CHS Regeneration first

Click on Photograph to Enlarge

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Bunyan's Calvinism

Click on Photograph to Enlarge 

He does not say they shall be born to it, but they are born to it. A man is born of God unto God, and the things of God, before he receives Christ to eternal salvation. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Now unless he be born of God he cannot see it. Suppose the kingdom of God be what it will, he cannot see it before he be begotten of God; suppose it be the gospel, he cannot see it before he be brought into a state of regeneration; believing is the consequence of the new birth: “Not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Click here for John Bunyan's Sermon on John 1:13

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Lordship of Christ

A FEW THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED "LORDSHIP SALVATION" 

Just as it says on the tin. A few thoughts put down here on a blog in no particular order as opposed to a polished essay.

* Jesus is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) at one and the same time. It is not in any one's interest to divide asunder what God has joined together.

OBJECTION! Scripture sometimes uses only His earthly name of Jesus in relation to forgiveness of sins, while on other occasions refers to Him as Christ in the same regard (1 Corinthains 15:3) and then again as the Lord (Romans 10:13).

REPLY: This may be so. Scripture does likewise with faith and repentance, sometimes mentioning faith without any mention of repentance (Acts 16:30-31/John 3:15-18) and then repentance without a mention of faith (Luke 13:3-5) while sometimes  joining them together (Mark 1:15/Matthew 21:31-32/Acts 20:21). Scripture does likewise with the Triune members of the One Godhead. Sometimes the Father is mentioned without the Son or the Spirit (Ephesians 3:14) while both Father and Son are mentioned together to the exclusion  of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:23) while all Three are mentioned together (Ephesians 2:18) 

The Bible in its fuller declarations sets forth salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ - where (if you are going tio nit pick, Jesus as Saviour is not mentioned) Indeed, we are distinctly told that we are to confess the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, or (to give William Tyndale's translation) that "Jesus is the Lord" (Romans 10:9-13). We are expected to take the Bible as a whole. In the similar scenarios above, where one is not actually mentioned, it need not necessarily exclude the other. Certainly, it would be very foolish to build a monumental doctrine on it and also start accusing some great heroes of the faith as preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) on the basis of it. We do not receive a half Christ in order to be saved. This rampant cherrypicking reminds us of the words of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-26) who was told to keep the Commandments in order to have eternal life. Of course, salvation is and always was by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28) but (as we know) our Lord was teaching him to abandon his somewhat superficial view of his own goodness because of his somewhat superficial view of the Commandments. The amazing thing (other than his claim that he had kept them all from his youth up) was his response to the command of the Saviour to actually keep the commandments. He asked "Which?" You mean there was a choice? An ála carte menu that caters for those who don't like red meat and prefer chicken or fish or a vegetarian substitute?

* No one is looking for nor expecting the fruits of salvation to appear before the soul is ingrafted into Christ. However, the anxious soul needs to be willing to turn away from sin in order to turn to Christ. Even as Saviour, Jesus would save us from our sins (Matthew 1:21). Not only from their their guilt, but also their power. The awakened soul will have been convicted by the Holy Ghost and will want to change his life. He cannot do it in his own strength any more than the Ethiopian can change the colour of his skin or the leopard change the pattern on his skin (Jeremiah 13:23) But if he is not willing to forgo his sin - implicated in the receiving of Jesus as Lord and Saviour - and to live a life of holiness as enabled by the daily grace of God, then he has a wrong and skewed idea of the gospel. It would him no favours to lead him into some kind of profession.

* No one expects the sinner to reform themselves before coming to Christ. It is certainly not a matter of telling a concerned drunkard  that if he keeps himself sober - and gives up lying too and whatever else - for six clear calendar months, then John 3:16 is for him. Not at all. John 3:16 is for him now. There is nothing in John 3:16 that compromises the gospel call to repentance. It is implicit because it offers an alternative to perishing and Jesus offered deliverance from perishing  in Luke 13:3-5 on the condition ("Except") of repentance. In Luke 13, it was taught in the form of a threat or warning, but the fundamental truth is the same. 

* Repentance is not a meritorious work. It is given as a free gift to sinners like faith. (Acts 11:18/Romans 2:4 cp. Acts 18:27/Philippians 1:29) Even giving your life for a lifetime of unbelievable hardship on the mission field or at the martyrs stake for the gospel sake is not meritorious. Nothing that we can do ever merits anything from God. We will never have anything whereof to glory before God (Romans 4:2). Repentance is first and foremost an attitude - a serious change of mind - that leads to determinate action. (See next point)

* Repentance means "a change of mind" and  always leads to action. In itsself, strictly speaking, it does not automatically mean to "turn from sin" although it does in the evangelical sense when the sinner is exhorted to repent in the gospel. God Himself sometimes repented (e.g. Genesis 6:6) and His repentance always led to a change of course, although (obviously) there was nothing sinful to be turned from. When Paul preached the gospel in Thessalonica, he preached both i.e.  "testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21)  When the Thessalonians repented, then they turn to God and in the act of doing so, turned from  their idols. The one supposes the other. Anything less would not have been a true evangelical repentance and would have worked death instead of being repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) We note with sadness that when Paul  reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, that while Felix trembled, he did not turn and we never hear of his salvation. We can only hope that the sovereign and merciful purposes of God ensured that the convenient season was renewed again. 

* Repentance may be illustrated, if not defined, by verses like Isaiah 55:7 where the unregenerate wicked is exhorted to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Note the  change of mind ("his thoughts") and his change of way - forsaking - because the proof of the one is the other. Another similar verse is Proverbs 28:13 where the observation is worded thus: He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. 
   
* Evangelists are not called upon the measure the depths of someone's repentance. No measurements given in this regard in the Bible. Only God can look into the heart and see. However, it may be induced that while the preacher cannot weigh the spirits, yet someone who (say) was very lighthearted and giggled or examined their fingernails in an enquiry room could hardly claim to be serious about this matter.

* Fruit of preaching salvation without repentance is seen in empty and shallow confessions. It has been astutely suggested that one reason why many professing young folk leave the church when they get to adult age is because they were never saved in the first place. No one doubts that real and genuine Christians can backslide - God's people are often bent towards backsliding from Him (Hosea 11:7) - but many of these professions appear to be have been incredibly empty. The parable of the sower warns of those whose work was not Spirit wrought or deep. 

* Repentance is a life long activity. We are justified by faith - not by repentance, but part of our sanctification process (a life long activity) includes the examining of our heart before God, naming sins and crying out for deliverance on a daily basis from them. We are called upon to be introspective (2 Corinthians 13:5/Romans 7:23-24) yet not excessively so - always looking unto Jesus (Heb 12:2) and rejoicing in the victory that is found in Him alone (Romans 7:25).

INDEXES:



 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX
* YouTube VIDEO INDEX

religiousevolution

The Great High Priest of Evolution

 THE FAITH BASED RELIGION WHICH MEN CALL EVOLUTION

* Are you liberal minded? I hope so. Some religious fundamentalists don't want to read the alternatives and so they close their minds to any discussion which challenges their world view. It isn't always the Bible carrying type either.

* Vladamir Lenin once said that liberty was so precious, it would have to be rationed. Don't starve yourself of the liberty of thinking through your own position. 


* Perhaps you have never met the question posed above. Or maybe you have, but have been afraid to face its possibility. A true scientist will face all the evidence and make his decisions accordingly. If the evidence demands that he change his mind, then so be it. Otherwise we would all still believe that the earth is flat etc.,   


*Let me nail my colours to the mast and say that I believe that evolution is as much a religion as Bible Christianity and that both religions have their fair share of fundamentalists. 

 1) EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION BECAUSE IT RELIES ON ITS WORLD VIEW TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIMS:   

* Evolution is not unique in this. Creationism faces the same charge. The observation is true on both accounts.

* Science operates within a very limited sphere. Strictly speaking, it is confined to what can be repeated in a laboratory. Beyond that it cannot go and  remain pure science. The fields of philosophy give more freedom for thought and imagination than science ever will. The two should not be confused.

* Science cannot prove or disprove what happened in the beginning. It was not there. All the computer created graphics with special effects etc., in the world cannot recreate the "in the beginning" scenario. Of course, the creationist cannot scientifically prove his teaching either…but he can logically defend it. Science cannot prove him wrong, because science is out of its depth. We must look elsewhere for proof.

* Evolution and its opposite number, creationism, do not have 2 different sets of evidence. Both share the same evidence but interpret them in two different ways. The evolutionist sees evidence for a common ancestor, the creationist sees evidence for a common designer or creator. This is because both are bringing outside sources into play when interpreting the evidence.

2) EVOLUTION HAS ITS "HOLY MEN" AND "PROPHETS" AS OTHER RELIGIONS DO:

* Although they are not formally called by these names, yet they are virtually treated as such.

* In some circles, it takes a brave man to challenge the likes of Charles Darwin (or Huxley or Dawkins) because their word is practically law. The writer of this tract has challenged the doctrines of the Pope of Rome over a number of years in the letters column in the local press with very little reply. However, when he once challenged the teachings of Darwin through the same medium, a 3 month debate ensued which ran to over 30 letters being exchanged from various sources.

* Key evolution guru's have called for the stripping of all credentials of those scientists who embrace any other theory rather than evolution. In religious circles, this is known as "excommunication" The absence of the actual name does not nullify the meaning of the action. 

3) EVOLUTION HAS ITS SACRED BOOKS AS OTHER RELIGIONS DO:

* Namely the writings of the above men and others.

* Do you think you the evolutionists would accept you as a scientist if you abandoned the various text books, did your own experiments and declined to invoke the names of the above?

* …or said that you didn't really care whether you could quote these books or not? If not, you are looking at the hall marks of a religion.

4) EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE CONFESSED TO THE RELIGIOUS CONTENT OF THEIR FAITH:

* "With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. after having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved today, had in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Loren Eiseley, Ph.d. (anthropology) 'The Secret Of Life' In The Immense Jouney, Random House, Ny, 1957, p.199) 


* "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Frs (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, Uk) 'A Physicist Looks At Evolution' Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980, p.138) 


* "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, & biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in a special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, Frs, Introduction to Darwin's The Origins of the Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971 p. xi) 


* Whenever you hear an evolutionist argue that "the evidence is out there somewhere" as you constantly will, this is evolution by faith alone. 


* It is correct to refer to the "dogma's" of evolution. 

5) WHY MEN CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION RATHER THAN THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE:

* Man is basically a religious being. He yearns for real answers to the big questions of life e.g. "Where did I come from?" - "Why am I here?" - "Where am I going?" A materialistic worldview does not answer these questions but seeks to relegate their importance.

* It is not enough to dismiss the whole debate by stating that we are the product of blind random chance. That is a sheer cop out.

* The religion of the Bible teaches us that we were created by God and therefore we are accountable to him. Science is not in the position either to confirm or deny this statement. an evolutionist can but he cannot speak as a scientist if he does so.

* Because evolutionists are also answerable to their Creator God, they have a vested interest in answering this question. Unfortunately for them, they choose to deny the inevitable, relying instead of repeating their creed over and over again until they believe what is in reality their own propaganda.

* Men believe evolution because it has no moral values by which to live. true, many evolutionists do lead moral & honourable lives, but this is in spite of evolution and not because of it. Where in the 'survival of the fittest' scenario are the fittest required to care for the weakest? Evolutionists have argued that it is not in the interests of the strong to suffer the weak to survive. It is no surprise to us to see that the fruit of evolution can be seen in the concentration camps of Germany or in the abortion mills dotted around the world.

* A head in the sand approach to life is best catered for by evolution.  

6) THERE IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION:

If you have borne with me thus far, please read on to the end. It is the faith that is built on the word of God himself i.e. the Bible.

* The Bible alone offers hope to the soul distressed by its personal guilt before God. It does not go down the cruel road of telling that soul that there is nothing to worry about. Its truth may be unpalatable at times, but it is saving in its essence.  

* The Bible teaches us that our Creator God sent his only Son into the world to die for us. His holiness, based on the soundest principles of justice, demands that sin must be punished. His mercy, without compromising his holiness, provided a way of salvation. God can be just and yet the justifier on him which believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26) The sin problem needs to be tackled - not denied. The Bible tackles it head on with answers which are immediately satisfying to the need of the hour i.e. forgiveness for our sins.

* The Bible has an answer for those who are helplessly enslaved by various vices. It declares wonderfully: Therefore if any man be in christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17) 

THE END

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX