The Impossibility of Apostasy

Recently, I was passed a tract from a local Amish group called "The Possibility of Apostasy". This is in part a response to that tract, but also a general criticism of the doctrine that a person can lose their salvation. I confess that I have a soft spot for those who hold to this doctrine. While there are some that are committed to this heresy, I have found that there are many who are simply overreacting against the abuses in mainstream Christianity. They correctly reject the ideas of carnal Christianity (that a child of God can live in unrepentant sin) and the sinner's prayer (that a person has to merely ask for forgiveness or recite a prayer to be saved). They know that the Bible teaches that it's impossible for a Christian to live a life of unrepentant sin. Therefore, they conclude that these 'carnal Christians' must have lost their salvation. However, I would like to make the case that it is impossible to lose your salvation, and that all cases of 'carnal Christianity' can be explained by recognizing that they were never saved to begin with.

I want to start by clarifying the nature of salvation and what one must do to be saved. First, the gospel message is that God came to Earth as a man and that this man Jesus died for the sins of the world, taking upon Himself the judgment that we deserve (1 Cor. 15:1-4). On this basis, God can now justify man (Rom. 3:25-26). God offers forgiveness to mankind, but commands that we must repent and trust/believe in Him (Mark 1:15). This is stated throughout the Bible, and nowhere is salvation promised to one who merely asks or says a ritual prayer. There is nothing wrong with praying and asking God for forgiveness, but unless accompanied by repentance, the words are empty.

With all this in mind, I hope it becomes clear that in the case of "Christians" who walk the aisle in their church, pray a sinner's prayer, and then live like the devil, we should not feel pressured to explain their descent back into sin. These people didn't even do what was necessary for them to be saved. They went through a silly superficial ritual that is unfortunately promoted by most of so-called Christianity. So, you see, it's not even possible for these people to have lost their salvation, because they never possessed it to begin with. In my experience, 95% of 'carnal Christians' that I meet show obvious signs that they never understood salvation. For those 5% that did at least appear to show some outward signs of repentance, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there was something going on in their heart that we couldn't see (perhaps a particular sin they weren't willing to part from). We see this clearly in 1 John 2:19, where John states that those who are truly converted would doubtlessly continue in the faith, and those who depart only reveal that they were never truly a part of the church. This easily explains what we see without invoking strange doctrines.

Now I want to explain why I call 'eternal insecurity' a strange doctrine that is incompatible with the Bible. Scriputure is clear that neither our salvation nor our continued spiritual growth is dependent on our works. As Paul puts it in Galations 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" It's also helpful to examine the promises that God makes regarding salvation. For example: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn. 10:27-28), "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Heb. 13:5), "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So when you're saved, you have eternal life. By definition, eternal life can't be cut short. It's impossible to claim that someone can lose their salvation without also calling Jesus a liar in the above passages. Let me demonstrate my point again in a sort of syllogism using John 3:16 as an example:

Everyone who has been born again believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ.
Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish and will have eternal life.
Therefore, everyone who has been born again will not perish and will have eternal life.

So again, it's clear that every person who has been truly saved has God's unconditional promise that they will not perish in Hell. How could God make such a promise if it is possible for us to lose our salvation?

Additionally, this doctrine seems to make a small thing of the process of salvation. When a man is born again, he is made into a new creature to serve God (2 Cor. 5:17). He passes from death unto life (Jn. 5:24). He is no longer a child of the devil, but becomes a child of God (1 Jn 3:10). Do you suppose that men just bounce back and forth between being an old or new creaure, being alive or dead, and being a child of the devil or child of God? Furthermore, how can this doctrine mesh with the doctrine of chastening as laid out in Heb. 12? Do you believe that God's chastening is insufficient? Is God a failure of a father to those supposed formerly saved sons out there?

Finally, I'd like to take a litle time to address passages commonly considered to be in support of 'eternal insecurity'. In general, most can be understood when you consider that the people being referred to are typically those who have been associated with the church and counted among the number, but were never truly saved to begin with. Hebrews 6 is one passage that I'd like to discuss directly. Verses 4-6 are often quoted in support of 'eternal insecurity', though they are simply an aside about unconverted Jews. What they often neglect to mention is that if they are right about this passage, v.6 makes it clear that if you lose your salvation, it's impossible for you to be saved again.

How do they claim you can lose your salvation? According to the tract I got saw from the local Amish, you can lose you salvation if you neglect to forgive someone, if you aren't bearing enough fruit, if you're sinning, if you refuse to take a stand for Christ, and if you refuse to separate from the world. They even suggest that whether or not you own a TV might be the clearest test of your conversion. So how much sin is "too much"? How much of a stand do you have to take? How much fruit must you bear? James 2:10 says "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Sounds like one sin is too much, and would be grounds for you to lose your salvation, forever. Are you absolutely sure you were a perfect person yesterday? Have you always loved God with all of your heart and mind without fail? What about tomorrow? How certain can you be that tomorrow you won't blow it and condemn yourself to an eternity in Hell? People who believe in this doctrine should lose sleep every night.

Thankfully, that's all nonsense. If Jesus' blood is sufficient to wash away every sin in your past, then a single sin (or many) after your salvation is not going to break the deal. Of course, that's not a license to sin and everyone who has truly been saved wouldn't see it as such. Because, as shown before, salvation is a dramatic change that creates a new person who wants to please and serve God.

I don't know about you, but I'm still an imperfect creature. I lose my temper sometimes. I'm not as patient as I should be. I get frustrated with my wife and kids. I sometimes sit at home when I could be handing out tracts. I could go on. I'm just thankful that God is patient with me and continues to love, chasten, and teach me as I continue to follow Him.

In conclusion, I hope it is clear now that it's impossible for a Christian to lose their salvation. Carnal Christians are not Christians who have lost their salvation, but are simply people who made a superficial profession of faith, often the sinner's prayer, without ever being truly converted. 'Eternal insecurity' is a doctrine without Biblical support that turns salvation into a bargain that we have to keep instead of a merciful offer to those who repent. If you believe in this doctrine, reject it now. To the rest of you, I hope this has been helpful for your own edification, or as something to challenge someone you know.

Alternative Medical Treatments: Science or Sorcery?

For decades now, alternative medicine has been gaining steam. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are a variety of practices that fall under the umbrella of “alternative medicine” and some of them should be avoided. I'm particularly interested in discussing the spiritual angle. One of the biggest problems that I see with the alternative medicine movement is that Christians with little discernment end up practicing things that are rooted in the occult and demonic realms. There's also a lot to be said about the “quackery” of some of these treatments, but there are plenty of scientific studies and material out there, so I will only briefly touch on that. Let's take a look at the origins and practice of some alternative treatments.

Homeopathy

Homeopathic medicine often uses herbal remedies diluted to such a degree that there is statistically none of the herb left in the dose. This is because homeopathy is based on the philosophy that plants have a mystical “life force” that can be used to re-balance the life force within a person. Homeopaths attempt to isolate and concentrate life force while minimizing the physical presence of the plant. Therefore, the whole practice is rooted in eastern mysticism. It would not be a stretch at all to categorize this as what the Bible would term sorcery. Obviously, this is something that Christians should completely avoid.

Acupuncture
As with homeopathy, the philosophy of acupuncture is firmly rooted in eastern mysticism. In short, the practitioner attempts to promote health by inserting needles into your body at key points in an attempt to improve your “chi flow” or “spiritual energy”. Again, considering the attempt to manipulate spiritual energy, this is easily classified as sorcery. Some practitioners claim acupuncture as a purely material science, but in reality they are just attempting to distance themselves from the spiritual roots of acupuncture.

Yoga
Yoga is sometimes thought of as simple relaxing exercise, but at its core it is a non-Christian religious practice. There are various schools of yoga associated with buddhism, hinduism, and more, but in each case yoga is a central part of the religion. Yoga supposedly brings one on a path of enlightenment, to become one with the universe. In some forms of these religions, they even believe that they achieve salvation through yoga. This stands in complete opposition to Christianity. Therefore, a Christian doing yoga “for health reasons” is kind of like a group of atheists baptizing each other because it feels good, or Muslims taking communion because it's yummy. If you want to do stretching exercises, that's no problem. But be aware that yoga is a specific religious practice that should be avoided, even if divorced from the religious context.

Chiropractic

Getting your back cracked seems innocent enough, right? Believe it or not, Chiropractic is also rooted in a terrifying amount of mysticism. Daniel Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, believed in a concept very similar to “life force”, which he called innate intelligence. He was also a spiritist who claimed he “received chiropractic from the other world” – obviously a demonic spirit. To Palmer, chiropractic was essentially a religion. His 'life force' position used to be standard among chiropractors, but these days most chiropractors reject these ideas and view their practice as a purely material thing.

A Christian absolutely shouldn't be involved in chiropractic based on Palmer's philosophy. As for the purely material view, use your conscience. Personally, I wouldn't play with something that originated from a demonic mind, even though it is trying to distance itself from its origins. Beyond that, I offer a bit of wisdom. Studies on the efficacy of chiropractic treatments show mixed results. There's no conclusive evidence that chiropractic can help anything other than temporary back pain. Also, some data suggests that the treatments which help the acute back pain can actually lead to chronic back pain. This would explain why someone who starts going to a chiropractor usually ends up going regularly. In my experience, it's uncommon for someone to have one or two treatments and then be 'fixed'. For all these reasons, I don't recommend chiropractors.

Vaccines

The anti-vaccine movement seems to have a strong foothold in certain Christian sub-cultures. While this isn't a spiritual issue, it's another area in which Christians need to show some discernment. These days, much of the anti-vaccine movement stems from the belief that the MMR vaccine can cause autism. This has been shown to be false in many studies. Just last month, an ambitious study of nearly 100,000 cases was published, which focused on children at risk for autism. Yet again, it was shown that there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

So how did this start anyway? Back in 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a paper in a major medical journal suggesting a link between MMR vaccines and autism. It took the journal over 10 years to fully retract his paper, after much investigation. It was found that Wakefield was paid a lot of money to “find evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers”. He failed to disclose this conflict of interest, and was found to have manipulated his data. In short, Wakefield was a total fraud. However, the damage was already done. The media had already reported on his study. Thus, the anti-vaccine movement is still alive and well today.

Herbal remedies

It's becoming increasingly popular to reject modern medicines in favor of herbal remedies. There's generally not a spiritual issue here, but I must recommend caution. Herbal remedies can be good, and sometimes can even work well as a substitute for over the counter drugs. However, there's also a lot of misinformation out there. As a general rule, the bigger the claim, the more skeptical you should be. I've seen books where the author advises cancer patients to stop going to their doctors and to do their 'herbal cleanse' instead. That's tragic, irresponsible, and evil. Is traditional medicine perfect? No. Are traditional doctors and researchers your best bet for treatment? In almost every case, yes. Herbal remedies should not be used as a substitute for your doctor, but they can work together. Most doctors are open to herbal remedies these days and they can give you advice on which remedies are likely to help, which ones probably won't help but are worth trying, and which ones are harmful.

Radical diets 

This is another fad that has risen in the last few years. Unless you think you can get closer to God by following dietary laws, there's really not a spiritual issue here. Yet, as with herbal remedies, beware the absurd claims. You're not going to cure cancer by eating a lot of carrots (or other food). There's really no such thing as a detox diet (for a fun experiment, ask them to name a single toxin the diet supposedly removes). And the Daniel diet is not a Biblical weight loss program. The issue in Daniel was his desire to remain obedient to God's law (Jews had dietary laws, gentiles don't). In fact, Daniel gained weight during this time (Dan. 1:15). With all that said, I'm for proper diet. Obesity is a huge problem in America and the increasing attention to diet is probably a good thing. Not to mention that gluttony is in fact a sin. Honestly, most of us could do with a little exercise and a better diet. Just find a balance and don't get sucked in by absurd claims.

In conclusion, there are alternative medical treatments that are worth exploring, but we should exercise wisdom when approaching the topic. Mainly, I hope to draw attention to several popular alternative treatments (homeopathy, acupuncture, yoga, chiropractic) that are rooted in occult practices, which Christians should absolutely avoid. It's one thing to partake unknowingly, but to dabble in sorcery with knowledge is certainly a sin.

Biblical sovereignty and the rejection of Calvinism

A little over a month ago, I posted an article in which I described the major errors of Calvinism and how its poison has effected non-Calvinists as well. I also promised that at some future time I would offer a Biblical critique of Calvinism. Now is that time. First, I highly recommend reading the original article: Calvinism poisons everything. If you think this is just an arcane debate for bored theologians, that article will explain what is at stake.

From my previous article on the subject, it should be clear that I accept God's sovereignty, but also realize that the term is often misused, especially by Calvinists. As I mention in my previous article on Calvinism, what they call sovereignty is probably better referred to as “total active control” (TAC), so I'll be using this term throughout this article.

On this matter of TAC, there are varying levels of commitment among Calvinists. Some say that God controls every single outcome of every single action, that everything that happens is part of God's decree and will. Other give a little more leeway. Nevertheless, all Calvinists would argue that God has TAC over the salvation of every soul and that he's actively controlling world leaders at the very least. The idea that God exerts TAC over every single action is easy to refute. Simply ask yourself, “when I sin am I doing God's will?” If no, then obviously he's not actively controlling everything. If you answer yes to that, then you're OK with accusing God of sin and I simply can't help you other than to say you're lost and you need to repent.

So obviously God doesn't exert TAC over everything. Then, how and what does he control? Does he actively control nations? Let's see what God says about this. In Jeremiah 18:6-11 God states that he is free to do what he wants with the nations as a potter with clay. Calvinists must stop reading there, because they fail to see that He goes on to describe exactly how he operates. He states that if he decides to destroy a wicked nation, but they repent, then God will also repent of what he was going to do to them (v.7-8). He says a similar things about nations he blesses that fall into sin (v.9-10). Does this sound like God is going around actively controlling everyone? Of course not. He's watching the nations and dishing out judgment/blessing to evil/good nations. But it's better than that. God says that if he pronounces judgment/blessing on a nation, but they start going the other direction, he will change his mind. This leads us to conclude: 1) As a rule, God is not actively controlling nations. 2) Man has an independent will that can choose good/evil. This is obvious from the fact that when God pronounces his will to destroy/bless a city, man can then change his mind by choosing to do good/evil. God's dealings with the ups and downs of Israel throughout the years demonstrate the principle he describes here. Nineveh also comes to mind as an example. To put it another way, God enforces the outcome of moral choices, but the choices are made by men.

An interesting example is found in Matthew 11:21-24. While Jesus condemns the unbelief of the cities where he has worked, he says that if the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if he did the same works there. Now, we could speculate on why Jesus didn't appear in these cities and do his thing, and there are some very good possibilities, but ultimately it's just speculation. The important thing is that Jesus says they would have repented if he did signs there. Of course, this also means that they could have repented. This contradicts the Calvinist's idea of total depravity/inability. If Calvinism were true, Jesus shouldn't be able to even theoretically say these cities would have repented under different circumstances. It's clear that these cities did not repent because there was, at least to them, a lack of knowledge/evidence/signs. This contradicts the Calvinist's claim that they didn't repent because these people were predestined to damnation.

Saul is another important example of how God deals with kings and men. Did God specifically ordain Saul as king? Absolutely. Yet, as Saul's reign goes on, he disobeys, and God rejects him as king. God even says the he's sorry that he ever made Saul king in the first place. (1 Sam 15:11,35) Does that sound like a God who ordained and dictated Saul's actions as king? Obviously not, but it remains true that God did ordain him as king in the first place. It's also worth mentioning that even after God turned his back on Saul and didn't want him to be king anymore, he stayed in his position for some time. This gives us a good picture of God's sovereignty over nations. He does set up certain people as rulers, but also lets them make their own decisions. Also, just because a ruler is in power does not necessarily mean that God wants him there. Again, Saul remained king even after God turned his back on him.

It's worth mentioning that Calvinists love to talk about God's hardening of Pharaoh. I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time on this because I've already shown that TAC is not how God operates. Even if the hardening of Pharaoh happened exactly as the Calvinists would have us to believe, it would merely be an exception to the rule, at best. However, I think it's worth noting a could things with Pharaoh. First, Pharaoh hardened his heart first, so this is not an example of God overriding someone's will. Second, Calvinists often think of this as a sort of psychic intrusion whereby God tinkers with Pharaoh's brain/soul and hardens him. This is an unlikely assumption. We are not told how God hardened Pharaoh, only that He did. But comparing this with other passages, we see that hardening is likely done through circumstances. One of the best descriptions of how hearts are hardened is Isaiah 6:9-11. God tells Isaiah to harden the hearts of Israel by preaching to them. In other words, Isaiah is delivering the truth they don't want to hear. They refuse to listen, but Isaiah is credited with hardening them. This is nothing mystical, merely Isaiah putting people in a position where they have to either obey, or harden themselves to avoid conviction. It's entirely possible that God did something like this with Pharaoh. 

One final point on this matter of God's sovereignty over nations. Calvinists insist that God is in control of everything, so where does Satan fit into all this? Calvinists typically ignore Satan's role, but Scripture calls him the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Does this not imply some large degree of power or control? At the very least, he can lie and blind the minds of unbelievers. Certainly God doesn't want to lie to unbelievers and blind their minds. So again, it's obvious that God isn't enforcing his will all the time.

In conclusion, there is strong Biblical evidence for the free will of nations. In other words, nations of men make their choice to pursue good or evil and God acts accordingly by blessing or cursing. God does intervene in the affairs of nations by setting up leaders, and causing rise or fall of the nation, but does not intervene in any way that would override or invalidate man's moral choice. Furthermore, there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that God forces his will on people by directly interfering with their thoughts or will. Therefore, Calvinism presents an anti-biblical view of God's sovereignty and should be rejected as the doctrine of devils.

For reference, here's a short list of other passages that present these same ideas. This is by no means intended to be exhaustive, but it should be sufficient.

Men responsible for their own hardness - Deut. 10:16, Acts 7:51, Matt 14:28-31

Men make free moral choices and God holds them accountable (In particular, if-then statements demonstrate man's ability to choose): Ezek. 3:17-21, Ezek. 18:4-32, Ezek. 33:7-20, Deut 11:22-23, Deut 12:24-25, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 6:14-15, Matt. 10:7-15

Calvinism poisons everything

While the title might sound like hyperbole, I'm coming to realize that Calvinism poisons everything important in Christianity. Even worse, this poison has spread even to those who would not self-identify as Calvinists. As I go through points, I'll offer some Scriptural support to direct your mind. However, my point here is not to refute various elements of Calvinism, only to show its poisonous effects. I am planning to soon write an article that is more of a direct refutation.

As you read, please think about the consequences of this doctrine that I'll be pointing out. Examine whether you might have some of this poison in your theological system in some way, however subtle. Even if you are not a Calvinist, I would be surprised if you aren't in some way affected by their theology. For those who claim Calvinism, look at the consequences of this theology. If it damages or contradicts things that are so obviously true from Scripture, doesn't that imply that your system is wrong? I'll show exactly how in an article in the near future.

God – To know God is surely the most important thing for everyone. Yet, Calvinism presents a heavily distorted view of the creator. The Calvinist's deity is arbitrary. Some he saves from the fires of Hell. Others, he declines to save, but takes pleasure in watching them burn. Calvinists then have the audacity to claim that this deity “loves all”, is “full of mercy” and “is no respecter of persons”, things that are indeed true of God, but not the arbitrary God of Calvinism. Their concepts stand in clear contrast to the God of the Bible who constantly stretches out his hands toward rebels and who weeps over the lost, offering forgiveness if only they repent (Isaiah 65:2, Matt. 23:37). Of Calvin's arbitrary God, Dave Hunt asks in the title of his book on Calvinism, “What love is this?”. One could ask the same of the other qualities of God that Calvinism corrupts – that God is longsuffering and full of mercy, to name a few.

Salvation – If you look at the teachings of Calvinism in a way that is logically consistent, you must conclude that the salvation of an individual does not hinge on them exercising repentance to God and faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, but upon an eternal decree of God. In other words, if you are elect, God will cause you to repent and believe. If you are not elect, you have no chance to repent and believe the Gospel. This is a severe corruption of the requirements of salvation. To the Calvinist, Christ died only for the elect and salvation will come whether you intend to respond or not. Biblically, Christ died for the sins of the world and God calls every individual to respond, with no indication that something might unconditionally hinder such a response. (Ezek. 18:4-32, 1 Tim. 4:10, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 9:13, and many more) Logically then, the Calvinist believes that someone may simply wait around for God to save them. However, the Bible calls for the individual to actively repent and believe. This contrast is shown most clearly in the life of Charles Finney. In his evangelistic efforts, he preached to people in Calvinistic churches who were just waiting around for God to regenerate them. Finney's revival earned him the ire of Calvinist leaders who lied and misrepresented him during his life, and even worse after his death. Misunderstanding of salvation can lead to gospel preaching with an open-ended response, which leads to false conversion and hell. In contrast, Scripture strictly calls men to repentance and faith.

Grace - Simply defined, grace is unmerited favor. In the context of the Gospel, this means that Christ died for our sins even though we didn't deserve it. God extends to us an offer of love, forgiveness, adoption, reward, and eternal life to his enemies. This is a beautiful thing. However, Calvinists are uncomfortable with the idea that man can even accept this offer through repentance and faith. Therefore, grace is not so much an kind attribute of God, but more of a mystic force that God irresistably zaps you with. To a monergist, grace is not only unmerited favor, but also unwanted compulsion. This is because, in their mind, you couldn't possibly desire God, so he has to force you to love him with this mystic force they call grace. Obviously, this is a strange way to use the word 'grace', and an even stranger way to talk about God.

Sin / repsonsibility – According to the Calvinist, all things have been ordained by God. Every single thing that happens was planned by God. Even sin. The most evil of Calvinists will flat out admit that God authored sin in some way. What a terrifying accusation! Sin was not intended by God in any way, but was allowed and thoroughly dealt with in God's big plan. A lesser manifestation of this is those who say “oh well, everything is in God's hands” when something happens. Now, I want to be careful here because it is true that everything is in God's hands, in the sense that he is watching with interest and can intervene at any moment. The Christian can indeed take great comfort that God is watching over their life. However, this does not mean that everything is caused by God. When something happens it might have been caused by any number of free moral agents – God, demons, or ourselves. For example, if you get fat and have health problems, it's probably because you ate too much ice cream, not because the devil is after you, nor because God thought it would be good for you to have heart disease. However, we can be sure that whatever happens, God is paying attention and can intervene whenever he feels necessary, though He often lets us experience the consequences of our sin (and even things we didn't bring upon ourselves) so that we can learn a lesson. To rephrase it succinctly, God is in control, but that in no way negates or diminishes your responsibility in any circumstance, and your actions certainly have consequences. If you've ever thought “Oh well, God has it under control, I don't really need to try hard.” then your concept of responsibility has been poisoned by Calvinism.

Sovereignty - Obviously this is very much related to my comments above on sin and responsibility. It's worth specifically pointing out though, that Calvinists throw the word sovereign around like a comma, but they don't use it correctly most of the time. Look in any English dictionary, sovereignty is a word that describes position or authority. However, Calvinists use the word to describe what is better called 'total active control' – the idea that God is not merely in control of the world, but is actually controlling everything, and we are little more than puppets on his strings. In discussing this issue, it's critical to understand there's a big difference between “God is in control” and “God is actively controlling everything”. If God is actively controlling everything, then sin must have been part of His plan too. This would imply that God is the author of sin, a terrible accusation. However, if you properly understand sovereignty, it's easy to see that a king may be "in control" of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean that he approves of everything that happens.

Inherited sin nature – This error in particular is not localized to Calvinists, but has infected most non-calvinists as well. Historically, this doctrine seems to start with Augustine, who was the first the systematize it into what would become the catholic church (Irenaeus possibly tended in this direction, but he didn't take it as far as Augustine). When the reformers separated from the catholic church, they kept the doctrine of original sin, along with infant baptism and other false doctrines of Rome. Sin nature has remained a part of evangelical “orthodoxy” ever since, despite a complete lack of Biblical support (unless you count an ambiguous line from a poem, or are intent to misread Romans 5). Of course, Calvinists take the game to a whole new level by developing a systematic theology that revolves around the idea of not only sin nature, but total depravity/inability which affects salvation as described above. Though many non-calvinists rightly reject the T in TULIP, they hold to “total depravity light”, a poison which has persisted mainly due to tradition and given many a sinner a great excuse for his sin.

Evangelism – If you believe that God has already chosen who he will save and who he won't and there's nothing anyone can do about it, how could that not effect evangelism? At the very least, it takes away the motivation. Historically, some Calvinists have recognized this and have completely rejected the idea of preaching to the lost. Modern Calvinists usually have some sort of token “missions” program in their church. However, each one that I've seen is not about finding lost people and preaching the gospel, but it's about finding “less educated” Christians to convert to Calvinism. I dare say that, to these, Calvin is more important than Christ. For non-Calvinists, I still can't help but wonder if the coldness toward evangelism exhibited by nearly all churches is due to some remnant of this poisonous thought that “If God wants to save the heathen, he'll do it without us”.

How did you do? Have you found any remnants of poison in your system? If so, try to identify the source of the poison. Perhaps a popular preacher that you listen to? Piper, MacArthur, Baucham, Mohler, Sproul, Washer, Driscoll, and many more carry this poison to varying degrees. Maybe you already knew that and thought you were listening with discernment, but if you've realized that it's affecting you, it's probably best to take a break altogether. Instead, fill yourself with pure living water that comes from the Scripture. Set aside the books and commentaries for a while, and just feast on the Bible directly. This is a good rememy for any theology that ails you.

The widow's mite: an example of sacrificial giving or modern religious abuse?

What a title! I'm sure we all know the answer, right? The widow's mite was a beautiful example of sacrificial giving, now praised in pulpits around the globe. At least, that's what I've always been told. Surely that can't be wrong, can it? As I discuss this passage here and show how the story of the widow's mite is often misused, let it also serve as a lesson that careful Bible study is absolutely necessary to avoid being confused by various teachers.

The story of the widow's mite is related in Mark 12:42-44 and Luke 21:1-4, but I'll be making the argument that really the whole chapter should be included in the story. Looking at these isolated verses, it seems like a nice simple story. The rich cast in much, but Jesus notices a poor widow who puts in only a few coins. He comments that she has given much more than anyone else because it was all she had. That's a story that will preach! The cries ring out: Give your all to Jesus! Won't you give your all to the Lord's work? This poor widow had nothing and gave to the Lord's work, surely you can give your 10% ! Of course, those in the 'prosperity gospel' camp are the biggest swindlers, but you will hear these types of things in fundamentalist and evangelical crowds too. Instead of “give me money and God will bless you”, it is phrased, “To be a good faithful Christian, you need to put God first in your finances (and that means putting your 10% in the plate)”. While the fundies and gellies tend to be more cautious about promising blessing, they will still tell stories of those who gave during hard times and how it worked out better in the end, floating the implication that tithing had something to do with it.

In all this, everyone seems to miss the fact that Jesus does not point out this woman as an example of righteousness, but as a victim of a wicked religious system. Jesus' observation of this widow is not a random, standalone happenstance, but occurs as his final blow in a dispute with the scribes, elders, and chief priests that started in Luke 20:1. This dispute starts when Jesus is teaching in the temple and the priests came looking for trouble. They wanted to catch Jesus in his words and make him look stupid, but instead they are the ones who end up looking foolish. After some time and a barrage of questions, they realize they are fighting a losing battle and so they stop talking (Luke 20:40). But Jesus isn't done yet. He goes on the attack, challenging their understanding and showing that the Messiah must be God's son according to the Scriptures. He then turns to the audience and says:

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. (v.46-47)

Immediately after Jesus says this, he looks up to see people giving their offerings and points out the widow who put in everything that she had (Luke 21:1-4). In other words, Jesus is delivering a scathing rebuke about the scribes, only to look up and behold a perfect example of his warning. It's like he's saying, “Look, even now, do you see that poor woman over there? She just gave everything that she had. That's exactly how they are devouring widows' homes!” So, from the context it is obvious that Jesus is not praising this woman for giving her all, but he is pointing her out as a victim of the abusive religious system that he is condemning. Interestingly enough, despite his other errors, John MacArthur is one of the few to get this one right, as seen in this video. However, he merely applies this to the prosperity preachers, missing the fact that evangelicals can be almost as guilty.

Just to be clear, sacrificial giving is not the problem. The problem is when bad leaders make Christians feel like they are in some way obligated to give, but this is especially bad when done to the poor. There is a time and place to dig deep and give, as mentioned of the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8, but Paul only accepted their giving after 'much intreaty' (v.4). He also goes out of his way to make it clear to the Corinthians that any giving is to be done voluntarily and without any feelings of compulsion or necessity (9:7). It would be wrong for pastors to compel giving/tithing for even good causes, but observe, where does the money go after it's put in the offering plate? Paying for the church building, insurance policies, new sound systems, etc. A super-pastor building a church in his own image is bad enough, but to build it on the backs of the poor is downright evil!

How much this applies to modern churches! Not all, but many pastors are either 'rock stars' or authoritarian 'men of God'. They love the dress-up, the show, the way people treat them, the position of authority and importance. They'll do what it takes to keep up their spiritual image, and they have no problem taking money from the widows and the poor to support all this! As we've seen with the widow's mite, they'll even take the very passage where Jesus taught against this kind of abuse and twist it to support their doctrine! It would seem that Satan has an appreciation for irony.

There's a few things to learn and apply from this. First and foremost, if this describes your church, run away and take as many people with you as you can! In addition, this passage is a great example of how easily Scripture can be twisted right under your nose. How many times have Christians read over this passage, yet still most wrongly teach that it's about sacrificial giving. I admit that even I didn't see this until recently when a friend shared a helpful article. It just goes to show that if you want to really 'get' Scripture, you have to be very discerning about teachers. If you aren't paying close attention, it's very easy to get duped. Let this motivate you to further concentrate your study of the Scriptures.

The sinner's prayer, four spiritual laws, Romans road, and other heretical gospels

Christianity in America is plagued with multitudes of religious lost – people who are convinced they are saved, but they bear no spiritual fruit. Their lack of fruit demonstrates that they are indeed still lost. (Matt. 3:10, Matt. 7:19). This is a bitter truth that every Christian in America needs to acknowledge before they will even have a chance to help those around them. Just as important, we must identify the root cause that is filling churches with many false converts. This root cause is easy to see: churches have silently replaced the Biblical gospel with watered-down, easy-on-the-ears, but heretical messages. This problem is maintained by an anti-biblical church structure that perfectly houses the religious lost that it creates. This is no coincidence. It's a well-planned system that could only come from the mind of Satan. I've talked a bit about church structure in previous posts. Now, I want to take some time to expose the heresies that are all too common and then discuss how to minister to others in this type of environment.

We'll start with the basics. Among other places, the gospel is defined in 1 Corinth. 15:1-4. The message is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. Great news! So far so good – practically everyone gets that part right, even cults. Now, our response to the gospel message, or how we receive it, is by repenting of our sins and putting our faith in Christ (Mark 1:15, Acts 3:19, Acts 26:20). Adding or removing anything anything from the gospel makes it different, makes it 'another gospel', which is condemned in the strongest language (Gal. 1:6-8). This is how heresies are born. You take the gospel and add the keeping of the OT law, good works, baptism, etc. Or, in the case of fundamentalists and evangelicals, you add a sinner's prayer or remove repentance.

The Sinner's prayer is a heresy which promises that you can be saved by asking God for forgiveness or “asking Jesus into your heart”, typically by praying a modeled prayer. Let's be clear. You will not find these ideas anywhere in the Bible. Sinners are always called to repentance and faith. There's nothing wrong with expressing repentance toward God in prayer (Luke 18:13), but the error comes when people are assured that they are saved when and if they recite the prayer. In other words, this modern heresy promises salvation as a result of reciting a ritual prayer, not by repentance and faith in Christ. To make my point, let's look at an example developed and used by Billy Graham published on the Billy Graham Library's website (from the section 'prayer' at the bottom of the page):

Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior.

A few lines after this it goes on to mis-apply Romans 10:13 to suggest that anyone who prayed this prayer is now saved. It all sounds good, doesn't it? But faith and repentance are about actually trusting in Jesus and turning from your sin, not just saying that you will. To suggest that this prayer is sufficient for salvation is to accept lip service where Christ demands the substance.

The sinner's prayer can also be used without suggesting that it saves, but why would you? The prayer does nothing to help bring them to salvation, they need to repent. If the repenting sinner wants to pray, let him, but don't push it. Putting undue emphasis on a prayer can make the issues unclear, and you can make someone believe the prayer is important for their salvation even without explicitly saying so. This is especially true today. Maybe you don't tell the sinner a prayer will save him, but he has probably already heard that from several other pastors throughout his life. So, when you try to witness to that false convert and place the same emphasis on the prayer, he'll assume you're in the same boat. In short, using a sinner's prayer does nothing good, and is almost guaranteed to do some harm. So, if you really don't believe that a sinner's prayer saves, then stop doing it.

The "Romans Road" and "four spiritual laws" methods of sharing the gospel exemplify another type of heresy popular in conservative churches. The main problem of this heresy is that the gospel is proclaimed with little/no discussion of sin, and the need for the sinner to repent is either downplayed or neglected entirely. Yet, in the Bible, God makes it clear that repentance is absolutely necessary for salvation (Matt. 7:21, Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19, Acts 26:20). Let's look at some specific examples of this heresy.

The four spiritual laws can be found on the campus crusade website. In short, the four spiritual laws neglect the Biblical focus of sin/justice/hell/repentance/new birth and focus instead on “God has a wonderful plan for your life...you need Jesus so you can experience God's plan.” Sin is presented as a mere inconvenience that prevents the flow of blessings and is never properly defined. Repentance is almost completely neglected. Sure, there's a little cartoon at the end about Christ-directed vs. self-directed life, but their description of sin and repentance is so vague that it is practically useless to any sinner. Contrast this with the preaching of John the baptist, who called out specific sins and told men exactly what they needed to do (Luke 3:8-18). It wasn't just John, Jesus and the apostles did the same thing throughout the NT. So, instead of using the four spiritual laws, use God's laws (the 10 commandments are a great place to start) and show sinners their guilt, that they deserve judgement and hell, and that they need to repent and trust in the savior that died for them.

The Romans road is a very similar approach. Though older and more traditional, it's no better than the four spiritual laws. This approach relies on quoting several verses from Romans without their context. There are some variations, but let's look at the Sword of the Lord's website – a popular fundie resource. The shallow presentation of sin is similar to the four spiritual laws, but the Romans road is even worse because it mischaracterizes the nature of sin. At least the evangelicals talk about sin as a personal choice. In the Romans road, the fundies just talk about how you inherited Adam's sin nature. Too bad. How exactly are you supposed to repent of a sin nature? This description misleads sinners from gaining any concrete understanding of their personal, willful sins. The reality is that they must repent of their personal sins, not just the concept of sin, nor a supposed sin nature. Of course, they wouldn't know that anyway, because the Romans road doesn't even mention repentance at all. Therefore, the preacher robs the sinner of information they need to be saved. This road is just a spiritual dead end.

Now, given the nature and pervasiveness of these major errors, how can you minister to those around you? Realize that the number of religious lost is astounding, more than anyone would like to admit. From years of experience in preaching the gospel one-on-one, I estimate that less than 2% of Americans can give even passable responses to basic questions about the gospel, salvation, and the new birth – things that are necessary for salvation. If you don't believe me, approach some strangers or those lazy people at your church and ask them the following questions:

1) “Can you tell me how to get to heaven?” Probably the best response you'll get on this one is “believe in Jesus”. While not necessarily wrong, this answer is awfully incomplete. They should show some understanding of repentance in their answer to the rest of these questions. If not, they fail the test. Anyone who claims to have been saved for longer than a month certainly should be able to use the word “repent” without prompting.

2) “How is it that Jesus is able to save you?” they should have at least a basic understanding of substitutionary atonement – You are guilty of breaking God's law, but Jesus died in your place.

3) “What changed when you were saved?” Honestly, they should light up at this point. Every real Christian will have at least one story to tell that is very dear to them: loss of desire for formerly loved sins, a new hunger for the Bible, unexplained love for Christians, etc. They should be able to mention something like this which would demonstrate that they had a very real transition from darkness to light. If they have to think about it, you're looking at a lost religious person.

4) “So what are you doing for the Lord these days?” Maybe they're not making the best use of their time, but they should be doing something. Going to church, staying away from sin, reading the Bible, etc. doesn't count. That's no-brainer stuff that we do for ourselves. A person who does nothing for Christ is demonstrating that they do not really know Him (Matt. 3:10, Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 25:23-30). Can someone recognize their sin and guilt, be saved from death and hell, then move on and not sacrifice and serve their Lord out of love? I don't buy it. There should be a desire to help and reach out to others that manifests itself somehow, ideally by sharing the gospel with others. Expect others to put up strong resistance to this one, as it cuts to the core of what is important.

As mentioned before, familiarity with the major errors that infect churches today is critical in order to minister to others. If you aren't willing to recognize the problems with a sinner's prayer or Romans road, you'll never ask the hard questions that are necessary to get through to the religious lost. This is not just theory. I seriously challenge you to ask the above questions to people around you. If they can't answer these simple questions about the gospel and the new birth, then it is evidence that they do not know Biblical repentance and faith. Treat them like a lost person until they prove otherwise. Specifically, share the Biblical gospel with them. Take away their hope in their superficial religious rituals, declare their need for repentance, and demand that they show the fruits of repentance. Be warned though, this simple Biblical practice will likely cause your friends and your church to turn away from you. But more importantly, you will have a chance to make a difference in their lives, and you will be following in the footsteps of Christ.

Warning to American churches from Colossians 2

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Col. 2:18,23)

As I was reading this the other day, I couldn't help but notice the modern application. One of the main themes of Colossians, especially in chapter 2, is a warning about false teachers: spiritual leaders who will lead you astray. There are some specific characteristics given. I'll point out a few in v.18-23. First, they deal in voluntary (put-on, false) humility and superficial/arbitrary worship (v.18, 23). They work in rituals, ordinances, and give commands not given by God (v. 20-22). They do not hold forth Christ as the Head of the church, and therefore prevent the body from being knit together with each other and with Christ (v.19). Let's break down these 3 characteristics and give examples that are commonplace in American churches.

Voluntary humility is often displayed in churches by a 'humble' leader who publicly declares that God should get all the glory, but they secretly love the attention they get and cling to over-reaching authority. Here's a few common signs of this false humility: 1) A name is not sufficient. It's socially awkward to address them without a title. 2) They have the authoritative opinion when it comes to doctrine. They may declare that Scripture is the ultimate authority, but in practice, different positions are dismissed without consideration, even if argued from a sound Biblical position. 3) They run the whole show all the time, even teaching on unfamiliar subjects when other members of the body are more qualified and experienced.

Rituals and commandments of men can also be plainly found even in conservative baptist/Bible churches. This is seen most clearly when it comes to church polity. It merely takes a cursory reading of the New Testament to see that church was intended to be very different than it is now. For example, the NT church had multiple elders, met mostly in houses, and meetings were for prayer, fellowship and teaching (not evangelistic preaching). I once asked a friend who is now in full-time church leadership why the church continues to run as it does, in clear contrast to the Biblical example. He acknowledged the difference and only said that the Biblical example was OK for the early church, but we've decided to do things differently now. In other words, “Who cares what the Bible says about how to run church when we can make up our own rules!” It's hard to imagine a more clear example of 'commandments of men'.

Lack of focus on Christ is also a major symptom of the typical church. Imagine that you take someone off the street and show them a few typical meetings at your church. After they carefully watch 10 hours worth of footage, you ask them, “who is the head of this church?” You repeat this experiment 500 times. Invariably, they all point to the guy at the front that did all the talking. This is another situation where doctrinal statements do not match practice, but actions speak louder than words. How about the rest of the body? Is each member being knit together with each other in real and practical ways? In my experience, this certainly can happen in church, but only apart from or in spite of what goes on during the meeting – very rarely does this happen during a church service. The false head takes all the focus, preventing the knitting together of the body.

Isn't it sad? The description of false teachers in Col. 2 is being played out weekly in conservative churches across America. Our churches look more like the false teachers described in Col. 2 than they do the churches described in Acts! Most of this is being done by well-meaning pastors who aren't trying to deceive. Shouldn't this tell us that the system is set up wrong?

“Well,” you say, “can it really be so bad? Sure, most of this is true about my church, but I feel really good when I'm there. I enjoy the preaching. I laugh, cry, and learn something about God. The music speaks to my heart.” In other words, you're satisfied with the superficial religion? You will have “a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body”, but what does it satisfy? Is there any tangible fruit, or merely an emotional response?

So what's the remedy? Get away from the shows and rituals and embrace the basics of Christianity – preaching the gospel to the lost and discipling Christians. Dr. Dave recently wrote a good article on this topic which can be found on his blog.