Q: What is Decisionism? Is it Biblical?

Decisionism is the belief that human beings shape their own destiny ultimately by how they manage the course of their actions / decisions in this life. I emphasize the word "ultimately" to make it clear that you do not become a decisionist simply by believing that humans make decisions. We all believe that humans are capable of making decisions, but we are not all decisionists. Decisionism asserts more than just the fact that we make decisions; it insists that our decisions are inviolable, autonomous, and sovereign.

This philosophy has become very prevalent both in our society and in many "Christian" churches today. How many times have we heard preachers saying: “God has a wonderful plan for your life, but it is up to you to make it happen”? or that “God has done everything He could do to save you; now the rest is up to you to invite Christ in your heart”? The idea is that God has always wanted to break into our lives, but wouldn't do it unless He gets our permission. While “there are many plans in God's mind," yet "it is man's counsel which will stand,”

The Bible, on the contrary, tells us that “there are many plans in a person’s mind, but it is the counsel of the LORD which will stand” (Prov. 19:21). We don't hold our destiny. God does; for “the LORD has made all things for himself: yes, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4).

Even in the economy of Salvation, the Bible says that “it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy” and that, therefore, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:16, 18). In fact, our very conversion (faith and repentance)—which, as every one must admit, involves our “willing decision” to follow Christ—is itself a gift from God! (Eze. 36:26-27: cf. Acts 16:14).

Every Christian must understand that God's work of Salvation didn't stop at Christ's death and His invitation for sinners to come to Him. God Himself, by His sovereign Spirit, unfailingly converts the heart of whomever He wills! He demands faith and repentance (Mark 1:15), yet He also produces them in the heart of His elect (Jn. 6:29; Acts 13:48; 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Don't me wrong though. I'm not suggesting that we never decided to receive Christ (or that it isn't necessary). Of course we did receive Christ, and we did so freely and willingly (John 1:12). To acknowledge this, however, is not necessarily Decision*ism.* It is one thing to grant that Salvation involves our will, and rightly so; but it's a completely different story to insist that our willing decision to receive Christ is a product of our own inherent ability apart from the sovereign operation of God's grace by His Spirit (Decisionism). God converts hearts, and He converts invincibly (see Eze 36:26-27 & Acts 16:14).

Therefore, if we take the Bible for what it says, we must affirm that the final decisive factor of our eternal destiny lies ultimately on God's Sovereign Decree, and that our decision to follow Christ is just a product of the mighty work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. It's not "up to us" in any way. Our decision to receive Christ (whereby we are forgiven) could never have been possible if it weren't for the grace of the Spirit that first quickened our rebellious, sinful, darkened, spiritually dead hearts (see 1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Jn. 6:44, 63-65). It isn't that God chose us because we chose him, but that we choose God because He has first chosen us (Jn. 15:16; Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Or as Christ puts it:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:44)

Salvation is by God's Sovereign Grace alone from first to last. Decisionism, then, is an affront to the Grace of God. Our churches need to be purged from this dangerous philosophy once and for all.

Calvinism? Ano yun!?

Sa tuwing napaguusapan o nababanggit ang "Calvinism" sa facebook group na BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS, marami ang napapakamot ng ulo at napapatanong: Ano ba ang Calvinism? Sekta ba yan? Kulto ba yan? Ano ba ang tinuturo ng Calvinism na pinaniniwalaan ng mga Calvinists?

Kung isa ka sa mga nagnanais magkaroon ng kaalaman tungkol sa Calvinism, nasa tamang lugar ka ngayon sapagkat isang Calvinist ang nagsusulat nitong artikulong ito. Hayaan mong tulungan kitang naunawaan ang mga basic tenets (o payak na paniniwala) ng mga Calvinists na katulad ko, at kung ano-ano ang mga maling-akala na karaniwang ibinabato laban sa aming pinaniniwalaan.

Ang sekta ng Calvinism

Eeeengk! Mali. Hindi po sekta (o relihiyon) ang Calvinism. Ito ay isang "school of thought" lamang na naglalayong ipaliwanag ang kaugnayan sa pagitan ng pagiging soberenya (sovereignty) ng Diyos at ng ating kaligtasan. Bagamat may mga sekta na lubusang niyayakap ang mga prinsipyo ng Calvinism, may mga Calvinists na myembro rin sa ibat-ibang denominasyon. Sa madaling salita, hindi po sekta, denominasyon, relihiyon, o kulto ang Calvinism sapagkat hindi po ito naka-kahon sa iisang ispesipikong organisasyon o grupo. (Ikaw nga mismo eh, maaaring Calvinist ka; hindi mo lang alam!)

Sino ang may pakana?

Ang salitang "Calvinism" ay hango sa pangalan ng isang repormistang Pranses na si John Calvin noong ika-17 siglo. Gayunpaman, hindi po si John Calvin ang talagang may pakana ng mga doktrina ng Calvinism. Ipinangalan lamang ito kay Calvin sapagkat siya ang pinaka-prominenteng theologian na nagtanggol sa mga prinsipyo nito. Ang totoo nyan, bago pa naging tao si Calvin ay marami nang nauna sa kasaysayan ng Kristyanismo ang nanindigan para sa mga payak na prinsipyong nakapaloob sa Calvinism; gaya nina St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), St. Prosper of Aquitaine (390 - 455), St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (462 - 527), St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 - 1153), Gottschalk of Orbais (808 - 867), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), John Wycliffe (1320 - 1384), at iba pa.

Pero teka lang! Bago mo isipin na hango lamang ang Calvinism sa pilosopiya ng mga taong nabanggit, alalahanin din natin na silang lahat ay nanindigan na ang kanilang mga aral ay batay mismo sa banal na Kasulatan (makikita natin yan sa ilang saglit lang). Samakatuwid, ang Calvinism ay hindi pakana ni John Calvin o pakana ng sinumang tao. Ito ay hango sa Salita ng Diyos.

Anong pinaglalaban ng Calvinism?

Simple lang naman ang pinaglalaban ng Calvinism. Ito ay ang katotohanan na ang kabuuan (100%) ng ating pagkaligtas---mula simula hanggang katapusan---ay nakasalalay lamang sa kapangyarihan at biyaya ng Diyos upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Ito ang pinaka-premis ng buong sistema ng Calvinism, at ibinuod pa ito ni San Pablo sa 1 Cor. 4:7,

"Sapagka't sino ang gumawa na ikaw ay matangi? at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (TAB)

Ang pagmamapuri (o pagiging mayabang) ay nag-uugat sa maling akala na mayroon kang taglay na anumang mabuting bagay na hindi galing sa Diyos. Yan ang naging problema ng mga mananampalataya sa Corinto na sinulatan ng apostol. Nagkabaha-bahagi sila dahil inakala nilang utang na loob nila sa mga mangangaral (ng ebanghelyo) ang kanilang pananalig; ang iba ay nagtayo ng fans-club para kay Pablo, ang iba naman ay para kay Apollos, at ang iba ay kay Cefas, etc (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:4-5). Dahil dyan, ipinakita sa kanila ng apostol (mula kabanata 1 hanggang 3) na ang mismong pananalig nila ay kaloob (regalo) na galing sa Diyos at hindi galing sa ibang tao o sa mga sarili nila kaya dapat na nilang itigil ang pakikipag-pataasan ng ere (1 Cor. 1:30-31, 2:4-5, 12-14, 3:6-9).

Maraming Cristiano ngayon ang may parehong maling akala gaya ng sa mga taga-Corinto. Inaakala nilang inalok lamang sa kanila ng Diyos ang kaligtasan ngunit ang mismong pagtanggap nila ay nakasalalay na sa sarili nilang pasiya. Kung tama ang ideyang ito, lalabas na ang sarili nating merito (i.e. merito ng pagtanggap kay Cristo) ang siyang  nagtangi sa atin tungo sa kaligtasan, at kung gayon nga ay hindi na ito maaaring ituring na "ayon sa biyaya" (Rom. 11:6).

"Ngunit ngayon, Oh Panginoon, ikaw ay aming Ama; kami ang malagkit na putik, at ikaw ay magpapalyok namin; at kaming lahat ay gawa ng iyong mga kamay." (Isa. 64:8)

Totoong ang pananalig natin ang siyang naghihiwalay sa atin mula sa mga taong napapahamak, ngunit ang pananalig bang ito'y bunga lamang ng ating sariling desisyon? o ipinagkaloob lamang din sa atin ng Diyos? Kung ito'y galing lamang sa ating mga sarili, mayroon nga tayong maipagmamapuri - at mali ang Calvinism. Ngunit"sino," tanong ni San Pablo, "ang gumagawa na ikaw ay matangi?" Obyusli, ang sagot sa katanungang yan ay walang iba kundi ang Dios. Ayon nga kay Jesus: "Ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ibinigay sa akin ng aking Ama. Walang nakakakilala sa Anak kundi ang Ama; at walang nakakakilala sa Ama, kundi ang Anak, at sinumang piliin ng Anak na pagpahayagan niya. " (Mat. 11:27, MBB); at minsan pa, "walang taong makalalapit sa akin, maliban na ipagkaloob sa kaniya ng Ama" (Jn. 6:65, TAB). Sumatotal, tayo ay natangi dahil sa ating pananalig kay Cristo---hindi lamang dahil sa sarili nating pasya---kundi unang-una sa lahat ay dahil ipinagkaloob ito sa atin ng Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin (Ac. 13:48) at kumilos sa puso natin (Ac. 16:14). Kung gayon, wala talaga tayong dapat ipagmapuri at sa Diyos lamang nauukol ang lahat ng kapurihan! Sabi nga ni San Pablo, "at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (1 Cor. 4:7b-c).

Marahil ay iniisip mo kung bakit kailangan pang ipagkaloob ng Diyos sa tao ang pagtalima kay Cristo. Hindi ba't binigyan tayo ng Panginoon ng "freewill"? Wala ba tayong sapat na kakayahang magpasya na lumapit at sumunod sa ebanghelyo?

Ang Alamat ng Freewill

Ang karaniwang depinisyon ng maraming tao sa salitang "freewill" ay ang pagkakaroon ng kakayahang pumili o magpasya, kung saan ang kalooban ng isang tao ay hindi nakakiling (o hindi "inclined" / "bias") sa anumang direksyon sa pagitan ng mabuti o masama. Ngunit may ganitong uri nga ba ng kalayaan ang tao bilang makasalanan? Ang sagot ng Calvinism ay wala.

Kaya nga tayo tinatawag na "makasalanan" eh. Hindi lamang tayo tinatawag na "nagkasala" na para bang aksidente lamang ang ating mga nagagawang kasalanan, bagkus tayo'y maka - salanan. Mayroon tayong inklinasyon o pagkiling tungo sa paggawa ng Kasalanan. At hindi lamang ito basta inklinasyon o pagkiling, kundi ito mismo ang katutubo (o likas) na disposisyon ng ating buong pagkatao.

Ayon kay apostol Pablo:

"Kayo noo'y mga patay sa inyong mga  pagsalangsang at mga kasalanan, na dati ninyong nilakaran, ayon sa lakad ng sanlibutang ito, ayon sa pinuno ng kapangyarihan ng himpapawid, ng espiritu na ngayon ay gumagawa sa mga anak ng pagsuway. Tayong lahat ay dating nabuhay sa gitna ng mga ito, sa mga pagnanasa ng laman, na ating ginagawa ang mga nais ng laman at ng pag-iisip, at tayo noo'y katutubong mga anak ng kapootan, gaya naman ng mga iba." (Eph. 2:1-3, ABAB)

"Sapagkat nang kayo ay mga alipin pa ng kasalanan,
kayo'y malalaya tungkol sa pagiging matuwid." (Rom. 6:20) 

Samakatuwid, maliwanag na hindi lamang tayo makasalanan sapagkat tayo'y nagkakasala, bagkus tayo'y nagkakasala sapagkat tayo'y likas na makasalanan (o alipin ng Kasalanan). Dahil sa Kasalanan ng unang tao (Rom. 5:12) tayong lahat ay naging patay sa ating mga espirituwal na kalagayan at napa-alipin sa kalooban ni Satanas (2 Tim. 2:26) at samakatuwid ay walang likas na kagustuhan o inklinasyon na tumalima sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso natin (tingnan ang mga sumusunod na talata: Eze. 36:26; Ac. 16:14, cf. Mat. 13:11-16, Jn. 6:44, 65, Rom. 3:9-12, 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4-5, Eph. 2:1-3, 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Dito natin makikita na sa magkaibang sentido, tayo'y malaya ngunit alipin. Malaya nating sinusunod ang anumang nais o hangarin ng ating mga puso. Gayunpaman, ang ating mga puso ay alipin ng anumang bagay na pinagkukunan nito ng kaligayahan: "Sapagkat kung nasaan ang iyong kayamanan, naroon din naman ang iyong puso" (Mat. 6:21, ABAB). Habang tayo'y bulag patungkol sa kagandahan at kaluwalhatian ni Cristo (na kung tutuusin ay siyang pinaka-mahalagang Kayamanan sa lahat), mas nanaisin pa ng ating mga puso na magpakalunod sa mga "kayamanan" na ipinapangako ng mga tukso. Kung gayon, ang tanging paraan para mabasag ang sumpang ito ay walang iba kundi ang pagkilos ng makapangyarihang Espiritu ng Diyos sa puso ng isang makasalanan nang sa gayon ay makita niya ang walang kapares na kagandahan ng ebanghelyo na magdudulot ng malayang pagtalima kay Cristo (Eze. 36:26-27).

Sa madaling salita, itinuturo ng Calvinism na kung mayroon mang tumatalima (at walang pagtatalo na tayo nga ay tumalima kay Cristo ayon sa sarili nating pasya - Mat. 11:28), ang kapurihan ay ukol lamang sa Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin upang tayo'y pagkalooban ng kalayaan, kakayahan, espirituwal na pangunawa, at positibong inklinasyon at pagnanasa na lumapit kay Cristo tungo sa lubos na kaligtasan (Psa. 65:4, Mat. 11:27, Eph. 1:3-5, 11). Sa bandang huli, ang Panginoon ang siyang tanging may-akda at siyang tagapagpaging-ganap ng ating pananalig (Heb. 12:2). Siya ang ating soberenyang Tagapagligtas na nagliligtas ng lubusan mula simula hanggang katapusan (Rom. 8:30) upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Yan ang puso ng Calvinism.

Baka Calvinist ka rin!

Oo, maaaring Calvinist ka rin pero di mo lang pala alam. Paano mo malalaman? Simple lang. Tanungin mo ang iyong sarili:

1. Naniniwala ka bang wala kang magagawang anumang mabuti na kalugod-lugod sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso mo? (Jn. 15:5; Rom. 8:7-8)
2. Nananalangin ka ba para sa kaligtasan ng iyong mga mahal sa buhay? (cf. Rom. 10:1)
3. Ipinapanalangin mo ba na nawa'y kumilos ang Diyos sa puso nila upang kanilang tanggapin si Cristo? (cf. Eze. 36:26, Ac. 16:14)
4. Ipinagpapasalamat mo ba sa Diyos ang sarili mong pagkakaligtas at ang pagkakilala mo sa kaniya? (cf. Mat. 11:27, 13:11, Jn. 6:44, 65; Php. 1:29)
5. Nagtitiwala ka ba na tiyak na tatapusin ng Diyos ang pagliligtas na sinimulan niya sayo, at iingatan ka niya sa pananalig hanggang wakas? (cf. Jn. 10:27-29, Rom. 8:29-39, Php. 1:6)
6. Naniniwala ka bang ang lahat ng biyayang tinatamasa mo ngayon (na may kinalaman sa iyong kaligtasan), maging ang iyong pananalig, ay pawang kaloob na galing sa Diyos na binili ni Cristo ng kanyang dugo? (cf. Rom. 8:32, Eph. 2:13)

Kung Oo ang sagot mo sa mga katanungang ito, malamang ay isa ka ring Calvinista.

-Jeph

I'd Say Both

Let’s get straight to the point: Jesus is fully God and fully Man. I cannot see any reason for me to say that I am a Christian without affirming both nor replacing it with this, this, this, this and/or this.

But what’s the fuss all about? Well, a question that was raised a few days ago (and early this week. Let me remind that it’s a closed group!) in one of the groups I’m in nearly had me commented on what I believe about it but because of some errands and unfinished business at work, I could not. I’ll make it simple so you won’t have to join the group if in case you’re just a random reader like I am.

Is there a problem here?

The Question

The question is, “Could Jesus have sinned?” — My answer is both yes and no. Let me share with you why.

Most Christians, if not for the sake of a greater cause, tend to shelf this question for safekeeping unless it’s intentionally asked for the purpose of knowing if he/she affirms a sound Biblical doctrine and/or is not a heretic. But would it really be a heresy for a Christian to say yes to that question given a certain condition? Would affirming to it be considered a departure from what’s written if you are to say that “yes, He could’ve possibly sinned”?

Heh! Can’t beat me!

 If you are to view a list of the outstanding heresies that we have today, you would not find any that makes you one by saying yes to the question above.

So let me explain further why I’m standing in the middle:

Why answer “no”?

To answer “no” is to say that because He is completely Divine, He will never commit an unlawful act whether it be in His mind and/or actions. Being fully Divine, the Father’s divinity is at risk if we should say “yes” that Jesus could’ve sinned despite Him being in a glorified body after resurrection. Paul Himself went on further to justify this by saying, that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)

Therefore, my answer to the question above should be “no”.

Why answer “yes”?

To answer yes is to affirm that He is a complete Man, making Him the second Adam. The same perfection that was given unto the first Adam was embraced by the Messiah. That we can never doubt. As sinless as the first, He is the Son of Man who came and died for the atonment of our sins. Therefore (and only given such considerations that we’re talking about the fully Man in Him being present in the first Adam who caused us to die,) my answer to the question above will also be “yes”. May I remind you of the federalism?

Yes. Wait just simply say no. I don’t get it why I 
have to say yes. Oh I get it. It can be both!

Here’s my created analogy to settle this myself:

Premise 1: Christ is fully divine and fully Man
Premise 2: God divine cannot sin while Man can
Therefore Christ as fully divine cannot sin but as fully Man can

pew. pew.

 Doesn’t it bother you that eight-out-of-ten of God’s Ten Commandments requires you tonot? (← I’ll stop right there.) With Jesus being fully human born under the law, He has to certainly fulfill everything that’s written in the Scripture and I can rejoice in knowing that He did so in full obedience to the will of the Father.

I believe that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity is the God-Man in the God-Head and being so, He is both divine and alive in flesh and blood. Thus, His sharing of the divine attributes that the Father has will and/or can never commit sin. This same divinity that Jesus has is shared also with the same perfection of Man that Adam had prior to the fall. Adam was just a man. He wasn’t divine. Jesus is God (and is one with the Father and the Spirit) who was also just-as-perfect-as-the-pre-fall Adam. Believing that the Fully- Man-Christ Himself could never sin is to question Adam’s fall. Why did Adam sin?

A Solemn Appeal

You don’t really have to punch me for real — and with gloves!

There’s one thing that you can do if you have differing views as to whether He could’ve or could’ve not; Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it?

Wrapping It Up

So, the next time you’ll ask me the question: could Jesus have sinned?, feel free to check back here to find out if I have made any changes. But until then, my answer would be both yes and no.

I’m a baptist, You’re Presbyterian. Now what? Maybe I’m a Charismatic!

Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it? - Jerboy Magalang

This article originally appeared on @sentirem; Jerboy Magalang's blog. Republished with permission from the author and by the grace of co-authors.

Dr. James White vs. Dr. Michael Brown on Calvinism

Here's a peaceful and definitely God-honoring three-part discussion between Dr. James White (5-point Calvinist and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries) and Dr. White Brown (staunch proponent of Libertarianism and host of the Line of Fire radio program) concerning one of the most controversial topics in Christian theology - God's Sovereignty in Salvation.

Part I (audio only)
Part II (audio only)

Part III (audio only)

Source: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com

I commend both Dr. White and Dr. Brown for being consistently gracious in all their exchanges. May God use this debate to enrich many of His children with the knowledge of His truth. To God be the Glory!

- Jeph

Sola Fide ba ang Batayan ng Kaligtasan?

Mali po ang kaisipang sa Sola Fide (o pagsampalataya lamang) naka-batay ang Kaligtasan. Hindi po ito ang katuruang itinataguyod ng mainstream evangelicalism. Sa katunayan, ang konseptong ito'y hindi ipinangaral ng sinuman sa mga prominenteng repormista ng panahon ng Repormasyon. Higit sa lahat, wala pong biblikal na pundasyon ang koseptong ito.

Maraming kritiko ng Sola Fide (mula noon hanggang ngayon) ang nagaakalang itinuturo ng mga ebangheliko na sa pagsampalataya lamang nakabatay ang Kaligtasan. Sa kasamaang palad, marami ring "ebangheliko" (mula noon hanggang ngayon) ang nagtataglay ng ganitong maling kaisipan.

Ano nga ba ang batayan sa pagtatamo ng Kaligtasan? Ang batayan sa pagtatamo ng Kaligtasan ay ang pagiging "matuwid" ng tao sa paningin ng Diyos. Sa Araw ng Paghuhukom ay masasaksihan ng lahat ang poot ng Diyos sa mga makasalanan, sa mga hindi matuwid, samakatuwid baga'y sa mga hindi nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Diyos (Rom. 2:5-6, 8-9). Tanging ang mga mapapatunayang "matuwid" (o sakdal) lamang ayon sa pamantayan ng Kautusan ang siyang maliligtas sa nakakakilabot na kahatulan ng Panginoon (Rom. 2:7; cf. Mat. 25:46). Ayon nga kay Jesus, "Kayo nga'y mangagpakasakdal, na gaya ng inyong Ama sa kalangitan na sakdal" (Mat. 5:48). Iyan ang kaluwalhatiang kailangang abutin ng tao upang siya'y maging karapat-dapat magtamo ng buhay na walang hanggan.

Ngunit mayroon bang nakaabot sa kaluwalhatiang iyan? Wala, wala kahit isa, "Gaya ng nasusulat, Walang matuwid, wala, wala kahit isa" (Rom. 3:10). "Sapagka't ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nangakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios" (Rom. 3:23). Kung gayon, sino sa atin ang makakatayo sa kahatulan ng Diyos sa Araw ng Paghuhukom? Wala. Ayon nga sa aklat ng mga Awit: "Kung ikaw, Panginoon, [ay] magtatanda ng mga kasamaan, Oh Panginoon, sinong tatayo?" (Psa. 130:3); at minsan pa, "At huwag kang masok sa kahatulan na kasama ng iyong lingkod; sapagka't sa iyong paningin ay walang taong may buhay na aariing ganap" (Psa. 143.2). Sa madaling salita, lahat tayo ay karapat-dapat lamang ibulid sa impyerno dahil sa ating mga kasalanan. Tayo'y nangangailangan ng Tagapagligtas.

Kaya nga, gaya ng alam na natin, ipinadama ng Diyos ang kanyang pagibig, bagamat tayo'y di karapat-dapat, nang suguin niya ang kanyang bugtong na Anak upang ang sinumang manalig sa kanya ay hindi mapahamak kundi magkaroon ng buhay na walang hanggan sa piling ng Panginoon (Jn. 3:15-18; Rom. 5:8). Ang Kautusan na hindi natin kayang tupdin ay walang salang tinupad ni Cristo nang sa gayon ay "ibilang" o  "ituring" tayong matuwid sa paningin ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ng ating pananalig sa kanya (Rom. 3:24-25; cf. Mat. 5:17, Gal. 4:4-5). Ang katuwirang ito na iginagawad ng Diyos sa mga sumasampalataya ay hindi batay sa kanilang sariling mga gawa (o sa kanilang pagsampalataya), kundi batay lamang sa trabahong tinapos na ni Cristo sa pamamagitan ng kanyang kamatayan sa krus. Sabi nga ni San Pablo: "sa pamamagitan ng pagtalima ng isa ang marami ay magiging mga matuwid" (Rom. 5:19) at ang katuwirang ito'y natatamo sa pamamagitan ng pananalig kay Cristo (Rom. 10:3-4). Hindi nakabatay sa pagsampalataya ang Kaligtasan, bagkus ito'y tugon lamang sa pagliligtas na tinapos na ni Cristo (Rom. 10:9-11).

Ang kabuuan ng Kaligtasan ay nakabatay lamang sa gawain ng Diyos, at hindi sa anumang paraan nakasalalay sa mga gawa o desisyon ng tao. Maging ang pagsampalataya ay kaloob lamang ng Diyos sa sinumang nais niyang pagkalooban nito! (1 Cor. 4:7; cf. Jn. 6:65, Php. 1:29). Ang Diyos Ama ang siyang humirang (Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pe. 1:2), ang Diyos Anak ang siyang nagbata alang-alang sa Kaligtasan ng mga hinirang (Mat. 1:21; Jn. 10:11, 15), at ang Diyos Espiritu Santo naman ang nagkakaloob ng pananampalataya sa mga hinirang (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Jn. 3:3). Yan ang dahilan kung bakit Soli Deo Gloria (Latin, "Sa Diyos lamang ang kaluwalhatian") ang paninindigan ng mga lolong repormista. Ito ay sapagkat ang kabuuan ng Kaligtasan, ayon sa Kasulatan, ay naguugat sa Biyaya, at nagtatapos din sa Biyaya.

-Jeph

The Faith of our Founding Fathers

If you're a Southern Baptist and you are interested to learn about the real traditional / historic Southern Baptist understanding of God's plan of Salvation, you might want to investigate through the writings of our founding fathers which are compiled on the link below:

http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html

Be informed. Be reformed. Be a Foundersist!

-Jeph

How to Deny the Obvious

"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"
(Gen. 2:17)

You know when you keep on saying you are not something people say you are, and yet you yourself are providing clear evidences that prove you are actually what other people say about you? That's how you deny the obvious. Over on the SBCvoices, Rick Patrick has posted an article defending himself and the Traditionalist document[1] from the charge of promoting semi-Pelagianism. How did Rick try to pluck himself and his company out of the mess? Simple.

1. Ignore the historical facts (i.e. the main issue that sparked the semi-Pelagian controversy)
2. Create your own definition of terms (e.g. semi-Pelagianism)
3. And say, "See? We're not what you guys think we are!"

In an attempt to prove they are not semi-Pelagians, Rick limited his definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of its logical implications while completely ignoring the most essential ingredient that makes up the said system; namely, the tandem of affirming the fall and denial of total depravity. He defines semi-Pelagianism this way:

Semi-Pelagianism is a milder form of the heresy admitting that the sin of Adam passed on to his posterity resulting in our propensity to evil. However, it still maintains that (1) salvation begins with man, (2) this inclination on the part of man toward God is a meritorious work, and (3) this results in man cooperating with God in the salvation of his own soul.

Rick keeps on saying over and over that since they don't adhere to those three marks of a semi-Pelagian as mentioned in his definition, they should not be therefore reckoned as such. However, if one would go deep in history and examine the historical background of the dispute between St. Augustine and the SP folks, one would discover that Rick's description of semi-Pelagianism is not really what the ancient semi-Pelagians have explicitly taught! It was St. Augustine and his defenders who attached those logical implications to the SP position, but the semi-Pelagians never openly taught those ideas themselves.

For instance, Vitalis of Carthage—one of the earliest proponents, if not the originator, of semi-Pelagianism—agreed with St. Augustine's statement that a prevenient grace is necessary for man to be able to come to Christ (which means he denies that salvation ultimately begins in man), but he maintained that this "prevenient grace" refers only to the external preaching of the Gospel/law—not to any form of internal divine enablement. Vitalis argued that since fallen sinners still possess the natural capacity of will to believe in Christ (though they won't have the chance to exercise that capacity apart from hearing the Gospel[2]), no internal enablement of grace is necessary; an idea that is virtually the same with the Traditionalist position[3].

In response to Vitalis[4], St. Augustine contended that this idea is tantamount to saying that grace is given according to merits (or that salvation begins with man, in other words). Why? Because if faith is a product of human nature, and that the whole process of salvation hinges on this faith, then faith becomes the ultimate determining factor of worth in receiving salvation. The plan of redemption may have been initiated by God, but the actual internal reality of this redemption is initiated within man by his own unaided decision to believe the Gospel. This, according to St. Augustine (not Vitalis), is equal to saying that faith is a meritorious work.

My point here is that the Traditionalist's attempt to escape the obvious semi-Pelagian tendencies of the TraDoc by confining the definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of how the early Church saw its logical implications is nothing but lame. The heart of semi-Pelagianism (and full Pelagianism) is the denial of man's inherent inability of will to perform any godly virtue (i.e. saving faith, repentance, good works, etc) as an effect of his Fall[5], and it is more than obvious that this is the same position promoted in the Traditionalist statement[3]. To make things worse, Rick further confirmed our suspicion when he wrote (emphasis mine):

Yes, in the view of Traditionalism, man is responsible–able to respond. Thus, unlike the Arminian, he needs no prevenient grace to respond to God because he is already able to do it, and unlike the Calvinist, he needs no unconditional election, since God’s election (or salvation) of his soul is conditioned upon his free and faithful acceptance of God’s grace. (source)

If this is not semi-Pelagianism, what is it?

-Jeph

----------
[1] To get some background on the debate, click here. 
[2] Rev. Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Ch. III, p. 328
[3] Article 2 of the Traditionalist statement reads: "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel." 
[4] St. Augustine, Letter 217
[5] Council of Orange (529), canons 3-8

Eternal Security and Licentiousness

Paul told the believers in Rome that there's now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Aside from having been freely acquitted and counted righteous in God's sight through faith in His Son (Rom. 3:24-28, 4:4-6, 5:1), Paul wrote that they have also received the life-giving Spirit of Christ by whom "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5), leading them to walk in the newness of life God has prepared from them beforehand (Rom. 8:2-27; cf. Eph. 2:10). There's no way Sin can take hold of them once more because they're no longer under its power (Rom. 6:1-2). God, who is greater than all, makes everything to work together for the good of His children (Rom. 8:28), and this is in accordance to His good pleasure and eternal purpose in predestination (Rom. 8:29; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Thus, all whom God has chosen for Himself in eternity past will be finally glorified (Rom. 8:30). Nothing can totally overcome them because their sovereign Father is in control (Rom. 8:31; cf. Jn. 10:27-39). Because God didn't spare His Son but gave Him up for their own sake, surely He will also grant them whatever grace they need unto the fullness of Salvation (Rom. 8:31-34).

Having said all the above, the conclusion is inevitable:

"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:37-39)

This conclusive declaration of Paul concerning the assurance of salvation for those whom God has called according to His purpose (i.e. the elect) echoes that of Christ in John 10:27-29 which says:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (Jn. 10:27-29)

Baptists call this doctrine as Eternal Security[1] in Christ; a glorious display of the greatness of God's grace and sovereignty in the whole process of redemption, yet also one of the most controversial and often misunderstood. The main objection thrown at this biblical teaching is that it seems to entice the Christian to be slothful and licentious. Critics of eternal security argue that if one cannot lose his salvation, it follows that it won't matter if Christians would just sit around the corner and neglect all that God has commanded them to do. Never mind going to church (Heb. 10:25). Never mind going out for evangelism (Mat. 28:19-20). Never mind reading the Bible (Josh. 1:8) or making every effort to become more like Christ (2 Pe. 1:5-10). Why bother if in the first place being holy or not won't make any difference to one's eternal destiny? Seems legit.

On the contrary, however, the glorious truth of our salvation being not in any way dependent on human performance should serve as a motivation for true Christians to be all the more eager to glorify their Lord and Savior with their lives. This is clearly seen in Titus 3:5-8. After stressing the complete gratuitousness of our salvation in verses 5-7, the apostle Paul went on to say:

"The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." (Tit. 3:8)

Paul advised Titus to insist on the glorious doctrine of our gratuitous salvation in order to compel "those who have believed in God" to be "careful to devote themselves to good works"! This worked for me personally. When I learned from my study of God's Word that my Lord and Savior remains faithful even when I'm not (2 Tim. 2:13); that He will carry into completion at the day of Jesus Christ the work of salvation that He has begun in me (Php. 1:6; cf. Rom. 8:30); and that no one can ever pluck my soul out of His sovereign hand (Jn. 10:27-29), great joy, peace, and deep gratitude filled my innermost soul. All worldly fear and insecurity that once troubled my heart vanished altogether (Rom. 8:15), and I was left energized and ablaze to do more for Christ. Definitely, the doctrine of eternal security didn't make me slothful and licentious. Quite the opposite; it made me a better person!

Now I don't deny the potential danger in over-emphasizing the statement: "we are still saved even if we sin." While it is true that God never ceases to be our Father despite our shortcomings (see Heb. 12:5-11), this is just a portion of the whole truth concerning our eternal security in Christ, and a portion of truth is no better than a lie if not united with the other portions of the whole truth. The whole truth—and this must always be stressed—is that since God mightily preserves and sanctifies His children by His grace, all true believers will surely persevere in faith and holiness[2] unto the end (1 Sam. 2:9). The apostle John wrote:

"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them." (1 Jn. 5:18)

A child of God may sometimes fall into sin through neglect and temptation, but God would never permit him to totally return to his old sinful lifestyle or finally repudiate his saving relationship with Christ (1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pe. 1:5). Our Father, being infinitely wise and sovereign (Rom. 10:32-36), can use even our downfalls to benefit us at the end of the day (Rom. 8:28). Yet it should also be emphasized that all professing Christians have the responsibility to evince their salvation by their works (Php. 2:12; Jas. 2:14-24; 2 Pe. 1:5-7). Doing so doesn't make one eternally secure, but it further confirms the genuineness of one's profession of faith (Mat. 7:16; Jn. 8:31; 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Pe. 1:10).

In the final analysis, Eternal security is not a teaching that promotes idleness and licentious living. Far from it. It is a biblical doctrine that brings glory to God's grace and mobilizes true Christians to unceasingly worship God by pursuing Christ-likness.

"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 24-25)

Praise God for His unfailing grace!

-Jeph

----------

[1] Early Baptist documents with strong Calvinistic leaning such as the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) call this doctrine as Perseverance of the Saints, emphasizing the need for professing Christians to persevere in faith and holiness as an outward evidence of their being truly born-again. Some Baptists, however, didn't like the term Perseverance as it can give wrong impression that we maintain our salvation by our works, so they prefer to call it Preservation of the Saints—emphasizing God's active role in keeping his saints secure. Both are valid designations and refer to the same concept, but in this paper we will use Eternal Security for the sake of brevity. 
[2] This doesn't mean we can no longer sin. Christians do sin (1 Jn. 1:8), but they don't deliberately live in Sin (1 Jn. 5:18), nor can they return to their old sinful lifestyle (Rom. 6:1-2) because they are now a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)

Calvinism at work

The "Watchdog" Donnie Manuel, owner of one of my favorite blog-sites, is celebrating his 8th spiritual birthday today and recalls how "Calvinism" (not the concept itself, but the reality of the concept at work in the world) "drastically" changed his life since he got saved. Check out his latest post here and be blessed.

Praise God for His grace! Praise God for Calvinism!

-Jeph

My Response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

John Calvin and Jacobos Arminius

Much has been said about the controversial document that has been drafted recently and used by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists for their campaign against the rise of the "New Calvinism" within the SBC. The strategy is simple: Ignore the historical facts and condition the minds of the people by making Calvinism appear strange and alien to the SBC tradition. Of course this would mean painting caricatures (gross misrepresentations) about the reformed soteriology. For example, in the "denial" portion of the ninth article of the document, it states (emphasis mine):

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

Interesting. Now I want to know where on earth did these people get the idea that Calvinists teach that faith is not a human response but solely an act of God as if it is God who does the believing in our stead? I have yet to meet a Calvinist who believes so. What Calvinists believe, on the contrary, is that faith is both a human act and a divine gift. To borrow St. Augustine's words: "It is we that act when we act, but it is [God] who causes us to act." This is clearly taught in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." The coming is our own act, but it is God's drawing that causes sinners to come.

I can quote many other portions in the TSBUGP-document in which the Calvinist position is grossly misrepresented, but that's not my main intention here. Their rejection of Calvinism and their divisive campaigns against its rise in the SBC is not what really alarms me. What concerns me, however, is the document's apparent crossing over the bounds of doctrinal orthodoxy. Specifically speaking, I believe the document is heading towards a heresy known as semi-Pelagianism, and this is quite dangerous.

First I want to define what I mean by semi-Pelagianism. When I asserted elsewhere that those who signed the document are not Arminians but semi-Pelagians, a supporter of the document responded by insisting that they do not hold to works-salvation, and for this reason, should not be reckoned as semi-Pelagians. Certainly, this is not what I meant when I labeled their position as such. In the first place, explicit adherence to works-salvation is not what essentially makes up a semi-Pelagian. It is the denial of the absolute necessity of the internal, enabling work of God's grace for the execution any saving good (i.e. faith & repentance) which makes one either a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. Let me explain further.

Pelagianism maintains that Adam's sin did not affect his moral liberty in any way. The consequences and guilt of his sin is his alone. All men are born with the same nature as that of Adam when he was created, so there's no need for any internal working of God's grace for the execution of godly virtues (i.e. faith, repentance, good works, etc). The only "grace" necessary for us to fulfill our duty is the knowledge of the Gospel / law.  

Semi-Pelagianism, on the other hand, affirms that Adam's sin has brought corruption of nature to himself and his posterity, but it did not totally destroy his moral liberty. Man's fallen nature, although corruptly bias towards sin, still has the moral capacity to seek God on his own and make the first step of faith apart from the divine enablement. All humanity shares this condition.

These ideas were condemned by the early Church as heresy, aberrant, and beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Even classical (orthodox) Arminians would treat these doctrines as serious errors that should be guarded against by the faithful. However, the TSBUGP-document has apparently taken the road towards the second error; namely, that of heresy of semi-Pelagianism (if not pure Pelagianism). This is clearly seen in the second article of the document which reads:

Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man 

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. 

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel. (emphasis added)

This denial of original sin and total depravity is tantamount to saying that conversion isn't a gift from God (Jn. 3:27, 6:65; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:30, 4:7; Php. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25-26); an idea that is devilishly opposed to what the Bible says concerning the vast effects of the fall (Gen. 6:5; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12, 5:12, 18, 6:20, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:4) and the necessity of a prevenient enabling work of God's grace for conversion (Jn. 6:44, 15:5). The document claims this is the "traditional" Southern Baptist position, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The real traditional Southern Baptist view of biblical anthropology is found in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858) which states:

VI. The Fall of Man. 

God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors. (emphasis added)

Notice it doesn't just say we have a corrupt nature, but that we have inherited a nature "corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law" and are "under condemnation." This is another way of saying that we are born condemned / under God's wrath (Psa. 51:5; Eph. 2:3) and dead in our trespasses and Sin (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1), that whatever good thing we have which pertains to our relationship with God does not have its origin from ourselves, but from God as a gift (1 Cor. 4:7; Jas. 1:17). In other words, Southern Baptists have always held that the divine enabling work of grace is absolutely necessary for the execution of all godly virtues (Deut. 30:6; Eze. 36:26-27; Php. 2:13). This is one article of our Christian faith—along with the doctrine of justification by grace, the holy Trinity, hypostatic union, the virgin birth, sinless perfection, death and ressurection of Christ, etc.—to which the Church stands or falls. It is plain heresy to say that Adam's fall did not result in the incapacitaton of his and his posterity's moral liberty (indicating that we can make the first step of faith towards Christ without being first moved or enabled by God from within).

Again, I wouldn't have any problem with any anti-Calvinistic campaigns within the SBC so long as there is no deliberate move to drive us out of the convention, and that no heretical teachings are advanced by those who oppose our soteriological convictions (and this must go both ways). Unfortunately, we've clearly seen how the divisive, recently-drafted document of the non-Calvinist Southern Baptists had crossed the line. Thus, I believe the campaign should be denied of any support by every discerning Southern Baptists, not simply because it is against Calvinism, but because it is outrightly heretical and certainly not Southern Baptist.

-Jeph

My Take on the Eternal Destiny of the Unborn & Babies who Die in Infancy (A Response to Ptr. Steve Griffin)

"Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have
prepared praise." (Matthew 21:16, ESV)

Ptr. Steve Griffin, a reformed baptist pastor who runs the blog Just Thinking (and writing), recently wrote an article concerning the question whether hell is the eternal destination of the unborn and born babies dying in infancy. Though I agree with his answer, namely, that all such are going to heaven instead of hell, there are points in his treatment which I didn't find agreeable and biblically sound.

To summarize Ptr. Griffin's argument (the way I understand it), the unborn and born babies who die will not go to hell because they can't be liable for the sin of our first parents. While they are, as all humans, conceived with a sinful nature, they are still somewhat worthy to enter heaven in that they haven't done any actual sins, and for this reason the notion of baby-faith (i.e. that saving faith is mysteriously infused by God in the unborn and dying babies before their death) should be regarded as unnecessary.

His own words (original emphasis replaced with mine):

To be sure we are not born neutral or innocent or pure. We are born sinners by nature. But are we, as preborn/born babies, sinners by choice? That is, do babies enact their wills to transgress God’s law? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Do preborn/born babies willfully transgress the Law of God? Are they immoral when they awaken their exhausted parents just because they’re hungry or startled? Are they being sinfully selfish? 

(Please note: I am not speaking of children who have the mental/moral capacity to lie, disrespect/disobey their mommy and daddy, or hurt others; I am referring to preborn/born babies.) 

Hence, I think it germane to our conversation to distinguish between sinful nature and sinful behavior. Because of Adam’s sin we are born with a sinful nature, a propensity for evil. We are born sinners. But is the sinner damned to hell because of Adam’s sin? It seems the sinner shall be judged, not for the sins of Adam, but for his own transgressions of the law. 

“And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books” (Revelation 20:12). What evil works have preborn/born babies committed? It would seem the answer to that question is “none.” (In so saying, we are not denying or even addressing our sin in Adam per Romans 5:12; again, c.f. Romans 9:11).

Ptr. Griffin denies that humans are damned merely on account of Adam's original sin, but what of Romans 5:18 which says that Adam's "trespass led to condemnation for all men"? (see also Romans 5:12). The traditional interpretation of this verse (see Council of Orange AD 529, Canon 2) is that all of mankind are actually one with Adam when he sinned, and so we are as much as liable (and worthy of condemnation) for his transgression. This is why Ephesians 2:3 says we are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." If we cannot be condemned for Adam's sin, then what is the basis of this wrath which is upon us by nature/birth?

It is true and I agree that all men will be "judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books" (Revelations 20:21), but in so far as Adam was mankind's federal head and representative of the human race (just as Christ is the federal head and representative of the race of the elect - Romans 5:12-19), his sin was also OUR sin. It's as though we have actually committed the same sin ourselves. According to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), under the 6th Chapter, acrticles two and three:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them. For from this, death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 

3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and their corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Their descendants are therefore conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, and the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free.

I'm not sure if Ptr. Griffin's a subscriber of LBCF. But I assume he is, since he claims himself to be a reformed baptist and that I saw some of his posts where he also quotes from the confession.

Anyway, the Bible is clear that in Adam we all sinned. Actual sins increase our guilt, but we are deserving of condemnation on account of original sin alone. This does not excempt unborn humans and those who die in infancy. Yet of course I believe none of those little ones really end up in hell by God's mercy. Though I admit I can't find any explicit statement from Scripture which says so, nonetheless I believe God is able to save them. While Ptr. Griffin believes dying infants can go to heaven without being born again and having faith, I would stick with what the Bible says in John 3:3 and Hebrews 11:6. Nothing is impossible with God, and this is clearly seen in Luke 1:41.

Praise God!

-Jeph

Statement of Faith

Last night Jeph (the author of this blog) invited me to co-author him in this blog. One of our agreement was to create our statement of faith that we both agree.

Statement of Faith, we can see it on churches, church and para church websites. We can read blogs, forums and discussion groups debating over different statement of faith. 

While I am trying to read the existing statement of faith that is existing on this blog, I have asked myself. What is my statement of faith ? What are the things that I really believe ? Some, if not most of the Christians today don't have a clear knowledge on what we really believe. Because of the rise of post modernist philosophy the importance of "sound doctrine" was almost forgotten by some Christians. Some are "allergic" about doctrines and put correct living as the ONLY way of Christianity. I am not against on the importance of correct living (Matthew 7:21) but we should not forget that for us to live right then we need to believe right.

In this article I will discuss the important of knowing the doctrines of scripture and it's application to our lives. 

Difference of truth and lie

Jesus said at John 8:32

32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

For us to be free we need to have a clear distinction between truth and lie. Between good and evil. We can't evade issues about doctrine just because we can't understand those. If Christians will not hold on truth then what will you think will happen ?

There is an attack now to the body of Christ. There are "professing" Christians who are influenced by Post modern thought. One of the prominent of those claiming to be Christian is Brian Mclaren. McLaren said:

I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).

If we will not hold the truth we are compromising and denying the Lord Jesus Christ and His Words. He said:

I am THE way, THE truth and THE life.. (John 14:6)

There He indicates that in our faith there is a clear distinction between truth and lie. If our Lord claimed that He is THE truth (it’s an absolute statement) then why we are afraid to hold and to declare the truth of God ?

The Era of lie.

2 Timothy 4

2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Imagine your (Christian) friend believe in a myth (not true), what will happen ? Imagine that I believe unicorn what will happen ? 

That is what happening now. Because Christians don’t want to preach solid truths from the Word of God, people tend to listen to preachers that are not preaching the cross but preaches motivation and self esteem instead of faith. Because Christians don’t want to make a position about LGBT some tend to listen to Oprah. 

Do we want to live in a place that lie is the basis of life and not truth ?

Conclusion.

Since this is my first post in this blog, I will make a lengthy article. I will by a quote.

A lie repeated often becomes truth

Now Christians, do we want the world to continue to hear lies ?

Dr. Millard J. Erickson on whether the gift of Speaking In Tongues is still being distributed by the Holy Spirit in the Church today

Dr. Millard J. Erickson wrote:

Dr. Millard J. Erickson

In my judgment it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether the contemporary charismatic phenomena are indeed gifts of the Holy Spirit. There simply is no biblical evidence indicating the time of fulfillment of the prediction that tongues will cease. It is questionable at best to conclude on the basis of the differences between the verbs in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that tongues will cease at one time, and prophecy and knowledge at another. Nor is that historical evidence clear and conclusive. The situation here is somewhat like the situation with respect to the doctrine of apostolic succession. There is a great deal of evidence on both sides. Each group is able to cite an impressive amount of data which are to its advantage, bypassing the data presented by the other group. This lack of historical conclusiveness is not a problem, however. For even history proved that the gift of tongues has ceased, there is nothing to prevent God from reestablishing it. On the other hand, historical proof that the gift has been present through the various eras of the church would not validate the present phenomena.

What must we do, then, is to evaluate each case on its own merits. This does not mean that we are to sit in judgment on the spiritual experience or the spiritual life of other professing Christians. What it does mean is that we cannot assume that everyone who claims to have had a special experience of the Holy Spirit's working has really had one. Scientific studies have discovered enough non-Spirit-caused parallels to warn us against being naively credulous about every claim. Certainly not every exceptional religious experience can be of divine origin, unless God is a very broadly ecumenical and tolerant being indeed, who even grants special manifestations of his Spirit to some who make no claim to Christian faith and may actually be opposed to it. Certainly if demonic forces could produce imitations of divine miracles in biblical times (i.e., the magicians in Egypt were able to imitate the plagues up to a certain point), the same way be true today as well. Conversely, however, no conclusive case can be made for the contention that such gifts are not for today and cannot occur at the present time. Consequently, one cannot rule in an priori and categorical fashion that a claim of glossolalia is spurious. In fact, it may be downright dangerous, in the light of Jesus' warnings regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, to attribute specific phenomena to demonic activity.

In the final analysis, whether the Bible teaches that the Spirit dispenses special gifts today is not an issue of great practical consequence. For even if he does, we are not to set our lives to seeking them. He bestows them sovereignly: he alone determine the recipients (1 Cor. 12:11). If he chooses to give us a special gift, he will do so regardless of whether we expect it or seek it. What we are commanded to do (Eph. 5:18) is be filled with the Holy Spirit (a present imperative, suggesting ongoing action). This is not so much a matter of our getting more of the Holy Spirit; presumably all of us posses the Spirit in his entirety. It is, rather, a matter of his possessing more of our lives. Each of us is to aspire to giving the Holy Spirit full control of our lives. When that happens, our lives will manifest whatever gifts God intends for us to have, along with all the fruit and acts of his empowering that he wishes to display through us. It is to be remembered, as we noted earlier, that no one gift is for every Christian, nor is any gift more significant than the others.

Of more importance, in many ways, than the receiving certain gifts is the fruit of the Spirit. These virtues are, in Paul's estimation, the real evidence of the Spirit at work in Christians. Love, joy, and peace in an individual's life are the surest signs of a vital experience with the Spirit. In particular, Paul stresses love as more desirable than any gifts, no matter how spectacular (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

But what is proper procedure with regard to an actual case of modern-day public practice of what is claimed to be the biblical gift of glossolalia? First, no conclusions should be drawn in advance as to whether it is genuine or not. Then, the procedure laid down by Paul so long ago should be followed. Thus, if one speaks in tongues, there should be an interpreter, so that the group as a whole may be edified. Only one should speak at a time and no more than two or three at a session (1 Cor. 14:27). If no one is present to interpret, whether the speaker or some other person, then the would-be speaker should keep silence in the church and restrict the use of tongues to personal devotional practice (v. 28). We must not prohibit speaking in tongues (v. 39); on the other hand, we are nowhere commanded to seek this gift.

Finally, it is to be noted that the emphasis in Scripture is upon the one who bestows the gifts rather than upon those who receive them. God frequently performs miraculous works without involving human agents. We read, for example, in James 5:14-15 that the elders of the church are to pray for the sick. It is the prayer of faith, not a human miracle-worker, that is said to save them. Whatever be the gift, it is the edification of the church and the glorification of God that are of ultimate importance.

-Christian Theology, pp. 880-82 under chapter 41

Divine Predestination: A Southern Baptist Teaching

The first SBTS classroom, formerly the Greenville First
Baptist Church. (Photo courtesy: SBTS official website)

It's really sad when self-professed "Bible-believing" Christians reject God's truth revealed in Scripture in exchange for man-made ideas that the world would deem more logical and palatable. About a week ago, I had a nice intellectual discussion with a good friend concerning the doctrine of predestination. This godly lady, a fellow Southern Baptist whom I have known for quite some time now, claimed that if my interpretation of Romans 9 is correct, then it is pointless to go and preach the gospel to all nation. If God "has mercy on whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18) and in fact chooses to show mercy only to some with regard to salvation (Rom. 9:18-24; i.e. Matt. 13:11; Luk. 10:22; Jn. 6:63-65) and that none of those whom God has chosen will finally perish (Jn. 6:39-40, 44-45), whatever change would it make whether or not we fulfill Christ's Great Commission? I had anticipated this kind of objection from her, and I have responded by saying that as far as my personal experience is concerned, this glorious doctrine of election never killed my passion for reaching the lost, but instead rekindled it. The doctrine of predestination should not be regarded as a strange doctrine that Christians should fear or avoid. Aside from its being clearly taught in Scripture, it has been in fact a Southern Baptist teaching ever since (though neglected by many Southern Baptists today). Unfortunately very few Southern Baptists are aware of their theological heritage that used to be "reformed." Even for the most part of today's Christianity, the humanistic (and erroneous) notions of Pelagianism (i.e. that man should first turn to God before God can do any move) is widely embraced.

In this paper I will try by the help of God's grace to provide a brief presentation of the fact that the doctrine of Predestination is indeed a Southern Baptist teaching. May God use this simple work for His own purposes.

Predestination in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858)

I won't be citing very long references here, but would focus only on a single old document from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary archive. The name of the document is Abstract of Principles formulated in 1858 before the official founding of the SBTS a year later. The intent of the document was to maintain doctrinal purity among the teachers and leaders of the seminary, and to oppose all kinds of false teaching and doctrines. Affirming all the doctrines stated in the document was mandatory to all Southern Baptist scholars who would want to assume professorship in the seminary. In its introduction, we read (emphasis mine):

Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees, to wit:

So, what's so special about the Abstract of Principles? It is the fact that the document is essentially Calvinistic in its anthropology and soteriology. For example, concerning the fall of man it states (emphasis mine):

VI. THE FALL OF MAN

God originally created Man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

This is perfectly in agreement with what the Scripture says about the man's fallen nature being "hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8; see also Rom. 3:9-12, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:1-3). Being spiritually dead in Sin, the fallen man is not able to fulfill any spiritual duty accompanying salvation (i.e. faith & repentance) unless he is first quickened by God monergisitcally. This means we are spiritually regenerated by God, not in response to our faith, but in order that we may be drawn to saving faith in Christ. The Abstract of Principles agrees with this teaching, and I quote (emphasis mine):

VIII. REGENERATION 

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

Again, this is in total agreement with Scripture which says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pe. 1:3). Note the verse didn't say, "we first had our living hope (saving faith) and then God made us born again," but rather, "he has caused us to be born again *TO* a living hope." Thus, our conversion (i.e. saving faith & repentance) is not our own doing. It is God's gift of grace, and this humbling truth is affirmed in the next two articles in the Abstract of Principles (emphasis mine):

IX. REPENTANCE 

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being led by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things. 

X. FAITH 

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

The Bible says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (Jn. 6:29). Again, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Php. 1:26). Again, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Mat. 13:11). Again, "And they glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life'" (Ac. 11:18). And again, "...correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:25-26). Clearly, we have nothing to boast of our own conversion because it was God who has granted us this gift according to His gracious predestination (1 Cor. 1:28-31; Eph. 1:3-5, 11). The Abstract of Principles states clearly (emphasis mine),

V. ELECTION 

Election is God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ-in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

By "foreseen merits," the AoP refers to all kinds of human worth. Merits always means worth, and anything given according to worth cannot be properly called grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:5-6). Thus, when the Bible says God predestined us "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph. 1:5-6), it actually denies all kinds of human worth as basis for its attainment. In other words, it is unconditional. "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16). Moreover, this choice is not merely a divine initiative in an attempt to save sinners, but it is the basis upon which the saving benefits of Christ's work is communicated effectually to those chosen of God:

[29]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31]What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? [32]He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Rom. 8:29-32)

Hence, none of those whom God has chosen for Salvation will totally fall away and perish. All true Christians, being chosen of God from eternity past and preserved by God through His grace, will persevere in the faith unto the end and finally attain to final glorification (Jud. 1:24). The 13th article of the Abstract of Principles reads,

XIII. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Paul expressed the same confidence in his words: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php. 1:6). And again, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39).

Does this mean men have no freedom of choice? Nope. Back in the third (3rd) article of the Abstract of Principles, we read (emphasis mine):

IV. PROVIDENCE 

God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

In other words, God's sovereign kingship over all His creation is perfectly compatible with man's free agency and responsibility (Prov. 19:21). When a sinner is drawn by God to saving faith in Christ (according to His eternal decree of predestination), the sinner freely chooses Christ and attains salvation (Psa. 65:4; Jn. 6:37, 44-45; Ac. 16:14). But when a sinner is passed over by God to be left on his own sinful nature (i.e. not by infusing evil in his heart, but by permitting him to do just whatever he pleases according to the inmost desires of his naturally sinful heart - Jer. 13:23, 17:9; Mat. 12:33), the sinner freely rebels against God and deservedly ends up in hell because of his own sins (Rom. 1:21-26, 3:9-12, 8:7-8). All of these come to pass "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11; cf. Rom. 11:35).

Predestination and Evangelism

Now let's turn to the question whether the doctrine of predestination kills the Christian's passion for evangelism. Does it? Perhaps, if you malign or pervert the doctrine. Misinformed people often think of predestination as God's decreeing all the end (outcome) without also decreeing the means to accomplish those end. Thus, they conclude that predestination makes evangelism (and all Christian virtues) completely superfluous. Such is a perverted view of the biblical doctrine of predestination and must be clarified by those who know the truth. The Baptist Faith & Message, Southern Baptist Convention's official statement of beliefs, is clear enough concerning this matter:

V. GOD'S PURPOSE OF GRACE 

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. 

God's decree of election (i.e. predestination unto Salvation), according to the BF&M, "comprehends all the means in connection with the end." Evangelism is one of the means through which God calls His elect unto salvation (Ac. 13:48l Jas. 1:18), hence the necessity for preaching the Gospel to all men since we don't know who the elect are (Mat. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). In his book Christian Theology, the basic textbook we used back when I was still studying at the Southern Baptist School of Theology (Makati), Dr. Millard J. Erickson stated:

Predestination does not nullify incentive for evangelism and missions. We do not know who the elect and the nonelect are, so we must continue to spread the Word. Our evangelistic efforts are God's means to bring the elect to salvation. God's ordaining of the end includes the ordaining of the means to that end as well. The knowledge that missions are God's means is a strong motive for the endeavor and gives us confidence that it will prove successful. (Christian Theology, Unabridged one-volume edition, pp. 927-928 under Chapter 43)

The thought that God never fails to bring His elect unto Salvation (when He calls them inwardly by His Word) should be, to a Christian, a ground for motivation to go out into the world to preach the Gospel to the lost, not a license to be idle and unproductive. The doctrine of predestination comforts us whenever our message is rejected by sinners because we are reminded that it isn't our job to convert them; it is God's, and so when we have done our best, we can leave the matter to Him. Jesus Himself didn't win all His hearers (Jn. 6:64), but He found comfort in the fact that all those whom the Father gives Him will surely come to Him (Jn. 6:37, 44-45, 10:3-5, 26-29).

Conclusion: 

The biblical doctrine of predestination held by Calvinists, as shown in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858), is a Southern Baptist teaching. In fact, even before the founding of the SBC, it has already been a Baptist teaching tracing back to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and ultimately, to Scriptures. This doctrine does not kill evangelism but mobilizes it. Many godly men thorough the history of Christendom held to the glorious doctrine of predestination, and are proved to be ardent preachers of God's Word to the lost. I am talking about men like Martin Luther, C.H. Spurgeon, Adrew Fuller, William Carey, John Gill, John Piper, and John Calvin himself, just to name a few.

Again, the main purpose of this paper is not for any Calvinistic triumphalism, but to present a historical truth, namely, that the Southern Baptist Convention is Calvinistic in its theological roots. I'm not saying that one cannot be Southern Baptist if he/she refuses to subscribe to the tenets of Calvinism. The SBC allows for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to remain in the convention, and neither any of them should pass condemnation to another. My point here is that Calvinism should not be considered heresy by Southern Baptist people. Otherwise, we should be willing to accept that the SBC was born of heretical roots (since it can be proven from history that most of its founding fathers are outspoken Calvinists).

To God alone be the glory!

-Jeph