I am a knight of the Lord of Hosts,
Look at my armor gleam!
I have many virtues and boasts,
For I am more than I seem.

Before me on the road a snake,
But I won’t pause or fear.
For I will make its teeth to break.
The knight of the Lord draws near!

The serpent is so small, I think,
I shall not need my sword.
The fight was won in just a blink,
I did not need the Lord!

Did you see the snake I killed?
Why call it “just a worm?”
It was alive, but now is stilled,
No longer does it squirm.

Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It’s not – it’s a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven’t a clue, so they’re attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you’ll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.

This is quoted in the fourth chapter of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I’m usually up for discussing Dawkins’ ideas. Why, it was just a few weeks ago that I was at Oxford and saw him debate William Lane Craig… oh… wait… never mind.

As it turns out, though, the quote is actually not Dawkins and can be found here. Of course, the chapter isn’t without Dawkins giving us his view of theology in his own words.

For example, he rejects the doctrine of divine simplicity, without actually telling us why, except that “Ward gets it right here.” He quotes Richard Swinburn and Keith Ward, who argue that God is an economical explanation for the world since he is one being or substance. But Dawkins seems to argue against divine simplicity because he is continually equivocating the use of the word ’simple’. There should be a distinction made between God’s unity in singularity (or his being of one existence or substance) and his unity of simplicity (being equal to his attributes – also referred to as divine simplicity). Neither of which preclude God from being described as complex. And complexity in God is what Dawkins was after.

But we’ll return to that in a minte. Let’s begin to look at God’s aseity.

What do I mean by aseity? The word comes from a se, which is latin for “of oneself” or “from oneself.” This is the attribute referred to as the “vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature.” My goal is to show that it isn’t pseudo-philosophical and that it does contribute to explainations.¹

First, we need a definition of aseity. Cornelius Van Til describes aseity:

By this is meant that God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything beside his own being. God is the source of his own being, or rather the term cannot be applied to God. God is absolute. He is sufficient unto himself.²

This is a very good definition. But in order to explain how it is explanatory of anything, it needs some elaboration K. Scott Oliphint, in his book God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God, elaborates concerning the nature of God:

[Eternity,] given that it is God’s eternity, it simply is his existence; unlike time, it is not a context in which he exists, surrounding and engulfing him as time does creation. Rather, it just is him. …

Not only so, but God, since he is essentially infinite, is without boundaries—temporal or spatial. He is not “contained” by a context of space that surrounds him. Rather, his existence just is. It is not an existence here or there; it simply is existence.

Not only is he “simply existence,” but traditional Christian theism has always held that God is “simple existence.” “Simple” here does not mean the opposite of complex (what can be more complex than God?), but rather it affirms that God is not composed of any parts external to himself. Thus, any distinctions that we make with respect to God must themselves be identical to him.³

Divine simplicity describes the unity of God, affirming that he is not composed of parts. Instead, God’s attributes are to be though of as identical to himself. Entailed in this idea is also that God does not take on attributes from ‘outside’ of himself. So it is that divine simplicity ties God’s unity to his aseity. If he is made of parts he is not unified in being or substance, so his attributes cannot be made out to be parts. If his attributes are derived from something like a Platonic form outside of himself, then he is necessarily dependent on something other than himself in order to be who he essentially is. Oliphint goes on to say that the attributes of God…

…are distinctions that we make with respect to God’s character. But these disctinctions with respect to who God is essentially are themselves not parts of God. Thus, when we say God is eternal, we do not mean that God partakes of that which is eternal and external to his existence. What we mean is that the eternity of God is itself God. To think otherwise is to make God dependent on something else—in this case eternity—in order to be who he is essentially.

And this brings us to an affirmation that should be seen as foundational to everything else we say about God: the aseity of God. This aseity, or independence, of God must be seen to be foundational because, in order to think and speak rightly about God, we cannot suppose at any point that God is essentially dependent. …

The aseity of God, therefore, must be the place on which we stand in order to assert anything else about him, given that anything else we say about him depends for its proper understanding and meaning on that aseity.⁴

Now that we have begun to establish what type of God we are talking about, we can more intelligently delve into how this explains anything. We must think of the Christian God as self-contained and self-sufficient. But when I say self-contained, you must keep in mind that I don’t mean that he is contained over against something outside of himself. “Before creation” there was nothing but God. There was not even nothingness or non-being over against his being. Just God.

Aseity lays the framework for an ex nihilo creation. It also means that we should take ex nihilo not to mean that creation came from nothingness, but instead that it was not made from anything already existent. And given that God is not subject to anything outside of himself, then he is absolutely free. He could have created or he could have not created. This ultimately means that creation is not only dependent on God’s existence for its own existence, but is also dependent on God’s rationality.

This means a few things concerning ontology and metaphysics. It means that the world had a beginning. It means the world exists according to order and rationality with no actual randomness or chance. And if we are to add to our thinking that God is triune (three in persons, one in substance) and it is this triune God who creates and alone gives existence to the world, then we begin to have answers to the philosophical problems of unity and plurality. Plurality does not have to be a field of unrelated particulars – an ontological white noise. And unity doesn’t have to destroy the individuality of any given thing.

In epistemology, the aseity of God provides us a basis for knowledge. That isn’t to say that it alone gives us a basis, but it is a necessary component. We must consider what aseity means for God’s knowledge of himself. Van Til writes:

He [God] has no non-being over against himself in terms of which he needs or can to any extent interpret himself. He is omniscient. He is omniscient because of what he is as a self-sufficient Being. On the other hand we must add that the nature of God’s being requires complete exhaustive self-consciousness. God’s being is coterminous with his self-consciousness. ((Van Til, Cornelius, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R 1980), 35.))

This is true of God’s knowledge of himself. What can we say about his knowledge of the world? First, we need to make a distinction between God’s knowledge (or design, or plan) of the world and the world itself. Keeping that distinction in mind, we can rightly say that God’s knowledge of the world is dependent on God’s knowledge of himself. To be sure, he considers the world as it is, “outside” of himself and actually existing and actual events taking place. However, because of his self-knowledge and his sovereignty over the world, we can be assured that he cannot err in his knowledge of the world.

Let’s now look for a moment at what most people consider when they talk of epistemology: man’s knowledge of the world. Given the ontology we have described, we must make God’s knowledge the standard of knowledge. Continuing with Van Til:

Man exists by virtue of God’s existence. Man’s environment precedes man. God is man’s ultimate environment and this environment is completely interperative of man who is to know himself. … The whole of man’s own immediate environment as well as man himself is already interpreted by God. Even the denotation of the whole universe exists by virtue of the connotation or plan of God.⁵

But how is it that God’s knowledge helps us in our endeavor for knowledge of our own? We cannot posses God’s knowledge because of the very attribute of God we are primarily discussing: his aseity. As creatures, not only can we not have the same amount of knowledge as God, but we can’t qualitatively have the same knowledge as God either. Our knowledge is subject to time and succession. For this reason, man is epistemologically subject to God’s revelation. Since we cannot have knowledge of the whole system we find ourselves in and cannot know how facts are to relate to one another, autonomous knowledge is self-destructive – we cannot truly know in part unless we know the whole. But, given revelation we can indeed have true knowledge given to us, wherein we can truly know things without an exhaustive knowledge.⁶

What then of ethics? It starts with God’s absolute freedom that results from his ultimate self-determination. In this, God is good and what he commands is good. God’s goodness cannot be arbitrary because God’s aseity does not allow for a platonic ideal of good. Plato’s god is determined (rather than self-determined) by what is really ultimate: the Good. But while this presents a determined God, it leaves God’s environment as an indeterminism. The Good is good because that’s what is there, some impersonal standard that happens to be. With the self-determined God, his will is inseperable from his nature and character. There are reasons he is the way he is and they are found within him. This means that his commands are not arbitrary, because they come from the standard of goodness itself.  There is much more to say about this and elaborate on (not that I provided exhaustive explainations of metaphysics or epistemology!), but it should be clear that God’s aseity is invovled at the very outset of the Christian system of ethics.

In conclusion, God is an explaination for things. In fact, the explaination for the whole world. But this doesn’t amount to a dressed-up answer of “I don’t know,”  where we throw up our hands in despair avoid looking into issues. People at times may at times rightly say that they don’t know a thing because they can’t know a thing, but assure someone that God knows. This can be the right thing to say and isn’t an anti-intellectual excuse in some situtaiotns; there is not merely a limit to human knowledge in quantity, but also in what we can know. And God’s aseity isn’t pseudo-philosophical and it does explain things.

1. My goal in this post is not to provide an exegetical defense of God’s aseity, but to demonstrate its explainatory power and show that it can be a legitimate reply to atheists’ objections.
2. Van Til, Cornelius, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R 1980), 9.
3. Oliphint, K. Scott, God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2012), 17-18.
4. Ibid., 18.
5. Ibid., 42.
6. For more on this, see A Christian Theory of Knowledge by Cornelius Van Til

Concerning Proof

Adam wrote:

other than your faith you can’t prove that…

There is no need to disprove something for which no evidence exists in the first place…

Look I’m not saying that God exists or doesn’t exist… I have my opinion. Christianity, Islam, buddhisim, stupidism…atheism…they‘re all the same to me.

Let’s consider a specific claim. Rather than talking about some vague generic theism, lets consider Christianity for a moment. Does Adam believe that the God of the Bible exists? No. He also doesn’t think he has the burden of proof. After all, he is simply withholding belief, he isn’t saying that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. The Christian is making the positive claim, and so the burden of proof falls completely on the Christian, right?

And if there is no evidence for the God of the Bible, then there is also no need to disprove his existence in order to withhold belief, right?

The problem with this line of thought is that the God of the Bible claims that everyone has knowledge of him (read Romans 1). So, while Adam may say he isn’t making a claim that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, he is claiming not to know or have any proof or evidence in support of his existence – a claim that contradicts the claim of the Bible. So, while he may not be making an explicit denial, he is making an implicit denial.

This implicit claim is extended even further by his claim that not only does he not have knowledge of God, but that the existence of such a God cannot be proven. How can Adam know I can’t prove it unless he has some belief that implicitly denies that God exists? He isn’t idly withholding judgement in some ‘neutral’ mentality until the case is made.

Let me make the context of his claim a little clearer. It follows my comment, where I said:

God is the necessary prerequisite for all predication. Not only can we give an account of ethics because of his existence, but also of knowledge. God designed the world in such a way that it behaves orderly – God is orderly himself. But having a world that behaves rationally is not sufficient for us to have knowledge of it. He also made us in his image and gave us knowledge of himself (which sinful man suppresses – read: self-denial), and so we can have confidence that our rationality can mirror the rationality that governs the world and we can understand it.

So I have presented a simplified overview of  how Christianity can provide an account of knowledge, and I also referred him to my post on the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Did he interact with any of this? Nope. He just chalks this all up to faith and says I can’t prove it. Which brings me to the next comment I wish to discuss…

Faith and Proof

Amanda wrote:

You can’t explain faith….and being spiritual and having a personal relationship with God is not the same as being religeous

What exactly can you not “explain” about faith?

You can define it. The Bible describes faith in many places. So you can “explain” it in that way. Perhaps what is meant is that faith and arguments / proofs / evidence is incompatible? Let’s look at what the Bible says about faith.

Hebrews 11:1-3 says

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Things not seen… Does this mean “without proof” or “without knowledge?” Or does it actually mean more literally “not visible?”

Consider Thomas in John 20. The other disciples saw Christ after the resurrection and told him, ”We have seen the Lord.” But he refused to accept any such notion until he saw Christ. When Jesus did arrive he told Thomas that, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Here the in blessing those who have not seen what is meant is literal sight. 

Be careful in thinking through this story. Can we say that Thomas had faith in Christ’s resurrection? No. He didn’t believe it in the beginning. What about at the end? Well, Thomas then believed in the resurrection… by sight. Did Thomas have no faith then? No convictions of things not seen? Well, he probably still believed that the “universe was created by the word of God.” There were many things that it cannot be said that he believed by sight.

Following this account, John ends his Gospel saying:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

My point is this: the Bible doesn’t pit faith against against reason or define faith as believing in spite of evidence. John is writing about the things that he saw, heard, touched, etc. in order that people might believe. It certainly doesn’t pit knowledge and faith against each other. Romans 1:18-23 clearly indicates that man has knowledge of God, which includes his invisible attributes.

Does Amanda then think that the content of faith is what we cannot explain? Paul writes his letter to Titus, “for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness.” You would be hard pressed to read the Bible and come away thinking the authors think that God cannot be explained at all. In fact, many times people are rebuked for not having knowledge of God. In Hosea 4, we are told “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge.“

Concerning the second part of Amanda’s comment, I think she is right, provided she means one of two things:

1. If being “religeous” means mere intellectual assent to propositions and “having a personal relationship” means growing in sanctification, then I agree. Read James 2:14-26 or 1 John.

2. If being “religeous” means being self-righteous and “having a personal relationship” means having union with Christ because of the work of Christ apart from anything I have done, then I agree. Read Romans 1-5.

If she means something else, then I may or may not agree. It’s more likely I disagree if she doesn’t mean one of the two things above. Especially if she means to separate relationship and doctrine… as if you could have a relationship with someone you had no knowledge of!

In Lieu of Discussing Proof, How About Pragmatism?

Travis wrote:

I’ve always stood on the foot of “Knowledge is power.” I could never just chock it up to blind faith. When someone states something as fact I first ask for proof. I never could get into a science v. religion conversation because I know science and I know IT WORKS.

This is not an uncommon attitude. Unfortunately for Travis, it seems to be a double standard. Travis knows science. He knows it works. But what does it mean that IT WORKS?

It could mean that science produces knowledge. If that is all he means then I will follow his example and when he “states something as fact [such as "science works"] I first ask for proof.”

But what is more commonly mean by this is that science is useful. That is, it means something along the lines of sciences making predictions, adjusting, and then making claims concerning repeatable phenomena. But repeatability isn’t a test of truth. You can make predictions concerning repeatable phenomena that are simply useful fictions.

Saying that you will continue to use science solely because it is useful seems to amount to an antirealist pragmatism. Sure, someone could argue for a realist pragmatism, but that isn’t what seems to be argued here. And, wherein lies the double standard?

Pragmatism is not justification.

But what is it that Travis asks of the other side? “I first ask for proof.” In other words, he asks for a justification of the belief. Perhaps he would settle for someone giving a pragmatic response in reply and be happy to go their separate ways, each man with his own fiction.

But Travis probably believes that he knows “facts.” After all, when he says that “knowledge is power” he probably doesn’t mean that fiction that is useful is power. What exactly would be the point of telling people that what is useful is power? Especially in the context of this discussion concerning religion? He seems to appreciate arguments when he says, “both of them [Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins] make great arguments.” I’ve not read much Harris, but Dawkins routinely makes truth statements about the actual world.

Unity and Division

Adam wrote:

Religion divides people, it’s just an inhibitor for what we could truly be. If there is a god then he fears us, example “Tower of Babel. JS

If there is a God, why would he fear us? When I read this, I immediately thought of the song Our God Is In The Heavens by Shai Linne in his new album The Attributes of God. In verse one he says:

So why do the nations rage and all of the peoples plot in vain?
Their sin and offense is against His excellence and they’re not ashamed
As though He’s lacking the power to shackle them now in the hottest flames
And so they cock and aim- the target? His cosmic reign
That’s like a kid with a super soaker trying to conquer Spain!
Man thinks he’s a pugilist, trying to ball up his puny fist
At the LORD, who is ruling this
What’s amusing is God just laughs, like “Who is this”?
Stupid kids who persist in foolishness
It’s only by God’s power you exist

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Division isn’t bad if division is necessary. But Christianity isn’t only concerned about division. While Christianity divides those who rebel against Christ and those in union with Christ, God’s redemption also unites separated groups of people. For “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). And John gives us a glimpse of the redeemed in heaven:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ”Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:9-10)

Blithely saying that religion divides requires overlooking Christianity’s cross-cultural uniting of peoples of differing classes, nations, ethnicities, etc. It is hard to overlook the reconciliation of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles described in the New Testament.

Origin of Religion?

Clifford writes:

Actually, religion is the outcome of a collection of evolved traits that have misfired horrible. Kinda like a moth flying into a candle/bug zapper.

And Adam agrees saying, “Misfired, couldn’t say that there is a better description than that.”

The driving forces behind the modern synthesis (i.e. evolution) are the random mutation of genes (producing variation) and Natural Selection (selecting which variations will continue due to their ability to be reproduced). Granted, there are possibly other factors, such as Genetic Drift. However, since it only affects neutral alleles and Clifford’s simile involves a moth flying into a bug zapper, I think it is safe to ignore Genetic Drift in this analysis.

First, I wonder how it is that someone in the minority can argue that the majority population is the population with ‘misfired’ traits. Are religious people being selected out by Natural Selection? Many have argued that Natural Selection has been thwarted by the advent of medical advances. If the rise of Atheism follows these advances how is that in favor of Atheism being the natural or correct evolutionary path?

Secondly, what does he mean “misfired”? I’m often told that evolution was an unguided process. Am I now to believe that Atheism is the intended target? Is naturalistic “rationality” the correct outworking of evolution? Natural Selection certainly doesn’t select for true belief.

Perhaps Clifford just means that this is the wrong expression or outworking of certain attributes that were selected by evolution. Moths are attracted to light and this isn’t a bad trait except, of course, when it is used against them in the case of bug zappers. But what traits are these and how is that worked out between religion and atheism? Clifford has yet to go into detail. What standard is used to compare the outworking of these traits? It can’t be Natural Selection, since it has yet to select between the two. So far evolution has produced both; why should we favor one over the other? Perhaps you say that one is rational and the other isn’t. Well, it then seems that evolution produced rationality and irrationality; why favor one over the other? Why should the atheist favor his rationality which was produced by non-rational forces in a non-rational world?

Other Thoughts on the Origin and Substance of Religion

Adam also writes:

Religion is in and of itself an outdated form of control. Man said “Let there be god.” Man saw that God was good and could be made to take on their forms of anger and fit the prejudices that he held when it was convenient to him.

I am usually a little bit behind on cultural trends, but I didn’t realize that I am so obsolete. What is the most up-to-date form of control? I bet it’s public government schools.

Also, why is it outdated? Did I miss something? This seems to simply be a de jure objection. After all, “outdated” things are bad… right? Well, let’s think about why. Is it because it is old? And new ideas are correct? This is nothing more than chronological snobbery. The antiquity of an idea or the recency of an idea does not determine the truth of said idea. Perhaps Adam might argue that Christianity cannot be believed because it differs from what we now know about the world. But isn’t that just begging the question?

I also would like to know who is doing the controlling? I won’t argue that religion can and has been used as a means of control. But consider the Reformed doctrines of the priesthood of the believers and sola scriptura, decentralizing ecclesiastical power. Not to mention congregationalism. Who exactly is doing the controlling?

It seems to me that those most likely to wield it for personal gain are the least likely actually to be convinced of the thing. Consider a secretly atheistic leader wielding religion as a means of control, such as Machiavelli instructed, saying “it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived” and of faith that “it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.” (Chapter 18 of the Prince)

Is the truthfulness of a religion at stake in this situation? No. Or is it that the controlling is being viewed as bad? But, which are we to think is bad in this situation? The atheistic dictator controlling the masses for his own gain, or the instrument he uses? Perhaps it would also help, when thinking this situation through, to point out that “religion” is a word used to characterize a large variety of diverse beliefs – some of which (for example, the Reformed faith, especially in the form of Puritanism) have rebelled against tyrants.

Maybe you object and point out that monarchs have sometimes enforced their beliefs on their subjects under penalty of death. But in that case is the religion the form of control or is the political power (in the form of sword, gallows, stake, etc.) the actual means of control?

By the way, how does this view of religion fit together with it being a collection of evolutionary traits that have ‘misfired’? Is the act of controlling others what has misfired or is it the means of controlling them that is in error? Perhaps this is how unbelief beats out religion via Natural Selection – by controlling others using deceptive means? Probably not – after all, that is actually a form of Republican campaigning atheism perpetuating religion.

What about man fashioning a god after his own prejudices? I definitely think this happens often. After all, Adam also wrote:

Personally I found something that resembles what I like to believe. It’s definition does describe my feeling … [emphasis mine]

Religion is a Cancer

Clifford also wrote:

Religion is dangerous. It’s like cancer on the body of mankind. If the Christian God exists He is bipolar, genocidal, racist, sexist and a supporter of child abuse at best.

This kind of a statement doesn’t surprise me; I expect Dawkins fanboy¹ to follow suit with the name calling.

I’m sure that Clifford would provide passages he thinks support these assertions. But in doing so he certainly isn’t giving an internal critique of Christianity. After all, if he were fully taking on the beliefs of Christianity, then he wouldn’t isolate those passages from the theology that underlays them. The Amalekites being killed would be understood to be under God’s righteous judgement for their sin, not mislabeled as genocide. And things like complementarianism wouldn’t be called sexist because the distinction between value and role would be maintained (as it is in the doctrine of the Trinity).

If he is instead providing an external critique, then I would ask why Christianity is subject to atheistic ethical standards. But I would also like to know on what grounds he can say any of those things are bad. Even if he can provide a reason (which I maintain that atheism can’t), it isn’t obvious how it is to be done. On top of that, it is Clifford making the positive claim, and according to popular atheistic reasoning that means it falls on Clifford to give proof of his claim.

1. Clifford: “Yep indeed. My hero of atheism was once a guy by name of Sam Harris, but Dawkins makes Harris seem like an idiot, and Harris is pretty brilliant. Richard Dawkins wrecks shop in the religious debate.”

You may have heard the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” While I think that’s garbage, I do think there is something to two parties who have a common foe working together with each other. I advocate what Francis Schaeffer called co-belligerency. Because the gospel and theology is involved, I cannot simply join with parties opposed to Christianity or teaching another gospel. But I can work with them to fight a common enemy so long as clear and strong distinctions are made so that the gospel is clearly articulated and not compromised.

So how does that work itself out?

First and foremost, it means that we clearly articulate the gospel and the theological motivations and reasons for abolishing human abortion. At the forefront of this is the idea that we are created in the image of God. That might sound ambiguous at first; what does that even mean? Doesn’t the Bible simply state that a couple of times without explaining what it entails?

Actually, the whole Bible is about the image of God. For Christ is the “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and all of the Scriptures are about Jesus (Luke 24:27). You may think that I am cheating – after all, does it mean the same thing to say that Christ is the image of God as it does to say that we were made in the image of God? Paul tells us that Christians were “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29) and that just as we have borne the ”image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:49).

Man was made in the image of God, but he fell. The image isn’t gone, but it is distorted. In fact, the reason we are not to murder (Genesis 9:5-6) or curse one another (James 3:9-10) is because we are made in God’s image. The image is marred from sin; we don’t accurately represent God. Instead of glorifying God as we ought, we produce a horrifying lie. So it is that when we sin and “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), we sin against God alone (Psalm 51:4) when we ought to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

This is where the gospel comes into play. We are by nature children of wrath, enemies of God (Ephesians 2:1-4) and are the objects of God’s wrath (Romans 2:6-11). But we cannot please God (Romans 8:7; 14:23) or be in right standing before God by our own doing, for ”by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:17). So how can anyone be saved? “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:16-30). God showed his love for us by giving his son (Romans 5:8), who bore our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and took the Father’s wrath so that we would be redeemed (Isaiah 53:10; Romans 3:21-26; 5:9). The gospel and our redemption is not limited to our being declared righteous in the courtroom of God, but also to make us holy (Titus 2:11-14) - restoring the fallen image!

And so it is that through the gospel, when men are given new hearts they have a concern for the glory of God, which is the purpose of their redemption (Ezekiel 36:22-32). Entailed in their new affections for Christ is the pursuit of the knowledge of God (Titus 1:1-3); that is, knowing the content of the image, revealed chiefly through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). There is also a concern for the image bearers (Matthew 5:43-48; James 1:27), especially for those who are afflicted and receiving injustice (Psalm 82:3-4). And, on top of all of this, God has adopted us (Romans 8:14-17) and so it is that as imitators of God, we are ardent supporters of adoption.

Secondly, after the gospel and theology is articulated, there needs to be a consistency maintained among those who profess to be redeemed by Christ. This means that doctrine is not compromised, but it also means that the motivation, methodology, and the standard to which we hold ourselves must be maintained.

Our motivation is the glory of God. Secondary motivations that are derived from our primary one includes the concern for the welfare of the father, mother, and child. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because I called them secondary or derivative motivations that they are somehow not real or unimportant. Nor is there reason to think of it as a cold and calculated duty. Revisiting the gospel for a moment, God gives the redeemed more than just commands; he gives them a new heart, his Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; John 14:15-17; Romans 8:1-17; Ephesians 1:11-14), and “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).  So it is God who commands us, and God who is in us, providing us with the desires and abilities to carry out his commands (Philippians 2:12-13). So it is not merely out of a distanced sense of duty, but actually out of desire and concern that we set about this work.

We care for all of the people involved. The baby is the most at risk physically, but that does not mean that he/she is the only one affected. We believe that it is better to suffer evil than to commit evil and are concerned about the parents as well as the child. And in the unfortunate situation where a mother must raise a child alone, we know there are difficulties and challenges with that and want to help in those situations. The abolitionist view is not a reductionist view, nor is it just the condemnation of evil without the promotion of good.

Our methodology is based on Scripture. In our efforts of seeking to abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good (Romans 12:9), we must recognize what evil is and what good is.

We know that God is good, that there is no evil in him, and that all good things come from him (James 1:17). In Christ is life, and all there is nothing that exists apart from his that does not exists because of him (John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:8-12). God depends on nothing outside of himself  and he is the source of life (Acts 17:22-31). He exists as the triune God, independent, self-sufficient, subject to nothing outside of himself – the very fountains of goodness and life, the person of the Godhead have communion with each other independent of creation.

It is this God who chose to create and to give life, goodness, and even meaning itself to us. He is the one who designed and governs creation. His creation is dependent on him, even for meaning (Ecclesiastes). And so when we talk about what is good, we must not imagine that we can find some other source of goodness besides God. If we place our standard of goodness somewhere other than God, we will be exchanging the creator with creation, wrongly placing the source of goodness in the finite and derivative good and no longer have an absolute standard. In short, we can’t make this compromise, but must make God and his word the final reference authority of what is right and good.

And if people object, or propose an alternative? Then we interact with those arguments the way that Scripture tells us to – according to Christ (Colossians 2:1-10). We interact wisely, which begins with the fear of the lord (Psalm 111:10) and learn and rely on Scripture, which is sufficient to train us for our task (2 Timothy 3:10-16). When someone objects, we remain faithful to God’s word rather than joining their foolishness (Proverbs 26:4), and we show them the folly of what they have proposed (Proverbs 26:5).

We recognize that there is a difference between the wisdom of God and the so-called wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 2). And so, we make both the content of the answer and the way we answer follow what we are instructed from Scripture. We don’t resort to the practice of, nor do we argue for secular ethics. But it also means that we do not rely on “natural law.” It isn’t that we don’t think there is such a thing, per se. But we recognize that it is not a product of nature itself, but the general revelation of God, and we know that the natural man will suppress this truth (Romans 1:18-32) and will cast it into a non-Christian context that results in his favor. Special revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (the knowledge of God given to all) should be used in unison, not separately.

We act according to righteousness, repenting when we sin (Matthew 3:8,10). We know that God is sovereign and so we pray and rely on his providence (1 Peter 3:12). If we truly believe that God is sovereign and that prayer isn’t some therapeutic exercise – that is, if we believe the Bible – then we will pray and rely on God to work. But you ought not swim in an ocean of sin and be deluded into thinking that God will rush to the aid of your cause. For your prayers can be hindered (1 Peter 3:7), but God will attend to the prayers of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29).

We do not advocate a gradual, incremental approach. We believe the methods by which sin and righteousness work are fundamentally different. While sin may ensnare and eat away at righteousness gradually, the call to repentance and righteousness is sharp and immediate. Just as a sickness does not need to affect all parts of the body in order to cause illness, or destroy all organs to cause death, so sin is content with entering in gradually. And yet health requires sickness to be removed or cured in all areas at once. We do not see the Prophets or Christ calling for incremental change, but for immediate repentance, turning from sin to God. So we too will call for immediate and complete change, knowing that a compromise between righteousness and wickedness is not in favor of righteousness, and also knowing that God judges not only individuals but nations as well.

Finally, what do we say of the non-Christian who seeks to end abortion? It is a fine and good thing for him or her to oppose this evil. We will welcome the help. However, do not be surprised if our arguments part ways at certain points. We have an entirely different ethical framework.

Do we say that you cannot oppose abortion unless you are a Christian? No. Non-Christian can and do know right from wrong. This isn’t to say that non-Christians have a perfect or exhaustive knowledge of right and wrong or that they will always acknowledge what is right and wrong. They may know right from wrong and they may argue vehemently on the correct side of things. What we would maintain, however, is that they cannot give an account of right and wrong. That is, when asked why a thing is right or wrong, they will come up short, giving an arbitrary or self-defeating answer.

We welcome their help, but with an understanding that we have separate and distinct worldviews. We aren’t going to compromise our beliefs in order to develop a common set of beliefs among us; our commonality is primarily in our opposition to abortion. And if you have not understood the previous paragraphs, let me state it plainly: we have different motivations and reasons for opposing abortion than non-Christians.

Can non-Christians and Christians both oppose abortion? Yes. Can both hold signs opposing abortion? Yes. Can they both distribute fliers? Yes. Can they both do creative things to influence the culture? Yes. Can they both convince others to oppose abortion? Yes. Can they both vote? Yes. Can they both honor God and confront people with the person of Christ? No. Can they both give an account for why abortion is evil? No.

If you aren’t Christian, but oppose abortion, then by all means oppose abortion! We too will oppose it! We can both do things to oppose it. Just don’t be surprised if we don’t share the same presuppositions or if we present the gospel to you.

In Chapter 3 of So Great Salvation, Charles Ryrie addresses straw men. He tells us that lordship proponents will sometimes misrepresent the no-lordship position and wants to address these straw men. He gives us four of them; let’s examine each one.

Straw Man 1 
The Gospel is a sterile set of facts to which we need only give intellectual assent in order to be saved.

This is an important one to examine. There are more grievances, I think, between the two views than this, but this is one of the central ones. And though I have never used the word ‘sterile’, I often accuse the no-lordship position as being one of intellectual assent. That is, I often say the no-lordship side turns the gospel into an agreement of propositions. What does Ryrie say?

This is the accusation leveled against those who do not hold to so-called lordship/discipleship/mastery salvation. They are accused of teaching that intellectual assent to a set of facts is sufficient for salvation. Sometimes this is labeled “decisional” salvation, for all one needs to do is make an intellectual decision confirmed perhaps by a formula prayer. No one can be saved, says the lordship position, “by a casual acceptance of the facts regarding Jesus Christ.”

I think he fairly represents the lordship position here.

He goes on to say that “What makes this a straw man are words like sterile, intellectual assent, and casual.” When I first read this I immediately understood why he would object to words like ‘sterile’ and ‘casual’. What piqued my interest is why he would object to ‘intellectual assent’. He explains:

Do these basic facts about the Gospel require only a casual, academic, or intellectual acceptance in order for one to be saved? Not if one defines faith as the Greek dictionary does: to “be convinced of something” or to “give credence to.” Specifically, to believe in the Gospel is “to put one’s trust in” the Gospel. Being convinced of something or putting one’s trust in the Gospel could hardly be said to be a casual acceptance of something. When a person gives credence to the historical facts that Christ died and rose from the dead and the doctrinal fact that this was for his sins, he is trusting his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths.

And so it is that Ryrie confirms the very “straw man” he seeks to dispose. Consider what intellectual assent is. It is the mental or cognative affirmation of the truth of certain propositional statements. Ryrie says he is not advocating this as what he means by saving faith. Instead, he contrasts his view with mental assent by insisting that by faith he means ‘trust’. I have heard this many times from no-lordship advocates, so I take it as a fair representation.

So, no-lordship advocates say that faith is trust, I say that faith is trust… its all settled then, right?  Not at all – what do they mean by trust? Ryrie means that “he is trusting his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths,” and that he is “convinced of” the “historical facts.” How does this differ from intellectual assent? Well, Ryrie doesn’t exactly make it clear, but he might argue that intellectual assent is believing facts to be true and saving faith is banking your eternal destiny on the truth of those facts.

Is my ‘eternal destiny’ the result of my belief or the reason for my belief? Do I trust the ‘historical facts’ in order to be saved, or because I am convinced they are true?  Perhaps I am convinced they are true, so I trust them for my salvation. Ryrie seems to advocate something along the lines of:

Proposition 1: I believe x to be true.
Proposition 2: Those who believe x to be true will be saved.
Result: I will trust that I am secure because of propositions 1 and 2.

As far as I can tell, the ‘trust’ or being “convinced of something” that Ryrie advocates is only different from what he considers intellectual assent by addition of a proposition. He would consider Proposition 1 to be mental assent, whereas both Propositions 1 & 2 are the object of his trust.

There is a distinction there, but I view it as a pitiful one. It doesn’t actually escape the charge of mental assent (it is still a mere belief in the truth of propositions). Now, one might object that I am simply stating things in terms of propositions and showing that Ryrie’s trust is mere affirmation of these. But this isn’t just a clever shifting from an object to its representation. He actually designates the trust as an acceptance of “historical facts,” “doctrinal fact,” and “the reliability of those truths.”

What is more, it distorts the object of faith, the substance or definition of saving faith, and the purpose of salvation. The object of our faith (what we put our trust in) should be Christ himself. And while that involves believing in historical facts, it entails much more than that. The definition of saving faith should not be limited to an act of the intellect. Saving faith is also an act of the will and a change in our desires and affections, wherein we change from being enemies of God to friends of God, from hating Christ to loving Christ. And finally, salvation is not about our “eternal destiny” but about Christ redeeming a people for himself. You might think that I am mincing words on the last point, but there is an important difference. Our redemption isn’t limited to our future in heaven, but begun here in this life including both our regeneration and our sanctification. I’ll address this more in future posts.

I think it is safe to say that I have explained not only why it is fair to continue to label the no-lordship position as intellectual assent. After all, Ryrie reduces our faith to a minimum of an act of the intellect, whereas I say it is also an act of the will, which would then necessarily result in affecting our actions. Not only has Ryrie not shown this to be a straw man, but he has shown just how stark a contrast the two views are.

Straw Man 2
A carnal Christian is someone who is saved but who shows nothing of the outworking of his salvation. Or, a true believer can be carnal all of his Christian life and never produce fruit.

Ryrie explains why this is a straw man:

What makes this a straw man are phrases like “shows nothing” or “all of his Christian life.” That a Christian can be characterized as carnal cannot be denied, simply because the text of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 says there were carnal believers at Corinth. Paul addresses these people as “bretheren” and “babes in Christ” in verse 1 [NKJV], then he describes them as “men of flesh” and “fleshly” in verses 1 and 3. So there were carnal or fleshly Christians in Paul’s day.

What characterizes such Christians? Paul says they walk as mere men (verse 3), that is, like unsaved people. That does not mean that they were in fact not believers; Paul addresses them as believers. But it does indicate that believers may live like unsaved people. To be sure, Christians are not supposed to live like unsaved people, but the reality is that some do.

There are two intimately related, but nevertheless distinct, issues at hand that Ryrie here confuses. What is interestng about this situation is that Ryrie’s position necessitates a radical distinction between the two. The two issues are the visible outworking of salvation and bearing fruit. We know from Matthew 6:3-4 that we can do good works in secret; in fact, we are encouraged to in those verses.

In this book, Ryrie affirms that true believers will produce fruit. So it is true to say that anyone saying Ryrie thinks they don’t have to produce any fruit is setting up a straw man. But what about the “carnal Christian” idea? Ryrie is correct that in 1 Corinthians 3, there are believers that are called carnal. That isn’t the point of contention. I will address carnality in a future post, when we arrive at Ryrie laying out what is meant.

Right now, what I wish to focus on is whether or not this is a straw man. The first line in the so-called straw man says that a ‘carnal’ Christian “is someone who is saved but who shows nothing of the outworking of his salvation” [emphasis mine]. Skipping ahead to Chapter 5, you’ll notice that this does seem to be compatible with what Ryrie writes. For he says:

Second, this does not mean that a certain person’s fruit will necessarily be outwardly evident. Even if I know the person and have some regular contact with him, I still may not see his fruit.

So, Ryrie says that even though a believer must bear fruit we may never see it. So, it isn’t true that the whole thing is a straw man. But what about the part saying that a ‘carnal’ Christian may be ‘carnal’ all of his life? Is that a straw man? It depends on what Ryrie means by carnal.

Ryrie writes:

But let’s be clear. Even if a believer could be characterized as carnal all of his life, that does not mean that he is carnal in all areas of life. Nor does that mean he will not bear some spiritual fruit during his life. Every believer will bear some fruit. But that is the subject of another chapter.

Here he may actually allow that a beliver may be carnal all his life. He isn’t taking a hard line stance against it at any rate. By arguing that a someone characterized as carnal may not be carnal in all areas, he is essentially saying that someone can both bear fruit and be charcterized as carnal, making the statement that a “true believer can be carnal all of his Christian life” compatible both with his assertions that a believer must bear fruit and with his assertion that it may never be visible. So, according to that, this isn’t a straw man either.

Now, I want to be fair. Ryrie does continue on:

This straw man eliminates the work, if not the presence, of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. As long as the Spirit lives within, no believer can show nothing of the work of salvation and thus be totally carnal all of his life.

I’m not entirely sure what he means by saying that the straw man eliminates the work and/or presence of the Holy Spirit; but I think he means it doesn’t take into account that the no-lordship side believes in the work and presence of the Holy Spirit. Here he seems to contradict what he says in Chapter 5. Which are we to believe, that no beliver can show nothing of the work of the Holy Spirit, or that a person’s fruit is not by necessity outwardly evident?

When someone holds to two contradictory doctrines (and in this case it is actually contradictory, not merely apparently or seemingly contradictory), I look to see which one has priority. After all, many people hold contradicting beliefs. Some waffle back and forth in their applications. What seems to be more often the case, though, is that people act on one belief and give lip-service to the other. I’ll examine this in Ryrie in later posts.

In the meantime, you can see how it isn’t clear that saying that someone can be carnal all their life is a straw man. All that remains of the original quote which can be said to be thrown up as a straw man is that a believer can remain entirely fruitless his whole life.

Straw Man 3
If something was taught by the early church, then it must be true. If a teaching is more recent, then its truthfulness is at least suspect, if not untrue.

Ryrie may be constructing a bit of a straw man himself. The issue isn’t just the absence then emergence of a teaching in history. If I were to build doctrine on top of what the church has taught for centuries past it is one thing. To teach something in contradiction to what has been taught for centuries past is another. True, it does not negate a thing to find it absent or even contradicted in church history. But surely Ryrie would not suggest that the gospel was first articulated correctly by Dallas Theological Seminary! It seems to me that if we do believe that this issue concerns articulating the gosple correctly, that God works providentially, and that he cares for his church, that we would not find the correct position to be a novelty. So, while the newness or antiquity of a doctrine does not determine its age, it should at least be given consideration and may be a cause for concern.

Ryrie addresses it this way:

Of course, the smoke screen this straw man and its mate throw up can be easily dispelled. The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth or twentieth century does not make it wrong, unless, of course, such teaching is clearly unscriptural. Baptismal regeneration was taught in the early centuries, but it is wrong. The majority of the church doesn’t practice immersion. Does that make a belief in immersion wrong? Today, the majority of the church is not premillennial (believing in Christ’s return for His church before his earthly reign). Does that make that doctrine wrong? The ransom-to-Satan theory regarding Christ’s atonement (i.e., that in His death Christ paid a ransom to Satan) was taught in the early church. Does that make it right?

I think it is Ryrie here who is throwing up smoke and straw men. I know of no one in this debate who is making history the standard of truth instead of Scripture. He goes on:

The antiquity or recency of a teaching and the number of people who are for or against it make for an interesting study, but neither factor proves or disproves the truth of that teaching.

The charge of newness was leveled against the teachings of the Reformers. With characteristic straightforwardness, John Calvin responded to it this way:

First, by calling it “new” they do a great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty… That it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man’s impiety. Now when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claims to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery.

I find it fascinating that he quotes Calvin to support his case. Ryrie quotes the “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France” from the Institutes. And while Calvin’s ultimate standard of truth and the basis of his teaching is Scripture, he does counter the Papist claim that the church history was on their side in the fourth section, titled “Misleading Claim that the Church Fathers Oppose the Reformation Teaching.” Calvin starts:

 Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory – to put it very modestly – would turn to our side.

So, yes, Scripture is to be the ultimate standard of truth. However, that does not mean we ignore church history. Calvin starts by pointing to the Scripture as the root of Protestant doctrine, but nevertheless sees it important enough to show that the Protestants were not alone in the history of the church.

Ryrie is wrong to limit Calvin’s response to the charge of newness by only referring to Scripture. But sometimes one can give the wrong impression by lifting even an exact quote from it’s context. Speaking of which…

Straw man 4
Quoting from someone exactly (as indicated by quotation marks around the quote) guarantees an accurate representation of what the person believes.

Ryrie immediately follows this by saying, “That is what proponents of lordship salvation sometimes do when they lift from context quotes by those who hold a position contrary to their own.” He further explains that, “It is not difficult to extract a quotation from its context and make it seem to say what you wanted it to say rather than what the author intended it to say and what in fact it does say.”

Fair enough. This sometimes happens. I don’t think this happens as often as on the lordship side as Ryrie would make it seem. But perhaps there is something more important to notice. This isn’t a straw man. It may be a method used to bolster straw men, but it isn’t one itself.

Your ticket out of Hell, Part 1
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 2
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 3
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 4

In Chapter 2 of So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie, I don’t have much to disagree with. In fact, I wish that many on the no-lordship side would heed his words and give careful thought to the way they present the gospel. For Jesus says in Matthew 12:36-37,

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And James  tells us that “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”¹ Proverbs tells us that ”death and life are in the power of the tongue”² and Ecclesiastes tells us to “be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God,”³ for it is better to listen than to offer a sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do evil. Proverbs chapter 10 tells us that:

When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent. The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth.⁴

and that

The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse.⁵

At the end of Job, God tells Eliphaz the Temanite, one of Job’s friends, that “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” I think you get the picture – our words should be carefully chosen, as well wise and speaking rightly of God. Our words should be like “choice silver.”

And yet, many people are lazy or sloppy. They are unconcerned about their language or try to justify their lack of clarity or precision. Ryrie comments on this, saying:

How often I have heard the retort, “It’s only a matter of semantics.” In my experience it usually came from students using it as a defense mechanism to justify a poor answer to a question. And usually the question involved defining or explaining carefully the meaning of a biblical doctrine or concept. “A matter of semantics” was supposed to excuse fuzzy thinking and a poor, if not wrong, choice of words.

Indeed, he goes on to talk about clarity in evangelism:

Some give a wrong message; others, an unclear one. But we must strive to use the words that give a clear witness to the grace of God. It is not that God cannot use an unclear message; doubtless He does this more often than He would prefer to. But why should He have to? Why don’t we sharpen our understanding of what the Gospel is about so that we can present it as clearly as possible, using the right words to herald the Good News correctly?

And so it is that I would like to address some very common problems I see in gospel presentations.

Accept Jesus

I am always a bit vexed when I hear someone tell a lost person to “accept Jesus” or “accept Christ.” Colossians 2:6 does say that “as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him.” So what’s the big deal? Don’t receive and accept mean the same thing? While accept can mean “to receive willingly,” it can also mean ”to give admittance or approval to.”⁶ Even in the first definition, the connotation is different from receive. I can say that I received a gift and it is clear that a gift was given and I now posses the gift. But, if I say that I accepted a gift, it comes with the idea of my approval in the interaction; that I thought highly enough of either the gift or the giver to take it.

At this point, you may still ask: so what? Aren’t you nitpicking? I don’t think so. Certainly, I would want to convey that I think highly of both the giver and the gift! However, along with this idea is that if the gift did not meet my standards, I could have shunned it and turned it down. Now, of course many people snub their noses and Christ and the gospel all the time. But should we use this language that puts Christ in position to be judged by the person? Is it in reality us who are to be judged by Christ? Are we not in need of his acceptance?

Our choices of words often shape how our message comes across. In person-to-person interaction, there are obvious things that affect our communicated meaning, such as our tone of voice. But the words we use set the tone as well. And so I propose we stop subtly telling the non-believer that their decision sits on high, and that Christ is in need of their approval. Instead, let us use our words to place them before Christ as he is on his throne and show them the dreadful picture of his judgement, along with his splendor and majesty!

Ask Jesus into your heart

 This one is incredible. Nowhere in the Bible is this even remotely put forth as a presentation of the gospel.  Where does this come from? What passage do people cite to justify this? Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Supposedly Jesus stands and knocks at the door of unbeliver’s hearts (or perhaps the door is the heart), and pleas that you let him in.  Is this how Scripture portrays Jesus, as weak and helpless against the hard hearts of unbelievers? No. It seems that he is painting a different picture, such as portrayed in Luke 12:35-37 and perhaps even alluding to that parable.

In Luke 12:35-37, Jesus tells the disciples:

Stay dressed for actionand keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks.  Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them.

Jesus is describing himself as a master returning from the wedding feast to his servants. A master needs no invitation into his own home. And Christ’s servants know his voice and come when he calls (John 10:3,4). You do not want to be like the servant who was caught unaware and in disobedience, who Christ “will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful!” Notice that his coming isn’t that of someone being converted by recieving Christ, but of faithful servants awaiting their master’s return and the others being punished.

 This makes much more sense than him warning the Laodicean church, saying, “I will spit you out of my mouth,” telling them to “be zealous and repent,” all before letting them know he is just waiting for an invitation into their hearts! No, Christ had all authority to be in the Laodicean Church (which is the context of Revelation 3:14-22) and his servants are to stand ready for when they hear his voice.

Now, consider something further. If Revelation 3:20 is about being saved by “asking Jesus into your heart”, why is it placed in th letter as it is? Why is there – according to you – a gospel call in the middle of his describing “those whom I love” and “the one who conquers?” Why would it follow: “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent?”

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life

This may be one of the worst evangelistic lines I know about. First of all, it is usually used to bypass dealing with the real issues of sin, guilt, wrath, etc. Secondly, the unregenerate mind isn’t likely going to understand this line in any biblical manner. After all, why wouldn’t God love them; they love themselves, why shouldn’t God? He has a wonderful plan for their life? Good! They have a wonderful plan for their life!

But, some lost people will get upset when they hear this. And I’m inclined to sympathize with them. He has a wonderful plan for my life? What about starving kids in Africa? What about rape victims? This line paints God as planning a life of ease for you. Most people – and certainly lost people – don’t think of a “wonderful plan” in terms of the fulfillment of God’s purposes, specifically by him redeeming a people for himself to his praise and glory. But what is worse is that many of the people who are giving people this line don’t mean it in the right sense either! Yes, it is true that everything is made for the Lord’s purpose. But wrapped up in that is that he made “the wicked for the day of trouble.”⁷

And while I sympathize with the non-believers who ridicule this message, it isn’t because I think that God is evil or that the problem of evil is a valid critique of Christian theism. What I hate is the false ideal that is presented in this message. Did God have a wonderful plan for Pharaoh? I do think that God’s plan is wonderful, but when you add “for your life” to the mix it gives the impression that the person in question is going to like and enjoy it. But that person could be raised up for destruction, or perhaps they become repentant and are tortuously killed as a martyr. This isn’t what normally comes to mind when people hear the term “wonderful.”

Suppose you still insist that you can say “God has a wonderful plan for your life” because you don’t support the “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” and you understand what is means. It seems to me that if someone understands that life is full of sorrows and that even the righteous are afflicted, but presents this line to the non-believer nonetheless then they are simply guilty of a bait-and-switch tactic. I’m glad we evangelize like used car salesmen.

Using a “Survey” to share the gospel

This isn’t so much a matter of word choice as a matter of approach, but I think this criticism is still worth bringing up in the spirit of presenting the gospel rightly. I have seen many people go out and use a questionnaire sheet. They approach the person and explain that they are taking a survey and ask if they can ask them a few questions. Yet I have never seen anyone using this method compile the data they recorded for analysis. In fact, some people don’t even write down the answers they receive! In short, they aren’t taking a survey, it’s a gimmick and misleading if not deceitful.

But sometimes – perhaps often – it is even worse than that. Sometimes it makes me almost wish it was a bait-and-switch… Some people will go through the “survey” and that is the extent of what they do. There isn’t much, if any, substantive or meaningful dialog or interaction. 

Look, treat people like people. Everyone sins and is naturally in rebellion against God. Everyone needs to understand their depravity and need for the cross. They need Jesus. However, different people rebel in different ways and believe different lies. They have different misconceptions and will use different tactics to avoid being confronted with the person of Christ. Sticking to a formulaic list of questions isn’t going to address people’s needs.

I have similar qualms about using tracts. I am not anti-tract. However, I have seen people simply read tracts to people as the whole of their sharing the gospel. If the person can read and you’re giving them the tract, why read it to them? If you were going to discuss the tract or answer their questions it might make sense; though, I still don’t see why you wouldn’t put it in your own words. But just reading it to them and giving it to them seems somewhat laborious and insulting to me. Or it comes across as if you don’t know what you’re doing or talking about.

Let’s say that you don’t know what you are doing when it comes to evangelism. Should you adopt the survey or reading-them-a-tract method to become familiar and comfortable with evangelism? I don’t think so. Find a solid believer and talk with them about it. Go out and share the gospel with them. Role-play with them. Don’t neglect reading the Word, either! The Bible tells us to spread the gospel and does not do so without also being able to prepare us to for it. If you are having trouble even with that, feel free to contact me and I’ll see how I can help. You don’t have to resort to gimmicks or cookie-cutter scripts.

Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.

No! Wrong.

This is often attributed to Francis of Assisi. However, the actual source of this saying is unknown. Either way, this is a bad saying: use words! Nowhere in the Bible does it ever command or commend spreading the gospel without the use of words. In fact, when speaking about the gospel in his letter to the Romans, Paul writes:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. ((Romans 10:14-16))

The world was created by God through speaking, Christ is called the Word at the beginning of the Gospel of John. Jesus used words. Peter used words. Paul used words. John the Baptist used words. Look throughout the Bible and see how often the spreading of the gospel is connected with preaching. Use words!

The Bridge / Reconciliation model

If I haven’t already burned enough bridges in this post, this one is sure to make some people upset (which is not my goal, by the way). Before I dig into what I think is an issue here, let me be clear that I don’t have a problem per se with someone using the bridge illustration. So, Navigators can put down their torches and pitchforks (although, some of them might want to keep them handy!).

The Bridge illustration tells us that we are separated from God by sin and that Christ and the cross is how we can be reconciled to God. True enough. But what usually ends up happening in this presentation is that the nature of sin is downplayed, and the justice of God either isn’t mentioned or is made to look unfortunate instead of right and good (never-mind the wrath of God!).

Look, it isn’t that we have sinned and it’s unfortunate; that we simply can’t make it to God and somehow we are reconciled by Christ. This downplays that we are enemies of God and the recipients of his wrath. Don’t present the state of man as being merely distanced from God. It is closer to the way that North and South Korea are separated… by war. We are rebels and our rightful king is both angered and just. 

Just also consider that people usually don’t fall under conviction when looking at this diagram. As far as I can tell, it isn’t even designed with that in mind. No, it presents mankind with a problem that is overcome by Christ, rather than showing us to be self-righteous and wicked.

 One final note about the bridge: people often use it like they use tracts, avoiding actual conversation.

Conclusion

How we present the gospel is important. We need to represent Christ rightly. That doesn’t mean you need a PhD in English, but it may mean that you meditate on God’s word and are slow to speak. Don’t use cheap tricks, just talk with people.

Your ticket out of Hell, Part 1
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 2
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 3
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 4

1. James 1:26
2. Proverbs 18:21
3. Ecclesiastes 5:2
4. Proverbs 10:19-20
5. Proverbs 10:31-32
6. See the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
7. Proverbs 16:4

So begins the review of So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie:

Chapter 1

Ryrie begins this chapter with a story about taking some children camping and catching some of them breaking the rules. After, or perhaps while, reflecting on Ephesians 4:32, he records this inner dialog:

But, Lord, I can’t forgive them; they don’t deserve it.

Neither did I.

But, Lord, I have to enforce the rules.

I’m glad, Lord, You didn’t.

God didn’t enforce the rules?!

Let’s stop right here, for a moment. This is a serious error; one that confuses what Christ did at the cross. The law was upheld, the rules enforced, which is why the atonement was needed and why Paul says it ”was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”¹ And this is why he goes on to ask, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Ryrie does acknowledge a little later in the chapter that grace is “free to the recipient but costly to the donor.” Why is it costly to the donor? Because God enforces the rules. Justice was met at the cross. Colossians 2:13-14 says:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

It is good and right to affirm that the giving of grace cost Christ his life, but let’s not forget why. God is just and will by no means clear the wicked.

Not only does Ryrie miss or overlook this essential aspect of the atonement, but he also applies it to his situation. He doesn’t enforce the rules. Isn’t this one of the major contentions in this controversy? Enforcing the rules, expecting obedience to Christ? Perhaps the aversion to church discipline on the no-lordship side is, in some cases, symptomatic of a wrong view of the work of Christ on the cross.

Ryrie continues:

But, Lord, if I’m too kind, the kids will think I’m weak.

I never thought You were weak, only loving.

But, Lord, first I’ll make them promise never to do something like this again, and then I’ll forgive them.

It’s a good thing You didn’t require that of me, or I never would have been forgiven.

…just as God forgave me.

How was that? No conditions or promises ahead of time. No works at the time. No remembrance allowed.

I’m sure to some this sounds very noble. Unfortunately for them, it’s unbiblical. God forgives the humble, repentant sinner. He does not forgive the person who doesn’t ask for forgiveness and does not forgive the person who merely asks for forgiveness.

Consider Israel during Hosea’s time. In Hosea 6, it seems like Israel is turning back to God and wanting forgiveness, saying:

Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

But what is God’s response?

What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

In chapter 7, God continues his response saying, “they do not consider that I remember all their evil” and that they “do not cry to me from the heart.” Their ultimate problem is that “they return, but not upward.”

It isn’t works, but a real sorrow and turning to God. A stark contrast from Israel in the above passages is Nineveh during Jonah’s time:

Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”

When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.²

They called on God earnestly and turned from their wicked ways. In fact, turning to God and turning from evil are the same thing. Know that “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5)

The chapter goes on, and Ryrie tells us more about grace:

First, grace is unmerited favor.

Fair enough. I think that is a fine definition. But, it will be interesting to see how the no-lordship position understands this unmerited favor. For example, does it mean that God favors you only by not sending you to hell? Does he not necessarily favor you enough to keep you from sin?

Second, grace is not cheap. Grace is expensive. It is free to the recipient but costly to the donor. The only way one may say that grace is not very costly is if the particular benefit costs the donor very little. … But to use the word cheap in the same breath with the grace of God in salvation seems almost blasphemous. It cost our Lord Jesus His life. Some may insult grace, reject it, trample on it, or disgrace it, but that does not lower its infinite value.

I’ve already touched on the reason why grace is expensive: Christ satisfied the wrath of God. However, I refuse to accept that calling Ryrie’s position the “cheap grace” position is blasphemous. No one is calling what Christ actually did cheap, they are calling the no-lordship view of grace cheap.

From day one they had been reared (and so are we all) in a merit system, in which acceptance is based on performance. “Do this and you will be rewarded. Fail to do this and you will be punished.” This kind of merit system permeates all of life and most religions. It is not easy to believe someone who says that he or she will do something good for us that we do not deserve.

That may be. But what Ryrie overlooks is rather staggering. The natural man is self-righteous. Go talk with a non-Christian at length. And when I say talk, I mean that you avoid being ambigious. When you say “sin” define sin. Explain their guilt. Ask them if they are good. Ask them if they deserve heaven. Sure, maybe you find someone who says they are evil and expects to be in hell. I think you’ll usually find, though, that those people think well of their fate. The average pagan isn’t resisting the gospel because they think it just isn’t possible that Christ would be that merciful. They are ungrateful to God, and think it insulting that someone would suggest that they are as undesvering and guilty as the Bible says! As Paul tells us, it is “because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself.”³

Ryrie continues on to talk about grace and works:

Water baptism could be one such work if I view it not as an important or even necessary result of being saved, but as a requisite to be saved. It is a work even if I insist that it is God who gives me the desire to want to be baptized that I might be saved.

The same is true for surrender. If surrender is something I must do as a part of believing, then it is a work, and grace has been diluted to the extent to which I actually do surrender.

I agree with him on baptism not being a requisite to being saved. But then he brings in surrender. What is surrender? If we are to take surrender as a military term, then what choice do we have but to surrender if we are to change from enemy to friend? Notice that Ryrie doesn’t allow that surrender could be an aspect of saving faith, but for some reason he doesn’t give labels it a work. I think his view of faith needs to be thoroughly examined in light of what the Bible says concerning faith.

If I am baptized and I rely on that baptism for my justification or propitiation or regeneration, then yes, it is obviously self-righteousness. But the second scenario Ryrie sets up is considering surrender (an act of the will) as a part of faith (also an act of the will, as well as an act of the intellect), then calling it works. Why? If surrender is a part of faith, or synonymous with faith, how is it a work? It might make sense if he sees faith as an act of the intellect rather than an act of the will – but that would reduce faith to intellectual assent. Then, he argues that surrender itself dilutes grace! What an absolutely horrendous idea! He ought to at least argue that trust in my act of surrender dilutes grace.

I wonder what Ryrie would think about people trusting the “Sinner’s prayer.” I’ll come back to that, though.

I would also add that it seems Ryrie doesn’t think that you can fully surrender. And, if you follow his arguments in later chapters, it would seem that you then can’t even say “I surrender” with any confidence whatsoever. I want all such no-lordship advocates to give up singing “I Surrender All.” And I’m not being cute – stop singing it. You don’t mean it, you don’t believe it.

Fourth, grace that is received changes one’s life and behavior.

As you’ll see, he will readily say this, but doesn’t actually believe it.

Your ticket out of Hell, Part 1
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 2
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 3
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 4

1. Romans 3:26
2. Jonah 3:5-10
3. Romans 2:5

First, I don’t think it is unloving to correct or rebuke someone. Yes, if done with the wrong motives and done in a mean way it is bad. But, many people who are corrected lovingly hate the fact that they are being corrected and percieve it as mean and claim it is unloving. In reality, correction is for the benefit of the person being corrected and no correcting or rebuking them is hateful: Proverbs 27:5 “Better is open rebuke than hidden love.” Verse 6 goes on to say, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”

Second, the Lordship side isn’t out on the prowl looking for trouble. MacArthur wasn’t the first to write about this issue. Also consider that the no-lordship side (which often – and wrongly – refers to itself as the “free grace” position) is a new position. If it does have a predecessor it would be the antinomians – a group I doubt most no-lordship proponents would like to trace their history to. It certainly can trace itself back to the reformation. If it is new to the table, then their side ought not claim that the Lordship side is initiating the debate.

Perhaps you grant that it is the initiator in the debate at large, but accuse Lordship proponents of starting local debates and divisions. And yet, with both parties acknowledging the seriousness of this issue, should local churches shy away from this controversy? I think not.

Third, those on the Lordship side aren’t Inquisitors out to make people miserable if they fail to meet some arbitrary standard. No, there is concern for those caught in sin, and a concern that the gospel go forth as presented in Scripture. It isn’t arrogant to confront sin, and it isn’t arrogant to treat someone as a non-Christian if the Bible tells you to do so.

A bit about terminology

If you don’t already know, I fall on the “Lordship” side of this issue. I don’t particularly like the term “Lordship Salvation”, though – I prefer to call the doctrine by its rightful name: the Gospel. However, for the sake of clarity in this situation, I will readily identify myself on the “Lordship” side.

What is the other side in this debate called? There are many names that have been given to the other side: easy-believism, cheap grace, free grace, no-lordship salvation, antinomianism, and so on. Out of all of these names, the one that the adherants of this position like to use is “Free Grace.” However, the one that I prefer to identify their position by is “No-Lordship Salvation.”

I don’t see a problem with casting their position as the “No-Lordship” position if they identify mine as the “Lordship” position; it seems simple and common-sense. Also, it avoids the more provocative terms of “antinomian”, “cheap grace”, and “easy-believism”.

But what about “Free Grace”?

I will not use “Free Grace” to describe the No-Lordship position, period. Being Reformed and being a Monergist, I believe that our salvation is the work of God, and does not come about by the will or work of man. Grace is free. Man is elected by God for God’s good pleasure, not by virtue of anything man has done, will do, or any sort of attribute to be found within the man. Christ died for sinful men, sinful men who would have gladly diven in the nails given the chance. God’s saving grace was lavished upon rebelious men who did not seek God, opening their eyes to truth they would have otherwise rejected and despised. All men have sinned and their good works cannot undo or cancel out their rebellion. But man’s sin runs deeper than just a matter of works anyway; the heart of man is at emnity with God. And, so it is that the natural man has no good works to present God, just pleasent vices, or “filthy rags”, “poluted garments.” It is on the basis of the work of Christ and his finished work alone that anyone is saved. And, even the means of this salvation – how it is applied (grace and faith) – are gifts. I can say nothing else but that grace is free!

I will, later on, explain why “free grace” is a label that doesn’t fit the other side. In order to avoid accusations of charicatures and straw men, I will go through each chapter of So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie. I will endeaver to be fair – an endeaver that begins by using Charles Ryrie as represenative of the no-lordship side instead of Zane Hodges!

Your ticket out of Hell, Part 1
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 2
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 3
Your ticket out of Hell, Part 4

I understand that some may want to argue on grounds that the other side will readily accept. After all, you want to be persuasive, right? But are you ready to abandon the Christian worldview just for a potentially easier apologetic? When you pit science against religion, or when you insist on arguing without any reference to God, you deny at least one of these things: God’s aseity, his act of creation, or his sovereignty.

God’s aseity is his self-existence. He is self-sufficient and not dependent or subject to anything outside of himself. When God created the world, he the laws that govern the world, and he created man in his own image. However, he didn’t just create the world and let it be, like some wind-up toy. No, God is sovereign over the world; not only does God sustain the world’s existence, but he remains in control of its proceedings, and he certainly maintains authority over the world.

What does that mean for the field of ethics? It means that ethics are derived from God. If God is not the standard of goodness, then when we say that God is good we must mean that God is subject to some law or ideal of goodness outside of himself. But, what if we were to accept that God is the ultimate standard of goodness, but that we can derive our ethics from some sort of created standard of goodness? In other words, rather than make reference to God, we make reference to something in this universe to construct our ethical standards. But, notice that creation has a context and purpose – both derived from God.

Consider for a moment the context of ethical discussion. Is ethics personal or impersonal? Are impersonal things, such as rocks, trees, etc. subject to ethical obligations? Persons, on the other hand are to account for their thoughts, motives, actions, etc. If there is a self-existand God, from whom everything else derives its existence and purpose, then we have an ultimate reality that is personal and we make sense of ethics. Not only that, but we must look to God in order to understand ethics and morality.

So, how does this tie back into science? Why would you avoid theological arguments, in favor of secular ones? I’m not suggesting that you just blithely throw Bible verses in people’s faces and tell them they’re wrong. But what does it say if you refuse to make Bible references or bring theology into the discussion? It severs your message from the Gospel and undercuts your Christian worldview.

But why would a non-Christian listen to you when you talk about God? Maybe they won’t. But consider also that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. There will be those who not change their mind in the face of proof. Nevertheless, the goal is persuasion, right? Yes. However, not persuasion by false or deceptive means. So, it first must be established that we have an obligation to be honest and to reason rightly. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that man is depraved and in rebellion to God (which is ultimately why proof and persuasion are not one and the same) and that only God can change a society. He restrains evil by his grace, but also transforms hearts through the gospel – something that won’t happen if the gospel is not preached.

Abortion is a result of man’s depravity and must be righted by confronting it with the person of Christ. Otherwise, if we abolish human abortion, there will simply be a different and potentially worse expression of rebellion against God. We must also remember that this isn’t just about saving children. Everyone involved in abortion is affected by its evil. Ultimately this is about the glory of God. Those involved in abortion bear the image of God, are the recipients of God’s grace, and we are given the task of loving them and pleading with them to be reconciled to God. Part of loving them is confronting their sin. Committing evil may harm others, but it most directly affects the person committing the evil.

You can’t confront sin without reference to God. Human abortion is sin. If you want to view it as something other than sin, you aren’t going to address the real issue. And if you get mocked for talking about God, so what? Better to be faithful and loving, calling a spade a spade, and getting mocked for it than trying to please the pride of those who massacre children by relying on secular methods. By the way, how well have secular methods worked over the past several decades? Just sayin’.

Present the theological arguments. If you don’t know them… there are plenty of Abolitionists who will gladly help you learn about theology! If people object to your using theology, ask them why? Why is it off-limits? Question their world-view right back! Ask them for their justifications and examine their presuppositions! To accept that references to God are off-limits is to buy into the idea that conversations with non-Christians must be ruled by non-Christian standards.

Ultimately I am arguing for consistency, which coincides with loyalty to Christ and the renewal of our minds and results in the presentation of the Gospel and confronting evil.