Home » Posts tagged 'repentance'
Tag Archives: repentance
Israel & Hamas: Just War vs. Pure Evil & the United States
As blog readers surely know, on October 7 thousands of Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and butchered and tortured many helpless Israeli citizens. On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, they did things like the following:
A young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents were around the breakfast table. The father’s eye was gouged out in front of his kids. The mother’s breast was cut off, the girl’s foot amputated, and the boy’s fingers cut off before they were executed. And then their executioners sat down and had a meal.
In total, around 1,400 Israelis have been murdered by Hamas, and more than 4,500 injured. It was Israel’s 9-11.
In response, Israel invaded Gaza, intending to overthrow Hamas. Israel told civilians to leave the northern area ahead of time–but Hamas told them not to leave, and was turning people back into the war zone. (Did Hamas give early warning to Jewish civilians before launching their unprovoked attack? Hmm.) Hamas deliberately puts people in Gaza in harms way so that they can be killed, and then Israel can be blamed. Hamas’ main headquarters is underneath Gaza’s main hospital because Hamas knows that Israel respects human life, while they do not.
What are some things we can learn from this war?
1.) It is a just war for Israel. Anyone who recognizes that God blesses those who bless Israel (Genesis 12:3) should automatically be biased in Israel’s favor in a situation like this one, but even if one very foolishly rejects God’s Word, anyone with half a brain can see which side is right in this war.
2.) Hamas is acting like faithful Muslims should act. They are obeying the god of Islam, who told them: “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (Quran 9:5). The Quran is full of open-ended commands to violently kill people, and Muhammad was a bloodthirsty murderer, as one can clearly see if one reads his biography.
3.) Not just Hamas, but Muslims in general have an anti-Jew problem, because of their religion. Is every Muslim anti-Jewish? No–many Muslims do not care about their religion, just like many Roman Catholics don’t care what the Bible says or the Pope decrees. But the Muslims that do care about their religion are anti-Israel. Why is Rashida Tliab advocating and defending genocide of the Jews? Her district is full of Muslim immigrants. Islam in America–like Islam everywhere that it is true Islam–is violent and bloodthirsty, which is why the most dangerous evangelistic endeavour I ever had, where I was closest to being killed, was not at various Gay Pride parades, but in the American heartland politely and respectfully passing out the evangelistic work The Testimony of the Quran to Muslims. A majority of American Muslims are at least partially in favor of the brutal murders that Hamas committed on October 7, and around 40% of them approve the terrorist leader of Hamas. Imagine if 40% of any other demographic were in favor of terrorism. The people in Gaza voted in Hamas. Now since that vote there have been no other elections, since Islam is against democracy and in favor of dictatorship. There are no free and fair elections under Sharia law. But when the Muslims in Gaza had a chance to vote, Hamas won.
4.) Because the left is anti-Bible, and because Joe Biden needs Muslim votes in swing states like Michigan to win reelection, the Democrat party is becoming more and more anti-Jewish. Calling on Israel for a ceasefire is absolutely bonkers. More Jews were killed in a single day than at any time since the Holocaust, but Biden calling on $100 million in aid to the Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank for “humanitarian” purposes is about what the Babylon Bee described it as, and the money is certain to be diverted to support terrorism. Would we have been fine with calling for a ceasefire after 9-11 and then giving “humanitarian” aid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Biden should be calling on Israel to utterly obliterate Hamas. Hamas should immediately release all American hostages and all other hostages. Anyone who actually cares about the people in Gaza not getting killed should want Hamas overthrown as soon as possible.
5.) Because the mainstream media is dominated by the left, all kinds of false equivalencies are made between Israel’s just war and Hamas’s unjust murders. Inflated numbers of casualties in Gaza are repeated by major press organizations from figures spoon-fed to them by Hamas itself. Of course, Islam allows Muslims to lie. Reporters in Gaza can either repeat what Hamas tells them to report or they can get tortured and killed themselves, or at the very least get kicked out of the territory. How many Jewish reporters do you think are on the ground in Gaza getting information? Oh yes, the same number as the number of Jews who live in Gaza–zero–while in Israel Muslims are around 20% of the population and have equal rights (yes, the freest place for Muslims in the Middle East is in Israel). And even though Israel is the freest place in the Middle East for Muslim Arabs, usually only around 33% of Arab Israeli citizens oppose Hamas, and the large majority oppose Israel’s defending itself; immediately after this butchery of Israelis–including Arab Muslim ones–23% of Arab Israelis still do not oppose Hamas, while 33% oppose Israel defending itself even while the blood of their murdered and tortured fellow citizens is barely dry. Israel is pressured to stop fighting because its terrorist, true Muslim opponents in Hamas want as many of their own civilians killed as possible. (If you want information about Israel that is free from anti-Jewish bias, please check out FLAME: Facts and Logic about the Middle East, and consider their newsletter. They are a Jewish, not a Christian organization.) The mainstream media are very, very worried about the the three Nazis that are left joining with the 17 KKK members in the country holding a demonstration somewhere that has thousands of counter-protesters, but a blind eye is turned to the vast multitude of American Muslims who are actually in favor of killing the Jews.
6.) The fact that this is a just war for Israel does not mean that Israel is a righteous country. The vast majority of Jews reject and hate their Messiah, the Lord Jesus. Jews from all over the world are allowed to immigrate to Israel, but Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah are not allowed in. Tel Aviv is considered one of the most gay friendly cities in the world, despite the clear statements in the Old Testament about the abomination of sodomy. Moses in Deuteronomy 28 describes exactly what Israel has faced for the last 2,000 years since “all the people … said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25):
And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. (Deuteronomy 28:66-67)
Israel is not going to have peace, not only because the nation is surrounded by Muslims who hate Jews like the Quran tells them to do, but because the curses of Deuteronomy are upon them, and will continue on them until they repent and believe on their Messiah, the Lord Jesus.
7.) As individual Christians and churches, the best thing we can do is preach the gospel to every creature. Love and preach the gospel to the Jews and send evangelists to them. Love and preach the gospel to the Muslims and send evangelists to them. How well equipped are you to evangelize Jews? How about Muslims? Do you have tracts for these two specific false religions? Love your neighbor as yourself. How well would you want a Christian to be equipped to speak to you if you were lost in one of these false beliefs?
8.) From a public policy perspective, the United States should support Israel because God has sworn in the Abrahamic Covenant that He would bless those that bless Israel, something repeated throughout the Old Testament. God used Babylon to punish His rebellious people centuries ago, and He uses Islam to punish them today, but woe to the Babylonians and to the Muslims who attacked the Jews! If someone says we give Israel too much foreign aid and we can’t afford it, he is consistent if he is also aware that foreign aid to all countries is less than 1% of the federal budget and is also in favor of the kind of drastic entitlement reform that could actually save us from defaulting on our national debt. If he doesn’t want to either abolish or drastically reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but is very indignant about foreign aid to Israel (most of which, for weapons, goes to American companies), his position is not very consistent. Once someone is a citizen here, he has freedom of religion and speech. He is free to be a fool and put on a white hoodie and burn crosses. He is free to be a fool and chant “From the river to the sea” and so call for genocide of Jews. But we should let as few of these people immigrate here as possible. Muslims who actually believe in Islam should not be let into the country, and those non-citizens who believe in Islam’s teachings about jihad should be deported. Furthermore, we need to recognize that, like Muhammad, modern faithful Muslims respect power, not truth. When Muhammad was powerful, he killed the non-Muslims; when he was weak, he advocated religious tolerance. If we want to deter terrorism and want there to be more peace, and less war, then Israel should be allowed to enact a ferocious response on Hamas that will discourage the Muslims who surround Israel from acting upon their religion’s murderous and anti-Jewish teachings.
By the way, Russia is also guilty of awful war crimes in Ukraine. (Did you know Ukraine has the second largest number of Baptists of any European country–only less than the UK?) Deterring Russia means letting the Ukrainians defend themselves. Ronald Reagan, in God’s good providence, won the Cold War by helping to arm those who fought the Russians when they were invading. We should balance the budget and pay off our national debt by fixing entitlements, and that can be done while, without putting any Americans on the front lines to fight, we send weapons to an imperfect but pro-Western nation with freedom of religion that the Russians decided to butcher the citizens of in their cruel, unjustified, barbaric, and wicked invasion.
Shaping a Jesus In Your Own Image and then Believing in Him for Salvation
Contrasting Christianity
Have you talked in public to an evangelical woman with a cross hanging down into her revealed cleavage? You see the cross juxtapositioned with the other as a backdrop. Not a fit, is it? Maybe you, like me, wonder about the vast differences in professing Christianity. They both claim to believe in Jesus Christ. What’s going on?
One church you attend uses superficial, short preaching that centers on men’s felt needs. They do series on self-interest topics that will attract people. They keep it short with lots of humor. The other opens the Bible and explains and applies exactly what it says, word for word.
Some churches use rock or pop music and call it praise. Others use sacred music, saying that God rejects and hates rock or pop music and doesn’t want to hear it. The former accepts worldly and even sinful dress or apparel. The latter preaches against that in a practical way.
A church that calls itself Christian uses world amusements that target every demographic with alluring activities. The other does exactly what the Bible presents as an obedient practice.
I could go on and on with varied descriptions of these two extremes, both calling themselves Christian. Both of them say they believe in Jesus. The modern or postmodern form of a professing Christian church wants toleration from the church with strict conformity to scripture. When the biblical church, a true one, rejects the belief and practice of the false one, the false one calls this unloving, even unChristian.
Similar Doctrinal Statement, But….
Very often I’ve said that two indistinguishable churches have a very similar doctrinal statement. The drastic incongruence between the two does not relate to their doctrinal statement. The contradiction relates to a true or false or a beautiful or ugly imagination of God. One fashions a god made after lust and the other after reverence. God and all associated with Him stays sacred in a true church. That church turns off a lot of people, not the aesthetic or feeling many professing Christians want.
Changing the God in the imagination changes everything about believing in Him, obeying Him, and worshiping Him. It distorts everything. Let me give you a simple illustration.
Scripture commands not to use corrupt communication. It does not say what that is. What was corrupt at one time and with the different imagination of God becomes uncorrupt. It’s fine now. Are you using corrupt communication? No, because the meaning changed. You have a different God that allows for that communication, so it’s fine.
The Beauty of Holiness
Psalm 96:9 says, “Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” That’s a command that one might obey or disobey. Let’s say someone does something he calls worship and it is not in the beauty of holiness. That isn’t worship. Here is a person claiming to worship, but not worshiping and in reality disobeying God. People also do not know who God is because of the false portrayal of God presented.
The false god in the imagination that might have a pretty good doctrinal statement still completely misses. This is how two professing Christianities portray such vast difference between the other. The true presents something according to true churches through most of history. The false presents a counterfeit, calling itself authentic or genuine.
Most of the false Christianity deemphasizes repentance. Some of it will hold to repentance as an entrance unto salvation in Christ. However, it’s just the word repentance used. It isn’t repentance, because it doesn’t turn from these worldly things that dishonor God. It hangs on to them.
False Repentance
What does the false repentance turn from? It can be the superficial turning of not believing to believing. However, at the same time holding to an impostor belief. A person still has not turned from unbelief, because he distorts belief too. Other forms of false repentance occur. The Apostle Paul showed how that people replace true repentance with something short of it in 2 Corinthians 7.
I don’t think what I’m writing is beyond comprehension for people. They know that two things that are different are not the same. Only one of these turns from the belief and practice of historic Christianity. That’s the false one.
Many, many people have shaped Jesus into their own image and then received the false one. They read their chosen version of the Bible, which says, believe in Jesus. They do. Now they think they’re saved. He must be Jesus. If He isn’t, they haven’t believed in Him. They are lost.
What’s different about those believing in the false Jesus? Jesus is immanent. He comes down and close in His manner as described in scripture. He’s also transcendent. 1 Peter 1:16 says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Jesus is holy. Their Jesus is not. He isn’t sacred and He does not require holiness like Peter says.
You Can Lead an Evangelistic Bible Study!
You can lead an evangelistic Bible study! I have mentioned on What is Truth? before the series of evangelistic Bible studies that the FaithSaves.net website has made available. The seven studies themselves can be viewed here, where one can also see an example by video of how one can present them to the lost. The files can also be downloaded and customized with updated church addresses here. They are in use in various churches in the United States and in foreign countries.
If you have never led an evangelistic Bible study before, I have had the privilege of teaching an extensive series on how to lead one which you can watch. We have gone through study #1, on the nature of Scripture, study #2, on the one true Triune God, study #3, on God’s law and man’s sin, and study #4, on the Person of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection. Study #5, covering repentance and faith, has been started. So now you can not only see a video example of how to lead an evangelistic Bible study, have extensive written notes that can help you to do it, but also have extensive video teaching on how to do it.
Thus, if you are not trying to preach the gospel to the lost and to follow the pattern in Acts of regularly giving more and more truth to interested people until they either repent and believe or are hardened and do not want the truth anymore, what is your excuse? Is it one that will stand up at the judgment seat of the holy Christ who died for the sins of the world? Can Christ die for every person, but you do nothing or nearly nothing to preach the gospel to them, both through clearly explaining the entire gospel in single interactions and through evangelistic explanation in repeated, regular sessions–an evangelistic Bible study?
Of course, there are many ways to explain to the lost the glorious riches of God’s grace. If your church has a different evangelistic Bible study that they like better, that still presents the full-orbed truth, that is just fine. But you need to be doing something. Christ did not save you so that you could be in the pew-warming ministry, but so that you can be in the ministry of making disciples from every kindred, tongue, and nation (Matthew 28:18-20).
–TDR
John the Baptist’s Diminishment of His Own Water Baptism in Matthew 3
Matthew 3 provides the New Testament introduction of the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist. While John preached in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to him for the purpose of baptism in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:7-12 read:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The Desire of the Pharisees and Sadducees for John’s Baptism
“To his baptism” in verse 11 may sound like a dative of direction or destination. It isn’t. It is the Greek preposition, epi, with the accusative noun, baptisma. The BDAG lexicon says the following about this usage of epi:
11. marker of purpose, goal, result, to, for, w. acc. . . . . baptism=to have themselves baptized Mt 3:7
John’s reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees shows that he knew they were coming out for baptism by him. How he uses the Greek word, echidna, translated “vipers,” indicates that he referred to the vipera ammodytes, the sand viper. Because of very dry conditions, brush fires will begin and spread in the Jordan River Valley, pushing these poisonous reptiles toward the water. This is the picture John paints of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This elucidates their purpose.
Sand vipers slither to the Jordan River to escape brush fires. The Pharisees and Sadducees came for the purpose of John’s baptism. They thought it might provide another possible escape from future judgment of God. These religious leaders were quite willing to try one more religious ritual as another fire insurance policy. John wouldn’t baptize them. His baptism would not deliver them.
The Preaching of Repentance
John preached repentance. He immersed only the repentant. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repentant. Their lives did not show the fruit of repentance. Repentance was a change of heart, conversion of the soul. It was more than token ritual so favored by false religion.
Later in verse 11, John says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” “Into” translates the Greek preposition, eis, which indicates identification, such as when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Unto” is again the preposition eis. The children of Israel were not placed in Moses. Through their baptism in the Red Sea, they identified with Moses. John’s immersion in water identified the repentance of the recipients.
John the Baptist is saying, my baptism doesn’t save you. Baptism would not result in the salvation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would just be another ritual for them. If they repented, God would save them, and then John would immerse them. He baptized only previously truly repentant people.
The Natural Quality of John’s Baptism
If someone thinks that baptism will deliver him from hell fire, like the sand vipers slithered to the Jordan River to deliver them from brush fires, he was wrong. John makes that clear in the following verses. Using other metaphors, John says that God would cast them into the fire without repentance. John baptized, but he diminishes it before his listeners as a means of salvation. This should give strong pause to those adding baptism as a salvation requirement. John the Baptist himself didn’t do that.
Further, John contrasts what he does with water baptism and what Jesus does with Spirit and fire baptism. John represents his baptism as solely natural. It’s water. Water doesn’t make any kind of supernatural or spiritual change. He characterizes baptism with water as inferior to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those are greater than the baptism John performed. Jesus Himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
The Supernatural Quality of Jesus’ Baptisms
Compared to John’s
The Holy Spirit and the eternal fire of Hell are both supernatural. The two media with which Jesus baptizes are superior in quality and character to the one medium of John’s baptism. John was just a man. He could water baptize, but he couldn’t baptize with the third person of the Trinity like Jesus could and did.
In Jesus’ day, slaves would carry the sandals or shoes of their Master or Lord. John was so low compared to Jesus, he says, that he was not worthy even to do that kind of slave work for Jesus. Sure, he could baptize with water. That was a baptism suitable for his doing. Only Jesus could do such supernatural baptisms as the Holy Spirit and fire.
Holy Spirit baptism corresponds in John’s preaching to gathering the wheat in his garner. The garner was heaven in John’s figure and the fire was Hell. Anyone in John the Baptist’s audience that day he invited to repent, so that Jesus would gather them into His granary. If they did not repent, therefore not being a good tree that could bring forth fruit, Jesus would axe them down and toss them into unquenchable fire.
Later in Matthew 3, Jesus then shows up in the wilderness, bringing an entirely different situation for John the Baptist. When the Pharisees and Sadducees showed up, he didn’t want to baptize them. They needed to repent and they hadn’t. When Jesus showed up, John the Baptist didn’t want to baptize him either. Why? He only baptized repentant people and Jesus had nothing for which to repent. Instead then, John asked Jesus to baptize him.
The Characterization of Jesus
If anyone should repent, next to Jesus, John was the one who needed repentance. Jesus should baptize him and not John baptize Jesus. John’s desire not to baptize Jesus diminished his baptism in comparison to the work of Jesus. Through Jesus, you could receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. John’s baptism just identified its recipients with what mattered most, their repentance. Mere identification is lesser than the much greater transformation of a life through Christ’s redemption and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus could and would also judge in the end with fire. The fan, the winnowing shovel, was in His hand. In the end judgment, He would divide the truly saved from those who are not. That is way above John the Baptist’s pay grade. John’s baptism was not salvific. It was not supernatural. John was just a man. He wasn’t God like Jesus was.
John was baptizing. When he compared himself with Jesus in John 3 to persuade his followers to follow Jesus instead, John argued (verse 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you believed in Jesus Christ, you received everlasting life. If you didn’t, you received the wrath of God. Nothing John could do would provide everlasting life or the wrath of God. Belief brought everlasting life, not baptism.
Thought Experiment
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism. They saw it as a fire escape, another ritual that would put more weight on the side of their own righteousness. It might ameliorate themselves against future judgment as an impressive deed.
As a thought experiment, let’s say John welcomed their desire for baptism, praised them for it. Their trek out to the Jordan River manifested their expression of need. They were admitting trouble for themselves, perhaps some need for cleansing. So John instead said, “Well done. In light of your recognition of deprivation, let me baptize you!”
Baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees would play right into their hands. It would give them the wrong impression and false sense of security that baptism would save. John sent the message that baptism did not save. It was a symbol. It didn’t do anything like repentance and then Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John’s unwillingness to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show fruit unto repentance teaches against any saving effect of baptism. It is not a washing of regeneration. It is mere outward identification. Jesus later says it is also a righteous act of obedience. It wouldn’t save anyone, including the Pharisees and Sadducees. John was clear on this.
Sanctification: Bible, Keswick, Wesleyan, Pentecostal Views
Confusion on the nature of progressive sanctification is widespread today. What are the basic differences between the views on sanctification taught in the Bible and the views of sanctification promoted by the Wesleyan (Methodist, Holiness), Keswick (Higher Life), Pentecostal (Assemblies of God), and what I call the Weak on Repentance (“free grace,” anti-Lordship) movements?
As part of the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study (the studies themselves are here), I provide an overview of these five different positions (one true, four false) in the video below, which can also be watched and commented on YouTube here.
–TDR
Done. Yes, But….
REVIEW OF BOOK BY CARY SCHMIDT
Many times through my life, someone said, “Christianity is a ‘done’ religion, not a ‘do’ one.” Or something very close to that. I gravitate toward that message; done, not do. Sounds right. It is, insofar you treat “done” right.
Many who write “done” don’t give it the right definition. Let me explain.
Cary Schmidt and Done.
Cary Schmidt came from Hyles-Anderson in the Hyles days. He went to Lancaster Baptist Church, which is also West Coast Baptist College. Then he left there to Newington, Connecticut, where he still is. He wrote the booklet, “Done,” which many churches hand to the lost in evangelistic packets and to new converts. Many, many. Hundreds of churches hand out thousands of this book. It’s a tiny little book. It’s short, small, and easy to read.
I have never joined the West Coast and Lancaster, spiritual leadership and striving together, orbit. I’ve explained why here in the past. It relates to doctrine, the gospel, and ministry philosophy. I would not send anyone else into that sphere of influence either. If someone was in it, I would encourage him to get out. This does relate to the book, “done,” among many other things.
Before I talk about the problems of a false view of “done,” what is right about it?
What Is Right about Done.
Nothing is wrong with the general idea or concept of Done. It’s good. Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive). Jesus did everything on the cross for any person’s salvation. He completed the work of salvation. It’s results are ongoing (perfect tense).
Hebrews 10:12 says about the Lord Jesus Christ: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Four times the book of Hebrews records that Jesus sat down (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:2; 12:2). He sat down because His work on the cross paid the penalty for sin. He sat down too because of His burial, bodily resurrection, and ascension, all included and necessary for “done.” The gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).
No doubt, Jesus did everything. We needed what He finished. Religions and people in those religions, which teach and preach salvation by works, need to hear this “done” message. They say “do” instead of “done.”
So, what’s wrong? What’s wrong with “Done”? Nothing is wrong with the word “done.” We like it. Does Schmidt represent it properly though? He does not.
What Is Wrong
A False Presentation
One, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus did everything, but how do we access what He did? Schmidt in his little booklet says you’ve got to take the gift Jesus gave like opening a gift on Christmas morning. He makes the reception of the gift then, a two step process (p. 83): (1) Believe the gift is free, that it doesn’t cost you anything. (2) Receive the gift.
The way Schmidt describes it, the gift is under the tree, there wrapped and ready to take. People do not get the gift because they won’t believe that gift is free and then because they think they might have to pay, they don’t take it. Children know their gifts are free under the tree. People in evangelism, however, according to Schmidt can’t or don’t believe salvation is free.
The way you get the gift, Schmidt says, is ask for the gift. You believe that the gift is free. That is believing. Jesus paid for the gift, you don’t have to do that. It is done. Then you’ve got to receive the gift. Schmidt makes those the two steps for receiving the free gift of salvation. That is false. This is the major way that “done” fails. It is a big falsehood. There really is very little different between what he says and 1-2-3, pray with me. It’s a lengthier presentation of 1-2-3, pray-with-me.
Misuse or Perverting of Scripture
To make his completely false assertion about the gospel and salvation, Schmidt misuses verses of scripture: Romans 10:9, 13, Acts 16:31, and John 3:16. He leaves out important exposition of those verses. He makes them mean something other than what they mean. As a result, he twists all of the gospels and their presentation of Jesus Christ. I would call it a very carefully crafted falsehood.
The deceit of the “done” message comes from getting one portion of the message of salvation right and twisting another vital part of it. Many false religions do that, present some truth with error. People understandably love the “done” part of the gospel.
If you ask almost anyone in the United States, “Did Jesus die for you?” He will answer, “Yes.” In all my years of evangelism, almost everyone believes Jesus died for them. Schmidt leaves out the part of the plan of salvation that is the biggest stumblingblock to the lost, the most offensive part. He eliminates the hard part, maybe on purpose or maybe because people deceived him in the past (perhaps Hyles and Lancaster?).
Head Knowledge/Heart Knowledge?
Schmidt (pp. 86-87) says the problem for people is that they get the ticket of salvation (head knowledge) but they won’t get on the plane (heart knowledge). This is a false dichotomy about head knowledge and heart knowledge. It’s useful to make it sound right, even though it isn’t.
Schmidt is right that some people think they need to earn their salvation. They add works to grace. That is not the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge though. They will not acknowledge ( in their heads) that Jesus paid it all, because their religion says they must contribute to what Jesus did. However, that is not the biggest stumbling block today for English speaking people.
At the end of his book, Schmidt challenges the reader to become “done” instead of “do” by praying a prayer, which he records at the end to pray. He might argue, “I argue that someone who prays that prayer, the way he receives the gift, he will become a new creature.” When you read that short chapter, you find out that you become a new creature in that God takes your sins away as you pray that prayer. You are new now. You are forgiven, because you have prayed that prayer. The change is a removal of sin. Then you will grow as a Christian, whatever that means.
No Repentance or Lordship
“Done” says absolutely nothing about repentance. Schmidt excludes repentance from the presentation. When he quotes Romans 10:9, which says, “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” he says nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ will do everything for you. You just need to pray that prayer. That is the way you receive the free gift after believing it is free. Heaven is free for you, just pray the prayer.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To receive the kingdom of heaven, someone needed to receive Jesus Christ as King, which is to receive Jesus Christ. They needed to relinquish their own kingdom for His. This is not like asking for and receiving a gift. The kingdom of heaven is a gift, but it requires repentance. Where is that in this presentation? It isn’t there.
What About Believing in and Receiving Jesus Christ?
“Done” leaves out receiving Jesus Christ for who He is. “Done” leaves out a presentation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Nothing then is done, because someone does not know who Jesus is or receive Him.
Schmidt makes “done” about receiving the gift. No. Absolutely not. “Done” is about receiving Jesus Christ. John 1:12 says, “But 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 3:16 and Acts 16:31 both say, “believe in Jesus Christ.” Schmidt leaves that out. He quotes the two verses and says they mean, “Pray a prayer.”
Like John says at the end of his gospel, ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To get into the kingdom, you must receive the King. You are not in charge anymore, Jesus is. Schmidt leaves all that out, which is the biggest difficulty that people have with the gospel.
By doing what he did, Schmidt deceives his reader on the gospel. Most people reading what he wrote will not know what salvation is. He perverts the gospel of Christ by leaving out what scripture says about believing in and receiving Jesus Christ.
More to Come (I will deal with problem number two of “Done”)
Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy, part 2 of 2
In part one of this study of Peter Ruckman’s heresy about different ways of salvation in different periods of time, four questions were given for disciples of Ruckman to consider. This part provides several more questions for those who have adopted or been influenced by Ruckman’s heresy on this issue.
5.) Does the idea that anyone at any time can be saved partially by works deny the depths of the sinfulness of the human heart? Isaiah, confessing what Israel will pray at the end of the Tribulation, affirms: “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). If even the “best” we can do is a filthy rag—is itself sinful—how can it help one to be saved? We deserve to go to hell for the “best” thing we have ever done, because of how our indwelling sin leads even our “best” actions to be tainted by sin. Does that not obliterate salvation by works at any time? If not, doesn’t it strongly impact how we preach the gospel even now? If Ruckman is right (God forbid), then we can’t tell sinners: “Salvation by works is hopeless and impossible!” but only can say, “Right now God has decided salvation is by faith in this time period, but salvation by works really is possible—the Catholic church is right when it teaches salvation by faith and works; it just puts that way of salvation in the wrong time period.” Isn’t that an attack on the gospel even now? Is it OK to make salvation by works possible, and salvation by faith alone to be a mere dispensational distinction like whether or not it is OK to eat bacon or lobster?
6.) Why are verses that allegedly teach different ways of salvation in different time periods taken out of context in a major way? For example, the Ruckmanite pamphlet referenced in part one claims that Revelation 14:12 proves salvation by faith and works in the Tribulation, but it does no such thing—it just proves that true faith will manifest itself in one’s life, a fact that is all over the Pauline epistles (Romans 2:6-7; Ephesians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, etc.), all over 1 John, and all over the whole Old and New Testament. Why is there so much misinterpretation going on?
7.) Would salvation be by faith alone in the Messiah from the Fall until the Tribulation and then suddenly change? Wouldn’t we need very, very clear Biblical evidence for this—evidence that does not exist?
8.) If we accept Ruckman’s claim here:
This means that in the Tribulation, you can lose it! … the truth that I’m talking about right now—taught first in 1954—is unknown to Pre-Millennial scholars. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Revelation. Pensacola, 1982, p. 413)
Wouldn’t the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, contrary to Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 3:21? Was the church teaching lies about the gospel until 1954 when Ruckman came along to explain the truth?
9.) Shouldn’t anyone who teaches multiple ways of salvation stop calling himself a Baptist, since there are no Baptist confessions of faith from the first century until modern times that teach this idea? One thing that John Davis in his “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” pamphlet and “Time for Truth!” website deserve commendation for is not having the name “Baptist” on his religious organization, but just “The Oaks Church.” That is honest. Someone who teaches ideas about salvation that have never been in any Baptist confession should not call himself or his religious organization a Baptist church. When will you stop confusing people by dishonestly claiming to be a Baptist, when you reject what Baptists believe?
10.) Ruckman makes many other incredible claims on things like aliens and the color of their blood to secret CIA alien breeding facilities that perhaps he is not credible. Furthermore, he says: “There are SIX ‘plans of salvation’ in the book of Acts” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Jan. 2007, p. 16.” Does such an idea make Acts astonishingly confusing, instead of helping people understand God’s truth?
11.) Ruckman also wrote: “Paul does not hesitate to misapply Habbakuk 1:5-6, in the Church Age” (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 37), claiming that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, misapplies Scripture. Such outlandish ideas permeate Ruckman’s teachings. If we follow Ruckman, are we not leading ourselves into incredible confusion, even apart from the fact that Ruckman’s life indicated that he was not qualified to pastor, based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? (See, e. g., What About Ruckman? by David Cloud).
12.) Why do Ruckman’s writings have such a carnal, ungodly spirit, so that one feels defiled by just reading a few pages of them? I have never been able to read through any of his books cover to cover; when I tried I could not get past what seemed like regrettably carnal name-calling. What if Ruckman wrote in such a carnal way because he was himself a carnal man, not one who Christians should follow?
13.) Why do you use Romans 10:9-13 in gospel tracts, when Romans 10:9-10 is quoting Deuteronomy 30:14, and Romans 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32? If Romans 10:9-13 proves salvation by grace through faith in this period of time, but not in other time periods, why does Paul quote Deuteronomy 30, from the Mosaic dispensation, and Joel 2:32, which is about the salvation of people in the Tribulation period? Is Paul misinterpreting the Old Testament, or is Ruckman misinterpreting the Bible?
14.) Romans 4:1-8 is one of the classic New Testament texts on justification by faith alone apart from works:s
Rom. 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom. 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom. 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Paul proves the glorious truth that God justifies the ungodly apart from works by quoting Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2, the experiences of Abraham and of David. If salvation were by works in Abraham’s day or in King David’s day, how could Paul quote Genesis 15 and Psalm 32 to prove exactly the opposite doctrine, and if there are different ways of salvation in different dispensations, why does Paul prove his doctrine of unmerited salvation from the way people in the patriarchal and legal dispensations were saved?
15.) If you cannot answer the questions above, are you willing to reject Ruckman and his false teaching about the existence of multiple ways of salvation?
Read part one on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.
–TDR
Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 1 of 2
You are out of town and are looking for a good church. After doing online research, you find one and visit. The church says “Baptist,” “independent.” They go soulwinning, telling people to repent and be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They all have King James Bibles. They say nothing about Ruckman. They reject Jack Hyles’s anti-repentance heresies. They reject CCM, Contemporary “Christian” Music. They believe in eternal security but are not Calvinist. They dress modestly and believe in gender distinction. They reject the charismatic movement. They reject covenant theology and are dispensational, premillennial, and pretribulational. Truths such as the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are, of course, all believed. The people are friendly and the pastor preaches with conviction and makes application. Everything looks great!
You go to the tract area to pick up some gospel tracts. The content seems fine for most of them. Then you find a pamphlet about the future. On one side it says: “Very soon millions of people shall suddenly disappear!” Everything that it says in that part sounds fine. But on the other side it says “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” and in that section you are shocked when you discover statements that deny the gospel! In this section, which is addressed to people who miss the Rapture, appear statements such as: “Remember, to be saved you must put all your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and keep the commandments of God,” and “You can only enter [God’s] Kingdom if you have put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and … by … keeping the commandments.” What is going on here?
You look at the pamphlet a bit more carefully. You notice within it a drawing of people going up in the Rapture; one of the graves with a person going up says “Peter Ruckman.” Hmm.
Then you see that it is published by one “John Davis” who runs a “Time for Truth!” website and helps lead “The Oaks Church.” You discover that these sectaries are significant publishers of Ruckmanite literature.
The church you thought was fine turned out to be one where Peter Ruckman’s heresy that there are different ways of salvation in different time periods is being believed and practiced, although they did not openly proclaim their Ruckmanism. That is bad. It is really bad. Such a church is not one to go back to unless they repent and renounce their heresy on the gospel. Multiple (alleged) ways of salvation is a false teaching to tolerate “not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:5). Ecclesiastical separation is commanded by God (Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).
Ruckman believed an eternally secure salvation by grace alone through faith alone is only for the church age; supposedly in past times for Israel and in future times such as the Tribulation period salvation is not by repentant faith alone, but by faith and works. What are some questions you can ask someone who believes or is being influenced by this heresy? Here are a few.
1.) Does the fact that Genesis 15:6 is referenced in Habakkuk 2:4, and these two verses are themselves referenced in James 2; Romans 4; Galatians 3; and Hebrews 10-11 show that justification has always been by faith alone, rather than by works? (The extremely powerful nature of this development of salvation by faith alone from the patriarchal times of Abraham, through the Mosaic dispensation, into the New Testament is developed in the study “The Just Shall Live by Faith”). Why does Paul prove his teaching of justification by faith alone with these kinds of Old Testament texts? Don’t these passages show that Abraham, Moses, Habakkuk, James, and Paul all taught the same human response was required to be saved—faith, and faith alone?
2.) For century after century the Jews were singing Psalms with many verses such as: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12). If salvation was ever by works in the Old Testament, why would God command them to sing that ALL who trust in God’s Son are blessed (not “some” are blessed, those who trust and also do enough works to be saved?) Is the Psalter deceiving Israel when it regularly teaches salvation by faith alone?
3.) Why does Peter testify that ALL God’s OT prophets witnessed to justification by faith alone in the Messiah? “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
4.) Why is the Old Testament full of the truth of salvation by grace alone? (For example, the Sabbath teaches salvation by faith and resting from works, according to Paul in Hebrews 3-4, so from the very seventh day of creation God’s resting taught man: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:9-10). One major reason working on the Sabbath deserved the death penalty was to teach Israel what a grave sin it was to seek to enter God’s salvation rest by effort instead of resting in Jehovah and His provided atonement alone. Likewise, Moses told Israel that their being chosen was sheer and totally undeserved grace (Deut 7:6-8); the very preface to the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-2) indicates that Israel was to obey because they were already a redeemed people, not in order to merit salvation, just as believers today obey because they are already a redeemed people, not to merit salvation. There are many texts such as: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1-2); how? Through the Messiah, in the immediate context—Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 55:4.
Read part two on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.
–TDR
“I’m sorry” vs. “I repent”
We often hear someone say, “I’m sorry,” after doing something wrong, or something that the person does not think is wrong but the person he is speaking to thinks is wrong.” When one man says “I’m sorry” to another, the response can cover the range from “I’m sorry that I sinned against God and against you, because this is a godly sorrow, it will lead me to repent,” to “I’m sorry that you feel the way you do right now,” to “I’m sorry I got caught sinning,” to “I’m sorry that you are bothering me with your ridiculous complaint, and I wish you would go away and leave me alone–I didn’t do anything wrong.”
“I’m sorry.”
That range can be seen in the texts that contain the word “sorry” in Scripture.
For example, Saul wants people to feel sorry for him when he is plotting evil, pursuing innocent David, and killing other righteous people right and left:
1Sam. 22:8 That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?
King Herod was sorry when he was asked to behead John the Baptist:
Matt. 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
In fact, Herod was not just a little bit sorry. He was really sorry:
Mark 6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath’s sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.
Herod was “sorry.” Really sorry. He could have said to John, “I’m sorry about this,” and then gone ahead and ordered the guard to chop off the Baptist’s head. He was “sorry,” but he certainly did not “repent.” Being even “exceeding sorry” is not the same thing as being repentant. Being “sorry” is simply saying that you have “sorrow” over something–whether that thing is your sin, or whether you are sorry that you didn’t get away with your sin, or whether you are sorry you can’t sin even more, is not expressed.
“I repent.”
Scripture does not say that if one sins against a Christian brother, he is supposed to say, “I’m sorry.” It does not say that when a child sins against another child, the sinning child should be made to say “I’m sorry.” Scripture says that when one sins against another, the sinning party is to say, “I repent.”
Luke 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
This is not the place to do a comprehensive study of the Biblical doctrine of repentance, but the evidence provided here and in many other places indicates that genuine repentance always results in a change. If I sin against you and say, “I repent,” I am telling you that what I did was sinful, and by God’s grace I will not do it any more. I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.
If I say “I’m sorry,” I may mean the same thing as “I repent.” On occasion being “sorry” is associated with repentance:
Psa. 38:18 For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin.
2Cor. 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
The sorrow of the Corinthians did lead to their repentance–that was good. But note that Paul specifically states that he was not glad that they had been made “sorry.” He was only glad that they had repented as a result of that sorrow. So even here, where sorrow and repentance are associated, they are still distinct.
Have I ever said “I’m sorry” when I meant “I repent”? Yes, I certainly have. Do I condemn parents who tell their children, when the children sin against another, “Say you are sorry!” No, I do not condemn such parents. If someone sins against me and then says, “I’m sorry,” must I think the best (1 Corinthians 13) and assume he means “I repent,” and therefore forgive him, as commanded in Luke 17:4? Yes, I certainly must forgive him, even though he did not say what Christ told him to say: “I repent.”
However, maybe we all ought to reevaluate our use of language in the light of Scripture, and start saying “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry” when we sin against another person (and also use this language when we confess our sins to the Lord). Saying “I’m sorry” is easier than saying “I repent.” There is a lot more wiggle room in “I’m sorry.” Maybe we should start telling our children to say “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry.” This is the pattern in Scripture, and it is always good to stick as closely to Scripture as possible.
–TDR
Millions of Muslims are NOT Becoming Christians Because of Dreams!
Many sources report that, in the words of Roman Catholic conservative Dinesh D’Souza, “Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ.” Charismatic sources agree with the Catholics about millions of Muslims becoming Christians through dreams and visions. So do Southern Baptist mission agencies.
These visions and dreams clearly prove that:
1.) Continuationism is true and cessationism is false. God is continuing to give revelatory dreams and visions today. We have lots of testimonials, and testimonials can’t be wrong.
2.) Any passages of Scripture that seem to teach the cessation of revelation with the completion of the canon must be reinterpreted in light of the overwhelming proof from the dreams and visions.
3.) If this can happen in Muslim lands, it can happen here. Instead of the hard work of teaching people to skillfully preach the gospel, and working so that they grow spiritually to the point where they love to go house to house, we should encourage people to seek after signs, wonders, and dreams, because that is how there will be millions of new converts here in our country as well.
Right?
Wrong.
Why?
Scripture is the sole authority for the believer’s faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Scripture is more sure than any experience–even hearing the audible voice of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). Scripture, therefore, must never have its teaching ignored, altered, overlooked, or changed because of what someone claims he experienced. Indeed, even if everyone in the whole world said something was true, but Scripture said otherwise, the Bible would be right and everyone would be wrong: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Scripture teaches cessationism, as the studies linked to here clearly demonstrate. There are no Apostles today or apostolic gifts (Ephesians 2:20), the canon of Scripture is complete (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), and God Word is His completed revelatory speech.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17); conversion comes through Scripture (John 15:3). Men are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). So nobody has been born again because of a dream. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth as sinners, enabled by grace, respond to the gospel recorded in the Word of God. This is “thus saith the Lord.” I don’t care what someone says happened in his dream. God’s Word is infinitely more reliable than someone’s dream, and Scripture teaches that people are born again through hearing the gospel, not having dreams and visions.
So how do I explain the dreams? I don’t need to explain people’s dreams. The Bible tells me to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), but it never tells me that I need to explain what someone said he saw in a dream. I don’t need to explain dreams of people who say they left Islam and rejected Allah and the Quran for Christianity. Nor do I need to explain the dreams of people who say they left Christianity for Islam after having a dream. How am I supposed to know what is going on in someone else’s head when he is sleeping? The vast majority of the time I can’t even remember my own dreams. Yet I need to explain what someone tells me happened in his dream, or what someone tells someone else who tells someone else who tells someone else who prints an article with no documentation in a charismatic magazine about a dream?
I am suspicious that these “millions” of converts are allegedly taking place in lands far, far away where it is impossible to verify anything. For example, in the Dinesh D’Souza video above, there are no sources provided and no way to verify anything. This is typical–indeed, D’Souza is a scholarly man who tends to document his material far better than does the average charismatic magazine. With these millions of alleged converts to Christianity, true churches–independent Baptist churches–should be overflowing in Muslim countries, as Islam is allegedly collapsing and true Christians are allegedly becoming a huge percentage of the population. But are these people-if they even exist–becoming true Christians, or leaving Islam for other demonic religions, like Roman Catholicism or Oneness Pentecostalism? What would someone leaving one false religion for a different false religion prove? Scripture teaches that we see Christ by faith, enabled by the Spirit, in the Word (2 Corinthians 3:18), and all images of Jesus Christ are idolatrous violations of the Second Commandment (see the relevant resources here). So are they seeing the real Jesus in a dream? Also, where are all these people? Why is this only (allegedly) happening in places far, far away where we can’t actually verify it? I think of how Jack Hyles claimed that through “God’s power,” allegedly in conjunction with carnal promotion and marketing techniques that manipulated people and are found nowhere in Scripture, he had far more “saved” in one day than the Holy Ghost did on the Day of Pentecost, although not even one person was added to First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana on that day through these “saved” people, and people close enough to the situation to investigate claimed that the vast majority of these “saved” people were just as lost as before. I think of how Keswick continuationist John A. MacMillan, who is promoted among Independent Baptists at schools like Baptist College of Ministry. MacMillan claimed to have an amazing technique for casting out demons, which was copied by him and promoted at one of the yearly Victory Conferences at Baptist College of Ministry and Falls Baptist Church–but people who were close to the situation claimed, on the contrary, that the demons were in control of everything. I think of how Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, with their dreams and visions, destroyed the 1904-1905 Welsh revival. Scripture is sufficient, so even if I were confronted with signs and wonders of the quality that the Antichrist will perform in the Tribulation, I would still go by sola Scriptura–Scripture alone. But the alleged evidence for these dreams and visions seems to be woefully lacking. They aren’t like the real revelatory miracles in the Bible before the miraculous gifts ceased.
Note that the question is not if God is powerful enough to give people dreams. The question is not one of God’s power. It is one of what He has said He would do in His inspired revelation, the Bible–and in that revelation He has said that the giving of revelation through dreams has ceased. Nor is there a category of “non revelatory” dreams that are infallibly from God. If God gives infallible truth, then it is revelation. If it is not infallible truth, then God is not speaking in the dream, for God cannot lie, but only speaks and reveals infallible truth.
What if I come across someone who actually is serving the Lord faithfully in a true church, but who says that having a dream was part of how he became a Christian? Doesn’t that mean that I need to reinterpret Scripture? No. God is sovereign, and He can use all kinds of things to get people thinking about religion or about His Word. I know someone who is a faithful Christian who, before his conversion, liked to watch creationist videos while smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I commend the pot smoking. I know someone else who called on a ghost (likely a demon) to come to him, and then says that the ghost came at night and almost killed him. The demonic intervention led this person away from agnosticism to openness to the supernatural, and years later he became a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support agnostics calling on ghosts or demons. So if someone says he had a dream and that led him away from Islam to Christianity, I’m glad if he trusted in Christ, while everything contrary to Scripture that took place in his life–including the alleged revelatory dreams–are chalked up to God’s merciful and providential grace, and need no further explanation. (This is even apart from the fact that we cannot see people’s hearts, and even in true churches people without the new birth can enter and appear to be genuine believers for a time, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the person who claims to have been born again after seeing a dream is not a true child of God.)
So are millions of Muslims being born again because of dreams? No. Nobody is being born again because of a dream. Are Muslims having dreams that lead them to all kinds of religious experiences? Very possibly. Why? There could be all kinds of reasons. I do not need to speculate.
What I do need to know is what Scripture teaches. The Biblical truth of cessationism is being weakened in some independent Baptist churches because people are not thinking Biblically, but are allowing what people say is happening in their dreams to justify changes to Biblical beliefs on charismata. You are dreaming if you think it is right to change one’s doctrine and practice from what Scripture teaches because of what some other person says he saw when he was sleeping.
Never change or set aside God’s Word because of an experience or what someone says. That was part of Satan’s original technique that caused the Fall in Genesis 3. Go with Scripture–not the dreams. As Christ said, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Give Muslims gospel truth, such as in The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible pamphlet. Reject the dreams. Do not be deceived.
Recent Comments