What About Those Who Never Hear?

While it is true that God makes Himself known through general revelation, it is not true that apart from saving faith through Christ that there is any possibility whatsoever of actual salvation. The Bible makes important points on this issue by such verses as Psalm 19:1-6, 98:2-3 (possibly Messianic), and Isaiah 40:5 (Messianic), which demonstrate God’s revelation of Himself to man. An important point to note in the particular case of unevangelized people groups is made in other verses of Scripture such as Isaiah 65:1 and Romans 9:22-33, stressing the importance of God continually working to save the lost in spite of man. While this is true, the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New, Who says, “…‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’(John 14:6)” Looking at all of Scripture, God does make Himself known by means of general revelation; however, God also makes His Son known through special revelation. While history (Biblical) gives evidence of salvation apart from reading/hearing a particular account from the New Testament, it does not give evidence of salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Whether this fact is demonstrated by recognition of the Angel of the Lord (Jesus Christ) as God (Genesis 16:7-14, Judges 6:22, Zechariah 12:8, etc.), looking forward to the promises of God in Messiah (Isaiah 53, Mark 12:35-37, John 4:25, etc.), or recognizing the divinity of Christ in the New Testament (Titus 2:11-14, John 8:58, Matthew 26:64, Mark 2:5, Revelation 1:17-18, 2 Peter 1:1-3, Colossians 2:8-10, Romans 9:5, Hebrew 1:9, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, John 2:27-28, etc.), all come to saving faith in Christ alone.

Internet Apologetics

This is an update and completion of a blog post originally dated April 13th. I will assume the argument to be complete as there has been no response to my final comments for over two weeks:

For any who are interested in seeing how internet apologetics occasionally occurs, take a look at an argument over the tri-unity of Persons in the Godhead (that is, arguing the doctrine of the Trinity) from a continuing debate I have been having at YouTube. Please forgive the SPAM mistakes on the part of those who are interacting with me. It isn’t important to everyone.

Jake: The trinity doctrine was not established until years after the death of Christ....yet the criminal next to Jesus will be in paradise without the trinity doctrine that was invented by the catholic church and rome....will you be there in Paradise?

Anonymous: Is that a yes?

Me: I am guessing you are referring to the Nicene Creed. Although this is a common argument for those who are not familiar with church history, the fact of the matter is that the Trinity was not established by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., but rather the council met to publicly refute such false teachings as non-Trinitarianism by such heretics as Arius. The Scriptures attest to the Trinity, by such verses as Matthew 28:18, 1 John 5:7, and Luke 3:22. Many who refute the Doctrine of the Trinity do so as their particular opposition to the deity of Christ verified by such Scripture verses as Titus 2:13, John 8:58, Matthew 26:64, Mark 2:5, and Revelation 1:17-18.

Anonymous: Well said. They simply defended and affirmed an Eternal truth.

Jay: Heretics dont make me laugh, I am not a JW and I'd like to point out how TRINITARIANS, changed the translation of 1 John 5: 7, whyd they do this? If Jesus was the almighty god in the flesh, why didnt he say he was, why did he only claim to be god's son?

Me: According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of heretic is either, "1: a dissenter from established religious dogma" or, "2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine: nonconformist." Sounds to me that a non-Trinitarian belief is what may be defined as heretical. Anyway, perhaps you would be interested in practicing some textual criticism as it relates to 1 John 5:7? Where in the world do you conspiracy theorists come up with this garbage? Additionally, you may not be a JW, perhaps you are a Modalist or a Oneness Pentecostal, either way, without an accurate view of Christ you cannot be a Christian. As a final point, in understanding the title "Son of God," Christ was claiming the nature of the Father. I would estimate hundreds of claims throughout Scripture to the deity of Christ, but if you won't believe, such as the rich man in hell's brothers who had Moses and the Prophets, there is no convincing you.

Jay: haha i laugh at your ignorance, let me get this straight, there are three almighty beings, they are each all powerful all present and all knowing (that is wat defines an almighty god) but, they are three seperate persons, but one god. lol one almighty plus one almighty plus one more almighty equals wat?!?! logically your MAN MADE doctrine is bull s#*% [edited by me], scripturally it doesnt work either christ clearly submits to the father, Jesus claimed no one is good, except god alone (Mark 10:17) = )

Me: First, Christ did not say He was not good, He only corrected the man's understanding of what good is, considering that the man only thought He was a good "teacher" and not the Lord. Second, because an "almighty god [sic]" can only be so if He is one, it is true that God is one; however, because Scripture reveals God as three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; we know that the one God (nature) is in fact three persons (distinct personality). Lastly, because your language has revealed your nature and the very hatred you harbor toward God's Word, there is no further need to defend His truth to you nor pretend that your points are valid as a blinded unbeliever referencing the Word of God.

Jay: wow man you sure showed me, you really proved your point... why would christ say that no one is good except god alone? I thought christ was the almighty god? doesnt make too much sense does it? I thought the BiBle said that there is one god and one mediator and he is Jesus christ, so let me get this straight there is one god(father, son and holy ghost) and one christ? doesnt that sound weird? please answer a rebuttal and use scriptural reference in the same context

*At this point, because Jay ceased to use profanity and asked in a polite fashion, I decided to continue in our discussion.

Me: Your own Scripture reference, 1 Timothy 2:5, following a correct grammatical pattern shows that there is one God and mediator: Jesus Christ. Additionally, Titus 2:11-14 tells us, "11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." Whether you understand verse 13 to mean that Jesus is the "glory" of our great God and Savior or that Jesus is that "great God and Savior," this verse demonstrates the deity of Christ. If you are not sure what it means to call Jesus the Glory of God, you may be interested in reading the book of Ezekiel and reviewing the term.

Jay: Gramtically it doesnt mean Jesus is the almighty god, if this verse is ambigious lets look at other verses,John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be trobuled, trust in god also trust in me" hmm but i thought jesus was god? an almighty god? but is it possible for an almighty god to have someone "mightier" In John 14:28 Jesus says " for the Father is greater than I", whoa If Jesus is all powerful and all mighty, how can someone be greater than him? use real life educated logic, not fantasy magic

Me: Because you accurately understand God to be one nature, but inaccurately refuse to consider Him beyond one Person, these verses will sound confusing. Your quoted verse of John 14:1, as well as other verses such as John 10:30, John 17:11, and John 17:21 all demonstrate the oneness of the nature of God and yet the plurality of Person's Who demonstrate that nature. This fact is demonstrated throughout Scripture. The Jews will say the name Elohim demonstrates the plural majesty of God, yet not the plurality of persons; however, this denies the fact that both this particular name of God as well as the plural use of pronouns referring to God demonstrate a plurality of persons. Coupling this with the theophanies of "the Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament demonstrate how the hypostatic union enables God to be seen in the flesh through Christ, being God Himself. In reconciling all Scripture, rather than picking and choosing particular texts to eisegetically insert one's own view into said texts, understanding God as He is: One in nature while three in Persons; is the only truth that can accomplish such a task.

Jay: First things first, you didnt answer my questions, good tactic in trying to drag the arguement in another direction though. Ill have you know that I am a college student who studies the Bible on the regualr basis and does not simply accept doctrines just becasue the mass majority does, you can blindly accept whatever theory you want, but if you look at this doctrine as an educated adult you know it doesnt make sense. Sunday youll worship the ghost, tuesday the son, friday the father. as for your theory of "reconsiling all scripture so you can see that god is one in nature in three persons", the bible doesnt contradict itself, there are an overwhelming amount of scriptures that show that the trinity doctrine is a bunch of hogwash polythesistic crap that was made up to appeal to Roman pagans. Not only does the trinity doctrine not make everyday logical sense, but scriptures show it isnt true, would you like more texts? I actually think before you get further buried you should answer the questions I originally asked you, they are quite simple, I am not saying this for the sake of the arguemnt, im saying it so your not a robot blindly interpretting certain scriptures just so that they can support your own conclusion and provide self assurance. If this man made doctrine is true, why are there so many cotradictions, and do you honestly truly belive in your heart that by worshiping 3 persons you are still worshiping god?!

Me: That's nice. You're not the only one of us who is a college student who studies the Bible on a regular basis, but perhaps you are the only one who doesn't believe what he studies. I will close with John 2:27-28, "27 Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

Jay: HAHAHAHAH your are honestly gonna close with a such an ambiguous scripture?!? lol if you want to interpret that text to support what you belive than yes, that scripture supports the trinity in which jesus is his lord and god(which is not the case but ill give you the benefit of the doubt) but lets look at another scripture THAT MAKES THIS CRYSTAL CLEAR 1 corinthians 8:5 reads "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords") yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." doesnt get any clearer than that my friend one god the father and one lord the christ, if christ was god wouldnt he be recognized here as the one god? woulnt Christ himself have claimed to be god? Game set match = )

Me: You didn't win anything. In fact, this verse points to the fact that Christ is Creator; a response that is necessary to eating food sacrificed to false Lords such as the Baals, etc, which are in fact nothing. It's really useless to continue with you because you have taken the straightforward interpretation of verses such as John 2:28 as ambiguous because they do not fit your simple presuppositions. Maybe if you took the time to stop inserting a 21st Century Western mindset into a 1st Century Jewish text you may finally see beyond your own personal bias.

Jay: You are absolutely right, Lets negelct the fact that the majority of scriptures show the difference between christ and the almighty god, lets neglect the fact that you can grab a handful of scriptures that might imply the possiblility of a triune god yet it is still ambigouss and other scriptures show that there are no tirune gods, lets neglect the fact how we are not suppose to put any other gods in front of the almighty god who is the father, lets neglect the fact that one day the father is being worshipped, the next the son and if there is time the holy spirit, lets neglect the fact that logically 3 gods CAN NOT BE THREE and that through scriptures the bible differentiates between the father and the son, lets neglect the fact that the son is not all knowing and all powerful, lets neglect the fact that the holy spirit is not all knowing, lets neglect the fact THAT THE TRINITY HAS PAGAN ROOTS AND WAS MADE TO APPEAL TO PAGAN ROME IN ORDER TO UNIFY THE EMPIRE, lets neglect it all..

Me: First of all, the difference shown in Scripture between the Father and Son are evidences of the division of Persons within the Godhead, not the division of "gods." Secondly, your claim that Scripture verses that possibly support a Trinity are ambiguous is unreasonable because they are straightforward but you will not recognize them as such because they do not fit your worldview, as well as those verses helping to reconcile one God expressed in three Persons. Thirdly, if there are Scriptures that show the unity of God (not that there is no Trinity, but that God is unity), pairing these with verses that support the Trinity only demonstrates that God is one in nature, yet three in Persons, as the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves being the Word of God. Fourthly, if we shall put no gods before God, why is it that you exalt a man Who if not God would be the object of our sin? Fifthly, the Trinity does not teach Tritheism (three gods), but rather one God in three Persons, so your concept of worshipping three separate gods on three separate days is ridiculous (We worship the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit, hence worshipping all three as the same one God). Sixthly, while Scripture delineates a division of personality between the Father and Son, it also represents the Father and Son as unified in nature (John 10:30, John 14:9, John 17:11, John 17:21, etc.). Seventhly, the Son is all knowing and all powerful; however, during the time of the Incarnation, the Kenosis occurred, that is to say, He willfully limited the independent exercise of His comparative attributes to accomplish the will of the Father and His own purpose on earth. Eighthly, the Holy Spirit, being God, is also omniscient. Finally, the Trinity does not have pagan roots, but honest scholars have shown that pagans stole the concept from Scripture and not vice versa. All of these arguments were dealt with two thousand years ago. If you pride yourself so highly as a college student, why haven't you given an honest investigation to the claims of Scripture apart from your presuppositional bias?

Who is the "Angel of the Lord"?

In consideration of the identity of the Angel of the Lord, I believe that it is the preincarnate Lord Jesus Christ. Because the New Testament is the completion of God’s revelation, starting here is important as the evidence both supports the divinity of Jesus Christ (by such verses as Titus 2:11-14, John 8:58, Matthew 26:64, Mark 2:5, Revelation 1:17-18, 2 Peter 1:1-3, Colossians 2:8-10, Romans 9:5, Hebrew 1:9, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, John 2:27-28, etc.) and the triune nature/plurality of persons of the Godhead (by such verses as Matthew 28:19, 1 John 5:7, Luke 3:21-22, John 14:1, John 10:30, John 17:11, John 17:21, etc.). Understanding from the New Testament the nature and personality of God (one in nature, yet three in Persons), we can identify the only three Persons who could possibly be the divine Angel of the Lord from the Old Testament. While simply understanding that Christ is the only member of the Godhead who has taken on a body of flesh, the additional support from such verses as Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16, and 1 John 4:12, demonstrate that while it is true that God has never been seen, more specifically, God the Father has never been seen (John 1:18, John 6:46, Colossians 1:15, ), so as not to use the incarnation of Christ as either a contradiction of His deity or a contradiction of Scriptural claims. Lastly, there is no indication in Scripture that the Holy Spirit has taken on a body other than in appearance as a dove to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:16 and John 1:32, whereas the voice of the Father was apparently audible to all.

Speaking in Tongues: Cessationism vs. Continuationism

Because cessationism can mean more than one thing, my conviction resembles John MacArthur’s in that I am a Classical Cessationist (while the sign gifts have ceased with the office of Apostle and the closing of the canon, I do not limit God’s ability to perform independent miracles today). The other cessationist positions are Full (no more miracles at all), Concentric (while miracles [sign gifts] have ceased, they appear in unreached areas to further the Gospel), and Consistent (both sign gifts and the ministries listed in Ephesians 4 have ceased; i.e. not just apostles, but pastors, teachers, and evangelists). Looking to Scripture, Ephesians 2:20 affirms the foundation of the faith being built upon the Prophets and Apostles with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. Because that foundation has been completed, and because 1 Corinthians 13:8 demonstrates that tongues will cease, there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit continues to give sign gifts today as He did to establish the first century Church with its new and completing doctrine. While many continuationists argue their case from Romans 11:29, the context shows that Paul is speaking of the eventual salvation of Israel in accordance with God’s promise to the Patriarchs after He has fulfilled His plan in the salvation of the gentiles. Finally, in order to make their interpretation work, continuationists must disregard what God is saying of His Church in Ephesians 2:20 and by also continuing to award the “ministry” of Prophet and Apostle (Luke 6:13, Acts 1:26, and 1 Corinthians 9:2 demonstrate that only 14 men have ever held the office of Apostle).

Hell, Hades, or Sheol?

There seems to be confusion over the presence of Hell in the Old Testament and how we may reconcile this doctrine in light of the New Testament. First, we must come to an understanding of particular terms that relate to where people go when they are dead. The first of these terms we come upon is Sheol. This word is used in the Old Testament to mean the place of the dead. What is interesting about Sheol is that we find in the Old Testament that both the righteous and the wicked were sent there (Genesis 37:35 [Jacob], Psalm 16:10 [David/Christ], Proverb 5:5 [Immoral Woman], Isaiah 38:10 [Hezekiah], Hosea 13:14 [Unrepentant Israel/Ephraim/Samaria]). This fact shows that Sheol is not Hell (Gehenna). Looking forward to the New Testament, we see the use of the terms Hell (Gehenna), Hades, Paradise, and Death. First, we will look at Hades. In Acts 2:25-28, we see the following:

“For David says concerning him [Christ], ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’”

The text here is a reference to Psalm 16:8-11 and uses the term Hades in the place of Sheol. This would mean that Hades in the New Testament serves the same function and is in fact the same as Sheol in the Old Testament. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 teaches us two things about Hades (Sheol). First, it reinforces the Old Testament teaching that it is the place of the dead. Second, verse 26 shows that while the righteous and the wicked are both sent there, a great chasm exists which separates one from the other. Reconciling the place of Lazarus (Abraham’s Bosom) with such verses as Ephesians 4:8-9,

“Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.' (In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.),”

and Luke 23:43,

“And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’,”

we find that Abraham’s Bosom is synonymous with Paradise. We also find that during His death, Christ’s physical body remained in Death (the tomb) while His soul descended into Hades (Paradise, but not Hell as Hades is not Gehenna). After the resurrection and with the Ascension of Christ, the souls of those in Paradise (Old & New Testament Saints from the Fall to the Ascension) were led out of their temporary captivity in Hades/Sheol to their eternal home in Heaven. From the Ascension of Christ, all the elect who died prior to the Ascension as well as all the elect who will have died prior to the rapture of the Church shall go directly to Heaven as Paradise in Hades/Sheol has been abolished. Additionally regarding the rapture, those souls who have died in Christ will be reunited with their physical bodies, while those who are alive in Christ shall be caught up with them and both shall be changed to glorified bodies (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-55). What has not changed, however, is that those who die apart from Christ will still be sent to Hades.

So, why is it that Christians preach that those who die unregenerate shall go to Hell? First, Scripture teaches that Satan and his demons are destined to Hell (2 Peter 1:4, “Tartarus”). This Hell (Tartarus) is also referenced in Matthew 25:41 (eternal fire) and Mark 9:43-48 (Gehenna) as the destiny of unrepentant sinners. Viewing these verses, their similar punishments, and their similar occupants, we can conclude that Tartarus/Gehenna/Eternal Fire/Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20, 20:10) are all synonymous.

Finally, Revelation 20:14 shows that Death and Hades give up those who are in them (that is, both the physical bodies and souls of the wicked are eternally reunited) and that they are abolished by being cast into the Lake of Fire (Hell) along with the eternal damnation of the reprobate to Hell in the judgment known as the Second Death. Taking all these points into consideration, all the elect shall ultimately spend eternity in Heaven while all the reprobate shall ultimately spend eternity in Hell.

Does God Change His Mind?

I do not believe that Openness Theology is an accurate presentation of God’s truth. With such verses as Acts 2:23; Romans 8:29, 9:23; and Ephesians 1:11 amongst others, it is obvious that God both has planned and knows all things. With words such as “predestine,” “foreknowledge,” and “foreordained,” the Scriptures testify to the omniscience of God. If we believe the Scriptural claims related to these words, as well as prophetic citation and fulfillment, we must believe that God has fully determined all things. This can only mean that the future is not open. While systematic theologians argue from the point of immutability, openness theologians argue from the point of limited omniscience. If the Scriptures say that God changed His mind, it is in relation to the behavior of man, not the knowledge of God nor the unchanging nature of God. Both blessings and curses in the Old Testament are based upon the actions of men, with particular activity or inactivity resulting in a particular response from God. Using 1 Samuel 15:29, King Saul had disobeyed God’s command to fully destroy the Amalekites and all they had. While God did not specifically indicate a qualifying blessing/curse in accordance with Saul’s actions as king at his coronation/anointing, Deuteronomy 6-7 does indicate warnings and promises related to the command of God. The changing of God’s mind solely rests upon our repentance in relation to His curses and our obedience in relation to His blessings.

Biblical Inerrancy

Considering Biblical Inerrancy, I support the positions of both subjective Biblical inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration. Although doctrinal purity and theological assertions of truth are dependent upon inerrancy, a more important conclusion of inerrancy relates to the sovereignty of God. If God is incapable of preserving his Word throughout the generations without error, then the authority to which we appeal logically falls upon Church tradition and the teachings of man. Considering the imperfect nature of man, an authority not resting in Scripture alone does more to supply unbelievers with the necessary arguments against the inspiration of Scripture than it does for the inerrancy of Scripture (For if God is incapable of preserving His Word without error, how can we trust Him as the source of revelation when that revelation was physically penned by fallible man?). Likely the strongest arguments, even if the most overused in support of inspiration, are 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16. If inspiration is from the Holy Spirit and not man, then it is reasonable to assume the implied inerrancy of Scripture here in that the life of God is what sustains His Word, and not the effort of man. Coupling this fact with the nature of God, being incapable of deceit, we cannot claim that error exists in Scripture without calling into question God’s purity as it relates to deception or His sovereignty as it relates to Scriptural preservation. Believing that all Scripture is true is an imperative presupposition in order to understand the Scriptural claims of the necessity for repentance and placing one’s faith in Christ for salvation.

On Refutation of “Good Friday”

In light of the approaching Easter holiday, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss an issue related to the resurrection. Although we commonly associate "Good Friday" as the day of Christ's death, my attempt here will be to present Biblical and historical evidence refuting this tradition. This may be difficult for some to review with an unbiased opinion based upon a general acceptance of 2000 years of Church tradition pointing to Friday as the day of Christ's death; however, I am hoping that we can put our biases aside long enough to thoughtfully consider the Scriptures. In presenting the evidence, I will first answer five questions whose answers are explicitly documented (with references) in Scripture, followed by a final question relating to the Jewish reckoning of time and tying all the Scripture references presented to answer the first five questions in support of a Thursday day of death for Christ together. Enjoy!

When did Jesus die?

Jesus died (on Thursday) at approximately the 9^th hour, that is, 3pm.

Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:33-37; Luke 23:44-46

How long was Jesus in the burial tomb?

Jesus was in the tomb for three days and three nights.

Matthew 12:39-40; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

When was Jesus raised?

Jesus was raised the third day.

Matthew 16:21; John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:4

What day was the “third day?”

The “third day” was the first day of the week, that is, Sunday.

Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1-8.

When was Jesus buried?

Jesus was buried at night (Thursday evening to us, the end of the day; Friday evening to the Jew, the beginning of the day).

Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56.

What considerations must we take regarding the Jewish reckoning of time in the New Testament?

a. Jews reckon time in accordance with Genesis 1, “there was evening and there was morning.” To the Jew, a day ends and begins at evening; approximately 6pm.

b. Jews reckon any portion of a day to be considered as a full day in counting sequence. Therefore, the 3 hours before 6pm are to be considered a full day.

c. Relating the rendering of time to the NT era, the 6^th hour is noon while the 9^th hour is 3pm. This is in regards to the day (i.e. daytime) starting at 6am with the new day (i.e. nighttime) starting at 6pm.

d. Looking again to Genesis 1, the time must first pass before it is counted. Considering this, 6am is not the start of the first hour, but rather, 7am is hour 1. This enables us to understand the 6^th hour as 12pm and not 11am.

e. Reviewing all these things, a Wednesday death makes for 4 days and 4 nights of burial or 5 days and 4 nights of death, while a Friday death makes for 2 days and 2 nights of burial or 3 days and 2 nights of death.

f. This makes Thursday 4 days and 3 nights of death or 3 days and 3 nights of burial.

g. The only day of death that contains a period of 3 days and 3 nights is Thursday, if looking at the sequence in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 convinces us of time reckoned to burial which reconciles with Matthew 12:39-40, rather than time reckoned to death which no day can satisfy.

Taking all of this information into consideration, one must answer two questions. First, what is our source of authority? Granted, 2000 years of Church tradition supports the idea of Good Friday, however, the final authority in matters of faith and practice is sola scriptura (Scripture alone) not sola ecclesia (the Church alone). All theological determinations related to orthodoxy and orthopraxy must come from Scripture, not mere tradition, regardless of how long that tradition has existed or how strong the conviction to follow that tradition is. Secondly, understanding our final source of authority is Scripture alone, are we willing to set aside any previous beliefs which have been refuted by that authority? It is hard to change when we have come to a place of comfort in our faith and convictions. However, in the interest of searching out the truth of Scripture, one must be loyal to the inspired Word of God as opposed to the man-made traditions of the Church. Legalistic dogma was rebuked by Christ and the Word is a tool to correct any misunderstandings of our faith. As a last point, and most importantly, whether you still believe in “Good Friday” or have accepted the Biblical evidence supporting “Good Thursday,” we can all rejoice in the fact that our faith is fulfilled not in the death of Christ, but rather in His glorious resurrection! God bless.

A Response to Bill Wagner

Considering the comments of Dr. Wagner (click here), I must say that I received Christ by a Gospel presentation given through a tract and by means of the "Sinner's Prayer." Having experienced this, I would not neglect the fact that people can be saved by Gospel tracts and by an individual presenting the Gospel in hopes of the completion of the "Sinner's Prayer." All this aside, I also understand that I am not saved because I prayed a prayer, because I read a tract, or because I walked an aisle. In fact, I believe that the "Sinner's Prayer" was more of a way to work out a new attitude of repentance and faithfulness to God rather than a particular moment of salvation. It seems with emphasis on the "Altar Call" and the "Sinner's Prayer" devoid of any meaningful theology, we have created a new kind of Christian: A backslider. How often we hear that term relating to some "Christian" who persists in a lifestyle of sin. The very fact that Calvinists are so evangelistic (sharing both the whole counsel of God and not using some man-made gimmick to effect salvation) is the major reason I first began to examine the claims of the Doctrines of Grace in accordance with Scripture.

The other side of both the giving of the "Altar Call" and recitation of the "Sinner's Prayer" is that many who use these methods as their primary tools of evangelism are too quick to affirm the new "believer" in the certainty of salvation before having viewed their fruits. Really, the issue seems to tie together the tenets of Calvinism. Believing man is capable of coming to God on his own, believing that God chooses us because we will choose Him, believing that anyone can be saved if we just coerce them enough, and believing that God cannot draw us unless we allow Him only causes man to create methods in which we can do all the work so that we can get all the glory.

Are we to work? Yes. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. So we are to preach the Gospel with fervency. However, God is both the author and finisher of our faith, solely responsible for effecting salvation, but yet not removing our responsibility to Him in our obedience to that Gospel and the preaching thereof.

Does Calvinism "Limit" God?

I’m confused. Dr. James Flanagan, President of Luther Rice Seminary, has stated, “We believe that Jesus' death is sufficient to save all mankind but is efficacious only for those who believe. We reject the notion that Jesus died just for the elect.” It sounds as if Dr. Flanagan is a closet Calvinist. His first statement indicates Jesus’ death is sufficient to all, but efficient only to believers (i.e. the “elect”). His second statement indicates the rejection of Jesus' death for the elect. So which is it? Does he believe that Jesus' death is efficient only for the elect, or does he believe Jesus' death is not efficient only for the elect?

The apparent contradiction is obvious. It seems that many non-Calvinists or those who identify with Amyraldism (4-point Calvinism rejecting Limited Atonement) take issue with the idea of Limited Atonement a.k.a. Particular Redemption. The issue seems to be one of confusion over what Calvinists believe on this point. From the Canons of Dort, the Second Main Point of Doctrine, Article 3, “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.”

This statement clarifies the misunderstanding of those not holding to Limited Atonement that Calvinists do not simply believe Jesus died for the elect and was incapable of saving anyone else. We understand the extent of God’s power to save through the Cross, but distinguish that Jesus died efficiently for the elect alone. If we say that Christ died for everyone, then we indicate an insufficiency in God’s ability to save everyone in which Christ supposedly died for. This is because we know many will spend eternity in Hell after having rejected the Gospel time and again during their lives. I believe this is more an issue of semantics than of theology. The principle of Limited Atonement refers to the efficiency (application) of salvation through the Cross, not the capability of that Cross. Calvinists are not limiting God, just confessing the reality of to whom His salvation is applied.

A second issue this raises is that if atonement were universal, there would be no need for evangelism. While many non-Calvinists state the non-missional nature of Calvinism, the very fact remains that the work of preaching the Gospel is unnecessary if all are to be saved. In this sense, non-Calvinists at the heart are identifying with hypercalvinists by not looking at the whole picture. Hypercalvinists believe God will do all the work, so there is no human responsibility, while non-Calvinists believe any can be saved so they overlook divine sovereignty. Realizing that Jesus died for the elect, and that God uses believers as a tool to bring the lost to repentance by the means of preaching the Gospel, we do not overlook human responsibility or divine sovereignty.