/billcarlisle

Meaningless sophistry. That is what characterizes most American preaching today. Why? Because more often than not, it is little more than useless platitudes mixed with worldly wisdom, served with icy, exegesis-void Scripture reading with a splash of emotional manipulation, garnished with a flashy sound and lights show. And we, the American church have become drunk on it! We have become drunk with our lust for “relevant” teaching that tells us how to be a better parent, be a better spouse, manage our finances better, have our best life now, or stop feeling so guilty all the time.

Does not Paul speak of us when he writes to Timothy concerning the last days:

For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. 2 Tim 3:2-5 (ESV)

Or is Paul not also speaking of us when he writes again:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Tim 4:3-4 (ESV)

What happened? A great many of us who are charged with bringing the Word of God to God’s flock are undeniably guilty of dereliction of duty. How? We have refused expository preaching in favor of so much meaningless sophistry. Why? Because we do not believe that the Word of God has power to effect the will of God.

We do not believe God when he says:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. — Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

We do not believe Paul when he declares in the Spirit: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

Brothers why?! Are we mere peddlers of God’s Word? Are we greater than the apostle Paul, who, among the Corinthians (from whom we are not so far removed), resolved to know nothing but Christ and him crucified? I tell you the truth, so much of our preaching has emptied the Cross of its power because our confidence is in our words, that is, our preaching, and not in God’s Word! We have made a fundamental error in our philosophies of preaching: we have attributed primary causality to those things which are secondary, or instrumental causes.

It is not preaching in and of itself which effects the will of God to save men; it is the Word of God, through preaching which effects this. It is the same with our faith. It is not, as so many believe, our faith which saves us, but God’s grace, applied through faith.

So I ask you, where is our confidence, brothers? Is it in our preaching or is it in the Word of God through our preaching? If it is the latter, then we must, without exception, be faithful stewards of the Word and preach it in an expository manner. Why? Because it forces us to bend the knee in humility before God’s Word and lets the Word speak for itself.

I am convinced that a mediocre expository sermon is a hundredfold more useful to God’s people than a dramatic, moving sermon devoid of exposition, because the power of God unto salvation accomplished, ongoing, and future culmination, is in the Word and the Word alone.

Does that mean we do not strive to be good rhetoricians? Not at all! But it does mean that rhetoric and all its corresponding devices must be made subject to the Word of God in all matters. It is not a matter of whether we use rhetoric or not, but rather proper order of priority and subjugation. Ethos and Pathos must be subject to Logos. God has exalted above all things his name and his Word. Let us strive to do likewise in our preaching, brothers, and teach God’s flock what God and his wisdom have to say, not what we or other mere men think is wise.

To those who consistently expose the Word to God’s people, I exhort you to remain faithful to that which God has called you and commend you for abiding there thus far. We have this ministry by the mercy of God. Therefore do not lose heart, brothers.

To those who have fallen into the snare of “relevant” preaching, let us repent before God and renounce our disgraceful, underhanded ways. God is rich in compassion and full of mercy. A broken and contrite heart he will surely not despise. This is the man to whom the Lord will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at his word. So tremble, brothers, and let us repent of our faithlessness in God and his Word and cast ourselves upon his faithfulness, mercy, and grace.

Tags: Uncategorized // 1 Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Tonight my soul was moved and my heart encouraged in the Truth. And it would have been in spite of all that was happening save one thing.

Tonight you, Mr. Preacher, preached the Gospel to me. And this was in stark contrast with the other Mr. Preachers who were present on the stage at various times. You alone, out of all of them, preached Christ and him crucified to me, and not to me only, but to the whole congregation. Therefore I will call you Mr. Gospel-Preacher.

Mr. Gospel-Preacher, tonight you stood up against the backdrop of a myriad of distractions. There were moving images and the sounds of what can only be described as mood music. And your turn to speak came after a man who, instead of comforting me with true knowledge of God’s utter sovereignty from a passage like Matthew 6:25-34 or even a passage which might be a bit of a stretch like Matthew 10:29-31, ripped a quote from Psalm 34, utterly neglecting its contextual meaning.

All of this surrounded your utterance, and yet when you spoke, it was as if there was nothing but the sound of your voice, as that of a herald proclaiming the entrance of a King into his court. You spoke of the King of Glory who loved us in spite of our unworthiness. You spoke of his work on a cross, in which the holy wrath of God against sin was poured onto his mind, body, and soul. You spoke of that blood as being able to cleanse and forgive, to break the chains of slavery to sin.

You preached the Gospel to me, Mr. Gospel-Preacher. And though it might not have been the most eloquent sermon ever preached, there was one thing clear as crystal about your speech: it was unmistakably the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. You alone delivered the message of which God’s flock need constantly to be reminded. You alone gave me a basis for my motivation to righteous works. You alone gave me a basis to believe that God can be faithful. You told me of the Lord Jesus and what he did on my behalf.

Thank you Mr. Gospel-Preacher. You fulfilled the calling of your office this evening. You faithfully executed that with which your Master tasked you. You are to be commended for this.

Thank you Mr. Gospel-Preacher for preaching the Gospel to me. It was what I truthfully needed, whatever else my flesh may have longed to have that evening.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

This past Sunday evening I visited a church to which I had not been in quite some time (nearly a year, in fact). I will not bother to name this church because it is not important, and I would rather that anyone who is familiar with this church not mention it either if they deem this writing worth a response. Instead, I will state at the outset that this church typifies what are the prevailing winds of doctrine and practice in the broader evangelical Church in America, that is, my writing is not addressed only to this specific body, but to all the Church in America.

Though I myself had stopped attending (and started attending Parkside’s evening services) and have encouraged others to do likewise, still many of my friends have continued in that way, some even going so far as to extol what they suppose are its virtues. But without exception, every one of their defenses has been mere sentimental attachment to the place and the people. Now it is not that there is anything inherently wrong with sentimental attachment to places and people. But it must never be the primary basis by which we determine whether or not we ought join ourselves in formal fellowship to a given body and submit ourselves to the authority of the elders thereof.

Some will disagree with my being so forthright about such things. To them I say what Calvin said: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

Still others will disagree with my conclusions or my premises, and they are entitled to do so. To them I say this: as my goal here is toward submission to the Word of God and presenting my case thence, I would encourage, exhort, even demand, that anyone who finds fault with my premises and/or conclusions present their defense in like manner, that is, from the Scriptures. Without further introduction, I present my case for your judgment.

–

Christmas is nearing. Churches all over are busying themselves with pageantry and festivity for the celebration of the coming of the Christ-child, the Advent as it is known. There is great joy for this occasion, and rightly so. It ought to be obvious to anyone who knows and understands the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ why this is such a joyous occasion.

God himself became a man. Christ was made manifest in the flesh and was made known to us by the Spirit. He was made known to us as our Prophet, Priest, and King. And not only this, but he came to bear in himself the iniquity of us all and with it, the wrath of God which is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness. And not only these things, but he came to live a righteous life of perfect obedience and purity. And so it is that we celebrate, because God has come to save sinners, us, his enemies. He has come to fulfill his covenant that was progressively revealed even from the Garden of Eden as he cursed the serpent. He has come that, as he dies some 33 years later upon a Roman cross, the wrath of God is poured out upon the sinless Christ who is become sin for us. He has come in righteousness and obedience that by the conduit of faith God might impute to us the riches of the inheritance which Christ deserves.

Wonder of wonders! That one man could drain the full measure of a holy and just God’s wrath against the sin of millions in a matter of hours, that wrath which would take any other man all of eternity to drain merely for his own sins! THIS is the wonder of Christmas, indeed the wonder of the Gospel, that God would deign to send his own Son to save wretched sinners such as we all are.

This is a glorious message, a message sweeter than honey to proclaim! And yet, this was not the message which was proclaimed to me on Sunday night. No, instead, a flashy video told us that materialistic consumerism is bad (and it most certainly is), but that we want to and can make Christmas more “meaningful,” and that that’s what we should be all about, you know, being more “meaningful,” whatever that means.

Instead of telling us about how Christ came to save sinners from death and hell, a man prattled on about how we should care for the poor and hurting, the neglected and rejected, the outcasts. And the reason for it all? Oh because Jesus did that, of course!

Ok, Mr. Preacher, but why should I even bother to care about what Jesus did? What if I’m perfectly ok with the amount that I engage in philanthropic activity? What then? What more do you have to say to me? Do a little better? Try a little harder? Give a little more?

Does that sound like the Gospel to you, Mr. Preacher? Because if it does, you haven’t been reading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Preacher, this is what the Bible says: it says that all our good works and all our well-meaning sentiments are like filthy menstrual rags in the sight of a holy God. That is a repulsive picture, and rightly so. We are absolutely repulsive in the sight of God because of our sin. Tell me this, Mr. Preacher. What good does it do if I perform all sorts of good deeds and yet die in my sins because I have neither repented nor believed in the justifying sacrifice and righteousness of Jesus Christ? You make me twice a son of hell with the message you proclaim! Instead of penitent sinners falling on the mercy of God, you are creating men and women who are nothing more than whitewashed tombs!

You have not preached the Gospel to them, Mr. Preacher, and you do them a great disservice! How can they appreciate and perceive the fullness of the beauty of the diamond of Christ’s salvation accomplished for us once and for all time on the cross if you have not first brought out the backdrop of the black velvet of our sin against which to view it?

They can not, and what makes your instructions all the more perilous is not that you are exhorting them to engage in overt sin, but that you are encouraging them to do good works without making absolutely clear that any and all truly righteous works of the Christian are ancillary to the Gospel!

To borrow another metaphor, the mistake you are allowing, yes even encouraging by your silence on the nature of our sinfulness, is that men and women will leave your service thinking that they just have to bring their grade up a bit — they just need to get that D- to a C, or maybe a C to a B+, but that’s all. And the truth according to God’s Word is this: no one save Jesus Christ has anything other than an F! The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God! Further it says that among the sons of men there is no one righteous, not even one! There is no one who seeks after God. Mr. Preacher, the true Gospel is this: I have an F, but Jesus has gotten an A and says to the Father “I’ll take their F and give them my A.”

Mr. Preacher, I really wish you’d stop talking to me about how I need to do a little better, try a little harder, and give a little more, because the truth is this: in and of myself, I have nothing worth giving.

Mr. Preacher, I really wish you’d start preaching to me about how while I can not save myself, Christ himself has accomplished every work necessary for my salvation and that I can not by any work merit salvation, but that is a free gift of God which must be received by faith alone.

Mr. Preacher, please stop talking and start preaching.

Tags: Uncategorized // 1 Comment »

I am so very glad that I took this vacation. Work was getting tedious, and life other than Sundays and my meetings with Rich has been mostly eventless. This trip has made it clear to me that mentally and emotionally I’m prepared to leave Ohio if an opportunity for seminary opens up soon. However, being now in the midst of the trip, the joy of the trip is a greater joy than that of getting out of Cleveland for a bit.

Never before have my eyes beheld such a rich and deep blue as that of the open sea, nor a teal like Cozumel’s shore waters. Sunset over the ocean, a full compass of ocean horizon to horizon, a coral reef, being close enough to touch the spectacularly colored creatures therein if all weren’t constantly in motion flitting to and fro. Words fail to capture the immensity of the glorious beauty I have been privilege to witness these few short day. Awe-inspiring, marvelous, magnificent, breath-taking — these do no justice to these beautiful and wonderful things God has made.

The Psalms speak true of the man who declares in his heart that there is no God: he is a fool. He is a fool to deny God’s existence while any of his senses remain.

–

It has been good to relax without any agenda or work schedule to worry about, though I do feel a bit out of place. I’m not married, I don’t have a girlfriend, but I’m also not cruising around looking for some random hook-up. I’m just looking around for some good fun, and thus far I’ve found it. On the first day, I met a guy on the bow who had played football for UGA from ‘98 to ‘02. We had a fairly lengthy conversation about things other than football, aand we’ve said hi to each other as we’ve seen each other on the ship.

I also met a nice group of ladies from Iowa at the captain’s party, who I apparently made some sort of positive impression upon, because while I was waiting in the dinner line they called to me from the floor below and took my picture. I convinced them to come to karaoke after dinner with a promise of a song sung to them. After the song, I jokingly asked to see the younger ladies’ left hands (Ring check! lol). Apparently one of them took it seriously and wasn’t interested, because she borrowed her friend’s ring to put on quickly. I feel kind of bad and think I may have come off as a jerk, because I let her know that I saw what she did later that night at the comedy club. I probably made her think it was a big deal and might have embarassed her. Oops! I probably should have started out with something more like “I’m apologize if you thought I was serious. . .”

It was actually thoroughly amusing that she’d do that, though I suppose I can’t really blame her for thinking I was serious since it wasn’t crystal clear that I was joking. Ah well, another girl runs scared from ol’ Bill. Maybe it’s the beard, or maybe it’s the fact that I like to sing songs by John Denver.

More to come, but my laptop is running low on juice. Out for now.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

I thought it fitting this day, the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, to tell of how and why it is that I have come to call myself Reformed or Calvinist. I’ll start with a little background on the how first.

Prologue

A little over a year and a half ago, had you asked me what I thought of doctrines such as total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, I would have responded with revulsion at the very mention of such things. So foreign were they to my mind, so contrary to what I thought I knew about God — what I had been taught in church — that I would have probably even gone so far as to level a few unfair charges toward anyone who might hold to those doctrines (e.g. arrogance, spiritual superiority complex, don’t believe we should preach the Gospel). That is, until my mentor and I ended up in a discussion on how it is, precisely, that we come to faith in Jesus Christ. I was asked rather pointedly, “How free is our will? Are we free enough to come to Christ apart from God doing something sovereign and miraculous?”

I have from an early age desired to know what the truth is, and knowing it, believe in it. No one had ever forced me to seriously consider a question of this nature, certainly not from anything beyond what I felt or thought. This was the first time I was challenged to reason not from earthly wisdom, but directly from the Scriptures. I had to answer the question “What does the Bible say about this?” and answer it honestly.

I say this in preface so that this one thing is plain: I have not always believed as I believe now. So what gives rise to this sudden change in mind? Simply put, I read my Bible. When I read the Word of the Lord, my once-dark eyes were opened, and I saw the glorious beauty of these heavenly doctrines which had for so long caused me pain. For the first time I saw the true nature of the saving Grace of God. At long last, at the bidding of the Holy Spirit I laid down my arms and surrendered that final stronghold of pride in the coming-to-exist of my salvation.

I thought Calvinists were arrogant. I thought the idea of reprobation was unfair and “my god” would never do that. In a sense, I was right, because that god was not the God of the Bible. Little else needs to be said about what I was worshiping. So what did I read? Why am I convicted such that now I would give my life for these doctrines? Herein, I shall endeavor to produce a defense, though meager, of a Reformed understanding of soteriology, that is, the doctrines of salvation. Though they are commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace, I do not refer to them as such, as there are also other doctrines which I believe also fall under the category of Grace, but are not oriented primarily around the immediate work of salvation of a sinner.

Total Depravity or Utter Inability

Jeremiah 17:9 declares:

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.”

Romans 3 declares further:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.
Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.
The venom of asps is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If none are righteous and no one seeks after God, am I not without hope? If God’s wrath is on all unrighteousness as Romans 1 declares, how can I possibly escape the full wrath and judgment of a holy God against me and my rebellion in sin? If I am these things that the Bible declares I am, how could I even think that I would ever have love for God of my own volition, apart from God working sovereignly to move me to such love?

Unconditional Election

Heretofore, this is probably what gave me the second most trouble. But now, understanding my total inability to seek God on my own because of the corruption and sinfulness of every one of my faculties, it is natural consequence that there is nothing in me that would give God any grounds to show his mercy and grace toward me. Let me reiterate: the doctrine of unconditional election gives no room for any pride. I am stripped naked before God. In and of myself, I am a worm. I am less than worthless! But God, solely because it pleased him, for His glory alone, chose sovereignly and irrevocably to save such a one as me.

If there were one thing that I would envy about my Arminian friends, it’s that they never have to answer objections to their view of election on the basis of fairness. But, I humbly submit to you that this very thing is the greatest downfall for that argument in light of what is written in the Scriptures.

Romans 9 declares at length:

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.’ And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

This was probably the passage that convinced me more than any other passage that these doctrines were true. Why would Paul even bother to answer the objection of “That’s not fair!” if the Arminian position is correct? What could possibly be more fair than choosing based on merit (the merit being faith)? The meaning of Paul’s teaching is clear: it is not my striving toward in faith or striving against in unbelief that effects my election. It is the pleasure of God alone. And it is his sovereign right to do whatever pleases him.

Let me also say this: if anyone would consider his election as a source of pride, he has not rightly understood it. For to rightly understand this doctrine is to first rightly understand the doctrine of depravity. God is not obligated to save any. And if God saved even one, he is not obligated to save any more than pleases him! It is the egalitarian spirit of the age that suggests to us otherwise. It pleased God to save some and to pass over others. The charge that this is unjust is unfounded. Some receive mercy (the elect). Some receive justice (the reprobate, or non-elect). Noone receives injustice.

And it is not for us to know who is elect. Our only concern is to be certain that we, individually are among their number and to understand the nature of their existence. It is unequivocally and without exception God’s sovereign prerogative who is given Grace unto faith and salvation. As Ephesians declares, it is the gift of God and not of any work (including a work of the will!) so that no one has any grounds for boasting.

Limited or Particular Atonement

Probably what causes people to scream most loudly “That’s not fair!” is this doctrine, which like the others, flows out of and into the other doctrines of salvation. But as shown previously, it is not unfair at all, as God is under no obligation to save any. This doctrine answers principally the question “For whom did Christ die?”

There are three logical possibilities for the atoning nature of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross:
1. Jesus’ death actually accomplishes salvation for all (the universalist position).
2. Jesus’ death potentially accomplishes salvation for all (the Arminian position).
3. Jesus’ death actually accomplishes salvation only for those who are elect (the Calvinist or Reformed position).

No orthodox Christian would claim the first position, because it completely disregards the numerous passages asserting that salvation is through faith in Christ. So I’ll not deal with it here.

The position of the Arminian is, I suggest, a rather tenuous one to hold in the first place because it leaves open the possibility that no one would have ever come to salvation through faith in Christ. I posit that this denigrates the greatness of the sacrifice of God. It makes Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross a cosmic dice roll and makes God into a pleading beggar — “If only you’d just believe!”

But furthermore, I believe it to be contrary to even Christ’s words, most pointedly in John 15:

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

And in the High Priestly Prayer where he prays:

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.”

Further on he prays also:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

Jesus has no reservations about proclaiming what will happen. He does not say “might” or “maybe,” rather he declares with authority that he chose the Disciples; that the Disciples were God the Father’s and that he gave them to the Son. Furthermore, Jesus makes absolutely clear that he is not praying for the world, but only those whom God the Father had given to him, the Son.

Romans 8:28-30 declares:

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

The structure of this “Golden Chain,” as it is called, is important. Grammatically, it means this: All those whom God foreknew were predestined. All who were predestined were called. All who were called were justified. And finally, all who were justified are glorified. This is an elliptical chain. In essence, what it means is that anyone who is truly any of those things is all of those things. The inverse is also true. For instance, if one is not justified (by Christ’s atoning sacrifice), one is not foreknown, predestined, called, or glorified.

So we can only conclude that Christ’s death on the actually accomplishes the salvation of those who would by faith receive it, who were foreknown before the world was formed, who were chosen in Christ, and who have all the blessings of the Golden Chain and more. And this brings us to our next point.

Irresistible Grace, or Effectual Calling

I do not particularly care for the term “irresistible” because even the elect resist God’s grace. It is simply that God’s grace overcomes that innate, sinful resistance to make us willing to repent and believe. I prefer to use the term “effectual calling” instead. We can conclude from the elliptical nature of Romans 8:28-30 that all who are called are those who are predestined, justified, etc. We also conclude that no one who is not called can be any of those other things. So God’s inward calling of the sinner to repentance and faith is always effectual. That is, it always results in repentance and faith. Furthermore, it is by means of the outward call, of the reading and especially of the preaching of the Gospel, as Romans 10 makes evident.

Perseverance of the Saints

Ah, perhaps one of the most comforting doctrines of all. And it is the sum total of the other four doctrines! It is precisely because his faith is not his own that the believer has security! As Paul makes abundantly clear to us at the end of Romans 8, nothing can separate the believer from the love of Christ, because it is a sovereign love! Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, is sure that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” What a joyous thing! Truly it is said: “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” All who truly are called of Christ, though they may stumble and fall in various ways, will never totally and finally fall away from the faith, because it is God himself who has made a covenant with himself to save that soul. Whoever falls away was never truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, and for many, it will not be apparent until the day when the wheat is separated from the chaff, when the sheep are separated from the goats, just whose declaration of faith is true and whose declaration of faith is false. Our only indication outside of ourselves that anyone else is a true believer is given to us by Jesus himself: we shall know other disciples by their fruit.

Epilogue

Even still, we must take care not to be led astray by good-sounding arguments, but must be noble-minded like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if what we are being told and taught is right and true. You are reasonable people. Don’t simply take my word for it. Read the Bible and prove for yourself that these things are true! Then you too will discover the joy, the breathtaking beauty of these doctrines of grace and salvation.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized // 3 Comments »

Introduction:

We deduce from both our observance of history and the knowledge of the nature of Man that there will be wars among nations and governments from time to time. For the Christian, because we know that man is made in the image of God, any engagement in such a thing as war, which is prone to not a small amount of the shedding of blood, must be contemplated with the utmost of gravitas.

We may deduce that if there is such a thing as a war which is morally right, the great potential for immorality in wars also necessitates that there are other wars which are morally wrong, by whatever means. Therefore, if we are attempting to see from Scripture if there is such a thing as just war, we see that wars would then be categorized into one of two groups: just wars and unjust wars. I will attempt to demonstrate, from Scripture and from the less authoritative, but nevertheless (I believe) soundly reasoned writings of church fathers and the magisterial reformers, the existence of wars which are just and the principles whereby we may determine whether or not a given proposition or prosecution of war is just.

Much of what I say is derived from the writings of John Calvin in chapter 20 of book 4 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion and from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae, which also draws from Augustine of Hippo’s writings.

–

First, we observe that John the Baptist, the forerunner to our Lord Jesus Christ, did not forbid soldiers from bearing arms in the service of their nation as they were coming to him to be baptized for repentance. On the contrary, we observe, in context, the following commands in Luke 3:

10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Christ nowhere abrogates these commands of John. Their inclusion in Scripture and the silence of both Christ and the Apostles’ amending or repealing this command from John, a prophet of God, give us sufficient cause to conclude that the profession of soldiering is not inherently immoral nor incongruous with one’s holding to Christian doctrines, for John was the very one pointing to Christ as the fulfillment of the old covenant.

We see plainly in Romans 13 that rulers “do not bear the sword in vain” but rather are God’s servants, exacting wrath upon evildoers who unjustly violate the people. It makes no difference whether an evildoer is a king or a common man; the same divine authority to punish evil by the sword is given to the rulers of men. It is not for the private man to exact revenge upon his neighbor for wrongs done; neither is it for the private man to exact revenge upon another nation for wrongs done. Rather it is the God-ordained state which bears this weighty and bloody responsibility. So it is established that the first qualification of just war is that of the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. The power to declare and counsel war is to be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.

Secondly, we shall consider what constitutes just causes for war. Aquinas writes that for a war to be considered just, “a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says: ‘A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.’”

Right away we can see that this clearly excludes wars of aggression (i.e. wars which are not retaliatory in nature or which seek to right a wrong done to the belligerent party or its allies for which the nation or state has refused to make amends). Such wars would include the American Civil War and the current war in Iraq. Both are examples of nations invading sovereign territories without just cause, at least as stated by those who attempted to justify these wars.

President Lincoln deemed it an offense to secede from the Union (the war was not fought “for slavery” as is supposed by many), even though there was no prohibition of such a dissolution in the Constitution nor was any demonstrably unjust harm done to the United States by the exercise of State sovereignty vis a vis the Federal government. Lincoln then deliberately and systematically provoked the South to war by refusing to respond for several months of repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard. This culminated in the incidents at Fort Sumter, which sparked the rapid escalation therefrom to total war.

President Bush stated that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. This was the primary, if not sole stated justification for the Iraq war as declared by the President. The stated cause was later changed to liberation from Saddam’s cruel regime and all references to WMDs as justification have become silent in the mouth of the current administration.

But I digress with these examples.

Lastly, right intentions are necessary for the prosecution of a war which has a just cause. Aquinas says that proper sovereigns may only war: “so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. . . For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” Augustine says: “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” Calvin writes that those who wage war “must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.”

In particular, we see such abuses, once again, particularly in the American Civil War as prosecuted by the Federals. Perhaps the most glaring and well-known example of the sanctioned evil perpetrated on the South by the Federals was William Tecumseh Sherman’s March to the Sea. It would be more appropriately termed “Sherman’s Rape, Murder, Pillage, and Plunder to the Sea” for that is what he and his men did. The result of the wickedness of Sherman and his men: a sixty-mile-wide swath of wanton destruction of mankind, beast, and earth. Sherman’s men spared no one and nothing, and Sherman himself made no meaningful attempt to restrain his men from their manifold sins. They sexually assaulted women, black and white. They burned houses, farms, churches, schools. They spared neither old nor young, woman nor child, black nor white in their murderous rampage. Were such a war to be fought today, Sherman, his officers, and all who participated in such an atrocity would be tried and convicted of war crimes.

So in synopsis, we see that wars may be prosecuted only by the highest of sovereign authorities, for theirs is the authority to bear the sword by divine ordination. We see that wars must have just cause, and such cause must be either a retaliatory action in defense of a nation’s peoples or else the result of every other diplomatic option being exhausted by which one nation would seek justice for a wrong done it. Finally, we see that wars must be engaged in with proper intentions and proper manner. Even in war, the desire must be for a true and moral peace, established on justice. Men may not morally prosecute a war under any sort of “scorched earth” policies. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Every care and caution must be taken, even at peril to the life and limb of combatants, to avoid the deaths of non-combatants. Likewise, there may by no means be wanton destruction of the property of any non-combatants be they beast, home, or field.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Death Penalty

Another issue hotly debated in our time and largely devoid of meaningful dialogue among Christians is that of the penalty of death for certain crimes. In the United States of America, that penalty has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be applicable only in cases of treason, espionage, or first degree murder. It is in this context that the death penalty will be discussed, but the death penalty is by no means a solely American phenomenon.

It is with the aforementioned context in mind, but also with a goal of a biblically sound position that we will examine this issue. We will examine this issue in light of Scripture, resting upon an assumption of the supreme and final authority thereof. As an aside I note that having seen to these matters, I hold that the principles for the Christian are so clearly laid out in Scripture as to render a reliable answer to the question of the categorical morality and justice of the death penalty without great difficulty.

First, let us note that the death penalty is never something which is to be taken into the hands of an individual. It is reserved as a sentence made only by governing authorities, and it is a punishment that is to be exacted in the administration of justice only as retribution for a true crime. In fact, Paul makes it clear in Romans that this is, in fact, precisely one of the God-ordained reasons why governments are instituted among men, as we see in this passage from the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of Romans 13:

12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

As an aside, I make note of this fact to my readers which may not known to all: the divisions of Scripture by chapter and verse were not part of the original texts and were added as an aid in later times. While these are, by and large, good for assisting us to the Word of God, it must always be understood that prudence requires that we understand all passages of Scripture in context, both immediately surrounding context and the context of the whole counsel of God. I say this to make note of this particular passage where, if we allow our eyes only to see one or the other due to the apparent division, we will not catch the whole context of what is being said.

Paul is saying here both that the individual must not exact revenge, but leave room for the wrath of God and that the government is the very agent of God’s wrath upon those who do evil. Those who make the argument that because we are called to love and forgive our enemies that therefore the death penalty is incongruous with Christian doctrine do so in error, as this passage makes clear. The ruler “does not bear the sword in vain.” The plain meaning of this is the authority of the state to exact justice in the form of the penalty of death as an instrument of the wrath of God, whether knowingly or unknowingly: “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

We see that God is clearly not opposed to the death penalty in principle, as He declares it to the people of Israel as the just punishment of various misdeeds: kidnapping, rape, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and being a false prophet, to name a few. Whatever else we may believe concerning penalties for crimes, the Christian must understand that the just recompense of any and every sin is death (Romans 6:23). It is only because of the exceedingly great mercy of God that all sins do not immediately incur the just wrath of God by means of death.

But not only is this declared in the Mosaic law, but it is declared to Noah in Genesis 9:5-6 to be the ordination of God: “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Even if we acknowledge that the death penalty, while just for every crime according to Romans 6:23, is a very harsh penalty, it is manifestly clear that at the very least murder is most certainly a crime worthy of death.

We recognize that it is not a penalty to be taken lightly, for it is a great injustice for the retribution for a crime to be reckoned to the account of one who did not commit it. In the political nation of Israel, this was accomplished by the law which declared that no one should be put to death except on the testimony of two or more witnesses. In American jurisprudence, we not only have a similar burden of proof, but we go a step further. No one is to be convicted of a crime but upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This goes doubly so in the case of crimes for which the penalty is death. This is the reason why we allow for several appeals upon sentence of death. This is why we allow governors and presidents to grant, in their discretion, clemency and pardon.

It is not incongruous for the Christian to hold in mind both that he is not to be the exacter of vengeance upon those who do evil to him and also that it is the role of the government to be that instrument. It is simply the correct answer to the question of whose role it is to be the agent of the wrath of God.

So we see that the death penalty is not a problem for the American Christian when his government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the crimes of a spy, traitor, or murderer and has sentenced this evildoer to death.

–

A Personal Note

It is my personal conviction that the death penalty is a just recompense in more crimes than first degree murder, espionage, and treason. The crimes for which I believe it is proper for us to exact the death penalty are those which prey upon the most vulnerable. Thus, I would support the death penalty for those who rape and/or kidnap women, children, the elderly, or disabled persons. However, the Supreme Court has determined that at present this will not be the case in the United States. I submit to their judgment and authority as the legitimate rulers of this nation and do not attempt to usurp them by attempting to overrule them through unlawful means.

Tags: Uncategorized // 1 Comment »

Foreword:

At the prompting of a friend, I am writing to describe my positions on a number of topics which have of late become rather politicized. Because of the passion with which many positions with respect to these issues are held, there is often an immense lack of civil and rational discussion. In the same vein, too often people will choose their position not because it is well reasoned, but because of the way it makes them feel. Particularly for Christians, I believe this to be a grievous error, for we are called to be lovers of truth.

But passion is not what makes an argument sound. One can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. Thus, it is the case that while passion can be good, it is not by any means an accurate metric of the strength of any argument. On the contrary, an argument’s soundness is determined by its correspondence with reality, determined by plain reason and logic. For the Christian, an appropriate addendum might be to say that at least in matters of morality, we are guided by the Holy Spirit being instructed by the Word of God.

Herein is my attempt, however feeble, to address these issues with honesty, clarity, and with a proper view of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures being our sole foundation for all things concerning what we are to believe about God and what our duties are to Him, and, by extension, our fellowman.

–

Abortion

Since this was the primary issue of reference in the preceding post (which prompted this one), it is the first subject with which we’ll deal. Abortion is murder. Let me state that again: abortion is murder. The only reason why any reasonable people (read: your friends and family who think it’s ok or give hearty approval to it) would give any support to even allowing abortion to take place is because they either do not understand the fact that it is murder, or else someone has deceived them into believing that it really isn’t murder by attempting to deny the status of “human” to an unborn child.

Once we understand that an unborn child is no different in status from any other “normal” human being with the exceptions of their size, level of development, environment, and dependency, and that the arbitrary ending of such a life is murder, the discussion becomes rather repetitious. All we need to do to determine whether it is morally acceptable to end the life of the unborn child (i.e. not murderous) is to ask if the ending of such a life would be justified if the unborn child were in fact an adult. Let’s see how it works out logically and in a very plausible and very analogous situation to what many of the proponents of abortion tout as their strongest arguments for the “need” for abortion:

I’m hard up for cash and working a minimum wage job, barely making ends meet, if at all. My wife (again, hypothetical since I’m not married) works a minimum wage job too. My wife is injured in an unfortunate car crash and it will take tens of thousands of dollars to care for her because she is going to be disabled and confined to a wheelchair while we go through several months of physical therapy to get her walking again. We have no medical or disability insurance and we’ve just lost half or more of our income. Would I be justified in slipping my wife a cyanide capsule because I cannot provide for her without stacking up thousands upon thousands of dollars of debt? Would it matter that our “quality of life” would be severely degraded and that I’d likely be stymied in my vocational pursuits because of the need to care for my wife during the time she was in recovery, possibly some of the most productive years of my vocational life? Would that hold up in a court of law?

The answer is, of course, no to all of the above. Yet these are the same sorts of arguments that advocates of abortion will trot out as gospel. They’ll label you a heartless monster who hates women if you declare that abortion isn’t justified even in an extreme circumstance like that. But even if we ignore for a moment the fact that abortion is murder, abortion advocates have still ignored several mitigating factors which, if present, would alleviate any so-called “need” for abortion.

1. Sex makes babies. We have known this for thousands of years. This is not a mystery. Now we know about the cycle for ovulation and so on, but generally speaking, when a man and woman engage in sexual intercourse outside of the woman’s menstrual period, there is a non-zero chance that it will result in a pregnancy. This is known “risk” if you will (I call it a risk assuming one deliberately desires to avoid a pregnancy while still engaging in sexual intercourse). Sex is an adult behavior. It carries with it adult responsibilities, particularly if there is a pregnancy as a result of that intercourse. If a man and woman engage in consensual sexual intercourse, whatever the circumstances, they have willfully and deliberately taken upon themselves the risk of a pregnancy, even if there is some sort of prophylactic being used. If one engages in a behavior willfully and deliberately, one is not absolved of the consequences simply because those consequences are undesired.

Want to eliminate the need for abortion? Parents need to start educating their children about sexual behavior and its consequences before they engage in it. Not only that, but they ought to stress the importance of remaining sexually abstinent until marriage and its benefits. And if the parents are so inclined, they can instruct their children on the use of various forms of birth control. Again, and I must stress this, parents should educate their children about sexual behavior and its benefits and consequences before their children start engaging in sexual behavior. If you’ve waited until your kid’s freshman year of high school to talk to him or her about sex, you’ve waited too long and likely need to put a lot more effort into it than if you had been talking to your kid progressively more as they were starting to notice the opposite gender.

Not only does such education eliminate pregnancies out of wedlock, but it has the secondary effects of promoting the healthiest of sexual relationships within marriages, radically reducing or eliminating the spread of sexually transmitted infections, and ensuring that any pregnancies which do result from that relationship are in the best position socially to deal with it.

I do not and will not deal with cases of rape and incest in this particular discussion since it is a red herring with regard to abortion on demand. Why is it a red herring? Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are statistically a very rare occurrence in comparison with pregnancies resulting from consensual intercourse. It is disingenuous to advocate for abortion on demand on these grounds when the vast majority of pregnancies terminated by abortion are done for what amounts quite literally to mere inconvenience. Even abortion advocates will admit this from their own statistical studies, though they would claim that such inconveniences justify abortion (and they doubtless would not use the word “inconvenience” because it wouldn’t help their case to see their argument for what it really is).

2. Where are the fathers? I can’t think of a single abortion advocate who hasn’t trotted out a “single mom” story for the tear-jerking effect. Now that is not to say I have no sympathy for them, but it is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because a father is attempting to abdicate his responsibility as the father of a child that murder is now justified.

The solution? Compel fathers, by force through lawful means, if necessary, to provide for their children. If they refuse, follow through with those threats of jail, fines, wage garnishments, and other punishments. The current system we have goes after kids smoking a doob in their dorm before it goes after deadbeat dads who refuse to support their children and the mothers of their children. Sorry to all my drugs-are-the-devil fundie friends, but that deadbeat dad is far more of a threat to society and is doing actual and tangible harm to it by engaging in his behavior than is the kid toking up in his room. The personal morality of drug use (and whether there is a valid argument for moderation in it) aside, the government’s job is to prevent the real and unjust harm of individuals resulting from the deliberate or negligent actions of others. Deadbeat dads are at the top of my list. They are harming society by neglecting children who are by nature their responsibility.

3. Where are the families? Families are the building blocks of any society. And not only that, they are the first and primary place where charity ought to take place. So why is it that if a girl is pregnant and in hard times financially or otherwise, these families are not rising up to the task of taking care of them (assuming they are able)? For the Christian, if you refuse to take care of your family when you are able to do so, Paul has this to say to you by way of 1 Tim 5:8 (emphasis mine): “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This has been the way human society has functioned for thousands of years. The larger family comes together and provides for the care and comfort of that family if the man is unable or unwilling to provide for the woman and the child. Only if all of the above are unable to care for the needs of the child and the woman is the next step involved, which brings us to our next point.

4. Where is the Church, and why is it not adhering to these principles and exhorting its members and those who come to them for assistance to do the same? Yes fornication is a sin, but that doesn’t mean we heap upon a fornicator more guilt than is necessary. Godly sorrow exists and leads to repentance, and yes, we ought to call sinners to repentance, but often Christians are guilty of heaping burdens unnecessarily upon the shoulders of men and women who have already come to terms with and know full well their sinfulness; they have need not of more condemnation, but to be told of the mercy and grace of forgiveness for their sins that is found in the cross of Christ Jesus and the eternal hope which is found in and through a life submitted to His Lordship. Now does this mean we require every woman who comes to the church pregnant and unwed to become a church member before we help her? By no means! Not only would it further exacerbate the malignantly cancerous problem of unconverted church membership, it would completely miss the point. So what do we do?

We the Church advocate for Scriptural charity in such matters and attempt to follow the pattern of Scripture for charity and not just do what feels good (i.e. throwing money or programs at the problem). But, while we do not simply throw money at the problem, neither ought we to refuse to meet clearly immediate and reasonable needs. What that means can be worked out some other time, but suffice it to say that if a woman comes to you needing food for the day and a pack of diapers to change her child, I don’t consider it bad stewardship to assist her and then to begin the effort to contact the father and the family (in that order) for the long-term provision of her and the child’s needs. And this does not go just for single moms, but for all institutional charity as provided by the Church. If the father or family cannot be contacted or they refuse to help, then the Church is that person’s family and can rightly and should attempt to care for that person to the best of their ability. And if the local body is unable to do so, they ought to appeal for assistance from other bodies while still being the conduit through which all charity flows. That is the example and model that I firmly believe is provided by Scripture either explicitly or else through implicit reasoning from explicit principles.

And if the Church is failing at this, the solution is not to put it in the hands of the government, nor is the solution to allow abortion! It is an utter fool who suggests any such thing. The correct solution to the Church failing to carry out one of her duties is to rebuke the Church and exhort Her in all earnestness to repent and do what is right in the sight of the Lord.

–

A Personal Anecdote

All of this is to say that if these things are done, things work out and what appears to be a hopeless situation to man is a situation full of hope for those who trust in God. What is impossible with man is more than possible with God. How do I know this? Well, it’s a story that is true both transcendentally as well as existentially in my own life. Abortion advocates are fond of anecdotes. Here’s mine, and it’s not a hypothetical situation, it’s a real story.

My mother became pregnant with me during her freshman year of high school. She was 15. My father was a senior in high school at the time (I don’t recall whether he was 17 or 18). My mother had no job. My dad had graduated and gone off to college before my mother realized she was pregnant. The option of abortion was presented to her, but she refused to consider it. The option of adoption was presented to her and she and her family went so far as to go through the whole process of giving me up for adoption after I was born, but when I was born, she decided to keep me. She discussed it with my father, and the final decision was made to keep me. William David Carlisle, Junior I am. Was it easy? No. The manner of difficulties my mother went through as a teenager having a child a scant 10 days after her 16th birthday were manifold. Trying to do night school, ending up getting her GED, a shotgun wedding at the courthouse, living in a trailer behind my dad’s parents’ house for a year, a divorce thereafter, a remarriage a little over a year later to my stepfather, all of it a tempest, all of it painful. And yet not one solitary moment outside of the meticulous and benevolent control of a sovereign, loving God.

And all of this and more which produced a man of 25 years this very midnight. Who are you, oh man, who claims the name of Christ and then would deny Him the sovereignty to raise up a man or a woman for Himself out of a seemingly hopeless situation? You mock God and make Him a liar.

Furthermore, you would deny me, your brother, the benefits of those who have loved me in these past 25 years and however many more days the Lord grants me. Therefore I must conclude that you do not, in fact, love me if you would see the possibility of my murder as an acceptable proposition in the sight of God.

Furthermore, you would deny all those whom I have loved and will love for however many days God grants me whatever benefit they might derive from my love for them. Therefore I must conclude that you do not love them either.

And if this be true, there is a very dire implication if 1 John 5:1 is to be taken at face value. Christian man or woman, if you would believe that in any manner abortion is an acceptable thing, you would do well to examine yourself carefully to see whether you are indeed of the faith.

Tags: Uncategorized // 4 Comments »