Enveloping My Mind

Well, lets' see, I think the last post I actually wrote for this blog was about two weeks ago. It was fun posting what someone else had written and then just writing comments.

I have 8 weeks to go on this pregnancy. I am hoping that maybe it will be a little less. The baby is due on December 29. Who wants to have a birthday on December 29? I think December 10th or 11th sounds a lot better. The again, I guess the little person could get stuck making an appearance on the 25th. I really am hoping not. What do you think? When will the fourth Cole child make his/her appearance? Which one of you is a prophet?

Does anyone have any really interesting ideas for a name? I have a perfect idea for a girl, but John and I can't quite find "the one" for a boy. Maybe if you think of a brilliant name and leave it in the comments, it will be the "one" that we have been looking for! Why not? We like unusual names, perhaps old-fashioned, but not weird.

I am tired. I am not my usual enthusiastic self. Pregnancy does this to me.

I opened this post not being sure what I would write about. I guess this post makes it clear what is enveloping my mind these days!

Book Review by Dr. Ernest Pickering: The Gospel According to Jesus

There is a little monograph that was written shortly after the book The Gospel According to Jesus came out. It was written by Dr. Ernest Pickering and given to my husband by the man, who was a pastor at our church, Emmanuel Baptist in Toledo, Ohio. I never knew him when he was in Toledo. Ernest Pickering was an avid Calvinist. He was a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary.

He was the man that was very instrumental in my husband's conversion. He was the man who baptized me when I went to another church that he pastored while President of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis (we lived there for 7 months in 1992). We loved the man! The last time I saw him, he visited Emmanuel and preached at our church's 100th anniversay while blind in both eyes. This was in 1999, I believe. His stance was just as austere as ever, even without his sight. He died just a couple of years after that.

The booklet consists of an introduction, 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points, and a conclusion. The way Dr. Pickering saw this issue is just as I and my husband do. His comments are as pertinent today as ever.



Lordship Salvation
by Dr. Earnest Pickering
_______________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION: John MacArthur's latest book, The Gospel According to Jesus, promises to be a "blockbuster" indeed and will no doubt further divide the evangelical community over the question of the exact terms of the sinner's salvation. This debate has been building for a number of years, but the publication of a work like this by a widely-read and respected Bible teacher will no doubt heighten the discussion con­siderably.

One always asks when reading a book of this nature, "Why did the author write it?" The answer can be found in one statement: "The superficial response is epidemic and is twentieth-century Christianity. . .Why? Because the gospel is usually presented with the promise of joy, warmth, fellowship, and a good feeling, but without the hard demand to take up one's cross and follow Christ" (p. 123). This is basically the main concern of MacArthur. The gospel has been made too easy. More stringent requirements are necessary than those normally presented in gospel preaching.

The essence of his argument is this:
"Eternal life is indeed a free gift. . .But that does not mean that there is no cost in terms of salvation's impact on the sinner's life. . .Obviously, a new believer does not fully understand all the ramifications of the lordship of Jesus at the moment of conversion. But a true believer has a desire to surrender. This is what dis­tinguishes true faith from a bogus profession. True faith is humble, submissive obedience" (p. 140).

MacArthur is espousing what has become known as "lordship salvation." A sinner, in coming to Christ, must exercise faith, but included in that saving faith is a conscious submission to make Christ the Lord of his life (cf. p. 28, footnote). Let us review some of his major points and make comments upon them.
_______________________________________________________

1. An Attack upon Leading Dispensationalists.

MacArthur seems to believe that much of the fault in what he calls "easy believism" in gospel preaching can be laid at the feet of dispensational teachers such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie and others. He criticizes dispensationalists who teach that law and grace are mutually exclusive (p. 25). Dispensationalists have been responsible for the "error" of distinguishing between salvation and discipleship. One is somewhat aghast at the force of MacArthur's attack upon dispensationalists while at the same time claiming that he is a "traditional premillennial dispensationalist" (p. 25).

The reason that MacArthur takes this position toward dispensationalists is evident as one proceeds through the volume. Major sections of Scripture upon which he depends for support in his defense of "lordship salvation" would not be viewed by normal dis­pensationalists as applicable to the gospel and its presentation.
It seems evident that MacArthur's thought has been greatly influenced by Reformed thinkers, and the enthusiasm with which some of them have received this volume would tend to support this observation. We think he especially has been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the famous English expositor, who has set forth many of the same thoughts now propounded by MacArthur.

Particular criticism is leveled at the strong distinctions made between the "age of law" and the "age of grace." "Actually, elements of both law and grace are part of the program of God in every dispensation" (p. 26). But here, we believe, MacArthur misses the point. Most dispensationalists never have said that there was no grace evident in the age (dispensation) of law. What they have taught is that the governing principle of life between the age of law and the age of grace is different. Nor does their teaching suggest that because the Christian is under grace he, therefore, has no controlling principles to his life and is free to do whatever he wishes. Dispensationalists have not been "anti-nomians" (as one of the Reformed scholars suggests whose endorsement appears upon the cover of this volume). The fact of the matter is that the law has been "done away" (II Cor. 3:11) and "abolished" (II Cor. 3:13). This point did not originate with Darby or Scofield. It was made by the apostle Paul.
_______________________________________________________

2. Saving faith is more than mental assent.

A number of times, in various ways, this emphasis is given. Saving faith is "more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing" (p. 31). We do not know any fundamental preachers of the gospel who would disagree with that statement. We never have heard any reputable gospel preacher ever teach otherwise. The old Scofield Bible declared that "faith is personal trust, apart from meritorious works, in the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1302, Scofield Bible). The Ryrie Study Bible declares, "Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ" (note on James 2:14).

In this connection MacArthur laments, "Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit" (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of "merely" believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, "The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel. . ." (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170).

It is at this point that MacArthur's view of repentance should be mentioned. He places great emphasis upon repentance and indicts modern gospel preachers with pos­sessing an incorrect view of it. While accepting repentance as a part of saving faith, he says, "It is a redirection of the human will, a purposeful decision to forsake all un­righteousness and pursue righteousness instead" (p. 163). "No evangelism that omits the message of repentance can properly be called the gospel. . ." (p. 167).

The word "repent" in the New Testament means "to have another mind, to change the mind." True repentance is to have a change of mind regarding sin, God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is not an act separate from saving faith but a part of it. When I believe on the Savior I am repenting of my sins. One cannot "believe" in the New Testament sense of that word without also "repenting." To "believe" does not mean "to be willing to give up all that is displeasing to God." It means to accept with all the heart what the Bible says about my sin and about Christ's sacrifice for me.
_______________________________________________________

3. The distinction commonly made between the carnal Christian and the spiritual Christian is invalid.

This is a familiar theme, particularly among Reformed theologians such as Lloyd-Jones, mentioned earlier. Their impression seems to be that if one admits to the existence of "carnal Christians" one is merely seeking to find a way to excuse the loose living of professing believers. MacArthur sees this distinction as intertwined with the teaching that there may be a difference between a person who is saved and a person who has decided to become a disciple. To him every believer is a "disciple."

In the first place, those who speak of "carnal" Christians are only employing the terminology of Scripture. Paul speaks of those believers who are "carnal" (fleshly, 1 Cor. 3:1) and speaks of the evidence of such a condition in the verses that follow. While brethren may deny the existence of such an individual, we would venture to say that a considerable number of examples could be found in their own churches! One is not going to make "carnal" Christians vanish simply by demanding that saving faith include surrender to the Lordship of Christ. Even if that were done it would not guaran­tee that the new convert would submit to the Lordship of Christ when confronted with a specific demand. If he did not do so, he would become a "carnal" Christian, walking according to the flesh and not the Spirit.In his zeal to defend his view, we believe our brother has made some extreme state­ments which do not describe properly the vast majority of fundamental gospel preachers of our acquaintance. "Anyone who says he has 'accepted Christ' is enthusi­astically received as a Christian, even if his supposed faith later gives way to a persistent pattern of disobedience, gross sin, or hostile unbelief" (p. 97). In his footnote explanation of I Corinthians 3:3 MacArthur does admit that the Corinthian believers were "behaving in a carnal way" (p. 97). Perhaps we have missed some subtle dis­tinction, but we fail to see the difference between "behaving in a carnal way" and being a "carnal Christian." _______________________________________________________

4. Evangelistic appeals are suspect.

"It may surprise you to learn that Scripture never once exhorts sinners to 'accept Christ.'" (p. 106). We are guilty, says the writer, of employing incorrect terminology when we plead with sinners to "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" (p. 106). In citing John 1:11-12 the point is made that "receiving Christ" is more than "accepting him" (p. 106, footnote). The explanation of the difference, however, is less than satis­factory. In an apparent reference to the problem of the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) MacArthur declares, "Thus conversion is not simply a sinner's decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual" (p. 107). We gather that perhaps he is teaching that regeneration precedes faith. Nevertheless, what­ever his view may be on that, it cannot be denied that the sinner must make a decision. We must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He must "repent and believe the gospel." The Bible emphasizes the call to the sinner. Christ condemned the sinners of His day by saying, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (Jn. 5:40). While it is God that saves, there is still a responsibility to come, and we, as faithful witnesses, must issue that invitation.
_______________________________________________________

5. The saving gospel was a principal part of Christ's message while on earth.

"It is a mistake of the worst sort to set the teachings of Paul and the apostles over against the words of our Lord and imagine that they contradict one another or speak to different dispensations. . .While Jesus' gospel was not yet fully completed until his death and resurrection, the elements of it were all clear in His preaching" (p. 214).

This is a very strange statement indeed for one who claims to be a dispensationalist. As MacArthur himself has admitted in this very section there was no gospel to proclaim until it was produced through the vicarious death of the Savior and His resurrection from the tomb. How would the Jews in the land of Palestine who heard Christ's preaching be capable of believing "good news" which, at that period in time, was non­existent except in prophetic utterances? Gospel preachers were to go to the ends of the earth with the saving message following Christ's death, resurrection, and His provision of the Holy Spirit to empower the witnesses (Luke 24:45-49). We believe it is our brother who wrote the above who has made the "mistake" and not those who have been, and do, make a distinction between the dispensation of law, under which Christ conducted His earthly ministry, and the dispensation of grace, under which we labor today.

MacArthur finds the saving gospel of Christ in very strange places. For instance, Christ exhorted men thusly, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34). MacArthur states, "The explicit subject is eternal life and salvation" (p. 135). Here is a failure to see the distinction between salvation and discipleship. Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily sub­mission to the will of God). Christ here is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.

Of the parable of the landowner who hires men at various hours of the day and then pays them the same wages (Matt. 20:1-16) MacArthur declares, "The issue here is the equality of eternal life" (p. 146). One looks in vain, however, in this parable for any delineation of the gospel nor any reference to the bestowment of eternal life. The parable deals with the sovereign distribution of rewards for service, not the apportion­ment of salvation. MacArthur sees no distinction between Christ's presentation of the kingdom and the message of the gospel. "When Jesus proclaimed His kingdom, He was preaching salvation" (p. 89). He says further that "the essence of Jesus' message was always the gospel of salvation" (p. 90).

While there are shades of difference among dispensationalists as to the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, none, to this writer's knowledge, supports the concepts that MacArthur advances. He says the sermon on the Mount contains "pure gospel" (p. 179) and, with His appeal in Matthew 7:13-14 about entering in at the narrow gate Christ "brings the Sermon on the Mount to its evangelistic climax" (p. 179). How this could be is puzzling indeed. Where is the "evangel" in the Sermon on the Mount? There is no gospel there at all. It was not intended to be a gospel presentation, but was addressed to His own disciples who already were believers.

In his discussion of the wide and narrow gates, the writer sees the teaching as com­bating "the modern notion that salvation is easy" (p. 182). This same thought is repeated in various places in the book. Christ's words in Matthew 7, it is said, contra­dict the popular teaching "that becoming a Christian is only a matter of believing some facts, signing on a dotted line, walking an aisle, raising a hand, or praying the right prayer" (p. 182). While some careless and superficial zealots perhaps could be accused of such notions, it is but a caricature of the multitudes of serious-minded and concerned evangelists and evangelistic pastors who call upon sinners to obey the New Testament command, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). By such an exhortation they do not mean to merely "believe some facts." They mean that the godless sinner should receive, believe upon, a wonderful Person who has provided salvation by grace for him. They mean that there should be a definite act of faith which rests solely upon the work of the Savior.

What is the Biblical definition of the gospel? "Christ died for our sins. . .was buried, and. . .rose again" (I Cor. 15:3-4). This message is not the same as the Sermon on the Mount or a call for crossbearing. The message of the gospel is a message of free grace flowing from the cross of Calvary and appropriated by the simple faith of the sinner.Is it an "easy" gospel? It depends upon what you mean by that statement. It was cer­tainly not "easy" in its procurement. The price - the suffering and death of the infinite Son of God was great. If one means by the word "easy" that it is "simple," that is, un­complicated and free to the sinner, our answer would be, "Yes, it is easy." If one means by use of the word "easy" that proponents of salvation by faith alone condone a life of sinful abandon after one's salvation, our answer would be that of the apostle Paul, "God forbid!"

While MacArthur excoriates dispensationalists whom he claims have a loose view of the demands of salvation, we do not believe that is a fair and balanced view of what leading dispensationalists have taught. In the footnote commenting on I John 3:4, 6, 9 the New Scofield Bible says, "Here and in similar places in this Epistle the Greek verb has the force of a continuous present tense. . .and thus denotes a person's habitual attitude toward sin as expressed in his practice or non-practice of it. . .he is stressing the fact that a Christian cannot keep on practicing sin, because he is born of God" (Footnote on I Jn. 3:4, p. 1307).

While the view of Zane Hodges (The Gospel Under Siege) and perhaps some other dispensationalists may differ from the view just quoted, the Scofield footnote, represents a solid and widely-held view among dispensa­tionalists. J. Ronald Blue, the commentator on the Book of James in The Bible Know­ledge Commentary, a commentary with a dispensational approach, in discussing the re­lationship between faith and works says simply, "Spiritual works are the evidence, not the energizer, of sincere faith" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, II. 826). Those who are preaching the gospel of saving grace do not for one moment condone a life of sinful abandon on the part of a believer.
_______________________________________________________

6. Opponents of the concept of "lordship salvation" are antinomian.

While mentioned earlier, we return for further comments. The term "antinomian" may mean different things to different people. Historically it has often been used to describe persons who repudiate any necessity for adherence to moral standards on the part of a child of God. MacArthur declares, "The teaching that Christians are freed from ob­serving any moral law is rampant in today's evangelical community" (p. 190). We believe our brother again has overstepped himself in his zeal to correct what he feels are excesses or weaknesses in Bible-believing churches. He has made a very exaggerated statement.

Certainly most strong fundamental gospel preachers believe that there are high moral standards incumbent upon the believer. Perhaps behind this statement lies the notion, forwarded strongly by those of Reformed persuasion, that because dispen­sationalists teach that a believer is not under the authority and requirements of the Mosaic law, they therefore are advocating, in effect, a complete freedom from all moral requirements. Such is definitely not the case. Because believers are free from the burden of observing the Mosaic law, this does not give them the freedom to observe no rules.God's grace teaches us that we are to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts" and are to live "soberly, righteously and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). We do not have to enslave New Testament believers again to the Mosaic law in order to have righteous­ness produced in them. Righteousness is produced in the believer by grace, not by law (Rom. 8:3-6).
_______________________________________________________

7. Personal salvation requires a "willingness to surrender to (Christ) as Lord"(p. 207).

In demonstration of this thesis, MacArthur cites four basic passages: Acts 2:21; 2:36; 16:31, and Romans 10:9-10. He feels that all of these passages "include indisputably the lordship of Christ as part of the gospel to be believed for salvation" (p. 207).

The title "Lord" is used in all of these passages for Christ. The question is, What does the term mean in these contexts, and how does such meaning apply to the terms of salvation? In practical terms, if a man who has smoked all of his adult life inquires about how he may be saved, should he be told that he must give up his smoking as a demonstration of his yieldedness to Christ as Lord and as a condition to his salvation? Does the appeal, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31) mean "Surrender all parts of your life to Christ" or does it mean, "Rest in the finished work of Christ which was accomplished for you?" We believe it means the latter.

The term "Lord" as used of Jesus in these passages is not emphasizing His right to enthronement but His identity as deity. Charles Ryrie, I believe, is correct when he states that in the term "Lord", as used in these salvation passages, "deity is the principle emphasis and the focal point of faith as far as salvation from sin is concerned" (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 176). The term "Lord", as used in gospel appeals in the New Testament, speaks of an inherent position and quality which Christ possesses and not of an act of surrender on the part of the believing sinner.

One of the chief objections to the notion of "lordship salvation" is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to the sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of "lordship salvation" tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God. At the point of gospel presentation they do not know what things those are, nor does the personal worker seeking to point them to Jesus know. There is a vast and significant difference between believing on Christ for salvation and learning from Him as our Lord. As we have already pointed out, MacArthur does not separate discipleship from salvation (p. 196). But the calls to discipleship were addressed specifically to His followers who were already believers. MacArthur seeks to refute this by claiming that these various passages about cross-bearing, etc. only describe what the disciples did when they believed. But it should be noted that these exhortations are in the active voice, "Take up your cross," and not "You have taken up your cross." Christ is exhorting those who have already trusted Him for salvation to follow Him as Lord of their lives. _______________________________________________________

Conclusion:

John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt. He is a good man, but good men can be wrong. We believe in his advocacy of the so-called "lordship salvation" he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same. None of us are happy with shoddy, fleshly, and disobedient Christians. But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel . Well over 100 times in the New Testament, we are told that salvation is by faith or through believing. It is a very serious matter to add an ingredient to the gospel of salvation which is not found in the New Testament. While one may argue that "faith", if properly understood, includes the ingredient of "submission" or "enthronement", we believe the Scriptures do not support this contention. Our task is to keep preaching the plain, simple gospel of free grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to produce in true believers those qualities of righteousness which we all devoutly long to see.

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Conclusion

Here is the conclusion from Dr. Pickering's review and comments on "The Gospel According to Jesus." (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up: _______________________________________________________

Conclusion:

John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt. He is a good man, but good men can be wrong. We believe in his advocacy of the so-called "lordship salvation" he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same. None of us are happy with shoddy, fleshly, and disobedient Christians. But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel . Well over 100 times in the New Testament, we are told that salvation is by faith or through believing. It is a very serious matter to add an ingredient to the gospel of salvation which is not found in the New Testament. While one may argue that "faith", if properly understood, includes the ingredient of "submission" or "enthronement", we believe the Scriptures do not support this contention. Our task is to keep preaching the plain, simple gospel of free grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to produce in true believers those qualities of righteousness which we all devoutly long to see.

_______________________________________________________

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 7

Here is the seventh and final of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #7) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________
7. Personal salvation requires a "willingness to surrender to (Christ) as Lord"(p. 207).

In demonstration of this thesis, MacArthur cites four basic passages: Acts 2:21; 2:36; 16:31, and Romans 10:9-10. He feels that all of these passages "include indisputably the lordship of Christ as part of the gospel to be believed for salvation" (p. 207).

The title "Lord" is used in all of these passages for Christ. The question is, What does the term mean in these contexts, and how does such meaning apply to the terms of salvation? In practical terms, if a man who has smoked all of his adult life inquires about how he may be saved, should he be told that he must give up his smoking as a demonstration of his yieldedness to Christ as Lord and as a condition to his salvation? Does the appeal, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31) mean "Surrender all parts of your life to Christ" or does it mean, "Rest in the finished work of Christ which was accomplished for you?" We believe it means the latter.

The term "Lord" as used of Jesus in these passages is not emphasizing His right to enthronement but His identity as deity. Charles Ryrie, I believe, is correct when he states that in the term "Lord", as used in these salvation passages, "deity is the principle emphasis and the focal point of faith as far as salvation from sin is concerned" (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 176). The term "Lord", as used in gospel appeals in the New Testament, speaks of an inherent position and quality which Christ possesses and not of an act of surrender on the part of the believing sinner.

One of the chief objections to the notion of "lordship salvation" is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to the sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of "lordship salvation" tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God. At the point of gospel presentation they do not know what things those are, nor does the personal worker seeking to point them to Jesus know. There is a vast and significant difference between believing on Christ for salvation and learning from Him as our Lord. As we have already pointed out, MacArthur does not separate discipleship from salvation (p. 196). But the calls to discipleship were addressed specifically to His followers who were already believers. MacArthur seeks to refute this by claiming that these various passages about cross-bearing, etc. only describe what the disciples did when they believed. But it should be noted that these exhortations are in the active voice, "Take up your cross," and not "You have taken up your cross." Christ is exhorting those who have already trusted Him for salvation to follow Him as Lord of their lives. _______________________________________________________

What do you think?
Pickering's breif conclusion is next...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 6

Here is the sixth of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #6) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

6. Opponents of the concept of "lordship salvation" are antinomian.

While mentioned earlier, we return for further comments. The term "antinomian" may mean different things to different people. Historically it has often been used to describe persons who repudiate any necessity for adherence to moral standards on the part of a child of God. MacArthur declares, "The teaching that Christians are freed from ob­serving any moral law is rampant in today's evangelical community" (p. 190). We believe our brother again has overstepped himself in his zeal to correct what he feels are excesses or weaknesses in Bible-believing churches. He has made a very exaggerated statement.

Certainly most strong fundamental gospel preachers believe that there are high moral standards incumbent upon the believer. Perhaps behind this statement lies the notion, forwarded strongly by those of Reformed persuasion, that because dispen­sationalists teach that a believer is not under the authority and requirements of the Mosaic law, they therefore are advocating, in effect, a complete freedom from all moral requirements. Such is definitely not the case. Because believers are free from the burden of observing the Mosaic law, this does not give them the freedom to observe no rules.God's grace teaches us that we are to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts" and are to live "soberly, righteously and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). We do not have to enslave New Testament believers again to the Mosaic law in order to have righteous­ness produced in them. Righteousness is produced in the believer by grace, not by law (Rom. 8:3-6).
_______________________________________________________

What do you think?
more to come ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 5

Here is the fifth of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #5) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

5. The saving gospel was a principal part of Christ's message while on earth.

"It is a mistake of the worst sort to set the teachings of Paul and the apostles over against the words of our Lord and imagine that they contradict one another or speak to different dispensations. . .While Jesus' gospel was not yet fully completed until his death and resurrection, the elements of it were all clear in His preaching" (p. 214).

This is a very strange statement indeed for one who claims to be a dispensationalist. As MacArthur himself has admitted in this very section there was no gospel to proclaim until it was produced through the vicarious death of the Savior and His resurrection from the tomb. How would the Jews in the land of Palestine who heard Christ's preaching be capable of believing "good news" which, at that period in time, was non­existent except in prophetic utterances? Gospel preachers were to go to the ends of the earth with the saving message following Christ's death, resurrection, and His provision of the Holy Spirit to empower the witnesses (Luke 24:45-49). We believe it is our brother who wrote the above who has made the "mistake" and not those who have been, and do, make a distinction between the dispensation of law, under which Christ conducted His earthly ministry, and the dispensation of grace, under which we labor today.

MacArthur finds the saving gospel of Christ in very strange places. For instance, Christ exhorted men thusly, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34). MacArthur states, "The explicit subject is eternal life and salvation" (p. 135). Here is a failure to see the distinction between salvation and discipleship. Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily sub­mission to the will of God). Christ here is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.

Of the parable of the landowner who hires men at various hours of the day and then pays them the same wages (Matt. 20:1-16) MacArthur declares, "The issue here is the equality of eternal life" (p. 146). One looks in vain, however, in this parable for any delineation of the gospel nor any reference to the bestowment of eternal life. The parable deals with the sovereign distribution of rewards for service, not the apportion­ment of salvation. MacArthur sees no distinction between Christ's presentation of the kingdom and the message of the gospel. "When Jesus proclaimed His kingdom, He was preaching salvation" (p. 89). He says further that "the essence of Jesus' message was always the gospel of salvation" (p. 90).

While there are shades of difference among dispensationalists as to the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, none, to this writer's knowledge, supports the concepts that MacArthur advances. He says the sermon on the Mount contains "pure gospel" (p. 179) and, with His appeal in Matthew 7:13-14 about entering in at the narrow gate Christ "brings the Sermon on the Mount to its evangelistic climax" (p. 179). How this could be is puzzling indeed. Where is the "evangel" in the Sermon on the Mount? There is no gospel there at all. It was not intended to be a gospel presentation, but was addressed to His own disciples who already were believers.

In his discussion of the wide and narrow gates, the writer sees the teaching as com­bating "the modern notion that salvation is easy" (p. 182). This same thought is repeated in various places in the book. Christ's words in Matthew 7, it is said, contra­dict the popular teaching "that becoming a Christian is only a matter of believing some facts, signing on a dotted line, walking an aisle, raising a hand, or praying the right prayer" (p. 182). While some careless and superficial zealots perhaps could be accused of such notions, it is but a caricature of the multitudes of serious-minded and concerned evangelists and evangelistic pastors who call upon sinners to obey the New Testament command, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). By such an exhortation they do not mean to merely "believe some facts." They mean that the godless sinner should receive, believe upon, a wonderful Person who has provided salvation by grace for him. They mean that there should be a definite act of faith which rests solely upon the work of the Savior.

What is the Biblical definition of the gospel? "Christ died for our sins. . .was buried, and. . .rose again" (I Cor. 15:3-4). This message is not the same as the Sermon on the Mount or a call for crossbearing. The message of the gospel is a message of free grace flowing from the cross of Calvary and appropriated by the simple faith of the sinner.Is it an "easy" gospel? It depends upon what you mean by that statement. It was cer­tainly not "easy" in its procurement. The price - the suffering and death of the infinite Son of God was great. If one means by the word "easy" that it is "simple," that is, un­complicated and free to the sinner, our answer would be, "Yes, it is easy." If one means by use of the word "easy" that proponents of salvation by faith alone condone a life of sinful abandon after one's salvation, our answer would be that of the apostle Paul, "God forbid!"

While MacArthur excoriates dispensationalists whom he claims have a loose view of the demands of salvation, we do not believe that is a fair and balanced view of what leading dispensationalists have taught. In the footnote commenting on I John 3:4, 6, 9 the New Scofield Bible says, "Here and in similar places in this Epistle the Greek verb has the force of a continuous present tense. . .and thus denotes a person's habitual attitude toward sin as expressed in his practice or non-practice of it. . .he is stressing the fact that a Christian cannot keep on practicing sin, because he is born of God" (Footnote on I Jn. 3:4, p. 1307).

While the view of Zane Hodges (The Gospel Under Siege) and perhaps some other dispensationalists may differ from the view just quoted, the Scofield footnote, represents a solid and widely-held view among dispensa­tionalists. J. Ronald Blue, the commentator on the Book of James in The Bible Know­ledge Commentary, a commentary with a dispensational approach, in discussing the re­lationship between faith and works says simply, "Spiritual works are the evidence, not the energizer, of sincere faith" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, II. 826). Those who are preaching the gospel of saving grace do not for one moment condone a life of sinful abandon on the part of a believer.
_______________________________________________________

What do you think?
more on the way ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 4

Here is the fourth of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #4) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

4. Evangelistic appeals are suspect.

"It may surprise you to learn that Scripture never once exhorts sinners to 'accept Christ.'" (p. 106). We are guilty, says the writer, of employing incorrect terminology when we plead with sinners to "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" (p. 106). In citing John 1:11-12 the point is made that "receiving Christ" is more than "accepting him" (p. 106, footnote). The explanation of the difference, however, is less than satis­factory. In an apparent reference to the problem of the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) MacArthur declares, "Thus conversion is not simply a sinner's decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual" (p. 107). We gather that perhaps he is teaching that regeneration precedes faith. Nevertheless, what­ever his view may be on that, it cannot be denied that the sinner must make a decision. We must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He must "repent and believe the gospel." The Bible emphasizes the call to the sinner. Christ condemned the sinners of His day by saying, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (Jn. 5:40). While it is God that saves, there is still a responsibility to come, and we, as faithful witnesses, must issue that invitation.
_______________________________________________________

That was a short one. What do you think?
more to come tomorrow ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 3

Here is the third of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #3) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

3. The distinction commonly made between the carnal Christian and the spiritual Christian is invalid.

This is a familiar theme, particularly among Reformed theologians such as Lloyd-Jones, mentioned earlier. Their impression seems to be that if one admits to the existence of "carnal Christians" one is merely seeking to find a way to excuse the loose living of professing believers. MacArthur sees this distinction as intertwined with the teaching that there may be a difference between a person who is saved and a person who has decided to become a disciple. To him every believer is a "disciple."

In the first place, those who speak of "carnal" Christians are only employing the terminology of Scripture. Paul speaks of those believers who are "carnal" (fleshly, 1 Cor. 3:1) and speaks of the evidence of such a condition in the verses that follow. While brethren may deny the existence of such an individual, we would venture to say that a considerable number of examples could be found in their own churches! One is not going to make "carnal" Christians vanish simply by demanding that saving faith include surrender to the Lordship of Christ. Even if that were done it would not guaran­tee that the new convert would submit to the Lordship of Christ when confronted with a specific demand. If he did not do so, he would become a "carnal" Christian, walking according to the flesh and not the Spirit.In his zeal to defend his view, we believe our brother has made some extreme state­ments which do not describe properly the vast majority of fundamental gospel preachers of our acquaintance. "Anyone who says he has 'accepted Christ' is enthusi­astically received as a Christian, even if his supposed faith later gives way to a persistent pattern of disobedience, gross sin, or hostile unbelief" (p. 97). In his footnote explanation of I Corinthians 3:3 MacArthur does admit that the Corinthian believers were "behaving in a carnal way" (p. 97). Perhaps we have missed some subtle dis­tinction, but we fail to see the difference between "behaving in a carnal way" and being a "carnal Christian." _______________________________________________________

What do you think?
more to come ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 2

Here is the second of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here. )

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #2) and offers comment:
_______________________________________________________
2. Saving faith is more than mental assent.

A number of times, in various ways, this emphasis is given. Saving faith is "more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing" (p. 31). We do not know any fundamental preachers of the gospel who would disagree with that statement. We never have heard any reputable gospel preacher ever teach otherwise. The old Scofield Bible declared that "faith is personal trust, apart from meritorious works, in the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1302, Scofield Bible). The Ryrie Study Bible declares, "Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ" (note on James 2:14).

In this connection MacArthur laments, "Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit" (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of "merely" believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, "The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel. . ." (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170).

It is at this point that MacArthur's view of repentance should be mentioned. He places great emphasis upon repentance and indicts modern gospel preachers with pos­sessing an incorrect view of it. While accepting repentance as a part of saving faith, he says, "It is a redirection of the human will, a purposeful decision to forsake all un­righteousness and pursue righteousness instead" (p. 163). "No evangelism that omits the message of repentance can properly be called the gospel. . ." (p. 167).

The word "repent" in the New Testament means "to have another mind, to change the mind." True repentance is to have a change of mind regarding sin, God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is not an act separate from saving faith but a part of it. When I believe on the Savior I am repenting of my sins. One cannot "believe" in the New Testament sense of that word without also "repenting." To "believe" does not mean "to be willing to give up all that is displeasing to God." It means to accept with all the heart what the Bible says about my sin and about Christ's sacrifice for me.
_______________________________________________________

What do you think? I know some wouldn't agree with Pickering's view of repentance as a "change of mind."
more to come ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Part 1

Here is the first of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up one of MacArthur's points (large green italic #1) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

1. An Attack upon Leading Dispensationalists.

MacArthur seems to believe that much of the fault in what he calls "easy believism" in gospel preaching can be laid at the feet of dispensational teachers such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie and others. He criticizes dispensationalists who teach that law and grace are mutually exclusive (p. 25). Dispensationalists have been responsible for the "error" of distinguishing between salvation and discipleship. One is somewhat aghast at the force of MacArthur's attack upon dispensationalists while at the same time claiming that he is a "traditional premillennial dispensationalist" (p. 25).

The reason that MacArthur takes this position toward dispensationalists is evident as one proceeds through the volume. Major sections of Scripture upon which he depends for support in his defense of "lordship salvation" would not be viewed by normal dis­pensationalists as applicable to the gospel and its presentation.
It seems evident that MacArthur's thought has been greatly influenced by Reformed thinkers, and the enthusiasm with which some of them have received this volume would tend to support this observation. We think he especially has been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the famous English expositor, who has set forth many of the same thoughts now propounded by MacArthur.

Particular criticism is leveled at the strong distinctions made between the "age of law" and the "age of grace." "Actually, elements of both law and grace are part of the program of God in every dispensation" (p. 26). But here, we believe, MacArthur misses the point. Most dispensationalists never have said that there was no grace evident in the age (dispensation) of law. What they have taught is that the governing principle of life between the age of law and the age of grace is different. Nor does their teaching suggest that because the Christian is under grace he, therefore, has no controlling principles to his life and is free to do whatever he wishes. Dispensationalists have not been "anti-nomians" (as one of the Reformed scholars suggests whose endorsement appears upon the cover of this volume). The fact of the matter is that the law has been "done away" (II Cor. 3:11) and "abolished" (II Cor. 3:13). This point did not originate with Darby or Scofield. It was made by the apostle Paul.
_______________________________________________________

What do you think?
more to come ...

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation Introduction

There is a little monograph that was written shortly after the book The Gospel According to Jesus came out. It was written by Dr. Earnest Pickering and given to my husband by the man, who was a pastor at our church, Emmanuel Baptist in Toledo, Ohio. Earnest Pickering was an avid Calvinist. He was a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary.

He was the man that was very instrumental in my husband's conversion. He was the man who baptized me when I went to another church that he pastored while President of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis (we lived there for 7 months in 1992). We loved the man! The last time I saw him, he visited Emmanuel and preached at our church's 100th anniversay while blind in both eyes. This was in 1999, I believe. His stance was just as austere as ever, even without his sight. He died just a couple of years after that.

The booklet consists of an introduction, 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points, and a conclusion. I will be posting these points one at a time for your edification and reflection. Please feel free to comment on the content of the posts. The way Dr. Pickering saw this issue is just as I and my husband do. His comments are as pertinent today as ever.

Here it is:

Lordship Salvation
by Dr. Earnest Pickering
_______________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION: John MacArthur's latest book, The Gospel According to Jesus, promises to be a "blockbuster" indeed and will no doubt further divide the evangelical community over the question of the exact terms of the sinner's salvation. This debate has been building for a number of years, but the publication of a work like this by a widely-read and respected Bible teacher will no doubt heighten the discussion con­siderably.

One always asks when reading a book of this nature, "Why did the author write it?" The answer can be found in one statement: "The superficial response is epidemic and is twentieth-century Christianity. . .Why? Because the gospel is usually presented with the promise of joy, warmth, fellowship, and a good feeling, but without the hard demand to take up one's cross and follow Christ" (p. 123). This is basically the main concern of MacArthur. The gospel has been made too easy. More stringent requirements are necessary than those normally presented in gospel preaching.

The essence of his argument is this:
"Eternal life is indeed a free gift. . .But that does not mean that there is no cost in terms of salvation's impact on the sinner's life. . .Obviously, a new believer does not fully understand all the ramifications of the lordship of Jesus at the moment of conversion. But a true believer has a desire to surrender. This is what dis­tinguishes true faith from a bogus profession. True faith is humble, submissive obedience" (p. 140).

MacArthur is espousing what has become known as "lordship salvation." A sinner, in coming to Christ, must exercise faith, but included in that saving faith is a conscious submission to make Christ the Lord of his life (cf. p. 28, footnote). Let us review some of his major points and make comments upon them.
_______________________________________________________

More tomorrow...

Just As I Am

We sang this song at church last Sunday. My heart rejoiced to sing this song in our church! If your understanding of the gospel cannot embrace this hymn, I regret it.
Here is a little background for the hymn:

Miss Charlotte Elliott was vi­sit­ing some friends in the West End of Lon­don, and there met the em­i­nent min­is­ter, Cé­sar Ma­lan. While seat­ed at sup­per, the min­is­ter said he hoped that she was a Christ­ian. She took of­fense at this, and re­plied that she would ra­ther not dis­cuss that quest­ion. Dr. Ma­lan said that he was sor­ry if had of­fend­ed her, that he al­ways liked to speak a word for his Mas­ter, and that he hoped that the young la­dy would some day be­come a work­er for Christ. When they met again at the home of a mu­tu­al friend, three weeks lat­er, Miss Ell­i­ott told the min­is­ter that ev­er since he had spok­en to her she had been try­ing to find her Sav­iour, and that she now wished him to tell her how to come to Christ. “Just come to him as you are,” Dr. Ma­lan said. This she did, and went away re­joic­ing. Shortly af­ter­ward she wrote this hymn.

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am,
Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Praise the Lord! Sinners don't have to repent or reform before they can come to the Lamb of God.
This song expresses that beautifully.

You can't or you won't?

We had a special speaker at church this last Sunday. He is a Christian counselor and he talked of his need to be able to make theology practical for Christians who are really struggling with sin. The title of his sermon was Understanding our Struggle with the Flesh.

I appreciated a lot of what this fellow had to say, and my mind latched on to one particular point he made. Then, as I cogitated over it, it expanded.

He was talking about how Christian people are sometimes caught in a sin. They keep on doing it while they tell their couselor that they can't help themselves. They seem given over to it. The counselor is to remind them that they have all they need for life and godliness. He counters their claims of I can't live godly. He puts the responsibility squarely on their shoulders and asks them You can't or you won't? As the speaker said these words, the question seemed pertinent to anyone in the congregation who has been telling themselves I can't."

You can't or you won't?
I kept thinking about this question. I thought that it could be turned around and asked about the opposite ... living in sin. "You can't or you won't?" Some say that a true Christian can't live in sin. It is impossible for a true believer to go on continually in sin, they say. If one has given themsleves over to abandoning the things of God and living for Him, then they aren't really saved because a Christian CAN'T do that. That is a really a dogmatic thing to say and it seems to take the idea of living for self etc.. out of the realm of choice. Maybe this works psychologically for some, but it is not realistic.

It is a conscious choice we make to fellowship with the saints, read our Bibles, pray to our God, meditate on His Word and yield to His Holy Spirit, IS IT NOT? If we neglect these things (which we CAN) we CAN fall into terrible places. This is not what God would have for us. That is why we should say, We won't! when it comes to going the wrong way. We mustn't use We can't as a crutch.

To say I can't (live godly) can be used as a license to sin and this is terribly false! We are blessed with every Spiritual blessing in Christ and we have the armour of God to wear! We have Christ Himself that we are to clothe ourselves in. We can live godly lives and strengthen the inner man who is born of the Spirit.

However, if I can't (continue in sin) is used as a dogmatic statement, I believe it can set Christians up for big falls and terrible indecisiveness. If this statement is tested and a Christian sees that HE CAN go on sinning and sear his conscience, what is he then to conclude? Couldn't the teaching of "True Christians can't go on sinning" push him further away from repenting and from the hope that he has in Christ? He should rather have been taught personal responsibilty for his Christian walk. Perhaps then the I won't (live godly) would turn to I won't (go on sinning). This is repentance!! How does repentance work out in a Christian if he has "I can't have done this..." in his paradigm? How does that look?

Telling oneself I can't (be overtaken by sin) seems like it would either lead to a false sense of security, lack of preparedness for temptation, insecurity if one does get caught up in something, confusion as to one's justification before God, and, if sin besets him, an unsure pathway home. Wouldn't it also promote pride and judgement of others who have fallen?

1 Corinthians 10
12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Compare and Contrast

Israel and the Church

I was thinking about the nation of Israel and the Church. One is not the other … in my humble but correct opinion. I ponder some of the conversations I have had with those of the persuasion that one is just a continuation of the other.

Contrast. Both groups are called the “chosen” of God, but are both groups made up of individuals chosen by God? Both are chosen, but are both chosen on the same basis? Individuals are chosen to be in Isreal by virtue of their physical birth. Individuals in the church are chosen in connection with faith (whether chosen because of faith ... or ... chosen to have faith is, of course, debatable, “debatable” being a deficient word in this case).

Compare. The chosen people of God, Israel, was full of rebellious, backsliding individuals. Then again, I have friends who would take the verse Romans 9:6 (For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel) to mean that the rebellious ones from the past in Israel were not truly “Israel.” This makes me wonder: who is God speaking of when he talks of the rebellious ones, because He calls them Israel?! (Head-scratcher)

Compare? Is the church a continuation of this? Are there any rebellious, backsliding Christians who don’t believe God’s Word in the church? Certainly such a one believed at some time or he would not be a part of the church (whether belief was the passive result of being convinced of the truth … or ... it was a gifting of faith…). However, can that same person doubt God’s word and turn away from God’s revelation and will, although a part of the body of Christ? Didn’t this happen with Israel? Is this a point of comparison?

Contrasting the two, I see that individuals in Israel were chosen based on the will of man and the flesh. They were procreated based on their father’s will (to have their mother) and then, through birth, they became an Israelite. However in the church, we are

… born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Because:

… as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. (John 1:12)

Contrast! We are given the power of God to become His children. We are out of many nations … making one body. We have one thing in common – we all received Christ and God gave us the right to be called the children of God because of CHRIST, His person and work. No one is born a Christian; you cannot be a Christian since the day of your physical birth, because being born again is connected with faith in Christ. Can an infant see faith in Christ? No. Can a person be an Israelite since the day of his physical birth? Yes, as most Israelites are!

So - we, the Church (should that be capitalized?) are in the house of God because of something different than the Israelites. Contrast! The Israelites are born as infants into a conditional covenant (?), being required to keep the law. We, however, are born as people of an age of reason into the house of God through faith in Christ’s work … which frees us from any requirement. They (Israel) receive an obligation that comes with a promise … or a promise that comes with an obligation. (I do recognize that there are promises made to Israel that are not conditional; we will see them fulfilled regardless of what Israel does). We receive a gift that is not related to obligation, but elicits positive behavior by implantation of the Spirit of God. When works are in attendance with us, they have been produced by a response of love, and a growth of the implanted Word with the Holy Spirit ever-present.

Compare! Something the individuals in Israel and the Church have in common is that none could do enough nor perform aptly to satisfy the demands of the Holy God based on their physical birth. Israel and the Church have this in common because both are physically generated from sources with a common problem – the taint of sin. However, there is a RE-generation with members of the Church. We have been born again as Israelites may be ... but are not entitled to be ... by virtue of their belonging to Israel. Contrast!

These are some of my thoughts. What do you think?

Did God Create Everything?

A University professor at a well-known institution of higherlearning challenged his students with this question.

"Did God create everything that exists?"
A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The other students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact, sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat. And all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature.
Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name -- Albert Einstein