Active Obedience In Baptist History

Posted on by

Article “The Active Obedience of Christ: An Intrusion into Baptist Life?” by John Aloisi

Occasionally, some well-meaning Baptists have asserted that belief in both the active and passive obedience of Christ as the ground of our justification is something foreign to Baptist life—perhaps something picked up from the Gospel Coalition, the now inactive T4G, or some other evangelical organization of recent vintage. But is this true? And more specifically, is this understanding of the active obedience of Christ something new to Baptist life or is it rather something that many Baptists have affirmed from the early decades of Baptist history?

Particular Baptists

In 1677, Particular Baptists in London produced a confession of faith that summarized the views they held in common with each other and, to a large extent, with other Protestants. Following the Act of Toleration (1688/89), messengers from more than one hundred Baptist churches in England and Wales approved and published this confession, now known as the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). In this confession, Particular Baptists affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ in several places. For example, they wrote, “The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself…hath fully satisfied the Justice of God” (LBC 8.5).

A few chapters later, these early Baptists more explicitly affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (LBC 11.1). And they further explained, “Christ by his obedience, and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified…his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead” (LBC 11.3). In using this language, the Particular Baptists were expressing their essential agreement with both Presbyterians (Westminster Confession) and Congregationalists (Savoy Declaration) concerning the active obedience of Christ. However, interestingly, on this point, Baptists were even more explicit in distinguishing between Christ’s active and passive obedience and directly affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ than the Presbyterians were (esp. 11.1).

General Baptists

Particular Baptists were not the only early Baptists to affirm the active obedience of Christ. In 1678 General Baptists living in England drew up a doctrinal statement of their own. And much like the Particular Baptists, they also asserted that the righteousness secured by the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers.

They affirmed: “by faith we receive that righteousness that the Law, or the first covenant, required of the first Adam; which righteousness Christ hath fulfilled…by his active obedience” (Orthodox Creed 16). Even these early Baptists, who generally aligned themselves with Arminian theology, affirmed the active obedience of Christ.

Early American Baptists

By 1742 the Philadelphia Confession had become one of the most widely accepted confessions of faith among the Baptists living in Colonial America. In this confession, early American Baptists affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (Philadelphia Confession 11.1). These Colonial Baptists essentially reaffirmed what English Baptists had confessed in the previous century.

More Recent Baptist Voices

In addition to such confessional statements, many Baptist theologians and pastors have taught the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. For example, James Petigru Boyce (1827–1888), founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once wrote, “Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, and not to passive obedience only. …the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ. Not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification, which is attained by the believer” (Abstract of Systematic Theology 35.2).

On the other side of the Atlantic, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) affirmed a similar understanding of justification. Concerning Romans 5:19, Spurgeon declared, “Now this is not Christ’s death merely, but Christ’s active obedience, which is here meant, and it is by this that we are made righteous” (sermon preached April 30, 1865). Spurgeon came to this conclusion not because he was influenced by the Gospel Coalition or some other group but because he found it in the text of Scripture.

In more recent years, Baptist theologians such as Wayne Grudem and John Piper have similarly argued for the traditional view of the active and passive obedience of Christ (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–71; Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, 123–24).

Conclusion

From this quick survey, it seems clear that many Baptists have affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ, and they have done so since the 1600s when modern Baptist history began. This understanding of Christ’s active obedience is not something foreign to Baptist theology, and it is certainly not something of recent origin. Rather, it is a doctrine that has been embraced by our Baptist forebears and included in many of their confessions of faith. Theoretically, one might object that the reason so many early Baptists affirmed the active obedience of Christ was because they were not dispensationalists. While it is true that the Baptists cited above did not embrace dispensationalism, a number of dispensationalists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. If you have been clicking the links above, you may have noticed that the link to the Spurgeon citation takes one to a blog post by Phil Johnson. Though not a Baptist, Phil is a committed dispensationalist, and he posted the quote from Spurgeon about the active obedience of Christ because he agreed with it. Elsewhere, Phil has also presented a very solid biblical and theological argument for the active obedience of Christ. Similarly, Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary has written affirming belief in “the importance of Christ’s active obedience for the justification of the believer” and pointing out this helpful article on the subject by Justin Taylor

And much closer to home, Rolland McCune, former professor of systematic theology at DBTS, was both a Baptist and a dispensationalist, and for decades he taught the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience (McCune, Systematic Theology, 2:198–205). In fact, concerning this issue, McCune wrote, “Any view of the atonement that cannot grant the merit of obedience as well as the just satisfaction of God’s outraged holiness is deficient. It calls into question, however minimally or inadvertently, the necessary, complete, and absolute ethical basis of one’s salvation” (2:201).[1]

While some Baptists have asserted that their fellow Baptists should reject the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience, this quick survey of Baptist history suggests that, from seventeenth-century London to twenty-first-century Allen Park, a great number of Baptists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active and passive obedience as the ground of our justification.

[1] Recently, Ryan Meyer and Mark Snoeberger sat down to discuss the question of whether or not belief in the active of obedience of Christ is compatible with dispensationalism. You may want to check it out: https://dbts.edu/captivate-podcast/is-active-obedience-anti-dispensational/.

Three Views On Man’s Condition

Posted on by

1. PELAGIANISM – Salvation is all of man (human monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS WELL

Named after the British monk Pelagius (354 – 418 A.D.)

Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin affected no one but himself. Those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before the Fall, neutral towards sin. Human beings are able to live free from sin if they want to.

Pelagius read one of Augustine’s prayers which upset him greatly. Augustine had prayed “Lord, command what You will and grant what You command.” Pelagius thought that if God commanded something, for Him to remain just, man would need to have the ability to do what God commanded without grace. There would be no need for God to “grant” what He commanded. Augustine defended his view that although God commanded, He needs to grant grace to us so that we can be empowered to do what He commands.

Pelagianism is a humanistic, man centered teaching and while it is very positive, it limits the nature and scope of sin and flatly denies the necessity of God’s grace. Pelagius’ view was condemned as heresy by the Church, as it has no basis in Scripture. However, the view never really went away and is still very prevalent in our own day. As one man said, “we are born Pelagians at heart.” We think we can do anything God commands or achieve salvation without the need for grace.

2. SYNERGISM (through the actions of more than one – cooperation)

BELIEF: MAN IS SICK, EVEN MORTALLY SICK

Observing that if man was as healthy as the optimists say, then surely war, disease, starvation, poverty and such problems we face today would have been eliminated by now. Since such problems have not been fixed, Synergists conclude that something is basically wrong with human nature. Yet, they contend that the situation is not hopeless. Its bad, perhaps even desperate, but not hopeless. We haven’t blown ourselves off the planet yet so there’s no need to call the mortician yet.

Human nature has been damaged by the Fall. The will is NOT enslaved to sin, but is capable of believing in Christ, even prior to regeneration (although not entirely apart from God’s grace). Every sinner retains the ability to choose for or against God, either cooperating with God’s Spirit unto salvation or resisting God’s grace unto damnation.

Election is conditional, determined by individual choice: the only people God has chosen are those whom He already knew would believe. The faith He foresees is not exclusively a divine gift but partly a human decision. Therefore, the ultimate cause of salvation is not God’s choice of the sinner but the sinner’s choice of God.

Under this broad heading of synergism, we have two basic schools of thought:

A. SEMI-PELAGIANISM – which teaches that man initiates, God helps.

“… Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God.” R. Kyle (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

B. ARMINIANISM – which teaches that God initiates by offering grace, and that mankind either does or does not cooperate with that grace.

This belief, though quite popular in our day, would still be classed as synergistic because regeneration takes place through the cooperation of man with God’s grace.

3. AUGUSTINIANISM (Reformed) – God saves by His Divine power alone (Divine monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS DEAD

Each of the members of the Trinity are at work in the salvation of sinners. God the Father elects a people for salvation, Jesus the Son redeems them in His atoning work on the cross, and God, the Holy Spirit, regenerates them, bringing them to life.

Lazarus, being a lifeless corpse in the tomb, did not cooperate with Christ with regard to his own resurrection. Jesus simply cried out “Lazarus come forth!” and this call was powerful and sufficient in and of itself to bring dead Lazarus back to life. Christ did not interview the dead man Lazarus and ask if he would like to be resurrected, and once he got the “all clear” went ahead with his plan, now having obtained Lazarus’ permission and assent. Nor did Lazarus, once brought back to life, immediately take Jesus to court in attempt to sue him for violating his free will – his libertarian rights as a dead man to stay dead! No, for the rest of his earthly life, Lazarus was deeply grateful for the unspeakable mercy he had received from the Master.

This is a beautiful picture of what God does in our regeneration from spiritual death. Man, once receiving this grace of regeneration, then infallibly responds in faith to the effectual call of God.

I believe this is the biblical description regarding the state of man before he is regenerated. He is “dead in trespasses and sins.” (Eph. 2:1).

Augustinianism is named after Saint Augustine of the 5th Century A.D.. As far as his relationship to God is concerned, man is a lifeless corpse, unable to make a single move toward God, or even respond to God, unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life. Although spiritually dead, it is a strange death since he is nevertheless up and about actively practicing sin. He is what horror stories call a zombie – dead but walking around. This is a fair description of what Paul says about human nature in its lost condition. Apart from Jesus Christ, these sinning human corpses are the living dead. Man’s will is enslaved (John 8:34).

Man has a will, most definitely, but this will never wants God (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7), without the direct and gracious intervention of God. The sinner actively practices evil. He is also by nature an object of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3). BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy…. even when we were dead… made us alive (by grace you have been saved)… (Eph. 2:4, 5)

This truth is demonstrated in many passages in scripture, but perhaps the clearest is Ephesians 2:1-10. Colossians 2:13 also states, “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him…”

Notice that both in Ephesians 2:5, and Colossians 2:13, it was when we were dead that God made us alive. Not one mention is made of our role in all this, such as, “when you were dead, you decided to cooperate with God’s grace, and He then raised you…” I don’t know how the Apostle Paul could have taught Divine monergism more clearly. It was when we were dead that God made us alive.

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one-working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually, God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.

Dr. R. C. Sproul writes: “The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.

According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God, but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.

Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it.”

Packer and Johnston assert:

“‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers’ thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.”

Augustinianism removes all ground for boasting, demolishes all human pride and exalts God’s grace as the sole efficient cause of a sinner’s salvation. As Jonah 2:9 says, “Salvation is of the Lord.” Therefore, the glory for it goes to God, and to God alone.

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. – Rom. 9:16

The KJV – Six Common Misconceptions

Posted on by

Article by Jeremiah Knight

Here are the 6 common misconceptions or false beliefs about the King James Version (KJV).

1. The KJV was the first English translation of the Bible.

The KJV was not the first, but the tenth English translation of the Bible.

1. Wycliffe’s Bible (1388)

2. Tyndale’s Bible (1516)

3. Coverdale’s Bible (1535)

4. Matthew’s Bible (1537)

5. Taverner’s Bible (1539)

6. The Great Bible (1540)

7. The Geneva Bible (1560)

8. The Bishop’s Bible (1568)

9. The Douay-Rheims Version (1609)

10. The King James Version (1611)

2. The KJV was authorized by God.

The belief that the KJV was authorized by God to be translated is just an assumption with no biblical basis. The KJV was called the “Authorized Version (AV)” because its translation was approved and mandated by King James I, and it was appointed to be read in churches. This was stated in the original title page of the KJV:

THE HOLY BIBLE

Containing the Old and New Testaments

Translated out of the Original Tongues

And with the Former Translations

Diligently Compared and Revised

BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND

APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

3. The King James is always true to the literal words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

While the King James Version is generally a very literal translation, it is not always literal in all of its renderings. In Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4, the KJV paraphrased the Greek “me genoito” (“may it never be”) into “God forbid”. And in Matthew 27:44 the Greek “oneididzon auton”(“they reviled him”) was paraphrased by the KJV into “cast the same in his teeth”.

4. The KJV is a perfect translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. The only perfect texts of the Bible were the texts that came from the hands of the Biblical writers written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Perfect translation is not possible because of the nature of language. Receptor languages, such as English, can’t always reflect perfectly the concepts or meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words. And in some cases the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words are difficult to decipher. Translations are just approximations to the original text. The goal of each translation is to be closer as much as possible to the message of the original text, that’s why translations are continually revised to be more accurate. The King James Bible was not exempt from revisions. There were four major revisions of the KJV (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) and more than twenty minor revisions. The changes in these revisions are due to not only printing errors or spelling standardization, but also to textual or translation errors.

5. The KJV is a better translation than the modern versions.

The truth is, modern versions are much better than the KJV. The KJV is not a readable version compare to many modern versions because of its archaisms and obscure literal renderings. The KJV was based on late and inferior Greek texts while the modern versions are based upon much older and much more reliable Greek texts. The so-called omissions in the NIV and other modern versions is not a conspiracy nor a malicious intent to distort the Bible, but it’s due to variation in the Greek manuscripts. There are Greek manuscripts that have those verses and there are also Greek manuscripts that do not have those verses. This happened because of scribal copying errors, alterations or emendations. Through the science of textual criticism it is possible to determine with high accuracy which variant is reliable or not.

6. The KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are Christians who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the biblical writers. But this is denied by the translators themselves. In the original preface to the King James Version of 1611 the translators admitted that their work was not perfect and not on a par with the inspired authors of Scripture. There were instances where the translators were not absolutely sure of the original reading of the Greek or Hebrew text and they indicated that in the margin with textual variant notes.

Those who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit must use a King James Bible with Apocryphal books because the translators, who were mostly Anglicans, added these books in their original translation. The Apocrypha was a part of the King James Bible for 274 years, until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Societies excluded them from the revised version.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Concerning Dr. Steve Lawson

Posted on by

Thursday’s news concerning Dr. Steve Lawson being removed from ministry due to “an inappropriate relationship with a woman” has grieved me to the very core of my being. It’s like a gut punch to the soul. The news is all over the web. It is national news. Already, many of his teachings have been removed from the internet – he is no longer a fellow at Ligonier Ministries and likewise, he is no longer a part of The Master’s Seminary.

I’ve waited until now to comment on the news and have done so deliberately. First, I didn’t want to communicate anything rashly. I didn’t want to write something I would regret later on. 

Then, I wanted to grieve. This hurts and hurts deeply. Linda and I are grieving over this.

Then I wanted to take time to ask the Lord to search my own heart and soul. 

Also, I wanted to take time to pray for Steve, his wife Anne, and the Lawson family, as well as the church he was pastoring. The news is devastating from so many angles and on so many levels. This is the most grievous news I think I’ve ever heard concerning a trusted man of God since I came to the USA in 1992. I certainly did not see this one coming. False teachers abound who are frequently exposed, but this news is so different and so very tough to bear.

I can say that Dr. Lawson’s preaching ministry has impacted my life greatly. I have attended several of his expository preaching seminars and am thankful I did. There’s no doubt that he was THE leading man in America, and perhaps the world, for the cause of verse by verse, expository preaching. His ministry distributed “Expositor” magazine which was a rich encouragement to many God called preachers. Steve is known for sound, biblical preaching. 

It’s been said that his fall is part of God’s judgment on America, and I think there is some truth to this, even as it does not relieve personal guilt. Not in any way. His removal leaves a gaping hole in the cause of the raising up of Bible preachers in our land who will “Bring the Book” to the pulpit.

In times such as this, it is good for the soul to take stock and remind ourselves of what God tells us in His word. In the severe storms of life, the word of God is a rock beneath our feet – something we can stand on when all else gives way.

This situation is very dark and very dire, but the big picture we need to always keep in mind is that the Lord remains resolutely on His throne. Jesus Christ is the unrivaled King of all nations. I must remind my own soul of this, as should you.

The Lord has His true shepherds and His true churches throughout the land and thankfully, there are many of them. He is building His true Church and the gates and strategies of hell will not prevail against it. I tell my soul, “Soul, do not be cast down, remember this!”

Jesus Himself is the only true hero, the One faithful and true. 

My friend, Pastor Brian Borgman, preached last Sunday and stated that our heroes should be dead, because they have already finished the race well. There’s a lot of truth to that. He also said that we should choose friends who are zealous for the Lord, rather than lukewarm – people who will spur us on towards Christlikeness and holiness. People who will encourage us in the things of God.

It seems that Dr. Lawson, at the age of 73, has stumbled badly, while close to the finish line. His entire legacy is forever tarnished, even though what he wrote and preached was true and so very helpful. He is out of public ministry and that is only right. It is a tragedy, a massive tragedy! There can be and should be no excuses for what has taken place.

Though we (on the outside) don’t know any real details, the details are actually none of our business just now. They are the business of Steve Lawson, his dear wife of 40 years Anne, and the business of the elders at the Church he was pastoring who are overseeing the whole thing at their local church in Dallas, TX. What a blow this is for that local Church! How sad! How very sad!

I pray for the elders that they will have continued wisdom from the Lord. They seem to be handling the situation admirably, from what I can observe. While many are asking for more of the details other than the statement made on the Trinity Bible Church, Dallas website (https://www.trinitybibledallas.org/ ), these elders are about the very difficult task at hand, seeking in it all to witness Dr. Lawson’s repentance.

I don’t know Dr. Lawson personally, other than meeting him and talking to him a few times. I want to be something of a friend to him at this time, at least in this – to be faithful in praying for his soul. That is all I can do from a distance but do it I must. One man commented, “Steve knows he let many people down. He, without God’s help, is hurting from head to toe.” We know that sorrow, by itself, is not repentance (though it will always accompany repentance). May the Lord grant true and genuine repentance to Steve and whatever the outcome, may his family know the Lord’s deep comfort and presence with them at this time.

Saints of God, as a shepherd under Christ, I want to give you rock solid truth, stated here in the words of Pastor Dan Phillips:

“I am a Christian for one fundamental reason—Jesus Christ. He is true. He is everything He claimed. He never changes, He never fails. This truth has held me steady from day one. Everyone else can change and fail. But that doesn’t affect why I’m a Christian. Jesus Christ is why. In case my point isn’t obvious: when an admired Christian fails, even miserably, it is heartbreaking. It drives you to prayer and deep heart-searching. It shakes your very bones. But it doesn’t shake the foundation. Jesus is the foundation. He is unchanging and He is unshakable.”

Isn’t that the truth, dear ones? And praise the Lord for that!

The Bible teaches that all things work together for the good of God’s people. God will use this, even this. I want to allow the Lord to use this week’s terrible news for the good of my own soul. I encourage you to do the same. The Lord uses the means of grace, and especially the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s Day as His primary means to nourish our souls. How we need this! Our very lives depend on this. Every one of us.

Galatians 6 reads: 1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Here are some words from Pastor Nick Batzig which are especially relevant just now, though written over a decade ago – source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/take-heed

Bernard of Clairvaux once mentioned an old man who, upon hearing about any professing Christian who fell into sin, would say to himself: “He fell today; I may fall tomorrow.” The apostle Paul commended the same mindset when he wrote, “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). There is great wisdom in not trusting our own ability to stand. When I was a boy, my father would often say, “The person I trust least of all is myself.” It should shock us to hear a professing Christian say, “I would never do that,” or, “How could anyone do that?” The Scriptures record great sins of unbelievers and believers alike to instruct us in diverse ways. The former teach the unregenerate their need for the new birth. The latter teach the saints their need to distrust themselves. It is one thing to understand the sinful actions of unbelievers in Scripture; it is quite another to understand the sins of the saints.

Consider the following: If an innocent man could choose a piece of fruit over the infinitely valuable God (Gen. 3:6); if the most righteous man of his day could get so drunk that he passed out naked before his sons in his tent (9:21); if the most faithful man of his day could father a child with his wife’s handmaiden (16:1–4) and twice hand his wife over to other men (12:11–15; 20:1–2); if the mother of promise could laugh at the words of the God of promise and then lie to Him about doing so (18:9–15); if “righteous Lot” could greedily pick the most materialistic and sexually depraved place for himself and his family to live (13:8–13), and could hand his daughters over to the sexually perverse men of the city (19:4–8); if the son of promise could show partiality to his oldest son because he liked his hunting skills (25:28), and he, too, could hand his wife over to another man (26:6–11); and if the namesake of Israel could swindle his brother for a birthright (25:29–34), then so could I.

If the meekest man on the planet could act in such sinful anger and unbelief that God would not let him into the Promised Land (Num. 20:7–12); if his successor could disobediently covenant with pagans (Josh. 9); if two of Israel’s greatest judges could, in unbelief, doubt the immediate promises of God (Judg. 4; 11); if the mighty man of valor could fall into idolatry at the end of his life (8:22–27); and if the strongest man who ever lived could be defeated by wine and women (chaps. 14–16), then so could I.

If the man after God’s own heart could commit adultery and premeditate the murder of one of his mighty men (2 Sam. 11); if the wisest man could foolishly allow his heart to be led astray by a thousand women to worship foreign gods (1 Kings 11); if the weeping prophet could charge God with deceiving His people (Jer. 4:10); if his penman could seek fame for helping him write his book (45:5); and if a prophet of Israel could self-righteously run from the mission of God (Jonah 1–3), then so could I.

If the forerunner of Christ could doubt the identity of the One to whom he bore witness (Matt. 11:2–3) and if the Apostle Peter could try to stop Jesus from going to the cross (16:21– 23), deny Jesus (Luke 22:54–61), argue with the Lord about the gospel and its implications (John 13:6–10; Acts 10:9–16), and support division in the church over the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Gal. 2:11–21), then so could I.

If James and John could use Jesus to get to the top (Mark 10:35–37) and could want to call fire down from heaven on those who did not believe the gospel (Luke 9:51–55), and if the Apostle John could twice fall down to worship angels (Rev. 19:9–10; 22:8–9), then so could I.

We must resist the temptation of thinking we can stand in our own strength. We must depend on the grace of the One who said, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). If we fall, we must go to Christ, confessing our sin and hoping in His mercy. The Scriptures declare: “The righteous falls seven times and rises again” (Prov. 24:16). To fall seven times means that you have been restored six. The greatest believers are subject to great weaknesses. In no way do these truths give a license to sin; instead, they give a sober realization that “nothing good dwells in us” (Rom. 7:18). We must distrust ourselves, bear with the weak, and hold fast to Christ. We must flee to our Great High Priest, who was tempted in all points as we are yet never sinned. We must go to Him for grace and mercy to withstand temptations, and we must go to Him for grace and mercy if we fall. Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Amen and amen!

God bless you REAL good!

John

Divine Election Explained – Paul Washer

Posted on by

Some time back I posted a video of a conversation where seemingly unannounced, a young man walked up to Paul Washer asking him if he could explain the doctrine of election (with another friend standing by with a video camera). The result was a very poor quality audio recording but with the transcript provided, it is fairly easy to follow.

I spent some time writing out a full transcript of the conversation. There are some people who for some reason find the viewing of videos to be problematic. I hope adding the transcript below serves you.

So, here’s the video once again, this time with the transcript (which starts after the initial question has been asked). God bless, John

What it all comes down to is this. You have to answer one question: is man radically depraved?

That’s the only question you have to ask. Because if he is truly dead in his sin, if he truly hates God, if all men are equally evil, and they are, then the question is, how are you standing here right now believing God while some of your friends who are more moral than you still hate Him?

What happened?

If you say you opened up your heart, I’ll say, “no you didn’t” because the Bible says God opened up Lydia’s heart.

If you say, “well I repented.” Well, repentance is an evangelical grace in all the confessions. That means it comes from God as a gift.

If you say, “well I believe.” Ephesians 2. It is also a gift.

Questioner: (I know the Bible says that no man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. I know that well. My question is, “is the offer of salvation for all men or did God sit back in eternity and say, ‘its for you, you, you and you, and you, you, you, you are going to go to hell”?)

See, first of all, your problem is this: let’s say there’s no election. None. Ok. Let’s just start fresh and say there’s no election. Alright.. now, let’s say that men really are radically depraved and no man can come to God unless God draws him. So God comes down to every man and says “Anyone who will bow the knee to Me, anyone who will accept my Son as their Savior will be saved.” Since every man is radically depraved, they all hate God, they all blaspheme Him, turn around walk away and go to hell. The whole world goes to hell. Is that God’s fault?

(No.)

Alright, let’s say that really is the reality. Let’s say the Bible is true and that men hate God that much. So, who is going to be saved? Absolutely no one!

And if God saved no one because everyone is evil and rejects Him, is God wrong in doing that?

No, so that is what you’ve got without election – you’ve got the whole world hating God and going to hell.

That’s it…. and the other option is this:

Among these evil men, for His own glory and to demonstrate His own kindness before the foundation of the world He chooses a group of men out of there to demonstrate His glory in them. Is that wrong?

Did He rip the other men off?

What did He do?

You’ve got two choices: God saves a group of people by His own sovereignty or everybody goes to hell. Everybody!

Because men are that evil.

See, what you need to realize is that if God, right now, were to throw open the door of hell and say “everyone who wants out of hell, the only thing you have to do is bow your knee to Me and recognize My Lordship.” they’ll slam the door and stay in hell.

See what you don’t realize because of the humanistic Christianity in America, you don’t realize that men are really evil. They really ARE evil.

I’ll give you an example.

Have any of you seen Lord of the Rings?

Saruman makes these orcs, they come out of the ground evil. EVIL.

Alright, Aragon, all the heroes in the movie, slaughter them like they were insects. Slaughter them. And every time an orc gets killed, what do you do…

Yay! (Cheer)

Why?

Because those orcs really are evil. They are evil.

There’s your problem. You don’t think men are.

Men really are evil. Men really deserve hell. They really do.

(I believe that)

We talk about the doctrine of inability – that men cannot come to God. Jesus said that. Alright, men CANNOT come to God.

Now, if you say, “if men can’t come to God then how can God judge them? Its like judging a blind man because he can’t read. If men can’t come to God then man is not a culprit, he’s a victim.”

But here’s what you have to understand. Men cannot come to God because they WILL not come to God and they will not come to God because they hate Him… and therefore they are responsible.

Men are evil. God is good.

So, men hate God, they hate His law, they hate everything about Him. OK.

It says of Joseph’s brothers: they could not speak to him peaceably.

Now they spoke Aramaic. Why couldn’t they speak to him peaceably?

They could not because they hated him.

Alright, that’s why no man will ever come to God.

If God comes down and says, “Alright, everybody make their choice.”

No one is coming to God.

Why?

They hate Him.

And that is why they are judged, for their moral inability. Their inability is moral. They really hate God.

So, you’ve got the whole human race, every one of them is fallen, everyone of them hates God. God comes down to them and says, “who wants to be saved?”

Everybody blasphemes the name of God, walks into hell and slams the door. That’s what you’ve got. Because men really are evil.

and if out of that God says, “For My own glory, I am going to redeem a people and give them to My Son, by My own choice and by My own Sovereign election. He’s done wrong to no one.

Now how does He save them?

Here’s a question: Are you spiritually dead prior to salvation?

(Yes)

Well then, how did you come to Christ?

If you are spiritually blind, how do you now see Him?

(He draws me unto Him)

But you’re a dead man.

If some of it has to do with you, you’re a dead man.

If God calls your name, you hate Him. You’re not going to come, you’re going to run farther away from Him.

That is why in all.. now listen very carefully… in all the Christian confessions – the old Christian confessions, in the Reformation, early Baptist confessions, … you have been raised on this” ‘If you believe in Jesus you can be born again.’

ALL the early Baptist confessions say you must be born again in order to believe in Jesus.

That’s the difference.

Because if I tell a dead man, “Look, you’re dead, but there’s a hospital over here, where they can put some electrodes on you – so get up and follow me over to the hospital.”

Its nonsensical. He’s dead.

If he can get up he doesn’t need to go to the hospital.

So when Jesus looked at Lazarus and said, “Lazarus come forth” – there’s a problem – Lazarus is dead.

How does he hear the command?

The command was not only to be given, the moment the command is given, Lazarus must be resurrected to be able to even hear the command and respond.

That’s why you probably heard the Gospel for many years, and you’re sitting there and you didn’t care, it’s no big deal, maybe you made a profession of faith.. nothing.

And then one day, the Gospel is preached and wooosh – the blinders are taken off and not only that but you want Him.

Some people say, “well, what God does is He draws us to a certain point and then gives us a choice.”

There’s a problem. If God only illuminates the mind of the sinner then the more the sinner sees God, the more he’s going to hate Him.

So He not only illuminates the mind, He changes the heart.

With a new heart, for the first time you want Jesus and say, “I love Him and am irresistibly drawn to Him. I want Him more than anything.”

That’s what it is.

The Blatant Errors of Dispensationalism

Posted on by

Below in this 57 minute panel discussion video, Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Dr. Steve Lawson, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr. and Dr. R.C. Sproul, discuss various theological issues. For the first 20 minutes, the blatant errors of dispensationalism are discussed. Here is a partial transcript of Dr. Sproul’s words on dispensationalism and its very real dangers:

“They asked me, R.C., what’s your problem with dispensationalism? And I said, “You know, my biggest problem with dispensationalism is your historic doctrine of regeneration. And that was met with bewilderment. These professors said, “What are you talking about? What’s our problem with regeneration?”

I said, “Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. And that was popularized in the picture books that were spread out by Campus Crusade, where you had the circle with the chair, and you had the cross outside the circle, and ‘S’ the self, was on the chair, and that’s the picture of the unregenerate person, the pagan.

But then you have the next stage of those who are regenerated, where now, Christ is inside the circle, but not on the throne. Self is still on the throne. You’re saved; you’re in a state of grace, you’re regenerated, you’re justified – but you have absolutely no fruit whatsoever because your life hasn’t changed; and that gave rise to the development of this concept of the ‘Carnal Christian’ where a person could be saved without any manifestation of any change, and that’s what I said… for us, regeneration involves a foundational change in the disposition of the human heart, where that fallen person prior to his regeneration had no inclination to the things of God, no love for Jesus, and once that heart has been changed, through the immediate, transcendent power of God the Holy Spirit in regeneration, now that person has Christ in his life, and Christ is now his Lord. He’s not perfected, not fully sanctified, but the process of sanctification has certainly begun. And if it hasn’t, you have a profession of faith with no faith!

And so what’s so serious about this is that it invites a false sense of security for people believing that they are saved, because they signed a card, or raised their hand, or walked an isle, and prayed a prayer, whatever, but have no evidence of the fruit of sanctification in their lives. Then they’re challenged and the whole thing about this antinomianism is that the Old Testament law has no bearing on the Christian life… that’s all future, and now comes the eschatology, where the kingdom of God is in no sense realized, it’s totally and completely future, now what do you do with that?”

Live Stream Q&A (Archived) with R.C. Sproul & Ligonier Teaching Fellows from Ligonier Ministries on Vimeo.

A Course In Eschatology

Posted on by

As an amazing gift to the wider Body of Christ, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary are very kindly and generously making their entire 17 course lectures on eschatology available free of charge online. This course, taught by Dr. Sam Waldron, is outstanding, giving a comprehensive overview of the subject from both an historical and theological perspective. I recommend the series wholeheartedly and pray that God will use it to further the cause of His truth in the midst of much deception in our own day. – Pastor John Samson, King’s Church, Peoria, AZ

The first three lectures cover something of an historical overview of the Church concerning eschatology. This is a very helpful foundation for our understanding. To know that we are engaging in a conversation that has been going on for centuries, gives us a knowledge of the structure of the debate, setting the boundaries for what is and what is not to be regarded as ‘heresy’, as well as a right and appropriate sense of humility as we approach the Scriptures ourselves.

Lecturer: Dr. Sam Waldron is the academic dean of MCTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response. Dr. Waldron is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.

This treatment of eschatology examines eschatological thought in Church history, as well as the major structural considerations for an understanding of redemptive history (including the already/not yet, the kingdom of God, and the millennium). Finally, special questions are treated, including issues such as the gospel age, the imminence of Christ’s second coming, the resurrection, and the eternal state.

Outline:

Part 1: Historical Introductions

Section 1: Eschatology in the Early and Medieval Church

Section 2: Eschatology in the Reformation and Modern Church

Part 2: Structural Considerations

1: The Two Ages
Section 2: The General Judgment

Section 3: The Eschatological Kingdom

Part 3: Special Questions

Section 1: The Gospel Age
I. The Intermediate State
II. The Earthly Prospects
III. The Church/Israel Distinction

Section 2: The Imminent Return
I. Pre-Tribulationism
II. Date-setting (or Calculationism)
III. (Hyper) Preterism

Section 3: The Bodily Resurrection
I. Of the Wicked [The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment]
II. Of the Righteous [The Doctrine of the Redeemed Earth]

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS—THE GREAT CONVERSATION!

Lecture 1: Eschatology in the Early and Medieval Church

ST27 01 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 2:

ST27 02 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 3: Eschatology in the Reformation and Modern Church

ST27 03 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS—ESCHATOLOGY MADE SIMPLE

Lecture 4: The Two Ages

ST27 04 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 5: The Two Ages (Continued)

ST27 05 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 6: The General Judgment

Lecture 7: The Eschatological Kingdom

ST27 07 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 8: The Eschatological Kingdom (Continued)

ST27 08 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 9: The Eschatological Kingdom (Continued)

ST27 09 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 10: The Eschatological Kingdom (Continued)

ST27 10 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

SPECIAL QUESTIONS—NEXT QUESTIONS PLEASE!

Lecture 11: The Intermediate State

ST27 11 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 12:

ST27 12 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 13: The Earthly Prospects & Church/Israel Distinction

The Imminent Return Lecture 14: Pre-Tribulationism
Lecture 15: Hyper-Preterism

ST27 15 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 16: The Final Change & The Eternal State—The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment

ST27 16 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

Lecture 17: The Doctrine of the Redeemed Earth

ST27 17 | Doctrine of Last Things from CBTS on Vimeo.

How Do Muslims View Jesus?

Posted on by

Ron Rhodes writes (original source – https://jashow.org/articles/the-muslim-view-of-jesus/)

Muslims consider Jesus to be one of Allah’s greatest prophets. He was a sinless man sent by God to bring truth to his time. In the Muslim view, He was neither God in the flesh nor the Son of God. He was not a partner with God, for that would be blasphemy against Allah. 

Jesus is spoken of with great honor, but no more honor than is due to any other prophet of Allah. Jesus allegedly said in the Quran: “Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet” (Sura 19:30). He is considered a lesser prophet than Muhammad.

Jesus—A Prophet of Allah

Out of the 6,236 verses in the Quran, only 74 deal specifically with Jesus, and 42 are indirect references.[1] Jesus is not a “major player” in the Quran.

One of the central verses of the Quran is Sura 4:171: “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary.” Muslims believe that this verse is rich in praise for Jesus. He is called an apostle of Allah, which is essentially a prophet, even though he is a much lesser prophet than Muhammad. According to Muslims, Jesus did not claim to be more than a prophet. He is one of many thousands of prophets of Allah (supposedly 124,000), so while He is great, there are many others. 

We are also told in Sura 3:45 that Jesus is the “Messiah” (see also Suras 4:157, 171). However, Muslims do not use the term in the same way as Christians. It appears that Muslims do not understand the true meaning of the term and certainly do not view the Messiah as a divine being. According to the Quran, the “People of the Book” (Christians) should not regard Jesus as anything other than a messenger of God: “The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him” (Sura 5:75). The prophet Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by a miracle (Sura 3:47). The Muslim theologian Zamakhsari says that Mary conceived “when the angel Gabriel blew up her garment.”[2]

Jesus Worked Miracles

Muslims revere Jesus for his miracles (Sura 3:49). The Quran teaches that Jesus made a bird out of clay by blowing on it (Sura 5:110). He also healed the blind and a leper and raised the dead (Sura 5:110). 

The fact that Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead is considered a wonderful thing by Muslims. To this day, people in Iran often compliment doctors by saying, “Doctor, you’re a miracle worker; you have the very breath of Jesus!”[3] However, they do not see miracles as a sign that Jesus is the Son of God or a divine being. Muslims believe that Allah empowered Jesus to do such things.

Jesus Was Not the Son of God

Muslims do everything in their power to refute the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. Sura 9:30 speaks of those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God as being deceived. According to Muslim belief, the idea that Jesus is the Son of God suggests that Allah had sex with Mary, a female companion, and that this resulted in the birth of Jesus. However, the Quran makes it clear that Allah has no consort: “How can He have a son when He hath no consort?” (Sura 6:101). The Quran also states of Allah: “No son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion” (Sura 25:2). Further, we are told that “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten” (Sura 112:3). 

One Muslim apologist says, “The Muslim takes exception to the word ‘begotten,’ because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God?”[4]

Furthermore, Muslims argue that Jesus often claimed to be the Son of Man. Thus, the idea that Jesus was the Son of God is refuted by His own statements.[5]

Jesus Was Not God

Muslims deny that Jesus was God in human form. It is blasphemy for Christians to hold such a belief (Sura 5:17,73). To say that Jesus was God would ultimately imply that there are multiple gods, which is a rejection of their fundamental belief that Allah is the only God (see Sura 5:116-17). Such a claim seriously dishonors Allah, and Christians who hold such a view are infidels.

One Muslim apologist says that Jesus never once explicitly declared Himself to be God or instructed His disciples to worship Him. Jesus never claimed to be more than a prophet.[6]

Jesus Was Not Crucified

The Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified; rather, it was made to appear that He was (Sura 4:157). How was the crucifixion of Jesus made to appear? Muslims have many different answers to this question. Some Muslims claim that the Roman guards arrested and crucified the wrong Jesus, who was actually Barabbas (according to legend, he was also called “Jesus”). They interpret Luke 24 to mean that Jesus tried to get out of Jerusalem before anyone realized they had mistakenly arrested the wrong Jesus.[7] This happened when He met the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Another popular theory is that Judas was crucified on the cross. According to this theory, after Judas betrayed Jesus, Allah changed Judas’ appearance to resemble Jesus, at which point Judas was crucified and killed. The real Jesus was then carried directly to heaven, unharmed.[8] “Allah took him up to Himself,” says the Quran (Sura 4:158). This elevation to heaven was not the biblical ascension (Acts 1:9-11), but rather a straightforward transfer into God’s presence without going through death, much like Elijah.

Why do Muslims go to such lengths to “prove” that Jesus never died by crucifixion? For Muslims, it is inconceivable that Allah would abandon a prophet, such as Jesus, while fulfilling His mission and allow Him to suffer a humiliating end. It would be contrary to Allah’s omnipotence for Jesus to die on the cross since He would undoubtedly save a prophet in danger. Muslims have occasionally said that they honor Jesus more than Christians because His death by crucifixion would be considered a dishonorable shame. Jesus is said to have been honored by Allah by being taken directly to heaven. 

Muslim apologists claim that Jesus never said anything like, “I was dead and now I’m alive.” We are told: “Throughout the length and breadth of the 27 books of the New Testament, there is not a single statement made by Jesus Christ that ‘I was dead, and I have come back from the dead.’”[9]

Jesus Was Not Resurrected

In Luke 24:39, Jesus told His disciples, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” This verse, according to Muslim apologists, shows that Jesus did not die and was not raised from the dead. We could paraphrase the Muslim thinking this way: “What is wrong with you disciples? I am the same person who spoke to you, who broke bread with you, and I am flesh and blood, don’t you see?”[10] Just to make it clear to the disciples that He had not died and had not risen from the dead in a spiritualized body, Jesus told them to touch and handle Him. He was among them and still very much alive. 

In line with this, as noted above, Muslims argue that there was no ascension of a resurrected Jesus. It is claimed that the authors of the four canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ascension of Jesus. The doctrine is therefore pure myth.[11]

Jesus Is Coming Again

Muslims believe that Jesus will eventually return to earth, kill everyone who rejects Islam as the one true faith, rule for forty years, die, and be buried with Muhammad in Medina. He will then be resurrected on the last day, along with all other men and women.

A Christian Assessment

Jesus Is the Son of God

Christians would recoil in horror to the same degree as Muslims if Muslims were correct in claiming that the title “Son of God” required God to have sexual intercourse with a woman (Mary). But there is no such notion in the Bible. Such an idea is pure fiction. Bad fiction. According to the Bible, Jesus is the eternal Son of God. 

The phrase “son of…” frequently had a significant metaphorical connotation “of the order of” among the ancients. In the Old Testament, this is how the term is frequently used. “Sons of the prophets” meant “of the order of prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). “Sons of the singers” meant “of the order of singers” (Nehemiah 12:28). Similarly, the term “Son of God” denotes a claim to undiminished deity and implies “of the order of God.” The term has no suggestion of sexuality.

“Son of…” was a term used by the ancient Semites to denote equality of nature. Because of this, Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries believed that when He declared Himself to be the Son of God, He was claiming divinity without reservation. 

The fact that God created the universe through His “Son” implies that Christ was the Son of God before creation (Hebrews 1:2). Furthermore, Colossians 1:17 clearly states that Christ, as the Son of God, existed “before all things” (see especially verses 13-14). Further, in John 8:54-56, Jesus, as the Son of God, claimed to have eternally existed before Abraham (verse 58).

And so, the Muslim understanding of the phrase is a grave misconception. As an aside, I might note that this essentially amounts to Muslims creating a straw man argument by claiming that Christians hold a particular belief that they do not, and then refuting that particular belief. 

What about the Muslim objection that the New Testament says Christ was “begotten” (John 1:14,18 KJV)? The Greek term for “begotten,” monogenes, means “unique” or “one of a kind,” not that Christ was procreated. Jesus is the “Son of God” in the sense that He uniquely has the same nature as the Father—a divine nature. 

Jesus Was Also the Son of Man

Muslims often ask why, if Jesus is the Son of God, He called Himself the Son of Man (Matthew 20:18; 24:30)? There is no contradiction here, for Jesus was both the Son of God and the Son of Man. The term “Son of Man” does not negate Christ’s deity. By taking human form, Jesus did not relinquish His divine nature. The Incarnation did not involve a loss of divinity but rather the addition of humanity (see Philippians 2:6-8). Jesus affirmed His divine identity on several occasions (Matthew 16:16,17; John 8:58; 10:30). In the Incarnation, Christ possessed both a divine and a human nature, united in one person. 

Notably, the title “Son of Man” is used in contexts where Christ’s divine nature is powerfully demonstrated. For example, the Bible teaches that the authority to forgive sins belongs exclusively to God (Isaiah 43:25), yet Jesus claimed this authority as the “Son of Man” (Mark 2:7-10). Similarly, when the time comes for Christ’s return at the Second Coming, He will descend from heaven as the “Son of Man” wrapped in majestic clouds of glory to rule the earth (Matthew 26:63-64). The title Son of Man identifies Jesus as the divine Messiah. 

Jesus Was God

A comparison of the Old and New Testaments provides powerful testimony to Jesus’ identity as Yahweh (God Almighty). For example, the Old Testament indicates that only God saves. In Isaiah 43:11, God asserts: “I, I am the LORD [Yahweh], and besides me there is no savior” (insert added for clarity). This passage underscores two key points: first, that claiming to be Savior inherently asserts one’s divine status; and second, that there is only one Savior, namely God. Considering this, the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as the Savior (Titus 2:13-14) profoundly affirms His divinity.

Likewise, God says in Isaiah 44:24: “I am the LORD [Yahweh], who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens” (insert added for clarity). The fact that Yahweh “made all things” and “alone stretched out the heavens”—and the accompanying fact that Christ is the Creator of “all things” (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2)—proves that Christ is God Almighty.

Certainly, a clear indication of Jesus’ deity is that the Bible consistently ascribes divine names to Him. As we’ve seen, Jesus is identified with the Old Testament Yahweh. Kurios, however, is the New Testament equivalent of Yahweh. Like Yahweh, Kurios means “Lord” and typically connotes the idea of a supreme person with immeasurable power.  

The apostle Paul points out the close relationship between Yahweh and Kurios in Philippians 2. He tells us that Christ was given a name above every name, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [Kurios]” (verses 9-11, insert added for clarity). Paul, an Old Testament scholar par excellence, is alluding to Isaiah 45:22-24: “I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” Paul drew on his vast knowledge of the Old Testament to make the point that Jesus Christ is Yahweh, the Lord (kurios) of all humankind.

What about the Muslim claim that Jesus never instructed His followers to worship Him? In reality, Jesus was worshiped on many occasions in the New Testament, and He always accepted such worship as perfectly appropriate. Jesus accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Hebrews 1:6), some wise men (Matthew 2:11), a leper (Matthew 8:2), a ruler (Matthew 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matthew 15:25), Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:9), and the disciples (Matthew 28:17). 

Jesus’ Miracles Signified His Identity

The Bible claims that Jesus’ miracles prove His identity, despite the claims of Muslims that they do not. Scripture frequently refers to Jesus’ miracles as “signs.” Signs signify something. This word (compare John 4:54, 6:14, 9:16) emphasizes the action’s significance rather than its marvel. Jesus purposefully carried out these signs to reveal His identity as the divine Messiah (see Isaiah 29:18–21; 35:5,6; 61:1,2). His miracles functioned as His divine “ID Card.” 

Jesus Was the Ultimate Prophet

One of Jesus’ offices was that of prophet (Matthew 13:53-57). Notice, however, that Jesus’ teachings as a prophet were always presented as final and absolute. He never wavered. He boldly asserted that His teachings were superior to those of Moses and the prophets—and in a Jewish culture at that!

Jesus always spoke in His own authority. He never said, “Thus saith the Lord…” as did the common prophets (or “Allah says,” as did Muhammad); He always said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you…” He never took back anything He said, He never speculated or spoke incoherently, He never made changes, He never contradicted Himself (as Muhammad did), He never used abrogation (as Allah did), and He never expressed regret for anything He said. He even asserted that “heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mark 13:31), thus elevating His words directly to the realm of heaven.

One cannot read the Gospels long before realizing that Jesus considered Himself and His message inseparable. Because Jesus was (is) God, His teachings had the highest authority. The words of Jesus were the very words of God (see John 6:35; 7:37,38; 10:10; 14:27)! 

Furthermore, contrary to what Muslims claim, Jesus was not just a prophet to Israel; rather, the whole world was to hear His teachings. In His Great Commission to the disciples, Jesus said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” (Matthew 28:18-19). 

Jesus also had no sympathy for the idea of abrogation. He said in Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Jesus made it clear that His teachings would never, ever be changed. Jesus flatly asserted, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35). This means that the teachings of Jesus can never be overruled or eliminated by anything Muhammad says. Since Jesus is God, His statements are final and authoritative. 

Jesus Was Crucified on a Cross

One of the first things you should do when you hear a Muslim claim that Jesus did not die on the cross is to demand historical evidence to support this claim. He won’t be able to provide it. He will only repeat the passages from the Quran that he has read. Then you can use this as an opportunity to discuss the strong evidence that points to Jesus’ death by crucifixion:

• There are numerous predictions in the Old Testament that Jesus would die (Isaiah 53:5-10; Psalm 22:16; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 12:10). 

• There are many predictions in the Bible that Jesus would be resurrected (see Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; John 2:19-21; Matthew 12:40; 17:22-23), but one cannot be resurrected unless one has first died.

• Jesus Himself often spoke of His dying for the sins of humankind (John 2:19-21; 10:10,11; Matthew 12:40; Mark 8:31).  

• Jesus was beaten beyond recognition by Roman guards, given a crown of thorns, and then crucified. He bled from large wounds on his hands and feet, losing a phenomenal amount of blood. He was pierced in the side with a spear, from which came “blood and water” (John 19:34). The accumulation of such wounds results in 100 percent non-survival. 

• Jesus’ mother and His beloved disciple John were eyewitnesses to His crucifixion on the cross (John 19:16-17). 

• At the last moment of His life, Jesus surrendered His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46-49). 

• Pilate checked to make sure Jesus was dead (Mark 15:44-45).

Non-Christian historians have officially documented the death of Christ. These include well-known historians such as Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, and Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian. Polycarp and other early Christian writers also confirmed Christ’s death on the cross. 

God the Father Allowed Jesus’s Death

Muslims claim that Allah would not have allowed one of His prophets to be humiliated and die a cruel death on the cross. We are informed that crucifixion simply cannot coexist with the absolute sovereignty of Allah.

On the other hand, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God Himself allowed Jesus to suffer on the cross to save humankind (Romans 8:3,4; 1 Peter 1:18-20). It is also evident that God often allows His servants, including prophets, apostles, and even His own Son, to suffer. God’s sovereignty and His allowance of some events that seem unjust or terrible from our finite perspective are not mutually exclusive. A powerful illustration of this is found in the story of Job (read chapters 1–3). Muhammad also experienced some suffering. In fact, according to some stories, he died from the poison of one of his wives.[12]

Besides, who is to say God did not rescue Jesus from His enemies? Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb make the keen observation that “even if Muslims assume that God will deliver his prophets from their enemies, it is wrong to conclude that he did not deliver Christ from his enemies. Indeed, this is precisely what the resurrection is.”[13]

Your Muslim acquaintance may not have considered how all of this relates to Jesus’ submission. Islam means “submission.” Muslim means “one who submits.” Jesus was also a submissive person. In fact, according to Hebrews 5:7-16, Jesus submitted to God all the way to the cross. Because Jesus achieved the salvation of humankind through this tremendous act of submission, Muslims should honor Him for it. 

Jesus Physically Resurrected from the Dead

Not only did Jesus rise from the dead, but He also gave powerful evidence of His resurrection in the presence of many witnesses. Scripture tells us that Jesus first testified to His resurrection by appearing to Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)—a fact that is a highly significant indicator of the authenticity and reliability of the resurrection account. If the resurrection story were an invention of the disciples, no one in a first-century Jewish culture would have invented it this way. In Jewish law, a woman’s testimony was unacceptable in a court of law except in minimal circumstances. A fabricator would have been much more likely to place Peter or the other male disciples at the tomb of the resurrection. But our Bible text tells us that the Lord appeared to Mary first because that is what actually happened. 

Moreover, by all accounts, the disciples came away from the crucifixion frightened and full of doubt. And yet, after Jesus’ resurrection appearances to the disciples, their lives were virtually transformed. Cowards became bastions of courage, fearless defenders of the faith. The only thing that could explain this incredible transformation was the resurrection. These witnesses gave their lives to defend the truth of the resurrection and Christianity. 

As the days passed, Jesus made many appearances, proving that He had risen from the dead. Acts 1:3 says, “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” Moreover, “He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive…” (1 Corinthians 15:6). 

What about the Muslim argument against the death and resurrection of Christ from Luke 24:39? Jesus said: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Muslims believe that Jesus told the disciples to touch Him and handle Him so that they could see that He had not died but was still physically alive and in their midst. The folly of this view becomes apparent when one realizes that immediately after Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39, He went on to explain that He had indeed risen from the dead in fulfillment of Scripture: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47). Muslims are ripping verses out of context to prove a futile point. 

Muslims are also wrong to claim that nowhere in the 27 books of the New Testament did Jesus ever say He was dead and now alive. Early in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus affirmed: “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Luke 9:22). Jesus later told His disciples, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24:46). Further, in the book of Revelation, the resurrected Christ claimed: “I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore!” (Revelation 1:18). 

Deedat is again wrong when he argues that not a single inspired author of the canonical gospels recorded a single word about Christ’s ascension. Christ made this point Himself. In John 20:17, we read Christ’s words: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” In John 7:33, Jesus said, “I will be with you a little longer, and then I am going to him who sent me.” “Now I am going to him who sent me” (John 16:5). “I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer” (John 16:10). In Acts 1:9, recorded by Luke (the same author that wrote the Gospel of Luke), we read: “He was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). 

Given the way some Muslim apologists falsely make bold claims about the Bible, I urge you never to take their word for what the Bible says but always open your Bible and check it out for yourself. Otherwise, the Muslim may win an argument because you did not check the facts. 

Conclusion

I conclude by noting that while Muslims have made some futile arguments against the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the reality is that Jesus went missing from His tomb, while Muhammad’s tomb is still occupied in a mosque in Medina.[14] In terms of eternal salvation, Muslims would do well to put their faith in “the living one,” who “died” but is now “alive forevermore!” (Revelation 1:18).
For more on all this, I invite you to consult my book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims (Harvest House Publishers). It will teach everything you need to know to effectively dialog with Muslims.

  1. Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka, Muslims and Christians at the Table (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1999), p. 108. ↑
  2. Cited in David Goldmann, Islam and the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 2004), 36. ↑
  3. William Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), p. 77. ↑
  4. Ahmed Deedat, Christ in Islam, Islamic Propagation Center International, South Africa, downloaded from the Internet. ↑
  5. W. St. Clair Tisdall, Christian Reply to Muslim Objections (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1904); in The World of Islam CD-ROM. ↑
  6. Deedat, Christ in Islam. ↑
  7. Larry Poston with Carl Ellis, Jr., The Changing Face of Islam in America (Camp Hill: Horizon, 2000), p. 188. ↑
  8. Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1980); cited in The World of Islam CD-ROM. ↑
  9. Debate between Josh McDowell and Ahmed Deedat, August 1981, Durban, South Africa. Transcript downloaded from Internet. ↑
  10. Deedat, Christ in Islam. ↑
  11. See John Gilchrist, “The Textual History of the Qur’an and the Bible,” The Good Way, P.O. Box 66, CH-8486 Rikon, Switzerland. ↑
  12. John Haines, Good News for Muslims (Philadelphia: Middle East Resources, 1998), p. 66. ↑
  13. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 277. ↑
  14. Harold Berry, Islam: What They Believe (Lincoln: Back to the Bible, 1992), p. 33. ↑

Is Mormonism Christian?

Posted on by

Written by a staff writer for the John Ankerberg show, here is an article entitled “Are Mormons Christian?” (https://blog.jashow.org/the-apologetics-corner/are-mormons-christian?)

Mormons identify themselves as a Christian[1] denomination, in the same category as Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. After all, they will tell you, they are “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!” But does their claim stand up to scrutiny when compared to what the Bible teaches? We will take a look at a few of Mormonism’s key teachings about Jesus and compare them to what the Bible says about Him. With this information in mind, you will be better prepared to answer the question: Are Mormons Christians?

First, Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a created being, and not eternal God. Rather, He was merely the first of billions of spirit children of the “Father”.

  • Doctrine and Covenants 93:21-23: “Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father.”
  • The Articles of Faith: “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the firstborn was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors.”

Furthermore, since Satan was also a preexistent spirit child, Jesus and Satan are brothers.

  • “As for the devil and his fellow spirits, they are brothers to man and also to Jesus and sons and daughters to God in the same sense that we are.”

Second, Mormonism teaches that because Jesus was only a man, a “spirit offspring” of the earth gods, He must earn His salvation, just like all other men.

  • “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.…He came to earth to work out His own salvation.…After His resurrection, He gained all power in Heaven.”
  • “…by obedience and devotion to the truth, [Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked Him as a God.”
  • “Christ…is a saved being.”

Third, there is nothing particularly special about Jesus. Sure, He is divine now, but every person has the same opportunity to attain “godhood” just like Him. His only unique claim is that rather than having a human father, he was the product of sexual union between “Elohim,” the earth god, and Mary.

  • “Jesus is man’s spiritual brother. We dwelt with Him in the spirit world as members of that large society of eternal intelligences, which included our Heavenly Parents.”

Fourth, Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God (Elohim) and Mary.

  • “sexuality…is actually an attribute of God…God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone” and “the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus.”
  • “Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man and that Man was God”!
  • “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”

According to Brigham Young, “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary, the wife of Joseph, had another husband [that is, God].”[2]

Biblically, of course, all of this is false.

First, the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God. He is eternal creator whose origins are “from old, from ancient times” in other words, He has eternally existed.

  • John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
  • Colossians 1:16-17: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
  • Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
  • Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Further, Jesus Christ is not the brother of the devil. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is in fact God:

  • John 10:30: I and the Father are one.
  • Colossians 1:15-17: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
  • Colossians 2:9: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.
  • Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Second, Jesus did not, nor did He have any need to, earn His salvation. Rather, He came to bring salvation to all mankind through His death on the cross.

  • John 14:6: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  • Ephesians 2:8-9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
  • 1 Peter 2:24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

Third, Jesus did not attain godhood, He has been God from before the foundation of the world.

  • John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
  • John 1:14: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  • Ephesians 1:4: He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
  • Colossians 1:15-17: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

And finally, Jesus was not the product of some physical sexual union. Rather He was virgin born.

  • Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
  • Matthew 1:18-23: This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. [See Luke 1:26-38] Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)

Once again, we must ask: Are the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus revealed in the Bible the same? Your answer is important, because your eternal future depends on believing in the right Jesus.

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

You can learn more about what Mormons believe in by downloading our Side by Side guides here. You will also find numerous resources on our website, including DVDs and books to help you study further.

[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a “Christian” as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” The website gotquestions.org explains, “Despite the wide variety of beliefs that fall under the general ‘Christian’ label today, the Bible defines a true Christian as one who has personally received Jesus Christ as Savior, who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sins, who has the Holy Spirit residing within, and whose life evinces change consistent with faith in Jesus.”

[2] These quotes are from Mormon sources and/or Mormon leaders. Consult John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the Mormon Church (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1991) to see the sources.