Lazarus . . . an analogy? . . . of what?

Calvinists often refer to Lazarus’ resurrection as an analogy of regeneration, not of the reprobate who have no chance of ever being saved because Jesus did not die for them on the cross, but the elect only. Their argument runs more or less as follows:

Man is so intensely evil and so totally depraved that he cannot in anyway respond to the Gospel in faith. He hates God and will not come to the light to have his sins and transgressions reproved (John 3:20). As a matter of interest, Calvinists love to quote verses that underscore their doctrines and rarely quote its counterparts which prove the very opposite to what they believe and proclaim. Indeed, men are evil (worthless) but does that render them totally incapable to respond to the Gospel in faith? If so, Jesus’ invitation in Matthew 11:28: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” was nothing but a cruel joke. Why would anyone in his right mind want to come to Jesus to find rest and refreshment for his soul when he is told that he is so utterly depraved that he cannot possibly come to Jesus. It follows that:-

The elect must be resurrected from the dead like unto the resurrection of Lazarus from the grave. God must sovereignly and unilaterally call forth the sinner who is dead in his sins and trespasses and impart his life to the dead cadaver, not through faith because there is no way a corpse can believe, but through an act of irresistible grace.

I want us to listen to a few audio clips to illustrate the meaning of the Calvinistic/electoral/predestined regeneration of man. Listen carefully to what Paul Washer has to say about Lazarus’ resurrection as an analogy of regeneration and see whether you can pinpoint his insidious inaccuracies.

Have you noticed how cleverly Paul Washer makes his audience believe that spiritual death is equal to physical death? Here are his words again:

Born-again or born from above is the doctrine of regeneration. What does it mean? Well, first of all the Bible says that we’re dead in our sins. The word there means dead. Does it mean something else?  . . . Does it mean sick in or sins, trouble in our sins, plighted by our sins? — dead in our sins. Regeneration is: made alive, that we were spiritually dead to God. Now, what does that mean?  Let me give you an example. There’s a dead man on the platform, right here. He’s dead. He’s laying there, he’s dead; not mostly dead but dead. Ok! and I come to him being the benevolent Samaritan that I am, I come to him and I say: “Sir, hearken unto my voice, not far from here is a well established hospital, they have those funny electric things they can put on your chest and though it will be quite painful they can shock you back into existence. Now sir, come with me. What’s wrong. you wanna be dead all your life? Come! Please! Now!” That’s ridiculous isn’t it? Well so is our evangelism. And so is our evangelism.

Can you imagine me and brother Randall 2000 years ago standing in front of Lazarus’ tomb. “Lazarus, come forth.” Ok! you try it. (laughter in audience) “Lazarus come forth.” (applause).  You try! . . . . What’s gonna happen? We’re gonna stand there all day until we are hoarse going “Lazarus come forth.” Lazarus just happened to have a problem. When you’re dead, you can’t hear anybody. Now, think about this, Jesus comes up and goes “Lazarus come forth.” There’s still the problem. Jesus spoke! Whoopeee! He spoke to a dead man. Dead men can’t hear. So what you need to understand is that when Jesus said “Lazarus come forth” he also imparted into Lazarus the life to stand up and hear.

Did you hear that? Let me repeat what he said in layman’s terms. Lazarus wasn’t able to hear Jesus because as a dead man who is absolutely incapable of hearing anything or anyone (including Jesus), he first had to be made alive so that he could hear Jesus. Well now, that’s like saying that Abraham was more powerful than Jesus because the twice dead rich man who was in hell could hear father Abraham say:

Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:25-31)

Paul Washer’s assertion that Lazarus couldn’t hear Jesus until life was imparted into his corpse so that he could hear, is sheer blasphemy. He is making an emphatic statement that Jesus is not omnipotent. One would at least expect the dead to be able to hear Jesus’ voice if He’s omnipotent. No! Washer’s wicked claim, which proves that even he is evil beyond comprehension, makes Jesus less than omnipotent because a twice dead man in hell was able to hear Abraham speaking and, believe it or not, fully understand him. Why does Paul Washer do this? Well. he has no other option because he must uphold the doctrine of election and predestination at all cost. Let us briefly again look at this vile doctrine. Men are utterly depraved and evil and dead in their sins and trespasses, the result being that they have no ability whatsoever to hear, let alone understand the Gospel and respond thereunto in faith. It follows that Jesus must raise them (that is, the elect) from their spiritually, corpselike death and first impart life into their lifeless bodies so that they may be able to hear, and understand the Gospel and receive the gift of faith. In layman’s terms, it looks something like this.

If the dead were able to hear Jesus’ voice before Him having to impart life into their spiritual cadavers so that they may hear, even the reprobate would have been able to hear his voice and this, to say the least, would be an embarrassment to Calvinists, simply because Jesus did not die for them. They are not the elect and must therefore remain in their spiritually and utterly depraved state of wickedness and evil so that God may be glorified. Listen to this and you will see for yourself that even unto this very day many preachers, like Nicodemus whom Jesus chastened with the words “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”, don’t know what born from above means and how their spiritual lives work.

This is by far the most profound statement anyone has made this century: “I do not believe that Jesus died for nobody. I believe that He died for somebody . . .”Now listen up” says the apostle of love, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2). Not so, says John MacArthur. That verse should read as follows: “And he is the propitiation for our (the elect’s) sins: and not only for ours (the elect’s) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (the elect). What does MacArthur mean when he says “I do not believe that Jesus died for nobody?” Who are the “nobody?” Well, if you listen carefully to what he means by “somebody” you will be able to recognize the “nobody.” Macarthur said: “I believe that He died specifically for those who would believe in Him and those who believe in Him are those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit based on the eternal, sovereign, electing purpose of God.” The “somebodies” are those who are somehow very special in God’s eyes because Jesus died specifically for them whilst the “nobodies” are the wretched non-elect or repropbates for whom Jesus did not die on the cross.

If John MacArthur does not even know how his spiritual life works, doesn’t that disqualify him from preaching the Gospel? Paul said: “I know in whom I have believed” (2 Timothy 1:12). Why does he use the past tense “believed.” Was there a time when he stopped believing? Perish the thought. He used the passed tense because he was referring to the day when he first believed in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Therefore, Paul was equipped to preach the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ because he was genuinely saved. Only the genuinely saved can preach the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit because they know and experience the way He works in their lives.

John MacArthur is also very fond of using Lazarus’ resurrection as an analogy of the regeneration of the elect.

A frequent anomaly of these gentlemen is that they contradict themselves without even a hint of blushing.

If man is so absolutely dead in his sins and trespasses and so utterly depraved and needs to be raised form his spiritual death by a supernatural act of God before he can even think of believing the Gospel, how can he hunger after righteousness and deliverance from sin, and death and judgment? Aren’t all these things given to the elect only after they had been irresistibly regenerated by God?

Can we really take Lazarus’ resurrection as an analogy of regeneration? Was it intended to be an analogy of regeneration? We may assume that it could be regarded as an analogy of God’s supernatural and irresistible regeneration if Lazarus had not been a saved person when he died. The fact, however, is that he was already a regenerated man when he died and as such he was already one of Christ’s sheep who knew and heard his Master’s voice perfectly well. In fact, he was more alive in his sleep (death) than when he was still alive on earth and therefore was perfectly capable of hearing Jesus’ voice even in death. If, as Paul Washer and John MacArthur believe, his lifeless body first had to be imparted with the life of God before he was able to hear Christ’s voice, and if it is an analogy of regeneration, then Lazarus had two consecutive rebirths from above — one when he was alive on earth and one after his death at his resurrection. That’s just plain silly. Ok! it is just a parallel analogy and as such we cannot argue as I have just done, would probably be a counter argument. Nonetheless, if it is only an analogy then it still remains a forced analogy and that of the unbiblical doctrine of election and predestination.

The obvious question to ask, is: What then was the main purpose of Lazarus’ resurrection, if not to depict the regeneration of the elect. We find the answer in John 11:15 ”And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.” Now fancy that, Jesus was glad that Lazarus was dead and that He was not there when He died. In short: Lazarus had to die, so that Jesus could raise him from the dead and so that the disciples’ faith in Him could be strengthened. Not only that, Lazarus had to die and be raised from the dead so that many Jews could believe in Him (11:45). None of those who had been unbelieving Jews had to be called forth like Lazarus and given life before they could hear his voice and his Gospel. NO! they simply believed when they witnessed Lazarus’ resurrection and were instantly saved.

What are the dangers of a Gospel so many people are hearing preached by Paul Washer and John MacArthur? Listen to the following excerpt and decide for yourself.

Until He finds you? Really? God never said that sinful men should seek Him until He finds them. He distinctly said that they WILL find Him when they seek Him with all their heart and all their soul (Jeremiah 29:13). What does it mean “to seek Him with all your heart and all your soul?” Jesus gives us the answer in Matthew 9:12: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” Only those who know and acknowledge that they are desperately ill (lost sinners on their way to hell) will realize they desperately need a Physician (Saviour). Those who refuse to acknowledge it, will not come to Him to be healed (saved).

Imagine Ananias to whom Paul was sent after he had been blinded on his way to Damascus say something like the following:

Paul, you have done some terrible things in your life. You have persecuted God’s children and even contributed to the death of God’s saint, Stephan, as well as many other Christians whom you have incarcerated for their faith. There is only one thing for you to do in order to escape the jaws of hell. Seek the Lord with all your heart until He has found you.

And imagine Paul saying to Ananias.

Huh? He has already found me on my way to Damascus. Why must I seek Him? He appeared to me in the most brilliant light I have ever seen. It blinded me as you can see. His presence was so overwhelming that I fell off my horse into the dust. I asked, “Sir, who are you?” I heard him say “Why do you persecute Me?” He commanded me to come here to hear what you have to tell me.

That would probably have been the conversation if Ananias had told him that he should seek the Lord until He (God) found him. Instead, Ananias encouraged, prodded and edged him on to call upon the Name of the Lord for the washing away of his sins. “Get on with it! What are you waiting for. There’s no time to waste. Go to the Lord and call upon Him for the washing away of your sins.” Ananias could never have been absolutely certain that Paul’s sins would be washed away by Jesus Christ if he, like Paul Washer, believed that God first had to find him. Did Jesus take up residence in Paul’s heart then or when he lay in the dust after he had fallen off his horse?. He must have made his abode in him when he called on the Name of the Lord and his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ and not before.

The wretched woman who came to Paul Washer and asked “What must I do?” could have been saved if he had presented her with the Gospel and its demand to come to Jesus and call upon his Name for the forgiveness of all her sins. Did he do that? No! Why? Because he believes the insidious lie that God first needs to sovereignly impart life into her spiritual cadaver (lifeless corpse) so that she may hear the voice of Jesus crying our “Come forth.” He first needs to regenerate her by a sovereign act and the imposition of his irresistible grace so that she may cry out “I am saved.” Like John MacArthur, Paul Washer believes that man is so utterly depraved that he cannot seek God. He needs to be sought of and found of God in order to be saved. What does the Bible teach?

But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 4:29)

“Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6-7)

I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here am I, here am I,” to a nation that was not called by my name. (Isaiah 65:1)

You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)

In the book of Malachi the third chapter God says an amazing thing that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that, although man is depraved and dead in his sins and trespasses, he can respond in faith and return to God. In fact, God says that the returning of sinful man to Him is the first prerequisite for Him to return to them. If they do not return to Him, He will not return to them.

Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? (Malachi 3:7)

Paul Washer and John MacArthur are not preaching the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ. Yes! they are preaching a Gospel, like many other false apostles, preachers and teachers, but it is another Gospel of another Jesus inspired by another Spirit.

God’s Kingdom or Satan’s chaos?

How do you determine whether we are already smack-bang in the midst of God’s Kingdom or smack-dab in the middle of Satan’s chaos? Well, the best way to make sure is to tune into the echurch website. They have an uncanny way of knowing on which days we are in the Kingdom of God and on which we are in Satan’s chaos. I must add that it’s a real topsy-turvy experience when you read Stephan’s Joubert’s and his emergent buddies’ blog comments on echurch. A few days ago, on 24 February, he wrote:

Everything is different nowadays. Above is below. Below is upside down. Nothing is safe, fixed or predictable any more. It feels like life is out of control.  . . .

Well, here’s an important newsflash: Today’s world is all over the show. It is chaotic. The solution is not to try and get everything and everyone artificially back under control. There’s a better way: Follow Jesus into the heart of every storm. He thrives in storms, as I learn in John 6 and Matthew 14.

And only two days prior to Stephan’s comment, on 22 February, his buddy, Dries Cronjé wrote:

Thankfully we are seeing some encouraging signs of a growing Church awareness of this [the need for justice] during the last decade or two. Let’s keep going, and gain momentum! Lots of justice is still required… (On that point — please support me in a bid to raise some money for justice in South Africa.)

However, all that being said, the kingdom of God is very significantly also about peace and joy. And I think this is where we need to spend some serious time. We might still be missing something important here…

If the kingdom of God is a new reality for our world that Jesus came to announce, surely we should be able to concretely feel the peace and joy of it if we are subjects of this kingdom…?

In many other blog comments they emphatically proclaim that the Kingdom of God is now here? Huh? Really? Is God’s Kingdom a crazy mixture of justice, peace, joy, injustices, wars, crime, corruption, pandemic diseases, abortion, terrorism, spiritual deceit and deception, false Christs, false apostles, false doctrines, etc. etc. etc. and again ETC.? Is this just another sick joke and a case of the Emperor’s new clothes? You know the story written by Hans Christian Andersen, don’t you? In short, the plot runs as follows:

An Emperor who cares for nothing but his appearance and attire hires two tailors who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or “just hopelessly stupid”. The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.

Isn’t this just so typical of today’s emerging church? For fear of being unsuccessful in their endeavors to usher in the Kingdom of God, they pretend to be followers of Jesus Christ and . . . wait for it . . . to follow Him right into the heart of every storm. Ironically, Stephan Joubert refers to Matthew 14 to strengthen his argument that we should follow Jesus into the heart of every storm. There is absolutely no mention of a raging storm in Matthew 14, at least not to the degree that the disciples’ lives were in danger. The author simply says that the wind was against them and that their boat, beaten by the ways, was driven offshore. There is however another chapter written about a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee in Mark 4. Did his disciples know beforehand that a storm would suddenly spring up and say: “Hey guys, a storm is brooding but remember we are macho men who have decided to follow Him wherever he goes. Yep! even into the heart of every storm.” Perish the thought! They were shaking with fear and thinking only of themselves and their own safety “Master, do you not care that we are perishing?” Ah! but then Peter and the other disciples took matters into their own hands and did exactly what the eloquent and very distinguished master of echurch, Dries Cronjé, taught them to do. They humbly decided not to wake Jesus who was sleeping peacefully in the stern on a cushion. Instead, they immediately sought to enter into God’s presence . . . yes, into the very kingdom and righteousness of God by engaging contemplative spiritual practices such as Lectio Divina, Centering Prayer, chanting, silence and solitude for the awareness of God’s presence to grow in them. As soon as they did all these wonderful things, the storm immediately subsided to a small whisper and voila  . . . justice, peace, blissful joy and happiness prevailed.  Here are his own words once more. It’s a pity that Jesus didn’t know about these spiritual practices. If He had He wouldn’t have taught us to pray, “Let thy Kingdom come . . . .”

We need to faithfully engage contemplative spiritual practices like Lectio Divina, Centering Prayer, chanting, silence and solitude for the awareness of God’s presence to grow in us. Maybe this is what Jesus referred to when He asked that we “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33)?

Who needs Jesus? Let Him sleep peacefully in the boat while storms and chaos are ripping the world apart. Don’t wake Him up. Let Him sleep. We will follow Him while He is asleep. We don’t need Him. We only need his Name as a pretense that we are following Him. We have our own gadgets to usher in the Kingdom of God as well as his justice, peace and joy. We have the Emergent Church. What’s more we have Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg, that frequently hosts such illustrious speakers such as Ron Martoia, Stephan Joubert, Johan Geyser and Trevor Hudson. Above all, we have our contemplative spirituality like Lectio Divina, Centering Prayer, chanting, silence and solitude for the awareness of God’s presence to grow in us. So, once again, who needs Jesus. We will follow Him whilst He is sleeping.

Gentlemen, let me remind you that the only thing the disciples could do was to cry out in fear: “Lord! save us! We are perishing!” Jesus was the One who commanded the wind, the storm and the raging sea to be calm and likewise, He alone will end the chaos and storms and usher in his Kingdom on earth whenever He decides to do so. Like the Emperor without clothes they too are to proud to acknowledge that their puny efforts are but wood, hay and straw. and that their contemplative spirituality is going to leave them naked in the Day of Judgment, unless they repent and begin to follow the Jesus of the Bible. Sadly, they too hold themselves up proudly and continue the procession on their journey to Antichrist’s kingdom.

Who do you say I am?

Have you ever wondered why Jesus asked his disciples who the people and who they believed the Son of Man was? (Matthew 16:16). He obviously did not ask this question expecting them to merely nod their heads in recognition and say: “Yes, Jesus You are really and truly the Son of Man.” To know who He IS now (yes, He has risen from the dead and lives forevermore) and who He WAS then (yes, He was born of a virgin and lived amongst us in the flesh) is not an academic requirement to pass your exams in seminary (where, as in the Pretoria University’s Faculty of Religion, you may believe that He was not raised from the dead and that his body was probably eaten up by dogs, and still earn a certificate to stand next to Satan on our church’s pulpits and preach to congregations throughout he country). To know who He IS now and WAS then determines your destination. Listen to Jesus’ own words:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Who says you only need blind faith to be saved? Yes, faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross saves but it is a faith that is embedded in knowledge, for faith comes by hearing and hearing through the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). To KNOW the Truth is to be set free, not only from all your sins, but also from lies, deceit, deception, a false knowledge and especially false doctrines, teachers and preachers, and in particular from false Christs. It sets you free, so profoundly free, that you shall be free indeed (John 8:32).

And so Peter, on behalf of all the other disciples, said: “”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:16-17). Calvinists, like John MacArthur Jnr., believe this to be proof enough that salvation is not conjured up by consenting to the truth through an act of your own free-will (which you don’t have in any case, they say). Of course salvation can never be consummated by any act of your free-will, just as you cannot make it effectual through faith in your faith. Your faith must be centered in an absolute trust in Him and his goodness, mercy, loving-kindness and his truth. They say that God must personally and supernaturally reveal his Son to you so that you may believe Him to be the Son of the living God, and guess what?   . . . He only reveals his Son in this way to the elect, those who have been predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the earth. Yes! it is absolutely true the God the Father revealed Jesus Christ to Peter as being his Son, but it is also true that Jesus Christ’s own preaching of his Father’s Word to his disciples contributed to Peter’s confession. Did He not say: “You are already clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.” (John 15:3). No Christian will deny that it is God who reveals his Son to man, either through his Word or supernaturally as He had done with Peter, but does He do so for the elect only? In Romans 1 Paul says:

For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. (Romans 1:16-19)

The word used here for “hold” denotes a willful suppression of the truth and knowledge of God which God Himself revealed to them. They know the truth, not through a revelation of flesh and blood, but through God the Father who is Spirit, for it is only Spirit that can penetrate the inner consciousness of man and reveal truth to him there. Like them, Peter and the other disciples could have suppressed the truth God had supernaturally revealed to them in their inner consciousness. Indeed, they could have chosen to repress the truth which had already penetrated their inner consciousness and hold it there in unrighteousness but in stead they chose to acknowledge it as God’s Truth and accordingly conform their lives to it. You either hold God’s truth in your inner consciousness in righteousness (according to his standard of truth) or you willfully suppress or repress his truth already entrenched in your consciousness in unrighteousness (in rebellion against his standard of truth). Whatever you do, the fact remains that you know the truth and no one will ever be able to say in the day of judgment: “I did not know” (Romans 1:20).

Similarly, Paul Washer contends that man does not have the ability to open his heart to God and his truth. His heart has to be opened in a supernatural way by God and to prove it he refers to Lydia in Acts 16.

A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple goods from the city of Thyatira, was listening to us. She was a worshiper of God, and the Lord opened her heart to listen carefully to what was being said by Paul. When she and her family were baptized, she urged us, “If you are convinced that I am a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she continued to insist that we do so. (Acts 16:14-15)

Like the Gentile, Cornelius, who had been a worshiper of God before his conversion (Acts 10), she too worshipped God without having been saved. Her worshiping of God never saved her. What she needed was a biblical understanding of redemption and it was to this end that God opened her heart so that she could understand and respond in faith to the Gospel and be saved. The opening of the heart simply means to enlighten the mind so that she could listen carefully to what was being said by Paul and to understand it. Her heart was not opened by God so that He could unilaterally enter it uninvited and save her electorally and predestinedly. While it was He who did the opening of her heart (mind), it was she who had to respond in faith to Paul’s preaching and receive the gift of salvation through her faith. Although the act of faith on the part of the sinner is not and can never be the actual consummation of salvation, it is the vehicle by and through which God works to effectuate his gift of redemption. That’s why Paul says in Hebrews 11: “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

Throughout the ages Jesus of Nazareth has been many things to many people . . . except the SON OF THE LIVING GOD. To some He is just another prophet, enjoying the company of other equally important prophets in other religions. Others regard Him to be the Sage from heaven who has no interest in making a distinction between holy and unholy, saved and unsaved, and who is in and who is out. Yet others see Him as an activist who came to earth to fight for the rights of the poor, the downcast, the marginalized in society, the downtrodden and those who have no voice or means to fight for themselves. Listen to what Mynhardt van Pletzen has to say about Jesus the activist.

One wrong way round value we often misinterpret, is the one that says we’ve got to stand up for our rights. Being a follower of Jesus identifies you with the Man who had no rights, and who gave up all his rights for the sake of others.

Our biggest consideration is not for ourselves, or even those in our tribes – its supposed to be for the outsider – the one who has no rights to begin with. . . .

We are called to fight on the behalf of those who can’t fight for themselves, and leave the being offended and being disrespected to those who have the time to waste their spiritual energies on burocratic silliness.

What, according to Mynhardt van Pletzen, is “burocratic” (“bureaucratic” is the word) silliness? Here it is in his own words:

Here’s some language that identifies us as imperialist religionistas, desperately fighting to keep our rights alive [myself included]:

• We must stand up for what we believe.
• We must defend God’s honour.
• We must convince them of our convictions.
• We are offended at their statements.
• We will no longer tolerate disrespect towards our organisation/beliefs/rituals.

What you believe, believe it or not, determines your destination as Jesus Himself once said:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18).

I’m not denying that they’re following “Jesus,” but the question is: Are they following the real Jesus, the Jesus whom the Father revealed to Peter and the other disciples as the Son of the Living God? I really doubt it because they call the Jesus whom they are following “the Man who had no rights.” Yes, according to Philippians 2 He made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant and humbled himself even to the death of the cross but He never gave up his rights. He never denied his right to be called the only Truth, Life and Way to the Father. He never denied his right to judge all people in righteousness. He never denied his right to command his disciples to be holy because He and his Father are holy. He never denied his right to command his disciples to deny themselves, take up there cross and follow Him if they really wanted to be his disciples. He never denied his right to be loved more than you love your husband, wife, children, father, mother and even your own life. If you don’t honor and obey his right to be loved more than that, you cannot be his disciple and you can never claim to be one of his followers. If you claim to be his follower and yet deny his right to command you to contend for the faith that was once delivered to us by the apostles, and label those who stand up for their belief as “imperialist ‘religionistas’” who are desperately fighting to keep their rights alive, are deceived and missing the point. If the most awesomely holy and merciful God has exalted his Word above all of his name (Psalm 138:2) how much more shouldn’t you and I exalt his truth as we find it in his Word?

Thank God, there were many true followers of Christ who defended the honor and the glory of God even unto death by refusing to bow the knee to false gods, false doctrines and false apostles who like Beelzebub’s irritating flies constantly try to coax his true followers into denying Christ and his rights. If you are offended at my statement, please remember that you have no rights and that you are duty bound to defend the rights of a Man who had no place to lay down his head while the foxes have their own holes and the birds their own nests. He is no longer here to defend himself and his doctrines. You and I are supposed to do that in his behalf.

 

In closing I would like to remind Mynhardt van Pletzen that you cannot avoid the offense of the cross whenever you venture to preach the unadulterated cross like Jesus, his apostles and Paul.

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:6-8)

In-Out; Truth-Lie; Us-Them; Holy-Unholy; Heaven-Hell. Which of these do you choose as a Christian?

Would you penalize me when I change a certain Bible verse very slightly? Yes? Ok! so here goes:

He who possesses the Truth has the only Truth; he who does not possess the only Truth of God does not have that Truth but a lie (1 John 5:12).

Should you feel you want to penalize me, I must remind you that Jesus once said “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me” (John 14:6).

Every born-again child of God who posseses the Son ought to be eternally thankful to the Lord that he/she has the ONLY Truth whilst the lives of those who do not possess Him are engulfed in lies. If this is true why do the members of e-church find it so difficult to distinguish between “in and out,” “right and wrong,” “the turth and a bunch of lies,” and heaven and hell?” In a post by Dries Cronje “Send me straight . . .” he laments the attitude of some followers of Christ as follows:

Some followers of Christ have an unfortunate outlook. They live with attitudes of:

• I’m in, you’re out.
• I’m right, you’re wrong.
• I’ve got the truth, you only have a bunch of lies.
• I am going to heaven, you’re going straight to hell!

This is very sad. See, Jesus, who became the Christ, was known to not have any of these attitudes towards others. In fact, He was way more keen on outsiders than his own nation’s main insiders, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

• I can say with absolute assurance that if you are not IN Christ Jesus but OUT you are lost for all eternity and WILL go to hell if you do not repent and receive Him as your Saviour. Listen to this: “THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are IN Christ Jesus, (Romans 8:1). Only the eight people, Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, were saved from the flood because they were IN the Ark.
• I can say with absolute assurance that you are totally wrong when you believe you can enter through heaven’s gates while you have not yet entered through the strait gate. In this case I am right and you are wrong.!
• I can say with absolute assurance that you have a bunch of lies when you believe there are truths in other religions other than the Christian faith and that you can turn people into immediate friends of Jesus when you serve them. That is not merely a lie but an infamous lie.
• I can say with absolute assurance that you are going straight to hell if you do not repent and begin to follow the Jesus of the Bible and not a counterfeit Christ who supposedly never sent people to hell. He will certainly judge you and send you to hell if you are not IN Him when He returns to judge the entire world.

Dries Cronje closes his post with these heartrending words:

How are we treating those who are different to us today? What is your attitude towards Muslims, gay people, porn stars and humanists?

Do they perhaps perceive you as a Pharisee?

Well, Dries, you ought to know what Jesus commanded his followers to do. You should love them so much, even to the extent that you do not care what they think or say of you as a Christian when you present them with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. You oght to know that only Christians are able to love people who are hostile to Jesus Christ and his Gospel with a godly love (the agape kind of love). Only those who possess Jesus Christ and are IN Him, possess his Holy Spirit who enables them to love even their worst enemies with the agape kind of love. Whenever you withhold the Gospel from them by trying to be pragmatic in your approach to unbelievers and not distinguish between “in and out,” “right and wrong,” the truth and the lie,” and “heaven and hell” you do not love them. You do not love them at all.

Stephan’s Wisdom for this Day

Remember: every person that you serve turns into a immediate friend of Jesus. Go one step further: see him or her as Jesus in disguise – Stephan Joubert (Emphasis added)

This  surely is one of the profoundest little gems of wisdom ever to be coined by mortal man. Its just a pity Stephan wasn’t around when Jesus walked the earth, because if he’d been with Jesus, he could have told Him there was a much easier way to be successful and make friends than through his cross.

Ok! Stephan probably meant that Jesus regards everyone to be his dear friend whilst those who benefit from his kindness, do not regard Him as their friend. Consequently, it is only a one-way friendship. Or, Stephan Joubert could probably have in mind a two-way and reciprocate friendship where those who do not see Him as their friend, immediately becomes their friend when they are served in the very same way He served people when He was on earth. But what did Paul say?

Brethren, together follow my example and observe those who live after the pattern we have set for you. For there are many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, who walk (live) as enemies of the cross of Christ (the Anointed One) (Philippians 3:17 and 18).

If you do not follow after the example and the pattern Paul and the other disciples have set for you, you can say, boast and claim that you are a follower of Jesus Christ until he cows come home, it means nothing. In fact, you are nothing but an enemy of the cross of Jesus Christ if you do not follow Paul’s example. What is Paul’s example all about? What is the essence of his example? His own words in 1 Corinthians 2 verses 1 and 2 sums it up perfectly: “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Paul’s entire life, his missionary journeys to the Gentiles, his service to the poor, everything, was centered and anchored in the cross of Jesus Christ, simply because he knew and understood that the cross was the power and wisdom of God to those who are being saved but foolishness to those who perish (1 Corinthians 1:18). Anyone, and I don’t care who you are, anyone whose message to sinners, the poor, the disenfranchised, the downcast, the marginalized, the rich, royalty etc. etc. etc. is not centered and anchored in the cross of Jesus is not only making a mockery of the Christian faith but of Christ Himself. Any circumvention of the cross, no matter how much and how unselfishly you serve others and how many glasses of cold water you dish out, is an outright declaration of war against Christ’s cross; you are and will remain an enemy of the cross of Jesus until you repent and begin to cling to the cross of Jesus Christ with all your might.

Let us now examine Stephan Joubert’s statement “every person that you serve turns into an immediate friend of Jesus. Go one step further: see him or her as Jesus in disguise.” If you thought something so profound could have been the brainchild of Stephan Joubert, you’re wrong. Mother Teresa who, like the Pope never had the assurance of her salvation, said in an interview.

We try to pray through our work by doing it with Jesus, for Jesus, to Jesus. That helps us put our whole heart and soul into doing it. The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved — they are Jesus in disguise.

Really? You will recall that when Jesus’ mother, brothers and sisters tried to draw his attention while he was preaching, He said: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:21), clearly implying that only those who obey his Gospel are his friends and his brethren. He did not say that their servitude to others magically turned his enemies into his friends. Had that been possible He would never have needed to die on a cross. What does God say about the unsaved?

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

Stephan Joubert just adores the Word of God so much that he liberally refers to entire chapters. In his blog comment “Does God tithe?” he says of Matthew 10:

God takes notice of the smallest deeds and word of kindness, as Jesus tells us in Matthew 10.

So let’s look at Matthew 10.

• Jesus sends his disciples out on a missionary journey and gives them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and disease. Notice, Judas who also betrayed Him was amongst those who were sent out. Could it be that he was the one who invented and patented the brand new evangelistic tool of turning those whom he served into immediate friends of Jesus? I’m only asking because the other disciples were commanded to shake the dust off their feet when the inhabitants of the cities they visited did not accept their message. That’s not much of a kosher technique to turn people into immediate friends of Jesus, is it?
• This is what Wikipedia says about shaking the dust off your feet:

In Biblical times, when leaving Gentile cities, pious Jews often shook the dust from their feet to show their separation from Gentile practices. If the disciples shook the dust of a Jewish town from their feet, it would show their separation from Jews who rejected their Messiah. The gesture was to show the people that they were making a wrong choice. The opportunity to choose Christ might not present itself again. According to the New Testament, when Jesus called his twelve disciples, he sent them into Jewish lands and told them, in a reversal, to perform the same act against the non-believing Jews (Matthew 10:14), and “it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Matthew 10:15). The only recorded instance of this practice in the New Testament was when Paul the Apostle and Barnabas were expelled from Antioch, Pisidia by Jews who disapproved of them teaching to gentiles (Acts 13:50-51).

So this was hardly a way to be successful and make many friends for Jesus. By the by, Stephan Joubert and his buddies on E-church loath it when anyone speaks of being separated from others – “us and them,” “saved and unsaved,” holy and unholy.” This is exactly what Jesus commanded his disciples to do, separate them from unbelievers who rejected their message and to demonstrate their separation by shaking the dust off their feet. Come on Stephan, wake up! You are referring to Bible verses and chapters that refute your theology in the most articulate way.

Total depravity

“As you know TOTAL DEPRAVITY is the “T” in the acronym TULIP which is the bedrock of Calvinism. I happened to stumble on a series of five Youtube videos featuring one of today’s most prolific Calvinist preachers, John MacArthur Jnr., who in defense of the doctrine of TOTAL INABILITY or UNWILLINGNESS, speaks on man’s total depravity. Having been an avid student of Calvinism and its vast influence worldwide and having debated many Calvinists on the internet for many years, I decided to watch all five videos in one session. Before I begin to examine Mac Arthur’s teaching on TOTAL DEPRAVITY in the light of God’s Word, I first would like to quote something Jesus Christ once said.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:7-11).

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:9-13).

Jesus emphatically stated the very opposite to what the doctrine of total depravity means to the Calvinist. Despite the fact that man is evil to the very core of his innermost being, he is still capable of doing something good. Jesus never denied man’s capability to do good. In fact he acknowledged it and even used it contrastingly to demonstrate God’s own superabundant goodness. Of course man’s benevolence will never bring him into a soteriological right relationship with God; there is nothing good man can do to earn his salvation. Nevertheless, Jesus used man’s goodness toward his own children as a parallel aphorism to exhibit his Father’s goodness who is the very epitome of goodness. There is however one requirement to benefit form his goodness and that is to ask Him and to keep on asking Him. Calvinists would probably counter this with the argument that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not unbelievers. In their reckoning they are so deeply depraved that they are totally incapable of asking God for anything. Their natural propensity is to hate God and his commandments and their totally depraved disposition prevents them from ever asking Him anything. Would the Spirit of God have inspired John to write down Revelation 22:17 if this was true?

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

Would or could Jesus have made the universal invitation in Matthew 11 if lost sinners were totally impotent to approach Jesus for their salvation.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

These words by Jesus prove that it is not the so-called elect who come to him because they alone are drawn to Him by the Father. All who are weighed down by sin and whose souls have been chafed away by the consequences of their sins, and who candidly acknowledge it to Him, are the ones who take flight to Him so that He may save them and free them of their sin. Yes, of course, it is the Father who draws sinners to his Son through the preaching of the cross, but Jesus extends his invitation to all of mankind; all men are invited to come to Him who are tired, wearied and cast down by their sins and transgressions. These are the ones who acknowledge with anxiety and trepidation that they are lost and desperately in need of a Saviour. Didn’t Jesus say that He came to seek and to save the lost? (Luke 19:10). He can and will only find those who know and acknowledge under the conviction of the Holy Spirit that they are lost sinners. Most people readily agree that they are sinners but very few acknowledge that they are lost sinners bound for hell. How and when do the elect acknowledge their lost status when they are supposedly drawn supernaturally to Jesus Christ without them knowing it until they are granted the gift of salvation and saved by a sovereign and irresistible act of God? An acknowledgment of sin subsequent to regeneration is indeed always a necessity but an acknowledgement of your lost status can only come before regeneration, not after. Sadly, the elect cannot acknowledge any such thing because their absolute inability to respond in faith to the Gospel and their total depravity prevent them from making such an acknowledgment with anxiety and trepidation. If Jesus came to the world to seek and to save the lost, and if the elect are the only ones who are saved because they alone have been elected and predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world, then they alone are the lost and not the reprobate who have not been elected and predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the earth. But sadly, they hardly ever have the opportunity to acknowledge their lost status before regeneration because any possible vestige of faith on their part is a works orientated faith which is completely unacceptable to God. So when do they acknowledge that they are lost sinners? After their regeneration? That is, to say the least, a complete impossibility.

Here now follows the first video in the series of five by John MacArthur Jnr. called The Doctrine of Absolute Inability. While listening to MacArthur please bear in mind the above invitation of the Holy Spirit. If sinful man was absolutely unable to will and to take, the Spirit of God would never have inspired John to write down something so profoundly beautiful.

greatly

Indeed, the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important calling there is for a believer. In fact Paul said, “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16). Paul did not preach the Gospel because he thought he was one of the most important people in the world. He had nothing to glory of; he preached it because he was compelled to do so. Like Jonah who through divine intervention was forced to go to Nineveh and warn the inhabitants of God’s immanent judgment, so was Paul flung off his horse into the dust and through divine intervention was lead to the house of Ananias where he called upon the Name of the Lord in order to be saved. The Gospel (Glad Tidings or Good News) is indeed the best news anyone, anywhere can ever hear. It is the best news because it tells you exactly how to obtain salvation through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the Calvinist believes it is only good news for the elect who have been predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world and are saved through a sovereign and monergisitc intervention of God and not for anyone who is willing to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, simply because they are absolutely unable to respond in faith to the Gospel.

Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:9-10)

Staunch Calvinists would immediately object to the word “obtain” because it suggests that the sinner can do something on his part to “get” or “gain” redemption, unless of course, they revamp the word (as they have done with words such as “world,” “whomsoever,” and “all”) and attach to it a new meaning other than “to attain” or “to get” (τυγχάνω, tugchano { toong-khan’-o).

Having eulogized his pastoral audience with words such as “most important people in the world because they preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ” it is our duty as Bereans to examine his presentation to see whether he and his audience actually do preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not another Gospel inspired by another spirit and another Jesus. Therefore, as Macarthur said, it is incumbent on us that we understand the nature of our message and the foundations of our Gospel.

How does he understand the Gospel? As a point of departure he immediately began with one of the core teachings of Calvinism which is Total Depravity or unwillingness or inability as he put it. As proof of the total depravity or absolute inability or unwillingness on the part of the sinner, MacArthur reads John 5 verses 39 and 40. I could not determine which translation he used but here follows his words as he read it from his Bible that lay in front of him.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life and it is these that bear witness of Me and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.

To put this portion of Scripture into its correct perspective and context we need to look at other translations against the backdrop of the entire chapter.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (KJV).

You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me. But you are not willing to come to me to have life. (International Standard Version)

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (English Standard Version)

Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. (American Standard Version)

You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me! And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life. (Amplified Bible)

John MacArthur’s eisegeses of these two verses are as follows:

Those who search the Scriptures, those who search the Scriptures with a view to eternal life, those who search the Scriptures with a view to eternal life which Scriptures bear witness to Jesus Christ are nonetheless unwilling to come to Him. Why is that? Turn to John 6 verse 44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”

MacArthur’s QED (quod erat demonstrandum, ultimate proof) of the doctrine of absolute inability lies solely in his interpretation of John 6:44. Voila! only those who are drawn (that is, the elect) by the Father will come to Jesus and the rest (that is, the reprobate) whom it pleased Him NOT to draw to his Son and NOT to predestine unto salvation before the foundation of the world are NOT drawn and therefore destined for the lake of fire. John MacArthur is a little less than honest in his interpretation because had he been totally honest, he would have quoted the very next verse as well:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)

Please take note of the words “has heard” and “has learned” which clearly shows that those who have responded to the Father in hearing and leaning are the ones who come to Jesus. There is not an inkling of a suggestion here that those who come to Jesus are drawn to Him through a monergistic, sovereign and unilateral act of God the Father. I have already pointed out that MacArthur is a little less than honest but forgive me when I once again highlight his dishonesty. Had he been absolutely honest he would also have quoted Jesus who said:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself. (John 12:32)

But of course, all men in Calvinism’s word perfect dictionary is not every single human being who ever lived on planet earth; all men in Calvinism’s terms are the elect and them only. When Jesus said in John 6:44 that no one can come to the Father who sent Him unless He draws him, He simply meant that God alone can draw sinners to Him because there is no other means to draw them to Him except through his cross. If God was able to draw sinners to his Son without the cross, He would have done so and it would have been totally unnecessary for Jesus to be crucified. it would not have been necessary for Him to shed his precious blood for a bunch of hell-deserving sinners. God’s drawing power is centered in the Cross of Jesus and NOT in the doctrine of his so-called sovereign election and predestination. Had his drawing power been centered in his sovereign election and predestination, He would have circumvented the cross which, of course, the Calvinists would deny. I Corinthians 1:18 Paul says that the cross is sheer foolishness to them that perish but to everyone who is being saved it is the power and the wisdom of God. All people are drawn to the cross because Jesus Himself said that He will draw ALL MEN to Him through his cross but not all are saved because they themselves are to blame for their rejection by God, not because He has not chosen them unto salvation before the foundation of the world, but because they have willfully rejected his Son’s Cross, the only means that draws men to Him. To them it is sheer foolishness.

There is also nothing in John 5:39,40 that suggests in the very slightest that sinners have no ability whatsoever to be willing. Unwilling hardly means that sinners are unable to be willing. Look at the context of the entire chapter five. The main theme in chapter five is not an alleged inability to be willing but faith; the word “believe” appears no less than seven times in the chapter:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not.

Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Furthermore the word “unwilling” which John MacArthur used in his reading of that passage can never denote an absolute inability. Its grammatical relationship to the positive form “willingness” makes it impossible to attach a meaning of “absolute inability” to it. Like darkness which exists because of a complete lack of light, so unwillingness exists because of a lack or absence of willingness. You can never be unwilling without its antonym of “willing.” If you are able to be unwilling you are naturally able to be willing as well. It is nothing else than a choice which is entrenched in your divinely gifted free-will. Unbelief, unbelief, unbelief was the reason for their spiritual condition and not a complete inability to be willing.

No truly born again child of God will deny that man is completely unable to contribute to his or her salvation. Anyone who assumes in the very slightest that sinners have at least some good in them to appease God for Him to save them, is deluded. But what does John MacArthur mean when he says that sinners are unable to make any contribution to their salvation? If man is incapable of willing his/her salvation and so utterly and totally depraved to respond to the Gospel then surely even his faith is as filthy as rotten old rags (Isaiah 64:6). Is this the vein of John MacArthur’s teaching on good works that even your faith is a self-centered work and as such cannot be accepted by God? Let met remind you what the Holy Spirit says in Revelation 22:17, a verse Calvinists hardly ever quote or even remotely mention when they deal with their doctrine of absolute inability.

The nature of saving faith part 5 (The embedding of this video was disabled by request). Click on the link on the left to take you to Youtube where you can watch it at your leisure. The quote beneath starts at 5 minutes 41 seconds into the video

The definition of saving faith. Very simple. One, it is a gift from God. It is a g-i-f-t- from God. In Ephesians 2 8 and 9 “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” Faith is a gift of God. Now what is the gift of God here? Some say it is faith, some say it is not faith. The Greek scholar BF Westcott says the gift of God is the saving energy of faith. Others feel you can’t take “that” in the Greek because you have here a neuter and a feminine. For example, “for by grace you have been saved through faith” – faith is feminine in gender – and that is neuter. So you can’t use a neuter pronoun to define a feminine substitute. And so some would feel more comfortable with saying “that” must embrace the whole act of salvation. Fine, wonderful. Do you know what is part of the whole act of salvation, you are saved by grace through faith, “that” none of yourselves. So if you want to take it to the all encompassing grace, the faith, the salvation, the whole thing is a gift from whom? – from God. I feel comfortable with that, do you? It embraces the whole thing, either way faith is included. Jesus said to Peter, verse 17 of Matthew 16 “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father who is in heaven.” What does He say? Peter just said “Thou art the” . . . what? – “the Christ,” Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. That is a confession, that is a saving confession, and Jesus said to Him, you didn’t get that from flesh and blood. My father gave you that faith; my Father gave you that revelation. It is the Father God who enables anyone to believe. Man blocked deeply in the deadness of his own sin could not generate his own faith. John 6:44: “No one can come to Me, implying in faith, unless the Father who sent Me draws him. Verse 47 “Truly truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” Those two verses come together to say the Father gives you faith. The Father draws you by  . . . your faith. It’s a gift of God, it’s a gift of God. It can be no less than that for fallen nature cannot generate faith in God. Sometimes you hear people say that faith is a natural thing. . . . Natural faith cannot save you, supernatural faith can, it comes from God. Listen to verse 16 of Acts 3: Peter preaching, “And on the basis of faith in his Name, it is the Name of Jesus which has strengthened this man” he just healed, “whom you see and know,” listen to this, “and the faith which comes through Him, that is Jesus Christ, has given him this perfect health.” You know why that man was healed, because he believed, you know from whom he got his faith, from whom? from Christ. This faith which comes through Him.

John McArthur says several things about saving faith in the above video that is not in harmony with God’s Word and even his own confession of faith. Let’s begin with his statement:  “It is the Father God who enables anyone to believe.” Not only is this inconsistent with MacArthur’s own belief in the doctrine of election and predestination, it nullifies his view of John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” If God only draws the elect and sovereignly and supernaturally grants them the gift of faith subsequent to their salvation through an act of irresistible grace, then HE does NOT enable anyone to believe. If you want to be consistent with the doctrine of election and predestination, the honest thing to do is to acknowledge that God enables the elect ONLY to believe. It is this kind of double-talk that confuses many people.

The general order of events in the salvaiton of the elect, according to a Calvinist, are as follows:

1. The elect are dead in sin and trespasses (as dead as a corpse or cadaver). Thet cannot respond in faith to the Gospel, even though they may search the Sriptures day and night, simply because they are unwilling (unable) to come to Christ for their salvation.
2. The only way the elect can come to Christ Jesus is to be drawn to Him by God the Father. God draws the elect only because He bestows his love on them ONLY AND, I repeat, AND He died for them on the cross. The wretched non-elect are not drawn to Jesus by the Father. Yes! He loves them but his Son did NOT die for them on the cross. 
3. The drawn elect are then regenerated by a sovereign, irresistable, monergistic, and unilateral act of God. He regenerates them without having to have faith in his Son and his Gospel, simply because of their absolute inabilty to generate any faith of their own. God must gtant them faith subesequent to their rgeneration. Only then do they have faith to believe in Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

If, as Calvinists believe, man is totally depraved and unable to understand and respond in faith to the Gospel in order to be saved, at what stage do the elect become aware of their lost status so that they may bend down low and humble themselves (admit that they are lost) in order to enter the strait gate? Allow me to rephrase my question a wee bit. At what stage does the Holy Spirit convict the elect of sin, righteousness and judgment? If God unilaterally,  monergistically, sovereignly and irresistibly redeems the elect without them having to understand and believe the Gospel just because they are unable to do so, then their is no need whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sins and lost status.

“That’s just not true!” is what the Calvinists probably would say to this. “The Holy Spirit convicts them of sin, righteousness and judgment subsequent to their redemption and after they had received faith as a gift from God.” Really . . .? Please bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does not only convict of sins but also of God’s righteous judgments. As I said earlier, many people admit that they are sinners but refuse to believe that a God of love would execute his righteous judgments by casting them into hell, if they do not repent and believe the Gospel.

Although the conviction of sin is essential before and after a person’s salvation, the conviction of God’s righteous judgments (the Holy Spirit inspired acknowledgment that hell is your inevitable destination if you should refuse to believe the Gospel and repent) can only occur BEFORE salvation, never AFTER salvation. If Jesus spoke the truth in John 16:7-11, then the Holy Spirit MUST convict every person (including Calvin’s predestined elect) of God’s righteous judgments BEFORE redemption. It is absurd to believe that the Holy Spirit convicts the elect after they had been redeemed sovereignly, irresistibly and monergistically by God. It would amount to the irrational situation where the Holy Spirit’s warning with regard to God’s righteous judgments reach the ears and heart of the elect AFTER they had already been set free from God’s righteous judgments. Can the Holy Spirit simultaneously say to someone “You are on your way to a well-earned hell” and “You have been set free of God’s righteous judgments” after having been redeemed irresistibly, monergistically and sovereignly? If you have already been set free from God’s righteous judgments by virtue of your irresistibly and sovereignly imposed redemption by the Holy Spirit, then you cannot possibly be convicted of judgment by the same Holy Spirit after your irresistibly imposed redemption. What’s the logic in that?

Please watch this video, if you will, and tell me whether the God of the Bible is a God of confusion. While you are watching, bear in mind what MacArthur had said in the above quote: “It is the Father God who enables anyone to believe.” If he really wanted to be consistent he should have said: “It is the Father God who enables the elect to believe.”

 

TOTAL confusion, I repeat TOTAL CONFUSION, sets in when the questionnaire asks John MacArthur the question: ”How do we tell people God loves them and that Jesus Christ did not die for them?” Notice now the most profound, intellectual, spiritually grown-up answer ever to come from the lips of a scholar.

“Well, you tell them whatever the Bible tells you to tell them, and the Bible tells you to go into all the world and to preach the word to every creature, and that’s what you do and that’s what the Scripture says”

Great! Wonderful! Now we know exactly why God loves the non-eleect so much that He forbad his Son to die for them on the cross. You tell them that because that is what the Bible tells you to do, to preach the Word of God to every creature but not all creatures because Jesus did not love ALL CREATURES to die for most of the creatures. Will someone please tell me how this fits in with John’s declaration that “It is the Father God who enables anyone to believe?” Believe what? . . . That God loves them and because He loves them Jesus did not die for them?” Fancy that! That truly is “GOOD NEWS, GLAD TIDINGS.” Chapter and verse please! But wait, it gets even better.

John MacArthur continues to say that “any tension between that (the fact that you must go into all the world and preach the Gospel, GLAD TIDINGS, to every creature) and the nature of the atonement, any tension you have between that and the doctrine of divine election and predestination, any tension you feel in those areas, I feel.” Ok, that’s just a great comfort for those whom God loves but for whom Jesus did not die— to know and to understand that John MacArthur feels the very same tension they feel when they hear this kind of GOOD NEWS (Gospel). In fact, John MacArthur’s empathy for these poor and wretched creatures whom God dearly loves but for whom Jesus did not die, greatly exceeds the compassion and empathy Jesus Christ feels for them. At least John MacArthur feels for them while God openly declares that it his good pleasure to damn them to an eternal hell. John MacArthur’s mercy seems to outstrip the mercy, loving-kindness, compassion and grace of God. Calvin wrote:

Scripture clearly proves … that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. ” (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, Sec. 2210).

So you see, John McArthur’s feelings of empathy for the lost outstrips that of God who only experiences pleasure and satisfaction when He sends people to hell.

One of the Calvinists most brilliant emergency exits when they cannot or will not answer tough questions is to say “Don’t blame me, blame God.” However, John MacArthur who has learnt the art to say this in not so blunt a manner but like a real gentleman who honors and respects God’s sovereignty to the hilt, says: “I don’t know that there is some kind of a quick answer to the question. I am, however, happy to concede that God can resolve things that I can’t” The audience happily applauds his deeply profound and spiritually uplifting words. But let’s take a closer look at what he has said in the light of his brilliant answer that we should go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all the creatures. Let’s do it along the lines of a little dramatization. After the Calvinist preacher had delivered a really good sermon, a person sitting at the back gets up and asks:

Mr. X: Sir, what must I do to be saved?

Preacher: You must realize, sir, that I can only present you with the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr X: But that’s what I really would like to know, the truth. I read somewhere in the Bible that you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Preacher: Ok! First of all, you must realize there is nothing you can do for your own salvation. Faith is a gift of God. Your own generated faith is as dead as a corpse. Secondly, you ought to know that God loves you. However, you must also know that God has two kinds of love — one for his elect and one for the non-elect. The one for the elect includes the death of Christ on the cross while his love for the non-elect EXCLUDES the death of Christ on the cross.

Mr X: Which am I, elect or non-elect.

Preacher: Well, no one knows. You will only know when you have been regenerated through a sovereign and irresistible act of God. Or, as Spurgeon said, if you had an “E” stamped on your back we may know whether you are an elect person. But we won’t do that because you will have to take off your jacket, pull your shirt over your head to expose your back ti us so that we may see whether you have an “E.” We wouldn’t want to do that, whould we?

Mr X: What does ot meadn to be regenrated by a sovereign and irresistable act of God?

Preacher: Well, have you read how Paul was saved?

Mr X: Yes, but I do not understand it. Do you want me to fall off something before I can be saved?

Preacher X: No! But let me show you a short video clip of someone I know very well. He is a great man of God who has the doctrine of election and predestination on the tips of his fingers. Ready?

Mr X: Yes!

Preacher: Sir, do you now understand how saving faith works?

Mr. X: Not quite! I heard someone say that God loves everyone but that his Son did not die for everyone. How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposing truths, if they are the truth? Or is it a post-modern paradox we must accept?

Preacher: This is perhaps the most difficult precept in the doctrine of salvation. I don’t know. no one knows. I am, however, happy to concede that God can resolve things that I can’t.  Even Paul conceded that “. . .now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:12-13). He didn’t know! God’s magnanimous love is a mystery and that (his love) is all that will remain in the end, even though it pleased him NOT to have his Son die for the non-elect or the reprobate as we sometimes call them. Do you understand?

Mr. X: Not quite, but at least I know that some of our most esteemed spiritual leaders, such as yourself, are equally puzzled and befuddled and at least I have learnt to happily concede that God alone can resolve this problem.

Its obvious that Mark Drsicol hasn’t seen John MacArthur’s videos yet. Remember, he quoted Paul who echoed Moses’ words:

My desire is that the Jewish people would meet Jesus, the Messiah, that they would love Him and turn to Him and my whole life is about proclaiming Jesus so that many people as possible become Christians and so that the Jews in particular would come to know the Messiah, that they have long been waiting for.

Wait a sec. didn’t John MacArthur say Jesus didn’t die on the cross to make it possible for people to be saved. His words were: “ I believe that his atonement was an actual one and not a potential one. I don’t think it was a general one, I think it was a specific one. I think it was real death for sin.” There is absolutely no possibility in the nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Had his atonement made it possible for as many people possible to be saved, His death would have been a failure. Why? Because the very thought that many people for whom He had died will be in hell is a doubble jeopardy. It just doesn’t work. according to John McArthur. Mark, you’d better start watching John McArthur’s YouTube videos to learn what the genuine doctrine of election and predestination really is about.

Don’t these guys ever read their Bibles or are they deliberately omitting vital portions of Scripture? I contend that Paul was NOT saved when he fell off his horse in the dust on his way to Damascus. Please read here how Paul was saved. Unlike John McArthur who criticizes someone who encourages lost sinners to receive Jesus as Saviour, Ananias prodded, urged and encouraged Paul not to procrastinate but to immediately call upon the Name of Jesus so that he might be saved. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16; Acts 2:21).

Mark Driscol comes to the conclusion that the doctrine of predestination fuels evangelism after reading Romans 9 with special emphasis on Paul’s words in verse 3: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Wow! Paul was prepared to go to hell in stead of his Jewish brethren if only that could contribute to their salvation? Wow! Who else but Jesus Christ Himself would be prepared to do that? Do you really think Paul would want to do that if he was the quintessential promoter of the doctrine of election and predestination, especially when he himself allegedly experienced an electoral and predestined salvation on his way to Damascus? How stupid it would have been of him to go to hell for the sake of the reprobate when they were destined for hell in any case, even before the foundation of the earth. He would have been in hell with all the reprobates for all eternity. Think of it, an elected woud have been in helll for all eternity if his prayer had been granted. It would have been equally stupid of him to go to hell for the sake of the elect when they are all bound for heaven in any case, even before the foundation of the earth. That would have been the grossest mistake Paul had ever made because he would habe been in hell while all the elect were in heaven. Fancy Paul saying something like this: I, a staunch believer in the doctrine of election and predestination, know that the elect, without any exception, are all going to heaven because Jesus’ death was an actual one and not a potential one, it was a specific one and not a general one, it was real death for sin, and yet I am still prepared to suffer an eternity in hell for their sake. Or, imagine him saying something like this: I, a staunch believer in the doctrine of election and predestination, know that all the non-elect, without exception, are going to hell and yet, I am willing to go to hell for their sakes so that I too may be in hell and suffer with them for all eternity.

I said it before and I am going to say it again: The doctrine of election and predestination unto salvation is a confusing, illogical, irrational, and totally unreasonable dogma. In short, it’s a dumb doctrine because it defies the logic in all the issues of salvation. No wonder Paul wrote:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. (Romans 1:22)

Once again, would anyone want to go to hell in behalf of the elect who are going to heaven in any case and would they be prepared to go to hell in behalf of the non-elect who are going to hell in any case? Its just too preposterous to even contemplate that this is what Paul had in mind when he expressed his anguish in behalf of his brethren the Jews.

Paul loved his Jewish brethren after the flesh so much that he, like Moses, was prepared to be cast into hell in their behalf if that had in any way been possible to save them. Now note John McArthur’s frivolous and shallow answer to the question: “”How do we tell people God loves them and that Jesus Christ did not die for them?” With arms outstretched and an elated smile on his face John MacArthur said: “The best answer to this question, is ‘my brother I feel your pain.’ That’s the best answer to that question.” The audience joins him in his pain when they burst out in laughter. Moses was prepared to go to hell for the sake of the salvation of his people, Jeremiah wept day and night for his Jewish brethren; Paul wept and was prepared to suffer the pangs of hell for all eternity; Jesus wept and did indeed suffer the pangs of hell on the cross for his Jewish brethren. But all that John MacArthur can say is: “My brother, I feel your pain.” Would John MacArthur be prepared to suffer in hell for the sake of the non-elect? Would he suffer in hell for the sake of the elect? Of course not! If he’d been willing he would have conceded to do the most preposterous thing any man could ever have wanted to do in the entire history of mankind. To say the least, it would be the dumbest thing anyone would have wanted to do. It superabundantly goes beyond any man’s reason.

And then . . .? And then followed his Magna Carte for salvation. Listen to this. Please note that the above video was a special Q&A session when the audience had an opportunity to ask some questions, especially those questions that have never been answered satisfactorily in Calvinism, and yet John MacArthur says. “I’m not here to give you an answer and then answers anyway.

I’m not here to give you an answer, but I will tell you this: I do not believe that Jesus died for nobody, I believe that He died for somebody and I believe that He died specifically for those who would believe in Him and those who believe in Him are those who are regenerated based on the eternal, sovereign, electing purpose of God. I believe that his atonement was an actual one and not a potential one. I don’t think it was a general one, I think it was a specific one. I think it was real death for sin. (What he says here in effect is that if Jesus died for all people while most of them are going to hell, his death would have been a complete failure. But now, his death on the cross was not a failure because every single elect person who ever lived, shall be saved. Let’s take this argument through to Jesus’ words in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.” If every single elect person will be saved, without any exception, and if Jesus died for them only to make sure his death on the cross was a success and not a failure, it would follow that only the elect are lost and not the reprobate. Had the reprobate been lost as well He would have come to the world to save them as well, simply because He said (and He is not a liar) that He had come to seek and to save the lost. The only logical conclusion to be made from the argument that He could not have died for all people because if He had, whilst most people are going to hell, his crucifixion would have been a failure, is that the reprobate are not lost.Therefore, only the elect are lost for they are the only ones being saved). 

The issue here is the nature of atonement. Forget the dilemma. You’re going to have the dilemma no mater what you do. The dilemma is why doesn’t He send everyone to heaven? The dilemma is, why is there a hell and why are people going there? That is a legitimately difficult question to ask and the only answer I can give you is that if God purposed to do that, Romans 9, who are we to question his purpose. If He gets glory from judgment the way He gets glory from salvation, who are we to question Him?

The other issue is: Nobody goes to hell for any other reason than that  they are guilty of sin and unbelief. How that fits, I don’t know but there are a lot of things I don’t’ know.  . . . I will not resolve the problem of the lost any other way than to do what the Scriptures tell me to do and that is that the Bible affirms to me that God loves the world, the specific people in the world, the specific human beings, I don’t know who they are. Spurgeon said: “If you pull up their shirts and show me an “e” stamped on their backs and I know the elect I’ll limit my work to them.” But there is no such stamp. I am committed to preach the word to every creature and I can say to them that the love of God has been expressed through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and you will know and experience that love if you put your faith in Him. If you don’t do that you will perish in your sins and Jesus said, you will perish in your sins because you do not believe on Me. [How can you expect anyone to put their faith in Him when they are so utterly depraved and inexorably bound to an absolute inability? To say to someone “put your faith in Him” in the Calvinist’s way of thinking, must therefore sound something like this: “You are utterly, utterly incapable of putting your faith in Jesus because you are utterly, utterly depraved. In any case, if you had been capable of putting your faith in Him, your faith would be nothing but a work and our best works are but filthy rags. Real faith is a gift of God and He will only grant you his faith as a gift after He has regenerated you through a monergistic, sovereign, irresistible and unilateral act of grace. The bottom-line, therefore, is that you WILL believe because you ARE the elect and you WILL put your faith in Him because as an elect person you have no other choice. Since when do men have a free-will anyway?” So, to tell someone to put his faith in Jesus lest he be damned while they are not in the least capable of doing it, is the cruelest prank you can play on a person. However, we should bear in mind that we cannot resolve these tensions because we simply don’t know. A  person who wrote a comment on the new blog http://4loveofthetruth scolded me for not understanding Calvinism. How can I when their own teachers and gurus do not understand Calvinism? I responded but my comment was subjected to moderation for a rather long time, proving that the moderators weren’t very keen to place my comment. I eventually wrote them an e-mail requesting them to remove my not-yet—moderated comment. They eventually removed it with deeply felt and regretful reluctance).

. . . I’m very comfortable to just take the Biblical aspect but I don’t think it’s a good solution to diminish the nature of the atonement to have Jesus dying for everybody. If you say that He paid the penalty for all the sins of all the world then what is anybody doing in hell? That’s double jeopardy! That doesn't work! (If you haven’t started weeping at this point, you must be a Calvinist who, like John MacArthur, feels the pain of others because Jesus never died for them but nevertheless smiles about it and makes his audience laugh. Please note: MacArthur has just said that Jesus said “if YOU do not PUT YOUR FAITH in Him you will perish in your sins.” Isn’t that the reason why people are going to hell. Jesus said so, and although MacArthur quoted Jesus he doesn’t believe Him. But don’t worry, that’s just another strange dichotomy (tension) in the doctrine of election and predestination we will never understand).

It’s a good question to answer. You guys should be very careful about the tensions that are in this and it flows to every major doctrine in Scripture that connects the sinner with God. You don’t want to resolve that question by asking philosophical questions; you always want to live in that tension by being obedient to Scripture. Okay? But I do feel your pain because I don't have an answer to all those questions. (Questions on the eternal destiny of men, women and children and the vicarious death of Jesus Christ on the cross . . . merely philosophical questions? What must I do to be saved? — a philosophical question? Thank God that Peter was the preacher on the Day of Pentecost and NOT John MacArthur or any other Calvinist. Can you imagine what his answer would have been if he’d been there and someone asked Him “Sir, what must we do?” Well now, dear sir, I really do not want to delve too deeply into all the tensions of the nature of the Jesus’ atonement on the cross.I merely want to obey the Scriptures. I also do not want to succumb to the temptation of answering philosophical questions. But! you must remember that you are in no position whatsoever to generate your own faith. It is a gift of God. You are so utterly depraved that you cannot possibly expect to do anything. In fact you are as dead as a cadaver and you need to be raised from your spiritual death (much like Lazarus who was raised from the dead, although his example is rather inappropriate because he was already a saved man when he was raised form the dead) before you can even think of exercising your divinely gifted faith. I must add that I cannot possibly know whether Jesus died on the cross for you specifically because I do not know whether you are one of the elect. Perhaps, if you would care to lift your tunic over your head so that I can see whether an “e” is written on your back, I, like the great preacher Spurgeon, would know for certain whether you are one of the elect. I would then know whether I should continue to minister God’s saving grace to you.”

John MacArthur definitely was not at the conference to give his audience answers. He was there to ask more questions and to cause more confusion that already exists in Calvinism. I can only reiterate what Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Are you the teacher [of your flock] and yet do do not understand these things?” (John 3:10).

I must haste to end. In closing I would again like to briefly refer to my contention with the blog moderators of http://4loveofthetruth.wordpress.com. In the first and last e-mail I received from them they said one of the most strangest things imaginable.

Now, I know there are people from all sides who just love to prove their pet doctrines right and paint the other side as wrong, but what’s the point? What can bashing Biblical doctrines achieve? Should we not display any concern regarding that while we waste time arguing our little point against other Christians, many people are sinking into hell? I have made this point before in a conversation with you. Mostly, doctrine bashers are the ones who say that it’s up to human free will! You’d think they would labour harder than those who hold to theology of the cross, instead of trying to disprove the doctrines of grace.

They don’t want to be labeled as Calvinists but I counted no less than ten articles by John MacArthur or his church Grace to You, on their blog. They defend their Calvinist disclaimer as follows:

Articles placed or written on this blog are generally the position held by, and in agreement with, the blog administrators’ opinions. Further commentary by the administrators of this blog will therefore be limited. Public comments which do appear in response to the articles on this blog, are not necessarily representative of the opinion of the administrators of this blog or to be regarded as necessarily Biblically correct. Before commenting please read the About page. (Emphasis added)

I responded as follows:

I really don’t think contending for the faith is Bible bashing, especially when salvation is the topic. Ironically you state that many people are sinking into hell while you feature articles of people who present another Gospel. What I cannot understand is that you place articles by John Mac Arthur who believes that God loves everyone but that his Son did not die on the cross for everone. That’s not Glad Tidings, is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mleum3jZ1E&playnext=1&list=PL9F6B7C98B0B8E99F

By the by, why would a Calvinist (and I’m not suggesting you are) be concerned about sinners going to hell when it is God’s good pleasure to send them there? If you’re not sharing in God’s good pleasure, you are being downright disobedient to Him. So let’s all just take pleasure in the damnation of the reprobate like God because it exhibits His unfathomable grace and mercy. Similarly, why would a Calvinist be concerned about sinners going to hell when every single elected and predestined person is going to heaven anyway? So, the bottom-line must be that a Calvinists should not and indeed have no concern for people on their way to hell.

John MacArthur is a fiery opponent of the Emerging Church and has spoken out against them on many occasions. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that Calvinism is a far greater danger than the Emerging Church because the angel of light’s light seems to shine much brighter in their doctrine of election and predestination than in the Emerging Church.

Not the preparation but the results count

In today’s post on e-church Stephan Joubert dispenses the following great wisdom:

If I remember correctly, it was Theodor Roosevelt who said that if he has eight hours available to chop down a tree, then he’d spend six hours to sharpen the axe. Without proper preparation you can’t deliver decent results. This applies whether you teach at school, preach, paint, build, operate, or serve clients in a shop every day – preparation and the right attitude are necessary. The most important piece of preparation is, however, that deep recognition in your heart that you are doing it all for the Lord.

Doing things for the Lord can be very dangerous when you do it for all the wrong reasons, especially when you shun his doctrines in behalf of your goody-goody deeds.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat 7:22-23).

Is the doctrine of election and predestination from God?

An e-mail I received not so long ago invited me to tune into a brand new blog called 4loveofthetruth. Being a person who loves the truth I immediately typed in the address http://4loveofthetruth.wordpress.com which took me to a beautifully laid out and picturesque blog. To my surprise most of the truth written of on their blog is based on the writings of John MacArthur of Grace to You Ministries. This logo is indeed very beautiful but the irony is that it is only aimed at a special kind of people, a people who have been elected and predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world while the poor reprobates who have been elected and predestined unto perdition before the foundation of the world have no part in their Grace to You salutation. What kind of grace is that? A link on 4loveoftheturth, Is the Doctrine of Election Unfair? Read more here, took me to John MacArthur’s article where he says amongst many other incongruities the follolwing:

To say that election is unfair is not only inaccurate, it fails to recognize the very essence of true fairness. That which is fair, and right, and just is that which God wills to do. Thus, if God wills to choose those whom He would save, it is inherently fair for Him to do so. We cannot impose our own ideas of fairness onto our understanding of God’s working. Instead, we must go to the Scriptures to see how God Himself, in His perfect righteousness, decides to act.

No one can argue against the fact that God’s will is the ultimate of fairness. His love, compassion, justice and sovereignty are perfectly packaged in his fairness. Nonetheless, the question is not whether we recognize his fairness; we should rather ask ourselves whether we recognize (discern) his perfect will. I’m sure John MacArthur and his followers will agree that we only have one source from which we may recognize or discern his will — the holy Bible, His Word. Bearing in mind that election and predestination are primarily salvivic terms, we must of necessity probe God’s will with regard to salvation. So what is God’s will when it comes to salvation?

Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. (Ezekiel 18:31-32)

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

According to Calvinism only the reprobate die (are cast into the eternal lake of fire); the elect die physically but will never die spiritually because they have been predestined unto eternal bliss before the foundation of the earth. And yet, God says He has no pleasure in the death of anyone (including the reprobate). John Calvin, who seemed to have more of a doctrinally sound rendering of this verse than God Himself, said:

Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2226)

Scripture clearly proves … that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. ” (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, Sec. 2210)

For he is speaking of the greatness of God, whose pleasure it is to inflict punishment on fools and transgressors though he is not pleased to bestow his Spirit upon them. It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek to subject that which has no bounds to the little measure of their reason. Paul gives the name of elect to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2229)

Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2231) (Emphasis added)

God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others . . . it is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge . . . The Lord therefore may show favor to whom he will, because he is merciful; not show it to all, because he is a just judge. (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 2234) (Emphasis added).

The next best question to be asked, is who is the liar here — God or John Calvin? If John MacArthur believes God is fair in all his works, then He must also admit that it is his will and good pleasure that no one dies in his or her sins and that they should, as God Himself said, make themselves a new heart and a new spirit. Needless to say, it does not mean that man is capable of making himself a new heart and a new spirit; God alone can do that. It simply means that sinners should aspire and desperately hanker for a new heart and a new spirit (Jeremiah 29:13).

We are encouraged to test all things whether they are from God (1 John 4:1) because many false prophets have gone out into the world. If election and predestination unto salvation for a select few only are NOT from God, then it is a lie and if a lie then it had its origin with Satan who is the father of all lies since the very beginning of time (John 8:44).

What you think, is what you are

God says that our thoughts are mirror images of what we truly are in our deepest innermost being.

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, he says to you, but his heart is not with you. Proverbs 23:7)

My thoughts immediately went to this verse when I read Stephan Joubert’s latest contribution DO THE GRACE WALK on echurch’s website. He writes:

Never wait until you feel like doing nice things to mean people, because, frankly, you never will! Jesus never said you should wait until your enemies become your friends before you begin to love them. No, love them while you’re still angry at them! In other words: do good things to them and build a relationship with them while you actually feel like ripping their heads off their shoulders. Retaliate with love. Walk a second mile by giving them a glass of cold water when you’d rather want to give them a big dose of arsenic. The longer you do nice things to bad people and the more you lay the initial building blocks of new relationships, the more you’ll decipher the footsteps of God in front of you. You will become more and more like your heavenly Father.

Oh so, to become more and more like your heavenly Father you must learn the art of loving someone while you actually feel like killing him deep down in your heart. Is this what the English mean when they say: "love him to death?" According to Stephan Jobuert this is the way to decipher God’s footsteps ahead of you more clearly. We will definietly have to reprimand Jesus and call Him to account for his audacity to teach people things that are different from Stephan Joubert’s teachings. He actually had the nerve to say:

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24).

No, no, no, no Jesus. That’s not kosher at all. You must take some time to sit at the feet of Stephen Joubert and his buddies where you may learn how to love bad people while you actually hate them deep down in your heart and rather would like to kill them. Believe me, this is the new post modern way to be a Jesus follower. You can keep your cross and self denial to yourself. SHOCKING? Yes, of course, but this is exactly what these people are saying to Jesus while they claim to be his followers.

If ever there was a practical example of what Solomon meant in Proverbs 23:7, it is this outburst of Stephan Joubert. It perfectly illustrates the dangerous duplicity between your thoughts and your actions. Allow me to elaborate a little more on Stephan Joubert’s GRACE WALK. Most people are aware that is is prolifically, enthusiasitically, elatedly and boisterously promoting the EMERGING CHURCH in South Africa. His most utilized strategy is to attack, lambast, criticize and belittle the institutionalized church. You may be interested to read his most recent attack in the 3 February issue of Rapport.

While I was reading the article and the various commentaries my thoughts went to another verse in Scripture:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and good, and sends rain on the just and unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have you? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do you do? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)

Please note: Jesus never said you should love your enemies while deep in your innermost (your heart) you feel like murdering them (ripping their heads off their shoulders). He also never said you should build a relationship with them or give them a glass of cold water while you secretly (once again in your heart) would rather prefer to give them a large dose of arsenic. Stephan Joubert sounds exactly like Benny Hinn of the institutionlized Word of Faith movement who once said he wished he had a Holy Spirit machine gun so that he could blow the heads off of those who oppose him. (By the way: This is the man whom Angus Buchan praises and speaks very highly of.)

Benny Hinn wants to kill someone

Balaam (sorry Benny Hinn) curses everyone who opposes him.

 

What! Has the EMERGING CHURCH and specifically the ECHURCH chosen to follow in the footsteps of God’s little Messiah and his institutionalized church known as THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT? What is the difference between Benny Hinn’s blasphemous comment "I hope God gives me a Holy Ghost machine gun. I’ll blow your head off" and Stephan Joubert’s equally blasphemous comments. " . . when you’d rather want to give them a big dose of arsenic “or “while you actually feel like ripping their heads off their shoulders.”  Stephan Joubert just loves to use  Jesus’ Name to emphasize his own unbiblical teachings. He often refers to Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:42 to hide his own sugared hatred of those who oppose him and expose his heresies in public. Jesus never said you should give a glass of cold water to every Tom, Dick and Harry. He referred to his “little ones," his disciples who preach the unadulterated Word of God.

Let’s admit it outright. Stephan Joubert is an enigma that our little minds can hardly understand. Think about it: While he calls everyone his enemies who is concerned about the dangerous pilgrimage he has taken and whose heads he would like to rip off their shoulders, he is constantly speaking very higly of and hugs (without a weapon in his hand) the enemies of God. Look again at the site on which he regualrly comments. If its not Echart Tolle whom they openly promote it is Briian McLaren whom they  endorse and this is the man who openly and publically sides with men like Steve Chalke and Alan Jones who calls the crucifixion of Jesus a form of cosmic child abuse and a vile doctrine (See here).

South Africa, how long will you listen to people like Stephan Joubert, Johan Geyser and their friends? WAKE UP!

Wat jy dink, so is jy

God sê ons gedagtes is spieëlbeelde van dit wat ons werklik in ons diepste innerlike is.

Want soos hy in sy siel bereken, so is hy; eet en drink, sê hy vir jou, maar sy hart is nie met jou nie (Spreuke 23:7).

My gedates het onmiddellik na hierdie vers gegaan toe ek een van Stephan Joubert se nuutste bydraes DO THE GRACE WALK op echurch se webblad gelees het. Hy skryf:

Moet nooit eers wag voordat jy voel om mooi dinge vir gemene mense te doen nie, want om die waarheid te sê, jy sal nooit nie! Jesus het nooit gesê dat jy moet wag totdat jou vyande jou vriende word voordat jy hulle begin liefkry nie. Nee, wees lief vir hulle terwyl jy kwaad is vir hulle! Met ander woorde: doen goed aan hulle en bou ‘n verhouding met hulle terwyl jy eintlik voel jy will hulle koppe van hulle skouers afskeur. Vergeld hulle met liefde. Loop ‘n tweede myl deur ‘n glas koue water aan hulle te gee terwyl jy eerder ‘n groot dosis arseen vir hulle wil gee. Hoe langer jy mooi dinge doen vir slegte mense en hoe meer jy die aanvanklike boustene vir nuwe verhoudings lê, hoe meer sal jy God se voetstappe voor jou kan ontsyfer. Jy sal meer en meer soos jou hemelse Vader word.

O so, om meer en meer soos jou hemelse Vader te word moet jy die kuns aanleer om iemand lief te hê terwyl jy hier diep in jou hart voel jy wil hom liewer vermoor. Is dit wat die Engelse bedoel wanneer hulle sê: “love him to death?” Volgens Stephan Joubert is dit ook die manier om God se voetstappe wat voor jou lê, duideliker te onderskei. Ons sal die Here Jesus Christus deifintief moet aantree en Hom voor stok moet kry omdat Hy iets heel anders as Stephan Joubert vir mense geleer het. Dink daaraan, Hy het so wrintie die vermeteheid gehad om vir ons te te sê:

As iemand agter My aan wil kom [in my voetstappe wil loop], moet hy homself verloën en sy kruis opneem en My volg. (Mattheus 16:24).

Nee, nee, nee, nee Jesus. Dis darem nou nie reg nie. Jy moet ‘n slag aan Stephan Joubert en sy ontluikende boetjies se voete kom sit sodat jy kan leer hoe om slegte mense lief te hê terwyl jy hulle hier diep in jou hart haat en eintlik maar wil vermoor. Glo my, dis die nuwe post-moderne manier om Jesus-volgelinge te wees. Hou dus maar gerus jou kruis en jou selfverloëning vir jouself. SKOKKEND? Beslis ja! Maar dit is presies wat hierdie mense besig is om vir Jesus Christus te sê terwyl hulle daarrop aanspraak maak dat hulle Hom volg.

As daar ooit ‘n praktiese voorbeeld was van wat Salomo in Spreuke 23:7 bedoel het, dan is dit hierdie uitbarsting van Stephan Joubert. Dit omskrywe op ‘n volmaakte wyse die gevaarlike dubbelhartigheid tussen jou gedagtes en jou dade. Laat my toe om met ‘n voorbeeld so ‘n bietjie uit te brei op Stephan Joubert se GRACE WALK. Die meeste mense is bewus dat hy die ONTLUIKENDE KERK voortreflik, geesdriftig, met passie en uitgelate in Suid-Afrika bevorder. Sy mees gebruikte strategie is om die geïnstitusionaliseerde kerk aan te val, te slaan, te kritiseer en te verkleineer. Julle sou miskien belangstel om sy jongste aanslag in die Rapport uitgawe van 3 Februarie te lees.

Terwyl ek die artikel en die onderskeie kommentare daarop gelees het, het my gedagtes gegaan na ‘n ander Skrifgedeelte in die Bybel:

Maar Ek sê vir julle: Julle moet jul vyande liefhê; seën die wat vir julle vervloek, doen goed aan die wat vir julle haat, en bid vir die wat julle beledig en julle vervolg; sodat julle kinders kan word van julle Vader wat in die hemele is; want Hy laat sy son opgaan oor slegtes en goeies, en Hy laat reën op regverdiges en onregverdiges. Want as julle liefhet die wat vir julle liefhet, watter loon het julle? Doen die tollenaars nie ook dieselfde nie? En as julle net jul broeders groet, wat besonders doen julle dan? Doen die tollenaars nie ook so nie? Wees julle dan volmaak soos julle Vader in die hemele volmaak is. (Mattheus 5:44-48)

Let asseblief op: Jesus het nooit gesê jy moet jou vyande liefhê terwyl jy diep in jou binneste (jou hart) voel om hulle te vermoor (hulle koppe van hulle skouers af te skeur) nie. Hy het ook nie gesê dat jy ‘n verhouding met hulle moet kweek of ‘n glas koue water aan hulle gee terwyl jy heimelik (weer eens in jou hart) eerder ‘n groot dosis arseen aan hulle sou wou gee nie. Stephan Joubert klink presies nes Benny Hinn van die geïnstitusionaleerde Word of Faith beweging wat een maal gesê het hy wens hy het ‘n Heilige Gees geweer gehad het om sy vyande se koppe weg te blaas. (So tussen hakies: Dis die man van wie Angus Buchan met groot lof en waardering praat.)

Benny Hinn will iemand vermoor

Bileam (ekskuus, Benny Hinn) plaas ‘n vloek op almal wat hom teëstaan

WAT! Het die ONTLUIKENDE KERK en in die besonder die E-CHURCH gekies om in die voetspore te volg van God se klein Messias en sy geïnstitusionaleerde kerk wat bekend staan as THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT? Wat is die verskil tussen Benny Hinn se godslasterlike opmerking “Ek wens God gee my ‘n Heilige Gees masjiengeweer, ek sal julle koppe wegblaas” en Stephan Joubert se ewe godslasterlike opmerking “ . . . terwyl jy eerder ‘n groot dosis arseen vir hulle wil gee. Stephan  Joubert is baie lief om Jesus se Naam te gebruik om sy eie onbybelse leerstellings te beklemtoon. Hy gebruik dikwels Jesus se woorde in Mattheus 10:42 om sy gesuikerde haat jeens almal wat nie met hom saamstem nie en sy leuens in die openbaar blootlê. Jesus het nog nooit gesê dat jy ‘n glas koue water aan elke Tom, Dick en Harry moet geen nie. Hy het na sy “kleintjies,” sy dissiples verwys wat die onvervalste Woord van God verkondig het.

Kom ons erken dit nou maar ronduit. Stephan Joubert is ‘n enigma wat kwalik deur ons ou menslike verstandjies verstaan kan word. Dink daaraan! Terwyl hy almal wat bekommerd is oor die geestelike pelgrimstog waarop hy hom begewe het sy vyande noem en wie se koppe hy met liefde wil afskeur, is hy voortdurend besig om God se vyande goed te praat, te omarm en hoog aan te prys. Kyk maar weer na die webblad waarop hy gereeld kommentaar lewer. As dit nie Eckhart Tolle is wat hulle promoveer nie, dan is dit Brian McLaren wat openlik met mense soos Steve Chalke en Alan Jones dit eens is dat die kruisdood van Jesus ‘n vorm van kosmiese kindermishandeling en ‘n laakbare leerstelling is. (Kyk hier).

Suid-Afrika, hoe lank gaan julle luister na mense soos Stephan Joubert, Johan Geyser en hulle vriende by die Mosaïek Kerk in Fairlands, Johannesburg en die INVIA Kerk van Theo Geyser in Stellenbosch?