Denying God

I've been pondering the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) and Pelagian belief that God can't play favorites; that is, everyone is equally enabled to come to saving faith and the choice is up to us. It matters little for my purposes here that the one affirms the necessity of grace while the heretical Pelagianism denies that grace is needed at all, although this of course in itself makes semi-Pelagianism vastly superior to full Pelagianism; in the end the semi-Pelagian view is, like their teaching of grace, insufficient.

In both cases, all men are equally enabled to come to saving faith, whether by universal prevenient divine grace or by nature.

And here is the Achilles' heel of this belief; all things being equal, all responses to the gospel should be the same, right? But of course they are not, so all things aren't equal. Something makes people differ. And according to both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism), what makes people different cannot be God or grace, as all people are equally enabled. So let us now slide down this slope a ways:

Perhaps believing the gospel is due to intelligence (or even lack thereof)- well, we can't give God the credit for individual intelligence because that would make God play favorites. Perhaps unbelief is due to natural skepticism- we can't give God credit for any natural limitations or abilities if any of these things may be a deciding factor in belief or disbelief, because that would mean God would have to interfere with man's free-will choices. Maybe it is in the raising- maybe being brought up in a godly family stacks the deck in favor of belief- well, we can't allow God to be involved with our family upbringing, if it may bring us to the cross, because God can't interfere with our choice, because that would make things unequal.

God can't have anything to do with where we are born, when we are born, our upbringing, our natural abilities and limitations and dispositions, social factors such abuse or nurture or anything else that may be a factor in bringing us to saving faith, because if he did, that would be graciously providing for one person and denying another person. The only option for the Arminian or Pelagian is to deny all these factors as having anything to do with whether or not we believe the gospel or you wind up with Deism, with a god who is not involved with his creation at all.

I would agree that none of these factors can cause saving faith. In fact, God is intimately involved with all of these things, but given ideal circumstances concerning all of these things (and hundreds more), they would be insufficient to bring a person to believe the gospel. The Arminian and Pelagian must agree too or else deny that God relates to creation.

This is truly a conundrum- it would seem that saving faith is truly miraculous, if we have a sovereign God that is involved with internal and external influences on our lives, and that none of these influences can bring us to saving faith without having God choosing to help some people but not others.

So what is the difference? Why does one believe and another does not?

Is it that one loves sin more than the other? What causes one to love sin more than the other? It can't be natural disposition, intelligence, upbringing, or any external or internal factor that God has anything to do with. So we must either deny that God controls or influences any of these factors or deny any of these factors as having influence on whether or not we believe.

I'm tired of playing this game. God is what makes people differ. It is divine, effectual grace that enables saving faith in one person while withholding that grace leaves another person in unbelief. It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is no help at all- and neither are all these other factors. God saves through the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit everyone whom he chooses for salvation, without being limited by upbringing, natural limitations, race, social oppression, or any other internal or external influence on our lives. Saving faith is a miracle of divine grace.

So now do we become fatalists? Do we just "let go and let God"? God is going to accomplish his will concerning salvation irregardless of what we do anyway.

No! God ordains the ends as well as the means. Our prayers, bringing our children up in the fear of the Lord, witnessing through sharing the gospel and through godly lives and nurturing and loving people are all influential factors that God can and does use to bring a person to the cross. But they are insufficient in of themselves- they cannot turn the point, they cannot cause a person to believe. It takes a miracle of divine and sovereign grace.

Education Resources

I have added content to the Education page at my website. Many education links categorized according to the following:

Free Resources
Seminary and lay level education resources made available without cost.

Online/Distance Learning
Links to paid courses and professional degree opportunities available through online and distance education programs that may be completed or mostly completed from home.

Homeschool, Children and Youth
Teaching materials and curriculum for the homeschool, Sunday school, and family devotionals.

Reformed Seminaries and Colleges
Reformed and Reformed Baptist "brick and mortar" graduate and under-graduate institutions.

Also there are links to articles concerning methods and philosophy of education, encouragements and tips for educators and those seeking to be educated. I hope this resource proves useful.

Update for some older posts

I need to update a couple of older posts I made on this here blog.

The first is this post where I cried a bit about not having a Reformed Baptist fellowship within driving distance of where I live. Well I have, by God's grace, since discovered one, a mere 30 minute drive, and have been attending now for a few weeks. It is exciting to me and an answer to many prayers. I thank God for his abundant grace.

The second is somewhat of a retraction. In this post about abortion I commented that "There is never warrant for abortion". Well, in my feeble mind at the time I could not conceive of one. But I would say upon further reflection that in cases where there is no possibility that the child can survive and the life and health of the mother is threatened, such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, then an induced abortion would be an unavoidable necessity.

Beliefs ~ Canons of Dort

Beliefs ~ Canons of Dort

I have completed the presentation of the Canons of Dort at my website. Included are several useful links to articles, commentaries, books and videos about the Canons and the doctrines of grace. Check it out.

I'm still around

You may be wondering why I haven't blogged in a while. Well it's a combination of laziness, lack of time, and really not having anything much to say. I know most people use their blogs as they are meant to be used- as a public diary of sorts. I'm not sure that my day to day musings and thoughts are worth sharing as a whole, and, frankly, I'm not sure most of the blog posts I read are worth reading.

At any rate, I have a couple of interesting links for you.

The first is a blog by an old internet friend of mine, goes by the handle
Graceshaker. The Holy Wild

He doesn't like categories like "Reformed" and "Calvinist" and "Baptist" and so-forth, which is OK because he doesn't really fit into any of them. Some of his beliefs I strongly disagree with. Nevertheless, Graceshaker has a strong belief in God's absolute sovereignty and man's depravity, and the gospel of grace. His blog is more like what a blog was meant to be (as I described above), and is really some of the most interesting reading around.

Next is an exciting (to me) new internet resource, Puritan Picks.

It is a DVD lending library business similar to Netflix, without all the wickedness. They not only have documentary and educational videos, but lots of clean entertainment DVDs as well.

Lastly, I may as well introduce my new website, A Confessional Baptist.

I had hope to have more content there by now, but, for the same reasons I haven't updated my blog in a good while, I don't. What is available is a presentation of the gospel, the 1689 LBCF, the Baptist Catechism (Keach's), Cambridge Declaration, Daily Scripture readings, memorization, a couple of devotional and news feeds, and a link to my Cafe Press store.

The next thing I will have ready on the website will be the Canons of Dort, and it will be up soon. After that, i will tackle a little original writing with articles about Reformed Baptist Distinctives and then I don't know. I hope you enjoy the site and find it's resources useful. Feel free to tell me what you think here or through the contact form at the website.

Give John Piper the benefit of the doubt

I just wanted to say this briefly, as a man who confesses the 1689 LBCF and Keache's Catechism and the Cambridge Declaration and believes that Calvin's threefold use of the law makes good biblical sense, that I am dismayed by John Piper's recent comments about and invitation to Doug Wilson of Federal Vision heresy fame. I believe (and hope) that in this case that John Piper is reading Wilson wrong and believes that Wilson has been misunderstood.

The problem is, as far as I know, that those who have seen a different gospel in Wilson's beliefs have not been rebuked by Wilson for mis-reading him but have been told that they are misreading Scripture, much in the same way Tom Wright has poo-pooed anyone who labels his heretical departure from the gospel for what it is. Of course, Wright goes farther and humbly explains that his detractors' main problem is that they have not read enough Wright and went to the wrong schools.

But I digress; as I have also read some of Dr. Piper's works and listened to many sermons by him, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his actions involving Wilson, because I have never heard another Pastor preach the gospel of justification by grace through faith with more clarity and conviction, and his Christ centeredness and commitment to the absolute sovereignty of God is compelling and commendable.

That being said, I do not consider John Piper to be a Reformed Baptist because he does not adhere to the theology of one of the historic Baptist confessions of faith or its modern equivalent, most likely because of his views of the law and gospel, which I believe lean toward New Covenant theology which is basically antinomian. He admits as much (not the antinomian part). I have that against him.

What dismays me more is some of the assaults I have read recently on John Piper from the Reformed Baptist blogosphere, which, ironically, accuse Piper of legalism and assault his character and ministry. Now there are many thoughtful and Christlike posts out there expressing concerns about Piper's comments and selection of Doug Wilson, such as the post by Pastor Keith Throop, but there are many that seem to harbor some hateful grudge against Piper that is definitely not compelling nor Christlike, that make a concerted effort to disparage Piper with half-truths and misinformation, quoting Piper out of context, etc. This is worthless drivel, and I would that these posters would repent or may hap lose interest in opining on the internet altogether.

I think John Piper is a man of God who has done much to advance the kingdom of God and glorify Christ and God, and deserves better than to be slandered with straw-man attacks against his character and ministry. He may forsake the gospel and make me eat my words, but I say he deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning this.

I have purposefully left out links to the posts that have irritated me concerning this, and would hope that readers would read and listen to Piper's sermons and books and judge him based on his own work and ministry. All of his sermons and books are available for free from the website Desiring God.

Reformed Baptist? Me Too!

Pastor Keith Throop is one of my long time favorites of the "Christian Blogosphere" and internet who, like myself, takes exception to those who would claim exclusive use of the descriptor "Reformed". At least excluding Baptists.

Unlike myself he writes his prose with charitable even-handedness and level-headedness which is too often lacking in the many "poison pens" on the Internet.

His most recent post on why he calls himself a Reformed Baptist in response to former Reformed Baptist R. Scott Clark's repeated assertions that such phrase is a misnomer is no exception, in which Pastor Throop lists three reasons why he believes that Baptists can have a legitimate and historically accurate use of the term.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

Second, Clark's comments seem to assume the idea that there is a monolithic historical understanding of the meaning the English word reformed. But this is simply not true. There are broader and more narrow senses in which the word may be used, and not all of these require the specific understanding to which he apparently wishes to restrict usage of the term. In addition, I see know [sic]reason why a modifier cannot be attached to the word that in effect alters and qualifies its meaning so as to rule out the kind of misunderstanding that Clark is apparently concerned about. One such modifier – as I have already noted – is the term baptist, which immediately communicates a distinctive use of the word reformed.

Read the whole post here: Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist

It may be a coinkidink, but the two voices that I hear loudest (Dr.s R. Scott Clark and Matthew McMahon) in objecting to Baptists using the term "Reformed" as a descriptor are themselves former Baptists. I suppose this is usually the case, with former Dispensationalists being the most belligerent towards that system, Roman Catholics the most critical of that movement, etc.

I myself am a former Independent Fundamental Pauline Dispensational Scofield Reading Pre-Trib Rapturing Semi Pelagian'in King James Only Baptist (IFBSRPTRSPKJVOB) and frankly find my shortened self identifier much easier to say and abbreviate; Reformed Baptist, (RB). Nice ring to it too.

Dr.s Clark and McMahon are both very edifying brothers in most respects, by the way, and I with good conscience endorse them both to all y'all Reformed Baptists.