|
BTRC Correspondence with a Pastor of Bread From Heaven Assembly
(Christian Reformed Church
in the Philippines)
Dearly beloved,
My name is pastor
L.G.
of bread from heaven dagupan assembly. our church belongs to the christian
reformed church in the philippines. i was delighted to see a tagalog version
of the heidelburg catechism in google which led me to your website.
my purpose for writing is simply to greet you with a warm christian love and
some questions that i pondered. i thought that reformed churches are very
scarce now a days and yet here you are fighting for the truth and leading
people to the feet of Christ.
It was and still is my utmost desire to know and understand the reformed
faith. my question however is this - yes we say that we are reformed but how
come people are not attracted to the gospel if we are the ones bringing it
to them? sounds so ironic. maybe we used to much cerebral method in
promulgating doctrines that we missed the heart in which compassion
resides.. i believe that worship is done using not only mind, but our heart,
body, soul, streangth...
let me pause a question: will i go to hell if i am not so sure as to wether
there is an unconditional election or not? will i suffer in the lakes of
fire for not comprehending total depravity? its a good thing that Jesus came
full of grace and truth here on earth. otherwise, life will be so difficult
because of the presence of evil and those so called theologians that makes
the bible so unbearable to read. they focus much of their energy, time and
resources on biblical truths but missed out the desires of God. and what is
that? its called compassion, love, grace and mercy.
sometimes people who focused on thruths without love turns out to be gongs
sounding loud but with no tune. and people learning too much from debatable
topics becomes a modern day pharisee. this is just a thought however in
which i pondered. hope you could assist me in this.
yours in Christ,
ptr. L.G.
Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD
rises upon you.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor L. G.,
It
is interesting to hear from you. I am thankful that our little websites have
somehow been profitable for you. I am Pastor Alex Aquino of BTRC Antipolo.
I maintain the BTRC websites. I apologize for the very delayed response. I
seldom open the “bastionoftruth” yahoo account. Anyway, your questions are
to me very interesting, yet to tell you honestly, they are strange
considering that they come from a Reformed minister as you. I’ll answer them
as follows:
my question however is
this - yes we say that we are reformed but how come people are not attracted
to the gospel if we are the ones bringing it to them? sounds so ironic.
maybe we used to much cerebral method in promulgating doctrines that we
missed the heart in which compassion resides..
I
am not quite sure upon what basis you have made this judgment. Perhaps you
were disappointed at the absence in our websites of appeals such as, “God
loves you… He desires to save you…”. We do not have the right to do that
because that is not Reformed and that is not Biblical. Perhaps you have
judged us to be all heads and no hearts. That is not fair. You will have to
personally talk with us at least an hour, or sit under one of our minister’s
preaching one Lord’s Day, or sit in one of our Bible study sessions to see
if our emphasis is merely "cerebral" before you can fairly make such
judgment. We do have a heart for the lost. We pity those who are in bondage
of moral sin and its consequences. But we pity all the more those who may
end up in hell who all the while believe they would end up in heaven.
Nothing is more pitiable than those who are deceived by a false assurance
from a false god, a false Christ, and false spirit revealed by a false
gospel (2 Cor. 11:3, 4). It is cruel and unfair to withhold the truth or
sugarcoat it to perishing souls.
i believe that worship is
done using not only mind, but our heart, body, soul, streangth... let me
pause a question: will i go to hell if i am not so sure as to wether there
is an unconditional election or not? will i suffer in the lakes of fire for
not comprehending total depravity?
It
seems that you have confused worship and evangelism here. As ministers it is
our duty to preach the whole counsel of God and to withhold nothing that
will profit the Church of Christ.
If we refuse to do this we shall be accountable: “…how I KEPT BACK
NOTHING that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught
you publicly, and from house to house… Wherefore I take you to record this
day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. I have not shunned to declare
unto you ALL THE COUNSEL of God” (Acts 20:20, 26, 27). May I ask you
this question: Why did our Reformed Fathers spend all efforts to combat the
heresy of Arminianism during the Synod of Dordt? Answer: Because Arminianism
denies GRACE. Arminianism is “Pelagianism raised again out of hell”. It will
damn a soul to hell. Now, if a person's ignorance of unconditional election
or total depravity will not infringe the GRACE that saves him, then there is
no problem. But if these doctrines are presented to him and denies them, he
is in big trouble. He is denying grace. He cannot be saved.
its a good thing that
Jesus came full of grace and truth here on earth. otherwise, life will be so
difficult because of the presence of evil and those so called theologians
that makes the bible so unbearable to read. they focus much of their energy,
time and resources on biblical truths but missed out the desires of God. and
what is that? its called compassion, love, grace and mercy. sometimes people
who focused on thruths without love turns out to be gongs sounding loud but
with no tune.
First the Bible itself admits that it is a book unbearable for some to read:
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which
are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). But great theologians such as our Reformed
fathers made the Bible easier to read and more enjoyable to the believers’
hearts comfort. Calvin and other Reformed theologians spent their greatest
efforts revealing the desires of God to His people, His particular love,
particular compassion and particular grace (which the C.R.C. officially
denies since 1924). I can personally testify to that being one coming from
the Arminian-Pentecostal camp.
and people learning too
much from debatable topics becomes a modern day pharisee. this is just a
thought however in which i pondered. hope you could assist me in this.
The
Gospel of Grace which Calvinism staunchly defends is not a “debatable” topic
but absolute truth although it is frequently “debated.”
I
hope to hear from you again as your questions are very intertesting.
Cordially,
Alex Aquino
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear brethren who are in
Bastion,
i have attached in word.doc our simple conversation which i believe will
sharpen our understanding. thanks for your reply!
L.G.
OPEN DIALOGUE # 1
L. G.
> My question however is this - yes we say that we are reformed but how come
people are not attracted to the gospel if we are the ones bringing it to
them? Sounds so ironic. Maybe we used to much cerebral method in
promulgating doctrines that we missed the heart in which compassion resides…
Alex Aquino >
I am not quite sure upon what basis you have made this judgment. Perhaps
you were disappointed at the absence in our websites of appeals such as,
“God loves you… He desires to save you…”. We do not have the right to do
that because that is not Reformed and that is not Biblical...
L. G.
> What is not biblical? That God does love and desire salvation for all?
The highlighted reply of yours seems vague. Let me show you using some
verses.
1. As
pertaining to "little ones", yes God loves them and wants them to be saved.
Mt 18:14 “In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that
any of these little ones should be lost.” (NIV)
2. Pertaining
to other people and I believe older ones, the bible declared in 1Ti 2:3, 4
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved
and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (NIV)
3. and
of course, who can forget the classic verse of John 3:16!
From these verses, can we
easily conclude then that we cannot, as Reformed, say that, “God loves You!”
or that “He desires to save you!”? A thought again my friend.
OPEN DIALOGUE # 2
L. G.
> I believe that worship is done using not only mind, but our heart, body,
soul, strength... let me pause a question: will I go to hell if I am not so
sure as to whether there is an “Unconditional
Election” or not? Will I suffer in the lakes of fire for not
comprehending “Total Depravity?”
Alex Aquino >
It seems that you have confused worship and evangelism here. As ministers it
is our duty to preach the whole counsel of God and to withhold nothing that
will profit the Church of Christ. If we refuse to do this we shall be
accountable: “…how I KEPT BACK NOTHING that was profitable unto you, but
have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house…
Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of
all men. I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL THE COUNSEL of God”
(Acts 20:20, 26, 27). May I ask you this question: Why did our Reformed
Fathers spend all efforts to combat the heresy of Arminianism during the
Synod of Dordt? Answer: Because Arminianism denies GRACE. Arminianism is
“Pelagianism raised again out of hell”. It will damn a soul to hell. Now, if
a person's ignorance of unconditional election or total depravity will not
infringe the GRACE that saves him, then there is no problem. But if these
doctrines are presented to him and denies them, he is in big trouble. He is
denying grace. He cannot be saved.
L. G.
> Wow! Tough words! As if all salvation hangs on to the verge of whether we
accept the doctrine formulated by Arminius. Tsk…tsk… I was born-again (by
God’s grace!) not knowing the battle that raged long ago between Arminius
and Pelagius. None the less, I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as
atonement for all my sins. He died on my behalf so that the righteousness of
God is imputed on me. There is now NO condemnation to all who are in Christ!
But, it seems that I’m damned to hell again if I cannot comprehend
“Unconditional Election” nor total Depravity”? Oh boy… very dogmatic it
seems. It looks like the simplicity of the Gospel is under attack.
OPEN DIALOGUE # 3
L. G.
> Its a good thing that Jesus came full of grace and truth here on
earth. Otherwise, life will be so difficult because of the presence of evil
and those so called theologians that makes the bible so unbearable to read.
They focus much of their energy, time and resources on biblical truths but
missed out the desires of God. And what is that? Its called compassion,
love, grace and mercy. Sometimes people who focused on truths without love,
turns out to be gongs sounding loud but with no tune.
Alex Aquino >
First the Bible itself admits that it is a book unbearable for some to read:
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which
are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). But great theologians such as our Reformed
fathers made the Bible easier to read and more enjoyable to the believers’
hearts comfort. Calvin and other Reformed theologians spent their
greatest efforts revealing the desires of God to His people, His
particular love, particular compassion and particular grace (which
the C.R.C. officially denies since 1924). I can personally testify to
that being one coming from the Arminian-Pentecostal camp.
L. G.
> In regards to the Holy Writ, I admire it so much. I am against however to
much debate which ruins the hearers. Anyways, from this DIALOGUE # 3,
I have two questions:
1. Does
Calvin teach about PARTICULAR GRACE? If he did, when is grace considered
“particular”? When is grace tagged as “common”? In other words, are there
really “common grace” and “special grace”? it makes me wonder again… back
then I only thought of God’s divine grace shared by all humanity may they be
wicked or righteous for God loves them both. God gives rain to the wicked
and to the saint.
2. My
other question from this DIALOGUE # 3 is that, did the C.R.C.
officially deny what Calvin and other early theologians had considered to be
the doctrinal standards? Where is that written? Any source you could share?
OPEN DIALOGUE # 4
L. G.
> … and people learning too much from debatable topics becomes a modern day
Pharisee. This is just a thought however in which I pondered. Hope you could
assist me in this.
Alex Aquino >
The Gospel of Grace which Calvinism staunchly defends is not a “debatable”
topic but absolute truth although it is frequently “debated.” I hope to hear
from you again as your questions are very interesting. Cordially, Alex
Aquino
L. G.
> I would suggest to dismiss “Dialogue # 4” for this simple reason, it
doesn’t give much challenge. However, the way I see it is that you are so
in-tuned in defending Calvin rather than the will of God. That is, God wills
and desires that all men will be saved. I think the doctrine of “TULIP” is
not the primary here. So, let’s dismiss this # 4 dialogue.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
BTRC’s Response:
OPEN
DIALOGUE (Bread from Heaven Dagupan Assembly [Christian Reformed Church of
the Phils.] and the Bastion of Truth Reformed Churches in the Phils.)
OPEN DIALOGUE
# 1
L. G. [BFH]
> What is not biblical?
That God does love and desire salvation for all? The highlighted reply of
yours seems vague. Let me show you using some verses.
1. As
pertaining to "little ones", yes God loves them and wants them to be saved.
Mt 18:14 “In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that
any of these little ones should be lost.” (NIV)
2. Pertaining
to other people and I believe older ones, the bible declared in 1Ti 2:3, 4
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved
and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (NIV)
3. and
of course, who can forget the classic verse of John 3:16!
From these verses, can we
easily conclude then that we cannot, as Reformed, say that, “God loves You!”
or that “He desires to save you!”? A thought again my friend.
REPLY <Alex
Aquino BTRC>:
1. The “little ones” in this passage were no doubt objects of the
Father’s love and care. However, in the context of the passage, they are
likened to sheep. Whether already saved or still lost sheep, doesn’t make a
difference. They are sheep, not goats. Sheep in the Gospel narratives is
always descriptive of God’s and Christ’s particular and exclusive
relationship to His elect. Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of the nations as
separated on Judgment Day as sheep and goats. It is clear therefore that not
all men are sheep and therefore not objects of God’s particular love. In
John 10 Christ the Good Shepherd describes His chosen ones as sheep who hear
His voice. The Pharisees do not listen to His voice because they were not
His sheep in the first place, not the other way around―that they were not
His sheep because they did not believe (verse 26).
2. 1 Timothy 2:3, 4 should be interpreted in the light of its
immediate context (verse 1 & 2). It does not teach that God desires to save
all men without exception. Rather, He desires to save all men without
distinction. Paul had just admonished the Ephesian church to pray for all
men without distinction of rank, race or nationality (“for kings and for all
in authority,” verse 2). We ought to pray for those in authority that they
may grant us peace and freedom so that the spread of the Gospel may be
facilitated, since God desires to save “all men”, again, not without
exception but without distinction of rank, race or nationality. You may
consult William Hendriksen’s commentary on these. He was a C.R.C. minister
and was professor at Calvin Seminary.
3. John 3:16: The term “world” (Greek: kosmos),
again, does not mean all men without exception but all men without
distinction. Add to this the inclusion of the physical cosmos since Jehovah
God established an everlasting covenant with Noah and creation (Genesis
9:9ff. See also Romans 8:18-23). Take to account the immediate context where
Christ speaks to Nicodemus whose view of the privilege of salvation is still
confined to the Jewish nation. In this light see how Paul distinguished the
“world” (i.e. Gentiles) from “Israel”
in Romans 11:15: "For if the casting away of them [Israel, AA] be the reconciling
of the WORLD [in the context: Gentiles, AA], what shall the receiving
of them be, but life from the dead?”
Consider also John 13:1: “Now before the feast of the passover, when
Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world
unto the Father, having loved his OWN which were in the world, he
loved them unto the end.” Notice that there is a distinction between
Christ’s “own whom He loved unto the end” who “were in the world.” They are
not the “world” where they (whom He loved) are in. See? “world” doesn’t
always mean “all men” without exception. Notice John 17:9: “I pray for
them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given
me; for they are thine.” Christ prays only for His disciples and all
those who will believe His message through them. He does NOT pray for the
“world”. If you will perhaps point to the word “whosoever” in John 3:16
suggesting that salvation is available to “all”, the word “whosoever” does
not occur in the original Greek. It says only “the believing ones” not “whosoever
believeth”. Do a survey on the evangelistic messages of the apostles,
particularly in Acts. There are no such appeals as “God loves you” or “God
desires to save you”. What they proclaim is in principle, “Repent and
believe this Gospel!” This is also exactly the appeal of Christ in His
preachings. So, ponder again dear correspondent.
CONCLUSION: It is not God’s desire and
will to save all men but only His Elect. To them particularly and
exclusively is He gracious. Therefore, as Reformed people we may not say
that God loves and desires to save all. However, it is our duty to witness
to all (as much as we can) and confront them with the command to repent and
believe.
OPEN DIALOGUE
# 2
L. G. [BFH]
> Wow! Tough words! As if
all salvation hangs on to the verge of whether we accept the doctrine
formulated by Arminius. Tsk…tsk… I was born-again (by God’s grace!) not
knowing the battle that raged long ago between Arminius and Pelagius. None
the less, I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as atonement for all my
sins. He died on my behalf so that the righteousness of God is imputed on
me. There is now NO condemnation to all who are in Christ! But, it seems
that I’m damned to hell again if I cannot comprehend “Unconditional
Election” nor total Depravity”? Oh boy… very dogmatic it seems. It looks
like the simplicity of the Gospel is under attack.
REPLY <Alex
Aquino BTRC>:
First, a
correction: There was never a battle in Church history that raged between
Arminius and Pelagius. That was impossible because they both believed the
same heresies and they lived one millennium apart. There was a battle
between the faithful and able Augustine (from whom Calvin learned much of
his theology) and the clever but detestable Pelagius in the 5th Century.
There was not even a personal battle between Calvin and the heretic
Arminius. The two did not even meet nor correspond with each other in
writing. Calvin died while Arminius was very young. It was Arminius’
disciples who officially attacked the simplicity of the Gospel, and were
confronted by our faithful Reformed fathers in the Synod of Dordt.
Secondly, we
at BTRC don’t evangelize presenting the controversy between Calvinism and
Arminianism. We preach the only and true Gospel of God’s Sovereign
Particular Grace. We preach a Gospel of grace that is grace indeed. We do
this without mentioning Calvin or Arminius. In order not to be
misinterpreted we present the various antitheses to that Gospel. We warn
people of false gospels (Galatians 1:6-9), like the false gospel of
salvation that depends on man’s accepting or rejecting Christ. This is
necessary because modern Christianity has become a religion of doctrinal
indifference. It preaches a false jesus (sic), a false spirit and a false
gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3, 4). CRC has shown a fatal symptom of this in
its expression “Reformed Accent” instead of saying absolute truth.
Indeed, the
simplicity of the Gospel is under attack! It says simply, “Salvation is of
the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). The Gospel says salvation is ALL of GRACE (Romans
11:6). The Gospel says salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man (Romans 9:16). But sinful men have added free-willism, conditionalism,
universalism, humanism, “accepting”, in other words added human merit into
that simple Gospel of grace. So in the years 1618-1619 our Reformed fathers
defended this simple Gospel against the heresies of the Arminians or
Remonstrants who attacked the simplicity of this Gospel by adding that which
is of man in the Gospel of God’s pure Grace. In 1924 the Christian Reformed
Church (NA) attacked that simple Gospel of grace by adopting as dogma the
heresy of “common grace” and the universal “well-meant offer of the Gospel”.
CRC has not repented of her apostasy up to the present resulting in her
falling into the heresies of Arminianism, Pentecostalism, allowing women to
take office in the Church and who knows what else in the future?
May I ask you,
Pastor, this simple question? “What is your understanding of the Gospel?”
OPEN DIALOGUE
# 3
L. G. [BFH]
> In regards to the Holy
Writ, I admire it so much. I am against however to much debate which ruins
the hearers. Anyways, from this DIALOGUE # 3, I have two questions:
1. Does
Calvin teach about PARTICULAR GRACE? If he did, when is grace considered
“particular”? When is grace tagged as “common”? In other words, are there
really “common grace” and “special grace”? it makes me wonder again… back
then I only thought of God’s divine grace shared by all humanity may they be
wicked or righteous for God loves them both. God gives rain to the wicked
and to the saint.
2. My
other question from this DIALOGUE # 3 is that, did the C.R.C.
officially deny what Calvin and other early theologians had considered to be
the doctrinal standards? Where is that written? Any source you could share?
REPLY <Alex
Aquino BTRC>:
1. Calvin did teach particular grace. It
is subsumed in His doctrine on the sovereignty of God particularly on Divine
predestination. God is gracious ONLY to His Elect. For His grace is
invincible, irresistible power. The Canons of Dordt in its defense of
Irresistible Grace imply that such grace cannot be common. If God desires
the salvation of all men and therefore is gracious to them, why are not all
saved? Your answer will surely be, “because some accepted and others
rejected Christ.” So you are then portraying a God who has a desire, or a
will but does not have the ability to save. That is not the God of the
Bible. Psalm 115:3 says, “But our [and certainly ours too in the
Bastion of Truth] God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he
hath pleased.” Ephesians 1:11 says, “In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will”. The sun and
the rain common to all, righteous and wicked alike does not imply a “common
grace” but a common bounty, providence. Such common bounty is a blessing to
the Elect (Rom.
8:28) but a curse to the Reprobate (Proverbs 16:4). They will reveal their
sin, their ungratefulness, in spite of God’s goodness, therefore are
rendered inexcusable and compound their condemnation. Let me use this
illustration. A living plant is planted on very fertile soil where a dead
tree trunk also stands. They share common soil but the effect is opposite.
The more fertile the soil, the faster the living tree grows and flourishes.
And also the more fertile the soil, the faster also the dead trunk
decomposes. The same thing is true with the Elect and the Reprobate who
receive this common bounty which is mistaken by the CRC as “common grace.”
2. The Christian Reformed Church adopted
the theory of Common Grace as dogma in their “De Drie Punten” (The Three
Points [of Common Grace]) in 1924 at the Synod of Kalamazoo (Acta der
Synode, 1924, pages 145-147). In adopting as dogma the theory of Common
Grace, the CRC rejects the Biblical and Reformed doctrine of Total
Depravity. It denies the Reformed Confessions teaching Total Depravity:
The Heidelberg Catechism: Lord’s Day 2, Question and Answer 5, Lord’s
Day 3, Q & A 6-8, The Belgic Confession Articles 14 and 15, The
Canons of Dordt Heads III and IV Article 1. The CRC theory of Common
Grace also denies the Biblical and Reformed doctrine of Predestination:
The Heidelberg Catechism LD 19, Q & A 52 (“…with all His chosen
ones…”), LD 21 Q & A 54; The Belgic Confession Article 16; The
Canons of Dordt Head I Articles 7 & 9 and Head II Article 8. Although
quoting much from Calvin, CRC proponents of Common Grace took him out of
context. This quotation from his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” will
represent his true position:
“How comes it then that God not only makes His sun rise on the evil
and the good, but as far as the advantages of this life are concerned, His
inestimable liberality is constantly flowing forth in rich abundance? Hence
we certainly perceive that the things which really belong to
Christ and His members, abound to the wicked also… in order that they
may be rendered more inexcusable” (III, 25, 9).
OPEN DIALOGUE
# 4
L. G. [BFH]
> I would suggest to
dismiss “Dialogue # 4” for this simple reason, it doesn’t give much
challenge. However, the way I see it is that you are so in-tuned in
defending Calvin rather than the will of God. That is, God wills and desires
that all men will be saved. I think the doctrine of “TULIP” is not the
primary here. So, let’s dismiss this # 4 dialogue.
REPLY <Alex
Aquino BTRC>:
Ok, let us dismiss it if you wish but I just want to say this. The
reason why I zealously defend Calvinism is because it IS the Gospel. YES
(unashamedly and unapologetically), it IS THE GOSPEL. Calvinism is what the
Word of God teaches. It means that it must be preached to unbelievers, not
only to some intellectually elite group in the church. It is not mere cold
abstract theology. Secondly, because I am confessionally Reformed and I
think that it is the solemn duty of every Reformed minister and believer to
proclaim and defend the Reformed faith. Our ministers in the BTRC sign a
Formula of Subscription to the Reformed Creeds: Belgic Confession,
Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt before they are ordained to
the ministry. Does the CRC require the same of its ministers? Calvinism is
true Christianity. It is not about a man, a sinful, weak (yet saved by
grace) man like Calvin. Calvinism is about God, a sovereign gracious God.
Calvinism is about the WILL of God – the sovereign, gracious will of God.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor L.G.,
Almost two weeks ago I have sent you email where my response to the "open
dialogue" you initiated was attached. I thought maybe my message did not get
through the internet. So if it failed to reach you, please inform me and I
will re-send it to you.
The Bastion of Truth Reformed Churches are willing to continue in this
dialogue with Bread from Heaven Dagupan Assembly as it is a matter of life
and death. So do not hesitate to correspond with us.
In His Service,
Alex Aquino
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
L. G.
wrote:
> Good pm Alex, Your email went through. Only, our anniversary is fast
approaching and it's actually tomorrow. I have lots of things to do and to
finish re preparing stuffs. Let's just continue the dialogue later. Anyways,
I was about to be amazed on how you do research. However, I was saddened by
the fact that to Bastion, if it's your doctrine, the gospel is TULIP. I was
really struck by surprise. The Apostle Paul described the gospel so vividly
and is summed up into 10 words - Christ died for our sins and rose from the
dead! this is the gospel in a nutshell. nothing more and nothing less.
L.G.
Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine,
for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor L.G.,
That which you regard as research is actually what we know as Reformed
truth. It is with these what you call research which made us reject the
damnable heresy of Arminianism and embrace the Reformed faith. I am quite
surprised that you are totally ignorant with these basic arguments
considering that you profess to be Reformed. I am not surprised that you are
surprised that we confess the blessed TULIP as Gospel. What you regard as
the summary of the Gospel poses many problems. Among them is that even the
INC, 7th-Day Adventists, the Dating Daan, the Oneness sects, the Roman
Catholic Church, etc. can claim that that is their gospel but they are
condemned by Scripture as Antichristian. And you said no more, no less, but
again you add to it man's free-will and accepting.
I look forward to your response.
Alex
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Good am [i.e.
"morning," AA] my friend,
your reply was fast indeed. however, it seems that you are no longer in the
mood for a dialogue and had shifted to a debate which i find it fascinating.
you are not open to the others suggestions instead you are trying your best
to inject your "doctrine."
anyways, if you will examine closely my VERY last letter, you will never see
that i mentioned the word "free-will." meaning, you are bringing into the
dialogue what was overdue. in order for us to truly understand the beauty of
the scripture, let us just answer each question precisely and not bring in
again topics which was already discussed if there is one.
Anyways, i did not add to the gospel as you said i did. review again my last
reply. what i did wrote is that in a nutshell it is "summed" up to this -
"Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." all in all it is "ten"
words which will benefit the not so good in memorisation Christians.
To further prove my claim, allow me to quote the bible:
1Co 15:1-4 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to
you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this
gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you
as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
i see that from the very words of the Apostle Paul,
this is the gospel that truly saves us. and if you will read very carefully
the letters which i tried to amplified, there is the presence of the word
"IF" meaning, it is conditional.
As a reformed faith enthusiasts, i believe in God's sovereignty. we can read
it from the book of Romans. however, it is not only the place where in we
should formulate the dogmas. there are many insights form the bible. it is
very rich in truths.
If you say that there is no free will, then why did
Adam and Eve sinned in the first place?
And if suppose i do not adhere much to TULIP, you say that i am damned.
that's still OK to me. why? because God is sovereign and he is the perfect
judge. who can argue with God without fault? if God wills that i go to hell,
then its still good to me because heaven will be wrinkle free. i am evil by
nature inherited from the first Adam right? however, God's goodness and
righteousness for that matter came through the second Adam even Christ. if
sin entered and was imputed to us because of the sin of one man even the
first Adam, how much more the second Adam's obedience will result in the
salvation of all who come to him. but i know that you will argue that God is
the one who predestined some to be in heaven or some to be in hell. well, i
say, God has given every person a chance to repent but some did not.
If you are still open to a dialogue then let us keep it that way. Debate
seems to be arrogant in nature. i suppose your last letter is from that
type.
I also sense that you are so fond in TULIP. well good for you. but let me
remind you that if you are in the Reformed Faith, then by the very word, it
means you keep on reforming right? so lets help each other in bringing out
what is best for all.
by the way, since you like research, try reviewing the history of the
reformers. some of them who are really die-hards had persecuted some even
put others to death. looks like their theology had not produced fruits for
the kingdom. to much head knowledge but lacks the heart.
P.S. why don't we just select one topic and start there. else, we will just
look for ways to hurt each other which i believe is not glorifying to God.
L.G.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor L.G.,
It
was quite obvious that my email response to the dialogue you initiated was
replete with Scriptural proof while you haven’t presented any convincing
Scriptural ground so far to refute them and prove otherwise. You haven’t
even clarified what the dialogue you initiated seeks to accomplish although
I understand that you wish to “sharpen our understanding”. I did just that
and now you are complaining that this dialogue degenerates into a “debate”.
I believe “argumentation” and “reasoning” is inevitable. You (are supposed
to) reason and argue from the Scriptures in your preaching as you guard the
(supposed) flock of God (Acts 20:28). In fact I am only in the defensive
stance, not in the offensive in this dialogue. And I am confident that what
I am presenting is thoroughly Scriptural. The Lord, in calling his people to
repentance said through His prophet,
“Come now, and let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the LORD: though your
sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like
crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah
1:18). The book of Acts, giving an account of Paul preaching the Gospel,
reports, “And he REASONED in the
synagogue every sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks”
(Acts 18:4). Paul in vindicating his ministry wrote,
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war
after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty
through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down
IMAGINATIONS [“ARGUMENTS”, NIV], and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ” (2
Corinthians 10:3-5). Peter reminds God’s elect,
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and
be ready always to give an answer
to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”
(1 Peter 3:15). I also point to the fact that this must be done “with
meekness and fear”. Indeed with “meekness,” guarding one’s self against the
tendency to merely argue for argument’s sake and to assert that one is right
and his opponent is wrong. But more than that, such giving a reasonable
answer requires a spirit of “fear”. A reverential fear that takes into
account that the glory of God is at stake.
I
mentioned free-will not without reason (nor for a wrong reason), for you
mentioned that you were saved by “accepting” Christ (please review what you
wrote). “Accepting” is obviously tantamount to being saved by “free-willing”
and that is absolutely not a Biblical and Reformed teaching. That is the
false gospel of Arminianism stalwartly combated by our Reformed fathers.
They clearly understood the Scripture which taught,
“The sinful mind is hostile to God. It DOES NOT
submit to God’s law, NOR CAN it DO so”
(Romans 8:7, NIV). Christ Himself said, “NO
MAN CAN come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I
will raise him up at the last day” (John
6:44).
Your argument that the gospel has to be enclosed in a nutshell of ten words
for memorization to guarantee the accuracy of someone’s knowledge of the
Gospel does not stand. No one gets saved through a memorized “minimum”
gospel. That is being “mechanical”. It is an influence of modern commercial
thinking where things become “instant” and “user-friendly.” That’s the
nature of your gospel, a “user-friendly” gospel. This is the popular system
in most churches (including the CRC who had torn down its confessional
walls) to accommodate as much of indifference as possible, the result being
that of a “least-common-denominator” Christianity. If there is one subject
of ignorance and much confusion in modern Christianity, with its eminent
ministers, office bearers, scholars and institutions, that is the subject of
the Christian Gospel. Again the nutshell you formulated and the passage (1
Corinthians 15:1-5) you quoted can be claimed by any Christian sect or cult.
You hear it with passion from Pastor Louie Santos of the “Friends Again” TV
program, yet he is a heretic who adopts Sabellanism or Modalism, or
popularly known as “Oneness” Pentecostalism. He and his church blatantly
denies the Trinity while quoting exactly the same verses which you consider
accurately and unequivocally represent the Gospel of salvation. It cannot be
denied that the Gospel contains the historical fact of the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ. But no one is saved by merely believing
historical facts. The true Gospel by which God’s elect are saved is the
“interpretation” of those historical facts. I quote here the same passage
you quoted for me, but with emphasis on the element you ignored:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel
which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye
stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto
you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all
that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures;
and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures”
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
You
wrongly interpreted the conjunction “IF” as suggesting that salvation is
conditional. Paul did not use it in the sense that salvation is conditional
but he was merely stating a fact. In effect Paul was saying, “If you keep in
memory what I preached to you, it shows that you are saved. But if not, you
have revealed yourselves as those who have believed in vain. You reveal
yourselves as unsaved.” Your conditional view of salvation is a glaring
contradiction to your supposed “enthusiasm in the Reformed faith and belief
in God’s sovereignty.” How can God be sovereign (meaning He absolutely
accomplishes what He desires) if salvation is conditioned upon the dead
sinner? This is your gospel to my understanding: “Good news! God loves you
and He desires to save you… sent His Son for you… but there is Bad News too!
He cannot save you unless you let Him. So save Him from this embarrassment
by “accepting” Him.” No, dear correspondent, salvation is absolutely UNconditional.
Now
I return to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I emphasized that the Gospel is the
interpretation of the historical fact of Jesus’ death, burial and
resurrection. In other words, what do the Scriptures teach “about” the
historical fact of His death, burial and resurrection?
“But
he was wounded FOR OUR
[Israel’s] transgressions, he was
bruised FOR OUR [Israel’s]
iniquities: the chastisement OF OUR
[Israel’s] peace was upon him; and
with his stripes WE [Israel]
are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of US ALL
[Israel] … He
shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his
knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many [not ALL];
for he shall bear THEIR [Israel’s]
iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his
soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the
sin of MANY [not ALL],
and made intercession for the transgressors.”
(Isaiah 53:5, 6, 11, 12)
I have emphasized words and phrases here that give you some idea on how the
Scriptures interpret the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. There are
many others such as Psalm 16, 22, Isaiah 55 but I would confine my arguments
in this passage of Isaiah. Christ the Suffering Servant of Jehovah died a
“substitutionary” death. This is indicated by the exclusive pronouns such as
FOR US, OUR, US ALL. This is exclusive of spiritual Israel (the Old
Testament Church), not for Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, etc. This means
that Christ died not for entire humanity but only for a particular people
(His Church). That is why your nutshell gospel is deceiving. “Christ died
for us” you say. Even the liberal and Modernist will agree with you and yet
not be saved. They will take it to mean that He died for them not to atone
for their sins but only as a “good example” to follow. The poor deluded
Roman Catholic will certainly and readily agree with you while he/she will
maintain that Christ has to be sacrificed repeatedly every blasphemous
Catholic Mass. Yet the Old Testament teaches as early as then that the death
of the Servant was to JUSTIFY (declare righteous) His bothers. I am
thoroughly aware that the New Testament mentions that Christ died FOR US.
But always consider to whom such words were spoken. Were they spoken by
John, Paul, or Peter to all men without exception or were they
spoken/written to Christians (see Ephesians 5:25-27)? Even 1 Corinthians
15:1-4 you quoted says “Christ died for US.” That is, the
Corinthian “Christians,” not all men. Christ indeed died FOR (Greek,
huper: “in the place of”) them. If you assert that Christ died “in the
place of” all without exception, then why are not all saved? I predict that
your answer will be that of the enemies of the Reformation.
By your criticism of the Reformed denial of the “free-will” you reveal
yourself again as an Arminian and not Reformed. I am really alarmed why your
churches still identify yourselves as Christian REFORMED Churches when you
have seriously departed from the ideals of the 16th Century Reformation. Why
not be honest and identify yourselves only as Bread From Heaven Assemblies
and remove the “CRC” parenthesis. Is it because the term “Reformed” secures
for your denomination some historical identity or institutional dignity? Or
does belonging to such denomination provide financial security (Pardon me
but I’m just asking. I mean no offense)? Why not be a Methodist? Or a
Pentecostal/Charismatic? Or an Independent Arminian and be honest and
consistent with your doctrine? Why must you insist being “Reformed” while
being dishonest and inconsistent with what the term “Reformed” truly stands
for?
The Scriptures do not deny (nor do we at BTRC) that man has a “will”. Adam
in the state of righteousness had a will as well as in his fallen state. All
human beings have “wills” otherwise they will not be humans but brutes. The
question in view here is not whether man has a will or not. But whether his
will is free to do that which is truly good in his fallen condition or not?
I have given above Romans 8:7 and John
6:44
and God’s Word answers, “NO.” Fallen, sinful man’s will is indeed free but
only in the sphere of sin. His will is a willing “slave” of sin and Satan.
Sin and Satan are the sinner’s will’s master and not Jesus Christ. The
unregenerate sinner may freely choose (sinfully) what clothes to wear, which
woman he marries, his career, place of residence, religion. But confronted
to choose the right and good, he CANNOT. He has no ability. His will is not
free in that direction. He is TOTALLY DEPRAVED (See our Heidelberg
Catechism, Lord’s Day 2, Q & A 5 and the Scriptural references). He is
spiritually DEAD. He needs to be “born again” (John 3:3).
I beg to disagree that God merely gives every single person a chance to be
saved (there is no such teaching in the Bible) and that the reason why not
all are saved is because they forfeited that chance. This is Arminianism in
its worst form. This is unworthy of God and an affront to His Sovereignty!
This denies the Bible’s doctrine of Predestination and rejects the
sovereignty of God! I ask you this: What about the Pagans outside Israel in
Old Testament times who were not given the chance to be saved through Jesus
Christ? They are certainly in hell now, many of them, and God did not give
them a single chance in their lifetime!
The truth is, God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy; and He will
harden whom He will harden (Romans 9:18; Exodus 4:21). Some go to heaven not
because they grabbed the chance to be saved, but because God “prepared them
in advance for glory as vessels of His mercy” (Romans 9:23). Others go to
hell not because they forfeited their chance, but because they were
“prepared for destruction as vessels of God’s wrath” (Romans 9:22). God is
not unfair and unjust in all these for He has the authority and power as
“the Potter has to the clay” (Romans 9:19-21).
You have a corrupt understanding of the term “Reformed”. To reform is to
restore what was right and lawful in the beginning. It is a return to the
“Old Paths” (Jeremiah 6:16). It has also the idea of developing the truth in
its fuller implications. But it ever remains the truth and doesn’t “change.”
The Roman Catholic Church departed from the teachings of the apostles like
justification by faith alone, the authority of Scripture, the lawful offices
in the church, Scripture-regulated worship, etc. So God called men in the
16th Century to “reform” that which was “deformed” and marred by the
antichristian church. To reform doesn’t mean to change any teaching at
anyone’s wish and arbitrary choice. This, to my understanding, is
your idea of being “Reformed”:
Calvinism has been “reformed” (according to your idea of “reform”), and has
been moderated through the centuries and has finally transformed into
“Arminianism” so that the serious doctrinal battles of those past centuries
are now obsolete and irrelevant. That, according to your understanding, is
being “Reformed”. But in reality this is “deformation”, not reformation. The
CRC has fallen into the same error of Roman Catholicism. It has “deformed”.
I cannot rely on your suggestion that I should do research and review on
church history about some Reformer who persecuted others. How can I trust
your assessment on these Reformers if you yourself get mixed up with persons
in Church history? For example, you believed all along that there raged a
controversy between Pelagius and Arminius, which as I have said previously
was impossible for they existed 1,000 years apart! OK, give me one Reformer
whom you accuse of being a die-hard tyrant and I’ll do a research on
him/her. John Calvin was a die-hard for God’s glory (his enemies tagged him
as “that God-intoxicated man”) and I’m sure he is one of your suspects. I’ll
send you a weblink about his supposed tyrannical leadership if you wish. Yes
Luther, was cruel to the deluded and cultic Anabaptists, left them to rot in
cages hanged on a cathedral in Münster, Germany, I’m aware of that. But that
did not change the truth they so loved, proclaimed and fought for. We ought
to understand their actions within the context of their circumstances.
Your ignorance of church history renders you to be too judgmental on the
Reformers with whom you identify your denomination. It makes me wonder
whether you ever attended Seminary (where Church history is supposedly
taught) before you were ordained to the ministry. You have judged them
without first exploring with honesty and diligence their lives and labors
recorded in history. Have you even read their books? Not much, perhaps? But
have you read their hearts? Never? So don’t be judgmental lest you yourself
be judged.
You suggested starting another topic and focusing upon there but you haven’t
presented your Scriptural counter-arguments and settle each of the issues
you yourself brought up. Again, I remind you that I stand in the defensive.
I am just defending the historic Reformed Faith that is the Apostolic Faith.
But if you are still willing to pursue with this dialogue (which you believe
degenerated into a “debate”) then you may suggest another topic. I’ll be
willing to continue correspondence. I know I may be hurting you in this
argumentation because I have challenged your cherished convictions. Well, I
hurt too. But not for my self but for God whose blessed truth is being
watered down and trampled upon. I believe this discussion still tends to
glorify God despite the clashes and controversy. If I choose not to be hurt
just by stopping to disagree with you, that certainly will not glorify God.
Pardon me for being too lengthy, yet I firmly believe that my case is never
trivial.
Pastor L.G., with all my heart, I implore you, return to the Old
Paths. Return to the Faith of our [Reformed] Fathers. Repent of your false
gospel which cannot save (Galatians 1:6-9) and believe the true Gospel and
the true Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3, 4). There is no hope in man. Take
heed of God’s call, “Come out of her
[C.R.C.] my people!” (Revelation 18:4)…
“Wherefore come out from among them [C.R.C.], and
be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Sincerely,
Alex Aquino
BTRC Antipolo
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Alex,
I am so happy to have heard again from you. Anyways, regarding the "mixed
persons" that are years apart, my apologies. I was thinking about the battle
between the doctrines of Arminians and the
Calvinists. That's what I'm really after at. For a long long time
this has been the heated debate and has affected and separated innocent new
Christians at the time of their conversion (God's will or free will let us
not debate on this).
Since I initiated the first dialogue, please be reminded that it is for the
best. It came from an honest person trying and wanting to know more about
doctrines though I was taught in the walls of CRC.
I strongly believe that the bible is the only basis on which our faith
should stand. But, since there are formulated doctrines or should i say
dogmas, that are presented to me, I could not just take it in wholly without
scrutinizing each i.e. TULIP.
When I saw your website, to my delight I wrote hoping that since you are
reformed, maybe you could help me out here.
Anyways, my question (in my first letter) is this, "yes we say that we are
reformed but how come people are not attracted to the gospel if we are the
ones bringing it to them? Sounds so ironic. Maybe we used to much cerebral
method in promulgating doctrines that we missed the heart in which
compassion resides… "
Now, this does not mean that we are not doing our best to preach the gospel.
However, as to what I have researched, the smallest denomination,
considering it's rich history, is the reformed denominations. And within the
confines of that denomination, the CRC is the smallest. I'm just wondering
why? And since you are in Bastion now, maybe you could tell my as to why you
left CRC?
So, maybe we could do this slow and easy for us to really get the benefit
out of this.
Yours in Christ,
L.G.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor
L.G..
Thank you for your patience in writing and keeping up with this
communication. I think we have laid down our history as a Reformed
denomination in our websites. I want to clarify that we did not come from
CRC. We "came out" from the Foursquare
Gospel Church (according to God's command), a
Pentecostal-Charismatic-Arminian denomination. It is one of the largest
Pentecostal denominations in the Phils., at least. Reformed literature were
introduced to us at Foursquare Bible
College. We were not aware that one of our basic reference books in Theology
was one written by Louis Berkhof, a Reformed
man and a CRC seminary professor. We were made aware of the historic
Calvinism-Arminianism controversy but regarded it with indifference,
assuming that it was just a matter of emphasis (God's sovereignty and human
responsibility). We took our church history subject seriously, so our
increasing familiarity with Reformed literature had been increasingly
confirmed by history to our estimation. It was also through this that we
began to "feel" that the doctrinal convictions of our Pentecostal
denomination flow contrary to the verdict of church history. Three essential
issues stood out in our controversy with our former denomination' s
theology: (1) Christ-centered preaching (rejected by Foursquare), (2)
Salvation cannot be lost (rejected also by Foursquare) and (3) our criticism
of the Pentecostal view on the Baptism of the Holy
Spirit which was a result of Foursquare's adopting of the G-12 scheme
and its accompanying Encounter Retreat where the devilish Holy Laughter was
introduced. We were reprimanded and ordered to fully subscribe to official
Foursquare doctrine, otherwise, we must resign our posts. We chose the
latter upon the growing conviction that the historic Reformed Gospel of
sovereign grace is the only true Gospel that saves. For a few months we
sought guidance from a so called Reformed (Calvinistic; the likes of
Spurgeon) Baptist church and ministerial academy thinking then that they
genuinely represented the cause of the Reformation. But to our dismay they
adopted Arminian principles like "common grace" and the "universal
well-meant offer of the Gospel." During our study in the academy which I
mentioned, one of our pastors, then a fellow student, who was assigned to
research on the interpretation of the "Two Witnesses" of Revelation happened
to find a good reference book with a sound and reasonable interpretation. He
got curious and searched the author's name in the internet. It was
Herman Hoeksema who was once a minister in
the Christian Reformed Church of America but was deposed (with others) for
not subscribing to CRC's adoption of the Three Points of Common Grace.
Hoeksema eventually became the founder of the
Protestant Reformed Churches in
America
in 1924 all of which came from CRC. Upon studying their doctrinal stand, we
discovered that these Protestant Reformed Churches
truly and faithfully represented the ideals of the 16th Century Reformation.
We adopted their doctrinal Confessions and theology and practices (though
not all) and we founded our denomination patterned after them. We sought
their assistance in providing us with their literature, although we do not
have official ecclesiastical ties with them. We did not nor do we intend to
seek financial assistance from them. The BTRC is entirely an indigenous
Reformed denomination.
Reformed denominations may be the smallest
Christian denominations in the world. But among them, CRC I believe
is one of th largest. The Protestant Reformed Churches numbered about less
than two hundred churches when they left CRC. When controversy concerning
the doctrine of the covenant broke in the 1950s more than half of the PRC
denomination left and returned to CRC. Today there are 86 or 87 PRCs in the
US. Quite small compared with the CRC.
You see, the birth of our little and relatively weak denomination was never
occasioned by any non-essential, non-salvific, or trivial reason like
administrative/leadership conflicts or money scandals but the essential
issue of God's sovereign particular grace.
I hope to hear from you again relating to me the background of your
particular congregation this time. You may ask further questions for I will
be much willing to answer them.
Cordially,
Alex
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Alex,
i know that you are doing your best to explain to me re your faith and i am
so happy to know that you are a studious person. actually my dilemma is so
simple. i was called by God in 1999. it was never my intention to be a
pastor nor to be a christian born-again "alive-alive" if you know what i
mean. but God is so good to have given me a chance to know him. He had been
patient and gracious. anyways, speaking of my dilemma, it comes in a matter
of common sense. the reformed faith started, if i am not mistaken, in 1500.
it was a time of awakening from deep sleep. the scripture was not thoroughly
read. good enough that a german monk did and the wave of revival started
(i'm using plain language here). to my understanding, theology back then is
not that intense. as time passes, it was refined again and again and
defined. for instance, TULIP's definition as i have noticed, are not the
same. each denomination gives their own definition aside from
interpretation. so does the arminians. my guess is, like my professor who
once said, "in every reaction to an action is overreaction." in other words,
calvinism and arminianism was way pass overdue. if you try to search for
other comments in the web, you will see a lot of calvin boys transfering to
arminianism and likewise. there had been switching of camps on both sides.
to some, they have adopted calminian (calvin plus arminius) views already.
the point is, i am not so bothered nor affected by these theological
standpoints. i still believe that God is so sovereign and yet man has a
responsibility. for example, we say that there is a
total depravity. meaning, man in his own self could not do any good
since he is depraved, he is corrupted since birth. this is calvinistic
thinking right? but if you would ask, when did man became depraved? the
answer would be, in time of the "fall" right? but if you would read
carefully the genesis account, you will see that after the alleged fall, men
began to call on the Lord i.e. abel and seth. if man are totally depraved,
there is no possibility that they could understand spiritual things. and
yet, sone of seth are declared sons of God.
now, this bothers me really. speaking of total depravity, i was wondering as
to when did it end or is it still in effect? if the first adam caused a huge
consequence, as in every person on the face of the earth was plagued by sin,
couldn't the Second Adam cure it 2000 years ago? i mean, if adam negatively
affected the human race, could not Jesus positively by his death and
resurrection, affect positively the human race? if we say that mankind is
totally depraved until now, then the logical conclusion would be, is the
first adam superior to the Second? surely we don't believe that do we? i
strongly believe that adam caused us all to be weak nad fall short from the
glory of God. but, by Christ's death and resurrection, heaven now is open
for all. the temple's dividing sheet was tron. meaning, all can come to God
in Christ of course. however, using Jesus' parables regarding the kingdom,
he said ta-ht many are called but few are chosen. in other words, God calls
everybody but not every body would heed that call. calvin would say, they
could not hear because they are not predestined to. of course this would be
another topic.
and so, alex, i think lets just keep this slow and educating. lets start on
what you have to say on total depravity if you believe this to be true. and
if possible, try to limit quotations form other theologians because they too
may err right? lets just be honest with ourselves in dealing with this
dilemmas. after all, you said that you came out from the four square. others
came out from the reformed tradition as well. what if, lets say, you find
another denomination who champions more than where you are now, what then?
L.G.
Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory
of the LORD rises upon you.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ON TOTAL
DEPRAVITY
[Response
in Attached Document]
The
Reformed faith as a “movement” (a mighty work of God, in fact) did begin in
the 1500s. It began with Martin Luther’s protest to the doctrinal and moral
corruption of the Roman Catholic Church (the harlot mother of Arminianism).
It was not Luther’s intention to leave the Roman institution but he was
“kicked out” for insisting on his reforms (which are Biblical). While
Ferdinand Magellan was claiming the Philippines for Spain and for Roman
Catholicism in 1521 by the “sword and the cross,” God was shaking and
convulsing Catholic Europe by the sword of Protestant preaching. It was said
by church historians that Luther tore and smashed down the foundations of
the corrupt Roman church but it was John Calvin who built upon the ruins and
systematized the body of Biblical truth. It was technically to John Calvin
that the term “Reformed” ought to be attributed. Luther was not Reformed but
technically a Protestant, although the Reformed movement was under the
Protestant movement.
The
Protestant and Reformed movements may have begun in the 1500s but their
teachings are as old as the Bible. The Reformed movement in which Calvin
stood as one of its prominent leaders derived its theology basically from
Augustine who lived 1,000 years earlier. Augustine in turn learned his
theology from the apostle Paul who taught in his epistles the doctrines of
Sovereign Particular Grace which is known and systematized today as the so
called TULIP.
The
TULIP is a reaction of faithful Reformed Christians in “defense” of the
simple Gospel of salvation by grace alone through Christ against the denial
of the Arminians. The Arminians rejected God’s grace by their rejecting the
totality of man’s sinfulness. The Reformed fathers defended the Word of God
by affirming the truth of Total Depravity. The Arminians corrupted the
interpretation of sovereign unconditional election taught by the Bible and
interpreted it to be a “conditional” election, that is, God’s choosing for
salvation is dependent upon man’s choice. The Reformed fathers defended
God’s Gospel of grace by affirming that election is totally dependent upon
God’s free choice, not man’s choice (John 15:16). Hence, Unconditional
Election was affirmed. The Arminians rejected God’s grace by teaching that
Christ died for all and has substituted Himself for all to give all a chance
to be saved. But the Reformed fathers defended the Bible’s pure and genuine
teaching that Christ died only for His Elect sheep. Hence, our teaching, the
Limited or more accurately, Particular Atonement. The Arminians rejected the
grace of God by stubbornly insisting that the Holy Spirit’s work of grace to
give spiritual life to a sinner can be resisted by the sinner. The Reformed
fathers defended God’s Word by affirming that the sinner who is in reality
DEAD has no ability either to accept or reject God’s gift of life. It is the
Spirit who invincibly gives life, without consulting the DEAD sinner.
Therefore we have Irresistible Grace. The Arminians insisted on their false
gospel by teaching that salvation can be lost and that the believer may be
born-again and again and again… die again… and be born again and again
(ridiculous) as many times as his so called “free-will” wills. But the
Reformed fathers defended the Gospel of grace by affirming that God gives
life that is ETERNAL. Appealing to common sense, how can life that is
“eternal” (that is unending) be intermittent and salvation (according to the
heretics) lost and regained over and over?
It
is careless to say, that the doctrinal stance of Christians in the past were
mere overreactions to certain doctrines. As you yourself said, it was only
your “guess.” You do not have any objective criteria upon which you must
base your assumption. Calvinism is not an overreaction to Arminianism. It
was Arminianism which wrongly reacted to Calvinism and corrupted the
teachings of the Bible. Calvinism’s TULIP is merely its defense of God’s
simple Gospel of grace. Your observation that certain Calvinists are
recently switching to the Arminian camp and certain Arminians are converted
to the Calvinistic camp proves nothing. What you are doing is to deny that
there is an absolute Biblical truth. You have fallen into the grave error of
“relativism,” which means that nothing is absolute. That’s what they teach
now in almost all seminaries. If there are so-called Calvinists who cross
the Arminian camp, I believe they are not genuine Calvinists. They do not
understand the Gospel and therefore are not saved. They may have been raised
in Calvinistic churches without being taught the historic
Calvinistic/Reformed Confessions. The CRC is among this type of Calvinists
as well as many modern Presbyterians. Arminians, on the other hand, who
cross the Calvinistic camp, may have different reasons for taking such a
step. One [wrong] reason is that Calvinism has become a fad and there has
been a mistaken impression that there is a revival of Calvinism. But
Calvinism is generally a “hated” doctrine! It is not easy to revive it,
humanly speaking. Others embrace Calvinism because find certain Calvinists
attractive and admirable for their skillful argumentation or impressive
credentials. But such are not true converts to Calvinism for they do not
understand it as the Gospel. But there are certainly Arminians whose minds
and hearts have been opened by God, whose spirits were quickened, and to
whom supernatural faith is given to believe the only and true Gospel, and
they repent of their Arminianism, realizing that it will damn them to
eternity. They have wholeheartedly subscribed to the Biblical tenets of
historic Calvinism. Those so called “Calminians” (if there are such… this
really makes me laugh!) are miserable fools. There is no such thing as a
combined Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism and Arminianism are two
diametrically opposite teachings. Either you subscribe wholly to one or deny
it entirely and subscribe to the opposite ideology. There is no such person
as a 4-point or 3½-point Calvinist. He is still a heretic Arminian if he
does not wholly subscribe to the 5-Point Doctrines of Grace.
It
is a sure danger signal when you are not at all affected by the controversy
of these two opposing views since you have lost your sense of discernment on
false doctrine, considering the fact that you are a preacher. Truly, God
sends a strong delusion to those who refuse to love the truth so that they
will believe the Lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). I pity your congregation.
Remember that we as teachers have so much accounting to give before our
Judge on the Final Judgment.
I
heartily agree (for the Bible does teach) that there is no contradiction
between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Calvinism certainly
believes both. But Arminianism denies God in denying His sovereignty by
unduly emphasizing man’s responsibility. As to your dilemma on how man could
be totally depraved and “when” it ended or is it still in effect, it could
have spared you the undue confusion if you have listened to our fathers from
the very beginning instead of judging them based on “hearsay” reports by
your seminary professors. Total Depravity, by the mere use of the word
“Total” denotes that the sinfulness and corruption resulting from the fall
of Adam covered the “totality” of the human race (from Adam up to the last
person to be born) and the “totality” of the individual person. When Adam
sinned, he died. He died spiritually for the communion between him and His
God was severed. He died physically and immediately and the process of death
began its work in his aging and physical weakness. Therefore all men and
women, the elderly and even the fetus and infants—all of us, who came from
him, inherited his guilt and corruption. All of us became “totally
depraved”. Each of us individually is crooked, sinful, depraved, through and
through rotten to the core. Our hearts from which spring issues of our lives
are corrupt. Our intellects were corrupted. Instead of holy knowledge, we
had intellectual blindness and foolishness. Our wills, too, were corrupted.
We were inclined to choose that which tend to our self-centered desires.
Even in the sphere of religion, we mold gods, idols, of our own making and
baptize them “Jesus”, “Father”, “Holy Spirit”, believe what we want to
believe about them. In our self-centeredness we tend to emphasize by the
words of the Psalm “The Lord is my SHEPHERD” instead of “The LORD is my
shepherd”. We are much more delighted and inclined to thus express our
faith, “God is GOOD” (because we benefit) instead of reverentially and
submissively confessing, “God is GOD!” Not only that. Our emotions were also
corrupt. Our emotions more often call the shots instead of our intellects.
Much of emotionalist religion nowadays hates doctrine and intellectual
exertion. “I want a religion that makes me feel good about my self”, most
would say. Doctrine is a “turn-off.” But above all that, Adam and all those
who came from him lost the image and likeness of God, that is
righteousness, holiness and knowledge
(Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10) and was exchanged with the very image
of the Devil (John 8:44).
Now, your dilemma on the Scriptures you mentioned has no basis at all. It is
true that when Adam fell into sin he became totally depraved. What bothers
you is that how could a part of his generations, particularly those in the
line of Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, etc. be able to believe, worship and serve
Jehovah? The answer dear correspondent is the “Gospel” about which you are
still ignorant and confused. The first Gospel was announced to our first
parents in Eden in Genesis 3:15:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.”
When Adam fell, the entire human race fell with him and became enemies of
God and allies with Satan. But in His eternal counsel and sovereign
particular grace He would not allow this to continue. He divided fallen
humanity into two camps: the seed of the woman (the Elect) and the seed of
the serpent/Devil (the Reprobate). And our verse tells us that God Himself
intervened and put perpetual enmity between the two seeds. Time passed and
Adam and Eve bore children. Among their children, Abel and the line of his
generations manifested to be the “seed of the woman” and Cain’s line
manifested themselves to be the “seed of the Devil.” What happened is Cain
and his generations remained in their sins and lived worldly and carnal
lives. They invented musical instruments and excelled much in the arts,
among them were the “geniuses,” the wealthy, the best engineers and
businessmen and builders of cities—they are of the world and of their
father, the Devil. But unto Abel and Seth’s line of continued generations
did God give the gift of “regeneration” (being spiritually made alive) so
that the image of God in them which was lost in the fall was renewed, and
therefore they became spiritually-minded. It is not due to their inherent
goodness (for they were once dead too) but by virtue of their being chosen
(elected) as the “seed of the woman” that they were given the privilege to
worship God. While the strong line of Cain was building cities, Abel and
Seth’s weak and unpopular generations “began
to call upon the Name of the Lord.”
Through them God established the worship of Jehovah on the face of the
earth. However, though already regenerated, depravity remained in them until
they breathed their last. Nevertheless God planted the incorruptible seed of
eternal life in their hearts so that they longed for God’s righteousness and
their depravity was suppressed and restrained (though not extinguished).
Besides struggling against the enemies outside (the world and Satan) they
also struggled against the enemy inside them, their old sinful nature. There
was a fierce battle between their old self and their new self. And it is the
same with all true believers throughout the ages.
One
of your dilemmas is this: The first Adam caused quite a devastating ruin to
all men, but did not the Last Adam (Christ) reverse all these including
total depravity so that everyone has a chance now to enter heaven? If this
is not the case (you complain) Adam is greater than Christ in that Adam
inflicted more consequence upon the human race than Christ did!” I will
return to this issue later. But based on how I deduce from your argument,
you are not in a dilemma at all concerning “when” total depravity actually
ended. You do know “when” it ended and you are wrong! You thought it ended
at Christ’s cross. That is HERETICAL teaching! Repent of such heresy! It is
the first time I heard of such teaching! Is that the official doctrine of
Bread From Heaven? Does Rev. Nomer Bernardino and CRC Philippines subscribe
to such teaching? This needs to be confirmed. But the New Testament
Scriptures teach us that even beyond the event of the death and resurrection
of Christ, Total Depravity remains as it was from the beginning.
“And you hath he quickened, who were DEAD
[not
merely sick] in trespasses and sins;
wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh
in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation
in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the
flesh and of the mind [obviously NOT in
times past before Christ died and resurrected];
and were by nature the children of
wrath, even as others” (Ephesians 2:1-3)
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject
to the law of God, neither
indeed can be (Romans
8:7).
In
this verse, Total Depravity (that is inability to obey God’s will) is a
reality when the mind was yet carnal and not merely before Christ died and
resurrected.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Here, it is glaring truth that the inability to receive spiritual things
(that is Total Depravity) is a reality during a period when a person is
still a “natural” (unregenerate) man. This is not a reality prior to the
time Christ died and resurrected.
No,
Pastor L.G.,
Christ never, by His death and resurrection, reversed the total depravity of
the human race caused by Adam’s sin. There are many things amiss in your
assumption. Among them, first, this is not fair (If I will go
along with your argument) with Old Testament people who were not saved
because they were outside of Israel and were not given a single chance to be
saved. Second, there is no single Biblical proof to support
your idea that Total Depravity ended in the event of the death and
resurrection of Christ. Third, the Bible teaches that Total
Depravity is suppressed and counteracted at the moment of “regeneration” and
totally ends—not in the death and resurrection of Christ—but in the
resurrection of the believer (John 3:6, 7; Ephesians 2:1-5; 1 Corinthians
15:42-49). The Scriptural truth is, the death and resurrection of Christ
secured the “legal” basis (since God is just) for God to freely bestow the
privilege of the “new birth” to those whom He eternally chose (the seed of
the woman). All sinners, on their own, do not deserve any of God’s
privileges. But God counted His Elect perfectly righteous in Christ so that
now they have the right to all of God’s blessings in salvation. The Elect
are “in Christ”. They are not anymore “in Adam”. Fourth, your
conclusion that God, through Christ, merely gave all men (inferring from
your conclusion, New Testament people only) the “chance” to be saved has no
support whatsoever in the Bible. You have misinterpreted the passage where
Christ said, “Many are called but few are chosen”. Christ was not referring
to internal, effectual call whereby the sinner is irresistibly drawn to
Christ (consult John 6:44) but to an external call. This external call is
the preaching of the Gospel to all. Christ only meant that many would hear
the preaching of the Gospel and commanded to believe and repent, but a few
will be given a “new heart” to believe because only few were chosen. I would
not quote Calvin at all. I would quote Christ to prove this:
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,
as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me” (John 10:26, 27).
Notice that these verses teach that the Pharisees do not believe because
they were not Christ’s sheep in the first place, not this that they were
given a chance to be saved but do not believe and therefore were not His
sheep. Luke also reported in Acts 13:48:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the
word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
Notice here that many believed because they were ordained to eternal life,
not this, that they were ordained to eternal life because they believed.
This only proves that your heretical “chance for all” theology does not
weigh in the balance of God’s Word.
Now
you might still have a hard time reconciling God’s sovereignty and man’s
responsibility. Total Depravity implies also Total Inability (Romans 8:7).
You would argue exactly as a Pelagian and an Arminian upholding that
“responsibility implies ability”. “How could God require from us [you ask]
when we do not have the ability to fulfill it? Since man is responsible,
therefore it implies that he is not totally unable; the conclusion therefore
is that he is NOT Totally Depraved.” I respond by reminding you that the
gift of freedom and ability bestowed by God to Adam in his creation, he
(Adam) willfully wasted and lost. Does that mean that he is not anymore
responsible? Let me use this illustration. If I have a debt, say the
mortgage on a house, and I have a good job, but I squander all my income and
I squander my gifts and neglect to do my work, so that I lose my job, do I
have the right to accuse the bank with injustice when they insist that I
continue to pay my debt, even when I cannot possibly do so? Of course not. I
cannot get out of that debt. The same holds true with respect to the debt we
have toward God's law. We owe God perfect obedience. That is an inescapable
debt. Though we are Totally Depraved and posses Total Inability, we are
still responsible before God since we ourselves have squandered our gifts in
Adam. Though we are totally unable we are still responsible.
Now, if I may return to the issue that Adam seems to be superior than the
Second (or Last) Adam in inflicting the entire human race with greater
consequences by his sinful act than Christ’s benefits, that is obviously not
the case even though the Bible teaches that heaven is exclusive for God’s
Elect. The key word here is “GRACE”. Christ is greater than Adam because of
grace. The basic argument of Romans 5:12-21 where you derived this
comparison is that the punishment and death caused by the one sin of Adam
was “deserved”. If the whole human race fell in a state of Total Depravity,
it is justly what is due to the fallen human race. God is obliged to execute
His justice. But the one act of the Last Adam (Christ) in bestowing
righteousness and life is totally “undeserved.” It was out of God’s
“undeserved” kindness, goodness and grace. He is not obliged to save but He
freely chose to do so with His Elect. Here the Word of God speaks in terms
of “quality” and not “quantity” as you suppose. Heaven is not open for all
for nobody deserves it. Some make it to heaven, not because they grabbed the
chance, but because God predestined them. I do not base my statement on
quotations by Calvin but on Romans 8:29-30.
One
more thing, regarding your understanding of the curtain of the Jewish Temple
being torn upon Jesus death, the Bible does not teach anywhere that it meant
that heaven is now open for all. I ask you this, why did NOT God open heaven
for all the generations before the event of the ripping of the Temple
curtain? Is God therefore unfair? The true meaning is that it signified that
Christ by His death made it possible for “believers” to go directly into
God’s presence. There is no more need for the mediation of Old Testament
priests, animal sacrifices, Temple services and all types and shadows in the
OT. Implied in the ripping of the curtain was the revealing of the vanity
and bankruptcy of the Jewish religion then. When the curtain was torn, the
Holy of Holies was exposed and what do you find there? Fine interior design
symbolic of the external beauty and extravagance of false, hypocritical and
powerless religion but the most important item was gone—the Ark of the
Covenant. Herod built a beautiful temple but the presence of Jehovah was not
there. Christ exposed it all!
As
you requested, I have not quoted a single Theologian to prove my position
though I have mentioned a couple to relate historical fact. I have been
honest with myself and with God. And what if (you asked) I find another
denomination that champions more than what I now stand for? This is a sort
of a begging of the question. The reason many came out of the historic
Reformed tradition is because they have apostatized like the Arminians. Many
separate from established Reformed churches because those “Reformed”
churches apostatized. I left the Foursquare church because like CRC it is an
apostate church. I’m not a denomination or a Calvin fanatic. It boils down
to as simple as this: What is the true Gospel? And in God’s grace I heard
this Good News! It so happened that the historic Reformed Faith (not the
same as CRC’s Reformed faith) proclaims and defends this true Gospel which
alone can save. Because of this Gospel, I have committed myself to the true
Reformed Faith.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Alex,
Again I was overwhelmed by your answers though it took you so long to reply.
Maybe you really did study well. However, we really could not engage in
knowing the truth simply because you keep answering small questions with big
ones. I mean, it will not get us anywhere if you will keep on including
theological biases.
Let me rephrase my question: What is Total
Depravity to you?
If you can answer that plainly and without much jumping between verses (as
in text proofing) coupled with biases, then it would be good. Your answers
however must be limited to one verse only. No more quotations from other
theologians. Just pure verses. then after that, we can discuss slowly.
Just give me your definition of Total Depravity then we Will start from
there. agree?
L.G.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Pastor
L.G.,
If you are overwhelmed and "annoyed" with my being very lengthy, I take it
that you are too indolent to think, considering that we are laboring at
something that is not trivial but very important--the TRUTH, the GOSPEL.
Pardon me if my reply was delayed. Please understand that I do not have my
own internet connection. I usually do my website updates and email
correspondences during weekends. If I am able to send you email sometimes,
it is through my cell phone via GPRS. It doesn't work however if I send
attachments. It is a shame that I haven't done diligent study lately
considering that God's Word says, "Study to
shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim.
2:15). What I have communicated to you is stored knowledge--basic Bible
knowledge. Knowledge every true "Reformed" pastor should possess.
Here's my "simple" definition of "Total Depravity":
Man is DEAD. Dead that he cannot even get up and take medicine so that he
would be alive. This is the single verse that I would give:
Ephesians 2:1, "As for you, you were DEAD in
your transgressions and sins... (NIV)"
But you haven't given your clear definition of Total Depravity yourself if
you believe it at all. As I understand from your previous statements your
belief is heretical, fatal error.
So, til then Pastor
L.G....
Alex
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Alex,
The first time I wrote to
you, if I’m not mistaken, I addressed you as “beloved.” Implied to that is
the fact that I wish neither harm nor insult. It was you who have changed
your tone in the latter letters.
The reason why I don’t
like lengthy explanation was that it was quoted from other theologians. I
understand that we are all “taught of God” if we are truly born-again
Christians. In this light, it is my belief that you can defend or correct me
for that matter if you yourself will use only the scriptures and not
somebody else’s interpretation.
Now, going to
Total Depravity, your verse was rather not
appropriate to back up your meaning of Total Depravity,
“Man is DEAD. Dead that
he cannot even get up and take medicine so that he would be alive.”
This meaning is
Calvinistic in nature and attached to it are series of verses that will text
proof the claim should you continue.
Anyways, Ephesians 2:1
does not talk about Total Depravity. It simply tells us that people are dead
because of following the ways of the world v2. People are dead because they
are disobedient v2. People are dead because of gratifying the desires of the
flesh or the sinful nature v3. Because of this, people are objects of God’s
wrath v3. Since people are doomed for destruction, God made a way. That
“way” is called “love” v4. That “way” is Jesus Christ. Eph 1:13 And you also
were included in Christ when you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked
in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…
(NIV)
Eph 1:13 clearly states
that the reason why the recipients of Paul’s letter were “included in
Christ” was that they heard the word of truth
and believed.
It seems that Total
Depravity is not in Ephesians 2:1. What I do propose however is, “God’s
sovereignty and man’s responsibility.” Is this found in the book of
Ephesians? Yes! Paul stated in Ephesians 1:11 that God predestined the
recipients, therefore, God’s sovereignty. Then in Eph 4:17 So I tell you
this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the
Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. (NIV) Therefore, man’s
responsibility. This is how I view the scripture. It is clear and simple.
Hopefully you could come
up a verse that is strong enough to point Total Depravity. Anyways, I do
believe that mankind is depraved. But to say “Total”, where can I read that?
And if man is “Totally Depraved”, until when?
Hope to hear again from
you soon my friend,
L.G.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pastor L.G.,
I tell you
this, that from the beginning I did not intend to speak peace with you due
to your first letter’s critical tone against the genuine Reformed Faith. I
consider you an enemy of Grace and Truth. It is not our custom at the
Bastion of Truth to address as “brother’ or “friend” anyone believing a
false gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). You may notice that I never addressed you as
brother, friend or beloved in my letters, only Pastor and “correspondent.”
Perhaps I was wrong in even saluting you with a “Dear…”
I don’t
remember quoting any theologian in my last letter. I mentioned Reformed men
of the past just to clarify historical facts of which you are really
ignorant. I quoted Reformed theologians in my earlier letters because I
assumed that we have common ground thinking that we come from the same
denominational tradition. But I was wrong. You are not Reformed at all. I
was lengthy with my explanations because I do want to clarify my arguments
and I assumed that you, being a seminary graduate and an ordained minister,
possessed the spiritual and intellectual discipline to examine arguments in
the light of God’s Word. But I realized that you are too indolent to take up
such discipline.
You’re
interpretation of the Ephesian passages is worse than the heresy of
Arminianism. You are deliberately “twisting” and therefore “corrupting”
God’s inspired Word to suit your own man-centered bias. You have substituted
the preposition “in” or “through” (in other versions) with your preposition
“because”. The inspired Word says, “And you who were dead “IN” trespasses
and sins.” But what you are doing is making the Word of God say, “And you
who were dead BECAUSE of trespasses and sins.” The inspired Word says, “you
who were dead …Wherein (or
literally, “IN which”) ye walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh
in the children of disobedience” (2:2). But you are corrupting God’s Word by
saying, “people are dead BECAUSE of following the ways of the world; dead
BECAUSE they are disobedient; dead BECAUSE of gratifying the desires of the
flesh.”
And you
still insist in your perverting the Scriptures by presenting the Arminian
view expressed in your words, “Since people are doomed for destruction, God
made a way. That ‘way’ is called ‘love’ v4.” There is nothing in the verse
that says that. Verse 4 says that the reason why God saves is, “God…” being
“…rich in MERCY” and Whose LOVE is great toward His Church (Paul says
“US”—the Ephesian Christians who are eternally chosen [Eph. 1:4], not all
men without exception), and not because people are doomed to destruction, as
you suppose. And Paul accurately and deliberately pictured Total Depravity
by describing it as “death” to exalt and magnify God’s grace in quickening
(making alive) His people (Eph. 2:5). But you, in opposition to Paul, are
undermining that grace.
I beg to
disagree that Ephesians 2:1 is a weak proof in favor of Total Depravity.
There is not anywhere a more explicit proof of depravity than this, and no
stronger language can be used—DEAD! DEAD “in” the sphere of—not “because
of”—trespasses and sins; DEAD “in” the sphere of—not “because of”—following
the ways of the world and disobedience. Again, you persist in wickedly
twisting the Scriptures by assuming that “the REASON why the recipients of
Paul’s letter were ‘included in Christ’ was that—or BECAUSE (since you said
“reason” earlier”)—they heard the word of truth
and believed,” when in fact Eph. 1:13 merely states a point of “fact”: that
the Ephesians were included in Christ “WHEN” (NIV), or “after” (KJV) they
believed the Word of Truth, and NOT “because” they believed the Word of
Truth. The Ephesian Christians’ being included in Christ was shown or
manifested (not conditioned) in their believing the Word of Truth. I hope
that is clear.
I never
denied both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility—as you have read in
my previous letters (that is, if you possess the virtue of diligence).
Having said so, I reiterate that there is no contradiction between man’s
Total Depravity [Deadness] and his moral responsibility.
When did
Total Depravity begin (though you have not asked) and when will it end? As
far as all men are concerened Total Depravity (deadness) began when God
realized His threat, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die!” (Gen 2:17). It
shall end as far as the redeemed are concerned, “when this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, DEATH is swallowed
up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:54). But Total Depravity shall certainly never end
with the impenitent and haters of the Truth.
In His
Service,
Alex
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Alex,
Grace and peace be unto
you!
I thought that I could
really learn from you but to the looks of it, we are not getting anywhere.
You keep on calling me “indolent” but I keep on calling you “dear.” Anyways,
if it’s what you want then by all means go ahead. However, if you only asked
me as to what passage is really strong to represent “Total Depravity” then I
could have happily given you.
You said, “I beg to
disagree that Ephesians 2:1 is a weak proof in favor of Total Depravity.
There is not anywhere a more explicit proof of depravity than this, and
no stronger language can be used.” My Dear Alex, there is a better passage.
It looks like you are so
righteous and I am not. It looks like you are in the truth but I am not.
Good for you. However, it has always been my journey to understand what
grace is all about. “Truth” is much easier once you are born-again but grace
probably takes time to master.
You say that I am
“wickedly twisting the Scripture” and I think that is a harsh assumption my
friend. I’m only applying Acts 17:11 in our conversation.
You say that I am an
“Arminian” but can you prove that from the Scripture?
You love lengthy letters
but it’s really getting nowhere simply because you love
expounding/explaining the difference between “BECAUSE” and “IN.” Didn’t Adam
sin against God BECAUSE he ate the forbidden fruit? Let me rephrase, “When
Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he’s IN sin. Isn’t he?” To me it’s the same.
If you would read different renditions of the bible you will see that those
who wrote it are using different words to explain best to the satisfaction
of the readers. Or should I say, so that the readers may understand better.
Speaking of renditions,
didn’t you know that KJV has 5000 “corrupted words?” ask the Philippine
bibles Society.
You say that my first
letter was on a “critical tone.” Well, review it well. It was an honest
question, in fact, you advice me to get out from CRC right? I assume that
you are trying to help me. But when things are not doing well for us, you
now attack me deliberately. If you are in the spirit of Christ, it wouldn’t
be an offense to call someone a friend for even Jesus called Judas,
“friend.”
You said, “I assumed that
we have common ground thinking that we come from the same denominational
tradition.” Well, I did not come from “denominational tradition.” I was
called by God for salvation and service. I serve, not because of “gratitude”
like what others are imposing. (by "others" I mean - the traditional way of
explaining why reformed people serve God) I simply serve because it is
already innate. I can’t explain much in plain language of what is happening
to me nor can I explain the works of the Holy Spirit to each one of us. But
I do know that according to his divine pleasure and purpose, wonderful
things do happen.
Since you view me as an
“enemy,” then what is the use of communicating? Since I started the
conversation, let me now end this…
SHALOM!
P.S. Since you love
Pauline letters, for that I salute you. However, if you really want to
understand about Total Depravity in the light of Jesus’ words, study Matthew
22 as He tells us about the kingdom of God. As you read and reread, try
asking,
1. “Is it God’s will to
call all people or few?
3. [sic] Did God send
servants to call those whom they have contact with?
4. Many are called but
few were chosen. Why?
5. Do you think the
reason why the person was thrown out simply because God did not elect him
before the foundation of the world? Or is it the man’s fault?
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pastor
L.G.,
This is my last letter since you have declared to end this so-called
“dialogue.” I have written my responses below each of your statements.
<Dear Alex,
Grace and peace be unto
you!
I thought that I could
really learn from you but to the looks of it, we are not getting anywhere.
You keep on calling me “indolent” but I keep on calling you “dear.” Anyways,
if it’s what you want then by all means go ahead. However, if you only asked
me as to what passage is really strong to represent “Total Depravity” then I
could have happily given you.
You said, “I beg to
disagree that Ephesians 2:1 is a weak proof in favor of Total Depravity.
There is not anywhere a more explicit proof of depravity than this, and
no stronger language can be used.” My Dear Alex, there is a better passage.>
You can never learn from me since it appears that you are still
unregenerate. An unregenerate person cannot even “see” the Kingdom of God
(John 3:3), much less, enter it. An unregenerate person cannot understand
spiritual things: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). I did call you “indolent” and it was not without basis
lest I be judgmental. You resent my arguments which only appeared lengthy
because I quoted Scripture frequently. It seems that you also hate reading
quoted Scripture. You do not refute them directly, instead you evade them.
If you are a genuinely “born-again” person you would love the Lord not only
with all your heart but with all your “mind” as well by denying yourself,
take off from your comfort zone and exert mental effort. Ephesians 2:1 is
still the best passage that represents the Biblical doctrine of Total
Depravity and one of my strong proofs is that you are not able to show that
“better passage” you are so proudly referring to. You just reveal your
arrogance in refusing to show that passage, if there is such at all.
<It looks like you are so
righteous and I am not. It looks like you are in the truth but I am not.
Good for you. However, it has always been my journey to understand what
grace is all about. “Truth” is much easier once you are born-again but grace
probably takes time to master.
You say that I am
“wickedly twisting the Scripture” and I think that is a harsh assumption my
friend. I’m only applying Acts 17:11 in our conversation.>
Me being righteous is not for me, or for you or for anyone else to
judge. That is up to the Lord, the Righteous Judge, Who is greater than even
my own conscience (1 Cor. 4:3, 4). However, I would insist that I am in the
truth and you are in grave and fatal error. It shows in your erroneous
concept of Grace and Truth. Grace is a truth. And if you say that “‘Truth’
is much easier once you are born-again,” then I see no reason why “Grace”
cannot be easier too once you are born-again, since Grace is also a truth.
You said, “grace probably takes time to master.” I am not sure what you
exactly mean by this. But if by that you mean that an Arminian is someone
who can be saved in spite of his still inferior knowledge of grace, that is
salvation is partially of God and partially of man, and then afterwards
matures as a Calvinist who possesses a “superior” understanding of grace,
that is salvation is “all-of-God and none-of-man,” you are fatally mistaken.
There is only one principle of grace: “all-of-God and none-of-man.” A
believer may take a journey in understanding the fuller implications of
grace in his life but he consistently understands that one principle of
grace. The evidence of grace in a person is his possessing the knowledge of
faith that believes that he is saved by pure grace. Therefore, a person who
claims to be regenerate yet denies grace as the Bible understands it is not
saved. For this reason, the Arminian is not saved although he speaks of
“grace.” I deliberately mentioned that you are “wickedly corrupting the
Scriptures” because the injustice you are doing against God’s holy Word was
quite too obvious. And you are lying in saying that you are applying Acts
17:11 while you are substituting the “Spirit-inspired” Greek preposition
“in” (en) with your subtle and unwarranted “because” (hoti or
gar). You have wrongly interpreted several Scripture passages you
quoted in your previous letters. Is that the appropriate way to examine the
Scriptures as the noble Bereans did?
<You say that I am an
“Arminian” but can you prove that from the Scripture?
You love lengthy letters
but it’s really getting nowhere simply because you love
expounding/explaining the difference between “BECAUSE” and “IN.” Didn’t Adam
sin against God BECAUSE he ate the forbidden fruit? Let me rephrase, “When
Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he’s IN sin. Isn’t he?” To me it’s the same.
If you would read different renditions of the bible you will see that those
who wrote it are using different words to explain best to the satisfaction
of the readers. Or should I say, so that the readers may understand better.
Speaking of renditions,
didn’t you know that KJV has 5000 “corrupted words?” ask the Philippine
bibles Society.>
You ARE
certainly an Arminian and therefore a heretic. Since you have too little
patience with my enumerating Scripture passages, I will just give you one
verse to prove that, and that is, “And she shall bring forth a son, and
thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save
his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The Biblical and
Reformed teaching is that Christ shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins. But
the Arminian teaches that God opens the way to save all men and therefore
offers salvation to all men without exception. This is your teaching and
this is Arminianism condemned by Scripture. Your false “Christ” saves out of
obligation (to save all), but my Christ saves out of mercy (Romans 9:16).
My lengthy
letters doesn’t get anywhere because you don’t counter-argue with my
Scriptural proofs. You are too evasive. Again, you persist in your twisting
the inspired Word of God and this time by doing a play on words where you
are sowing much more confusion to your own ruin. Adam sinned “IN” eating the
forbidden truth. Eating the forbidden fruit itself is sin and not the
“cause” of sin. The act itself is sin.
The problem with modern Bible translations is that their primary
orientation is towards readability (man-centered) rather than faithfulness
to the original languages (God-centered). Aren’t the PBS guys Arminians too,
like you? From which seminary did they acquire their Biblical language
skills? From Asian Theological Seminary? where they cater to all
denominations and turn out to be a market of various and even contradicting
thoughts? where absolute truth is mocked and relativism shapes the
hermeneutic of church leaders and seminary teachers? where it is considered
a mark of high stature to question the integrity and inspiration of the
Bible through the spectacles of liberal/modernistic theology and higher
criticism? If there exists even a drop of the virtue of diligence in you and
you are able to mortify your sin of indolence, I suggest that you open, read
and study this link:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_10.html or download the other
document attached in this email since you have again manifested your
apostasy in rejecting the good old reliable KJV. You are accusing the
original translators of the KJV for “corrupting” the Bible. Didn’t you
consider that many of the original manuscript sources used by the NIV are
themselves corrupt? You are accusing the KJV translation as corrupt.
Assuming that that is true, it is only the translation that is corrupted (I
would prefer “weak”). Faithful and diligent scholars and pastors can always
consult the original. But the NIV’s “original sources” (not the translation
this time) are themselves corrupt! So what do you expect of the translation?
Besides, the translators of the NIV are mostly Arminians (Read the
denominations listed in the Preface, your own apostate denomination is
included). Further, the NIV doesn’t aim towards accuracy but towards
ecumenicity—a wicked alliance of apostate churches culminating in the one
world church of Antichrist.
<You say that my first
letter was on a “critical tone.” Well, review it well. It was an honest
question, in fact, you advice me to get out from CRC right? I assume that
you are trying to help me. But when things are not doing well for us, you
now attack me deliberately. If you are in the spirit of Christ, it wouldn’t
be an offense to call someone a friend for even Jesus called Judas,
“friend.”>
Yes, your
first letter was critical of the Reformed faith. You wouldn’t ask such a
subtle question if you are truly Reformed. Whether it was out of personal
concern for you or not, I admonished you to come out of the apostate CRC
because it is your solemn “duty” to be separate from the false church.
Concerning Jesus’ addressing Judas a “friend”, in the Greek there are two
words which translators have rendered “friend” - one implying “affection and
regard,” the other not. One is properly rendered “friend” (philos);
the other expresses more nearly what we mean by “companion” (hetairos).
Jesus used the latter word: “companion” (See also, Mat. 20:13; Mat.
22:12) and not “friend.” Jesus died only for His friends. He did not die for
Judas because he was never Jesus’ “friend” in the proper sense of the word.
<You said, “I assumed
that we have common ground thinking that we come from the same
denominational tradition.” Well, I did not come from “denominational
tradition.” I was called by God for salvation and service. I serve, not
because of “gratitude” like what others are imposing. (by "others" I mean -
the traditional way of explaining why reformed people serve God) I simply
serve because it is already innate. I can’t explain much in plain language
of what is happening to me nor can I explain the works of the Holy Spirit to
each one of us. But I do know that according to his divine pleasure and
purpose, wonderful things do happen.>
See? By saying you did not come from “denominational tradition” it
suggests that you are only paying lip service to the Reformed Confessions,
attaching the term “Reformed” to your denomination’s name and that in merely
blushing “parentheses,” for financial security, perhaps, and institutional
identity? Your motive in serving your lord sounds pious but very subtle and
proud. No one has an “innate” tendency to serve God. Our innate tendency is
to overthrow God from His throne and break the yoke of His Christ upon us
(Psalm 2). Paul’s motive in preaching was out of compulsion (1 Cor. 9:16)
but it is also a compulsion of Christ’s love (2 Cor. 5:14) and not out of
some miserable “innate” thing. You are really an Arminian even in your
concept of “calling.”
<Since you view me as an
“enemy,” then what is the use of communicating? Since I started the
conversation, let me now end this…
SHALOM!
P.S. Since you love
Pauline letters, for that I salute you. However, if you really want to
understand about Total Depravity in the light of Jesus’ words, study Matthew
22 as He tells us about the kingdom of God. As you read and reread, try
asking,
1. “Is it God’s will to
call all people or few?>
Answer: Your passage obviously says “MANY are called.” It doesn’t say “ALL
are called” or “FEW are called.”
<3. [sic] Did God send
servants to call those whom they have contact with?>
I think that’s obvious unless I misunderstood your question.
<4. Many are called but
few were chosen. Why?>
Answer: I believe your question is founded on an expected but “wrong”
answer. The true answer lies on the true meaning of the word “call.” First,
it is not an invitation to salvation. There was an invitation as far as the
parable is concerned. But there is no such thing as an invitation to
salvation in the Bible. Many are called, that is, (1) many are made to hear
the “external” preaching of the Gospel; (2) many are confronted with the
command to believe and repent; (3) many are made to hear the command to love
the Lord with all their being. But many also reject that call because (1)
there are those who simply flatly refuse; (2) they mock the things of the
kingdom; (3) hatred is aroused upon those who hear the call, persecute and
murder the bearers of the Gospel. These wicked multitudes are “called,” that
is merely called with an “external” call. But notice in
22:10
that those chosen were “gathered.” Jesus did not use the word “call” this
time. That implies the efficacious, victorious work of the Spirit to
regenerate them through an “internal call.” Don’t be offended if I refer
this to “Irresistible Grace,” the fourth point of Calvinism.
Why? The
answer, Sir, is undoubtedly Election. Again I know that you will resent my
answer because I am imposing my Calvinism. But remember that it was the King
in the parable who provided wedding robes (of Christ’s righteousness) and
gave them to those whom he ordered to be “gathered.” One man superficially
and falsely responded to the call but came to the banquet with his own
clothes. That is his own clothes of self-righteousness, instead of the
righteousness provided by the King. Because of this the King became angry.
Interpreting Scripture with Scripture I must refer you to Romans
8:30:
“…whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom
he called, them he also justified (clothed with the robe
righteousness).”
<5. Do you think the
reason why the person was thrown out simply because God did not elect him
before the foundation of the world? Or is it the man’s fault?>
Answer:
Both are true. I have been telling you over and over that there is no
contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Again,
comparing Scripture with Scripture, (which you hate obviously, that is why
you are trapping me by confining me within this particular passage), I refer
you to Acts 2:23: “Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked
hands have crucified and slain” and Acts 4:27, 28: “For of a
truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and
Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered
together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before
to be done.” In these two verses, God’s Word tells us that wicked
men were “responsible” for the murder of Jesus but that they have done what
God had sovereignly “determined beforehand.” You may consult your cherished
NIV or other spurious versions if you distrust the good old reliable KJV—the
Bible of the martyrs and the faithful.
In case you
accuse me of imposing Pauline theology into Christ’s blessed Words, I
respond with an accusation that you are engaging Christ and His servant Paul
in a cock fight. Perhaps you will contend that Christ never taught
Predestination. But in Matthew 25:34 Christ said in another parable,
“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.”
Frankly, I am
relieved that you have finally decided to end this correspondence/dialogue.
Honestly, Pastor
L.G.,
I have too little patience with ministers/pastors who insist with their
false gospel. I believe they are to be rebuked sharply (Gal. 1:6-9).
However, patience and pity ought to be shown to their deceived but searching
members. I was able to keep up with this correspondence for only one reason:
“Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ,
and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we
are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them
that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the
other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity,
but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2 Corinthians 2:14-17).
And if it shows that you haven’t learned anything from me I would respond
with, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost” (2
Corinthians 4:3).
Farewell,
Alex M. Aquino
Bastion of Truth Reformed Churches
in the Philippines
“Standing fast in one spirit, with one mind
striving together for the faith of the Gospel which was once delivered unto
the saints” (Phil.
1:27;
Jude 3)
Return to
Article Listing
HOME |