The Doctrine of Salvation

I have been trying to get my personal Statement of Faith done for some time. For now I am going to replace that effort with this post about the Doctrine of Salvation. This article comes out of a larger document that was authored for the ministry I work with earlier this year.

Please see The Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) page above, or click here.

Here is a quotation:

OVERVIEW: Salvation, including Justification, Reconciliation, and Glorification, is accomplished by Grace alone and accessed through Faith alone in Christ alone, completely apart from works. That is to say that Salvation is the Gift of God brought to man by unmerited favor alone, and received by personal faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, whose substitutionary atonement fully reconciles all those who believe in Him to God completely apart from works. Eph 1:7;  Eph 2:8-9;  Jn 1:13;  1Pet 1:18-19;  Rom 3:19-28;  Rom 4:1-8;  Rom 4:16;  Ps 32:1-2,  Rom 5:1-2;  Isa 53;  Isa 55:1-3;  Lev 16; Acts 13:38-39; Gal 2:16

Evidence Cannot Convince the Unwilling

What HAPPENED?

Matt 11:20-24 

20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

Matt 23:37-39

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed isHe who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

So as the reader reading this you may realize, as I just have, how long it has been since my last article. Upon realizing this fact, you may ask "What happened?"; whether for what has kept me away so much this year, or whether what happened to cause me finally write a new one. 

I'll tell you what happened, what caused this article to be written. It was the event of a Militant Twitter Atheist(MTA), who calls himself Shaun, denying the Law of Causality.

Now MTA Shaun is one of those "Atheists" who do everything they can possibly do to avoid having to support any claim. He was one of a group of MTAs who jumped on a friend's Tweet. I asked them all: "If Christianity were true would you become a Christian today?" MTA Shaun answered this way:



We had a short discussion about prophecy. He responded that even true prophecy which preemptively proclaims the history of the World would not be proof of God. His attitude, and how he interacted with me and others exposed the fallacy of his answer to me. Here's an example of something he said to someone else during the same time he was discussing things with me: 

Now this wasn't my first time to the rodeo with a MTA. I was well aware that he was baiting me for an argument and was going to avoid answering any questions or supporting any claims. I was careful not to make specific claims about the existence of God. Instead I focused on the FACT that Shaun knows that God exists as well as I do. Rom 1:18-32 I demonstrated this to Shaun when I told him that he hates God. Shaun replied that he can't hate who he doesn't believe in. I replied that I agreed with that statement, but that his Twitter feed easily demonstrates his hate for the God of the Bible.

Now here's the thing. Shaun is one of those MTA's who claim that the term "Atheist" (Stanford) "Atheist" (Philosophy Pages) "Atheist" (Oxford) means someone who "lacks a belief in a god" (Lackofbelief.com) not someone who denies the existence of God. Folks, this is one of the best indications that you are wasting your time speaking to someone who claims the title Atheist. The sole reason for this definition is to avoid making any claims so that they don't feel the need to defend anything they say.  Now if someone THINKS that is the definition of Atheist (or Atheism) but allows you to correct them so that they understand they are actually an Agnostic then they may well be someone worth having a discussion with. 

Nonetheless he had made a number of claims by mistake, but these three were the ones I pressed him about. 

1. That he (Shaun) would become a Christian if Christianity were true.
2. That God is my imaginary friend (therefore does not exist). 
3. That I/Anyone do not/cannot know that God exists.

He did his best to avoid supporting these claims. He repeatedly stated that he didn't make them or that he was mistaken with his language. He claimed that when he wrote that no one can know that God exists, that he meant that I (Kevin) did not know. I asked him to offer any proof for either statement... he refused to do so.

Eventually however, I did slip up and directly state that God exists. So I, in order to remain honourable, had to provide a defence. So I sent him a link to this video on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

To which Shaun replied with:

Here's the page he linked me to. It is a long winded refutation of something the author of the page CALLS the Cosmological Argument. Here is the argument as detailed on this page.

The argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Now you can compare this argument with the video yourself, but here is the actual argument that I provided the MTA. 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

1. The universe began to exist

• Therefore: the universe had a Cause.

Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1.
 2^nd Law of Thermal Dynamics tells us that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. Therefore if the universe was eternal it would be out of energy.
 Albert Einstein, Alexandra Friedmann, Georges Lemaitre, Edwin Hubble,  all showed that the universe is expanding from a single point in the finite past.

All alternative models for an eternal universe have all failed under scientific testing.

In 2003 three cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that has on average throughout it’s history been expanding cannot be eternal in the past, and must have an absolute beginning. This includes the theorized Multi-verse.

Science has proven that the universe has had a beginning.

Therefore the universe had a cause.
Because this Cause must be outside of Space-Time this Cause must be:
Spaceless, Timeless, Immaterial, Uncaused and Powerful

Obviously the page the MTA linked to didn't even come close to "refuting" the argument posed by the video I had linked him to. He eventually agreed, at least in passing, that the page did not actually address the argument. He didn't go so far as to agree that it was a Straw-Man, but he did then try to engage the argument albeit dishonestly. After a number of tweets back and forth he finally watched the video. 

His response to the video is to ask me to prove the Law of Causality. Causality, or Cause & Effect, is the basis for science. As Turek and Geisler write in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (David Hume, in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187)

I found Shaun's response amusing and asked him if he was really so desperate not to repent that he would deny the Law of Causality. He responded with these tweets:

and 

This MTA had jumped on a friend of mine to try to start an argument. I took up the bait and replied to him. He claimed to have a worldview that is based on the evidence, and when asked about that all he would say is that he doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence for Him.

In reality this article has little to do with Shaun. He's just another in a long list of "lack of belief" Atheists.

The point of this article is this: just as the Lord Jesus Christ explained that those who had seen His powerful signs (miracles) and not believed would come under strict judgment - and therefore they had been UNWILLING to believe even with this powerful evidence - there are people who are UNWILLING and so will never believe even if you give them very good evidence for God.

In the end we know that EVERYONE already believes that God exists, and we know much about Him just by looking at Creation. Romans 1:18-32 explains the same things that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does.

 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

You shall know them, who?

Have you ever heard someone apply Matt 7:16-19 to determining who is a "true convert" and who is a "false convert"?

16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, norcan a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I have. I have heard these verses used this way many, many times. This concept is taught by Reformed teachers, and in Reformed theological schools. When I do I normally try to use the verses they way the person claims they are to be used. I test myself, and ask them to test themselves, by the concept they say is true.

I have to admit that SOMETIMES I get haughty when I do this. Depending on how frustrating I find the person I'm discussing it with. Sometimes Reformed people get under my skin in a big way, and as much as I find them haughty I myself get haughty as I take them through the verses. I should not but I admit that I do, sometimes.

Let's pretend the concept that the Lord is explaining in Matt 7:16-19 is that we can tell who is saved and who is not by their "fruit." Let's all take the "test" to see if we are "true converts" or "false converts" OK?


Vs 16 says we will know "them" by their fruits, and fruits is explained as being what they produce using the illustration of what different trees produce, or what grows on them naturally. OK Test One: What do we (you and I) produce? What sort of things naturally or normally just pop up in our (yours and mine) life?

My Result: I've got mine in mind. Do you?

Vs 17 makes two strong points. Every good tree bares good fruit and every bad tree bares bad fruit. OK Test Two: Do we bare good fruit? Does good fruit naturally occur in our (mine and your) life? Yes I do, and yes it does. What about you? OK Test Three: Does bad fruit naturally occur in our (mine and your) life? Yes it does in mine.

My Result: I bare both good and bad fruit. So far as Vs 17 is concerned I could be either a true or false convert. What about you?

Vs 18 takes it to the next level. So to speak.. A good tree "cannot" bare bad fruit and a bad tree "cannot" bare good fruit. OK Test Four and Test Five are exactly the same as Test Two and Test Three.

My Result: Cannot calculate a result. According to Vs 18 a good tree cannot bare bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bare good fruit. I bare both, which according to Vs 18 is impossible IF the concept put forth that these verses are a test of who is a true convert or not is true. What about you?

Sometimes the Reformed person (or whoever) will go back to their theology instead of the verse. They will say that it is a concept in general, and not so hard and fast. This is by far the most popular response to my taking the person through the verses as the test they say they tell me the verses are. Yet the verses ARE hard and fast. There is no wiggle room in them. No "generalities" no "direction not perfection" no not at all the Lord makes an absolute statement about both.

When I point out that the Lord doesn't speak of generalities but of absolutes they will sometimes bring up the idea that a present tense word means an ongoing action. So their logic goes like this: A true convert will continue to bare good fruit, but not continue to bare bad fruit, a false convert will continue to bare bad fruit but will not continue to bare good fruit.

This will then lead me to ask how a false convert can produce good fruit at all, if he will "not continue in baring good fruit." The Lord said that unless we "abide in Him" we can do nothing, and I'm sure that there is no false convert "abiding in Christ." Jn 15:5 Now sometimes the Reformed person is clever and prepared to answer this. He or she will say that if one never produces good fruit that they will certainly not continue in producing good fruit. However, this is abusing the language of the Lord and does not translate to the same prohibition on good trees producing bad fruit. It is using different interpretation where it is convenient for one's theology to do so. That is using your theology to interpret the Bible, not the Bible to determine your theology.

It is plain that the passage doesn't "work" as a test of true converts vs false converts. This leads us to the question that SHOULD be asked long, long before we ever get into such a big discussion.

Them who? 

Vs 16 says "You shall know them by their fruits..." Wouldn't it be wise to know who the "them" is? Who the Lord says He is talking about instead of who our theology says it is about? OF COURSE IT WOULD BE WISE TO DO SO. So let's back all the way up to Vs 15.

Mat 7:15

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

Well there you go. The Lord isn't talking about true of false converts at all. He says He is warning us about false prophets, and how to tell who they are.

No need for me to get haughty. No reason for debate. No reason for misunderstanding. The Lord is crystal clear.

So what is His point? Mat 7:24-29

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the true prophet and His words are dependable. In fact they are life! Jn 6:63

One Aspect of Christianity With Absolutely No Freedom

Here I am sharing the Gospel with a large intimidating man
on a street in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
sometime in Nov or Dec of 2012

Without a doubt there is absolute freedom for the Believer in Christ. There is no list of rules to follow found in Scripture in order to be "Christian." Paul tells us, in 1Cor 14:32 that prophecy is subject to the Prophets, and I take this to mean that prophets (be them preachers or those who have a "word from God") are not expected to be perfectly accurate all the time. Paul also tells us that all things are permissible even though not all things are helpful. 1Cor 6:12 1Cor 10:23 Here he speaks of eating & drinking and doing things. It is a correction of legalism that some would burden Believers with.

There is however one thing that is not lawful, or permissible. There is one thing that all Christians are commanded to do and which must be done exactly correctly without exception. What is it? The preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have seen Gal 1:6-9 quoted by many people for various reasons. I do my best to obey the Text and consider any who bring any other gospel than that which Paul and the Apostles received directly from Christ Himself 1Cor 15:1-11 as accursed. BUT, there is more to do with this passage than simply apply it to other people. We ought to be warned ourselves.

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Long ago I knew my life would be about the Gospel. I desired to be used of God to announce, defend, and instruct the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As I have matured past finger pointing I have begun to realize that every time I preach the Gospel I do not have any freedom as to the content of the message. What about you?

Doctrines of Evangelism update

As it turns out the document was not yet "content complete" when I last updated you on it. We forgot to include some small things, but also something very important! We forgot to include a statement on the Inspiration of Scripture.

We are currently at version 0.95 and I expect to sign the document at version 1.0. Because some of the leadership of City Evangelism Ministries are travelling this will not happen for about two weeks. This document now has my full confidence, as I believe it accurately, clearly, and completely describes the essential doctrines related to Evangelism.

Here is the index of the 17 page document as it is today.

1.   The Purpose of this Document 

2.   The General Principle of Our Work 

3.   Restrictions on the Content of Our Message and Preaching 

4.   The Godhead 

5.   The Person of Christ
     A.    The Identity of Christ
     B.    The Impeccability of Christ
     C.    The Work of Christ 

6.   The Gospel
     A.    The Gospel Identified
     B.    The Gospel Detailed
     C.    The Gospel Prophesied 

7.   The State and Position of Natural Man 

8.   Salvation
     A.    An Overview
     B.    Repentance

     C.   The Believer’s Faith

     D.   Faith and Repentance Manifested

     E.   The New Birth 

9.   Creation in Six 24-Hour Days 

10. Judgment and Eternal Wrath for the Unbeliever after Death 

11. Immediate and Permanent Reconciliation at Belief 

12. Lawful Usage of Mosaic Law
     A.   Using the 10 Commandments
     B.   The Believer’s Rule of Life 

13.  Through the Foolishness of Preaching 

14.  Inspiration, Authority, Dependability, and Inerrancy of Holy Scripture 

15.  Exhortation to Believers to Preach the Gospel 

16. Approval and Changes to this Document 

Pre-Faith or Post-Faith Regeneration

When does the light get turned on?

I've had a bit of a break over the last week because the ministry Doctrinal Statement is being reviewed by other leaders and I am not leading the ministry Bible study this week. It's almost like a vacation! So with some free CPU cycles and a few moments of time what is the first thing I want to post about? Calvinism. Can you believe it? I'm surprised, but my tone ought to be much more relaxed as I'm dealing with a much less contentious issue than I was dealing with last year.

Recently I was at a men's Bible study with a man who preaches the Gospel with great fidelity but whom believes that Regeneration precedes faith and that faith is a gift. This doctrine often leads to serious error which changes the Gospel, but I can honestly say that I don't believe it does with this Brother. He wouldn't claim the name Calvinist but he does admit that he is Calvinistic in his thinking.

I've been enjoying speaking with this man because though he titles his views with terms that Calvinists use, his actual positions are not at all like Reformed Theology. We spoke about this for a while and practically we agree - no one comes to God unless the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces them. I think he terms this work as the New Birth, which I think is in error BUT he doesn't appear to hold to the inability to believe view. We spoke about Eph 2:8-9 and shared with him my findings based on extensive study and what William Wallace says in his Greek Grammar. He had absolutely no issue with this view, which I found absolutely fascinating.

As we were running out of time he explained that his view that faith is a gift and that regeneration precedes faith based on a passage that I would use to show that regeneration is conditioned on faith and so cannot precede it.

John 1:10-13

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

We did not have time to discuss it fully but he said that Vs 13 is the primary reason he believes these things.

It seems to me that when we speak to Calvinists about when Regeneration happens and we talk about this verse that the Calvinist (or one who sounds like one) often changes the discussion from a timeline to a discussion of who's will is involved. Then we get wound up and end up in a debate about something that wasn't even the point of the conversation.

Clearly Vs 12 gives us the timeline. To those who received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God. They received Him BEFORE they were born again as Children of God. There can be no further debate, the Holy Inspired Word of God tells us that unregenerate people receive Christ.

But what about the issue of the will? The Calvinist will argue that if an Un-Regenerate Person can "choose" God then they are exercising their will and God is subject to their will. Well, here is a portion of the CEM document which is still a work in progress entitled "The Doctrines of Evangelism" on the subject of the New Birth.

The New Birth: Being “born again” is the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe, the nature and disposition of “children of God” imparting to them spiritual life. (Adapted from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) In order for fallen, depraved, man to have fellowship with Holy God we must be “born again” or “regenerated.” This new birth happens upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is accomplished by God the Holy Spirit and coincides with His in-dwelling of the Believer. The New Birth is not a gradual process nor is it reversible. It is instantaneous and permanent. 

 The New Birth is not accomplished by or in accordance with the will of man but is according to the will of the God, brought about by God by conviction of the Holy Spirit. Man does not choose to be born again, but God gives the right to be born again to those who believe in Christ.  It is at this point that the person becomes a New Creation, where as he or she now possesses not only their own fallen (Old/Adamic) Nature but also the perfect (New/) Nature of Christ. This New Nature desires the things of God and wars with the Old Nature as described in Para 8. D.  It is this new birth, and new nature of Christ (based solely on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) that allows us to fellowship with God, not the performance of works.

Jn 1:10-13; Jn 3:1-21; Jn 3:36; Jn 5:24 Jn 6:40; Rom 3:20-26; 2Cor 5:17-21; 2Cor 6:14,19; Gal 6:12-15; Eph 1:13-14; Col 1:13-14; 1Pet 1:3,13-25; 1Jn 5:1

This wording hasn't been officially approved by the ministry yet, but the overall Soteriology has been. This description demonstrates that there is no conflict between the timeline given by Scripture and the statement that the New Birth is according to the will of God.

Both statements in this short passage can be read in a plain fashion and believed literally without conflict, and without Calvinism.

The Doctrines of Evangelism - Content Complete!

Between my business and work with the new City Evangelism Ministries(CEM) I have been authoring a massive document entitled "The Doctrines of Evangelism." That's why it has been SOOOOOOO slow around here.

Just now I reached a massive milestone! The document is now "Content Complete", which is to say that all the doctrines required for biblically consistent evangelism are explained and demonstrated from the Scriptures. Now the work on making it somewhat readable begins.

This document will explain primary doctrinal foundation of CEM and will be used to keep the the ministry on track for a long as the Lord may tarry. Here's the table of contents of this document which is currently 13 pages long. Once it is completed I am reasonably sure I will be able to share it here in it's entirety.

*Sorry for the wonky formatting. I don't know how to fix it.

The Doctrines of Evangelism

1.    The Purpose of this Document

2.    The General Principle of Our Work

3.    Restrictions on the Content of our Message and Preaching

4.    The Godhead

5.    The Person of Christ

A.    The Identity of Christ

B.    The Impeccability of Christ

C.    The Work of Christ

6.    The Gospel

7.    The State and Position of Natural Man

8.    SALVATION
A.  An overview
B.  Repentance

C. The Believer’s Faith

D. Faith and Repentance Manifested

E. The New Birth

9.    Creation in Six 24-Hour Days

10. Immediate Judgment and Eternal Wrath

11. Immediate and Permanent Reconciliation at Belief

12. Lawful Usage of Mosaic Law

13.  Through the Foolishness of Preaching

14.  Exhortation to Believers to Preach the Gospel

15 Approval and Changes to this Document