Beware of The Shack

Beware of the Shack

The book The Shack by William P. Young is a bestseller and has now been made into a movie. However much this is hyped or praised, please do not allow yourself to be deceived by it. There are those that say that this is just fiction or this is just using a fictional story to explain truths to children. But does this book really explain Biblical truths concerning Christ? I will highlight 12 big errors and some other red flags of concern.

1) God is stripped of His fatherly persona.

He is reduced to a genderless Spirit that merely shows himself as whatever He wishes at the time.
(This is not the Biblical representation of God. Consider: I Cor 8:6, John 1:14, John 10:30 (both Jesus and the Father are male ie one God), Lk 1:35, Mt 28:19, John 14:16-17, I Pet 1:2, Eph 4:4-6, Col 1:15-17, John 10:30-36, and there are more… but the Bible is clear on it.

2) Christ is said to have been 100 percent veiled only doing miracles by God living through Him as he was obedient.

(This places Christ too far onto man’s level. It is a sure unbiblical extreme and one that ends up denying Bible truth concerning Christ. Consider: Heb 13:8, John 1:1, John 6:38, (limiting His use of divine attributes to only His Father’s will is not at all the same as never using them. Remember, Christ could have survived the cross but chose to die for us instead as servant to God’s will.)

3) God is said to be love and will not punish sin but only cure it.

This is 100 percent unbiblical and denies God’s Holiness, justice, and a whole multitude of verses. Consider: Romans 1:8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth., Eph 5:6, Rom 2:5, Rom 5:9, Rev 14:10-11, John 3:36, Heb 10,Deut 9:8, Ex 15:7, Ex 32:10-11, Jer 32:29, Num 32:13, 2 Kings 13:3, Mat 21:12-13, Isa 13:9, (and to sum it up: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.)

4) It is said that all who love can come to God by various means.

(To me this is a start toward universalism. It is at least unbiblical. The way to God is very specific.)

Consider: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved., I Tim 2:5, John 3:16, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 8:24, John 10:9, I John 5:11-12, Rom 10:14-17.

5) It is said that it doesn’t matter what we do as long as we do it with the right heart.

(The book has one of the god characters listening to funk music and teaching contrary to scriptures. Consider:Rom 12:1, Eph 5:8-10, 2 Cor 5:9, I John 3:22, Lev 1-7. God does have standards that please him and those that do not. The verses are too numerous to list.

6) The author insists that there is no hierarchy with God as in no authority or structure.

(This is then applied to marriage, the church, and human governments. The accusation is that these things are merely human constructs and therefore suspect.) However consider: Rom 13:1-7, Gen 1:1, Dan 4:35, Rom 9:19-21, Gen 2:22-24, Eph 5:22-33, Mat 19:4-6, I Cor 7:1-16, Col 3:18-19, John 17:1-5

7) It is said that man’s main problem is independence and the solution is to return to dependence.

Consider: Rom 6:6, Rom 8:8, Rom 5:12, John 3:6-7, Ps 51:5, Rom 3:23, Rom 6:23, Eph 2:1, Rom 3, Rom 8:6-7, I Cor 2:14, Rev 20:14-15.

8) The author fixates on the sickness of the earth.

(But the problem is not the curse on the earth through Adam but the curse on Adam and the rest of mankind through Adam.

Consider: Gen 3:16-19, Rom 5:12-14

9) The author mention fractals.

(Fractal theory is a big red flag and touches on new age and other eastern religions along with the occult. It is not a Biblical theory.)

10) The author states that God the Father also died on the cross through Jesus.

(This is a gigantic heresy. The Bible is very clear on this.)

Consider: I Peter 3:18, I Jn 3:16, John 10:17-18,  John 3:16, Eph 1:7, Acts 2:24-36, 2 Cor 5:21, Lk 24:39-43, Gal 2:16, I Peter 2:24.

11) The author cautions against careful Bible study and places of higher learning that teach theology etc.

Consider: 2 Tim 2:15, Psalm 1, Psalm 119:105, Tit 1:9, I Pet 3:15, 2 Tim 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8, Ps 119:11, Prov 3:1-2, Acts 17:11, Heb 4:12, 2 Pet 3:18,

12) The author teaches that God veils himself of foreknowledge to the degree that it is as if He is learning though He technically is not.

(This is also a heresy that is not supported in scripture.) Consider: Ps 147:5, I John 3:20, Is 40:28, Romans 11:33-36, Heb 4:13, Isa 40:13-14.

Other concerns and flags:

13) The author mentions Gandalf and makes allusions to Star Wars.

(Ironically the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars books and movies are largely based off of Eastern and new age philosophy including Taoism etc.)

14) The author is irreverent, sacrilegious, and mocks God.

(I won’t quote the examples here but there are some throughout the book.)

15) The use of fiction is especially deceptive because it puts peoples guard down making the error more acceptable and less noticeable.

(In reality the god presented in this book, movie is more a concoction of new age philosophy and man’s reasoning. It is pretty much what you do end up with when careful Bible study is abandoned.)

The bottom line is that this book is to be avoided. It isn’t worth any entertainment factor either, even if you know it is false going in. Why bother? All it will do is desensitize people to error for the sake of a story. We have enough of that with most books and movies so why do that with something that purports to be representative of what God wants us to know about Him? For that, look to the Word itself. You don’t need someone like this author to mess it up for you. It is not even a good paraphrase of reality, but just an altogether alternate reality. The best advice I can give is to mark and avoid this book and share these warnings with others.

Posted in Heresy, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Voting and Faith

Weighing heavily on my mind has been the topic of voting and how it relates to faith. I will give some principles from my American and christian perspective. Not all countries have even have the right to vote but there are still principles that can apply.

Never before has it seemed that voting on election day is as daunting a task for Christians as now.  Amidst the seemingly constant stream of mud slinging, there often seems to be no clear cut likeable candidate that personally holds Christian values. So should Christians stay home and not vote? God forbid.

We as Americans happen to live in a nation were men have fought and died to give the freedom and privilege to vote to its citizens. No matter how we feel personally toward any of the candidates, we still can take a look at the issues at hand and decide which is most conducive to a Biblical worldview and Biblical principles. So let’s consider some key issues and ask ourselves which candidate best fit what we desire.

Supreme Court – Which candidate will be more likely to appoint justices that will uphold the constitution and not legislate from the bench for political pet causes? Which is more likely to appoint conservative minded judges?

Abortion – Which candidate is more likely to support life? Which will put life below the concerns of women?

National Security – Which candidate will offer the best chance to secure our borders and enforce our laws? Which will send undesirables out and which will draw them in?

Economy – Which person will be most conducive to wise handling of money nationally? Which one will treat money as an abstract concept in theory?

Foreign Policy – Which one will provide leadership around the world? Which one will build a strong military for our protection? Which one will continue current policy?

Veterans – Which one will be more likely to take care of our veterans?

Party Platform – Which party platform has the policies that you would rather see implemented?

Faith – Which one will take less offense to those that stand for the Christian faith?

I believe that these are sufficient for any American believer to consider and decide whom to vote for at the upcoming election. There is no need to spend hours debating, listening to gossip, conspiracy theories, past dirty rags, media spin, and so forth. Elections are primarily always about the issues. The dilemma many face is that the top candidates, especially this year, don’t have the “good guy” facade. I don’t personally know if any President has actually been a believer while in office but we shouldn’t be surprised when we find ourselves with unsaved leadership. Vote for the one that will make policy decisions that will be more in line with Biblical principles than the other candidates.

Common Misconceptions:

1) It is better to not vote at all.
(Try telling this to a person in a country where they are not allowed. Try telling this to a survivor of someone who lost a loved one in the line of service for your country. God has given us the opportunity as believers in America to vote for our representation. Why not use that opportunity as good steward of that gift?)

2) The election is rigged so I shouldn’t bother.
(All people eligible should use the opportunity to vote.)

3) My candidate is going to win overall so my vote is not needed.
(All vote are needed.)

4) My candidate is going to lose in my state anyway.
(We don’t know who  will win. Vote anyway.)

5) I’m to busy to vote.
(There are no excuses. Plenty of people could have made excuses when it came to defending our freedom to vote but are you glad they didn’t.)

6) I want a Pastor in chief.
(This is not the Biblical idea.

7) I can’t vote for someone if they have ever done or said anything awful.

8) I can’t vote for a non-Christian.

9) We are in the last days so just let the unsaved decide for us.

10) If we keep picking the lesser of two evils then we will continually get more of the same.



Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

No Real Scriptural Support for Calvinism – Sovereignty and Unconditional Election

Many people ask “What is Calvinism”, and “Is it taught in the Bible?” To help answer these questions, let’s first consider the acronym T.U.L.I.P. Calvinism is not solely contained 100% within TULIP but the overall teaching is summarized very well by its five most popularized main points.  So to examine the supposed scriptural support I have decided to take the list given from and evaluate all relevant verses and passages to see where this teaching is really coming from and if there really is Biblical precedent for this view.

In going with their given order let’s first consider their verses given on God’s “Sovereignty” and Unconditional Election (the U in TULIP).

So the following verses are listed as support for God’s “Sovereignty”. We must note that, for what it is worth, this word is not used in the King James Bible. This will also be part of a longer series on Calvinism. Because so many verses are used, it will be beneficial to consider all of them to some degree or another.

I will follow their given outline and follow up with my commentary as to whether or not the verse supports Calvinism.

Election God is Sovereign

Exo 15:18 – no direct implication – shall reign forever

1Chr 29:11-12 – no direct implication – exalted head, king

2Chr 20:6; – no direct implication – rules over all kingdoms

Psa 22:28 – no direct implication –kingdom is the Lord’s

  1. He exercises that sovereignty in actively ordaining everything

Deu 32:39 – no, not in the context – I kill, I make alive, I wound, I heal etc

1Sam 2:6-8 – no, lord killeth, make alive, bringeth down, lifteth up

Job 9:12 – no direct implication – who can hinder him or question him

Job 12:6-10 n0 – the Lord involved in creation

Psa 33:11 no – the Lord’s counsel stands forever

Psa 115:3 no – done whatever He had pleased, they try to tie this back to a supposed choosing of who will believe, however it was a corporate choosing

Psa 135:6 – same as above

Isa 14:24 – I have thought- it will come to pass, I have purposed it will stand, (still no tie to election, this has to do specifically with His judgement on Babylon)

Isa 45:7 – no, creator of light and dark, make peace and evil (calamity) context of God the maker –this is spoken in rebuke to Cyrus

Act 15:18 – God knows the Lord’s works from eternity- no correlation to election

Eph 1:11 – the inheritance for believers is foreordained – (not those who will believe are foreordained to believe)

    • Including matters of “chance”

Pro 16:33 the verdict is the Lord’s – (this does not really support the view)

1Ki 22:20 (this is really unrelated)

34 same

37 same

    • The wicked actions of men

Gen45:5 God provided their deliverance through Joseph – (nothing to do with election of individuals, has to do with national Israel – God allowed them to sell Joseph. Gen50:20 Exo 4:21 – God knew that Pharaoh’s heart would be hardened, Calvinists try to reason then that God will harden unbelievers (non-elect) to reject the gospel)

Jdg 14:1-4 – (nothing to do with election – a great stretch)

Psa 76:10 – (nothing to do with election)

Pro 16:4 – made the wicked for the day of calamity , (calvinists try to use this verse to say that God makes wicked people to be destroyed. Sounds different in Young’s literal: Pro 16:4  All things hath Jehovah wrought for Himself, And also the wicked worketh for a day of evil.)

Isa 44:28 (nothing to do with election – has to do with Jerusalem)

Amos 3:6 evil – affliction, calamity, adversity

Act 2:22-23 – (It was God’s plan that Christ was to be the sacrifice. This does not mean though that God wills sin as in the sinful actions of those that killed the Savior! This means that He would allow them to do so. There is a difference.)

Act 4:27-28 – same

    • The actions of evil spirits

1Sam 16:14-16; 1Ki 22:19-23; 1Chr 21:1/2Sam 24:1 (not relevant to election)

    • The good actions of men

John 15:16 – (This was choosing the disciples, not some for salvation)

Eph 2:10 – created unto good works – we should walk in them –(This is nothing to do with electing people to believe or reject.)

Phi 2:12-13 – (This is dealing with sanctification.)

    • The actions of good angels

Psa 103:20 – they obey – (nothing to do with election)

Psa 104:4 – (nothing relevant to the issue here – He made the angels)

    • The actions of animals

Num 22:28 – (a special circumstance)

1Ki 17:4 – same

Psa 29:9 (not relevant)

Jer 8:7; (doesn’t even fit)

Eze 32:4 – (directed to in judgement – nothing to do with election)

Dan 6:22 (the angel did it)

    • The operations of all creation

Gen 8:22; Psa 104:5-10; Psa 104:13-14; Psa 104:19-20; Mark 4:39 – (not relevant)

  1. Man is not permitted to question his sovereign acts

Job 33:12-13; Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9-10; Mat 20:1-16; (nothing to do with this topic but this parable is interesting)

Rom 9:19-24 – (has to do with national Israel)

(We have no right to question God’s choices. This is exactly why we should not question that God chose to save those who would trust Christ as their Savior. God never decided for people if they would or wouldn’t believe the gospel.)

So far there have been no verses supporting the actual Calvinistic idea of unconditional election.

Part 2
God elects [i.e. chooses, predestines, foreordains]

  1. His angels

1Tim 5:21 – (refers to elect angels, angels that were chosen for a purpose, has to do with angels and their purposes not men)

  1. His peculiar people, Israel

Exo 6:7; Deu 7:6-8; Deu 10:14-15; Psa 33:12; Isa 43:20-21 – (It is not disputed that God chose national Israel as His people. This is not the same as choosing who will or won’t believe. Not even all of his chosen Israel believed.)

  1. Individuals to salvation

Psa 65:4 – (This isn’t talking about choosing some to believe the gospel, specifically vs 4 is not talking about receiving eternal life – it has more of the idea of abiding)

Mat 24:24 – (This verse merely mentions the elect. It says nothing about what they were chosen for or what criteria was used. This particular verse also has to do with end times post rapture.)

John 6:37 – (Who are the ones that God gives to Christ(God)… those that believe – look back up to verse 35. This is repeated in verse 40. This passage also mentions eternal security as opposed to Calvinism’s perseverance.)

John 15:16 – (This is speaking specifically of the 12 disciples and not in context of choosing them for salvation but of service. This chapter starts out talking about abiding then verse 8 is in context of abiding in the Christian walk. John 15:8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. – These verses further prove it was about the disciples in terms of their service and future calling to witness. – John 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:27  And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.)

Act 13:48 – (Look back a verse. Act 13:47  For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. It had been confirmed that salvation was available to Gentiles. Those who wanted it believed. Act 13:48  And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (The gentiles here receive the news that the gospel is available to them and they believe (receive it by faith) because they were disposed to or determined in their own mind to receive it should it be confirmed that it is possible for them. This is why they were glad in the first part of the verse. They had been exposed to some preaching earlier and wanted to hear more. See verse 42. Act 13:42  And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.)

Rom 8:28-30 – (verse 28 is talking about those that love God and are called, verse 29 Foreknow means to know beforehand. Period. So God knows who will believe the gospel. Those who do are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. VS 30 These same believers were called, justified (positionally) and glorified (positionally). We don’t receive our glorified bodies till we reach heaven.)

Rom 9:10-24 (This is talking not about individuals to salvation but it is speaking of the choosing of national Israel through Jacob and not through Esau. Also consider verses 30 through 32. How did the gentiles receive salvation? By faith. How did Israel reject? By choosing the law as opposed to receiving salvation by faith. No where does it say that God made his chosen national people not believe. Why would God make someone do something He does not want them to do? He is not divided against himself!)

Rom 11:5-7 – Mentions the “election of grace”. This is in context to chosen national Israel by in large rejecting  but a remnant decided to believe. This election of or choosing of grace as the method is further explained in verse 6. So to clarify it is by grace (unmerited favor) therefore it is not of works otherwise grace ceases to be grace. This is another reason why Calvinism cannot be true. More on that later in future posts once we get to perseverance of the saints.)

Verse 7 Rom 11:7  What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded . (God has allowed them by their own choice to be blinded. Why? For two reasons: through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles and because of this to provoke them to jealousy. See verse 11 Rom 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.)

Eph 1:3-6 (Verse 3 talks about spiritual blessings chosen for those that are believers. Vs 4 Chosen us in him. God knew who would believe and be in Him. These were chosen then for certain benefits and for certain general types of service. Nothing here actually says God chose some to believe in Him. That is not how the verse reads but that is what Calvinists read into the verse. And what specifically were we chosen for in him? That we should be holy and blameless before him in love. I see this both as a blessing and a calling to service/fellowship. Vers 5 speaks of another benefit namely of the adoption of believers as sons of God, this adoption is to the  good pleasure of His will. This adoption does not happen before we believe. This all shows the glory of His grace. Because God gracious to provide salvation to all men and indeed some believed and thise will receive the adoption of sons.)

Eph 1:11-12 (This is not choosing some to believe but rather continuing the earlier thought. Those of us who have believed have obtained a future inheritance. This inheritance is predestinated according to God. This is a statement affirming security of the believer. Why? V12 That we should be to the praise of His glory who what? First trusted in Christ. Not who were first made to trust Christ. See then verse 13 (Calvinists like to skip this one.) So we hear the truth of the gospel of our salvation, believe, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. This sealing then is the earnest  of the future inheritance. It is assured 100 percent that the inheritance will take place. This also refutes perseverance of the saints.)

1Thes 1:4 – (This election is the same as in the sense in Ephesians, not choosing some to believe but benefits for those who believe.)

1Thes 5:9 – (This speaking in contextof the end times and is simply confirming that believers are not appointed to wrath.)

2Thes 2:13-14  – (This is the only one that I think comes the closest to at least sounding on the surface like Calvinistic election but it does not support it once examined closely.  For one thing this is talking in context of the future tribulation time. We need to start back at verse 12. This is talking about damnation for those after the rapture that did not believe. Verse 13. Notice hear that this is clarifying the method of salvation. Which is through our belief of ther truth not through God pre-selecting us. Vs 14 We were called through the gospel. Men must receive the gospel by faith in order to receive eternal life. We in this age of grace now have the opportunity to receive the gospel by faith. It will not be the same for many after the rapture. The time to make the choice is now.)

  1. Individuals to condemnation

(Not all Calvinists claim this position but logically speaking it would be included.)

Exo 4:21 – (The hardening was in relation to not letting the people go and not in relation to salvation. Pharaoh made his own choices and God allowed them.)

Rom 9:13 – (This had to do with choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau – not for eternal life but for national Israel.)

Rom 9:17-18 -(This has to do with God allowing Pharaoh’s rise for his own purposes of displaying His power and name. It has nothing to do with some type of choosing that Pharaoh could not possibly believe the truth.)

Rom 9:21-22 – (This is still in relation to people like Pharaoh and Esau who were allowed by God to make the choices they made. God showed longsuffering to Pharaoh that his power could be displayed. This chapter is not about reception of eternal life until verse 30. And it affirms salvation is by faith not by pre-selection done by God.)

1Pet 2:8 – (This is similar to end of Romans 9.)

His motivation in election

  1. His own good pleasure

Eph 1:5 – (this is in reference to predestination unto the adoption of sons – this is a benefit of salvation. It pleases God to adopt all believers as sons.)

2. The display of his glory

Isa 43:6-7; Rom 9:22-24; 1Cor 1:27-31; Eph 2:4-7; Pro 16:4
(The first two are not talking about electing someone to believe. 1 Cor 1:31 does mention glorying in the Lord but this passage is not about God electing some to believe. Eph 2:4-7 is also consistent with my view of election. These verses do not advocate unconditional election. Pro 16:4 – Made the wicked for what, the day of evil – not to have no choice but to not believe.)

3. His special love

Deu 7:6-8; 2The 2:13
(Deut 7:6-8 is talking about Israel. 2 Thes 2:13 sounds like unconditional election at first glance but is actually talking about God choosing the method of salvation. The next verse mentions they were called by the gospel and we know that they believed the truth.)

4. His foreknowledge

Rom 8:29; 1Pet 1:2
(God knew who would believe and he predestinated that all who believe would be conformed to the image of His Son. This is not saying God chose who would believe. Yes we are elect according to the foreknowledge but what does it mean to be elect? This verse does not define the Calvinist sense of election.)

    • Which means his special love

Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2; Mat 7:22-23; 1Cor 8:3; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 1:20
(Jer 1:5 does not mention love. This is choosing for a calling in life, not for salvation. Amos3:2 talks about judgement for Israel, Mat 7:22-23 – judgement for those that did not believe, 1Cor 8:3 – has to do with us loving God – not election, 2Tim 2:19 – all this says is that God knows those who are his and that those that are his should depart from iniquity – this is not anything to do with unconditional election – God can know who  have believed and are born again. He can know who will believe without having to pre-plan that they will. physically make them do so. 1Pet 1:20 – Yes, Christ was foreordained from time past to be the Savior but this was for all people, not s select few. It actually destroys unconditional election because Christ died for the whole world. John 3:16 )

    • But not:

Any good [nobility, wisdom, power, choice, seeking] he foresees in anyone Deu 7:7; Rom 9:11-13; Rom 9:16; Rom 10:20; 1Cor 1:27-29; 1Cor 4:7; 2Tim 1:9
(Some of these are talking about Israel, Rom 10:2o is not in reference to election, 1Cor 1:27-29 – not relevant to this, I Cor 4:7 – not about election itself, 2Tim 1:9 -look at the very next verse, how were they saved? through believing the gospel.

No where in all of this does God actually say that He chooses people to believe or makes people believe.

“Unconditional election” as shown has nothing to stand on. It should instead be rejected as unbiblical. It becomes even more clear when you start looking at verses that actually refute it. With none of the ones given supporting it, there would be no defense. Please don’t be intimidated by or confused by it any longer. Reject it as the creation of men that it is.

Jim Floyd

Posted in Calvinism, Heresy | Tagged , , , | 28 Comments

Beware of the “Crossless” Gospel

A few months back I encountered a fellow on Facebook that claimed to be of a grace position but he advocated a view of the gospel that is content to leave out certain key facts including the atonement and resurrection of Christ. It was apparent to me that this person followed after the teaching of the late Zane Hodges. Bob Wilkin is also a known supporter of this view. I would like to draw attention to this because, though a small faction advocates this, there are those out there pretending to be grace oriented and solid doctrinally that are still deceiving people from the truth.

To illustrate this issue here, I would like to draw your attention to some excerpts from an article written by the late Zane Hodges titled How to Lead a Person to Christ Part 1 The Content of our Message.

Hodges starts off with a scenario so read this and think about the answer to his question:

“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?”

This was Hodges scenario and question so what do you think? I say no for a few reasons. Based on this alone he wouldn’t know Jesus from anyone else named Jesus or who He actually is. He wouldn’t necessarily know that everlasting life means anything different than living physically forever.

Please allow me to give some more of Hodges’ quotes and my reaction.

“If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved”

(This is the “cross-less” or “promise only” gospel view in a nutshell and don’t be fooled by it. So by this logic all I would have to do is print up a flyer or put up a billboard with this message and people would be saved by believing someone named Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny… Think about that for a second.)

“That’s why the man on the deserted island can get saved with only the barest minimum of information. When he believes John 6:47 he is believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

(How so?)

“However, some people today would say, “But it’s different now that the cross is behind us. Now we have to believe in that as well.” Do we? Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from the Gospel of John.”

(I would be one of the first people to point this out. Of course it is not from John. John however does allude to the cross and mentions that Jesus is the Savior of the world. Anyone familiar with the OT sacrificial system knew what was required to cover sin. Yes, John was pre-cross but Paul preached Christ and Christ crucified.)

“If by the time of the writing of John’s Gospel, it was actually necessary to believe this (the substitutionary atonement), then it would have been not only simple, but essential, to say so.”

(There are a couple things to note here. First, John gave an account of things from His perspective as they happened. It would be like if I took notes on everything that took place around me for a year then later released a book about it. Second, this still doesn’t explain why Paul says the cross and resurrection are so important. The Bible is not in contradiction of itself. It is simply that in John’s time they needed to specifically understand who their Messiah was. Christ even Himself gave Nicodemus a hint that He would be lifted up just as the serpent in the wilderness. This is reference to the idea of the cross. John the Baptist referred to him as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. A lamb that has to be spotless and slain. So already in John itself there was more than just the idea that Jesus guarantees eternal life.)

“The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that.”

(Salvation is always obtained through faith. I’ve already shown how in John itself there is more that what these cross-less advocates claim. Also, due to progressive revelation the content can become clarified. All grace people other than the cross-less gospel fringe have this view. The simple fact remains is that you go by the latest revelation that you have which in this case is the completed picture. It is now an established fact that Jesus Christ the Son of God came in human flesh being fully God and lived a sinless life, died shedding His blood as an atonement for our sin, and not only that but was buried and rose again according to the scriptures that had foretold of it. We celebrate Christ’s birth and that fulfillment of prophecy so why not celebrate His completion of what He came to do? Why stop at a time pre-cross that only points to something Christ would yet do? Why do that just to try to find a minimalistic boiled down point of the least amount of content one needs to believe?? That is the wrong type of premise to begin with.)

Hodges says he wanted people to understand the cross but that this is more important: “Very simply it is this: We want people to believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny. Of course, we would like them to believe a lot more than this, but this at least must be believed. Our failure to clearly define our goal in evangelism can have a negative or impeding effect on our efforts to lead people to simple faith in Christ.”

(The problem is that Hodges omits the “why and how”. It is rather that a shying away from crucial aspects of the good news for today leads to what Hodges is stating that he wants to avoid. His man on the desert island would not know much at all.)

Hodges talks about adding to the gospel: “But in our own circles, there is a tendency to add theological information to our message of faith. Some people even regard belief in the virgin birth as essential to salvation, and in the absence of such belief they would not admit that a person is saved. They do this despite the fact that the Gospel of John makes no effort to present this doctrine.”

(Put it this way. If you don’t believe that Jesus was virgin born then you do not believe He is sinless and you have no Savior. A person may not think about this before being saved but they can’t hold denial of the view because it essentially denies Christ as God. It would be like saying a Bhuddist can believe Jesus was just a man but yet still be saved by believing Jesus provides him eternal life. Really? Think about that.)

Hodges makes this most ignorant and illogical claim: “All forms of the gospel that require greater content to faith in Christ than the Gospel of John requires, are flawed.”

(Really? So then Paul’s message was flawed? Let us consider what message Paul taught concerning his gospel of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, (So this is the content) which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand (they received and stood in this truth meaning it was important);
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (Paul explains this later in the chapter)
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:(This in essence was the good news: that it is finished. Christ had paid it all and lives as a risen Savior ready to forgive all who will receive that salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. This is all based on what He has accomplished.)

“Evangelism based on such premises will also be flawed, because we will be tempted to test professions of faith in terms of the doctrines we think must be believed. Instead we should be focusing on whether an individual believes that Jesus has given him eternal life.”

(Well Paul’s gospel message was the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believed. I don’t see flaws in that. Sure a person needs to know that God has given him eternal life meaning he must believe that he has actually received it. But that refutes a promise only model.)

“Evangelism, therefore, is intended to bring men and women to the place where they believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny. If a person does this and we insist on more than that, we will be guilty of seeking to invalidate the simple exercise of faith that really does bring salvation.”

(Sadly Hodges fails to realize that there is content involved. Try witnessing to a Catholic without telling them that Christ paid it all. They already have that sort of teaching. They need to specifically know how Christ has paid everything and that there is nothing left for them to do.)

“The name of Jesus therefore is a mighty and exalted name, compared to which all other names in our age or in any other age are inferior and weak. No one has ever trusted in that name for his or her eternal well-being who has not been saved by doing so. And this is true no matter how little they might have known about the One whom that name represents.”

(It is not just the written or spoken name itself that has power. It is the person referred to by the name. Also as others have pointed out. To be consistent you would have to go with the Jewish pronunciation and written name which is not “Jesus” as we have it in English.)

“But the flip side of the coin is this: Everyone who believes in that name for eternal salvation is saved, regardless of the blank spots or the flaws in their theology in other respects. Another way of saying the same thing is this: No one has ever trusted that name and been disappointed.”

(This is categorically not true as I illustrated earlier. Everyone that believes in that name as meaning Christ the son of God is saved based on the good news of what HE has done. But doctrinal error concerning who He is and what He has done can nullify the reception of the free gift. So can adding in elements of human merit or works. Say my theology was flawed in that I thought that Jesus died and went to hell and was tormented there as a sinner. Am I still believing in Christ for salvation? No, not the Christ of the Bible who became sin (a sin offering) for us yet was sinless. Doctrine can matter if is surrounds who Christ is, what He did to atone for us, or what we must do to receive eternal salvation. By this logic displayed by Hodges you could get real ecumenical real fast.)

“In other words, God does not say to people, “You trusted my Son’s name, but you didn’t believe in His virgin birth, or His substitutionary atonement, or His bodily resurrection, so your faith is not valid.” We say that, but God’s Word does not.”

(This is not correct. See I Cor 15. Paul explained there the exact problem of believing that Christ did not rise or of believing in general that there is no resurrection for anyone! If there isn’t then your faith is vain and you have no Savior! If Christ is not God then you have no Savior. If Christ is not the perfect and accepted sacrifice then you have no Savior.)

Hodges uses the example: “Suppose I am in some deep financial trouble and a stranger named Sam, let us say, tells me he will get me out of my trouble if I will just trust him to do it. Perhaps Sam strikes me as a reliable and honest type person and I am convinced that he can and will do what he says. So I leave the matter in his hands and sure enough, he comes through and saves me from my financial problem with a generous infusion of cash. Did I believe in him? Sure.

But suppose after trusting him, I find out that he is a corporate CEO and a multi-millionaire. Would he later come back to me and say, well you didn’t know enough about me when you trusted me, so I’m afraid I can’t help you? Our deal is cancelled.”

(This still doesn’t deal with the reality that Christ’s atonement and resurrection is past tense and complete. That is the point. That is the good news that we share like Paul did.)

Hodges ends this section with this heretical statement: “In the final analysis, therefore, salvation is the result of believing in Jesus to provide it. Salvation is not the result of assenting to a detailed creed. Salvation does not even require an understanding of how it was provided for or made possible. All it requires is that the sinner understand the sufficiency of the name of Jesus to guarantee the eternal well-being of every believer

(So basically the gospel to Hodges is indeed cross-less. No need to ever mention the cross and finished atoning work of Christ. The apostle Paul and Peter and others preaching post cross were then in error. Let’s think about the following words of Peter in Acts:

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

And these words from Paul:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. )

In the fourth section Hodges talks about the cross.

“In the light of what we have just said, should we preach the cross of Christ? The answer to that is emphatically yes. And the most obvious reason for doing so is that this is what Paul and the other Apostles did.

According to Paul’s own statement, when he came to Corinth to preach, he was “determined not to know anything among [them] except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). Later in the epistle, Paul describes his gospel as one that declared “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (15:3).”

(Hmm, imagine that. Yet Hodges seems to not understand the importance. What? So Paul’s good news (gospel) has slightly more content than John mentioned being that this is now post-cross? )

“Are you ready for this? John never uses either word in his gospel. Why? Because, as I have already suggested, John makes the Person of Jesus, not a set of doctrines, the object of the faith that brings eternal life. Fundamentally he is trying to get people to believe in Jesus for their eternal salvation.”

(Paul didn’t make anything other than Jesus Christ the object of our faith. We trust Him for it based on the good news of who He is and what therefor He accomplished for us who could not save ourselves. For us this is the good news. The good news that IT is fininshed. )

Notice more of Hodges’ flip flop:

“But this is precisely where preaching the cross becomes so important. Why should men trust Christ for eternal life? The gospel gives us the wonderful answer. They should do so because Jesus has bought their salvation at the cost of His own precious blood. And God has placed His seal on the work of the cross by raising Jesus from the dead. As Paul states: He “was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25).

(Exactly my point. …)

The preaching of the cross greatly facilitates the process of bringing men to faith in God’s Son.”

(This sums up the point of basically all grace believers that oppose Hodges and his error. Why should men trust Christ? To not give people this reason is unconscionable. If Hodges had this as his only paragraph then his article would be Biblical. This is exactly the gospel we share with people now in this age of grace post cross.)

In the final section Hodges says: “To be sure, trust in Christ can occur without a knowledge of the cross, but more often than not it doesn’t. The message of the cross clarifies God’s way of salvation.”

(He makes my point pretty well for me. The question is trust Christ for what? The answer is related to what He did for us on the cross.)

Hodges further makes my point and nullifies his own position. “On a very practical level, when I am dealing with an unsaved person, I find that if I simply tell him he only needs to believe in Christ, this usually doesn’t make sense to him. Why should it be so easy? Why are not works required? To the unregenerate American mind, it doesn’t sound reasonable.”

(Exactly. This is why Paul preached the gospel the way he did. To the Greeks foolishness and the Jews a stumbling block. This means it goes against our sin nature to understand it. We must receive it by faith. The god of this world has blinded the minds of them that don’t believe. 2 Cor 4. This is why we need the good news of Christ’s death burial and resurrection. Not just some unspecific guarantee from a person named Jesus.)

“I say to people, “Jesus paid it all” and there is nothing left for you to do or to pay. All you have to do is believe in Him for the free gift of everlasting life.”

(Amen, this is closer to what you need to be telling people. Go with this starting point and forget that other mindless drivel about desert islands.)

I pray that any reading this consider prayerfully the truth of the important of the cross in our gospel presentations. Also warn others using scripture against this cross-less error in love.

Jim F

Posted in Heresy, Salvation | 205 Comments

Repentance According to Spurgeon

All too often you will hear preaching on repentance that really is not Biblical repentance in context of receiving the gift of salvation through faith. You will hear some fundamental pastors deny that Spurgeon was a Calvinist or that he taught Lordship salvation. You may even hear people protest that moderate Calvinism does not change the gospel. If a Pastor teaches that faith is the gift of God, that unconditional election is true, that repentance equals willingness to turn from sin, that repentance is a “grace”, and that there ought to be evidence of that “grace” in a person’s life that truly has it (perseverance of the saints), then does it affect the gospel? The answer is yes and should not be ignored or brushed under the rug. Would it also surprise you that many such Pastors admittedly are big fans of Spurgeon? Let’s take a close look at one of Spurgeon’s sermons called Repentance Unto Life. This was preached back in 1855. If you need to see the full transcript it can be found through a simple Google search.

Spurgeon starts off by making the point that repentance is also for the gentiles. This is potentially a good point to make based on the verse used at the beginning however early on we see Spurgeon refer to grace this way:

“After this the power of grace was so mighty that these Jews could no longer withstand it: and in the teeth of all their previous education, they at once assumed the broad principle of Christianity,” and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.””

Spurgeon then goes on to start talking about his understanding of “repentance”. ”By “Repentance unto life,” I think we are to understand that repentance which is accompanied by spiritual life in the soul, and ensures eternal life to every one who possesses it.”

(Huh? Salvation is a present tense possession. It seems to be that Spurgeon is equating repentance and that of ongoing repentance as a possession as well. This should make sense us later because we will see that Spurgeon claims that repentance is a gift.)

“”Repentance unto life,” I say, brings with it spiritual life, or rather, is the first consequent thereof.”

(Which is it? This is straight up Calvinist style doublespeak. The statement itself really is a contradiction and Calvinism is no stranger to contradictions primarily because it is a concoction of men’s wisdom messing up what God has actually said. The only way it could be the first consequence of spiritual life is if regeneration or at least faith precedes it. This is faith as the gift or pre-regeneration error…Calvinist style…. which is not the gospel as we will see later.)

“…but the repentance here spoken of is produced by the Author of life, and when it comes, it begets such life in the soul, that he who was “dead in trespasses and sins,” is quickened together with Christ…” “…” he who slumbered in the very center of corruption, receives power to become one of the sons of God, and to be near his throne. This I think is “repentance unto life,”—that which gives life unto a dead spirit.”

(So basically Spurgeon is saying that repentance is given as a gift to make a dead person alive. Does that check with scripture? Going back to his original verse is that what it is saying? Or could it be that the verse is talking in general about how salvation is also available to gentiles? Which interpretation fits better with the rest of scripture?)

“I have said also, this repentance ensures eternal life;…”

(This is not how to look at it. Repentance is a change of mind which in itself does not ensure eternal life. What ensures eternal life is the object of our faith Jesus Christ. In order to trust Christ we have to have had a change of mind from trusting anyone or anything else. )

Spurgeon alludes to Arminianism then says “The repentance of our test is not their repentance, but it is a “repentance unto life;” a repentance which is a true sign of eternal salvation in Christ; a repentance which preserves us through this temporary state in Jesus, and which when we are passed into eternity, gives us a bliss which cannot be destroyed.”

(Wait a minute… does repentance preserve us?! No. The shed blood of Christ covers us. The Spirit seals us. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us… So what is Spurgeon talking about?)

Spurgeon then attempts to outline some false ideas of repentance from his perspective. He uses the illustration of Felix and in the midst of it he says:

“…but, let me tell you, you may be after all a castaway, because you have not repented of your sins, neither have you turned to God.”

(So here we see that Spurgeon equates repentance to turning from sins. But is this the definition of repentance?)

“How often has conviction brought you on your knees and you have “almost” repented, but you have remained there, without actually repenting.”

(Spurgeon is saying here that those that refused like Felix did were refusing to turn from their sins. Rather Felix was refusing to believe what Paul was saying. Felix’s problem was not that he didn’t want to stop sinning or that God didn’t gift him yet with repentance but that he would not believe.)

Spurgeon, based on his false repentance example of conviction, then attempts to scare his audience with this: “”Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.””

(The problem though is that adding turning from sins to the concept of receiving salvation by faith is to add to the gospel a meritorious act. If you do this and never actually trust Christ alone to save then you will suffer the very same fate Spurgeon is scaring them about.)

Spurgeon then complains about what he perceives as a non-continuing repentance. “…they renounce certain vices and follies, they clothe themselves in sack-cloth, their tears flow very freely on account of what they have done; they weep before God; and yet with all that, their repentance is but a temporary repentance, and they go back to their sins again.”

(So for Spurgeon, not only is repentance the gift of turning from sins but it MUST always continue (perseverance of the saints) or it was not really true repentance that was given. Is this the gospel? Now Spurgeon attempts to justify this position with the example of Ahab and Naboth but is the context of this story talking about how to receive eternal life!? Spurgeon is not dealing faithfully with the Word here. Spurgeon then starts talking about being afraid of hell versus being afraid of sinning. Remember this is all coming from the perspective that God gives repentance as a specific gift to certain individuals.)

“It is not the soul’s state that troubles you, but hell. If hell were extinguished, your repentance would be extinguished; if the terrors awaiting you were withdrawn, you would sin with a higher hand than before, and your soul would be hardened, and would rebel against its sovereign. Be not deceived, my brethren, here; examine yourselves whether you are in the faith; ask yourselves if you have that which is “repentance unto life;” for you may humble yourselves for a time, and yet never repent before God.”

(Spurgeon here is creating a false dichotomy. There is no real problem here since repentance is not a grace in the way he asserts. This is also because repentance for salvation is not turning from sins anyway. So it becomes a straw man argument. Also notice that he takes the verse there from 2 Corinthians out of context. That verse was talking to believers not about the state and nature of their repentance for eternal life. Paul was telling the Corinthians to quit questioning his authority and reflect on how they had obeyed his earlier rebuke of their wickedness as believers. In no way was Paul saying that their obedience proved their salvation.)

”Beyond this many advance, and yet fall short of grace.” (The interesting thing to note here is that adding anything of merit to the gospel is to create another gospel and fall short of grace. Making repentance mean “turn from sins” does this exactly.)

(Now Spurgeon goes on to further clarify what his view of repentance is. For him it is as if turning from sins is not enough. There is more.)

You may approach God, and tell him you are a wretch indeed; you may enumerate a long list of your transgressions and of the sins that you have committed, without a sense of the heniousness of your guilt, without a spark of real hatred of your deeds. You may confess and acknowledge your transgressions, and yet have no abhorrence of sin; and if you do not in the strength of God resist sin, if you do not turn from it, this fancied repentance shall be but the guilding which displays the paint which decorates; it is not the grace which transforms into gold, which will abide the fire.”

Spurgeon tries to prove this by using Judas as an example but Judas had the problem that he never believed. So therefore Judas saying, “I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood.”” is not an attempt to be saved. Nor do we confess sin to men for salvation anyway. Spurgeon says there is a “kind” of repentance that leads to life.

“Now, having thus warned you that there are many false kinds of repentance, I propose to occupy a short time by some remarks on TRUE REPENTANCE, and the signs whereby we may discern whether we have that “repentance” which is “unto life.””

(The only sign I see scripturally of biblical repentance (change of mind) is that we now trust in Christ alone for salvation. If we trust Christ alone it means we therefore have repented. That is it. We must not, as Calvinists tend to do, grab onto elements of Christian living and make them necessary components of conversion. This is what happens when you make faith or repentance the gift of God. It then has to be quantified by elements of subsequent Christian living.)

“”Repentance” is a hatred of sin; it is a turning from sin and a determination in the strength of God to forsake it.”

(Really? Or is it a change of mind?)

“Some hearts God opens to faith, as in the case of Lydia.”

(I personally believe Lydia was most likely already saved because it said she already worshipped God but remember that Calvinists like this kind of opportunity to try to weave in their understanding.)

Spurgeon tries to backpedal a bit: “You know there are degrees of faith, and yet the least faith saves; so there are degrees of repentance, and the least repentance will save the soul if it is sincere.”

(But how do you know if it is sincere… That is part of the problem because works are needed to prove it beyond Christ alone.)

“”Repentance” is a grace.”

(Really? So not only is it a grace but it is imperfect grace? Hmmm. Where is that in the Bible?)

“Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself; and he only gives it to those to whom he will.”

(This is pure Calvinist error which is not the gospel. There actually is a condition and that is Christ righteousness. We must be as righteous as Christ to enter heaven. That is only possible if we receive salvation by faith. How was Abraham saved? Romans 4. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those that trust Him for it based on what Christ has already accomplished.)

“You feel that you have not faith large enough. What are you to do? Ask for an increase of faith, and it will grow. So with repentance. Have you ever tried to get deep repentance? My friends, if you have failed there, still trust in Jesus, and try every day to get a penitential spirit, Do not expect, I say again, to have perfect repentance at first; sincere penitence you must have, and then under divine grace you will go on from strength to strength, until at last you shall hate and abhor sin as a serpent or a viper, and then shall you be near, very near, the perfection of repentance.”

(Why try to get a more perfect repentance if it is not going to be perfect? Also why would God need to give more repentance if he already elected you from the foundation of the world. Why would he not give you everything needed? Doesn’t make sense at all.)

Spurgeon doesn’t stop here but now adds in another condition.  “First, I tell you, there is always sorrow with it.” “He was not a sheep of God, for he had not been washed in penitence: for all God’s people have to be washed there when converted from their sins.”

(Washed in penitence huh? Where is that in the Bible?)

“The gospel promised salvation only to those who really repent.”

(Once again Spurgeon throws this out there but provides no backup of scripture whatsoever.)

Spurgeon isn’t satisfied yet so he goes on to add another element:  “There must be in this repentance, I think, not only sorrow, but there must be practice—practical repentance.”

“They may not love it for the time; but can they be sincerely penitent, and then go and transgress again immediately, in the same way as they did before? How can we believe you if you transgress again and again, and do not forsake your sin? We know a tree by its fruit, and you who are penitent will bring forth works of repentance.”

(Spurgeon shows no biblical understanding of “works meet for repentance”. We as believers are to do those things worthy of repentance but not to be saved or even to prove that we are saved. We should do them because we are saved and they are God’s will. We should serve out of love for our Savior. They are not a legalistic tests of genuineness.)

So now we have another element added. You must also hate your sin. “If so—if you can say this in sincerity—if you thus turn to God and hate your sin with an everlasting hatred, you need not fear but that you have a “repentance” which is “unto life.””

(Oh really, is that all? If I have an everlasting hatred…right. How is anyone to know if they have that exactly? So basically that is a fancy way of really saying that you can’t know.)

Spurgeon’s third point is that repentance is a gift but we already knew that. “It is the marvel of divine mercy that it not only provides the way of salvation, that it not only invites men to receive grace, but that it positively makes men willing to be saved.”

“Is it not a stupendous act of divine mercy that he actually makes them willing? He does not do it by force, but uses a sweet spiritual persuasion.”

(Spurgeon tries to use the marriage feast analogy to say that God makes men willing to turn from their sins with a sorrowful hatred and willingness to obey. It is not by force yet he makes them through persuasion… right. Or it could be that God persuades all men through the gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit but that God has also allowed for man to decide whether he will believe or reject? Remember if choosing to believe is God’s doing then so is refusing to believe. But this is not the gospel.)

“Some of you will say, “Sir, I have been trying to repent for a long time. In pains and afflictions I have been praying and trying to believe, and doing all I can.””

(This is the ridiculous state Calvinism leaves people in. There is no trying to repent (turn from sins) or trying to believe. You just believe the gospel once it is presented to you. Quit making it about performance.)

“If you want faith, remember he gives it, if you want repentance, he gives it! if you want everlasting life, he gives it liberally.” “He can force you to feel your great sin, and cause you to repent by the sight of Calvary’s cross, and the sound of the greatest, deepest death shriek, “Eloi! Eloi! lama sabachthani?” “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?””

(Wait, I thought he said that God wouldn’t force anyone… just persuasively teach them…)

“That will beget “repentance;” it will make you weep and say, “Alas! and did my Saviour bleed; and did my Sovereign die for me?””

(Now it is true that reflecting upon the cross of Christ can help us as believers to be convicted of our sin and failures as believers but this has nothing to do with justification or trusting Christ for salvation.)

“Then beloved, if you would have “repentance,” this is my best advice to you—look to Jesus. And may the blessed Giver of all “repentance unto salvation” guard you from the false repentances which I have described, and give you that “repentance,” which existeth unto life.”

(So after all that talking, just look to Jesus and hopefully He will give you what you need and it will be qualified and quantified eventually if it really was real. Brother. And this to Spurgeon is the good news gospel?)

In this whole thing I did not see a lot of spiritual understanding from Spurgeon. He talks with religious sounding ease but where was the truth? It sounded more like his preconceived Calvinistic notions were read back into the texts. Is it any wonder then that even moderate Calvinists, especially those that heavily revere and look to Spurgeon as an example, tend to misinterpret the idea of repentance leading to another gospel? It is time for us to stop following after guys like Spurgeon and spend a little more time looking to see exactly what the Word says itself. Do not let one man or hero’s mistake affect you or other you may minister to. You will have to give an account to God for your life as a believer. Spurgeon will have to answer for his own. Further yet, do not be deceived any longer if you have not yet trusted Christ alone as Savior.

Posted in Uncategorized | 53 Comments

Beware of the Gap Theory

Today I want to consider the ruin/reconstruction version of the Gap theory. There are those that say that Genesis 1 is not referring to just creation but to a creation, ruin of that first creation, and a reconstruction. Proponents of this theory claim that there is a gap of time between Genesis verses 1 and 2. They also argue that the fall of Satan took place prior to verse 2 and a flood destroyed the original earth created in verse 1.  Please note that this particular theory is different from those motivated primarily by a desire to accommodate an evolutionary process. There are those that also claim that God used the process of evolution to create the world as we know it. That argument is beyond the scope of the theory in question, but as we will see, there are arguments against one that also works against the other.

So for the ruin/reconstruction version of the theory, let’s look at a few points of contention. Proponents of this view make the claim that Genesis 1:1 records the creation of the original earth. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So what I think is described in the whole chapter, they think is described all in verse 1. Now if that is not hard enough to believe, they say that Satan’s fall must take place before verse 2. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Part of their reasoning is that the phrase “without form and void” and the word “darkness” must indicate God’s judgment. This begs the question of how they would come up with such a thing. Now what happens is that they look to other places in the Bible where “without form and void” is in context of a previous destruction. Likewise they also allude to places where darkness is referred to in terms of evil or judgment.

Next they draw from passages that they feel demonstrate Satan’s fall and the result of that fall. One such passage is Isaiah 14:12-19 Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Here they say “Lucifer” is referring to the devil. They assume that he fell and his fall caused damage to the nations.) Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (They assume here that Satan wanted to be like the most High. However the surrounding context says otherwise.) Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; (Verse 16 is referring to a “man” – the King of Babylon – not a male fallen angelic being.) Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? (Satan did not make the world wilderness. This was the earthly king’s doing.)  Isa 14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. Isa 14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. (Here we have one earthly king being compared to another.) Isa 14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. (Satan did not have rule over people. He could not have slain “his” people.) So verse 14:4 says who this passage is all about: Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! (From this we can gather that there is no reason whatsoever to think that this passage has anything to do with Genesis verses 1 and 2 since it is not talking about Satan’s fall but the king of Babylon.) Another passage used is Ezekiel 28:12-19 Eze 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. (Now I have heard at least one proponent of this view claim that it is arrived at by good hermeneutics but look first at who this is in reference to. Verse 12 makes it clear that this is talking primarily about the king of Tyrus. And beyond that, the surrounding context has this in a section where various other earthly kings ad groups are being discussed such as the king of Babylon ch 24, the Ammorites, Edomites, Moabites, Phillistines ch 25. Chapters 26 and 27 describe the city of Tyrus and its people. Then chapter 28 deals more specifically with the king of Tyrus and follows on in verse 21 to go on to talk about the city of Zidon. So why in all of this should we necessarily assume that God intends for us to understand that the lamentation given to the king of Tyrus is authoritative teaching about Satan and his fall? There are some like Scofield and Ryrie that have written commentaries that basically claim that these verses refer to Satan. One problem I see is that the Bible typically uses figurative language to refer to something that will happen in the future and not something that happened in the past. For me, even if you can prove this is talking about both the king of Tyrus and figuratively of Satan, it would be a foreshadowing possibly of the antichrist. But there is no need to be dogmatic about that because there are plenty of more clearly defined passages.) Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tablets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. (This is where they say they can place the fall of Satan in Genesis. However, Eden can just be the area where the garden was.) Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (Anointed cherub could refer to an earthly king. The English meaning carries with it the idea of beauty and innocence while the Hebrew meaning carries with it the idea of a winged creature. Possibly like the one set to garden Eden.) Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Many presume this is Satan being perfect until he sinned but that is possibly presuming too much. It very well could be talking about the ways of the king. Also look at the next verse.) Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. (Satan did not have merchandise but this would fit the king of Tyrus being that the city was known for its trade.) Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (The beauty mentioned here fits with the cherub analogy.) Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. (Satan did not have sanctuaries. Also multitude of iniquities and iniquity of thy traffick fits better with the king of a port city.) Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (How would the people have known Satan? This is referring to a king of earth. Notice also that there is no time frame given as to when Satan’s fall may have taken place. More on that later. So basically we have two passages where the bulk of the evidence points to them referring to earthly kings and absent of any time frames in reference to anything in Genesis 1.) Now I say that the ruin/reconstruction theory is strange and is not true for the following reasons. 1) There is no reason to read Genesis 1:1-2 as if it is not a straight forward account. There is no further revelation in scripture that adds anything in. 2) There is no reason to think that these five verses describe more than one day. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (So from verse 1 to 5 we have the first day.) 3) “Without form and void” in verse 2 simply describes the earth before it had been further shaped. There was darkness because light had not been created yet. It in no way indicated that the earth had been destroyed…. in fact it was just the opposite. It was just newly formed in its raw initial state. 4) Isaiah 14:12-20 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 are used to try to support this view but lack any time table placing events before Gen 1:2. They are also more likely referring to earthly kings. 5) The Bible elsewhere comments on creation. In Exodus we see the following: Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (The week of creation (7 days) was a pattern that God used. The Israelites were to rest the seventh day just as God had rested. This eliminates a gap otherwise the comparison is not a true one.) 6) There is no reason to think that Satan’s fall had direct physical ramification for the earth. God did not punish the earth or mankind for Satan’s fall. 7)  It appears unlikely that Satan’s fall took place before the end of creation’s week when God declared everything good in his sight. Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (This is one of the stronger arguments.) 8) Proponents of this theory like to point out the word replenish as if the world had been destroyed and needed filling a second time. The word “replenish” in verse 1:28 means to fill. It does not mean the earth was destroyed and it had to be re-filled. 9) Sin and death came into the world through Adam’s sin in the garden. Rom 5. So therefore there could have been no sin that affected the world before Adam’s sin. 10) There could have been no death before Adam’s sin including death of any living thing. (This also refutes the idea that God used evolution.) Death was a result of mankind’s fall which brings us to one of the most important things that could be lost if the Gap is true. Let’s consider: 1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Also, look at Romans 5 especially starting with verse 12. Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Sin could not have entered the world by any other than Adam. It was his sin that brought the curse not Satan or any other being. Satan was the serpent that brought the temptation. There is plenty of time between the end of the week of creation and the fall (Adam’s sin) for Satan to have fallen.) Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (If we allow for the gap and a ruin/reconstruction view we do away with this “figure of him that was to come.” It becomes an odd analogy if there was sin prior to Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.) Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. (Why take away one end of this equation? Judgment by one… Adam). Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Sin and death came due to Adam and Christ has brought salvation for all should we choose to trust Him alone for it based on who He is and what He has done. (I Cor 15:1-4). If creation in Gen 1 is not true then couldn’t someone accuse the Bible of containg lies. If it contains lies then the comparisons and contrasts between Adam and Christ are suspect and the whole Word of God loses credibility. Why should it though based on unfounded imaginations and speculations? There is great damage potentially done to theology when we begin to mess around with the Genesis account. There is a reason why we are to balance and compare scripture with scripture using the more clear passages to shed light on less clear passages and not the other way around. I plead with those who may currently hold this gap view or anything similar to prayerfully reconsider based on clearer passages in scripture such as Romans 5. For the rest of us let us boldly proclaim the truth and lovingly seek to explain these things to anyone that may be placing a Gap where it does not belong. In Christ’s love, Jim Floyd

Posted in Heresy | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments