, I already have studied the perspective and know the history of it as much as Arminianism, I desire a conversation on these verses.

Me –
I’m not trying to lecture you. Though you may not feel that stating our premises before discussing our conclusions is important, it helps me to sort out my thoughts as well as to let you know where I’m coming from. I want to be faithful to Scripture. This takes time. Therefore, I implore you to be patient with me.

There were two fragments of Scripture that you mentioned earlier. I’m assuming that you want to deal squarely with them and not do an exhaustive on all six verses. So, let’s get into them…

“For God so loved the world…”

This poses a major question. Does God love all human beings that have ever existed, currently exist and will ever exist? The short answer; No. There are many texts that answer this question directly (Psalm 5:5; 11:5; Jeremiah 12:8; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13). There are people whom God hates. The Bible does not say anywhere that God hates sin, but loves (universally) sinners.

So, why would Jesus say this; “God so loved the world”? There are many hypothetical answers. The best answer, however, is… We don’t know. I am more inclined to believe that He said it to clear up any misunderstanding in the previous dialogue. What do I mean by that?

Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee. The Pharisees were real good at studying Scripture and leaning heavily on the parts that made them look better in the eyes of their contemporaries, but not so much with the passages that didn’t. Therefore, when Jesus said that He would be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the natural inclination of Nicodemus would have been to think in terms of the implications that this would have on national Israel while disgarding the implications that it would have on the nations as a whole.

A really interesting bit of trivia that I have come across in my personal Bible study time is the fact that the term “Gentiles” is often substituted for the term “nations” when New Testament authors are quoting passages from the Septuagint. So every promise that God gives regarding blessing the nations through Abraham’s Seed and bringing salvation to the nations would have been rendered, in the Septuagint, as blessings and salvation for the Gentiles. This is scandalous for the first century Pharisee.

This use of the term “world” is perhaps a way of dealing with this highly probable bias on Nicodemus’ part. I’m not dogmatic about this interpretation. Therefore, I’ll lean on my earlier answer to the question of why Jesus picks the term “world”; “We don’t know”. What we do know is that, based on systematic evidence from the rest of Scripture, God does not love every human being without exception.

“But that the world might be saved through Him.”

The term “might” here does add some friction for the Calvinist’s argument. At first glimpse it could leave the door open to the possibility of a universal intent for the atonement, but a limited extent for the atonement. The problem, however, with the systematic doctrine of universal intent / limited extent is that it pits the Persons of the Trinity squarely against One Another.

The logic goes like this:
God intended for all to be saved.
The Holy Spirit calls all to be saved.
Jesus only saves some.

In stark contrast to this, Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” (John 6:37)

Notice that Jesus says that those that the Father gives “will” come to Him. There is unity within the Trinity throughout the entire process of salvation.

So, why is this term “might” here? Short answer… I don’t know. John doesn’t give any commentary on it. What we do know is that those who are saved, Jesus follows, “[practice] the truth [come] to the Light, so that [their] deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Notice that the deeds of the believer are being credited to God. This is where you and I have some agreement. We both hold to a certain degree of belief in perseverance of the saints.

Where we disagree is just where this perseverence starts. I would say that all of a persons deeds, even the deeds which lead to justification (repentance and faith) are to be encompassed in this verse. What does this have to do with the term “might” being used by Jesus? The “might” makes the salvation conditional. Based on the context the condition, I believe, is that the person is given grace to repent and believe.

Friend –
I agree with everything you said.

I think this is why I have come to the conclusion that they both must be true (and why it is also ok if we disagree on this) While there may be extensive evidence leaning towards Calvinism over Arminianism, the mights and I don’t knows that in turn can be explained in Arminianism (in which their mights and I don’t knows are then in the areas where Calvinism is firm) is a clue to me that Calvinism is still not the whole of the truth. He did say ‘world’ for a reason and ‘might’ for a reason and it is only our limited understanding of the character of God, not the fallibility of scripture, that makes us ponder as to why. We can guess at this and that forever but the truth is scripture doesn’t give us the answer.

I see a comprehensive understanding of both arguments necessary in developing a Christian doctrinal worldview, but not a decision that only one is true.

In the end, as I said before, after my research I lean more towards Calvinism than Arminianism, but cannot conclude that Arminianism is wrong.

ie I know that the trinity is not in disagreement, but he did say ‘world,’ and ‘might…’ so, 1500 years of human research over Godly words continue to spring up a mystery.

Psalm 131

after 1500 years of debate I do not see this a a cop-out from this 27 year old, but a admittance of intellectual frailty and a submittance to intellectual superiority. Will I continue my study on these, of course, as my relationship with God grows my understanding of Him will grow as well and in turn a desire to understand more, the cycle will never end and I hope it stays that way.

ps, I meant no offense in my previous message, I hope none was taken.

“Methods” for Reaching the “Un-Churched”

          From where did the term “un-churched” suddenly come? Is this simply yet another example of seeker sensitive trendiness (like “Christ follower”)? All I know is that it’s a fairly new term (probably within the last few months), and it is really getting on my nerves.
          Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade? When someone voluntarily leaves a congregation with no obvious intent of finding a new congregation, there is no biblical basis for relegating them some new, unbiblical demographic. They are either straying from their Shepherd and will be returned unto Him broken and repentant, or they went out from us to show that they were not of us.
          This is not the problem, however. The problem is that the churches that engage in this type of terminology seem to be following it up with a disturbing initiative. It goes like this:

• These people’s problem is that they are “un-churched”. Thus…

• They need a savior from their problem.

• The natural savior from the problem of being “un-churched”: Get churched.

          Anyone see the problem? If not, perhaps that’s because there are a few of them. Allow me to share…

• They are not “un-churched” as much as they are in direct rebellion against God and His statutes and thus…

• They are in need of a Savior from their rebellion and it’s consequences;
   a) They are in route to spending an eternity in hell, but more importantly…
   b) They are not glorifying and enjoying the God of the universe.

• Jesus, not the church, is our Savior.

          See, here’s where we get into the problem. For so long, perhaps ever since the alter call began, church-goers have been relying on the pastor to evangelize their friends and family rather than doing the job that every Christian is called to do. But the problem doesn’t end there.
          Because this seems to be the general consensus in modern churches, many preachers have ceased to preach doctrine. Instead, they opt for a more psychological approach to preaching. They see that the majority of their congregants are either non-Christians or professing Christians who don’t act the part. Therefore they assume the role of coach, inspirational speaker and / or health and wellness guru, in the hopes that someone will want to be more like them and thus accept the Christ that they’ve accepted.
          It’s all bogus. Why? Because it denies the power and working of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that it is the foolishness of the gospel that wins souls. Nowhere does it say that the glitz and glamour, the smoke and mirrors, the logic and science or the philosophy and psychology of the gospel that saves.
Likewise, it is not the edginess and relevance, the tactfulness and tolerance or the playfulness and silliness of the gospel that saves. These new terms mean nothing if the true gospel is not being preached and the Holy Spirit is not at work. We need to get back to basics.
          As a church, evangelicals have long agreed that the Holy Spirit must be at work in the heart of the unbeliever in order for them to be converted. So, why doesn’t that play out in our evangelism style? They apostles were stoned, beaten, whipped, burned at the stake, crucified and beheaded because of the offense of the gospel they preached, and some relevant, post-modern hipster is going to tell me that we need to check our methods? I think not.
          Methods are the problem with evangelism. Keep it simple, people. Tell the message. Pray that they Lord move, and don’t just show compassion for those that you are witnessing to, but like the real Christian you claim to be, HAVE compassion for them. Stop relying on your methods, tactics and fancy, unbiblical terminology, and start relying on the Holy Spirit. That’s biblical. Laters.

In Christ,
Billy.

Not Alone

Feeble my stance, when I’m standing alone.
I’ve run back to sin and regarded it home.
I’ve taken my heart and disguised it as stone.
But Christ will not leave me alone.

Fleeing to live out this life on my own.
A sheep oh so desperately prone yet to roam.
On grace I will fling myself, praying through moans.
And Christ will not leave me alone.

Just as to wander, to return I’m prone.
More grace yet to ponder, for grace brought me home.
The notes of His voice strike familiar tones.
My Christ has not left me alone.

Q&A: The Gospel

What do we deserve for our conduct?

Due to the fact that we live our lives as if there were no God, daily consigning ourselves to sinful behavior, from the hour of our conception, we deserve nothing less than an eternity of wrath from a God who is infinitely and eternally holy.

If God is good, how can there be place like hell?

It is precisely because God is good that there MUST be a place like hell. Think about it. Only if God were evil could he overlook all of the evil that goes on in the world. Therefore, He must punish evil.

To what extent should He punish evil?

To the extent of His holiness, God will punish evil, because He is good. Therefore, if God is infinitely and eternally holy, He must will punish evil infinitely and eternally, because He is good.

But what if I’ve only told one lie or stolen something small a long time ago?

A god less holy would probably let you off, but the God of the universe, in order to be truly good, must be infinitely holy. Therefore, He will punish all sin with an eternal, infinite wrath.

How can I be saved?

There must be payment for your sins. 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to this earth and lived the perfect life that you and I could not live. He died on the Roman cross and rose again three days later.

What did His death accomplish?

In dying on the cross, He made payment for the sins of many. Having lived a sinless life, He could take upon Himself the sin of those who had been given Him by His Father. Thus, His death was sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of those who would believe in Him.

What did His resurrection accomplish?

Jesus rose again on the third day, the firstfruits of those who will one day be able to, in like manner, be risen from the dead. We have confidence that we too will rise from the dead with new, glorified bodies, because He did so, Himself. Also, we have assurance that we do not serve a false god, but one Who has all power, even power over the sting of death.

What must I do to be saved?

Jesus said that no one would see the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again (John 3). You must be born again.

What is it to be born again?

Being born again (also known as the doctrine of regeneration) occurs when God gives you a new heart with new desires. When you are born again, you no longer delight in doing evil, but in doing good. Though you may sin, it will not be the overwhelming desire of your heart.

What are some fruits of being born again?

Immediate fruits of being born again are that you will repent (that is, turn from your sins) and place your full trust and allegiance in the God-man Jesus Christ. The first act of obedience, beyond this, is that you will make a public profession of your faith by being baptized.

What is baptism?

The English word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo which when properly translated means immersion or dipping. In the New Testament we see that believers repent and then are baptized. Thus, everyone who repents and puts faith in Christ will gladly partake in this public act of faith.

What are some other fruits of being born again?

According to Galatians, chapter 5, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are fruits of the Spirit; evidences that someone is born again. If you are truly born again, though you may sin, you will more consistently bear the fruits of the Spirit.

God is Sovereign… even when your truck is on fire!

            So, I was sitting in my truck, under a shade tree, during my lunch hour enjoying the nice air conditioning. We had a “Lunch and Learn” Wednesday at my work, which really only means free chicken to me. Well, it just so happened that, in my daily reading, I came across this from Living for God’s Glory by Joel R. Beeke…

            “Here, at last, we draw near to the true marrow of Calvinism. The Calvinist believes that God is the Lord of life and Sovereign of the universe, whose will is the key to history. The Calvinist believes that He is free and independent of any force outside Himself to accomplish His purposes; that He knows the end from the beginning; that He creates, sustains, governs and directs all things…”

            After reading a few pages further, my truck shut off, which I thought peculiar, because I’d just filled the tank the day before. Then, I tried to start it back up again. It ran for a second and then shut right back off. This time the engine would only attempt to turn over when I turned the key. I looked up and there was smoke coming out from under the hood.

            Emerging from the passenger compartment, I pulled on the handle which unlatches the hood. It nearly came out from under the dash. I thought, “That’s strange,” but I proceeded to the front of the truck. Pulling up on the truck and feeling for the release latch, I noticed something much more sinister.

            There were flames coming out the side of the hood, on the passenger side. Well, my EMT training kicked in and I immediately got as far from the vehicle as possible. Calling my boss and 911, I spent the next 10 minutes waiting on a fire engine and watching my truck become engulfed in flames.

            I guess the only funny part would have been what was going on in my head. Pretty soon after seeing the flames under the hood, I kissed any hopes of ever driving my ’92 Nissan again goodbye. What I found myself growing increasingly worried about were my Bible and my copy of Living for God’s Glory both of which were still in the passenger seat of the truck.

            Well, when the fires finally got put out, smoke billowed from the passenger compartment, but everything inside was still intact, to include my Bible and my book. They still wreak of burnt Nissan, though.

            I’m sure that God has a purpose in all of this. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that my theology lines up doctrinally with a God who willfully orchestrates even those things which may at first seem disastrous, but ultimately work out for the best for those who are the called according to His grace. That’s all I got for now. Talk at ya later.

Evermore in Christ,

Billy.

Reformed Baptist vs. Lutheran (Potluck Style)

            My church is having a potluck this Sunday. Now, I haven’t been part of this church long enough to know how good their potlucks are, but if it’s anything like the potlucks I’ve experienced at Southern Baptist churches, in Texas, in the past, we’re in for quite a treat. I do know this, we have a lot of at-home mothers in our church, and if they can cook half as good as my wife has been able to since she started staying home, I’m ready to be blown away.

            Now, I’ve heard a rumor that Lutherans typically do the whole potluck thing way better than Baptists. If anyone can substantiate that, perhaps with a personal experience, that would be great. It would be interesting to see how the spiritual descendants of Calvin and the spiritual descendants of Luther fellowship differently with food.

ALL of Grace

                For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

- Titus 2:11-14 (ESV; emphasis mine)

            Eight things I believe can be drawn, exegetically, from the above passage…

01) Apart from grace, we can have no salvation.

02) Apart from grace, we cannot be trained to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions.

03) Apart from grace, we cannot lead self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age.

04) Apart from grace, Christ’s appearing is not glorious and does not come with hope for He is not our God and Savior, but our Judge.

05) Apart from grace, we are not redeemed from all lawlessness.

06) Apart from grace, we are not purified for Him.

07) Apart from grace, we are not a people of His own possession.

08) Apart from grace, we are not zealous for good works.

            In summary, it is all of grace. From our election to our regeneration to our adoption to our justification to our sanctification to our glorification, it is all of grace, lest anyone should boast. Let God be glorified! Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Billy.

A Trembling Young Man Stands Up In Southlake

          Well, yet another amazing night of open air preaching. This time we met at the church’s regular spot, Southlake Town Center, in Southlake, TX. I haven’t been able to go for a couple of weeks due to responsibilities that needed to be taken care of both in the Army and in my family.
          Last night, when the wife, the baby and I showed up, there were a few guys trying to set up a mic and speaker system. It didn’t work out too well. They wound up turning it off and going all-natural. I prefer that, anyway. That’s how Jesus did it.
          So, Dennis got up and preached, then a guy from another local church in our area, then my buddy, Kevin, and my other buddy, Josh. When Josh was done, he tried to get Chris (an amazing brother of ours) to get up and go at it, but Chris wasn’t ready. Then he turned to me.
          “Billy. Go!” he said, as only a former marine could. Well, at this point, I’d already done quite a bit of one-on-one, but had not yet mustered up the courage to do any street preaching. It just so happened that I had turned to Job 40, and so I decided that I’d just read from there…

Then the LORD said to Job,
“Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves God answer it.”
Then Job answered the LORD and said,
“Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
“Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;
Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”
Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
“Now gird up your loins like a man;
I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
“Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
“Or do you have an arm like God,
And can you thunder with a voice like His?
“Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,
And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.
“Pour out the overflowings of your anger,
And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.
“Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,
And tread down the wicked where they stand.
“Hide them in the dust together;
Bind them in the hidden place.
“Then I will also confess to you,
That your own right hand can save you.
“Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
“Behold now, his strength in his loins
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
“He bends his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
“His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
“He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his maker bring near his sword.”

          At this point, I couldn’t just leave it at the text. The people needed some instruction to go along with it. There needed to be a mandate. So, I launched into the gospel. I pointed out how God had overlooked their iniquities in this time and given them His common grace.
          I pointed out how, though God had the right, in that moment to strike them down and send them to hell for the very thoughts that they were thinking in that moment, He lovingly withheld His judgment and even showered them with blessings of life, of family and even the very breath that was in their lungs. Yet they curse Him.
I pointed them to specific sins in their lives; lustful eyes, blasphemous lips, covetous hearts and thieving hands. I exposed God’s inherent right to judge them for every thought, word and deed that they’d ever committed in His sight. Then, I shared the gospel with them.
          I told them how Jesus came and lived a perfect, sinless life, and died the most atrocious death in the history of the world. I told them that it was atrocious, not because of the physical nature of it, though that too was certainly horrendous. Rather, it was atrocious because of the spiritual aspect of it.
          Jesus was sinless, and the Bible clearly states that death is the wage of sin. Therefore, there was no just cause behind Christ ever having to die. So, why must Christ have died? He died because of our sins. He died because of our lustful eyes, blasphemous lips, covetous hearts and thieving hands.
          At this point, a Southlake police officer approached the box that I stood on. I saw Him out of the corner of my eye and saw the nervous look on my wife’s face, but I finished my thought. When I had finished with one sentence, I heard him say in a low voice, “Amen. Hey, can I speak with you?” I don’t know if the “Amen” was antagonistic, but it certainly seemed to be so.
          He pulled me to the side and told me that he couldn’t stop me from doing what I was doing, but that the people in the restaurant across the square had complained on us. They had complained that we were being too loud. The funny thing is that the restaurant was about 30 to 35 yards from where I was standing and there was a loud water fountain between us.
          The patrons of the restaurant must’ve been getting really convicted, and not liked the feeling. The officer asked me if I’d do him a favor and lower my voice. I conceded and got back up on the box.
Lowering my voice a bit, I summarized all that I’d already said. I reminded them that they deserve God’s wrath, and that Christ died for them so that they might not have to receive that wrath. I told them that every moment that they refused to repent and put their faith in Christ, they were turning their back on the tremendous love that He’d shown them on the cross and the tremendous grace that God grants them every day by allowing them to live.
          I finished with this mandate…

“Repent! Put your faith in Christ, and live!”

          Hopefully at least one did.

Monergism is Leading Me into Temptation

Is it a sin to covet the word of God?