Why Every True Believer is a Dispensationalist

Please note that I am not arguing that only self-identified dispensationalists are the only true believers. What I am saying is that even those who say they despise and reject dispensationalism are, in fact, dispensationalists whether they like it or not. This is assuming they actually believe in redemption by grace alone through faith alone.

In the comments section at a news/commentary site, an atheist (who was openly politically conservative and MAGA, not just some left wing troublemaker) started posting scriptures. He was holding Christians to their stated belief that all the Bible is for them. Here is one passage he chose:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. 

-Lev 25:44-46a

I added verse 46a to highlight that this was a "forever" statute and unless you understand what "forever" means in scripture, you will have to deal with all the "forever" passages. But that's another topic for another time. And he could have picked verses even more troublesome for the "church = Israel" believer.

One believer unbelievably responded that this verse sounded like Islam not Christianity. Well, thanks for falling into his trap, my friend. 

“You shall [Thou shalt] have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you. 

-Deuteronomy 23:12-14

This one is also a Bible command ("You SHALL..."). Honestly, there are far more extreme examples from the Law the atheist could have chosen, but he settled for this one. Anyway, the simple explanation is that, like the Law (including the 10 commandments), these commands are for Israel and they are part of a specific, earthly covenant. 

Israel's covenant is an earthly compact which involves a specific earthly hope. This and other "commands" were not given to Adam, Abel, Seth, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. The very foundation of dispensationalism (in general) is that while all scripture is FOR, it's not all TO us. It's not even all FOR Israel in what we call the "Old Testament."

To help illustrate this fact, let is look at a rather obvious "bible command" (a very specific one at that) that can easily be see to have limited application. It applies neither to us today nor ever to Israel (despite being part of the Pentateuch).

Make an ark of cypress wood for yourself. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. And this is how you must make it: The length of the ark will be three hundred cubits, the width of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits

-Genesis 6:14-15

No Christian sect or seminary teaches this is for all believers of all ages and applicable in our day. But we must not miss that there are THREE reasons for this.

1. God is clearly speaking directly to Noah (subject of the command)
2. There is no flood coming (condition for the command)
3. The earth is being cleansed (the focus of God's plan and action)

The same concept for certain commands works with promises such as the specific promise to the twelve in Matthew 18:28 that the twelve will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom (regeneration). Clearly spoken to them. There are not an unending number of thrones. "Twelve" is not some euphemism for "untold millions." The land and the nation of Israel in her promised earthly kingdom is in sight (the future regeneration).

Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is obviously in the gospel accounts. This promise is yet future to our age today. We cannot somehow dismiss its specificity or substitute some sort of "spiritual" thrones, tribes, or Kingdom. The only way to understand the commands to Noah and the promises in the gospels to the chosen apostles is to understand them in the context of the plan in sight.  

Note what we are told in John 15:16 (which is not some Calvinistic choosing of all believers of all ages, but a specific choosing of the twelve). And despite the twelve being "chosen" by Christ himself, Judas will lose his position as elder (his office) and as a future ruler in Israel despite being chosen. How does this fit "election" as it is commonly taught? And do we really believe that the Lord will do whatever any believer asks merely if he asks in His name?

You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that the Father may give you whatever you ask Him in My name. 

-John 15:16

Jesus answered them, “Have I not chosen you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. For it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. 

-John 6:70-71

“Brothers, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit previously spoke by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became the guide to those who seized Jesus... “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let no one live in it,

and,

‘Let another take his office.

-Acts 1:16, 20

The objection might be raised that the Lord Judas was a deceiver. Yet that foreknowledge does not negate that he was chosen nor that he has all the same gifts the others had and was to be treated the same as all the chosen.

These twelve Jesus sent out, and commanded them, saying, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. “Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper for your purses, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor shoes, nor even staffs. For the workman is worthy of his keep. “In whatever city or town you enter, inquire in it who is worthy. And live there until you leave. When you come into a house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment than for that town.

-Matthew 10:5-15

Israel had commands on how to build and move the tabernacle. Then Israel had commands on how to build the temple, etc. The commands concerning the tabernacle were put aside in light of the temple. Then Israel lived without a temple again when the first temple was destroyed. Then they built another temple, etc. Adam, Abraham, etc. had no tabernacle or temple, etc. So, even within ages "forever" commands and "You shall" commands changed.

Now, I could reference many more verses that nobody (well, almost nobody) is teaching that we should be obeying merely because "it's a Bible command!" or that the statute is said to be "forever."

The atheist in our account did not limit himself to random verses in the Old Testament. He turned to John 14 and quoted a verse similar to what we have seen in John 15.

Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. 

-John 14:13-14

For this one (John 14), the atheist asked the Christians why they're not at hospitals healing kids. We could add additional scriptures to this. Isn't this a promise made by the Lord Jesus to all his followers as some claim? This promise is found in John 14, 15, and 16. Yet those who claim the earthly ministry of the Lord to Israel and  the promises to the twelve for themselves fail to claim all the commands and neither do they claim all the promises. They pick and choose what they like as they accuse those of us who are labeled "ultra-dispensationalists" as the ones denying all the Word of God.

They choose being chosen for themselves, but ignore the fact that God does not do everything they ask in His name. The obvious "failure" of this promise to work essentially always in this age is explained away by such trite excuses that none of the billions of asks are actually "in His name." 

We look at similar "red letter" words of our Lord (again, the horrible practice of printers separating out the words spoken by the Lord Jesus by printing them in red). Why are they not in children's hospitals laying hands on the sick? We could also quote James 5:14 (an epistle specifically addressed to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad") along these lines.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

-Mark 16:17-18

Is anyone sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 

-James 5:14

Matthew 10 states that the sent one will not only heal the sick, but raise the dead. 

And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. 

-Matt 10:7-8

The "you" here is again specific to the twelve as are the Lord's words in John 14-16.

We must also distinguish what "the kingdom of heaven" and "the gospel of the kingdom" are in Matthew (as opposed to the Gospel of Grace, etc.) and the future position of the chosen twelve. If we do not we are left with this "bible command" unanswered today. Now, the obvious objection is that he is clearly speaking to the twelve. Well, yes, but very few will apply that to the other commands and promises given only to the twelve.

To argue this is to acknowledge that not all the Bible (even the gospels) is TO us. We cannot claim all the commands or promises before the Law was given, in the Law itself, in the earthly ministry of the Lord, or in the Acts and Acts-age epistles. 

A personal favorite "command" of the Lord Jesus (in red letters):

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. 

-Luke 12:33-34

The generally Leftist, progressive "red letter Christians" seem to ignore that one. The other ones they conveniently ignore are the Lord's comments on gentiles in Matthew 10 and Matthew 15. The Lord clearly excludes gentiles from the preaching of the Kingdom in both chapters and agrees that gentiles are "little dogs" while Israel are the "children" and their "masters" in the latter. He clearly states he was sent ONLY to Israel and rejects the cries of a gentile who tries to call him "Son of David." 

Can we imagine that when the Lord Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in Matthew 4 and 9 that he was preaching salvation by grace through faith in his death, burial, and resurrection? When he tells his disciples (whom he sent out in Matthew 10 to preach to Jews only) that he must go to Jerusalem, not only do they not believe him, Peter says it shall not be so! 

The Gospel of the Kingdom is not the gospel we preach to all men today.

And we don't have the space to get into the Acts and Acts epistles.

It is my contention that many people either (a) will not consider the faith or (b) that some professed believers will even leave the faith because they do not know what to do with all the commands and all the promises of scripture. They cannot possibly obey all the commands and they do not see the fruition of all the promises. 

They fail to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2:15) or "compare the things that differ" (Phil 1:10). Sadly, this is because the young believer is not taught how to rightly divide. He is often told that if he doubts a promise, God has rejected him. For some that leads to an enslavement to fear for others they recognize the almost universality of that state and determine the Bible is a lie.

Does anyone dare quote Jeremiah 29:11 (many a professed believer's "life verse") to those parents in Texas who lost their precious little girls in the recent flood? I don't know if any has done this, but that verse is plastered on many a wall in many a church and in many youth retreat centers. We ask again, how many have it as his/her "life verse"?

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Here it is in contemporary English:

I will bless you with a future filled with hope—a future of success, not of suffering.

Do you claim this for your life today, dear friend?

It is the height of cruelty to tell every believer today this future promise to national Israel is theirs to claim now. Again, such wrong division will lead unbelievers to mock God and the faith and cause some believers to fall away. 

And even when some believers, even the most hardcore dispensationalist-mocking believers, come to these scriptures they do not claim all the promises and certainly not all the commands. This makes them dispensationalists whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, having such disgust for the word, they do their best to try and wrest what they can from scripture. The convenient parts anyway.

As the original translators of the King James Bible have done in their chapter headings, many Christians take scripture and argue "cursings for Israel" and "blessings for the Church" to excuse the obvious difficulties in the text. Some use it as an excuse for their anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is another excuse to hate dispensationalism for them. They cannot stomach that God will fulfill his earthly promises to an earthly people (the true offspring of Abraham).

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen by race, who are [still] Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants [plural, old and new], the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises, to whom belong the patriarchs, and from whom, according to the flesh, is Christ, who is over all, God forever blessed. Amen. 

-Romans 9:3-5

 

Israel was not put aside at the cross. They were very much in the forefront to the end of the Acts age and they will be again when God turns his attention back to his earthly plan. 

--------------------------------------------

Israel in the Present Age

Living in the Great Parenthesis of our Age

Believers and Antisemitism Because of Wrong Division

Israel According to the Flesh

\

God's Plan for Israel

The Kingdom of God, God's Plan for the Earth

This Reformed Chart Accidentally Confirms the Dispensational Position

Reformed extremists like to post this chart. Actually, it's one of the best arguments for the Right Division position! It's not perfect, of course, and it makes a few assumptions. I'll just point out one issue. 

Number 16 argues that Ephesians and 2 Cor teach the same body/bride. However, Corinthians teaches local bodies which have their own head and Ephesians teaches a single (male) body with Christ as the head.

And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 

-1 Corinthians 12:16

Ephesians uses the picture of the place of the wife, but it does not teach that the Body is the Bride. Let's look at their reference, 

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

-Ephesians 5:22-24

This teaching is for wives to submit to the headship of their husbands AS Christ is head of the Church. It does not equate the wife with the Church. The passage states that Christ is head of "his Body." 

We'd have to go to the prophets and the Revelation from here to establish that Israel was and will be again the wife of the Lord ("Virgin Israel" again). Too much for this short study. Simply put,  we are the Body (singular) made up of Jew and Gentile (with no distinctions unlike in the Gospels and Acts Age) with Christ as the Head. The hope of the Body is "in the heavenly places" and not in the land nor in the New Jerusalem (which is figured as wife as it is the hope of the Overcomer in Israel). 

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

The New Jerusalem  ("the city whose builder and maker is God" that Abraham hoped for as taught in Hebrews 11) comes down to earth. It is a heavenly city, it is a reward, it has the names of the 12 tribes and 12 Apostles to the Circumcision (not Paul) on it. The 12 Apostles will "sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel." It is an earthly hope. Our hope is in "the far above the heavens."

Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 

-Matthew 19:28

And now I stand on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God day and night.  

-Acts 26:6-7

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came to me and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”  And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, her light like a most precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were written: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 

-Rev 21:9-13

Note the verse in Acts is very late in the book. And at that trial, Paul testified that he taught nothing you could not find in Moses and the Prophets (the Hebrew canon). This differs from Ephesians wherein he writes under inspiration that he was given a special revelation unknown to  the Prophets. 

I continue to this day, testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would happen  

-Acts 26:22

At the end of the Acts, Paul says he was in chains "for the hope of Israel." In Ephesians, after the "wall of partition" is removed, he says he is in prison "for you gentiles." 

The earthly hopes and promises (restoration of Paradise, the promised land) were revealed since the foundation of the ages, but the heavenly hope of Ephesians for The Body was hidden. 

To me [Paul], the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Christ, and to reveal for all people what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation [overthrow] of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

The Kingdom hope was spoken FROM the foundation (overthrow).

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

As we have seen repeatedly, the promises to Israel (the Parousia of the Lord and the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel) spoken by the Prophets, spoken by Christ, promised by Peter in the Acts age, and expected in the Acts epistles of Paul are exemplified in the chart above. 

There are other assumptions in the chart we could dissect. For instance, the use of the word "church" is deceptive. The word ("ekklēsía") means a called out company and is used of a mob and of local councils in the Acts, but the translators try to hide the word as it conflicts with their theology. We also see this in James. In both places, the Reformed translators use the word "assembly." In the Acts they avoid the word "church" and in James they avoid the word "synagogue." Anything to deny Israel her promises and covenants. 

So, Israel was a called out company, the local gatherings of Jewish and grafted in Gentile believers were called out companies and "the body, the church" of this age is a called out company. And, again, if we understand the expectation and hope of the Acts age was the same as the earthly hope of Israel, the chart confirms the consistent dispensational position.  

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Jeremiah 31 (The New Covenant)

Let us note what John Calvin stated in his commentary concerning The Lord's desire in regard to those who would worship him.

God disdains the forced services of men, and chooses to be worshipped freely and willingly

I'm sure the Calvinist has some theological explanation for Calvin's apparently clear statement here. He is stating that God Himself will never "force" men against their wills to serve Him. For such an idea is abhorrent to God. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Calvin is arguing that our service to God must originate from our own free will. We must choose to serve him.

I note this statement from Calvin, because, I believe, it is a good example of how truths can find there way through error. Personally, I think Calvin's view of the will is far more flecible than those who call themselves Calvinist's in our day. 

Previously, we have looked at Calvin's somewhat nuanced position on those some call the "Early Church Fathers." We also looked at Calvin's view of the conscience and its ability to determine that which is right and that which is wrong. In these (and in other posts quoting Calvin), in my estimation, we see a bit of flexibility in Calvin's views that we don't always see in those who take his name. That said, Calvin's lack of clarity on certain subjects is the result of his inability to separate the plan of God for the earth and the plan of God for the heavenly places.

The failure to make these distinctions has led Calvin and other Calvinists, like Matthew Henry, to try and insert themselves (rather selectively) into both plans. Let's take a brief look at Matthew Henry's commentary on Jeremiah 31:31.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (1599 Geneva Bible)

That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 8:9, c.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made--with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Galatians 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant.

-Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible (Jeremiah 31, excerpt)

Note the use of "they" and "them" in his opening statement. We like to note the importance of pronouns.  Henry is pointing to "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah," yet he is so determined to see God as having only one plan for all men of all ages that he forces himself to make Israel and Judah into the "church" (as he defines it). He states "but this covenant refers to gospel times" without warrant. He refences Paul's quote of the passage in Jeremiah, but fails to note that Paul, in the Acts Age, still speaks of the New Covenant as yet future and having not come in yet. The apostle also continues to use "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah."

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

-Hebrews 8:8-10 (NKJV)

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

-Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)

The word translated "becoming obsolete" is the Greek word "palaióō." The King James Version translates this word as "decayeth." The idea is that it is essentially dead, but it has not fully gone away. The New Covenant could not come in because Israel had not repented. 

Peter promised in Acts 3 to "Ye men of Israel" that if they repented, God would send back Christ to restore all things. And we know from Acts 1 that the Lord taught the Apostles to the Circumcision that the Kingdom would be "restored" in Israel one day (Acts 1:6). He taught those who will one day sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30) for 40 days about that kingdom, but he gave no timeline. The timeline is dependent on Israel's repentance.

When Paul writes late in his ministry of the Acts Age that the New Covenant is still future and that the Old Covenant is decaying, he is telling us that Israel had not repented. In Acts 28, Paul spoke with the Jewish leaders of Rome concerning "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). He was "bound" for that hope.  We note here here that in his Post-Acts epistle of Ephesians, Paul states that he is in chains, "for you Gentiles." 

While the commentaries of Calvin and Henry can offer valuable thoughts and insights, their failure to see God's divisions, hopes, and ages in scripture blinds them to their own words of contradiction. 

The Old Covenant was a rotting corpse waiting for Israel to come to faith so the New Covenant could come in in full (as revealed in Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 61, etc.). When God revealed his new economy through the apostle Paul at the end of the Acts age, all covenants with Israel and the plan for the earthly blessings were set aside temporarily.

We have today, the enlightenment unto the truth of this age and calling which we must accept (Ephesians 1:18, etc.). This age will end and God will once again call out for Israel to repent and the offer of Acts 3 will again be in sight. Believing Israel, a remnant, will believe, and God will install the promised, restored Kingdom in the land.

The Myth of the Infallible Scholar

One of the problems we've had throughout the history of mankind are "experts." We see almost daily news articles and government policies containing the rationale "experts agree" and similar arguments. In terms of logical thinking, we have to step back and see the subtle flaw in this reasoning.

Experts are not necessarily wrong on the matters discussed, but neither are they necessarily right. The medical "experts" in Washington's day believed that bleeding was a way to fight infection and it cost him his life. They may have agreed on the method, but agreement (consensus) is not evidence (certainly not conclusive, unaltering evidence).

In the course of an interpretive argument, one may appeal to an expert, but such an appeal is not conclusive. Established facts are conclusive. The rest is interpretive theory. 

The May 5,1978, episode of the TV show "In Search Of" (In Search Of - The Coming Ice Age) begins this way:

In 1977 the worst winter in a century struck The United States. Arctic cold ripped the Midwest for weeks on end. Great blizzards paralyzed cities of the Northeast. One desperate night in Buffalo, eight people froze to death in marooned cars... The brutal Buffalo winter might become common all over The United States. Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected. 

Three of the "climate experts" referenced are Dr. Gifford Miller, Glaciologist from the University of Colorado, Dr. Chester Langway, Chairman of the Geology Department, State University of New York (SUNY),  and Dr. James Hayes, Columbia University Geological Laboratory. 

That's a fairly impressive set of credentials. I would conceivably have no way to intelligently discuss a number of issues with these academics. But part of the "evidence" presented in the broadcast are "sea cores, enough to form a detailed history of climate during the last million years." An entire department at Ivy League Columbia University studied a million years' worth of evidence and concluded the earth's climate is cooling. Experts. Top Experts. One of the finest universities in the world.

Only a few years after this show was broadcast, another set of "climate experts" came to the completely opposite, diametrically-opposed, contradictory conclusion that the climate is warming, not cooling. And for the same supposed reason: fossil fuels.  

What happened? What happened was a difference in interpretation based on supposition, guided by tribal and political leanings. The evidence from "the last million years" didn't change. The three PhDs quoted didn't go back to school. What changed was a cultural and political shift in a desired outcome. I have no idea how to interpret sea cores and now I know that so-called "experts apparently don't either. 

What we have seen since the eighties has been a myriad of prediction after prediction after prediction from "climate experts" that have all failed to come to pass. Not even close to coming to pass. And any evidence which contradicts the accepted opinion is squashed. 

This post is about so-called Biblical or Greek or Theological "Scholars," so I won't include an exhaustive list of climate predictions gone wrong, but since I made the assertion, here is a representative example printed in the Associated Press June, 1989:

Other failed predictions:

• 1990 Five years to save the rainforest
• 1999 Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2009
• 2000 Snow no longer seen in England by end of decade
• 2007 Fewer hurricanes
• 2008 Arctic ice-free by 2013
• 2012 More hurricanes

ABC News ran a scare piece during their nightly broadcast in 2007 showing Manhattan underwater, milk and gasoline over $10/gal. The year  used for this future, inescapable doom? 2015.

It it also puzzling that some of the most alarmist politicians, who are predicting rising sea levels, have purchased multi-million dollar homes on the east and west coasts of the USA and on the beaches of Hawaii. Clearly, they don't believe their homes will be underwater any time soon.

Just to put a period on these "experts," here is short video of more "experts." Please note this video is from 2020, so we have to add 2 more years to these false prophecies.

Now let's apply this sort of reasoning to theological issues. The logical error in view here is basing an argument, not on established facts, but rather  on established "expert opinion." The underlying problem is the same as with the climate, a tribal desire to find a desired outcome.

When it comes to the interpretation of scripture, the "experts" agree on very little. Even if so-called "Greek Scholars" and/or "experts" agree on the translation of a word or phrase, that certainly does not imply agreement on interpretation. We have evidence. We have scholars. We have disagreement on interpretation. So, to settle oneself firmly in one camp or another based solely on the interpretative opinion of an expert is dangerous indeed. Eternally dangerous if I may say so.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority

When we look at "Greek Scholars," we note that they represent a wide swarth of interpretive opinions. Greek scholars become:

• Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Atheists
• Reformed
• Mormons
• Charismatics
• Humanists
• Dispensationalists
• Fundamentalists
• Deconstructionists
• Etc.

IOW, being a "scholar" carries minimal weight in arguing one has the right theological conclusion. The difference between a "Greek Scholar" and me is that he/she might know the definition (or definitions) of Greek words whereas I might have to look for the meanings... from other Greek Scholars. That is, he might know Strong's definition right off, I would have to look for Strong's (or Wycliff's or Mounce's or Bullinger's or Young's, etc.) and by doing so, be just as informed. If the conclusion was unalterable, we wouldn't have such a divergence in interpretive opinions.

I can also look up Greek grammar and word usage. 

The difference is interpreting these words, in their contexts, theologically. We can both know what "ekklesia" or "parousia" may mean, but we might interpret them very differently. Someone being a "Greek Scholar" does nothing for the supposed iron-clad nature of his conclusion (as evidenced in the list above).

As we've repeatedly noted on this blog, when it comes to Bible interpretation, we must seek to be consistent and in context. The Bible does not contradict itself. If there is an apparent contradiction, the problem is in our understanding, not in the text. And this problem almost always arises when we bring our conclusions to scripture (our desired outcome) and try to force them upon the text.

We must also understand, that in the end, the Lord will hold us each individually responsible for how we handle His word. To be sure, the Lord knows we are but dust. We will ALL find that we got some things wrong. The Lord is not looking for perfection. But what the Lord is looking for are workmen who rightly divide the Word of Truth who need not be ashamed (2 Tim 2:15). 

My doctrines are my own, and I have but one authority, scripture. How I handle it is my responsibility. I defer to no "Scholar" on my interpretations, even if I need the scholar to help with translation.    

Study to show YOURSELF approved unto GOD alone.

You are a Theology of One.

Examining the Regulative Principle

The "regulative principle" [RP] is most often heard in regard to worship in the "church." So, we will be focusing much on that application. However, there is a larger definition at work, but we will start with the idea of the "regulative principle of worship" to give us some context.

the regulative principle states that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will” (WCF [Westminster Confession of Faith] 21.1). In other words, corporate worship should be comprised of those elements we can show to be appropriate from the Bible. The regulative principles says, “Let’s worship God as he wants to be worshiped.”

-The Gospel Coalition ("a fellowship of evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition")

I'd first like to note (as an aside, but I think relevant) is the reliance on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Reformed theologians reference it almost as though it were scripture; as though you can't question it. I'm sure they would bristle at that statement, but ask any of them if they feel free to depart from its wording. 

The opposite of the "regulative principle" of worship is the "normative principle" [NP] of worship. That is, whatever is not expressly prohibited in scripture is permitted. This principle is practiced by just about every believer on a variety of subjects. Many Reformed believers, in my experience, have never heard the phrase. It's very seminary. Note what Kevin DeYoung at TGC says about it:

Even though I grew up in a Reformed church, until seminary I was one of the multitude of Christians who had never heard of the regulative principle.

So, in regard to worship, they believe that only worship specifically outlined in scripture is acceptable. This obviously exonerates the very biblical pipe organs, choir robes, neckties, and 18th and 19th century hymns. Yes, I'm kidding, but you see the point (small as it may be). None of these are "limited by his own revealed will." Along these lines, how do we determine "hymns are good" and "contemporary is bad" apart from how we differentiate is anything is good or bad? That depends on how we interpret "limited by his own revealed will." In my world, that would mean "doctrinally."

Pipe organs, choir robes, neck ties, etc. are neither doctrinal nor biblical. Yet we have no compliant as they are neutral. They are neither expressly commanded nor forbidden. We can, and should, apply this to all things used in our worship. Doctrines should be judged, and that which is not clearly unbliblical should be treated as liberty. You don't have to like it, but that's another matter.

While worship is an area about which much of the RP is aimed and applied, the general idea of RP is broader.

A broader sense of the term "regulative principle" is occasionally cited on matters other than worship, for example, to constrain designs of church government to scriptural elements. [Wikipedia]

It’s not been at the core of my identity. But over the years I’ve come to appreciate the regulative principle more and more. [Kevin DeYoung]

We want to be clear that RP is not exactly Sola Scriptura (which we wholeheartedly support). Sola Scripture (the Scriptures alone) is the doctrine that the scriptures are the only infallible source of truth. RP teaches that things such as worship must reflect perfectly what is in scripture. It may not be a clear distinction, but there is a chasm between the two.

Let's turn back to Kevin DeYoung and TGC.

“What do we know they did in their Christian worship services in the Bible? We know they sang the Bible. We know that preached the Bible. We know they prayed the Bible. We know they read the Bible. We know they saw the Bible in the sacraments. We don’t see dramas or pet blessings or liturgical dance numbers. So why wouldn’t we want to focus on everything we know they did in their services? Why try to improve on the elements we know were pleasing to God and practiced in the early church?”

There are legitimate concerns here. But let's dig a little deeper. Am I opposed to "pet blessings" because it's not in the Bible or because it's biblically stupid? The greater question is "what is the blessing supposed to be for?" "How are the animals to be 'blessed'?" Let me take that back, I'm not really "opposed" to pet blessings, I just don't get it. It doesn't hurt anything, but I do think it's worth a discussion.

So, the core of my argument is that it serves no purpose and is connected to nothing in scripture. "Blessing" is a wide term. In liturgical settings, it often requires a "clergy." Is the idea of the "clergy" "his own revealed will?" Well, Israel had a priesthood. It's in the Bible. It's in the Old Testament like the Psalms. But is it for our day? 

I am not opposed to a "teacher" or a "pastor," but such things have no resemblance to the priests of the Temple. So, even if we limit ourselves to "his own revealed will," we still must "rightly divide the Word of Truth."

"Liturgical dance numbers" is a little different. I don't care for them much either. But the reason for that is that I don't care much for "liturgy" as it's commonly practiced. I'm not against "public worship," but "liturgy" lends itself a to "clergy/laity" distinction and leans towards ritualism. But I would fall short of calling any of it "Satanic." They may not like the use of "Satanic," but what else are we to say if what the (assumed) adherents to RP reason is true? Pushed, I believe they'd happily adopt the adjective.  

This last point is really the distinction between RP and NP understanding. If something isn't expressly practiced in scripture, is its practice therefore necessarily "anti-God?" The NP position is that it stands on its own. 

We can examine the elements of anything against Sola Scriptura (not against the Westminster Confession of Faith, FTR). Do the words of a hymn or a worship song exalt scriptural truth without necessarily being exactly expressed the same way in scripture? The NP position leans (or should lean) on Sola Scripture and not on RP. 

The RP view, theoretically, should dismiss all hymns with either words or music or instruments or structure not expressly stated in scripture. If that were applied uniformly, we'd have to mark the hymns as Satanic. The immediate objection to my conclusion is that RP would endorse hymns if they reflected direct biblical truth. We are now back to doctrine. We are now back to scripture. 

This is how ALL music should be discerned. Too often we have this general concept:

• Hymns Good
• Contemporary Bad

Again, there would objections to the simplicity of this dichotomy, but that is almost universally how I have experienced the argument. Yes, that's subjective, but essentially true in my over 30 years discussing the topic of Christian music.

It's simply lazy. Many hymns are lightweight or simply heretical. Not every contemporary song is Satanic. Pianos and acoustic guitars are no more biblically sound than keyboards or electric guitars.  

Applying these different arguments to scripture, was Paul "Satanic" when he quoted pagan poets to the Greeks in Acts 17 to make his point about the true God? Note that Paul does not refer directly to scripture in that passage.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

-Acts 17:24-29

Paul not only quotes the pagan poets in Acts 17, he uses their quote to make his point about the true God. He is not claiming their poets to be inspired of God. I agree that scripture should be part of all we express, but just as Paul has done here, we can appeal to different things in our quest to relate scripture (as long as the thing does not expressly oppose scripture). If a local assembly puts on a drama which speaks biblical truth, how is that forbidden?

Surely, we must get to scripture and to truth, but how can we conclude that hymns always do this and all contemporary music does not. Again, this is just lazy.

If I did an "interpretive dance" of the Book of John and quoted the many invitations to Christ in its pages, what difference does it make? Again, we see unfair examples used to make their point. Sure, an interpretive dance with no message adds up to nothing, but that's cherry-picking. What if a world class dancer offered a dance along with a reading of the Book of Ephesians? Not my kind of thing, but how is that "forbidden" or "Satanic?"   

The great error of the "regulative principle" (like its Romanist predecessor "ius divinum"), the "acceptable way of worshiping the true God," is the failure to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." As with all systems which do this, it tends to pick and choose what it believes is "biblical," "commanded," or "prohibited" and it chooses individuals in "authority" as arbiters of what is truly biblical. 

Look again at part of Kevin DeYoung's call for "true" worship, "We know they saw the Bible in the sacraments." But when we rightly divide the Word of Truth, we realize the sacraments are not for this current age. We also note that the Reformed feel free to refer to Old Testament practices and texts (such as the hymns) when convenient, but solely to Acts Age when convenient. By doing so, they unwittingly acknowledge that just because something is "in the Bible" does not make it for all people of all ages.

The following is part of DeYoung's argument under his point "Freedom of Conscience."

Reformed Christians said in effect, “We don’t want to ask our church members to do anything that would violate their consciences.” Maybe bowing here or a kiss there could be justified by some in their hearts, but what about those who found it idolatrous? Should they be asked to do something as an act of worship that Scripture never commands and their consciences won’t allow? This doesn’t mean Christians will like every song or appreciate every musical choice. But at least with the regulative principle we can come to worship knowing that nothing will be asked of us except that which can be shown to be true according to the Word of God.

As an ex-Catholic, I am in agreement, in part. That is, anything that is not expressly biblical should be optional. But being optional is not the same as being forbidden. 

I attended a service at Tenth Presbyterian Church while I was working in Philadelphia. James Montgomery Boice in the pulpit. Can't get much more Reformed than that! But the service was replete with Catholic leftovers. The processional, the robes, the reciting of "The Lord's Prayer" (not for today), and even statues. And they practice such things as infant baptism. They infer this scripture 

We must also take a quick look at what is called "The Lord's Supper." In the Catholic faith, it is salvific. The host is the actual, physical body of Christ. They teach that non-Catholics who partake are eating damnation unto themselves (attend a RC wedding or funeral mass and they'll ask non-Catholics to abstain). Of course such a doctrine is to be rejected. But I reject ALL uses of the The Lord's Supper today as it is part of the covenant with Israel. We've covered that elsewhere, but suffice it to say, just because something is "scriptural" does not necessarily mean it is "applicable" in this age.

The same Reformed teacher who limits himself to the Psalms (for instance) will not bind himself by all of the Book of Leviticus. They pick and choose what is in the gospel accounts and what is in the Book of Acts. So, this pretense to the idea of "bound to scripture" is really just being bound to (ironically) "The Westminster Confession of Faith." Sola Scriptura becomes the oxymoron Sola WCF and Catechisms which they give us to tell us what is Biblical. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself recognizes different ages and dispensations. It is our duty to study to discern these differences not to simply bow will and intellect to a system, a catechism, a board, etc.

Let us recall what The Gospel Coalition argues, “Let’s worship God as he wants to be worshiped.” That sounds good, but it fails to recognize God's dispensations. To worship God is to do his will. For Noah, that was building an ark. For Abraham, that was taking Isaac to Mount Moriah. For Moses, that was crossing the Red Sea. For the Hebrew priesthood, that was wearing certain items of clothing and sacrificing certain animals on certain days.  

We don't look to these for our practice in this age. The Reformed teacher picks and chooses what practices from the Bible he likes. He takes the hymns for Israel and gladly applies them to himself. I would suggest that applying scripture incorrectly is worse than practicing things not expressly forbidden in scripture.

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.

-Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Do we do this with a rebellious child in this current age? If not, why not? Easy question for me to answer, we're not Israel, we're not coming into an inheritance, we don't have city elders. etc. There may be a principle here about discipline, but who is applying the specifics in his Reformed church today?

The Reformed tradition has many unbiblical practices based on a failure to rightly divide the Word of Truth. They fail to compare things that differ. And that is the irony here. A smarmy take on contemporary music as they hide behind some perceived notion that hymns are somehow what God has ordained all the while adopting a form of leftover Catholicism and an allegiance to catechism, confessions, church history, church fathers, and creeds.

I realize that this particular post is subjective and anecdotal, but it is a response to very a generic rejection of rejection (and condemnation) of all modern worship in way that I would argue is not only self-serving, but blinding.

Checking on Westboro Baptist Church Doctrines

 Many of us are familiar with the protests by the members of Westboro Baptist Church. This tiny number of people were, for a time, a convenient reference point for media and others to bash Evangelical Christianity as a whole. The picture above is one of the few without offensive wording (well, those signs are offensive, but they don't have any words I'd have to blur out).

Let me start with this quote from Volume 23 of The Berean Expositor from 1933:

Practice can never precede doctrine. Practice is the fruit of doctrine. I must know, before I can do. I cannot walk worthy of a calling that I do not believe or understand. I cannot adorn a doctrine that I do not know or believe.

We also want to start by recognizing the temporal nature of things. All around us will cease to be as is. If the Lord does not appear in our lifetimes, we shall go the way of all flesh (back to dust). Our accomplishments in the eyes of men are not worthy to be compared to the fruit of our lives as seen by the Lord. Two passages come to mind here.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

-2 Peter 3:10-12 

 

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

-Romans 8:18-19

So, we turn from the overt, outward fruits of Westboro's hate on parade, to Westboro's underlying doctrines. Here we will find both a disconnect from their fruit and some direct growth from the seeds they sow. 

When we look at their Doctrine Page, we see an entry for "Why You Deserve to Go to Hell." Readers of this blog know my position on "Hell." That is, I try to stick with the biblical use of the words translated "hell" in English versions (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus) and avoid personal feelings or Greek mythological understandings. WBC loves the manmade doctrine of fiery torture by God. They love it so much, they praise God for supposedly not choosing some people for redemption, just so he can mercilessly torture them (this would be mass of humanity).

When you combine their full embrace of Calvinistic predestination with their personal hared of Jews and their inability to understand that we all continue to sin even after we receive a new nature, you get very ugly fruits indeed.

Let the reader not conclude that I would ever excuse or make apology for sin (in myself or in anyone else). That is not what is to be taken from this acknowledgment of sin. I have been clear on matters of immorality. But I am careful to see sin in the believer and in the unbeliever in light of scripture (rightly divided) and in light of the biblical age in we live.

On their "Jesus Christ's References to Hell" chart, they include Matthew 8:12. To their credit, they quote the whole thing.

But the But the children [sons] of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But like most hell-lovers, they fail to notice a glaring problem with their citation.  That is the subject of the punishment, "the sons of the kingdom." We've covered that elsewhere, but it is a prime example of what you want to read into a verse as opposed to what the verse actually teaches. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. They see what they want to see.

They want the Lord to randomly be talking about torturing people with fire in their mythical and unbiblical "hell." To do so they have to ignore the context and the actual words in the verse! Not only is the subject of the punishment "the sons of the Kingdom," the punishment is being "cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth." 

Again, we've covered this before, but just a simple thought here: if you re being tortured mercilessly by fire, will have the gumption to gnash your teeth in anger? This punishment is elsewhere said to be for servants. So, to make this fit the common understanding, we have to see the Lord calling those who reject his offer of grace, "sons of the Kingdom," "servants," and guests invited to the marriage of the King's son!

Now let's turn to the foundation upon which they build their doctrines, 5-point Calvinism.  

The "Doctrines of Grace" hold that God has created the mass of humanity so he could torture them with fire, without hope, without end, apparently. That's the dark side of the implications of TULIP. They scream at homosexuals, find joy in threatening them with their doctrine of God's torture chamber while as teaching they have no choice whether to avoid it or not.    

And note how they have exalted the 5-points of the Doctrines of Grace to be superior to the Gospel of Grace. It is not a rejection of the sacrifice of Christ that will doom you, it is apparently the rejection of any of the 5 points of Calvinism according to them. But they must do this. The Gospel of Grace is the offer of reconciliation. 

we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we implore you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

God is "beseeching" (Greek: parakalountos), as we "implore" (Greek: deometha) people to be reconciled to God who is already reconciled to them through Christ's perfect work. This is insanity if they have no ability to respond.

Parakalountos: (a) I send for, summon, invite, (b) I beseech, entreat, beg, (c) I exhort, admonish, (d) I comfort, encourage, console. [Strong's Concordance]

When the Lord tell his on in John's gospel that he sill send the "comforter," he uses the word, "Paraklētos." This word has the same root idea of coming along side. God is coming along side the world and inviting them to accept the reconciliation offered which is wholly paid for by Christ. Both the WBC signs of awaiting torture and doctrines of inability are anathema to the true calling of grace and reconciliation. WBC hides all of this wickedness under a cloak of "Grace." They reject the ministry of reconciliation to which we've been called.  

 

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation...

-2 Corinthians 5:18-19

As we have noted from this passage in other studies, God is already reconciled to the world, not imputing their trespasses against them. God is more interested in the sins of his own rather than the sins of the world. Believers are to separate and correct/restore other believers who fall into destructive sin, however, our only message for the world is grace.

The many listings of sins in the epistles are most often in reference to sins of believers (who continue to walk in the old nature). The unbeliever has only an old nature. God is calling them, through us, to accept his free offer, then they can start to walk in the newness of life in his name.

 Let us be sure our walk is honoring to the Lord (and consistent with the calling of this current age, Eph 4:1) before we start our ministry of reconciliation. We must offer hope of liberty along with hope of a life to come. 

Three walks of the believer of this Current Age (Dispensation) in Ephesians:

1. Walk in love. Eph 5:2 
2. Walk as children of light. Eph. 5:8 3
3. Walk circumspectly Eph. 5:15

More on Calvin's View of the "Early Church Fathers"

In our previous study, we referred to Calvin's Commentary on John 8 which contains this:

Nor do I approve of the ingenuity of Augustine... [in his interpretation of this verse]

Calvin contradicting Augustine. Way to go, John!

And Calvin generally liked Augustine, as did Luther.

Further, even though the Greeks above the rest—and Chrysostom especially among them—extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.

-Excerpt, Calvin’s Institutes, “The church fathers generally show less clarity but a tendency to accept freedom of the will. What is free will?” (2.2.4, pp. 258-261)

Calvin states that the "church fathers" speak "confusedly" on the matter of free will. This excerpt was  quoted negatively in a series at the "ORTHODOX-REFORMED BRIDGE" website. Their argument is that Calvin did not submit to the ECFs as they believe he should have. I'm no Calvinist, but Calvin was right to not hold them as "authorities" (even if I disagree with Calvin's view of the will here).

I disagree with Calvin and probably hold views in regard to the will closer to some (or many) of the so-called "Church Fathers," but that does not matter. Neither Calvin nor the CFs are "authoritative" on this or on any matter.

 Look at this excerpt from The Calvinist International in regard to the authority of scripture:

In today’s post, Melanchthon begins to marshal patristic support for his understanding of the relative weight of various authorities in theology. Melanchthon’s high view of both Scripture and patristic antiquity are clear in what follows from his use of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Basil...

This is "confused."

To argue the authority of scripture, they resort to referring the authority of "the fathers" (patristic antiquity)? I find that somewhat comical. I have a "high view" some writing apart from scripture, but my trust in scripture as my authority doesn't come from their "authority." In fact, I recognize no other authority, for there is no other authority (an idea that got Luther condemned).

Calvin was right to disagree with Augustine on John 8 (although I tend to disagree with them both). At the end of the day, neither Calvin nor Augustine nor Michael are "authoritative." My presentation in my previous post refers to E.W. Bullinger's understanding of John 8:6, and while I have a "high view" of Dr. Bullinger's writings, I would NEVER suggest they are authoritative. 

This is not a matter of semantics, it is a very serious matter. This blog is built on this pillar:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

-2 Timothy 2:15

Many Orthodox sources claim that the "fathers" did not, nor could they, teach heresy. Now, if you believe as they believed, I could understand the "did not" position, but how could anyone hold to "could not" unless he held them as inspired? 

The "fathers" taught heresy. They had to because they contradicted each on other occasions just as the Roman popes have. Somebody has to be doctrinally wrong. 

The irony here is that I agree with the "fathers" (generally) on the role of the will, I also agree with some of them (to some degree) on the fate of the lost.

The mass of men (Christians) say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are punished.—St. Basil the Great

There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments. -- Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

Source: The Church Fathers on Universalism

I am NOT a universalist and I don't believe in any degree of torture of the lost. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. On the latter point, clearly I find more in common with denying "endless torments" than with the "hellfire" preaching of many Evangelical preachers.

On the most important issues (redemption, scripture, etc.), I obviously find myself aligned with the Evangelicals. I am not seeking to bash anyone, only to say that none of us is infallible. The "fire and brimstone" Baptist preacher of old and the "fiery, physical" Purgatory of Aquinas are both abhorrent to me. But the latter is even more abhorrent for it touches on the finality of the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection and limits his offer of forgiveness.

Jerome taught even the redemption of Satan. Whereas I do not believe this is accurate, I would be more inclined to accept the idea than to consider the God of scripture as the eternal fiery torturer of the mass of humanity. 

I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures. --St. Jerome

Jerome's conclusion is, at least, built on the forgiving and redeeming character of God. The fiery torment of his creation gives us quite the opposite picture of our loving Father and our gracious Savior. If one refuses the free gift of Life, he has refused to be reconciled to God. But God was already reconciled to the sinner through the cross! He is satisfied. He has no need to extend his wrath for eternity. His son suffered his wrath and took the penalty of death which sits on all of us (in Adam).

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 

-2 Cor 5:18-19


For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 

-1 Cor 15:21-22

Some of the "fathers" were essentially universalists. Just a few examples:

While the devil imagined that he got a hold of Christ, he really lost all of those he was keeping. 

--Chrysostom, 398 AD


Mankind, being reclaimed from their sins, are to be subjected to Christ in he fullness of the dispensation instituted for the salvation of all. 

--Didymus the Blind


The Son "breaking in pieces" His enemies is for the sake of remolding them, as a potter his own work; as Jeremiah 18;6 says: i.e., to restore them once again to their former state. 

--Eusebius of Caesarea


When death shall no longer exist, or the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then truly God will be all in all. 

--Origen

All men are Christ's, some by knowing Him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is He Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all? 

--Clement of Alexandria

The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) calls the teaching of universalism a "fad" and the result of modern thinking. I've been around the block a few times with the sacramentalist religions. To be sure, I am certain they have explanations for the opinions of some "church fathers" (one I read stated these men just loved people so much they held to universalism... they love more than God?). But we can escape all these issues if we seek God diligently in his word, rightly divided.

There is one authority, scripture. We approach it as broken beings, fallible, and humbled by our own sin. But if we seek the Lord with a pure heart, he will reveal his truth as he sees fit. Surely, there are those who are teachers among us, but all must be tested against the whole word of truth, rightly divided. 

Whether it is Calvin or the Orthodox themselves, many who look to the "church fathers" really don't look to the "church fathers." It is my prayer they all wake from that slumber and submit themselves to the scriptures alone. Read all you want, submit to none but that which was inspired by the Spirit for this age. 

A Quick Word on Sola Scriptura and Gainsayers

Why Sola Scriptura? Why the scriptures alone as our authority? How can we ignore things like tradition and practice and the thoughts of "holy" men? 

I taught the catechisms of "Sacred Tradition" and was schooled in it for 25 years. I don't think Sola Scriptura is anything but a way of stating succinctly a central spiritual truth. Paul is my Apostle, not Augustine or Aquinas or Cyprian... or whomever. We all stand alone, naked, before him with whom we have to do. We all must study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. 

We bring nothing in our hands that he wants. All of our works are comparatively filthy rags to God. In Christ alone can we show fruit. This is not fruit that puts God in our debt in any sense, but fruit that witnesses to his mercy, grace, and glory. Any other understanding robs Christ of his glory.

As Luther noted, the men deemed the arbiters of faith (in our case) often contradicted each other (and still do). As he said in his defense at Worms:

 "Let my errors be proven by scripture... unless you can convince me by scripture (and not by popes and councils who have often contradicted themselves), unless I am so convinced that I am wrong, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I can not and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God."

Luther was accused at his trial of opposing "established truths which have passed into usage, rite, and observance... things you are obligated to believe." That he did, and rightly so! The Roman Chch doesn't even uphold its own traditions. As with all doctrines of men, they ebb and flow with the tide of men's desires and follies and whims. Scripture is the only solid rock upon which to build.

Now, to those who want to look to things like "church fathers" and "traditions" and "long-held truths," I say, feel free to do so. You have a free will. You have a choice to make. I know what my choice is and I demand no one follow me. It matters not to me what choice others make.

The East-West Great Schism should be enough to show us the uselessness of trusting "authorities" (if the contradictions among popes and councils isn't sufficient evidence):

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent an emissary, Cardinal Humbert, from Rome to Constantinople. The cardinal's visit with Patriarch Cerularios was meant to be a mission of conciliation. It became anything but. The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass… While it is commonly accepted that the separation of Rome and Constantinople into two Christian Churches was the result of centuries of conflict, the event became known as the Great Schism of 1054. The schism, which reflected numerous long-standing tensions between the eastern and western Roman empire, may have been inevitable. The Church had remained united for centuries without solving several theological disputes. 

Excerpt from EWTN (Catholic Source) 

So, by their own admission, there were theological disputes for which there was neither agreement nor direction. What was the layman to do? He was subject to the whims of men. And over time, those whims would change.

This is why we call each individual to study to show himself approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim 2:15).

God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility: A Balance

I'd like to briefly address the following from Reformed teacher, D.A. Carson:

"[For non-reformed theologies] at the end of the day, the security of the believer finally rests with the believer. For those in the opposite camp [Reformed], the security of the believer finally rests with God -- and that, I suggest, rightly taught, draws the believer back to God himself, to trust in God, to a renewed faith that is of a piece with trusting him in the first place."

I'm decidedly non-Reformed (despite recognizing some Reformed as great people of faith in regard to the essentials), but I am not Arminian. I believe, in no uncertain terms, in the absolute security of the believer. The finished work is perfect and absolute and secure.

There may be subtle differences in understanding God's sovereignty, but there is no difference in the understanding of God's ability to keep that which is his.

Might I go a little "ultra" on you for a second? This verse in Ephesians is held by many among the UD as a specific choosing of God in his sovereign choice of "the Body" for his sovereign purposes:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...

I won't go into "in heavenly places" and "before the foundation of the ages" as we have looked at these elsewhere. Suffice it to say for this context, there are many "non-Reformed" who recognize both man's responsibility to respond to the witness of God (even in the very creation), while also recognizing God's absolute fidelity in keeping that which he has reconciled.

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 

-2 Corinthians 5:18-20

The work of Christ is absolute. God is already reconciled to men through his perfect sacrifice. Men are called to thus be reconciled to God. The offer is real and in accepting that offer, both God and man are reconciled to each other. That cannot be broken. The sacrifice has already taken away all "trespasses" and God is faithful to both his word and his satisfaction in that sacrifice.

I realize there are some semantic differences, but these are very secondary when we dwell on the finality of the cross and resurrection. So, I have no gripe with any Reformed who line up side-by-side to defend the absolute perfection of the sacrifice of the Son of God, who join me in "the ministry of reconciliation," imploring men to be reconciled to God by that work alone.

As a final note, I would add that as Carson worries about the non-Reformed, he has allowed some bad theology to slip past him. He has endorse the gender-neutral Bible translations and was part of the problematic NLT.

Not being Reformed does not make one an Arminian. These are manmade distinctions. Helpful for discussion, but they're not Biblical absolutes from which we must choose. let's be careful with absolutist labels. 

A Quick Response to Accusations Against E.W. Bullinger

 Dr. Bullinger doesn't need me to defend him. He was a humble man who gladly accepted critiques of his work. He famously told Charles Welch, after Mr. Welch pointed out a concern in regard to Dr. Bullinger's exegesis of the Pauline epistles, that he would have to denounce half his own writings! He did so with a laugh. The critique was valid. He humbly accepted it. If one is to accuse him of error, he had better be precise. Publicly bearing false witness against a brother in Christ is a serious matter.

This will not be an exhaustive post in regard to one such public critique, but I did want to address a few issues. Specifically, false charges and blasphemy against E.W. Bullinger,  

Let all bitterness and rage and anger and clamour and blasphemy be put away from you, along with all malice,

-Ephesians 4:31

 

I refer to to this post by Dan R. Smedra: The Anglo-Catholic Errors of E.W. Bullinger

I write from the perspective a former, devout Roman Catholic. I was born, raised, and educated in the Catholic Church. Catholic school, altar boy, acolyte. Religious Education Teacher, Youth Leader, etc. I even made a trip to the Vatican. I can usually spot Catholic influence a mile away. That is why the title of Mr. Smedra's post struck me.

Again, I'm not embarking on a line-by-line defense, but I do want to address some of his accusations. We have noted before Harry Ironside's atrocious attack on Mr. Bullinger's teachings (accusing us of being universalists). That attack contained downright lies. What I see in the above referenced post is a similar mischaracterization or misinterpretation of Dr. Bullinger's teaching. 

The irony here is that Bullinger (possibly more than any other teacher), very much different from what is taught in the Catholic Church, stressed the absolute singleness and individuality of Bible Study. That is, the responsibility for rightly dividing the word of truth rested solely with every individual believer. Let me quote from the conclusion to his monumental work, "How To Enjoy The Bible."

All Bible study must in the end be individual. As with ordinary bodily food: others may prepare the food and serve it up in various forms: they may cook it in more senses than one: they may present it in "made dishes": they may carve it, and cut it up, and even put it in the mouth, as with babes; but, after all, there is no more that they can do. They cannot eat it or digest it for us; they cannot assimilate it for us; even so it is with the spiritual food of the Word of God. Notwithstanding all that has been said in the foregoing pages, the great necessity remains: the work of Bible study must be, to the end, intensely personal and individual. Each one must look out the reference for himself. He must trace the words through all their occurrences where these are given; he must consider their usages; he must read the contexts; he must make his lists and tables, and do his countings for himself: for so only can he feed upon the Word and the words, and be nourished, and be strengthened himself, and grow thereby: so only will he be able to say with Jeremiah: "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; And thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." [E.W. Bullinger] 

emphasis mine 

Now let us turn to a few points from Mr. Smedra (and as we always do, we encourage the reader to read the original post, linked above, in its entirety).

Mr. Bullinger did not clearly acknowledge the necessity of the Holy Spirit's sovereign illumination of the Text.  Either he believed that the Fall wasn't serious enough to render man incapable of grasping truth with one's natural abilities, or he believed in the Wesleyan doctrine of common grace, thus siding with Roman Catholicism rather than the Reformation or historic dispensationalism.  [Dan R. Smedra]

This is a sweeping and irresponsible conclusion to draw simply because Dr. Bullinger taught that the believer can and should study the Word diligently. I turn back to the conclusion of Bullinger's book noted above where we find this utterly clear statement in regard to understanding scripture:

It is assumed, from the first word to the last, that the readers have passed from death unto life, and have the Divine gift of a spiritual "understanding," apart from which all that has been said will be useless. We must be able to say: "We know that the Son of God hath come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may get to know HIM that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 5:20). We have not written to convince unbelievers, though God may over-rule our work to that end. We have not written in defence of the Bible, for not only does it not need any defence of ours, but it is our own "shield" (Psa 91:4) and "sword" (Eph 6:17), without which we are defenceless indeed. We have written only for those who have "peace with God" (Rom 5:1), and enjoy "the peace of God" (Phil 4:7), and know "the God of Peace" (Rom 15:33). Only such have leisure to be occupied with God. Only such can "sit at the Lord's feet and hear His Word" (Luke 10:39, RV). All others must be "cumbered about much serving." 

They must needs be occupied with themselves: either as sinners taken up with their sins, or as penitents with their repentance, or as believers with their faith, or as saints with their holiness. Unless and until we know our completeness in Christ (Col 2:10), and "believe God" when He declares that "He hath made us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light" (Col 1:12), we shall be in such a condition of conscience, and heart, and life as will not leave us any time for occupation with God. Instead of going on our way "giving thanks to God" for what He has done, we shall be giving way to mourning for what we have not done. We shall be like David when he "sat in his house" and was occupied with what he would do for the Lord. For, not until we learn what the Lord has done and purposed to do for us, shall we be ready, with David, to go in and sit before the Lord (2 Sam 7:1,18). In the former case David's thought was, "Who I am"; in the latter he was exclaiming, "Who am I, O Lord God?" [E.W. Bullinger]

emphasis mine 

 

Could he be more clear? There is not one scent of "common grace" here. Quite the opposite! Absolutely no one in his natural state can possibly understand scripture is the argument. He says of this extensive work on tools for understanding scripture, that the passing from death unto life by faith is absolutely necessary and "apart from which all that has been said will be useless." That is, Dr. Bullinger clearly taught that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. 

Summation of the excerpt: Without the new nature from God, which comes with a Divine Gift of Spiritual understanding, study is useless.

How could Mr. Smedra accuse Bullinger of teaching that man can "grasp truth with his natural abilities" or that he somehow believed all men have the benefits of "common grace?" Such irresponsibility! Either his scholarship is sloppy, his research incomplete, or (like Ironside before him) he chooses to grind his axe based on his assumptions, desired conclusions, and a personal disdain for Dr. Bullinger. 

We end this section with Dr. Bullinger's reference to the necessity of God's hand in the use of Bullinger's own book:

May the Lord deign to use these pages, and make them to be that "guide" to a better understanding and a greater enjoyment of His own Word.

Let us now turn to the attack in regard to what Mr. Smedra calls "spiritual death."

 

Most seriously, [Mr. Bullinger and his followers] failed to understand the biblical truth of "spiritual death".

I find the use of quotation marks interesting. They are curiously used as the phrase is nowhere found in the pages of the Bible nor is any spirit ever said to have died. It is a doctrine of the Reformers and Reformation theology which is itself a product of Catholicism and its doctrine of "spiritual death."  

Ironically, the concept of "spiritual death" has as one of its proponents, John Wesley. In doing so, Wesley (as have countless others) denies the words of the God in Genesis and promotes a lie. The phrase could be said to be a "Wesleyan doctrine," but not a "biblical" doctrine. 

From John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on Genesis:

That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin... Not only thou shalt become mortal, but spiritual death and the forerunners of temporal death shall immediately seize thee.

Furthermore, those that teach that unbelievers are tortured by God by fire, without hope and without end, are teaching that man is immortal. They teach that he "will not surely die." It is the lie of Satan as is the doctrine of bodiless bliss at the time of physical death. All men are mortal, believers and unbelievers. It is only in resurrection that believers "put on immortality," (1 Cor 15:54).

Christ came that men might have life. Without Christ, men have no life in them. Read the story of Lazarus in John 11. Is there any doubt that Lazarus was dead? Is there anything in the text that suggests he was waiting in bliss somewhere? What is the only hope spoken of there by Martha or by the Lord himself? RESURRECTION. 

Who Is Promoting Catholic Doctrines?

The idea of a fiery pit wherein God tortures the lost is UTTERLY Catholic. It is creation of the "Early Church Fathers," borrowed from Greek mythology. It is these men to whom the Reformers and the Catholic Church bow and forsake their responsibility to study. 

Bullinger, in no uncertain terms, stated that Bible Study is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility, it requires hard work, and that ONLY BELIEVERS have any hope of understanding scripture. 

We are called to be WORKMEN who must STUDY in that way that we be APPROVED and not ASHAMED. Is that Catholicism? Is that a denial of the role of the Spirit? Is that "common grace?" Of course not. Bullinger calls us to do the WORK and in no way implies this is an accomplishment of the carnal nature. 

Mr. Smedra quotes Lewis Sperry Chafer as though he is in conflict with Dr. Bullinger's understanding. Ironically (again), a right division of scripture reveals that instant understanding and having the words to answer all men is a Pentecostal Age truth. The Catholic understanding of the Pentecostal gifts and the Pentecostal ordinances is far more inline with Mr. Smedra than with Dr. Bullinger.

Do we imagine that Chafer would suggest that no study is of any value? That any and all believers only understand scripture in accordance with whatever the Lord gives them at the time of conversion? Of course not. 

Perhaps Mr. Smedra should concern himself less with the judgment of unbelievers and his desire to see God torturing billions of men and women (torture Reformed teacher R.C. Sproul says we'll all rejoice in watching some day) and worry about his own judgment at the Bema Seat. All of us need to be concerned. 

As we have noted in regard to study of the Word, we must go about it as "WORKMEN" that we may be "APPROVED" and not find ourselves "ASHAMED." 

Are we to conclude from Smedra's argument that anyone, including himself, who quotes scripture in defense of, or in proposition, of, or refutation of any doctrine is denying the work of God in us? Is it an appeal to "free will" if we do so? That is, for me to refute my previous Catholic doctrines, I have to study the Bible. Such knowledge is not magically bestowed on all believers. If that were so, Paul wouldn't waste time either warning us about false teachers or warning us about being ashamed for lack of proper studying. 

After quoting two lines from Bullinger's massive library of writings, Smedra states:

Again, not a word about the Holy Spirit's sovereign ministry of revealing truth (John 16:13) nor of the natural man's inability to understand spiritual things, as expounded by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.

So, let us apply his reasoning to this assertion.

By quoting John 16:13 as part of his argument, Dan is assuming we can understand it. He must conclude that we either know the truth there or do not know the truth there based on whether God has illuminated us to its meaning. In quoting from scripture, Dan thus denies God's hand and exalts the free-will of the reader over the work of the Spirit. 

That sounds like intellectual crap, because it is. But I would argue it is in line with the accusation that Dr. E.W. Bullinger taught that understanding scripture is independent of a work of God. We have clearly dispelled that blasphemy against the man. 

Here is a summation of the position and it should be clear for all to see from Bullinger's writings:

A. No one can possibly understand scripture without the new nature which is a gift of God by grace through faith alone. 

B. Each of us is workman who is instructed to read and study the Word of Truth for which we will answer, having our work found approved or ourselves found ashamed.

To say that by teaching the second statement, one is denying the first is nonsense and food for weak minds ready to hate.

Final irony here, Dan refers to Bullinger as "Mr. Bullinger." Yes, Dr. Bullinger's title was honorary, but Dan chose to slight him since he did not receive this honor from a university. Conversely, he quotes as an authority "Dr. L. S. Chafer" who also received only honorary doctorates.

The Spirit Works Through Study (A Basic Concept)

And we are left to ask, if ALL understanding of scripture is solely by the illumination of the Sprit apart from any effort on our part, who is to determine whether Bullinger, Chafer, or Smedra are correct on any point of doctrine? How can any Christian disagree on anything?

Denying the personal responsibility of the individual to do the hard work of a Bible student leaves us all vulnerable to pronouncements of men who claim illumination by the Spirit. A Pope and his Council, perhaps? And let me assure you, the discouraging of study on the premise that all such work is useless is a very Catholic concept. 

Bullinger's critics would argue  they are not teaching this, but if not, their attacks on Dr. Bullinger must be abandoned. For he taught 

1. the inability of the natural man to understand scripture
2. necessity of the creation of the new nature by God as an act of grace
3. and the responsibility of the one with the new nature to feed that nature by diligent Bible Study  

Dr. Bullinger encourages all of us who have the new nature to INTESELY study God's word. In doing so, in no way does he discount the necessity of either the New Nature or the role of the Spirit. 

I refer readers to an excerpt from Dr. Bullinger's  "The Two Natures of the Child of God." Could he be more clear on his belief that the natural man (old nature) cannot understand truth? If a man is to understand anything, God must "deign" he do so?

“The Natural Man.” And we are told that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he get to know them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor.2:14).

In the structure of this portion of 1 Corinthians, verse 14 stands in correspondence with verse 8; which tells us that “none of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of God”, i.e., the great Secret–the Mystery–for it was “hidden” in God (Eph. 3:9), and no eye had ever seen it, or ear heard it. And even when now it is “revealed” (1 Cor. 2:10), the natural man cannot get to know it, because it is only discerned by the spirit, or the new nature within us, created and enlightened by the Holy Ghost. This is conclusive as to the character, power, inclination and condition of “the natural man”; which means man by nature, as he is born into the world.

Another of Smedra's charges, "failure to clearly understand or articulate the truth of spiritual blindness" is refuted by the statement above as here as well:

“The Old Man.” And what about him? He, we are told “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). The old man is full of desires or lusts. These lusts are deceitful and deceiving. They are in all things contrary to God, contrary to His Spirit, and His Word; and to the new nature, the spirit, when it is once implanted within us. In this connection, it is called...

“The Heart” i.e., the natural heart, which is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9), so deceitful that it constantly deceives and betrays us: so deceitful that none but God can really know it. The Lord Jesus has some “teaching about the heart” of the natural man in Matthew 15:19. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”

Do any of these quotes suggest that Bullinger fails to understand the spiritual blindness of the carnal nature? 

Accusing Dr. Bullinger of teaching "common grace" or enlightenment apart from the Holy Ghost is blasphemy.

More from Dr. Bullinger on the sad state of the natural man:

 

In the light which shined out of darkness (Gen 1:2,3) we shall see the light which has shone "in our hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face (or person) of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). No wonder that those who know nothing of this spiritual light of the New Creation know nothing of the light that was created on the first day as revealed in the record of the old creation. The natural man sees only a myth and an old wives' fable in the Creation record, and seems actually to prefer the Babylonian corruption of primitive truth. These "other Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Eph 4:17,18). Woe be to those who follow these blind leaders, for "they shall both fall into the ditch" they have prepared for themselves by their fleshly knowledge and worldly wisdom." 

One last thought from me; the doctrine of eternal, fiery torture is both "Babylonian" and "Catholic." And it is Mr. Smedra who promotes this human Catholic tradition (along with the Satanic lie that men shall ever live), and not Dr. Bullinger. He seems to be a victim of the traditions he claims to reject.

Here a few other blog entries on this and related topics:

• Deconstruction Don Perkins' Introduction to "Hell" - Part 1
• Deconstructing Don Perkins' Introduction to "Hell" - Part 2
• How to Prevail Against the Gates of Hell
• Traditions That Interfere With True Understanding
• Another Look at "Gehenna" (Hell)
• More on the Traditional Doctrine of Hell
• Animals Are Souls And You Are Not Immortal
• The State of the Dead
• Scripturally Comforting the Bereaved - Part 1
• Scripturally Comforting the Bereaved - Part 2