Objections To Reformed (Biblical) Christianity & Response

“First of all, Bret… just because one has a disagreement as to your “covenant theology” doesn’t make them less “covered by the blood” of Jesus. According to your theology, it doesn’t matter what they believe as to “who” Jesus is, because if they are the chosen “covenant” people they have a free passage into heaven anyway… looks to me like being a “Calvinist” is just a bonus… Oh wait, Calvinists are the only ones who get into heaven, right?

I’m not arguing that you actually have to read the Bible to find out how you are to be a follower of Christ… But what you fail to realize is that Jesus taught Old Testament Scripture, and without a firm foundation in that, you are paddling with one oar in the water just going around in circles.

And yes, Jesus calls us first… but we have to be willing to pick up the phone. When you look at the story of the prodigal son, the son had to come back on his own. The father didn’t go out looking for him, but waited for him to come back. That son had to make that decision to come back. Had he not have come back, he would have remained outside his father’s house…. See More

I have given countless Scripture stating that “if a righteous man turns from his righteousness, that none of his righteousness will be remembered” Ez. 18:24 and when you sin willfully you “trample grace underfoot” and “if you sin willfully, no sacrifice for sin is left” Hebrews 10:26-31… “‘… who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes YHVH, and that person must be cut off from his people. (31) Because he has despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.'” Numbers 15:30-31.

And yes, when it comes to the “idol Jesus” you refer to, He is the object of my worship as my Savior, so ya, you can call Him my idol. You on the other hand idolize your intellectualism and worship your own “ME” god, the god of your own design instead of YaHuVaH of Scripture.

You can sit perched on your little mustard tree and gaze at the centuries old olive tree that I am grafted into.

“Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off” Romans 11.”

Renee Stevens

Bret responds to these objections from Renee,

Renee,

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. No idea at all. Not even close.

1.) First, as to covenant theology, well, if people don’t embrace covenant theology then they are likely going to embrace a Jesus of their own making since the Bible is structured tectonically as covenant. Strip Jesus from the covenant context of the Scriptures and by default you must put Him in a context that is alien to who the Scriptures say He is.

Now, clearly, non-covenantal Christians can be saved but it will certainly be the case that their Christianity will be a blight to one degree or another upon the Christian faith while they are alive.

2.) Reformed Christians believe that the elect are chosen to believe in the Christ of the Bible. I challenge you to find a Reformed Theologian who ever taught that people can go to heaven living and dying while never knowing Jesus. Yours is a loopy accusation to try and discredit that Biblical theology which your desperately trying to stave off.

3.) Reformed Christians aren’t the only ones to get to heaven but those non-Reformed Christians who get to heaven will get their because the Reformed Jesus has saved them by the Reformed Gospel that was preached and that they embraced just enough of to be saved.

4.) The whole of Reformed theology is posited upon the Old Testament. I have no earthly idea why you would suggest otherwise.

5.) In the story of the prodigal, you’re forgetting that the prodigal was a son. The Son returned to what was always his. The prodigal son is a Parable Renee w/ only ONE overarching point. That overarching point is the willingness of God to receive repentant sinners. You are trying to turn it into a allegory. It is not an allegory Renee. There is a difference between allegory and parable. Look it up.

(See, it is these kind of mistakes on your part that end up putting your well intentioned but misguided interpretive efforts into the ditch.)

6.) When Jesus calls (internal call) His people, His people always pick up the phone. (and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed Acts 13:48). When Jesus issues the external call to those who aren’t His people they never pick up the phone because dead people can’t hear the phone ringing (John 10:26 “But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”)

7.) Ezekial 18:24 — CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, Renee.

The book of Ezekiel as a whole speak of God’s sovereignty in salvation. Go to the chapters just before…go to Chapter 16 and see that sure destruction was upon Israel, and the Lord came by and said, “Live!” Then to 33 where your passage is repeated…then on to 34 where the Lord says that He will seek out His sheep. Then to 36 and 37 where God says I will give them a new heart not for their sakes…and 37 with the dry bones.

There is no good in proof-texting Renee, as you are doing for I suspect your simply going to do this to other passages to bend them to say what you want them too say.

Secondly, you seem to be assuming that the “he shall die” reference refers to eternal death when in point of fact the idea of dying may only refer to temporal death.

8.) Hebrews 10:26-31

First, it should be noted that Calvinists have taught that people can fall from the covenant of Grace. Noting this is important since the context of Hebrews 10:29 finds just a comparison being made between the old and renewed covenant. Here we find a lesser to greater argument. If one died without mercy for rejecting Moses’ law how much more grievous will be the penalty of one who tramples the Son of God underfoot. However, we need to hear the language of Hebrews here. In this context the hypothetical person being referred to was ‘sanctified’ (that is ‘set apart’) by the blood of the covenant. Now we must ask; ‘How is it that this person was sanctified (set apart)? The answer is by being put into the covenant. This is the same covenant that throughout the Scripture is characterized as having wheat and tares in it. Now in as much as Christ died for the Church, everyone in the Church (wheat and tares alike) can be said to have had a ‘sacrifice for sins,’ and so it is true that should the wheat, being externally but really related to the one covenant of Grace, sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the Truth (and lots of people have a non-saving knowledge of the truth – cmp. James 2:19) there is no sacrifice for sins.

Now the reason may be asked why we read this text this way.

1.) We cannot read this passage the way that Renee desires and remain faithful to the book of Hebrews where elsewhere the perseverance of the saints is upheld by the teaching that, “Therefore Jesus is also able to save forever those who come to God through Him.” Also after Hebrews 10 we are taught that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. Now, if our faith doesn’t finish, then how can it be rightly said that Jesus is the finisher of our faith?

2.) We believe that the explanation above does honor to the covenant language of Scripture. Just as all of Israel was not of Israel, so all of the Church is not of the Church and yet, if a unregenerate person is a part of the Church then when speaking in corporate categories it is proper to say that Christ died for the Church and that includes all who are in the Church who are not of the Church. Just as on the Day of Atonement where the Sacrifice of the lamb was for all of Israel didn’t negate that ‘not all of Israel was of Israel’ so the Sacrifice of Jesus for the Church doesn’t negate that not all of the Church is of the Church. Just as there were those in the Old covenant who had a sacrifice preformed for them as being part of the covenantal whole that did not apply to them individually so there are some in the Church who had a sacrifice preformed for them as part of the covenantal whole at Calvary that does not apply to them individually. But of course we do not know who those are and so if some in our congregations were to sin willfully after they had received a knowledge of the truth we would have to warn them that there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment.”

Numbers 15 works much the same way. You must simply wrap your head around the idea that the covenant has people who are only externally related to the covenant but who can genuinely said to be part of the covenant.

As for the last few paragraphs in your missive Renee … well, that is just you playing the role of the fish on the hook, thrashing about trying to avoid being reeled in. But the hook is set Renee and you are being reeled in.

A Response to, “We don’t like theology … We just follow Jesus.”

I wrote the following in response to someone insisting that they don’t do Theology but rather just follow Jesus.

Can we just quit w/ the whole, “I just follow Jesus thing?” Nobody follows Jesus w/o having an understanding of who Jesus is. That understanding of who Jesus is the result of theology. The Jesus that we are to follow is the Jesus of Scripture.

The Jesus of Scripture said that “all that the Father gives Me will come to me.” This clearly teaches what Calvinism later came to call irresistible grace. The Jesus of Scripture said, “He who believes in me has everlasting life.” This clearly teaches what Calvinism later came to call “the perseverance of the saints,” for “Everlasting life,” by definition, is life that can not be lost once gained. If it could be lost it wouldn’t be ever-lasting. The Jesus of Scripture said that “No one can can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This clearly teaches what Calvinism came to call “Total Depravity.” People can not come to Jesus unless they are irresistibly drawn to Jesus because they are dead in their trespasses and sins and are at war w/ God. Only God can makes those who are dead in sin alive. Some he makes alive and some He leaves in their sin that they so earnestly cherish and nurture. The Jesus of Scripture said, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all…” and “For you (Father) granted him (Jesus) authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” This clearly teaches what Calvinism came to call “unconditional election.” God has chosen His people for reasons known only to God and nothing can alter God’s choice. The Jesus of Scripture said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” When in context of the rest of John 10, “The Sheep” is a clear reference to those who are uniquely His people. Jesus only dies for His Sheep and not sheep that are not His. This clearly teaches what Calvinism later came to call “Limited Damnation.” Not all sheep who deserve to be damned end up being damned because God, in His great mercy, sent Christ to die to save some from the mass of damnation. Now clearly Calvinism is MUCH MUCH MUCH more then what I have laid out here but it is never less than what I have laid out here, and it is this Christianity 101 that people like Michael, Renee, and others are caviling against.

Now, you can choose to refuse the name of “Calvinism” if you like. It makes no never mind to me. However, if you reject and despise the doctrines of Christianity that Calvinism champions then you have rejected the Christian faith and the blood does not cover you anymore then the blood covers a Mormon or a Jehovah Witness who invokes the name of Jesus.

Finally, people did not have to wait for Calvin to be born in order to follow Jesus. Since Calvinism is exactly synonymous w/ Biblical Christianity they only had to read their Bibles in order to follow Jesus. Some of you are avoiding all of this material, choosing instead to say that you just “follow Jesus.” I would hazard to guess that you are employing this technique because you don ‘t want to deal with the Scriptures. Your avoidance mechanism looks to be just a means by which to keep your Idol Jesus that you follow from being challenged by the Jesus of Scripture.

Cultural Marxism & The NY Times

“Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/27blow.html

This NY Times opinion article is interesting because it insists that the direction that this country is taking is unchangeable. People who don’t like Marxism are told in this article that they just need to get used to being obsolescent, and that the country that they love will never come back.

Now, all that may be true. I am yet undecided whether or not the hour is to late in this country for it to return to the religious and theological roots that contributed significantly to what it once was. However that turns out I find it interesting that the people this African-American writers cites in the quote above are all representatives of the people groups that cultural Marxism have employed as their cultural neo-proletariat shock troops to tear up the theological and religious roots that once supported what this country leaned towards. Remember, that in the Cultural Marxism of Gramsci, Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and others of the Frankfurt school, those employed to overturn the old “oppressive Christian social order” are those who believe that they have grievance against that old system. Women (Pelosi) have grievance against its patriarchal nature. The Sexually deviant (Barney Frank) have grievance against its heterosexual monogamous nature. The pagan Secularist Jews (Anthony Weiner) have grievance against its Christian nature, and the Blacks (Barack Obama) have grievance against its White nature. All of these groups, as embodied by the above representatives, also have in common allegiance to a religious theological and ideological system that overthrows both the Christian faith and the culture that it creates. To these groups anybody who supports the previous order is a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, sexist, anti-semite.

This is why the writer of the NY Times piece so easily implies that those who don’t support the ideological tending of the country are racists, uneducated, irrationally enraged, rednecks. In his cultural Marxist multi-cultural world anybody who isn’t Marxist and who doesn’t agree w/ political correctness or multi-culturalism is, by definition, a nekulturny troglodyte.

The Current “Christian” Mind On Homosexuality

Confused Christian is a Ph.D in New Testament and is a Dean of a Holiness Seminary in Indiana.

Confused “Christian” (CC)

“So I think almost anyone who would be reading this post believes that homosexual sex is wrong biblically. What do we do with this? Do we

1. Try to stop it from happening anywhere we can by trying to pass laws against it or even by resorting to violence against such people? This is Bret’s Christian reconstructionist position where you try to make the nation into Calvin’s Geneva.”

Bret responds,

You know, you might first want to do some reading up on Reconstructionism before you start pretending to be an authority on what they do or don’t want.

It is interesting that you talk about “resorting to violence against such people” as if violence visited upon violators of the law is a bad thing. Was God wrong for insisting that violence be visited upon people for their committing of Capital Crimes?

Not liking Calvin’s Geneva, I presume you would prefer Harvey Milk’s San Francisco?

We try to stop rape from happening anywhere we can by trying to pass laws against it and even by resorting to violence against such people? Why should sodomy be any different?

I notice you said that “anyone reading your post would believe that homosexual sex is wrong.” You did not say whether or not you think homosexual sex is wrong. Do you?

CC,

2. “Do we ‘hate the sin but love the sinner,’ let such individuals know we love them without waffling on our values but without trying to force them to stop? This at least seems more Arminian to me and in keeping with the way God deals with the world in general, wooing people to Him rather than forcing us to obey him. And, ironically, this approach seems more in keeping with our Constitution, which does not really allow for us to pass laws based on specific religious traditions that are not universally shared and do not involve basic harm of others.”

Bret

Do you do this all the time? Do you constantly pretend to know what you’re talking about in matters outside what is supposed to be your expertise? What do you know of Constitutional law? Where does the Constitution say that we are not to pass laws based on specific religious traditions that are not universally shared and do not involve basic harm to others? Having read the Constitution a few times I would dearly love for you to point that out. Secondly, on what basis are you suggesting that homosexuality doesn’t involve basic harm of others?

All laws, all the time, are passed based on some specific religious tradition. Indeed, law itself is dependent upon some notion of a lawgiver. Show me the law … and I’ll show you the lawgiver. Having shown you the lawgiver, I’ll show you the very specific religious tradition from which the law comes.

A question for you. Should we also love people who are polygamists w/o trying to force them to stop? Yep, that certainly sounds Arminian to me. It also sounds idiotic. But I repeat myself.

CC,

“The other question is one of motive. The insidious thing about preaching against sin is that, without diluting the badness of sin, it often gives us an excuse to sin by hatefulness. In other words, it is sinful to hate homosexuals, yet because we believe homosexual sex is wrong, it is easy to let yourself off the hook and self-justify evil in one’s own heart because you are preaching against sin. Preaching against sin when we are not preaching for someone is the kind of activity that most easily lends itself to sinfulness on the part of the preacher in this way.”

Bret,

Paul said in Romans, “Hate that which is evil, cling to that which is good.”

The Psalmist, speaking to God said, “Do I not hate those who hate you w/ a Holy Hatred?”

When we preach against sin we are automatically preaching for someone. The first someone we are preaching for is God. Let’s not forget him in all of our sensitivity and compassion for sinners. The second someone we are preaching for is the Sinner himself. Sin hurts people. It hurts them bad. Confronting them w/ Sin and holding out the Lord Jesus Christ as the forgiveness of sin and the cure for sin is the most loving thing you can do for someone.

Second, it is most certainly not hateful to hate homosexuals (or any sinner) when done for the sake of love, who are, through their respective sin of choice, seeking to pull God off His throne. Certainly we must communicate a sense of pity to those who are flipping off God and certainly our hatred of them must be a hatred based on love for them (an, “against the world for the world,” kind of thing) but if we love them we must hate them. Indeed true hatred of them would be a harlot love for them that did not resist them.

The Ubiquitous Race Card

“Their (Tea-party attendees) stated fears — socialism, communism, liberalism — are just proxies for the one fear most of them dare no longer speak … it insults intelligence to deny that race is in the mix.”

Leonard Pitts
Miami Herald Newspaper
March 24, 2010

With the passages of the Marxist Death care legislation the Democrats have turned to the race card and government arrests of Christian Constitutional nutcases in order to try to intimidate the American electorate. The subtle but clear message seems to be that,

1.) If you associate w/ the Tea-Party fringe element in America you are associating with racists, misogynists, homophobes and assorted nutcases and fruit loops.

2.) If you are a Tea-party fringe element (and by the Feds standard any association w/ the Tea-party puts one in the “fringe element” category) you better watch your step because we will throw your sorry white cracker arse in jail.

The Obama administration, and before that the Obama campaign has played the Race card ceaselessly. During the campaign they pulled the race card on Bill Clinton, and Obama was forever warning against “those people who would remind you that I don’t look like the rest of those other presidents on our dollar bills.” Once Obama was victorious in November of 08, through the manipulation of white guilt, Obama had an inauguration benediction that was all race card,

“Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen”

Then, there was the the whole Cambridge cop imbroglio, where, quite apart from knowing any facts, Obama turned a comparatively pedestrian incident into a National issue of race. Obama, it may be said, is our Racist in Chief.

And now, the race card is being played, by Obama hacks and flacks in the American Pravada media, on anybody who points to the Constitution and screams in concert with tens of thousands of others, “We will not be enslaved by the State.”

For my part, I think we should go ahead and admit that race is in the mix. We should publish broadly and widely that it can be seen that race is in the mix by the fact that so few minorities desire to be free. We should publish broadly and widely the curiosity that finds such a large percentage of minorities voting to support Marxism. Yes indeed, race is in the mix, but it is only in the mix because, percentage wise, minorities choose not to attend protests that cry for freedom for all people.

However, Tea-party types should go out of their way to explain how the policies of the Obama administration will disproportionally hurt minorities. Tea-party types should go out of their way to explicitly set out how the Marxist policies of the Democrats and the Obama administration are racist, for these policies, in direct pursuit of hurting the white man, will instead bring untold suffering on minorities.

So, yes, Mr Pitts, “race is in the mix,” but it is only in the mix because the Obama administration and people like Pitts have put it in the mix.

Of course, I suppose it is possible, though I don’t like to think or believe it, that minorities on the basis of being minorities, don’t like liberty. I mean, given the voting record in the 90-95 percentile of the black community for Democrat Marxist candidates, maybe it is possible that race has something to do w/ an aversion to liberty. But even if this is so, it would be the minorities that are putting race into the mix, not the Tea-party denizens. The only thing that the majority of the Tea-party activists have in the mix is liberty.

Americans who are pro-liberty only want liberty and any individual who shares a desire for liberty for their people are welcome to come to protests that cry for freedom for all peoples.