Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 5 conclusion)

by Danny Pelichowski

Objections to Revealed Theology

The popular defense for natural theology is that it is a helpful tool in apologetics to get people who do not accept the Bible to believe in god or adopt certain ethical principles. It is also claimed that they can reach this goal by ridding themselves of biblical revelation and arguing from nature and human reason alone. It has already been established that natural theology is unbiblical because it denies or at least ignores certain doctrines such as the total depravity of man. We have shown that natural theology is an empty pursuit because people are suppressing the truth that can only be unsuppressed for lack of better words through the preaching and reading of the Scriptures. It would be further proof of the futility of natural theology if it could be demonstrated that it is impossible for the professing Christian to conduct a completely natural theology that is not dependent on or influenced by the Bible for its content.

If you observe the arguments for the existence of God given by Christian natural theologians they would look very different from the heathen tribes in Africa who are not influenced by the Judeo Christian worldview. Heathens generally are not using the ontological, cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. They do not think in these categories because they have not been enlightened by the Scriptures in order to observe God in human reason, creation, natural law, or morals. These are all categories that Christians have either retained from the Bible or have adopted from Greek Philosophy and are non existent in cultures outside of the western world that have been influenced by Judeo Christianity and western culture. The terminology used by Thomas Aquinas is sadly influenced to a greater degree by Aristotle than the Bible; however the Bible nonetheless has framed much of his thinking. The following quote from John Frame is very revealing; “…Aquinas is recommending autonomous reasoning, which is self-consciously removed from the authority of God’s Word, enabling us to argue from the same premises as Plato or Aristotle. I don’t believe that Aquinas succeeds in removing biblical assumptions from his argument. Aquinas is, after all, a Christian. But that is exactly what he tries to do. And that is a project that we must repudiate, as those who seek to think as covenant servants of God."[23] Arguing from the same premises as Greek philosophers all the while retaining the Christian name is foolish. It would be better for the church if natural theologians would abandon their Christian name and follow in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle under the authority of human reason and experience. The truth is that the biblical witness is so pervasive and foundational for the Christian that it is impossible to separate the life changing principles and presuppositions of Christianity if a person is truly in the faith. Likewise, it is equally impossible to bring together and mix Greek Philosophy or any other worldview with the Scriptures without completely violating and perverting the Biblical witness. Consider the conclusion that Dr. Morey arrives at after years of researching heathen religions: “The only ones who can truly start from their own reason apart from the Bible are the heathen who never heard the Bible or any of the religions which refer to it. Such a person must be in total isolation from Judaism and Christianity, and any religions that borrowed material from those religions. When we look in history to see what isolated heathens have deduced from nature using their reason, we find nothing but gross idolatry and immorality. Thus natural theology is a complete bust. It has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future.”[24] Aristotle’s natural theology peddled by many modern evangelicals is as John Frame wrote and Robert Morey alludes to “a project that we must repudiate.”

Natural theology is incompatible with Biblical revelation and is not a helpful apologetic method as many evangelicals assume. Natural theology is humanistic and leads to the demise of the authority of Scripture in the believer’s life. If a Christian thinks that he can determine the nature and existence of God as well as the nature of man and morality apart from the Bible then ultimately the Scriptures lose its sole authority in determining doctrine and morals. Not only can the Christian be deceived by natural theology but so can the unbeliever. Millard Erickson wisely observes that if the natural theologians “proofs are inadequate, then in rejecting the proofs, the unbeliever may also reject the Christian message, assuming that they are the best grounds that can be offered for its acceptance. In rejecting one form of advocacy of the Christian message, a form that is not a matter of biblical revelation, the unbeliever may reject the message itself.”[25] There are many adequate rebuttals against the natural proofs for the existence of God given by both unbelievers and believers alike. Therefore the Christian must pick his authority. Should he pursue natural theology that is fallible and ever changing or the infallible and inerrant Word of God? The answer is clear to those who are in the truth. God’s Word as opposed to human reason and experience should be our ultimate authority in apologetics, preaching, doctrine, and living.
______________________________
23. John M. Frame Th Doctrine of God, 225
24. Robert A. Morey "Is Natural Theology Fideistic?" in Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 Num. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2000. 5-6
25. Millard Erickson Christian Theology, 185

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 4)

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology Continued

We now move to the second chapter of Romans to clarify some confusion about the text. Paul states that the gentiles have “…the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them…”[17] Many theologians interpret the work of the law as the Ten Commandments written on the hearts of every person past, present, and future. However, the text says that the work of the law has been written on every person’s heart describing the conscience and its function as opposed to the Ten Commandments. The work of the written law as we see in Romans is to bring the knowledge of sin.[18] The natural man through his conscience is convicted of sin while not having the written law which is special revelation. This does not mean that man has an infallible conscience that always reveals and convicts him when he is sinning and excuses him when he is behaving rightly. The conscience is affected by sin and therefore one man can think it completely reasonable to act in a way that another man would repulse. The point of this passage is to declare that the natural man has a conscience and not that he has the infallible word of God written in stone on his heart. Theologians must take a huge leap in this passage to get to the Ten Commandments. However it seems to be accepted quite easily a priori without any serious explanation. God revealed his law to his people by written communication and God’s law is infallible. We must be careful for if a person is willing to accept that special revelation is written on every lost sinner’s heart independent from the Bible it would be very easy to accept that people can be saved apart from the preaching or reading of the Bible. In other words if a person takes the huge leap to accept that the heathen have special revelation written on their hearts apart from the Bible, it would only take a small jump to get to salvation apart from the Bible. I am aware that there are many theologians holding this interpretation who would reject this connection. However, after examining the text I have found that the interpretation equating the “work of the law written on their hearts” to the Ten Commandments to be an erroneous reading going beyond what Paul intended.

Now that we have defined general revelation and the flawed biblical assumptions of natural theology, consider this statement from the prominent evangelical natural theologian J.P. Moreland in order to demonstrate the futility of natural theology, “the church may preach to unbelievers what Scripture says about some topic, but when believers argue for their views in the public square or defend them against those who do not accept the Scriptures they should use general principles of moral argument and reasoning.”[19] Moreland also states “that believers need not appeal to Scripture in arguing for certain ethical positions, say, in the abortion debate.”[20] First of all, moral argumentation is meaningless apart from a Biblical worldview. What good is reasoning and moral argumentation going to do when discussing certain issues like abortion with a moral relativist? And on what basis if not the Bible can a Christian argue for the life of the unborn? As a Christian, when exposing sin, is it right to appeal to common sense, intuition, the greater good, and the fact that abortion is unthinkable? I would submit it foolish to argue from these premises when we have God’s direct revelation to man written down in the sixty six books of the Bible. The reality is that arguing from these subjective premises does an injustice to our great God because these general ethical arguments function as a substitute to the infallible special revelation by failing to proclaim God’s law. Once again we see the humanistic tendencies of natural theology in the above argument made by Dr. Moreland who begins with man’s reasoning and experience and not God’s revelation. In Moreland’s view ethics and morality is not exclusively founded on the basis of God’s authority and law. On the contrary, his apologetic practice of arguing for morals and ethics apart from special revelation leaves open the false anti-Christian belief that morality is in the eye of the beholder. By beginning with subjective human reasoning and setting aside the Bible the natural theologian plays into the human centered worldview of the unbeliever and has lost the battle already. Obviously not everyone thinks that abortion is unthinkable because of the vast number of people who support it and practice the murder of unwanted babies. The reality is that people are sinful, wicked, depraved, and blinded to the truth. They need to be confronted with the reality that although abortion may be appealing to them it is an abomination to God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures and will judge them for their wickedness. Let the unbelievers mock. Isn’t that what we should expect? At least we are telling them the truth and most importantly honoring God. This is just one example of the ineffectiveness and unbiblical nature of the humanistic use of natural theology and natural apologetics.

It has been established that natural theology is humanistic in its very core because of its attempt to prove the nature and existence of God apart form the Bible. It has also been demonstrated that J.P. Moreland as well as many other natural theologians have committed a categorical fallacy by equating natural theology and natural law with general revelation. General revelation is simply that God has revealed that He exists in his creation and through human conscience but that every human being who is not a believer is suppressing the truth that God has made known in this revelation. It is also important to understand that while general revelation declares that there is a god it does not reveal who He is or how we are to relate to Him. Therefore we cannot know about the existence of the true God from creation and conscience so long as we are unregenerate and suppressing the truth. Once a person is born again and has accepted the truth about God found in Scripture he can then observe and appreciate the fact that “the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the peoples have seen his glory.”[21] In the Journal of Biblical Apologetics Robert Morey states that “having suppressed any knowledge that could have led to a natural theology, man’s depraved reasoning abilities led him into the darkness of vain, philosophic, speculations (Rom 1:21-22).”[22] Due to the presence of sin man cannot know the nature, existence, laws, and salvation of God in Christ Jesus for they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It takes an act of God through the Holy Spirit regenerating a person so that he can believe in the Gospel. Therefore, we conclude that natural theology is incompatible with the Biblical worldview and should be rejected and replaced with revealed theology.
______________________________
17. Romans 2:15b
18. Romans 3:20 "because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."
19. J. P. Moreland Love Your God with all Your Mind. Colorado Springs: Navpress publications, 1997. 55-56.
20. Ibid 55
21. Psalm 97:6
22. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a Form of Deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. 26

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 3)

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology

God has revealed Himself to humanity through the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the only infallible and inerrant guild revealing what God would have his people believe and how He demands that they should live. God’s special revelation found in Scripture is particular and limited because not everyone has access to the Bible. God has also made Himself known universally yet not specifically through His creation of the world and the human conscience. God’s natural or general revelation through creation is known and seen by all of humanity twenty four hours a day seven days a week.[9] There are many different interpretations of general revelation that exceeds what is found in the Bible and therefore must be rejected. Certain theologians claim that general revelation is every truth outside of the Bible that has been observed by psychologists, biologists, sociologists, and even going so far as including different religions and cults such as Islam or Mormonism.[10] The saying “all truth is god’s truth” is common amongst these theologians who define general revelation in this fashion. The problem with the above definition of general revelation is that it is nowhere found in the Bible. We must now turn to Scripture to define what we mean by general revelation.

According to the apostle Paul “…The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[11] Paul reveals in this passage that the noetic effects of the fall have left man so completely distorted that he suppresses the natural revelation of God to man found in creation and conscience. Paul goes on to affirm “that which is known about God is evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are with out excuse.”[12] This revelation that men everywhere are suppressing is only sufficient to bring condemnation upon man as opposed to salvation. Every human being knows that there is a powerful divine creator god because as Millard Erickson points out “general revelation is God’s communication of himself to all persons at all times and in all places.”[13] Although they all know that there is a god in their heart of hearts they are suppressing that knowledge of the divine creator because of sin. Robert Morey sharply points out that “after sin entered the world, St. Paul argues in Romans that whatever knowledge man could have obtained from Creation is made void and null by his depravity.”[14]

The natural theologian must deal with the glaring effects of sin upon mankind. If the natural theologian is an evangelical and believes that man is suppressing the truth in nature because of their ungodliness and still proceeds to attempt to prove God from nature and conscience they are ultimately assuming that their natural apologetics apart from the Bible can reverse the noetic effects of the fall and lead people to salvation. Most evangelicals would firmly deny that man can be saved apart from Scripture but the use of natural theology in apologetics (which is a form of evangelism) leads me to believe that either the natural theologian is being deceptive by not claiming what he truly believes or that he is in fact deceived himself and ignorant of the truth in the Bible. Dr. Robert Morey rightly proclaims that the Biblical truth that must be established to all Christians whether they are pastors, evangelists, apologists or laymen is that “a fallen man in a fallen world can never by reason alone find the one true God in nature.”[15] The question must be asked “how then shall man be saved?” The revealed theologian would proclaim Sola Scriptura and preach from the Bible for it is the only means that God has determined to bring dead sinners who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to life so that they may see the triune God of Scripture and be saved.[16]
__________________________________
9. Robert A. Morey Natural Theology: is it Biblical? Excerpts read by author. Disk 4 track 3.
10. In my undergraduate studies at Biola University I primarily heard these definitions of general revelation from my psychology professors and the philosophy department (though they did not include false religions and cults). The Bible and theology professors generally had a much more limited definition from Scripture.
11. Romans 1:18. All Scripture references are form the New American Standard Bible.
12. Romans 1:19-20.
13. Millard J. Erickson Christian Theology. Second edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007). 178
14. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a form of deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 No. 1.
15. Ibid 26
16. See Romans chapter 10

Romans lecture Part 22

Lecture: by Dr. Robert A. Morey

Notes: by Danny Pelichowski

Romans part 22

Lecture update:

• The apostle Paul is being autobiographical in Romans 7 as he talks about his conversion in vs. 7 and struggle with covetousness.
• Paul finally came to understand that he was a sinner through the law.

Romans 7:14

• A dramatic change of tense is found in this passage changing from a past autobiographical discussion to the present autobiographical tense.
• The law is spiritual because it is from the Holy Spirit and pertains to the inward heart of man as opposed to the merely external visible laws that the Pharisees focused on.
• There is a dramatic break in terms of the grammar of the text moving from the autobiographical discussion of his conversion experience in the past when he came to know Christ to now talking about his present condition in the Christian life.
• Vs. 14: “The law is spiritual but I “am” (not was, not used to be) of the flesh, sold under sin.”
• It is often the case that the Arminian, Keswick, Higher life, deeper life, holiness, and charismatic movement fail to observe the grammar of this text and continue the interpretation that the apostle Paul was speaking of his unconverted and unregenerate state.
• Others say that the apostle Paul was speaking about the past defeated Christian life when Paul was a “carnal” Christian. “I am of the flesh” the King James says “I am carnal” sold under sin. They particularly like vs. 25 to show that at that point Paul entered victorious living and no longer had a struggle with sin.
• Both of these interpretations do not fit the context and grammar of the text. Many of those who believe that the apostle Paul is still discussing the unregenerate Christian life take the view of Pelagius. He was a monk in the early church, condemned as a heretic who taught that there is no such thing as original sin. We are all born in the perfected state like Adam and Eve in the garden and have our own opportunity to sin or obey God.

Is Romans 7:14-25 discussing the unregenerate man?

• Vs. 22 “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man.”
• Does this really sound like the unregenerate person?
• When we were unregenerate did we rejoice in the Law of God when it told us we cannot do the sinful things that we wanted to do?
• Is the world proclaiming “hallelujah for the Ten Commandments, lets put them on the walls of every school in the country?”
• No! The unregenerate does everything to get away from the law of God and does not understand or seek after God because there is no fear of God before their eyes.
• Is it true that the unregenerate person wants to do what is good and then struggles? No, it’s the other way around, they want to do evil and they sometimes find difficulty doing it because their conscience bothers them.
• Therefore, the Pelagian interpretation is not proper, neither is the Keswick or “higher life” interpretation that teaches the “carnal” Christian life. This interpretation is false because it teaches that when you have “arrived” in the Christian life you no longer have a struggle with sin (at this point in the audio Dr. Morey asserts that “in this congregation you have never heard this idea or doctrine taught in the pulpit.” Amen to that! It was also my experience at FCC in Irvine that Dr. Bob never taught this heretical and confusing understanding of the Christian life. This is one of the many reasons that we appreciate Dr. Morey and his teaching ministry. He clears away much of the rubbish and false teaching that we were all fed at one point or another in other churches).

Dr. Morey’s biographical discussion about his early church years

• The first eight years of his Christian life he was in a church that yearly had a Keswick meeting or conference where various speakers would come and preach the “victorious life” and “sinless perfectionism.”
• They taught that it was possible to enter a stage in the Christian life when you no longer struggle with sin and “temptation rolled off your back like water off a ducks back.”
• “Sin had no allurement or attraction any longer.” The Christian was capable of saying no to sin and they could go for days, weeks, months, and years without committing even one sin.
• This view of the victorious sinless Christian life was presented to address the “carnal Christians” who were struggling with sin that they taught Paul was addressing in Romans 7:14-25.
• They brought the “great news” that Jesus Christ can enable you to enter into the victory and then you will be set free from the body of death entering into the experience of Romans 8 which is one of victory instead of defeat.
• Dr. Morey calls the above teaching a pipe dream that doesn’t work! He let go and let God, he practiced the know, reckon, yield, and obey method. And he followed the advice of Christian teachers like Alan Redpath, Steward Briscoe, Stephen Olford, and Major Ian Thomas and none of them led him to the sinless victorious life. While Dr. Morey wanted to live a sinless life he found it impossible and the only things this teaching gave him were health issues and sheer confusion.

The realistic view of sin found in the Bible

• The Bible is utterly realistic portraying people just as they are.
• If the Bible were the product of man’s ingenuity it would not include the sins of the saints. Some Muslims claim the fallibility of the Bible because it portrays sinful prophets while Muhammad was pictured as sinless. According to Islam prophets should be without sin. Dr. Morey flips it on them saying that the Koran is not true because it wasn’t honest because all of sinned and are right now falling short of the glory of God.

Romans 7:14-15

• “for that which I am doing I do not understand”
• In our Christian experience we all have to admit our own pangs of conscience. When we look into the mirror we cannot honestly pretend that we are sinless. We yell at our wives, husbands, kids. We lose our temper at work, we get greedy and covetous, tell white lies, say things we shouldn’t say and do things we shouldn’t do.
• We may be dedicated Christians trying to live for the Lord but in the end we know that we are still carnal because when we look at our lives we find that there is a lot about us that isn’t spiritual.
• In J.C Ryle’s book on holiness has a section where he quotes the great men and women of God. The greater they were the lower the view they had of themselves and they all said “I’m carnal.”
• The deeper you go in the Christian life the deeper you understand your sin. The more you realize your wickedness and wretchedness the more you realize your need of Jesus. The more spiritual you are the more unspiritual you view yourself. The more Godly you become the more ungodliness you will see in your lives.
• The most mature Christian is the one who senses his immaturity the greatest NOT the Christian who runs around claiming that they are sinless and haven’t sinned in 15 years. This type of Christian is shallow and not mature.
• In verse 14 the apostle Paul say’s that he is carnal and sometimes he feels in bondage to sin. This is the experience of the Christian life. For example there are habits or besetting sins that we have not been able to completely be rid of in the Christian life.
• In the Christian life when we sin we do not understand our actions. Not only is the action utterly sinful they are also downright stupid. “For that which I am doing I do not understand.” The apostle Paul admits that sometimes he does things that he does not understand why he did what he did. Paul says “I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.” If we are to be honest we experience the tension of knowing what we aught to do and then not doing it. Dr. Bob gives a honest personal experience of sometimes neglecting his family because of his preoccupation with work when he knows he should be paying attention to their needs but gets occupied with the next book he has to write “mulling over the problem of evil while his son is upset and he doesn’t even know it.”
• It’s amazing that we know what do to and we don’t do it, and we know what not to do and we determine not to do and we still do it!
• This is the conundrum that the apostle Paul was puzzled by.

Romans 7:16

• “If I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the law confessing that the law is good.” The law is good because it points out sin in our lives because we shouldn’t have those kinds of thoughts and we shouldn’t be doing that.

Romans 7:18

• “For I know that nothing good dwells in me.” Can we reach the point in the Christian life where we can smile and proclaim that “a lot of good dwells in me?” Of course not! The moment you think that you can put our head on the pillow not needed forgiveness is either the moment that you have apostatized from the Christ life or you are terrible deluded!

Romans 7:17

• “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
• Paul uses a literary device called personification where he speaks about sin as if there is another person inside of him.
• Paul is talking about sin in a figurative way and is not literally saying that there are two Paul’s. We must not misunderstand what was meant to be metaphorical as literal.
• Paul is using metaphorical language to describe the struggle with sin where half of him wants to do what is right and half of him wants to do what is wrong.
• Verse 18: the wishing or desire is present in me but the doing of the good is not present.
• For Christians there is a desire to do what is right but sometimes when we try to carry it out we find ourselves doing the opposite.
• In the Christian life there are times when we consciously plan on having a godly attitude or handling a situation in a virtuous way and when we enter the situation we end up doing opposite of what we had determined to do.

Romans 7:19

• “For the good that I wish to do I don’t do, but I end up practicing the very evil I don’t want to do.”
• There is a difference between “the I want too’s” and what we end up doing.
• This is a characteristic of a true Christian.
• An unregenerate person does not have the I want too’s.
• Unbelievers don’t say “oh that I could be godly,” “oh that I might be holy,” “oh that I might love the Lord more,” “that I might read your word more, or that I might pray more.”
• It’s the Christian that gets guilty about not praying enough or that he or she is not being kind enough.
• An unregenerate person doesn’t think this way. For example: an unbeliever at work does not worry about the sin of gossip and it doesn’t bother them to be mean or to lie.
• Romans 7 is talking about the child of God who is wrestling with sin and struggling with iniquity because he does not want to sin.
• The child of God does not want to sin but ends up doing what he does not want to do.

Romans 7:20

• “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”
• Paul is communicating that there is a set in him of habits and desire’s within that he cannot seem to control.
• When you are born again God’s puts new desires in your heart: you hunger and thirst after righteousness, you want to love the Lord, you want to live a godly life, you really want to have family devotions and pray with your children every night.
• If you are not a child of God you never think about these things because it doesn’t cross your mind because there is no want too.
• If there is no struggle with sin it’s because you are dead in sin.
• Dead people do not struggle with sin, if you are struggling with sin it’s because you are alive and that you are a child of God and you hate sin.

Romans 7:21

• Evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.
• If you are a child of God you know this problem because you want to do what is right and you know what is right because you have the Law of God.
• The willing is there but you can’t seem to pull it off.

Romans 7:22

• “For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man.”
• Only a regenerate person can say this.
• Unbelievers do not concur with the Law of God in the inner man. They are not secretly and inwardly for it because they are rebellious against God and don’t want the Law of God.
• The child of God not only concurs but joyfully agrees with it.

Romans 7:23

• “But I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.”
• There are two sets of drives: one for good and one for evil and we are struggling and fighting to do what is right but end up doing what is wrong.

Romans 7:24

• “Wretched man that I am, who will set me free from the body of this death?”
• In Roman society one of the punishments for murder was to literally bind the body of your murder victim to you body arm to arm, leg to leg, so it rotted into your flesh and the one you killed would end up killing you in the end.
• This is the illustration that Paul uses asking: who will deliver me from this deadly body of sin that is strapped to my body that is a rotting stinking corpse?

Romans 7:25

• “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

• The Keswick or higher life teachers will stop at this point proclaiming that it is possible to be delivered from the struggle with sin. How do you do it? “Just come down to the alter now and give your all on the alter to Jesus.” Just rest, resting in the joy of what though art.” “Know, reckon, yield, obey!” “There is a ten step plan, or the five step plan.” The trouble is that they don’t keep reading.
• The rest of verse 25 says that “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
• As Christians we know the right way to treat our wives and kids, we know how to live right and in our mind we agree that the law is holy and righteous and true.
• But, on the other hand with my flesh I am serving the law of sin.
• On the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God but on the other I myself with my flesh am serving the law of sin.
• The apostle Paul throws us right back into the struggle at the end of verse 25.

Where is the victory?

• What about the “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord?”
• There will be victory at death!
• When you die the body of sin will be cut off of you.
• What about the spirit? Hebrews 12:23b “the spirits of justified men and women now made perfect.”
• They were justified or declared righteous on earth and made righteous in heaven. They had imputed perfection on earth and now they have constitutional perfection in heaven. The spirit is perfected in the presence of the king when you die and go to heaven.
• What about the body? 1 Thessalonians 5:23 “now may the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete and without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
• We are made complete and without blame at the coming and return of Jesus Christ not at “the alter, the camp meeting, the invitation system, by speaking in tongues, or letting go and letting God.”
• When Christ returns our bodies will be totally sanctified.
• What does this mean? Philippians 3:20 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
• He will transform our humble or humiliated body into a glorious body. We are going to be transformed when Jesus returns so that our fleshly body will no longer be in a state of humiliation but in a state of glorification.
• When is it that we receive this victory?
• We get half of it when we die entering glory where we no longer struggle with sin and it is completed after the resurrection.
• There is no hope that we will be sinless in this life prior to death and we will always have to struggle with sin.
• Does this mean that we should just give into sin and temptation?
• May it never be! We are supposed to struggle with sin. Don’t give into the evil motivations and drives, don’t yell and say things you aught not to say, don’t give into the impulses to immorality and to all the evil that simply floats around in your system.
• Instead we are to have the attitude of the apostle Paul where he was struggling against sin.
• What happens when you try and pray that you would not sin but end up doing what you tried so hard to refrain from?
• You repent of it, pick up the pieces and you say that the law of God is good and “I was the one that was wrong, I sinned, and Lord I want you to help me that the next time I am tempted in this way I wont sin.”
• We should emphasize in our Christian life the many occasions when we were tempted to do evil and we didn’t do it more than emphasizing the times we gave in.
• If we dwell simply on the occasions in which we gave into evil and sinned we will end up in a morbid, sad, and depressed Christian life.
• The wonder of the Christian life is not that we give into sin because anyone can do that. The amazement is when we don’t give into sin.
• We have to emphasize, meditate, and reflect on the times when we were tempted to think certain impure thoughts and we turned to Jesus for help and we didn’t think them. Or when you turned the channel on the T.V. when something tempting came on the program.
• We should thank the Lord when he enables you to refrain from sin because it is of his mercy.
• By doing this we can take an upbeat view of the Christian life instead of a downbeat view, we can be more optimistic than pessimistic and we can be happy Christians. Joy is still found in verse 22 in the midst of the struggle because even though at times we may be down but not out, we may loose the battle but not the war.
• We may sin at this particular point by giving into evil but that doesn’t mean that we will give into that same sin tomorrow. There will be another sin to struggle with tomorrow!
• Thanks be to God that when Jesus returns we will be delivered from our struggle with sin.
• The reality is that this deliverance will not happen until Christ returns and there will be a struggle with sin on this side of heaven.
• If you are truly saved there will be a struggle with sin and if you do not struggle you are not saved. If there is a struggle at least there’s life.
• Galatians 6 tells us that If we sow to the flesh we shall reap corruption, if we sow to the spirit we shall reap eternal life. Sow to the spirit, do those things which encourage your spiritual life.

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement Q & A

by Danny Pelichowski

1. Did Christ die for sin universally? No
2. Did Christ die for sin universally in general? No
3. Did Christ die for sin universally yet specifically? No
4. Did Christ die for the sin of particular sinners? Yes
5. Did Christ die for sin in general for particular sinners? No
6. Did Christ die for specific sins of particular sinners? Yes
7. Is the atonement tied to God’s eternal election i.e. are those whom the Father elected the ones whom the son died? Yes
8. Is election effectual i.e. will those whom God the Father has elected as objects of mercy definitely be saved from their sins? Yes
9. Is the atonement effectual i.e. are all those whom God the Son died for definitely going to be saved from their sins? Yes
10. Are all men sinners and dead in their sins? Yes
11. Is every sinner equally able to produce faith in and of themselves? Of course not
12. Is every sinner capable of producing saving faith? Negative
13. Is the application of salvation conditional upon the faith of sinners? Yes
14. Can a sinner produce faith by his own nature? No
15. Do some sinners repent and have faith? Yes
16. Do all sinners repent and have faith? No
17. Then how can a sinner who is incapable of faith in and of himself produce saving faith that is necessary for salvation? He cannot! The answer is found in the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit bringing dead sinners to life so that they may understand, love, see, and hear the Gospel and repent and believe.
18. Does the Holy Spirit regenerate every person universally? No
19. For whom does the Holy Spirit regenerate? The elect of God
20. Why does he regenerate them? So that they may see their utter sinfulness and believe in the Gospel.
21. What is the Gospel? That Christ died to save sinners i.e. atone for specific sinners and specific sins effectually.

Doxology is the only appropriate response!

Praise God from whom all blessings flow, praise him all creatures here below, praise him above ye heavenly hosts, praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen!

Socinus Resurrected: Answering objections to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (part 2)

by Peter Phillips

Mungo Man said: “Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.”

Peter Phillips response:

Most certainly, the God who is love willfully planned and sent His Son to die and suffer at the hands of sinners, according to his foreordained purposes to redeem a people unto Himself. Let me unpack this biblically:

Paul says, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:31-34)”

Please note that Paul says God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. If God graciously gave up his own Son, how much more will He not freely give us everything we need? The Christian’s freedom from sin and death came at a price—God had to send his Son to be a propitiation for our sins, so that we might enjoy relationship with Him through believing on the crucified Messiah.

In order to hold to your objection, you would have to deny the testimony of Luke’s account of God’s determined purpose in the crucifixion (Peter actually preached the sermon that contains this):

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:22-24).

Please note that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified, according to the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” But, this was not the end of the story; God raised Him from the dead, showing that he accepted Jesus sacrifice on behalf of sinners. The penal substitutionary atonement is a part of the willful plan of God to save sinners—that’s love, my friend. However, just in case we think that is a slip of the pen, we have many other texts that say the same kind of things.

When Peter and John were thrown into prison for preaching the gospel, they did not cease to trust in God’s plan. Notice how they pray upon their release. How do they view the events leading to the cross, and, of course, the crucifixion itself?

Acts 4:23-28 “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

It may come as a shock, but the ones who betrayed, handed over, and crucified Jesus, did “whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place.”

Perhaps you might object that this is not fair to Jesus, but this objection would certainly ignore that He willfully went to the Cross in obedience to His Father’s desires (John 10:17-18). Jesus actually rebukes Peter for trying to correct him when he said he must suffer and die on the cross:

Mark 8:31-33 “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

In fact, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus died in this fashion to bring glory to himself (John 17:1; Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 2:9) and to save his people (Rom. 5:8, 1 Pet. 3:18), as well as to glorify His Father. Jesus high priestly prayer, which takes place right before his crucifixion, conveys this sentiment well:

John 17:1-5 “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

This is a beautiful portrait of the Trinity at work in procuring the salvation of God’s people. The Father plans salvation in this way because it would satisfy his justice and demonstrate his love towards sinners. The Son joyfully and willfully accomplished the work of redemption with his perfect life, substitutionary death, and resurrection. The Son takes our sin upon Himself, dies in our place, and satisfies the demands of God’s just wrath against sinners. Lastly, the Holy Spirit applies the work of salvation to the believer by grace through faith in the Gospel.

Socinus Resurrected: Answering objections to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (part 1)

by Peter Phillips

(This post was originally part of a debate that broke out over at Biblicalthought, regarding one of Danny's posts on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which was part of a larger paper on the nature and extent of the atonement [which you can find here on our Blog]. I hope to represent the discussion for you in full. But first, I will give you a bit of background to the sort of objection Mungo Man presents: he is presenting a less careful, largely incomplete, and diluted version of the 16th century arguments of Faustus Socinus. Who objected to the Penal Substitutionary atonement on moral, logical, and exegetical grounds. However, the Socinians were refuted decisively by none other than John Owen, who was henceforth referred to as the "Hammer of the Socinians." But, just so we don't think that Socinus's thought is a theological aberration that appears only once in history, we've decided to post this little clip of Emerging Church leader Brian Mclaren, who essentially says the same thing as Socinus and Mungo Man). Have a listen: Interview

Mungo Man said:

Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.

If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think? God’s self-image was so damaged by Adam’s sin; his “righteous anger” (does God get red in the face?), so enraged that he had to kill his only Son.

Is Jesus is asking us to be more mature than His Father? Christ told us to love our enemies . . . but God can’t? He hates with “righteous anger”. I have to pray for those who curse me . . . but God get’s to punish them eternally? And you’re calling that divine justice?

So, Salvation is God working out his own personal issues? His inner conflict of trying to figure out how he can love me?

I’m not feelin’ the love.

Peter Phillips response:

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity and occasion to defend the glorious doctrine of penal substitution. Recently, I was discussing with Danny the importance of these issues, especially with respect to the Gospel. I hope to show you by the end of this post (or perhaps one more) that you really don’t have good news if Jesus did not die a substitutionary death for his people. Secondly, I want to address some of your objections to this biblical doctrine (I’ve decided to do this second, because it will make more sense after I give you the holistic biblical context).

Why should anyone believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ? The first and foremost reason is that it is thoroughly biblical. From the Old Testament sacrificial system (which looks forward to Christ’s atonement) to the New Testament teaching (Jesus as the Lamb of God) of Christ’s propitiation for our sins, it is clear that the bible makes the substitutionary atonement of Christ central to its message. When you consider the institution of Passover during the Exodus (see Exodus 12), you plainly see the idea of subsitutionary atonement in view. The peculiar thing about the last plague upon Egypt was—that it was not specific in application to Egypt alone. The 10 plagues were God’s judgment upon Egypt for their worship of false God’s and other abominable practices, and thus, clearly an instance of God’s wrath towards sin and rebellion. However, the last plague is not directed at Egypt alone, but all the firstborns, including the Israelites (because they were caught up in the worship of the false gods of their Egyptian masters—Ezekiel 20:4-10). The only way to avert the wrath of God was to (by faith in God’s promise) slaughter the spotless Passover Lamb and cover the doorposts with blood. Thus, the Passover lamb was propitiatory (it turned away wrath) in nature. God would spare all the people who atoned for their sin in this fashion, but everybody else had God’s judgment fall upon them (death of their firstborns). Thus, the Passover/Exodus account is telling the story of how God always deals with sin and rebellion. He mercifully spares his people from his wrath and judgment, and he delivers them from their oppressive enemies by means of Judgment. One scholar says, “First, by means of the judgment of God there is salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Secondly, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is salvation from the judgment of God. “ Paul picks this theme up in the NT when he states “Christ is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).” Christ died as an atonement for our sins, and in his death he turned away God’s wrath or satisfied his just wrath of God upon sinners (which we rightly deserve). The book of Romans says that “the wages of sin is death” and we have all sinned, thus we all are under the wrath of God’s judgment apart from Christ (Rom. 1-3). If God let people get away with sin and never judged it, then he would cease to be just. A god who is not just is capricious and immoral, but this is not the nature of the God of Scripture. He is just. But, He also loves, and He is love, John says. Here is the love of God, says the Apostle Paul, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Why did Jesus have to die for us? because apart from Christ we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), namely, objects of divine wrath (as sinners who willfully rebel against their creator). In God’s love he sent his Son to be a subtitutionary sacrifice in our place, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

Eph. 2:1-10 says it nicely:

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

May I submit to you the proposition, “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner.” He is the ultimate example of suffering love as a willing, innocent substitute for sinful people who deserve justice, but get mercy and grace. That, my friend, is the love of God for His people.

Let me close with a few explicit texts on penal substitution in the NT:

1 John 2:2- “He [Jesus] is the propitiation [turn away wrath] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

This last text is quoting from Isaiah 53, which is all about the Messiah dying in our place as a suffering servant. Another OT idea that is about substitutionary atonement is the Day of the Atonement, which is about sacrifice and substitution to avert God’s wrath upon Israel for sin, and subsequently bring God’s forgiveness. (Lev. 16). The doctrine of Penal substitution is Biblical, and there is no getting around it!

Although they knew God.....

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is my response to David's question about Calvin's Sensus Divinitatis)

David said…"I don't think you addressed my question about the Sensus Divinitatis. At this point I'm not really concerned with whether or not there is a law written on all men's hearts (which I would not identify with the 10 commandments, by the way), but with Paul's clear statement in Romans that all men know God. They don't just know some aspects of God, but God. All men are aware that THE God exists, even though they suppress that truth, and they will be held accountable for that on the last day."

My response: You did ask about natural law as part of your question which is why I brought that up. I am curious as to what you believe about a universal natural law on that note. I think this is an important part of the discussion.

Moving on, I think I did partially discuss the way in which unbelievers know about God from creation in the previous post on sola scriptura. Here it is again: "I deal with this on a very basic level in the paper I am posting on Natural Theology when discussing Romans 1 and 2. It will be up some time soon. But to give you a short answer, according to Romans 1 unbelievers are suppressing the truth of God that they are said to know. They exchange the truth for lies, they are futile in their thinking, and their hearts are darkened. So while general revelation condemns them it by no means has the power to save them or even to reveal the attributes and plans of God because the unbeliever has plugged their ears and closed their eyes as Dr. Robert Morey so cleverly teaches in his lectures on the topic. God has given them over to their confusion and darkness of mind and therefore they cannot know the triune God apart from Scripture. The only way the natural man can see general revelation for what it is “a testimony that the true God is clearly at work everyday in ruling and sustaining the world” is that they be saved by the preaching of the word or the reading of Scripture."

Even when Calvin's sensus divinitatis is granted that all men in their heart of hearts know God it does not prove the validity of Natural Theology because the natural man is suppressing that knowledge and is darkened in his understanding and the only way he will be unsupressed for lack of better words is by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit followed by faith in the Gospel as found either by reading Scripture or hearing the Gospel preached. Then and only then, will they accept, believe, love, and worship the Triune God that they had been suppressing. Rom 1:21 “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.” Therefore natural theology is not the answer, revealed theology is. The Biblical revealed theologian never divorces his apologetics from special revelation because it would be so unnatural and counter Biblical for him to even think that setting the Bible in the closet and going out and doing natural theology from human reason would be foolish. To be clear, the paper is not against using evidences in apologetics, it is against the practice of natural theology where as J.P. Moreland defines “the study of the nature and existence of God from creation and not from Holy Scripture.”

I know you don’t think that the natural man can be saved by the use of natural theology in apologetics which is great. I still do not think that natural theology can be a supported apologetic approach from a Biblical worldview. What I am concerned with is the practice of a Christian placing the Bible aside and arguing for God from his fallen reason as if his philosophic reasoning is sufficient to prove God to the depraved sinner who is suppressing the truth that they know. I believe that both general revelation and special revelation is God’s revelation (my definition of general revelation is very different from the one proposed by the natural theologians at Biola). However, I think that Natural Theology is unbiblical due to the sinfulness of man and the revealed plan of God in applying the atonement to the elect sinners through the hearing or reading of special revelation as found in the Bible. With that being said, I am not interested in becoming a natural theologian or even submitting that the project is Biblical.

Does A Universal Natural Law Exist?

by Danny Pelichowski

(This is a response to a question that Peter and David asked me here on this blog about natural law)

David and Peter asked..."If the reformers maintained a type of natural law and the Sensus Divinitatus, were they in danger of violating Sola Scriptura on Danny’s view?"

Quote from Calvin's Institutes...“Now the inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables. (II.viii.1)”

My response: Good question guys. The quote above from Calvin seems to be teaching a moral law of the Ten Commandments written universally on everyone's heart. I have not read enough primary resources thus far in my study of Calvin and Luther to determine their exact view on this topic. I know that Peter has taken a course on Calvin and maybe he can help answer this question. Also, its seems that David already has an opinion on the topic by the way he posed his question. It would be great to here what you think that Calvin taught on this topic. However, I am not necessarily as interested in whether or not Luther and Calvin taught something as the end all in theological discourse. Once again I repeat the Bible alone would be the determining factor for me when it comes to my beliefs about doctrine and morals. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the reformers views in church history to the highest degree as it is compared with other theologians but I am not going to be swayed out of my view against a universal natural law if Calvin held to it. He was not infallible and was wrong in some areas for example his belief in infant baptism (I know Nate Taylor will love this example:) lets save that debate for another time). Like I said in my second post on Sola Scriptura I deal with Romans 1 and 2 in my paper that is being posted on natural theology. As for now, I am truly interested in both of your thoughts on the topic of Calvin and natural law. However, I will not be persuaded unless I am convinced that the Bible clearly teaches that there is a universal natural law written on the hearts of every person past, present, and future.

Did Adam have the ten commandment written on his heart in the garden prior to the fall whereby he new that it was necessary to observe the Sabbath on Saturdays? Did unbelievers in the past get convicted about not honoring the Sabbath on Saturdays? Do unbelievers today universally know that Sundays are a day now set apart to worship God? Moreover, do the heathen universally everywhere have this moral law on their hearts that communicates God's law to them? It seems to me that everyone has a conscience to one degree or another but I would be hard pressed to find in Scripture or in experience of the world every unbeliever knowing in their heart of hearts that they should keep the Sabbath or the other commandments universally. I am inclined to want to keep God's special and particular revelation limited to the Bible. Adam did not know exactly what God commanded of him even before the fall and that is why God had to personally reveal to Adam what he wanted him to do in the garden. When Moses received the Law he did not tell God that it was unnecessary because the people already have the tables written on their hearts. Special revelation given by God is specific not universal therefore I reject this idea of a universal moral law.

If I were to concede to any form of a universal moral law it would be the universal law of a morally corrupt humanity. Every person is universally born sinners due to their solidarity to Adam as the head of the human race and the imputation of Adams sin to every person universally implies a universal moral law that all will be born sinning from the womb. It is because of the fall and human depravity that I think natural theology is useless as an apologetic and evangelistic tool. Men are by nature suppressing the truth from the womb; the truth found in Scripture as well as the truth found in creation. This is why a person must be regenerated to be able to understand the Gospel as found in Scripture and be saved. Once they are saved I will concede that they can rightly see general revelation as it is and praise the Triune God who created the universe.