Building on the Solid Rock Blog

My very dear, sincere, and faithful friend and partner in the work of preaching the Gospel of the Christ on the streets of our city has started a new blog called Building on the Solid Rock.

Fred and I engage in the work of street evangelism, prayer and theological discussion weekly. We don't agree on everything, but I can tell you that I have observed an exceedingly rare trait in him: a desire to know what is true. While he is a great friend, it is this desire that I find most admirable of him. Please visit his blog and encourage him.

The Potter's Freedom

"A DEFENSE OF THE REFORMATION"

I started reading James White's The Potter's Freedom last night on my Kindle. I'm working on a "First Impressions" article, but here are a few quick thoughts. I've never read anything by Mr. White before. I've never listened to him preach. I've never listened to him debate. I've only known him by reputation.

I've heard he is a fierce debater, and that some people find him to be very rude in his interaction with those who disagree with him on whatever topic. The Potter's Freedom was recommended to me by a very dear friend, who seems to hold Mr. White in high regard.

So far I find the book needlessly combative, insulting and manipulative. I'm not the least bit surprised to find such from a hard 5 Point Calvinist. I've discussed this behaviour at Lou's In Defense of the Gospel blog in an article entitled Calvinism, Religion and Worldliness and I've seen this behaviour demonstrated here ad nauseum. The one exception to this behaviour is the conversation I was blessed to have with a husband & wife couple with respect to the TULIP doctrine of Total Inability.

After doing that article on Total Inability my dear friend Fred suggested that I read White's book. Having previously disregarded the book I decided to read it. In the months since then I've been trying to purchase The Potter's Freedom on Kindle and have been unable to find it. Yesterday, I searched again and found it easily. Perhaps my inability to find it was the Potter showing me the folly of believing I had decided to read a book?

Depending on how exhausting this book is to read I intend on blogging my impressions as I go. For the record I believe that Mr. White's target, Norm Geisler and his work Chosen But Free puts forth a reasonable, plausible, reasonably Biblically defensible position which is very close that which I would hold. I have a higher view of God's sovereignty than what I think Mr. White allows for in his thinking. I guess I will find out as I read. However, based on what I've read so far I don't expect the book to be convincing, I expect it to be infuriating. So far as I've read, the author commits everything he complains about Geisler doing and claims near infallibility of the authors of the Reformed movement. Mr. White is a skilled debater. Being able to facilitate a "win" in a debate is a far cry from holding, and being able to explain and defend a true position.

The First Wrong Jesus

Parsing of Genesis 4:1

Gen 4:1

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”

This passage sits in the Inspired Text early on and seemingly almost as far from the drama of Israel's rejection of Messiah as is nearly possible. So that we may be tempted not to be looking for Him there. Yet at the time when Eve was exclaiming this about her son Cain, God's first promise of Messiah had just been given. It was recent; she had just believed the first lie, helped to create the first religion, tasted the first fear, heard the first condemnation, seen the first death and heard the first promise to man. Gen 3:1-22 While we may read Genesis today with some thoughts of it being disconnected distant history, Eve was living it.

Gen 3:14-15

So the Lord God said to the serpent: 

“Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

The curse that the LORD God Almighty put on Satan included a promise of Messiah coming from the seed of the woman.  I'm not sure if the powerful fear of the moment of Gen 3:14-15 is often, or even ever discussed at pulpits. I've never heard it preached on, and have never heard anyone bring up the topic. Can you imagine, yourself, being witness to God Almighty berating and cursing Satan right in front of you? This crafty serpent who would make himself out to be like God, being berated like a disobedient school child. This one who you had just believed could help you become like God yourself. Can you imagine hearing the unwavering curses coming out of the mouth of God? Terrifying, and as sure as any promise He has ever given since!

As discussed in The Gospel(s) Adam Believed, these two really heard the promise of Gen 3:15.  So when Eve conceived a child, and had a man child whom she called Cain, she made the exclamation of Gen 4:1.

Hebrew is a very interesting, and flexible language as far as I can tell. It is able to convey much more information than English can but it also has some variability when it comes to interpretation. We need to be careful how we translate languages, and how we interpret the resulting text. Eve's statement is generally translated "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord" or "from the Lord" or something like that. However it is seemingly perfectly valid to translate it this way:

"I have acquired a man; the LORD." 

This translation aids in the presentation of this article, but even the more popular translation makes the point. If you look at the parsing of Gen 4:1 in the image above you will find that either translation is apparently valid. She either thought Cain was the Lord, or she thought that he had come from God as He had just promised.

Yet if we continue reading Gen 4:1-15 we find out that Cain was not at all like the Messiah. He was a murder. This demonstrates that he is nothing like Messiah. 1Jn 3:10-12

So what's my point? 

Eve had believed God. She was trusting Him to do what He said He would do. Even still though, instead of looking for the Messiah that God proclaimed, would provide and would identify she choose one of her own. On the surface she had the right motives, even the right quality of faith. She merely had the wrong object. She had the wrong Jesus.

Today as we evangelize the World we must be careful that our preaching, and our Gospel, only allows for ONE Jesus, the true Jesus of the Scriptures. This is why we must always, and only, preach the Gospel that Scripture declares. Not a Gospel that seems to line up with God's abilities, desires, intents and whatnot as we understand them. Because Eve did that. She believed God, and thought she saw Him fulfilling His promise but she was wrong.

The Gospel that the Scriptures declare, 1Cor 15:1-11, leaves room for only ONE Jesus EVER in all History. It is the answer to the only problem that God is dealing with Sinners about. Jn 16:5-11 It leaves room for only one response: assurance. Rom 4:1-25; Gen 15:6

There is one Jesus who saves. Don't preach another. 2Co 11:4 Don't leave room for the people you have influence over to believe in another. 1Cor 1:20-25 If your gospel could possibly lead someone to believe in another Jesus, your gospel is not THE Gospel.

God's Rube Goldberg Machine

Welcome to this first ever guest authored article at OMW!


Please welcome Pete Chadwell of the TRoutMac blog and engage him in conversation on this controversial yet important topic. Thanks!

You don't have to dig very deep into Christianity to bump into this age-old controversy regarding God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. One school of thought will object (to varying degrees) to the idea that man has any free choice at all because, so they say, to imagine that man can make genuine free choices is to throw God's sovereignty under the bus. In order to affirm God's sovereignty, we must deny that humans have free will.

I have a way to "test" this notion. I don't aim to prove here that man has free will, though I have very good reasons to think that he does. But I do intend to demonstrate an irony: That denying human free will for the sake of preserving God's sovereignty can be seen to diminish God's sovereignty.

Before we do that, I think it's necessary to consider carefully what it means to say that man was created "in the image of God." In my research I have encountered various ways of expressing this idea, but the Christian Q & A web site GotQuestions.org (http://www.gotquestions.org) begins to sum it all up with this:

"Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God."

But, the article goes on to explain that this "resemblance" isn't intended to be visual, but rather relates in some way to God's attributes. And an article at Answers In Genesis echoes this general sentiment:

"God endues man with some of his divine attributes, thereby separating and making him different from the beasts."

I don't anticipate the need to defend God's attributes here… most Christians seem pretty committed to the idea that God has attributes such as perfect righteousness, sovereignty, justice, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability and so on. And few Christians would object to the notion that these attributes are unlimited in their capacity and scope. There's an absolute or infinite quality about God's attributes. And I think it's pretty clear to most folks, particularly Christians, that man's attributes, though they might correspond to God's attributes, are far from unlimited.

The conclusion I've reached is this: To be "made in the image of God" means that God chose to give man versions of God's own attributes that are finite or limited in some crucial way.

The article at GotQuestions.org also had this to say, which lends itself nicely to the analogy we're going to explore related to God's sovereignty and man's choice.

"Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image."

I'm particularly interested in the "invents a machine" portion of that sentence… you'll see why shortly.

Next, we have to examine and come to an understanding of the word "sovereignty". I've seen the idea of sovereignty expressed in different ways, but I'm going to argue that they all have a common thread having to do with the ability to make decisions which are not determined or influenced by any outside entity. Certainly, sovereignty relates to authority. A person who is in authority has the right to make decisions which affect those whom he has been given authority over. You can see the word "reign" in "sovereignty," and we can easily relate this to the reign of a king, or even the reigns of a horse. As long as the rider of the horse is holding the reigns, it is he who decides where the horse is going to go. He is, in this context, "sovereign" over the horse.

Here are a couple of characterizations of "sovereignty" that I discovered, each of which relate to making decisions independent of any outside influence:

"Supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community."

"Supreme authority within a territory"

Well, alright… both of these definitions rely on the word "authority." So let's take a second to examine how that word is defined:

"The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."

Can you see how words like "determine," "adjudicate," and phrases like "settle issues or disputes" relate to decision making?

But at this point we face a problem, because although we might understand that God's attributes are infinite and ours are finite, we seem to be unable to grasp things like infinity and eternity. As humans, we are locked inside the finite and while we can assent to the idea of the infinite, our minds cannot get control of such an idea. So how can we understand what unlimited or infinite sovereignty looks like? Well, I would suggest that we can't. But we can understand man's sovereignty… we're all too familiar with its limitations. So it seems to me that we could use that knowledge to help us understand God's sovereignty, because if we know what man's sovereignty is, then we know what God's sovereignty is not. God's sovereignty has to be qualitatively superior to ours. If it turned out that our view of God's sovereignty ended up being qualitatively equivalent to man's, then we'd have reason to think we had it wrong. Does that seem fair?

So, I have an illustration regarding God's sovereignty and man's freedom which, I think, helps us to examine and assess our own view of God's sovereignty.

In the mid-1900's there was a cartoonist named Rube Goldberg. He became famous for cartoons that depicted wildly complicated contraptions that performed very simple tasks. Today, engineering students frequently enter Rube Goldberg machine contests or have assignments to build Rube Goldberg machines as an excellent exercise in creativity and a general engineering challenge.

If you want to waste some time over at YouTube, just type "Rube Goldberg machine" into the search field. You will be treated to hundreds of videos of amazing and clever contraptions, painstakingly designed… some occupying multiple rooms in a house. It boggles the mind to think about how much time and effort went into these things. And being Rube Goldberg machines, the end game for each machine is comically easy and should not have required so much effort. One machine I viewed poured a bowl of cereal. Another crushed a grape. There are easier ways to pour a bowl of cereal or crush a grape. But Rube Goldberg machines are really created for everything but efficiency… their creators know there are easier ways; but Rube Goldberg machines are all about being creative and taking the road less traveled.

The creator of a Rube Goldberg machine, having been made in the image of God, is expressing God's attributes, albeit in a finite way, and one of them is sovereignty. That is, he or she makes decisions--and has the proper authority to make these decisions--about what the final objective will be, how the cascade of events will be initiated, how each segment of the machine will accomplish work towards the final objective, how the laws of physics and chemistry will be exploited to accomplish that final objective, etc. The creator of a Rube Goldberg machine is making decision after decision as the machine takes shape. He or she rules over the machine they are creating.

And yet, their sovereignty is limited. Because for one thing, the creator of a Rube Goldberg machine didn't create the laws of physics and chemistry, nor did they create atoms and molecules that make up all of the component parts of the machine. But when it comes to carefully selecting the various component parts for a given machine, isn't it interesting that nobody ever uses any kind of living creature in their machine? I mean, why not use a cat, for example? I have an idea as to why this isn't done: You see, a cat has a mind of its own--a will, and it's highly unlikely that the cat will cooperate with the creator's plan for the machine. On the other hand, inanimate objects like ramps, levers, balls and dominoes are entirely predictable and can be relied upon (once placed in the proper arrangement) to contribute to the function of the machine.

Could God herd cats?

Suppose that I build a Rube Goldberg machine, with all the usual ramps, levers, dominoes, pulleys, counterweights and so on, but in this machine, I choose to employ a cat. You know, maybe there's a surface for the cat to stand on, and maybe a box with a plate of tuna inside. The plate rests on a spring-loaded gizmo and at a crucial point in the chain of events, a door would slide open giving the cat access to the tuna, he would eat the tuna, the reduced weight would unload the spring, the support would rise up and trip a lever that knocks down a row of dominoes and on it goes…

But wait… that's only what I intend to happen. Suppose at that crucial moment as the machine does its thing, the cat decides it needs to visit the litter box. Or cough up a hairball? See, even though I'm the creator of this machine and even though I have a kind of "sovereignty" over the machine, I cannot accommodate the free and unpredictable actions of a cat in the function of the machine. Because of this, as you survey various Rube Goldberg machines posted at YouTube, you aren't likely to find any that use elements such as a cat, elements with anything like free will. Our sovereignty is limited in that way.

Now, Rube Goldberg machines can take various forms… actually the only thing that distinguishes a Rube Goldberg machine from any other is that efficiency and simplicity are not among the objectives for a Rube Goldberg machine. But any machine operates the same way… there is an end-goal, an objective, and there are component parts which contribute to that final objective. In his 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box," Michael Behe devoted a whole chapter to the discussion of a biochemical machine found in mammals known as the blood clotting cascade… except this isn't a "machine" in the usual sense, but rather a complex chain of chemical reactions at the molecular level. The chapter was titled "Rube Goldberg in the Blood."

Well, suppose we look at God's plan for history as a kind of giant Rube Goldberg machine. It has an objective and it has component parts, but in this case, a large number of the component parts in this machine are PEOPLE. God uses these component parts to accomplish His final objective. And with God as the creator of this machine, we know He created everything in the machine… all of the component parts. And as creator of this giant Rube Goldberg machine, we know He has sovereignty over it. But this is where we can, perhaps, learn something about God's sovereignty compared with man's sovereignty. Again, we know our own sovereignty inside and out. We live within its limitations daily. And we know that if our view of God's sovereignty is correct, He will not be subject to those same kinds of limitations. So, since there are a large number of Christians who firmly believe that God's sovereignty and human free will are mutually exclusive, consider this question carefully:

If we think it's impossible for God to be sovereign over a machine made of component parts which have free will, then isn't the sovereignty we're ascribing to God qualitatively equivalent to our own sovereignty?

My view of God's sovereignty is that it is qualitatively superior to man's, and to use our metaphor here, that means that He could choose to make a giant Rube Goldberg machine, give all of the component parts genuine free will, and still expect His objective to be met. But to say that man can't have free will because it would compromise God's sovereignty is to think of God's sovereignty as being no better than man's.

Again, this illustration is not intended to prove that man has free will. It is only intended to demonstrate that affirming genuine free will in man does not translate to a low view of God's sovereignty and actually can be seen as being consistent with a very high view of God's sovereignty. In other words, there doesn't need to be any tension between God's sovereignty and man's choice if we have a high view of God's sovereignty and especially if we also take into account God's other attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence.

Heresy Hunting Begins at Home

I have to admit sometimes it is hard to test my own theology as strongly as I might test someone else's. This is especially true when it comes to doctrines which one rejects. Isn't it easy to find the time and energy to rip apart someone else's view? You can admit it, I bet you're a lot like me in this way.

You know what though? Heresy springs up where there is no one watching. Who's watching your theology? Who's watching mine?

A few months ago someone called me a "Heresy Hunter!" because I did not agree with the gospel the man was preaching, and also his systematic theology of choice. Shortly after that I got hooked up with a couple of guys who thought it was a good thing to be called a "Heresy Hunter!" well that is until I found out what gospel they hold to.

I'm hoping that for the first time ever at OMW I'll be posting an article by a guest author. While the author and I are in almost complete agreement (I say almost because he or I may not be aware of something) I have been challenging his view on the Sovereignty of God as though I disagree with him. He will be posting an article that has great potential to be helpful. However, while I think the content is accurate and true, I could very well be wrong about that.

Almost everything posted at OMW is open for discussion. This blog is primarily about where I'm at, and what I'm learning. That's no excuse for me to post error however. As I've been considering how the guest author might feel about how I've been challenging him, I've decided that first and foremost: HERESY HUNTING BEGINS AT HOME!

I almost always vigorously test my own theology. I consistently throw out anything that is determined to be false in any way. This upcoming article is exciting to me because it is the first time I've had a guest author, but it is also exciting because we're going to be tackling a HOT topic and I think the author has some very helpful things to say.

Joseph as a OT Picture of Christ

Brian at the Words of this Life blog is discussing Joseph being a picture of Christ in the Old Testament.

Check out "Joseph a Prophetic Portrait of Christ: Part 1", Part 2, and Part 3.

Could God Heard Cats?

There are a few different views of God's Sovereignty among professing Christians. For some professors, anything other than Hard Determinism (every action, reaction & decision is determined by God) is nothing but Open Theism.

I'm working with another Brother on an article in which we will consider if God could build a Rube Goldberg machine with wild cats instead of items which only do one thing. Could God heard cats? We'll try to find out soon!

HERE IS A LINK TO THE ARTICLE - GOD'S RUBE GOLDBERG MACHINE

An Amazing Week Already

Canon 70-200 2.8L

The week started with me being a bit uneasy about how we had not heard back from those preparing our taxes, which in Canada must be submitted by April 30th. That unease was overtaken by joy when we found out that not only was the fee for preparation much lower than we expected, but the return was also much larger than we could have expected.  I've decided to open a business with the money from the return.

I'm currently looking to purchase a used Canon 70-200 2.8L lens. Tonight I answered an online add for one and it turns out that the seller is the son of a good friend (and Brother in the Lord) of mine. I suspect that unless I find something wrong with the lens that I will purchase it tomorrow (err... later today as it is about 1am right now).

During a moment of online research for discussion happening at the weekly Evangelism prayer group I received an email telling me that there 's an honorarium waiting for me from the Jesus to the Nations conference I played in March. Cool beans! Yet, I was more excited to hear from a good friend I had been thinking about earlier in the day. Can't wait to go see him!

Finally, tonight the partner that the Lord has paired me with in the work of spreading the Gospel on the streets of our city and I had an amazing time of testimony sharing. I shared with him things that I'd be fearful to tell most anyone else, and he also shared. Together we praised God for His faithfulness, mercy, grace and sovereignty! If you are a man who isn't getting together with other men to pray then I truly feel you need to change that. God does flat-out amazing things when men humble themselves to pray together.

Ian Juby's Travelling Creation Museum

I had the pleasure of meeting Creationist Ian Juby this week. He is on his second stop with a travelling Creation Science museum. I'm impressed with the man, and his exhibit. Not only is he as likeable in person as he is in his videos, he seems to be authentic and transparent. Here are some photos I took of his current setup at Cole Harbour Place in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  Ian's Blog is HERE. His highly informative, and exceedingly helpful YouTube channel is HERE.

This is the main exhibit, Noah's Ark in the center and
fossils around the outside.

Noah's Ark was made of "gopher wood" which was not a
type of wood, but a type of cross-bracing of the wood.

One human footprint fossilized inside
a dinosaur's fossilized footprint. Obviously
the evidence shows humans and dinos
were alive at the same time.

Another human print inside a dino print.
There are several others of these at the museum.

Indian rock art, do these things look like
dinosaurs to you too?

Dinosaur carving on a temple in Cambodia? Yep.

Amazing Night of Witnessing on Friday

Real witnessing encounter in Ottawa, Ontario.
It was being filmed for a training DVD.

Late last Summer, and again in the Fall I was able to share the Gospel with a man named Buddy (name changed for his privacy). Until Friday I hadn't seen him since. Since then I've found myself praying for him more often than almost anyone else I have witnessed to. When I think about the ministry on the streets of my city Buddy is never far from my mind.

This Friday past we ran into him again. For the first 40 or so minutes we simply had the same old conversation that I've had with him twice before, and others have had several times. He's a really nice guy, but he can be hard to converse with. He tends to think that we can't actually know anything.  For example I asked him if he had ever driven in a car and he didn't want to answer because we may not both agree what a car actually is.

Thankfully, his barriers started to break down. Fred was praying constantly through the conversation, and an old friend who I hadn't seen in several years was also praying and aiding in the conversation. The Spirit gave us favor and Buddy really started to open up. He asked about our testimonies, and what being a Christian is really about - not his words, but that is what he was getting at.

We must have spent over an hour and a half speaking with him. It was about 12:40am by the time we finished. Every second of it was amazing though. At first I was just very glad to see him. Then I was glad to be sharing the Gospel with him again. Then I was excited because he was opening up.

When Buddy left us, he realized he could know things. He also took an apologetics book that I hand out, and a Gospel of John. There is nothing in this world more exciting or satisfying as being used of God to witness to lost souls.  I believe that God is drawing that man to salvation; I'm so thankful that He has allowed me to be used in the process.

What Gospel is That?

This article is the second I've written today. It was written quickly so the grammar is probably very poor in places.

Today I noticed an article authored by Ken Neff and originally published by the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) in 2009 duplicated and republished by another organization.  The article is entitled "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel?"*UPDATE* link fixed as of 8 Aug 2012 (capitalized as authored).  This article is from the March-April 2009 edition of the GES publication "Grace in Focus."  There are a number of things of interest in the article, not the least of which is the description of the early controversy over the new GES doctrine which they call "The Free-Grace Gospel" but which is more commonly called "The Crossless Gospel" or "Promise Only Gospel." I didn't become aware of this controversy myself until 2007. Here is what Neff says about the early days of this doctrine:

There has been debate raging in the Free Grace (FG) community for several years. And it concerns something surprising: the gospel. In 1999 Zane Hodges gave a two-part message at the GES National Conference entitled, “How to Lead a Person to Christ.” Those messages were published in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (JOTGES) in Autumn 2000 and Spring 2001. 

Hodges indicated that the saving message is found in the Fourth Gospel, John (cf. John 20:30-31), with John 3:16 and 6:47 stating that all who merely believe in Jesus have eternal life. According to Hodges, Christ and His promise of eternal life is the only necessary content required to believe at conversion. 

I am not aware of anyone ever previously having preached or believed such a doctrine as presented by Zane Hodges at the GES National Conference in 1999.  One may find Hodges' teaching given at that conference here: How to Lead People to Christ Part 1. I am not alone in being unable to find any reference to any such view in the history of the Church. Dr. Fred Lybrand, while he was still President of The Free Grace Alliance(FGA), authored a letter about the controversy:  Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)" This letter was also authored in 2009, April 14th to be exact. 

In the letter to Dr. Fred Chay, the then incoming and current FGA President,  Lybrand says:

My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace.

And having discussed these sweeping changes, and the reformulation of the Gospel of Grace Lybrand says:

To my knowledge, no one has ever held this view in the history of Christianity.

The new doctrine which Hodges presented at the 1999 GES National Conference has been dismantled and discredited in several venues. Lybrand's letter, linked above, is probably the most graceful and generous refutation to be found. Even still the GES still presents the doctrine as true, and GES followers seemingly still present it as true. The article "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel" is an apologetic for the idea that one can believe the Gospel of the Christ declared by Paul in 1Cor 15:1-11 and yet not be saved.  Does this article actually establish such a fact though? Could such an assertion be true, even if perhaps the article does not establish it? Let's find out!

After a brief overview of Hodges' doctrine, Neff states:

However, not all within FG circles found these arguments convincing. Some in the FGA disagree with Hodges’ claim that the saving message has not changed since John’s Gospel. They point to progressive revelation and say that since Calvary and the empty tomb, Jesus’ substitutionary death and bodily resurrection must be included in the gospel message and must be believed for anyone to receive eternal life. 

This is what Neff intended to argue against in 2009 while he was writing. His first shot is a description of how Hodges answered. That requiring belief in the crosswork of Christ is a "legalist gospel" and that the real issue is how much evidence, if any, a person needs to believe concerning Christ and His works in order to be born again. Then Neff states his position, using some of his and some of Hodges' words.

Arguing from 1 Cor 15:1–8, some have supported a progressive concept of the good news. In his recent Hydra article (Grace in Focus, Sept-Oct 2008), Hodges counters that that particular text indicates eight items are associated with the good news. He writes:  

Beyond question, all of these truths are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

One could easily get distracted from Neff's main point and bring up passages like John 8 where the Lord, speaking of His death and resurrection, and His deity says that unless you believe that He is Who He says He is you will die in your sins. Or John 6 where we read that unless you eat of His flesh, and drink of His Blood you have no life in you, but that if you do that you will have Eternal Life. Or that one must see their sins judged in Him as He is lifted up on the cross like the serpent in the wilderness. John 3. One could look at the passage that the GES, and Neff, hang their doctrinal hat on. John 20:30-31 and see that "these things" have been written that the reader would believe Christ is the Christ, the Son of God, and having believed this ABOUT Him the reader would have Eternal Life. Not "believing in Jesus for eternal life." So, obviously one could refute Hodges' doctrine all over again, but one could do so and yet still miss the point of Neff's article which I believe we will discover is a bold attack on the Gospel of the Christ.

Neff has in fact ever so subtlety developed a straw-man argument. When Paul describes someone having saving faith he goes back to Abram who "was assured" by God's word (about the Messiah) and this was accounted as righteousness. Rom 4:1-8 ; Gen 15:6 Paul doesn't talk about "believing the facts" but being assured by the message. Of course there is a huge difference. What one might discover, is that when Paul discusses how one is justified before God, there is nothing in his argument about "believing in Jesus for eternal life." Instead Paul focuses on the guilty man being accounted as righteous in spite of his terrible sin. Neff cleverly avoids the real issue, and the real solution and instead develops a Straw-Man he thinks he can easily knock down.

Neff then attempts to establish areas of agreement between his fictionalized group of detractors, and the GES. He states:

Both sides say that it is necessary to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. 

Yet both sides do not agree on this. His own position is that one does not "believe IN JESUS CHRIST" but that:

Hodges and GES says that anyone who simply believes in Jesus for eternal life has it, regardless of whether he understands and believes how it is that Jesus is able to fulfill this promise. 

They say one must "believe in Jesus for eternal life" or in other areas "Believe Jesus for Eternal Life." Nothing about Him being Lord (Deity), or Christ. Both of which are required by their favorite proof-texts. Jn 20:30-31, and Acts 16:31

One side, even with its fictional doctrine created by Neff, believes that one must believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and because of that belief God will give the person Eternal Life, and the other side says that one believes "Jesus for eternal life". Not believing in the person, but believing in the perceived promise of eternal life for anyone who believes Him for it. Neff's assertions aside, there is no actual area of agreement here.

With respect to disagreement Neff says the following:

Some in the FGA say that one must not only believe in Jesus for eternal life, but he must also believe in the deity of Christ, in His death on the cross (understood specifically in terms of substitutionary atonement), and in His bodily resurrection on the third day. Absent these beliefs, a person who believes in Jesus and Him alone for eternal life is on his way to hell according to some in FG circles. 

Personally I would not say that one must believe (in) Jesus for eternal life, and also believe the Gospel. I would say that when one Believes the Gospel they are given Eternal Life. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; Gal 3:2 ; Eph 1:13-14 ; Rom 1:16 ; Acts 16:29-34 ; Jn 20:30-31... and so on.

Here is what the FGA has to say in their membership covenant.

The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.

Having misrepresented belief in Christ as portrayed by Paul in the Corinthians having received the Gospel, and misrepresenting the FGA's position, Neff then goes on to make some "observations" about his fabricated detractors' doctrine. He says:

It Seems Arbitrary to Say That Some, But Not All, of the Good News Must Be Believed. 

and

As a result, the necessity of picking and choosing the four or five or six items from some ten or more as absolute essential requirements for salvation causes one to pose and ponder—“Which ones?” 

and

Schliesmann’s essential elements of the Gospel are his required checklist and conditions for initial salvation. For him, nothing less can be the gospel. 

and

Tom Stegall proposes a different set of essentials, in his case, five: 

and

J. B. Hixson also has five essentials, but not the same five. Jonathan Perreault has six essentials. 

and finally

It seems that there is as yet no consensus as to what the essentials are or even how many there are. 

All of this appears to be stated in an attempt to discredit the view that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ in order to be saved by showing that several (albeit high profile) persons disagree one which "facts" are essential to be believed. This of course is bait for distraction again. I will but nibble at the hook a bit anyway.

Paul declares the Gospel which he preached to the Corinthians, that they received and were saved by, which all the Apostles preached and the Corinthians believed. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; 1Cor 15:11 These passages, and the others I've cited above state that believing the Gospel of the Christ results in Eternal Life. It does not matter what disagreements other men have. Let's continue with Neff's argument however.

We come to something on which I find that I largely agree with Neff on. He makes the following "observation":

Evidence That Can Lead to Saving Faith Is Not the Object of Saving Faith. The “content-of-faith” terminology is, in fact, a misnomer. Faith is only a persuasion. Faith is merely a realization of the truthfulness of a proposition that is proven by evidence. Evidence, therefore, is the basis of faith. 

In the case of saving faith, it is more than mere "persuasion" of something being true but actual "assurance" as a result of something being true. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:16-22 Some years ago I wrote a series of posts called "Identity" which were focused on God's emphasis on His Identity throughout the Scriptures. One of the many, many, problems with the GES doctrine is that they don't identify who this "Jesus" is that one is supposedly to "believe for eternal life."

John 20:30-31 says that if one believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God they will have Eternal Life. Rom 1:1-4 Paul talks about his call to preach the Gospel which identifies Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God ² which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ⁴ and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Notice, that just like John 19 & 20 are completely focused on Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and these things are written so that one will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so is Paul's Gospel focused on identifying this same Jesus. It is Christ's having been raised from the dead that identifies Him as the Son of God.

Likewise His crosswork having been accomplished "in accordance with the Scriptures" reveals He is the Christ.

Yet still we have not gotten to the thrust of Neff's argument. All of this so far has been nothing but distraction. He then briefly returns to his argument:

The “legalistic-gospel” proponents argue the evidence that must be believed concerns Jesus, His works, and His promise of eternal life—though they have at least four different lists; while “crossless-gospel” proponents argue it doesn’t really matter what evidence convinces a person, but that anyone who believes in Jesus has eternal life. 

John in his evangelistic letter, which is often called "God's Gospel Tract" and otherwise known (somewhat incorrectly) as "The Gospel of John" states the following in John 20:30-31

³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This is immediately after two chapters dealing with the death burial and resurrection of Christ. There are "many other signs" but these signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) you may have life in His name.

John chose which facts to present. His goal was not to convince you that Jesus guarantees Eternal Life for any who "believe Him for it." John's goal was to present particular evidence that would demonstrate that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you would have Eternal Life.

Under the title of "Is The Gospel of John Really Outdated?" Neff takes another shot at a Straw-Man argument, and knocks the Straw-Man down by stating:

However, when penning his Gospel many years after Christ’s death and resurrection, John doesn’t place an asterisk anywhere to indicate that the saving message had actually changed since Christ’s time on earth. 

Who is saying that the message changed? John clearly demonstrates the same Gospel that Paul declared. In fact Paul tells us that John preached the very same Gospel. 1Cor 15:11

After all of this, I need to be reminded of what Neff is arguing against. So let's quote him from the beginning again.

Beyond question, all of these truths (the eight truths the GES recognizes in 1Cor 15:1-8) are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

On the final page of his article, under the title "From One Man's Perspective" Neff finally gives his actual argument. I have quoted a great deal from this article, but I have also left much of it out. I've done my level best to maintain Neff's context. However, since this passage is his actual argument I wish to quote it here in full.

I grew up the Mormon Church and before I was born again I believed in Jesus. In fact, I believed in His deity, His virgin birth, His miracles as proof of his deity, His sinless life, His death on the cross for my sins, His burial, His bodily resurrection on the third day, His ascension to heaven, His preparation of a place for His own, and His birth in Bethlehem.  

But as Hodges indicated, “one could believe all…of the truths listed above and not yet be born again.” I am proof of that fact.  

However, due to the ministry of a good friend and Campus Crusade in my life, I began to reevaluate the faith-works teaching of the Mormon Church. I remember, like it was yesterday, driving my Rambler back to the University on a Sunday evening. Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone. That evening, I believed in Jesus. I had previously believed many true things about Jesus, but only then did I believe in Jesus, and in Him alone, for eternal life.  

Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” Reformed Theology misuses this saying. However, it communicates the reality of the current debate between the “legalistic-gospel” camp and the “crossless-gospel” camp. At least, that is how I see it. 

Do you notice the subtle usage of his Straw-Man argument, previously developed at the beginning, here?

He says that he believed many of the "facts" Paul includes as part of his Gospel, and some other facts. He states emphatically "But as Hodges indicated, "one could believe all... of the truths listed above and not yet be born again." I am proof of that fact." His straw-man is fully revealed however when he states "Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone." He doesn't stop to acknowledge the Straw-Man however, and I'm convinced there will be some GES followers who have read all this way and may as yet not seen what it is. He seals his argument with "Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” " In his mind he has defeated the detractors he has invented.

However, no one is saying that if one believes the facts of the Gospel that they will be saved. One must receive the Gospel as Abram received the promise from God. You are assured in Him. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:1-22

Neff says that he was not saved while he was a Mormon. Yet he claims to have believed in Jesus. Does not Jesus Himself say "MOST ASSUREDLY he who believes in Me has Eternal Life"? John 6:47 So what is the problem? I'll tell you there were two problems. First he was believing in the wrong Jesus. The Jesus the Mormons have fashioned for themselves. Second, he was not assured because of those "facts" that he claimed to believe. He thought he still had to work. He hadn't had "faith in Jesus alone" so he had not "received" the Gospel. 1Cor 15:1 He believed in faith (in a fake Jesus) plus works. Of course he was not saved. He had not believed the Gospel, even though he claims to have believed several of the facts (not all, he missed the "in accordance with the Scriptures" part for example) that are part of the Gospel.

Because he had a faith (in a made up Jesus) + works religion he thinks this disproves the doctrine that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ as declared by Paul. He makes his argument by subtly changing the doctrine he is arguing against into a false doctrine which he thinks he can knock down without anyone noticing the difference.

Sorry Neff, I noticed. Even if other people haven't, I have. I also know that no matter how many have missed it, I am far from alone in this observation. This article was unconvincing in 2009, when last I read it, and it remains so even to this day. It should have faded into history, yet I hope that by giving this attack on the Gospel exposure it will somehow help others also to see what was really going on with it.

There is a reason why no one ever before the GES in 1999 ever held to this view, and why since 2009 it has all but disappeared from discussion. I suggest that it is unwise to promote this view given that it has been refuted in every way imaginable.

I don't know what this so-called "Free-Grace Gospel" is, I have believed and do preach the Gospel of the Christ. Such is the only Gospel I will preach. I have neither authority, nor freedom to preach any other.

The Gospel(s) Adam Believed

Gen 2:15-17

¹⁵ Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ¹⁶ And theLord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

It was bad news. In that day you shall surely die. It is also significant that this command was given prior to the creation of Eve. It was given to Adam, it was Adam's responsibility. I've previously linked to to an article at Answers in Genesis explaining the death in this passage is starting on the day you disobey in dying you will die. This was the first Adam had ever heard of death and separation from God. We're not told how Adam reacted to this news, but we find in the very next passage that the Lord God said "It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper comparable to him." Gen 2:18

God makes woman and Adam says that she will be called "woman" because she was taken out of man. Gen 2:23 Then we are given a short picture of the man and woman together, and before God.

Gen 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

They were innocent before God, they felt no need to cover anything up from His sight.

In Gen 3:1-5 we see the Serpent tempting the woman (the name Adam had give her) with becoming like God through eating the fruit and becoming aware of Good and Evil.  In Gen 3:6 her desire overtakes her, she succumbs and tempts Adam as well.

Gen 3:7

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Now they saw their unrighteousness, and the very first religion was born. They sought to cover their own nakedness & guilt with leaves of plants. We read of the first lie, the first temptation, the first lust, the first murder, and the first religion ever in History happen in just 7 verses. Sin took opportunity with the first commandment and sprung forth in full bloom.

In Gen 3:8-12 we read of God pursuing Adam, giving Adam the opportunity to confess. Yet Adam takes on the character of the Serpent whom he had surrendered his rightful dominion of the Earth to. He  twists the truth, accuses Eve, and even implicates God Himself in his sin. “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 

On a bit of a side note; I find Gen 3:13 fascinating. While Adam lied and made excuses the woman simply confesses.

And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The Lord God curses the Serpent immediately as we read in Gen 3:14-15

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:“Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dustAll the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel.”

Gen 3:15 is often referred to as the Protoevangel or the prototype of the Gospel. Yet another fascinating thing to me is the first time the Gospel of the Christ is ever mentioned in History it is mentioned as a CURSE of Satan.

In Gen 3:16-19 the Lord God curses the woman, and Adam. Look carefully, the woman is cursed personally. The woman and women after her are included. Adam however is personally cursed, and all that was to have been under his dominion is also cursed. Creation that was to be a blessing to him was cursed to cause him suffering.

¹⁶ To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
¹⁸ Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
¹⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”

In Gen 3:20 we find the first act of faith in God in History.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Adam knew that he would die physically Gen 3:19 and knew that he had already died spiritually Gen 2:17 ; Gen 3:7, and he knew that God had cursed Satan with the knowledge that He would make things right, and destroy Satan through a non permanent injury to the Seed of the woman whereby though Satan had tempted the woman, God would separate that from her. Gen 3:15 

Adam believed God, that God would make it right. Adam had the knowledge of good and evil. He knew what he had done was evil. He knew that his new nature, what we would call our "old" nature today or the Adamic nature, is evil. Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. In so doing he demonstrated that he knew God would be faithful to his promise to make it right. That God would not destroy man.

Adam knew that God would restore the relationship of man to Him, that Satan's new dominion (not sovereign rule like God has, but restricted dominion like God had given Adam Gen 2:15) would be crushed.

It is interesting to me that God did not promise Adam or the woman (who now has the name Eve) Eternal Life. He had promised them death, both physical and spiritual, for disobedience but not once did He promise them restoration to Eternal Life.

Yet Adam believed what God had told them, and was assured of God's faithfulness to do exactly what He said He would do.

How does God respond to this faith in Adam? 

God kills an animal to make a covering for them. It is not explicitly stated here that this was for sin. However, it solves the problem that Adam and Eve had identified when they realized their nakedness. Gen 3:7 It also matches the patterns observed through out the Old Testament. It is also done in the context of the broken commandment of Gen 2:15-17, and the curse of Gen 3:14-19. We see God's response to Adam's faith in Gen 3:20 in His actions of Gen 3:21

Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

They were no longer naked before the Lord, He had covered them. They became witness to a graphic picture of what the cost was going to be to restore their relationship. Gen 3:15.

With Adam reconciled to God, the God-Head (Trinity, Elohim) discussed what to do with man kind now that we were aware of Good and Evil, and could reach out to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever in our fallen current state. God decides to put us out of the garden of Eden and ensure we cannot enter.

What was the Gospel, or good news, that Adam believed? 

Adam first believed a prototype of the Gospel of the Kingdom, that God would crush Satan's kingdom and restore rightful dominion on the Earth through the Seed of the woman. Adam then was shown the price this Seed of the woman would pay, graphically, and that this would be a covering for man so that man need not be afraid of God any more.  Adam, apparently, also believed a prototype of the Gospel of the Christ.

Adam never promised God anything, nor Believed God "for" anything. Adam believed God in one thing, and God then shared with Adam the most important thing: Christ Himself as revealed through the Gospel of the Christ.

Presuppositions of the Desert Island Scenario

Glenn, of the Wisdom and Knowledge blog has posted an article about the presuppositions of the Grace Evangelical Society's "Desert Island Scenario" which is used to explain their view of what a sinner must do to receive Eternal Life. Glenn's article is unique because of two things. First he looks at the presuppositions that one may or may not be aware of which are the foundation of the doctrine. Secondly, and of particular interest to me, is how Glenn puts the burden squarely on the evangelist, not the one receiving the message.

Here is the scenario as detailed by the late Zane Hodges.

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. 

 On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47). 

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

So how would you answer Zane's question, and why would you answer that way? This is a subject I've discussed at great length in the past. I'm greatly concerned at the strange sudden revival of this discussion. Glenn's article is interesting and thought provoking.  I'm struggling with what to offer as a quote. There is one important point made which I consider to be brilliant. I'm not going to quote it though, I want you to benefit from it in context. So here's a different short quote:

That is the Deserted Island Scenario and it seems deceptively simple but it isn’t. That first paragraph, short as it is, is actually packed full of presuppositions which perhaps even the author was not aware of. It is my goal to help the reader find and understand them.

I hope this is just the beginning of a series of articles discussing the presuppositions of the scenario. You can read the article at the Wisdom and Knowledge blog.

A Reminder of Gossip and Murder

This week I experienced the sting of gossip. The situation has reminded me of an article here at OMW posted way back in 2007.

Of Gossip and Murder

Update: This is a much shorter version of this article. I previously posted a longer post explaining more but I actually think that it would have been taken ALL WRONG by some particular people. So I deleted it. Normally I want the reader to go on a journey through a post, to have emotions and reactions to what they read and then find themselves in the situation so they can learn from it like I am learning. However, given the sensitivity of some recent readers of this blog I have decided to delete the post. I think the old article speaks well enough on its own.

The 5 Points of Gospel Preaching

This is me preaching the Gospel
to a group of Muslims, including their Imam,
at Dundas Square in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Here are what I suggest are the 5 points of good Gospel preaching.

Preach THE Gospel of the Christ such that it is:

Totally True;

Totally Clear;

Totally Convicting;

Totally Free; and

Totally Christ.

Have confidence you who do the work of an Evangelist! Such Gospel preaching is totally effective! Any who believe do not do so in vain, for they are totally saved to the uttermost! The worst criminal, the sweetest Grandmother, anyone at all who believes will TRULY be saved! If you preach the Gospel with these 5 points, you must treat the people who believe it likewise.