Verity Proclamation

A Brief Thought

2006-03-21T14:21:00.000-06:00

(This is "off the cuff") - Consider: X is the necessary precondition of Y. In other words, X makes Y intelligible - Without X, Y is not possible. Therefore, if we were to assert Y to be the case, we would first have to assume X to be the case. Now, consider this form of argument in "English": God(X) is the necessary precondition of science, logic, and morality(Y). In other words, God makes science, logic and morality intelligible - Without God, these things are not possible. Therefore, if we were to assert that either science, logic, or morality to be the case, we would first have to assume the existence of God to be the case. Now, back to the formula: If we were to deny X, then we would, by necessity, have to deny Y. And back to English: If we were to deny God, then we would have to necessarily deny science, logic, and morality. Now this does not mean that people who deny God's existence actually deny science, logic, and morality in their experience. It does mean, however, that they "should" or "must" deny them, logically speaking. Therefore, those who deny God's existence and yet affirm science, logic, and morality commit a contradiction. How do we resolve this? Well, men merely profess to deny God's existence, yet in their "heart of hearts" they know Him to exist full well. Therefore, since they know God exists, they appeal to things like science, logic, and morality. Because if they did not know that God does exist, it would be absurd to appeal to science, logic, or morality when none of them would make any sense whatsoever.

This Ugly Disease

2006-03-21T14:13:00.000-06:00

There is a sickness, a wicked, mischievous thickness. Despicable, sinful, vile, pile of evilness. A bubbly, bruised ooze infused with darkness. Hark this, I'm tellin you, you're a part of this. Disobedient, leeking all of its greediness. Leaving a trail of all its ingredients. Denying what it knows to be true. This ugly disease includes everyone, even you.

Brief Comments on the One and the Many

2006-02-08T14:52:00.000-06:00

This will be a brief summary of my thoughts on the "one and the many." What is it? What is the" problem?" What is the necessary foundation of it?

The one and the many has been a problem for non-Christian philosophers through out history. And quiet simply, no one has an answer for it except the Christian. The God of the Bible is the necessary precondition of intelligibility not only for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes, but Jehovah is also the very thing that makes sense of the problem of the one and the many.

What is the one and the many? As creatures in God's world, we all share similar experience. The things we see in this world fall into two areas: What I call "oneness" and "manyness." For example, I wake up in the morning - I am one man with many attributes, in one room containing many things, and each thing contains many aspects to it. I walk outside and see many trees, each tree contains many leaves, each leaf with many aspects, and on and on. Now, this is very basic to all of our experience, but how do we make sense of this? Things in our experience are not all just utterly diverse. If they were, I couldn't speak infront of a class expecting the students to understand me. Communication presupposes class concepts like universals (ex: "barness" and "redness"). For instance, I wouldn't beable to say, "Look, there's a red barn" as well as later on say again, "Look, there's another red barn" if it was the case that all was utterly diverse and there were no similarities in our experience. At the same time, things in our experience are not ultimately one either. There are differences, distinctions. If there weren't, then all of this text would be nonsense to you. You are assuming that each word is not each other and that each word has its own meaning.

Anyways, now which worldview can makes sense out of the one and the many in this world? Well, very simply, it is the Christian worldview. God is the ultimate one and many. The scriptures teach that God is One and yet also teach that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So, God is One, and He is also many. And since God created the world, His creation reflects His nature.

This article is not meant to be extensive, but is a simple summary for some one to begin with on this topic. I intend for this to encourage believers as well as remind unbelievers of the God they do know and yet suppress in their unrighteousness.

A Short Response to an Article Entitled, "What is Selective Salvation?" from www.biblehelp.org

2005-07-22T03:14:00.000-05:00

Once again, the Reformed position has been grossly misrepresented. A straw man has been set up and the Reformed perspective has not been dealt with or addressed. I agree fully with the statement, "Don’t assume that what I’m saying is correct." Nobody should because what has been said in this article is antithetical to Calvinism. It has been stated about God's election, "This selection was purely random and arbitrary." This is not true. God elected a people for Himself before the world was according to the counsel of His will, according to His pleasure and purpose (Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc.). God didn't close His eyes and draw random individuals. He did what pleased Him to do. He sovereingly governs everything for His own purpose and glory (Ephesians 1:11). He doesn't do things at random. The author is so ignorant of the Reformed position, it is amazing. He writes, "The person selected to go to Hell literally has no hope. Although he may desire to go to Heaven and is seeking deliverance, he has no chance of salvation." This is rediculous. This is a complete misrepresentation of Calvinism. If someone truely desires Christ and seeks forgiveness of sins, they are of the elect! Jesus said that all those who come to Him He will never cast out. Those who come to Christ can and will do so. However, only the elect will desire and come. And salvation is not a matter of having a chance! Jesus didn't come to make salvation merely possible! He came to actually seek and to save the lost! And He actually saves perfectly without fail! The author goes on, "If this doctrine is true, then everyone who is supposed to go to Heaven will make it to Heaven." Amen! Exactly! This author should not be writing of Calvinism. He knows not what he attempts to deal with!

The Mission of Jesus Christ: Accomplished or Failed? Section 5: Conclusion

2005-07-21T04:38:00.000-05:00

Jesus Christ laid down His life specifically in behalf of “the many”, “His sheep”, “the church”, “the elect of God”, “His friends”, “His people”. The Father predestined the salvation of His chosen people. Christ died specifically with the intent of saving those chosen ones with out fail. “But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:24-25 NIV). And finally, the Holy Spirit infallibly brings the accomplished work of Christ to completion in the life of the chosen, the elect of God.

The atonement Christ made on Calvary was a true substitution in behalf of His sheep. The atonement was not simply a theoretical possibility being dependent on the will of man for complete victory. If Jesus, however, died in behalf of every single person in the world, then He would have died for those who were already in hell and those who would one day end up in hell stuck there for eternity. And how would this not be ridiculous and useless? Does God do things with out purpose? Surely not!

Those who promote the view that Christ died for everyone making it possible for them to be saved if they would only believe in Him, limit the effect and the result of the atonement of Christ. This view limits the power of His work on the cross. These people must be asked the question, “What would be the purpose of Jesus Christ dieing for those people already suffering in hell or for those whom will one day end up in hell?” The reality that Jesus Christ intercedes for His people is such compelling biblical proof that Jesus died specifically for them alone. Those whom Jesus intercedes before the Father for will be saved with out doubt. “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Hebrews 10:10, 14 NIV). The scope here is limited, for not all persons are being made holy (sanctified). Only God’s people are being made holy. Christ made them perfect through His work for them on the cross. Those for whom He died must be those who will end up saved. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24 NIV). The result of the wounds of Christ is that those whom they were in behalf of are healed. Actually healed! This obviously limits the scope of the intent of Christ of whom He died for. He died for Christians, His people, saving them infallibly. He is the perfect Savior! He came to fulfill the mission of God the Father! And He accomplished His task!

This work will be concluded with a quote from Dr. James White:

“Arguments based upon assumed (but acontextual) meanings of world or all are hardly capable of standing up against the clear teaching of the Scriptures regarding the intention and accomplishment of Christ in His death. Christ, by His blood, redeemed men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (Revelation 5:9); that is, from the whole world, and this is the only consistent way of viewing His work. The biblical testimony is certain: The angel said that He would be called Jesus ‘for He will save His people from their sins’ (Matthew 1:21)…Christ saves His people from their sins perfectly and fully in His death. His death does not bring about a theoretical redemption that requires man’s actions to be effective. His words on the cross need to be accepted: ‘It is finished!’” (White “Debating Calvinism” 178-179).

The Mission of Jesus Christ: Accomplished or Failed? Section 4: The Mission of Christ

2005-07-21T04:26:00.000-05:00

Those who reject the idea that Christ died specifically for the elect of God, and thus believe He died for every person who ever lived (including people who will one day end up in hell), do not believe that God is absolutely sovereign and or the fact that man is completely dead in his sin, utterly incapable of coming to Christ outside the sovereign drawing of the Father. The Bible teaches that man is dead in sin and that God is absolutely sovereign. With these two things in mind, if Christ were to die for all persons making them merely “savable” so as to make man the sovereign determiner of his salvation, then no one would end up saved. Why?

“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes’” (Romans 3:10-18 NIV).

The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is spiritually dead: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Ephesians 2:1-2 NIV). The non-Christian is incapable of doing anything pleasing in the eyes of God:

“Those who live according to the sinful nature have their mind set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (Romans 5-8 NIV).

Surely believing in God is pleasing to Him. Yet, the unsaved man cannot do anything that is pleasing in the eyes of God. Therefore, the non-Christian is incapable of coming to Christ of His own strength and effort: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44 NIV).

Considering the nature of man, if Christ died for every one leaving it up to them to turn and believe, then what would happen? Would any of them turn and believe? No! They are all spiritually dead incapable of doing anything pleasing to God! The Bible teaches that man must be raised to Spiritual life by the sovereign act of God Himself. And since man is dead before this act happens, and God is all-powerful and sovereign, the necessary result of God raising an individual to Spiritual life resulting in their faith and repentance is that they infallibly come alive in faith and repentance.

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together…For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:1, 4-5, 8-10 NKJV).

The grace that God applies to the dead man in spiritual resurrection is irresistible because of the nature of man before this act takes place. It is similar to the case of Lazarus. He was dead. When Jesus commanded him to come forth to life, he came to life. Since when does God need the permission from the sinner to do what He wants? He could not have failed in His attempt to raise him to life. Why? Because Lazarus was dead! He could not resist it! It also must be realized that Jesus did not need any assistance from Lazarus to bring about his resurrection. Lazarus was dead. Jesus is sovereign. It is that simple.

So it is understood that if Jesus came to make salvation possible leaving it up to dead man to save himself by doing “the right thing” which he is incapable of doing, then no one would be saved. If Jesus did not just make salvation a theoretical possibility and actually substituted Himself for people individually bearing their sins upon Himself redeeming them fully by His death (which is what the Bible teaches – a substitutionary atonement), then either He did this for every single person and everyone will end up saved or He died for the elect (Christians) resulting infallibly in their salvation. The Bible teaches He died for the elect, those God Himself elected before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1). Election must take place, for man is dead. Dead men would not and could not elect themselves. Either God saved everyone, saved some, or saved none. The Bible teaches that He saved some. “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Romans 9:16 NKJV). Salvation does not depend on anything in man. It is solely based upon the grace of God alone.

If Jesus actually died as the sacrifice for sins, then it could not have been done for every single person, for then every single person would be saved. If He did in fact die as the substitute for every person everywhere, then it logically follows that either every person will have eternal life or the work of Christ upon the cross is not sufficient in and of itself to save perfectly apart from further effort from the will of man. Jesus Christ came to die in behalf of His elect people, and this fulfilled the purpose of His coming.

“After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11 NIV). Jesus justified the many bearing their iniquities on the cross. It is obvious that the term “many” never means “all”. “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28 NIV). Christ gave His life as a ransom for many. Not for everyone! And He actually bore the sins of His people upon Himself: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV).

It was even prophesied that Jesus would save His people specifically. “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NIV). Well, did He do it? Yes, indeed.

The one who believes that Jesus died in everyone’s place with the possibility of everyone ending up in hell limits the control and result of the atonement. This position implies that the work of Christ does not secure salvation for anyone in particular. Rather, it merely makes the salvation of everyone a possibility, leaving it up to man to save himself. But Jesus “came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10 NIV). Well, did He do it, or did He just try real hard and fail? He saved whom He sought to save! He did not fail!

The death of Christ accomplished its intent. There is perfect unity within the Trinity in the intent of the saving of God’s elect. In eternity past (before the creation of the world) God the Father decreed the salvation of His chosen people:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (Ephesians 1:4-6 NIV).

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13 NIV).

“So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:8-9 NIV).

God the Son came to die specifically in their behalf:

“And live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:2, 25-27 NIV).

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me – just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14-15 NIV).

“But you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one” (John 10:26-30 NIV).

“…Our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:13-14 NIV).

Jesus laid down His life for His friends:

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last” (John 15:13-14, 16 NIV).

And finally God the Spirit comes to perfect them conforming them to the image of Jesus Christ. Each part of the Trinity is in perfect harmony with one another. Jesus did not come into the world simply to make salvation a theoretical possibility. According to Hebrews 9:12 He actually obtained eternal redemption.

When the Son intercedes before the Father, He is presenting His total and faultless sacrifice. Jesus would never die in someone’s place if He did not intend to save that specific individual. He intercedes specifically for all and only for whom He has died for (the book of Hebrews and John 17, etc.). Jesus would not and could not intercede for someone He did not die for. Those for whom He died are those for whom He intercedes for before the Father. His intercession is perfect and cannot fail. Can Christ plead His blood before the Father on one’s behalf and the Father reject it? Absolutely not! Biblically, it is God whom determines whether one is forgiven or not.

Not every person is of the flock of Christ, the good shepherd. This is seen in that most men do not follow Christ. Not only that, but who Jesus is specifically speaking to in John 10 are ones who are not of His sheep. Jesus proclaims that He lays down His life in behalf of His sheep implying that His death is limited to His people and not for those who are not His sheep. Jesus says that His sheep know and follow Him. Not every person does these things. Jesus died for the church, Christians. The infallible result of His death for them is their purification. His intent was to purify all for whom He died for.

The Mission of Jesus Christ: Accomplished or Failed? Section 3: Does God Desire Everyone to be Saved?

2005-07-21T04:13:00.000-05:00

“But does it not say that God desires for all men to be saved?” Two verses used as an attempt to prove the idea that God wants every person without exception to be saved are 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.

“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Timothy 2:1-6) NASB).

The key to this text, again like always, is the context. Verse one says that prayers, etc. are to be made on behalf of “all men”. Now, Paul is not instructing Timothy to pray for every single person who had ever lived, is living, and who will ever live. It is obvious he is not telling him to pray for all men individually. He explains what he means by “all men”. He is referring to kings, and all who are in authority. And what are kings and those in authority? They are classes or kinds of men. In biblical times these kinds of people were the very ones persecuting the church. The context explains what “all men” is referring to – not every person with out exception, rather Paul is speaking of kinds of men. One kind of men, however, he is not calling us to pray for is dead men, as well as men not born yet. This destroys the notion that this context is talking about every single person who has ever lived and will ever live. It is a popular occurrence of Paul’s writings that when he writes “all men” he means all kinds of men in a general sense (Titus 2:11; Acts 22:15; 21:28; Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28).

When Paul says in verse four that God desires all men to be saved it is consistent with the context that this means that God desires all kinds of people to be saved. Assuming God did in fact desire to save every person, then the necessary result would be the salvation of every person. “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him” (Psalm 115:3 NIV). “All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35 NIV). God is the one “who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11 NKJV). God accomplishes what He wants to come about! It is understood that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches that God desires all kinds of men to be saved and not every individual who ever lived and will ever live.

2 Peter 3:9 reads, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (NIV). Again, context is key. First of all, the book of 2 Peter is addressed “to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (1:1). Peter is writing specifically to Christians. Secondly, through out chapter three Peter distinguishes between the Christians (using the term “you”) and the non-Christians (using the terms “they”, “them”, and “their”). So, when Peter says in verse nine “He is patient toward you not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance,” the focus is upon the Christians. God is patient toward the elect, and He does not want any of His elect to perish. He wants all of the elect to come to repentance. Faith and repentance are likened to gifts through out the bible of which are granted to individuals. Those individuals are the ones whom God wants to be saved. God does what He pleases! If He wanted everyone to be saved, then He would make sure everyone would be saved! If Christ desired every person who ever lived to be saved, then why did He say what He said in John 17:9? “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours” (NIV). Jesus prayed for those the Father gave Him to die for. He prayed for His own people.

Now that the popular texts have been addressed and correctly interpreted and explained, the questions asked previously must be answered: What did God the Father intend in sending Jesus into the world? Better yet, what was actually accomplished through the sacrifice Jesus made? It has been shown already that the addressed texts (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) do not teach that Jesus died for everyone or that God wants everyone to be saved. It has been shown that the term “world” does not necessarily mean every single individual without exception and can mean all kinds of people without distinction. Now a positive presentation will be made of what Jesus Christ’s mission was.

The Mission of Jesus Christ: Accomplished or Failed? Section 2: Did Jesus Die for All or 'All'?

2005-07-21T03:59:00.000-05:00

Before a positive presentation is provided and a defense is made of what the Bible clearly teaches about the answers to these questions, the most popular verses brought up attempting to prove that Jesus died for every single person of the human race and desires for them to be saved will be dealt with and clearly explained as to what they mean.

John 3:16 - Probably the most cited verse of today. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16 NIV). Just what does the term “world” mean here? Furthermore, a proper biblical understanding of such word usage and context of the text must be addressed before the fallacious assertion is made that “obviously the term ‘world’ refers to every person of the human race with out exception.”

However, when the terms “all” and “world” are used in certain texts of the Bible, is it possible that these terms are not to be understood as “all with out exception” in certain places? Could the use of these terms be used to explain that Jesus is the Savior of men from every tribe and nation without distinction (Revelation 5:9) rather than for every man without exception from every tribe and nation?

When people who believe in universal atonement are asked the question, “What does the term ‘world’ refer to?” they often respond with an arrogant, “Duh, it means every single person.” Whenever they come to a verse about salvation that contains the word “world” in it, they automatically assume it means every single person without exception. The same thing is true of the term “all” as used in the Bible. It is assumed or presupposed in some cases that when a verse says “all” it means all people individually rather than all kinds of people in a general sense.

The term “world”, (as in John 3:16) translated from the Greek term “kosmos”, does not mean every person without exception in every case. 1 John 2:15 reads, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (NKJV). Are we not to love everyone? Are we not to love our neighbor as ourselves? Of course we are. But quite obviously the term “world” here does not refer to individuals. The term represents the fallen world; the carnal sinful ways of sinful man. Acts 17:24 contains the term “world” but does not even refer to people at all. It refers to the creation as a whole. “Kosmos” is also used to mean this earth (John 13:1; Ephesians 1:4). It is used to mean the world as a system (John 12:31). However, it does refer to every single person in some cases (Romans 3:19). It is also used in reference to the entire human race not including Christians (John 15:18; Romans 3:6). It is used as Gentiles in distinction from the Jews (Romans 11:12). And finally, “kosmos” is used in certain cases to mean specifically only believers (John 1:29; 17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19).

“…How is a searcher of the Scriptures to know which of the above meanings the term ‘world’ has in any given passage? The answer is: This may be ascertained by a careful study of the context, by diligently noting what is predicated of “the world” in each passage, and by prayerfully consulting other parallel passages to the one being studied” (Pink 255).

So, it is seen why coming to John 3:16 and automatically assuming that the term “world” refers to every person individually is fallacious. But for argument sake, let it be assumed that universal terms like “all” and “world” and “everything” mean all, everything and every person without exception in every instance:

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:12 (NKJV), “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful.” Paul uses the phrase “all things”. Is he really saying that everything is lawful? Is adultery lawful? Is murder lawful? Of course not! Luke says in Luke 2:1 (NKJV), “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” Really? Even people who live in California today? Was Luke referring to people in Mexico and Australia? No, he was not! Luke was referring to the entire Roman world. As the NIV puts it, “a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.” When Luke said “all the world” should be registered, he was not referring to every person who ever lived. He wasn’t even referring to the whole earth. He was specifically talking about the Roman “world”. We see here that the phrase “all the world” is used not to mean every single person who will ever live.

We see the term “world” used in John 7:4. It reads, “No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world” (NIV). Were Jesus’ brothers telling Him to show Himself to you and I? How could He if we were not even around back then? John 12:19 (NIV) reads, “So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!” Did every single person go after Jesus? And better yet, even people who had died before this point in time as well as those who hadn’t been born yet? Of course not! The “whole world” is talking about a whole group of people going after Him – obviously not every single person who has ever existed and that will ever exist – not even every single person that was around then!

In Luke 2:10, an angel appears to the shepherds saying, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (NIV). Did this good news really bring great joy to all people? Was it great joy to the Pharisees? Herod? How about Pontius Pilate? No, of course not! In Colossians 1:6 Paul says, “All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing.” Had the gospel reached America? How about Australia? Nope.

In the movie “Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism”, Dr. D. James Kennedy does a wonderful job explaining the use of universal terms. He basically says that universal terms are used all of the time in this age. Wait, all of the time? No. There are times we sleep, eat and do other things. We do not use universal terms every second of the day! But we do use them “all the time.” Universal terms are found everywhere (the newspapers, other books, etc.). Everywhere? No they aren’t! They are not found in every place (under a rock in the jungle, in your pudding, etc.)!

Now back to John 3:16: A young, Jewish rabbi was addressing Jews. It was thought that Jesus was to be the Messiah of the Jews only. So he was explaining that salvation is not only for Jewish people. It is not just for Jews but for Gentiles as well – the “world”. But notice, the giving of the Son by the Father had a specific purpose in mind:

“The common misconception that John 3:16 uses an indefinite phrase, ‘whosoever,’ is presented as evidence against the particularity of God’s work of redemption. However, anyone familiar with the text as it was written knows that the literal rendering of the passage is ‘in order that every one believing in him should not perish but have eternal life.’ The verse teaches that the giving of the Son guarantees the salvation of all the believing ones” (White “The Potter’s Freedom” 194).

This verse does imply that anyone who believes will have eternal life. However, it does not say that just anyone is capable of believing in Christ. In fact, Jesus Himself said that no man is even able to come to Him in faith apart from the sovereign drawing of that individual to the Son by God the Father (John 6:44). And the Father does not draw every single person to Christ, for all that are drawn will be saved! (v.44). If God drew every man who ever lived to Christ, then every man who will ever live will infallibly come to Christ. However, God does not draw every person to Christ, for not every man comes to Christ! Rather, the Father draws those He has “given to the Son” to Christ. Jesus said:

“All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day” (John 6:37-39 NIV).

Universal terms like “world” and “all men” were used to correct the Jewish mind-set. Jesus did not come to die for Jews only but for Gentiles as well. Christ came to die for “all men” without distinction of nationality or race. He died for all people – Jews and Gentiles alike. However, as John 3:16 teaches, Jesus did not come to save every person of the Jews and Gentiles. He came so that those who would believe in Him (those given to Him by the Father) would have eternal life. He had a specific intent of coming to die – to save His people.

Another verse used as evidence that Jesus died for every man who ever lived is 1 John 2:2. It reads, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2 NASB). Does this verse teach that Jesus was the propitiation of every person who has ever lived, is living, and who ever will live? Dr. James White comments on this verse:

“…Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places” (White “The Potter’s Freedom” 274).

Another parallel verse relevant to 1 John 2:2 is Revelation 5:9. John writes, “‘…You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation’” (Revelation 5:9 NASB). Why is this verse appropriate for this topic? It discusses Christ’s death, His blood, His “purchasing” men for God, and it states the scope of the work of redemption. Jesus bought men from every tribe, etc. Not every man from every tribe, etc. Another relevant passage is as follows: “He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one” (John 11:51-52 NIV). This speaks of Christ’s death, and the object of His death. James White comments, “Clearly the point of the passage is that Christ dies with a specific purpose in mind, so that He might gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (White “The Potter’s Freedom” 275). Thus, it is seen that 1 John 2:2 teaches (consistently with the whole of Scripture as will be seen later on) that Jesus propitiated (removed the wrath due upon) the Christians in which the apostle John was writing to and for the rest of the Christians through out the whole world as well. For if Christ was the propitiation of every man, then every man would be saved (having the wrath of God removed from them resulting in their redemption). And this could not be, for the whole context of Scripture does not teach that everyone will end up in heaven. There is a place called hell and there will be individuals spending eternity there.

The Mission of Jesus Christ: Accomplished or Failed? Section 1: Introduction

2005-07-21T03:44:00.000-05:00

“We know from experience how difficult it is to set aside the ‘traditions of men’ and come to a passage which we have heard explained in a certain way scores of times, and study it carefully for ourselves without bias. Nevertheless, this is essential if we would learn the mind of God” (Pink 253).

The fallible emotions and the traditions of many professing Christians today are not developed from the whole of the Bible. They are a product of random biblical passages taken out of context used to fit their preconceived opinions. As a result, the doctrines these people hold to are in direct contradiction with the Bible. When people attempt to deal with or respond to the doctrines the Bible clearly teaches, those in which people have a hard time embracing, they more then often tend to misrepresent these doctrines responding to them with emotions, and straw man argumentation (misrepresentations) rather than consistent biblical exegesis.

When dealing with what Jesus Christ intended to do in coming into the world, most individuals run to passages such as John 3:16, etc. It is not that going to such a verse as this is somehow wrong or that the verse itself is in error. The problem is simply that most people have a great misunderstanding of what John 3:16 actually means.

It is taken as a given to most professing Christians that Jesus Christ died for every single person of the entire human race and wants so badly to save every person of the entire human race. However, two extremely important questions must be addressed biblically: What did God the Father intend in sending Jesus into the world? Better yet, what was actually accomplished through the sacrifice Jesus made? Dr. James White comments:

“Let us focus upon the key issues of the atonement. Is the atonement substitutionary? Did Jesus take the penalty of sin for every person who has ever lived, is living, and ever will live? If so, what was God’s intention in laying the sin of every person on Christ? Was it His purpose to make men savable, or to actually atone for their sins? And if those sins have been borne by Christ and the punishment due them laid upon Him, upon what basis will those same sins be punished in those who reject Him? Did Jesus fail to accomplish His desire in His death? Does Jesus, as the faithful High Priest, intercede for those who will never be saved? And if so, what is the nature of this failed intercession?” (White “Debating Calvinism” 189).

This paper will analyze particular Scripture used by Universal Atonement advocates (those with the idea that Jesus died for every single person of the entire human race atoning their sins upon the tree) showing that their understandings of these texts are in error. As a result, such misunderstandings present an unbiblical belief that Christ fails to accomplish the will of the father. A biblical foundation will be provided for the intent and the proper view of Christ’s intention, his accomplishment, and his fulfillment of the Father’s will.

Presuppositional Argumentation

2005-07-21T01:48:00.000-05:00

Arguing at the presuppositional level has to do with showing how one knows what they profess to know. All individuals have a method in which he or she argues and reasons. How one knows what he or she allegedly knows is what is known in philosophy as epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. Everyone’s perspective or worldview has its foundational level, which seeks to explain what type of method is to be used in how we are to know anything whatsoever.

The Christian presupposes the truth of Christian theism. The non-Christian presupposes just the opposite. There are those who attempt the impossible neutral perspective. However, neutrality between the Christian and the non-Christian is impossible. One either bows before the Lord Jesus Christ, or if not, despises Him and rejects Christianity. When arguing or reasoning in the presuppositional manner, one seeks to prove their worldview indirectly. This method differs from the method of showing a gallon of milk to be in the refrigerator. In this case, all one need to do is go over to the refrigerator door, open it, and there the milk is. However, the presuppositional approach to proof is antithetical to this direct approach. Presuppositional argumentation seeks to prove something from the impossibility of the contrary.

The question of the debate between the believer and the unbeliever must not be, “What are the 'facts' or 'laws of nature' that show my worldview to be true,” but rather must be, “Which worldview makes the so-called 'facts' and 'laws' intelligible?” One must think, “What would have to be true in order for what we take for granted to make sense?” And this question must be answered indirectly, or presuppositionally. What the defender of Christianity must do is place himself in the shoes of the unbeliever’s worldview seeking to display that the unbeliever’s worldview makes nonsense of the so-called “facts” and “laws of nature”. After reducing the unbeliever’s worldview to absurdity, the Christian then should ask the unbeliever to step into the shoes of the Christian worldview and see how only on this basis are the “facts” and “laws” made possible.

The “facts” and “laws” or the things we take for granted like science, logic, and ethics are only possible and make sense if Christian theism is true. Dr. Cornelius Van Til writes a very powerful illustration:

“Suppose we think of a man made of water in an infinitely extended and bottomless ocean of water. Desiring to get out of the water, he makes a ladder of water. He sets this latter upon the water and against the water and then attempts to climb out of the water. So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man’s methodology based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate. On his assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption even the laws of logic which he employs are products of chance” (Van Til "The Defense of the Faith" 102).

This sheds great light upon this analysis. The unbeliever rejects that God has created all things and sovereignly governs everything that takes place, and attempts to propose the existence of the laws of logic, science, and moral standards building them on mere chance. This method crumbles terribly. The unbelieving scientist attempts to do his science in this world; However, only could he do such a thing if God exists and controls all things according to His perfect counsel. This presupposition is the only presupposition that must be held in order to make science possible and make sense. God is the necessary precondition of the uniformity of nature, unity and meaning of all things. Non-Christians profess to reject Christian theism, and yet they must rely on such a system in order to make sense of the uniformity of nature. And this uniformity of nature must be so in order for there to be science and in order for us all to be able to even reason at all from past experience and make predictions about the future! Therefore, unbelievers are secret believers. The non-Christian must secretly rely upon the Christian worldview in order to make his case for argumentation at all. Science, the laws of logic, and ethics all have their necessary precondition, which is Christian theism and only Christian theism.

Like was said before, no one is neutral in his or her method. Worldviews are held by faith and they are held on to tenaciously by all whether believers or unbelievers. The Christian has true saving faith in Jesus Christ, which is the result of the sovereign grace of God, and the non-Christian has "faith" against Jesus Christ, which is the result of his spiritual deadness and state of rebellion against God, which can only be overcome by the pleasure and grace of the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ.

Man Unavoidably Knows God

2005-07-18T19:47:00.000-05:00

Personal-awareness, for man, assumes the awareness or recognition of God as man’s Creator. All men presuppose God’s existence in all of their experience and reasoning on anything and everything. Man, just as Adam did in the Garden of Eden, knows that he is also responsible to God. Romans 1:19-20 (ESV) tells us:

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Dr. Cornelius Van Til, a wonderful defender of the Christian Faith wrote in one of his writings, "The Defense of the Faith":

"When Satan tempted Adam and Eve in paradise he sought to make them believe that man's self-consciousness was ultimate rather than derivative and God-dependent. He argued, as it were, that it was of the nature of self-consciousness to make itself the final reference point of all predication. He argued, as it were, that God has no control over all that might come forth in the process of time. That is to say, he argued, in effect, that as any form of self-consciousness must assume its own ultimacy, so it must also admit its own limitation in the fact that much that happens is under no control at all. Thus Satan argued, as it were, that man's consciousness of time and time's products in history, is, if intelligible at all, intelligible in some measure independently of God" (Van Til 92, 93).

All men know God in their "heart of hearts". All men know, without excuse, that they are creatures of God. Therefore, they know that they are responsible to Him. Although this is the case, the natural man (the unredeemed man, the non-Christian) acts as if this is not the case. However, the Bible describes man as being made in the image of God as well as having the law of God written upon their hearts.

Dr. Van Til goes on to write, "...every man, to be a man at all, must already be in contact with the truth. He is so much in contact with the truth that much of his energy is spent in the vain effort to hide this fact from himself" (Van Til 94-95). Romans 1:21 (ESV) reads, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

All men unavoidably know God and are without an excuse of their rejection of Him.

Response to an article entitled, "Guess what? Men don't mind seeing naked women..."

2005-07-12T17:44:00.000-05:00

This article is from yahoo.com under "odd news".

The article goes on and on about how a certain percentage of men do not mind seeing naked women "sunbathing" as well as even some men not minding seeing other naked men sunbathing. It also mentions certain women not minding seeing naked women sunbathe as well.

In a survey, the article states, "More than 80 percent said nudism was not erotic, but natural." The article then concludes by stating, "The Federation said the survey would bolster their hopes of getting more beaches set aside for nude sunbathing."

So we hear that certain people don't mind seeing others naked. We also hear in other cases that certain people don't mind murdering others. So what? Well, does the fact that someone does something automatically make it right? Of course not! But these people are making it sound like the fact that people like seeing others naked is okay. And why? Well, because "it's natural." "We all have bodies, and so it's okay if we're naked infront of each other!" But the fact that people like to see others naked does not mean that it is right to see others naked! Certain people like to murder other people. Now these same people from the article would not argue that it is okay to murder others. But, according to the way they are arguing, it would be okay to murder others. Why? Because they "like to." Now, I do not think it is right to murder. But, my point is that just because a lot of people say it's okay to do something, does not make it right.

The Federation wants to set aside a beach for nude sunbathing. Well, why doesn't he set aside a beach for people to murder others and another beach for people to molest others? You will say, "But that's wrong!" Why? How is one to determine whether something is right or wrong? The Federation is being arbitrary and inconsistent with their relativistic philosophy.

The remark that "It is natural, therefore it is okay" must be addressed. Now must we do what is "natural"? Well, look at nature. Animals eat each other. They mate in the open and go to the bathroom with out places to do it in private. So if we are to do what is "natural", then why don't we do what the animals do?! Not only that, but it is "natural" for someone who likes to spy on other's dressing and film them to do so. But is this morally acceptable to do so? Not at all!

The Bible describes who man is in the best manner. These sick people who don't adhere to the law of God and want to have their own little island to go and sin are without excuse:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men , who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to disshonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see it fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:18-32 ESV).

Response to the Preface of the Book, “Why I Am Not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell

2005-07-11T16:59:00.000-05:00

Bertrand Russell wrote in the preface of his book, “Why I Am Not a Christian”:

“I think all the great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. With very few exceptions, the religion which a man accepts is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question” (v).

So Russell thinks that the “great religions of the world” are “both untrue and harmful.” However, another may say that they are all true and not harmful at all. So what? Exactly, my point indeed. Alas, we see that Russell has added another mere opinion to the thousands among men through out history. It will not do Russell any good to spout out mere opinion arbitrarily without any warrant if he expects to refute the Christian worldview.

One may notice the assumptions in Russell’s thinking: an idea of objective truth and a concept of a standard of goodness in which to judge what is to be classified as harmful. But just where does Russell get such standards? How is one to determine whether sorts of things are true or harmful? According to his or her worldview, the non-Christian can do no such thing.

Russell goes on to say that the “great religions” could not all be true because of the contradiction between them all. What each one professes to believe all “disagree” with one another. Precisely. So, it is clear that Russell believes in the laws of logic. This is important and will be addressed later (the unbeliever’s worldview cannot make sense of the laws of logic - them being abstract, immaterial, absolute and universal).

And is it true in most cases that “the religion which a man accepts is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question”? Has Russell examined all men’s personal convictions on religion as well as infallibly know why each of them believes what they believe? Surely not. And if it is man’s environment that “obviously” is what leads him to believe what he believes, then we all know why Russell believes this. However, there are many examples of people that do not believe what they were brought up to believe (like myself).

Russell does a wonderful job portraying what it is to be arbitrary. He writes, “…there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations…” (vi). So he thinks that these people hold to ethical valuations that to him are “a little odd.” Big deal. So Russell thinks that certain things are “a little odd.” However, he never begins to give a defense for his convictions and mere opinions. He just loves to throw out his opinions as if they have some kind of relevancy or authority to what is being dealt with. Yet we see no defense, just simply arbitrariness and mere opinion.

Russell writes, “The question of the truth of a religion is one thing, but the question of its usefulness is another. I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue” (vi). I’d like to know what he thinks the standard of truth is and what the standard of usefulness is as well as, most importantly, why he holds to these convictions. A knife would be “useful” to a murderer, but whether or not this instance of “usefulness” is morally right or wrong is another question. And again, how does Russell determine whether something is right or wrong? Again, we are left in the dark.

Finally, Russell concludes his preface with these remarks:

“The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realizing that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than at imprisoning the minds of the young in a rigid armor of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence. The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived” (vii).

It is not just a minor error of Russell to write at the beginning of his preface, “I think all the great religions of the world…both untrue and harmful” and then conclude his preface by telling others to “have open hearts and open minds.” This man is so much against all the religions of the world and yet he calls others to be “open minded.” I thought Russell adhered to the laws of logic; those which include the most basic one that says one must not contradict oneself!