Ang Tula ng Isang Tupa

O Diyos, puso ko noon ay kasing tigas ng bato;

Walang pag-asa at hindi kayang magbago;

Hinding-hindi lalapit sa Panginoong Jesu-Cristo,

Malibang ang pananalig ay ipagkaloob Mo.

Ngunit ang iyong pagibig ay napaka-dakila;

Sapagkat Kaligtasan ko'y iyo nang itinakda,

Noong bago pa man likhain ang langit at lupa,

Para sa kapurihan ng iyong habag at biyaya.

Kay Cristo Jesus nga ako ay iyong ibinigay;

Sa Pastol na para sa katubusan ko'y namatay.

Pagliligtas Niya'y tiyak na magtatagumpay,

At lahat Niyang tupa ay magtatamo ng buhay.

Panginoon, tinawag mo ako at iyong binago,

Sa pamamagitan ng iyong Espiritu Santo.

Ipinaunawa mo sa akin ang iyong Ebanghelyo,

Upang aking makita ang kagandahan ni Cristo.

Mayroon bang bagay na makapaghihiwalay,

Sa mga hinirang at sa kanilang Diyos na buhay?

Ang mga iniligtas ay patuloy Mong iniingatan,

Upang matamo nila ang lubos na kaluwalhatian.

—Jeph

Solus Cristus and the Eternal Destiny of Dying Infants

One of the most difficult and tricky questions one could ask a Calvinist is whether or not babies who die as babies automatically go to heaven. To the non-Calvinist, the question itself seems very trivial. What an insanity it is to insinuate that such cute little "angels" could possibly go to hell! The thought of babies being burned in hell is for some reason intuitively unbearable. And yet, Calvinists for many centuries since the Reformation, have always been divided over this issue.

Before we move along, I must candidly confess that I personally hope that all babies dying in infancy are indeed saved, and I say "hope" because I also acknowledge the fact that the Bible is simply silent on the issue. I am convinced that in any attempt to answer the question, "are all dying babies saved?", one necessarily enters into the realm of speculations. That being said, I would want to make it clear that it is beyond the intention of this blog to offer an answer to that particular question. My concern here deals with something way more important than the dispute over whether or not all dying infants are saved. What I'm concerned about is the preservation of the purity of the Gospel message in all this.

A few days ago, I had a discussion with a certain Calvinist who claimed that all babies dying in infancy are saved. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with that assertion (note that I personally have that hope myself!). What made his position wrong, however, is the reason that has been provided to justify it. My Calvinist friend made a bold assertion that it would be unjust for God to send dying infants—who have never committed any personal/actual sins—to hell. To state it positively, what he implies is that God's justice requires the salvation of dying infants by virtue of their innocence from the charge of having committed any actual/personal sins. This is tantamount to saying that some people (i.e. dying infants) are bound to go to heaven by the merit of their own innocence and not by the gracious redemption of Christ! I am convinced this is an implicit affront to the Gospel of Grace that Calvinists are expected to hold dearly.

During our discussion, my Calvinist friend also insisted that while it is God's justice that requires the salvation of dying infants, such supposedly innocent infants would nonetheless still be saved by grace. But I could only imagine a snake eating its own tail when I read that statement. It is a fatal self-contradiction that ultimately reveals a serious misunderstanding of why is it necessary for us to be saved "by grace" in the first place. 

Saved by Grace Alone

Salvation is by grace simply because we don't deserve it.. God's justice condemns us (Rom. 3:19-23). If we deserved anything, as far as divine justice is concerned, it is only death: "for the wages of sin is death" (v. 6:23). Thus, grace presupposes our unworthiness before God. It presupposes our just condemnation. No sinner who is saved by grace can claim that God saved him because he justly deserves it. It also follows that God is never under any moral obligation to save any sinner. He could have thrown us all to hell in an instant and yet remain perfectly holy and just. If this isn't the case, then our salvation becomes a matter of legal obligation on God's part, and grace would no longer be grace (Rom. 11:6).  The mere mention of grace assumes that the recipient of such a bounty is justly condemned before God. In other words, the person who receives saving grace from God, left in himself, is a guilty sinner, and being guilty he is NOT innocent. So how can it be argued that dying infants are justly saved because they were innocent, and yet their salvation is still by grace? One can already see the absurdity of such a position.

Can a Christian hope that all dying infants will enter the kingdom of God? Sure! But let him confess that such little ones must enter the kingdom of God by grace alone; and if by grace, then it is not by any merit of their own (e.g. merit of innocence). Nobody is innocent before God—even infants (Psa. 51:5). "Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath" (Eph. 2:3, NIV). If dying infants are innocent and must be saved by virtue of their innocence, then they are saved by bare justice, and not by grace.

Saved in Christ Alone

At this point one may ask: If salvation cannot be acquired by anyone on the basis of God's bare justice (which can pronounce nothing but condemnation for our sins), does this mean that "grace" is unjust? No. God's grace has been made available because God's justice has been answered for in and by the Cross. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Justice is served by Christ's death on behalf of His people so that salvation may come to them by grace alone (Rom. 3:23-26). No Cross, no grace.

Our need for a Savior presupposes the reality of both our depraved condition and our just condemnation apart from God's mercy. So, do babies need Christ and His grace? If the answer is "Yes," then it follows that they, too, are not innocent and are justly condemned; for "it is not the healthy who need a Physician, but the sick" (Mat. 9:12). But if the answer is "No," then Jesus was lying when he said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6, NIV).

Conclusion

As a closing remark, let me suggest that whatever position we take concerning the eternal destiny of dying infants (i.e. whether or not all of them are saved), we nevertheless ought to uphold the scriptural fact that heaven is a glorious place filled with people who are redeemed and forgiven by the Father through His Son, Jesus Christ. No human being can be found in heaven who is not redeemed by Christ. If this declaration is true, then how can we imagine babies in heaven without also accepting the fact that even those babies were—as far as God's justice is concerned—guilty and condemned, so much so that they were not less in need of Christ's forgiveness as we are? Do you imagine babies in heaven? I do. But I imagine babies in heaven who are saved not because they were innocent, but because of God's grace in Christ.

-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

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

All by Grace

Justification by grace through faith is a doctrine that is most basic among evangelical Christians. It is based on the Bible's teaching that all men are sinners and are under the just condemnation of God (Psa. 130:3, 143:2; Eph. 2:3); that nobody can earn his/her way to heaven by doing good works (Mat. 5:48; Rom. 3:10, 23; Rev. 21:27); and that it is out of God's great love and mercy that anyone is justified "by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith"  (Rom. 3:24-25a; cf. Jn. 3:16-18, 5:24; Rom 4:4-6; Gal. 4:4-5). This fundamental tenet of our Christian faith, according to Martin Luther, is where the Church stands or falls. 

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is
not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works
so that no one may boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) 

Now what do we exactly mean when we say we are saved by grace? We simply mean that we never deserved to be saved (because we are sinners), yet God saved us free of charge (Rom. 4:4-6). We are saved not according to worth. The word "grace" basically means undeserved favor. Hence, it is NOT given because of anything we do or anything in us. And since grace is wholly undeserved, it logically follows that it should be freely given without us needing to fulfill any requirement. For if there's a requirement imposed, the fulfillment of that requirement will be the determining factor of worth. And if something's received according to worth, then obviously it cannot be properly considered grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:6).

However, the Bible is also clear that faith is the proper means (or requirement) through which sinners obtain the grace of justification. (Rom. 5:1-2).  All who receive Christ are given eternal life, and without faith, nobody gets saved (Jn. 3:18; Heb. 11:6). So here's a good question: Why is it that salvation is referred to in the Bible as given according to grace, when in fact no one receives it without performing a certain act, that is, faith? Is salvation really by grace, then?


Who makes thee to differ?

According to popular opinion among the evangelicals, God has sent His Son to die on the cross and offer free salvation to all, but it is up to our own autonomous freewill to receive it or not. In this framework, Salvation is "by grace" only in the sense that it was God who initiated the attempt to save sinners (and graciously did most of the work), but it is our own choice which seals the deal at the end of the day. Thus, Salvation is only "by grace as offered", but not "by grace entirely and ultimately" since there's still something required from us that lies entirely on our own power, namely faith. In the final analysis, the sinner's positive response to the Gospel then turns into some kind of work that made him worthy for Salvation, which in turn creates room for boasting on the part of the redeemed and defeats the very meaning of "salvation by grace."

Let's try to put it this way. If asked, "What makes you to differ from unbelievers?", how would you respond? Perhaps you'd say: "Well, obviously, it is my faith which makes me to differ." Nice answer. But how did you come to finally believe in Christ? You might say: "Because I willed to believe" or "I made a decision." Good for you. But may I ask, what made you willing to believe? Or what caused you to make that decision to trust in Christ? Look around you. Some of your unbelieving friends or relatives may have also heard the Gospel at one point in their lives, but they remain unwilling to embrace Christ as you did. What then is that particular quality that you have, which is lacking in those who do not believe, that caused you to come to Christ? Is it because your intelligence is more superior than theirs? Then salvation would be based on human intelligence, which cannot be (Mat. 11:25; 1 Cor. 1:27). Is it because you're more kind than them? Then salvation would be based on human kindness, which also cannot be (Rom. 4:5; 1 Tim. 1:15-16). Or perhaps it is because you're more receptive than them or that your heart is more sensitive than theirs? Tell me, then, what is it that made your heart more receptive or more sensitive than those who remain unwilling to receive Christ (Eze. 36:26; Ac. 16:14)? Is it because of some innate goodness in your nature? But the Bible says we are all equally by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3; cf. Mat. 12:33; Jer. 13:23), dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-2), and have a depraved heart that is desperately wicked and beyond cure (Jer. 17:9). How come, then, that you ended up believing in Christ alone for Salvation? What made you to differ?

These series of questions could go endlessly, and in responding to these, an average professing Christian—convinced with the humanistic philosophy that asserts that we are the author of our own destinies—will always search for something in and of himself as the distinguishing factor between him and unbelievers. Yet again, it should be kept in mind that if the final arbiter of salvation lies upon anything coming from us, then our salvation would ultimately be based on worth; and therefore, not by grace.

So how do we solve this problem? St. Paul provides the answer:  

"For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" (1 Cor. 4:7, NIV)  

Paul rebukes the prideful hearts of the Corinthian believers who set divisions among themselves (1 Cor. 1:11-13, 4:6), asking them these questions: "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive?" Apparently, Paul's main purpose in asking these questions isn't really to solicit answers. He wants to make something obvious. He is implying that whatever good thing it is that we possess which makes us [or makes us think we are] better than those whom we look down, does not really have its origin from ourselves but from God (Jas. 1:17). It is God's grace which makes us to differ, so we've no right to boast! Observe Paul's last question: "And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" The same principle applies to our coming to Christ for Salvation. Say, "My faith makes me to differ; I had the willingness; I chose Christ; I surrendered my life to Him; I responded to the Gospel; I made a decision." Well that's true, but what do you have that you did not receive? If faith doesn't come from God as a gift, then it isn't God's grace which makes the redeemed to differ from those who perish but the merit of their own faith; and thus, grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:5). Such cannot be the case.


Faith is God's work

The truth is, left in our own sinful nature, none of us will ever turn to God for salvation because "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7); and again, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4-5). Our rebellion was so deep and so complete that the Bible describes us as having been dead in our Sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 2:13), and that we wouldn't have seen the beauty of Christ and finally trusted in Him alone for Salvation had not God spiritually quickened us by His mercy (Eze. 37:14; Jn. 1:13, 3:5-6; Eph. 2:4-5; 1 Pe. 1:3; Jas. 1:18).

Faith is a gift from God. When the Lord confronted the Jews concerning their unbelief, He told them: "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (Jn. 6:65). It is the Father who grants conversion or one's coming to (faith in) Christ. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord responded to him saying: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Mat. 16:17). When Jesus Christ was asked by His disciples about His usage of parables (which makes His teachings indiscernible to most of His hearers), He answered them: "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). When the apostles Paul and Silas were on an evangelical mission in Philippi, the Bible records the conversion of a certain woman named Lydia, who came to believe the Gospel because "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul" (Ac. 16:14, cf. Eze. 36:26-27). In Philippians 1:29 St. Paul wrote: "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." These and many other passages testify that faith itself must be a gift from God.


Where then is boasting? 

Now we already know the solution to the question why the Bible considers justification as grace, even though it still requires something from sinners (i.e., faith). It is because faith itself is a gift of God's grace! It is not our work. It is God's work! "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (Jn. 6:29). Where then is boasting? It is excluded! For "if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" (1 Cor. 4:7, NIV; 1 Cor. 15:10). It is by God's power that "[we] are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord'." (1 Cor. 1:26-30).

With these being said, it is NOT, therefore, true that God works everything which pertains to our salvation except our coming to Christ. Listen to Christ's words: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (Jn. 6:44). Therefore we should glory not in ourselves, but in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:30-31), acknowledging every tiny detail of our Salvation, from first to last, including our conversion and perseverance in the faith, as coming from the gracious sovereign hand God, "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began" (2 Tim. 1:9; cf. Psa. 29:2; Jon. 2:9; Jn. 15:16; Rom. 8:29-9:21; Eph. 1:3-5, 11; Php. 1:6).

Salvation is by grace, and grace alone.

"If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very 

least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, 
and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

~Martin Luther, the Reformer

To God alone be the glory!

- Jeph

A Response to Vivator on St. Augustine and Monergism

"The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but
obtains freedom by grace." ~ St. Augustine of Hippo

Catholic apologist and "certified structural engineer" Vivator has a three year old post over at his blog in which he asserted that St. Augustine was not really a monergist (i.e. one who holds that God works alone in drawing sinners to faith in Christ) as widely believed among reformed folks and all honest scholars of Church History, but that he was actually a synergist (i.e. one who holds that God's drawing to faith requires man's willing cooperation). Now being an avid reader of St. Augustine, I knew from the start without any spark of doubt that Vivator has failed to accurately represent St. Augustine in his article. Hence, in the comment section of that post, I gave this reaction (emphasis added):

Certainly in some sense St. Augustine is synergistic. He taught that in order for a good work to be done, one must willingly cooperate with God’s grace. But unlike Rome’s position today, St. Augustine is always careful to explain that man’s willingness to cooperate with Grace is itself God’s gift of Grace. This prior work of Grace which makes man willing is God’s doing alone – in other words, monegistic. 

Therefore, St. Augustine’s synergism is just on the secondary level. Men must cooperate with co-operating grace in order to perform a good work (*synergism in the secondary level), but God must first and foremost operate in man’s heart to make him willing (*monergism in the prime level). (link)

Vivator responded by directing me to another post he wrote about St. Augustine's view on merits and grace, but I insisted that it doesn't contradict my last explanation over St. Augustine's seeming synergism. His next reply was interesting (emphasis mine):

As far as I know (based on what other wrote) in his later days Augustine’s view changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism. Thus when Reformed scholars quoted from him they use his later works. (link)

In response to my assertion that St. Augustine was also monergistic, Vivator conceded that the bishop's thoughts drifted towards a more Calvinistic direction during "his later days." To this I agree. What's interesting about this comment, though, is that it show's Vivator's complete ignorance of the fact that all the citations he used in an attempt to prove St. Augustine was a synergist were in fact taken from a book which was written by St. Augustine himself "in his later days"; the time when St. Augustine's view was supposed to have already "changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism"! This supports my case that St. Augustine was primarily monergistic in his soteriology, and in some way or another, also synergistic - since both ideas seem to have been held by him at the same time. I will prove this further later. Meanwhile, let's examine what Vivator exactly had in mind when he used terms "monergism" and "synergism" (emphasis added):

The key difference between Monergism and Synergism is whether we can exercise our freewill in our salvation or not. Note that Monergism believes we do have freewill but to them it is under bondage of sin – it is not really free, i.e. we cannot choose to act rightly. (link)

Alright. Now this makes me ask myself how come I haven't met any monergist who teaches that man's freewill doesn't have any role to play in salvation? For example, John Calvin himself was an ardent preacher of the God-glorifying doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc., yet he also contended that man's will is not wholly passive under the sovereign influence of grace (see Institutes, Book III). In particular, Calvin taught and defended justification by faith, which alone is a conspicuous proof that man's uncoerced positive willingness has a role to play for the attainment of salvation!

The truth is, monergism doesn't mean man cannot exercise his freewill in his salvation as Vivator would have his readers to believe. What monergism states is that God works alone effectively and irresistibly in quickening spiritually dead sinners so that they should freely play their proper role in salvation, that is, to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins. Vivator is clearly misrepresenting the monergist position here.

Now in support of his dishonest definition of the reformed view of monergism, Vivator cited a reformed source which says:

It would be correct to say man HAS A WILL and that his choices are VOLUNTARY (not coerced) but this does not make the choices free. Fallen man chooses sin of NECESSITY due to a corruption of nature, and this is just as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ, and a more properly biblical way of expression.

- J.W.H.

http://new.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/Essays/

Great. Now pleace note that Hendryx's point here isn't whether man has a role to play on salvation, but he is rather discussing the condition of man's will as a fallen being. In a nutshell, what Hendrix is trying to say here is that even though totally depraved sinners can't help sinning due to their corrupt nature (necessity), their choices remain voluntary (not coerced). This, according to Hendryx, is "as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ." In other words, we are not able to make right use of our will unless we are first set free by Christ, and guess what... this is exactly what St. Augustine taught against the Pelagians of his time! For example, in response to the Pelagian objection that St. Augustine's idea of total depravity is tantamount to saying that "men are forced to sin by the necessity of their flesh" and therefore cannot be responsible for their sins, the blessed doctor of grace defended himself and wrote (all emphasis mine):

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that "all are forced into sin," as if they were unwilling, "by the necessity of their flesh"; but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. "For everything which is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. (Habakkuk 2:4) And it pertains to faith to believe in Christ. And no man can believe in Christ— that is, come to Him— unless it be given to him. (Romans 1:17) No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 7)

Isn't this exactly what Hendryx wrote concerning the fallen man's will? Hendryx says sinners choose sin voluntary, but they necessarily choose sin due to their corrupt nature, and for this reason Christ's liberating power is needed. St. Augustine agrees by saying that "by their own will [sinners] are hurried from sin to sin" (voluntarily), but "this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things (necessity), for the reason that it has not been made free." St. Augustine's words couldn't have been any more clearer!

In another treatise commonly known as Enchiridon, St. Augustine advanced a similar yet more explicit view of man's total depravity (emphasis all mine):

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed?" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30; cf. see also On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, Ch. 4 [9th Breviate])

Please observe how St. Augustine explicitly stated in favor of Calvinism that when man fell in Sin by his own freewill, he destroyed both his liberty and himself! This is essentially what Hendryx's meant in his statement above! Notice also how St. Augustine argues for a monergistic regeneration when he likened man's plight to a suicide: "For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost." Now how can a dead person bring himself to life? Of course that's impossible. So how can Vivator inject any synergistic notion of regeneration here when St. Augustine was more than clear that man's freedom to choose good, much less cooperate with God's grace, was lost in him when he sinned? I'd really really love to know how Vivator will respond to this!

Now let's turn to those statements of St. Augustine cited and used by Vivator to make him appear to be a thorough synergist. Taken from St. Augustine's book On Grace and Free Will, the first quotation reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 7)

 Taken also from the same book, the second and last quote reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”[Zechariah 1:3] one of these clauses–that which invites our return to God–evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 10-v)

There you have it... St. Augustine denying monergism! What Vivator fails to show here, unfortunately, is the exact statement where St. Augustine actually denies that God alone operates in the heart of the sinner, apart from any cooperation on man's part, in drawing him to fait in and obedience to Christ. What we only have here are statements from the blessed doctor of grace saying that (1) man possesses freedom to live rightly - provided he is under the influence of grace [as clear from its immediate context], and that (2) our turning to God is an act of the human will. Monergism doesn't deny any of these! What monergists deny is that man, though dead in his sins and transgressions, still has a cooperating role in the illuminating, heart-softening, regenerating work of God, and this denial is clearly seen on St. Augustine's words: "For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30).

So, was St. Augustine a monergist or a synergist? I would say both, but not on equal terms. Let me explain further. St. Augustine teaches that God alone efficaciously works within man to make him willing (monergism), but when man is made willing, God cooperates with him to the execution of good (synergism). His own words (all emphasis mine):

But yet, however small and imperfect his love was, it was not wholly wanting when he said to the Lord, "I will lay down my life for Your sake"; (John 13:37) for he supposed himself able to effect what he felt himself willing to do. And who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will. On which account the apostle says, "I am confident of this very thing, that He which has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:6) He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It is God which works in you, even to will." (Philippians 2:13) While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, "We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God." What does this phrase, all things, mean, but the terrible and cruel sufferings which affect our condition? That burden, indeed, of Christ, which is heavy for our infirmity, becomes light to love. For to such did the Lord say that His burden was light, (Matthew 11:30) as Peter was when he suffered for Christ, not as he was when he denied Him. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 33-xvii)

This proves what I've asserted above that St. Augustine's seeming synergism was only on the secondary level under the umbrella of his monergism, which is first and foremost in his soteriology. The blessed doctor affirms that man has a role to play in salvation (faith, repentance, etc.), but unless God first enables him and operates within his heart to make him willing (which Calvinists equate to spiritual regeneration), man will never perform the role he has to play. As St. Augustine puts it elsewhere in the same book: "It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will" (cf. On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 32-xvi). This divine operation, according to St. Augustine, needs no willing cooperation on man's part because it is in the first place performed by God for the purpose of making us willing. Therefore, this gift cannot be resisted by any hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. In his famous two-volume book On Predestination of the Saints, St. Augustine wrote (emphasis added):

...This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory. (On Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Ch. 13-viii)

This is exactly what Calvinists mean when they talk about God's grace being irresistible. Not that men are drawn by God against their will, but that they are wondrously drawn by God so that they should certainly and freely choose to come to Him for Salvation. St. Augustine wrote in another treatise: "[the sinner] is drawn in wondrous ways to will, by Him who knows how to work within the very hearts of men. Not that men who are unwilling should believe, which cannot be, but that they should be made willing from being unwilling" (cf. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 37-xix).

Furthermore, St. Augustine taught (again, in favor of Calvinism) that this divine gift of conversion is not given to all but only to those particularly chosen by God in eternity past. Evidence of this is found everywhere in his lengthy treatise On Predestination of the Saints, but this is already a topic of another post.

Now back to the question: Was St. Augustine a monergist? Certainly. Was he a synergist? In some way, yes, but it should be noted that in his system monergism is always prior. Was he a thorough synergist? In Vivator's dreams, maybe.

- Jeph

Paano Kinukuha ng Diyos Ang Ating Atensyon

Texto: Deuteronomio 1:42-44

Ang pito (whistle blower) ay sadyang inimbento upang umagaw ng atensyon. Ang tunog nito'y ginagamit sa pagsita sa mga pasaway, o sa pagbibigay ng mga senyales (halimbawa, sa mga larong isports). Karaniwan itong ginagamit ng mga pulis, traffic enforcer, at mga sports referee. Ang tunog ng pito ay senyales upang tayo'y tumigil at upang alamin kung bakit ito sinipol.

Paano ba kinukuha ng Diyos ang ating atensyon? Minsan inaalis niya sa atin ang mga bagay na pinaglalaanan natin ng lubos na pagpapahalaga. May mga pagkakataon na ginagamit niya ang ibang tao upang tulungan tayong maunawaan ang anumang nais niyang sabihin sa atin. Ang pagpapala rin ay ginagamit ng Diyos upang kunin ang ating atensyon (Rom. 2:4). Sa mga pagkakataong ganito, dapat tayong tumigil, manalangin, at itanong sa Diyos, "Panginoon, mayroon ka bang nais sabihin sa akin?"

Minsan ay pinahihintulutan ng Diyos na manatiling walang kasagutan ang ating mga panalangin upang nang sa gayon ay maging mas pokus tayo sa kanya. Maaari rin niyang hindian ang ating mga petisyon upang makuha niya ang ating atensyon. Ang mga kalumbayan, kahirapan, at pagkabigo ay ginagamit din niya sa gano'ng layunin. Ngunit kung tayo'y sensitibo, daglian natin siyang hahanapin. Sa mga trahedya, krisis pang-pinansyal, at problemang pangkalusugan, hinihintay lamang tayo ng Diyos upang itanong sa kanya, "Diyos ko, kinakausap mo ba ako?"

Dapat nating ibigay sa Diyos ang ating hindi nahahating atensyon, ngunit kadalasan ay abala tayo sa ibang mga bagay. Siya'y naghihintay lamang upang kausapin natin siya, subalit mas abala pa tayo sa mga bagay na ating tinatangkilik. Kaya naman, maging sensitibo tayo palagi sa pagsipol na ginagawa ng Diyos upang makuha ang ating atensyon. Tanggapin nating maluwag sa ating kalooban ang lahat ng bagay na nangyayari sa ating buhay--negatibo man o positibo--sapagkat ang bawat bagay ay "gumagawang magkakalakip sa ikabubuti ng mga taong nagsisiibig sa Diyos" (Rom. 8:28). Sa bawat pagkakataon ay mayroong nais ituro sa atin ang Diyos, at dapat natin itong tuklasin.

-Jeph

St. Augustine's Teaching On Free-Will Grossly Misrepresented By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

In discussing the position of St. Augustine on the condition of man's will after the fall, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states:

...Thus, when he [Augustine] says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is NOT the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity. (epmhpasis added)

In the above quotation, man is portrayed as merely weakened, by his fall, in his natural ability and inclination of will with regards to righteousness. He didn't become totally depraved in Sin. In and of himself he can still choose good over evil but with struggle. As an implication, grace is viewed only as something like a crutch given/offered to man so he might perform his duties more easily and thus be saved. This is how many Catholics explain grace & free will today, and their online encyclopedia claims this was St. Augustine position, too.

Now I'm absolutely sure the New Advent is not being truthful to us here. The truth is that the position on free will which the New Advent would have us to believe to be advocated by St. Augustine is actually the position that was held by those whom St. Augustine had vigorously opposed during his days regarding the subject, namely the semi-Pelagians! In his treatise Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, the blessed doctor states (emphasis mine):

...But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is NOT FREE in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. I, Ch. 7)

In another book he states:

For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be apprehended—as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action; not only in order that they may know, by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 3-ii)

And again,

For either they lie under the sin which they have inherited by original generation, and depart hence with that inherited debt which is not put away by regeneration, or by their free will have added other sins besides; their will, I say, FREE, but not freed—FREE FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS, but ENSLAVED TO SIN, by which they are tossed about by various mischievous lusts, some more evil, some less, BUT ALL EVIL; and they must be adjudged to diverse punishments, according to that very diversity. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 42)

This doesn't sound like St. Augustine being "careful to explain that the lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil." It actually appears to be the contrary. The blessed father explicitly taught that the fallen sinners are free only with regards to evil things, but not to good things. They couldn't help but sin because it is in their corrupted nature to sin. In other words they are not sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners. It is only when God gives a depraved sinner a new nature that he is able to choose life over death, to choose light over darkness. St. Augustine puts it this way:

But what good would ye evil men  do, and how should you do those good  things, unless you were yourselves good? But who causes that men should be good save Him who said, "And I will visit them to make them good"? And who said "I will put my Spirit  within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them"? Are ye thus not yet awake? Do ye not yet hear, "I will cause you to walk, I will make you to observe," lastly, "I will make you to do"? What! Are you still puffing yourselves up? We indeed walk, it is true; we observe; we do; but He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God  making us good; this is His mercy preventing us. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. IV, Ch. 15)

To put it simply, saving grace--as viewed by St. Augustine--is absolutely necessary for sinners to be able and willing to perform what is good, and not merely a crutch sinners must grab a hold (synergism) in order for them to win the "struggle" more easily. Sinners in the first place do not struggle with sin; they delight in it. Such idea that man's freedom of will (with regards to righteousness) is only weakened and not totally destroyed as a consequence of his fall was condemned by the 5th century church as aberrant and heretical. At the 113th canon of the fourth Council of Carthage (AD 419), we read:

Canon 113. It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me you can do nothing," and not "Without me you could do it but with difficulty." 

Not to mention that the pronouncement above is actually an affirmation to the Augustinian position in opposition to the heresies of semi-Pelagianism.

For Pelagius says that what is good is "more easily" fulfilled if grace assists. By which addition— that is, by adding "more easily"— he certainly signifies that he is of the opinion that, even if the aid of grace should be wanting, yet good might be accomplished, although with greater difficulty, by free will. But let me prescribe to my present opponents what they should think in this matter, without speaking of the author of this heresy himself. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. II, Ch. 17)

Now compare all these evidences with how the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia portrays St. Augustine's view. Notice how they falsely attribute to the doctor of grace an erroneous teaching which the blessed doctor himself rejected as heresy! I've once heard a prominent Catholic apologist arrogantly claiming that to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant. Were the NACE writers too deep in history that they deliberately misrepresented St. Augustine? Lol.

-Jeph

The Spiritual Condition Of A Spiritually Dead Sinner

Most Christians think the main reason why people don't respond positively when we share to them the good news of Salvation is either we present the gospel poorly, or the prospect was just an idiot. The truth is: it is not the evangelist's job to convert sinners, nor is it on the sinner's power to convert himself, and here's the reason why:

1. Sinners are dead (spiritually) in trespasses and sin / incapable of doing any spiritual good (Eph. 2:1; Rom. 3:9-12):
2. Sinners are slaves under the power of Sin (Jn. 8:34; Ac. 26:17-18; Rom. 3:9, 6:20)
3. Sinners were taken captive by Satan to do his will (Jn. 8:44; 2 Tim. 2:25-26)
4. Sinners cannot/does not come to God (Jn. 6:44, 65; Rom. 3:11)
5. Sinners cannot obey God's law (Rom. 3:9-12, 8:7-8)
6. Sinners cannot understand spiritual things (Mat. 13:14; Rom. 3:11; Eph. 4:18; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4)
7. Sinners cannot savingly believe the Gospel (1 Cor. 2:14, cf. Job. 14:4)
8. Sinners cannot change/convert on their own (Jer. 13:23)
9. Sinners do not seek after God (Rom. 3:11, 10:20)
10. The sinner's heart is hardened and unreceptive (Ezek. 36:26-27; Eph. 4:18)
11. The sinner's heart is desperately wicked and beyond cure (Gen. 6:5; Ec. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Mr. 7:21-23)

We, Christians, were once dead in our trespasses and sins and are by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind (Eph. 2:1-3). But by God's own will and mercy he quickened us by His Spirit through the word of truth so that we may choose Him and be saved (Jam. 1:18, cf. Eze. 36:26-27, 37:2-6). So it is not our own doing that we are saved. Salvation is of the Lord alone. Even faith through which we are saved is God's gift!

"He went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.'" (Jn. 6:65, NIV)

Soli Deo Gloria!

-Jeph

Are Christians Sinners? (First Post)

Most people define the word "sinner" as to mean "one who sins." So if you have commited a sin, then you're a sinner. Christians sin, therefore Christians are sinners.

However, in the Bible Christians are never called as such. In fact, the Holy Scripture consistently identifies the redeemed as saints, not sinners. See for example Paul's introductory statement in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians:

"Paul, [a] called apostle of Jesus Christ, by God's will, and Sosthenes the brother, to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours..." (1 Cor. 1:1-2, Darby)

It is interesting to note that Paul's primary purpose for writing this epistle was to rebuke the Christians in Corinth with regards to the negative reports he has been receiving concerning their spiritual/moral and ecclesiastical condition, and to exhort them to live God's love as they ought as God's children. In other words, First Corinthians reveals many of the problems that the Corinthian church faced. In fact, there is a problem in almost every chapter of the book!

1. The Problem of Divisions in the Church (1 Cor. 1:10-13)
2. The Problem of Worldly Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:17-2:16)
3. The Problem of Carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-4)
4. The Problem of Immorality in the Church (1 Cor. 5:1-13)
5. The Problem of Bringing a Fellow Believer to Court (1 Cor. 6:1-8)
6. The Problem of Fornication (1 Cor. 6:15-20)
7. The Problem of Marriage and Divorce (1 Cor. 7:1-40)
8. The Problem of Meats Offered to Idols (1 Cor. 8:1-13)
9. The Problem of the Role Men and Women Should Have in Christ's Church (1 Cor. 11:1-17)
10. The Problem of Abusing the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-34)
11. The Problem of Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. 12:1-31)
12. The Problem of a Lack of Love (1 Cor. 13:1-13)
13. The Problem of Speaking in Tongues (1 Cor. 14:1-40)
14. The Problem of Wrong Teaching About the Resurrection of the Dead (1 Cor. 15:1-58)
15. The Problem of Collecting for the Saints (1 Cor. 16:1-3)

The Corinthian church was plagued with problems! In Tagalog, pasaway talaga itong mga taong 'to! But you see, despite their being pasaway, Paul still called them saints!

Another instance of Christians not being identified as "sinners" is explicitly found in Romans 5:8. Paul wrote,

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8, KJV)

Note that the past tense is used – while we were yet sinners – which implies a change of status.  While we “were” yet sinners is a prior status of being sinners, different from what the recipients of the letter were as Paul wrote them.  Who, then, were the recipients of the letter? How did the author describe them? Paul wrote:

"...to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [our] Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom. 1:7, Darby)

Clearly, Paul was referring to saints, not sinners!

It is also an interesting fact that in the New Testament the word "sinner/s" is used 41 times, but none refer to people who are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.

You might ask: how then can Christians be called saints if they still commit sins even after being saved? (1 Jn. 1:8). In what sense does the Bible call them saints? and in what sense aren't they called sinners? According to Paul:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works..." (Rom. 4:5-6, KJV)

There you go. It is with regard to our judicial standing before God that the Bible calls us saints. Since Christ already fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf and died on the cross for our sins so that He may "present us holy in God's sight, without blemish, and free from accusation" (cf. Col. 1:22 / Rom. 3:24-25, 5:19 & Gal. 4:4-5; ), we are not seen by God as sinners. When God looks upon us, He sees not our uncleanliness but His Son's righteousness in virtue of our union with Him through faith.

Our sainthood doesn't pertain to our actual way of living, but to our judicial standing before God "who justifieth the ungodly" through faith. We are already sinless positionally, but not yet in practice, or in other words: Righteous... But Not Yet. 

Another reason why we are not called sinners anywhere in the Bible is that we are already free from the power of Sin and, by the grace of God, we do not and we cannot deliberately go back to our old sinful lifestyle:

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:1-2, NIV) 

"We know that God’s children do not make a practice of sinning, for God’s Son holds them securely, and the evil one cannot touch them." (1 Jn. 5:18, NLT)

Christians may fall into different temptations at varying degrees, but "God’s Son holds them securely." They are a new creature in Christ, and the Holy Spirit grieves in their heart whenever they transgress the law of God. It is not the believer's lifestyle to continue living in Sin, but to grow in love and holiness, being sanctified by the Spirit.

Now we turn once more to the original question of this article: Are Christians sinners?

The answer should depend on how the word "sinner" is defined. Technically if we follow the common definition of the word sinner as "anyone who commits sins," in this sense we can say that Christians are still sinners. Biblically speaking, however, Christians are no longer sinners but saints—in so far as they are already justified before God, and that they are no longer under Sin's dominion. In the Bible, the term "sinner" is applied only to unbelievers, not to God's children.

-Jeph