Home » Posts tagged 'Romans 1:16'

Tag Archives: Romans 1:16

Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)

Part One     Part Two

Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant

Differences

Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show.  Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship.  I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.

Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism.  Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these.  These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.

I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism.  Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God.  Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today.  Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.

Perversions in True Worship

Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship.  She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective.  Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship.  It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship.  She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals.  Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere.  This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.

God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9).  Beauty is objective.  It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes.  Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God.  This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God.  This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.

The Gospel

John 3:5

Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is.  He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5.  Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation.  It reads:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation.  He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing.  At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace.  He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it.  Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved.  He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.

Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2

Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV.  She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it.  Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation.  She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works.  He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace.  The child can’t resist.  He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven.  Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace.  He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.

Stuckey makes two arguments.  She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world.  Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again.  When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2.  It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.

Baptism and the Lord’s Table

The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer.  He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved.  He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol.  This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant.  He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.

Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics.  She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her.  She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works.  Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer.  I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs.  However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder.  They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.

Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements.  He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing.  He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic.  It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity.  False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.

Final Comments

John 3:5

I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5.  Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it.  Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism.  Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it.  Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid.  In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit.  He explains the new birth or being born again.  A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.

James 2 and Romans 4

Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2.  Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20.  Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5.  In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.”  A man shows his faith by his works.  James explains this.

Galatians and Hebrews

I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10.  A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity.  He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10:  9:27-28, 10:10, 14.  Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified.  These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.

I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace.  Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace.  Grace and works are mutually exclusive.

Preparation

This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism.  Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness.  She might not be able to be friends with the other two.  And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has.  I don’t know.

Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion.  It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice.  Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.

Addenda

I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon.  Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace.  He said this was scriptural.  Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling.  It’s not in the Bible anywhere.  She could have gone to a number of places on this.

Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition.  When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything.  Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places.  I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized?  Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized.  Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.

The Theology of John Wesley and Its Impact on the Methodist and Wesleyan Churches (Part Two)

Part One

John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield began their search for the truth within the infrastructure of the Church of England in the early 18th century.  John started the formal Christian religious denomination, the Methodists, with a break from the Moravians after having been an ordained Anglican cleric.  No one sent him.  He operated as a free agent without authority to start what he wanted, maybe listening to a mystical voice-in-his-head.  Perhaps he gave up because he thought nothing represented the truth as he saw it.  Others have done the same in starting new religions with unique belief and practice.

Holiness

A chief concern for the Wesleys, as seen in their writings and those of others who heard them, was the lack of holiness among those professing Christianity.  They expected a more strict lifestyle in accordance with moral law.  I understand that assessment.  However, what causes this absence of holiness among those who call themselves Christian?  Their conclusion was an observable deficiency of discipline, a need of a different method, hence Methodism.

Scripture, however, shows that holiness comes as fruit of the Holy Spirit through true conversion.  You can’t whip it up or pull it up by the bootstraps.  The Church of England still advocated a false gospel like unto Roman Catholicism from which it proceeded.  Unbelief will not produce holy living.  The ritual of sacrament and ceremony doesn’t cause holiness.

Nonetheless, the Wesleys wanted more holiness among professing Christians.  Under the patch work of disparate theological influences, the Wesleys styled a view of the atonement to generate the greatest personal holiness.  They rejected straight judicial, penal substitution with its imputed righteousness for what men now call, “participatory atonement.”

Grace Alone?

Roman Catholicism says grace saves us.  Mormonism says grace saves us.  Almost every Christian denomination or religion says grace saves us.  If you asked the Judaizers in Galatia whether grace saved us, surely they would also answer, “yes.”  A unique sect of Christianity could easily say that grace alone saves us.  The Wesleys taught that at the moment of the new birth God imparts to someone the power or ability to live holy.  This impartation comes through a mystical experience one has in participating with the death of Christ.

John Wesley had a problem with the teaching that imputed righteousness justifies a sinner.  He received imputed righteousness, but it pardoned only his past sin.  At that point, God imparted righteousness that enabled him to strive for holiness and live a holy life.  These good works are required for salvation.

With Methodist or Wesleyan doctrine, someone may receive righteousness by faith, but faith that comes through the experience.  The experience includes repentance.  In the works of John Wesley, you can read of conversations in 1744 between the Wesleys and a few others to form a catechism of questions and answers.  It read:

But must not repentance and works meet for repentance, go before this faith? Without doubt; if by repentance you mean conviction of sin, and by works meet for repentance, obeying God as we can, forgiving our brother, leaving off from evil, doing good, and using his ordinances according to the power we have received.

Baptism and Eternal Security

According to this, a faith that might justify would only do so through works meet for repentance.  In addition, concerning baptism John Wesley said:

What are the benefits we receive by baptism, is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ’s death. . . . . By baptism, we who were “by nature children of wrath” are made the children of God.

The perfectionism of the Wesleys meant that with their view of sin, someone could live a technically sinless life.  This theory of participatory atonement required participation.  Without it, someone could lose his salvation.  In the same catechism referred above, the Wesleys said:

Are works necessary to the continuance of faith? Without doubt, for many forfeit the free gift of God, either by sins of omission or commission. Can faith be lost for want of works? It cannot but through disobedience.

You can find statements where it seems that John Wesley did believe in salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Yet, if you can lose salvation, who is doing the saving?  Some of what he wrote seems to agree with judicial, penal substitution.  All of that you must also see in the context of everything else he wrote and said that contradicts penal substitution.  Then today you look at the fruit in Methodist and Wesleyan belief and practice.

The Unholy Fruit

Holiness doesn’t just happen.  It comes the way scripture explains that it comes.  Holiness won’t occur through a different means than what God says.  That proves itself out too.  Methodists and Wesleyans might call themselves holiness, but their deficient and skewed beliefs won’t produce true holiness.  This manifests itself over a period, where the trajectory of personal living moves away from holiness.

Holiness is an attribute of God.  People don’t live holy without God.  The holiness people receive comes through true conversion and the atonement of true conversion is penal substitution.  Other views of atonement are not true or scriptural and they do not provide for holiness.  The failure to live holy comes from not receiving holiness by grace through faith.

The Wesleys taught faith as the threshold of holiness.  It opened for someone the opportunity for a process.  If that process did not end in perfection, that person was not saved.

Confusion or Clarity?

If you are reading this post and confused about what Wesley believed, join the club.  It’s difficult to sort through what he said, perhaps nothing as so plainly muddled as reading a sermon he preached, “The Scripture Way of Salvation.”  I found it almost impossible to understand.  His teaching made it very difficult to have assurance of salvation.  On many different occasions in his lifetime, through letters he expressed extreme doubt, surely because of his convoluted understanding of salvation.

Salvation is clear in the Bible in contrast to salvation of Wesleyan and Methodist teaching.  Paul taught grace and works as mutually exclusive.  Romans 11:6 says:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

One who adds works to grace, like the Wesleys did, “Christ profits [them] nothing” and they become “debtor[s] to do the whole law.”  Jesus is clear.  Paul is clear.  The Wesleys were not and Wesleyan and Methodist belief, teaching, and practice are the fruit of that.

 

 

The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 7

Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four     Part Five     Part Six

Not long ago in evangelicalism, the terminology “lifestyle evangelism” arose.  Early in this series, I wrote that the lifestyle is part of the message, but cannot replace the gospel itself.  “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).

In my encounter with lifestyle evangelism, I found it to mean living a life a Christian should live around an unbeliever.  From the unbeliever’s experience with that life, he wants to know what caused it, and asks.  Then a Christian can explain in a non-pressure kind of way.  I believe the words “lifestyle evangelism” originated in the 1976 book by C. Bill Hogue, titled:  Love Leaves No Choice:  Lifestyle Evangelism.  Many characterize this lifestyle as “nice.”  Be nice to people.  They want you to be nice to them.  Then when they ask what’s different, you connect it to the gospel.

Instead of “Lifestyle Evangelism”

In a technical sense, I do not see lifestyle evangelism in the Bible.  The life surely should accompany the gospel.  It should not contradict the gospel.  Salvation comes through the gospel, which means preaching it.  That is what I see in the Bible.  Many do not think you are “nice” when you preach the gospel to them.

You want to preach the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation.  Salvation will not occur without the gospel and it comes through preaching.  That does not mean that you keep preaching the gospel to those who refuse to hear it.

Based on Romans 1:16, getting the gospel out to people is getting the power of God unto salvation out to people.  What the lost need for their salvation stays away from them, sometimes with the reasoning of lifestyle evangelism.  They think they do not want the gospel.  Usually they cannot know what they need and that they need the gospel, because they do not have the gospel.  The gospel gives the power that begins working toward a desire for salvation.

The Effect of the Knowledge of Romans 1:16

When I get up in the morning, I begin thinking about preaching the gospel.  Do I mean going door-to-door?  I could mean that.  I could ring a doorbell, wait for someone to open the door, and start to try to preach the gospel to someone.  What if I do not go door-to-door, does that remove the possibility of preaching it?

I think it is easier to get into the preaching of the gospel by going door-to-door.  It ensures I will do that. However, in very cold weather areas or during very cold weather times, not everyone will open the door to listen to you preach.  I am not attempting to discourage you from preaching in the Winter in cold weather areas.  What if people do not open the door because it is so cold or during a certain time of the year, you will not ring door bells or knock on the door because of the cold?

You have to look for and pray for opportunities to preach the gospel.  I call this being aggressive.  If I do not go door to door and I want to preach it to someone else, I cannot stay in my house.  I have to leave the house to see that happen.  I still must go to where people are, and then I give attention to possible opportunities.  If it is even possible, I must take that opportunity.

Taking the Opportunity with the Gospel

My wife and I right now are living in a small studio apartment.  We have no car, so we walk for what we need.  We have a very small refrigerator, so we have to go there more often.  As I get old (yes, I’m getting old), I have to stop more often.  Sit.  Rest.  That might mean getting a hot beverage somewhere.

It has been very rainy, cloudy, and dark where my wife and I are.  It was sunny yesterday for the first time in I don’t know how long.  We both got a coffee and we sat outside of the coffee place in the Winter across from a man, who sat outside.  I began talking to him and that turned into a gospel conversation with an explanation of the gospel.  Opportunities are there for the one looking for them and taking them.  I grabbed it, like reaching for something that I want and taking it off the shelf.  I just did it.

When I preached the gospel, it was not forced.  It is normal for me to bring the gospel into a conversation.  I wasn’t going through the motions, like someone who must just get this done.  No, I want to give the gospel, that is, to take opportunities.  I do, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).  I assumed that man across from me was lost and nothing was more important to him than salvation, and so, the gospel.

Know How To Start the Gospel

If you are going to preach the gospel to people, you will need to know how to start.  At first, you need to plan that.  You prepare for it.  You think about that first sentence you will say and the direction you will take.  The goal is to get from starting a conversation to preaching the gospel.  All of this relates to the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.

Before you ever get to how you start a conversation that leads to the gospel, you must think about how you will encounter people.  You will not preach to anyone if you do not see anyone.  You have to leave the house to do that.  Before you plan on how you begin a gospel conversation, you plan on where you will go to see people.

You may see people all the time.  People have many different realms in which they meet people.  How do they bring Jesus into those contacts?  Very often it starts with the trouble for everyone without the gospel.  People know they’re in trouble, which is how Paul begins the gospel in the book of Romans.

The gospel conversation could start earlier than the trouble of the lost person.  It could begin with the true nature of mankind.  He is not an accident.  God made him for a purpose.

I like to say to someone, “When Darwin looked at a cell, he saw a blob.”  Today when we look at a cell, we see irreducible complexity.  Even on a cellular level, life did not arise from an accident.

More to Come

The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 5

Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four

In my own experience, people don’t use the word “salvation” much.  Over time it became a distinctly religious or theological term.  With a deathly illness, can a doctor save his patient?  When he does, he saved his life.  For a time, he saved him from physical death.  He will still die later.  A doctor saved him with a medication or a surgery.  He still dies though, just later.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SALVATION

When Paul says “salvation” in Romans 1:16, he means eternal salvation.  It is salvation from physical death, because of bodily resurrection.  However, most of all it is salvation from sin, from spiritual death, and from eternal death.  We can hardly fathom the immensity of trouble, pain, and loss of eternal death.  Therefore, we can’t fully understand the full significance of the salvation that is eternal life.

People place temporal worldly gains above eternal heavenly ones.  The Lord Jesus addresses this reality with His statements in the gospels about gaining the whole world but losing your own soul.  Nothing is even close to as bad, including physical death, to eternal death.  No loss is even close to as catastrophic as losing the eternal soul.

Men look to solve the problems they deem most serious.  That’s where they spend their time, energy, effort, and money.  The latter gives evidence of the former.

When men elevate to the most serious problems much lesser problems they take away the importance of what is really serious.  Nothing is more serious than eternal death.  The gospel is the only solution to that problem.  If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and salvation is salvation from eternal death, then the gospel is the most important solution to mankind.

THE PRIORITY OF PREACHING THE GOSPEL

I write all of the above because of the priority of preaching the gospel.  Only the gospel alleviates the worst to bring the best.  When I say worst, I mean worst.  This is no exaggeration.  It isn’t close.  And so when I say best, whatever you might think is best, this is far better.

People receive renown on earth for “saving” people from far less than what the salvation of Romans 1:16 saves them from.  What they get in their temporal salvation doesn’t last.  What someone gets from eternal salvation lasts through all eternity.  Yet still, people, even Christians, elevate these lesser savings or salvations to greater than the eternal salvation of Romans 1:16.

Salvation of Romans 1:16 also means salvation from a wasted life and salvation from unfulfilled purpose for life.  Man can’t glorify God or please God without the salvation of Romans 1:16.  He may please himself and others, but not God.

The gospel brings the outstanding accomplishment of eternal salvation.  God uses the person preaching the gospel to attain this greatest achievement.  The world, however, touts and will laud the short term attainments.  Someone donates for new uniforms.  A wealthy man pays for a new wing at the hospital.  A celebrity buys and then serves turkeys at Thanksgiving or Christmas time.

THE REWARDS FOR SALVATION

A war hero visits the White House for the Congressional medal of honor.  Hollywood produces a film about a man who saved dozens from a concentration camp.  The NFL honors a football player with a statue in the Hall of Fame.  The NBA pays a star player 50 million dollars for one year.  Biographies are written about leaders of human empires.  Men build a museum to an inventor.  Heaven though rejoices over the salvation of a single lost soul (Luke 15:7).

The gospel is the power of God unto the salvation over which heaven rejoices.  The New Testament calls the presentation of the gospel, preaching.  When someone preaches the gospel that saves, the one hearing often cringes or scowls.  I saw that all the time in my life.  Your reward for preaching the gospel is a cringe or scowl or worse.  Many times someone yelled at me for showing up to preach the gospel to him.  More than once someone said he would call the police if I didn’t walk away from his house, when there preaching the gospel.

Believers do not look for temporal rewards.  They want the eternal ones.  Few would even offer a temporal reward for preaching the gospel.  Churches might pay a pastor, who does the work of the evangelist and equips his church for preaching the gospel.  They might support a missionary to go and preach where they can’t or won’t preach the gospel.  This aligns with the rejoicing and purpose of heaven.

More to Come

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives