Here is the compilation of the book review of Mary A Kassian's The Feminist Gospel.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Article: The Bible - A hate book
Disturbing article here. May God preserve us in the midst of such hate and bigotry against Christ.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Book: The Feminist Gospel (Part 6)
[continued from the previous posts here, here, here, here, here and here]
Feminism, since its inception in the 2nd half of the 20th century, has caused numerous devastating effects on society. Although feminists like Davis postulate an utopian society based on matriarchy, as the superior women create peaceful conditions on the earth (After all, according to the feminists, men invented rape, murder, war etc.), we have not even approached one-tenth of this utopia, despite the fact that women are "freer" and now are almost equal in every aspect, if not superior, to men. In fact, there is now discrimination against men; just marvel at the protection given to women who beat their husbands compared to the hatred and contempt poured out against men who do the same to their wives! Ditto for rape!
With the feminists and their allies now in charge, what are the effects in society? Well, no better example can be found than the disintegration of the family unit, which the feminists by the way glorify. Nevermind the consequences of their actions; "personal liberty" is pursued even when others are hurt in the process. Regarding murder, it does not need a rocket scientist to know that many babies are murdered in the womb everyday around the world, yet the feminists boast of this atrocity in a way that could perhaps rival Hitler's. Regarding morality, feminists are generally symphathetic to lesbianism, and whereas last time, men could get away with pre-merital sex and other immoral actions, now to "address the injustice", women could do so too. With all this, society starts to disintegrate, as the destructive forces of sexual immorality, moral decadence, and godlessness enters it, which characterized a society given over by God (Rom. 1:18-32), which would cause its destruction. So much for utopia! The feminists promise the sky and the only thing they could deliver is hell itself.
It is a sad thing when society imbibes on such poison and starts to self-destruct. It is much worse when feminism enters the churches and brings it to the point of utter ruin. Visible churches, especially the liberal churches, start to gravitate towards "alternative expressions of worship" as feminism enters them. First, God became a "she". As Feminism metastasized, the ancient Greek, Roman, and even Canaanite deities are revived, and paganism enters the church itself (p. 135- 157). With the entrance of pagan rituals, pantheism and the New Age movement enters in.
Not everyone decides to get out of the Christian community. Some decides to remain inside and destroy it from the inside out. Women-churches are thus born, which teaches from the viewpoint of feminist liberation theology. It still allows for a male Jesus and a male God, but they create the female counterpart of God, calling it Sophia, claiming that the word translated Wisdom in the Scriptures is actually indicative of the female part of God, which men tried to repress (p. 179-181). To support their hypothesis, feminists claimed that
Sophia's power as a divine female figure was repressed by patriarchy. ... this repression begins with Philo, who substituted a personified, masculine Logos for the feminine Sophia. Philo at first equated Logos with Sophia, then substituted Logos for Sophia, until the masculine person of Logos "had taken over most of Sophia's divine roles, including the firstborn of God, the principle of order, and the intermediary between God and humanity". Furthermore, the process of repression was continued with Christ replacing Sophia as personified Wisdom. (p. 180-181)
This bunch of nonsensical reasoning is just self-defeating! Sophia is called the firstborn of God? Principle of order? Intermediary between God and humanity? Not unless you read Sophia into what is written about Christ! A look at the usage of the words which are translated Sophia also in the LXX (Septuagint) also do not indicates what the feminists are imagining. And such reasoning may only be true if the Scriptures are not preserved at all, which is impossible. The feminists are truly straining at straws here.
To round up the madnesss known as feminism, let us look at a real-life example: Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco - ELCA, which owns the website http://www.herchurch.org/ . Let us look at one aspect: their blasphemous corruption of the Lord's prayer:
Our Mother who is within us we celebrate your many names. Your wisdom come. Your will be done, unfolding from the depths within us. Each day you give us all that we need. You remind us of our limits and we let go. You support us in our power and we act with courage. For you are the dwelling place within us the empowerment around us and the celebration among us now and for ever. Amen
To these feminists: Anathema Sit! Truly, Feminism is a heresy that is to be excised from bible-believing churches, in whatever form it may take.
The END!
Book: The Feminist Gospel (part 5)
[continued from the previous posts here, here, here, here and here]
Feminism teaches the complete equality of men and women in all areas. To prop up their view, they have even tried to use scientific findings to do so. Initially, they relied on (highly subjective) anthropological research as found in two books by Magaret Mead, Sex and Temperament (1935)[1] and Male and Female (1949)[2] which stated that differences between male and female were learned and conditioned by culture rather than set by nature, which has since then been refuted[3] (p. 31). Since then, feminists have moved on and an influential feminist, Elizabeth Gould Davis, have even tried to promote female superiority, naming women the first sex4. Davis seeks to prove this scientifically through 1) embryology, 2) the genotype of males and females in terms of the sex chromosomes X and Y (p. 101-103).
[WARNING! Technical and probably somewhat mature material below!]
The first argument for female superiority is found through embroyology, or rather Davis' interpretation of embryological data. Acording to Davis,
... all mammalian embryos, male and female, were anatomically female during the early stages of fetal life. In humans, the differentiation of the male organ from the female was accomplished by the action of a fetal hormone, androgen. ... Females structures developed autonomously without the necessity of hormonal intervention. In other words, Davis argues that the state of "femaleness" was normative, but the male genitalia only developed upon the addition of hormones. (p. 101)
However, is that really the case? NO! Fetuses do not start off as female and then undergo "sex reversal" to become male; humans are NOT zebrafish[5]! Just because the sexual organs have not developed and thus appear on the surface to be female does not mean that the fetus is female. In fact, for humans (and mammals in general), the fetus starts off with two ducts, Müllerian and Wolfian, that would form the female and male reproductive tracts respectively. During the early stages of development, the fetus have both of these ducts. If one really wanted to assign a gender to the fetus, the fetus would be bisexual, not female! Only later would the unneeded ducts atrophied (the Müllerian duct in the male and the Wolfian duct in the female) so that each gender would have only one and reproductive tract and system based on his/her genotype. With this, Davis' first point is rendered false.
With regards to Davis' second point, Davis states that the Y chromosome is a deformed and broken mutation of the female X chromosome, and from there prove that women were the first sex. Of course, such reasoning depends on the truth or falseness of the pseudo-scientific theory of Evolution, and would thus die along with the theory. However, even granting the truth of evolution, can Davis' theory hold true? Let us look at Davis' theory:
... the male Y chromosome that produces males is a deformed and broken X chromosome — the female chromoome. ... It seems very logical that this small and twisted Y chromosome is a genetic error — an accident of nature, and that genetically there was only one sex — the female[6].
... the Y chromosome was linked with many genetic disorders such as color-blindness and hemophilia. The male, who was sole possesor of the Y chromosome, was reported by Davis to be much more susceptible to genetic disorders. ... the extra X chromosome in females accounted not only for the greater freedom of girls from birth defects and congenital diseases, "but also for the superior physiological makeup and the superior intelligence of women over men" (p. 102).
A couple of problems arise if one was to accept Davis' wild conjecture. Now, if all were female then, I would like to know how reproduction occured then. Did these "superior" women then reproduce asexually? Or were they hemoprodites? But then, hemophrodites would need to have both the male and female reproductive organs to reproduce, so these hypothetical people can no longer be called female, can they? Ditto for the asexuals too! (And just to rub it in, I can't seem to think of any remotely plausible mechanism for the evolution of dioecy[7], nevermind evolution of males from females.) Feminism seem to blind its proponents to basic thinking, it seems.
With regards to the so-called superiority of women in their having two X chromosomes over 1 X chromosome in males, is that really good? Having assumed evolution, let us now supposed that to be fact and see whether the female is indeed superior according to evolution. Since the "goal" of evolution is supposed to improve on the gene pool of the species by eliminating the weak (survival of the fittest), males with defective X chromosome containing disease-causing genes would thus exhibit their defective genotype and would thus (hopefully) be eliminated. Females, on the other hand, by giving rise to the highly probable scenario whereby one of their X chromosome contains a healthy, properly functional gene while the other X chromosome contains the defective gene, will lead to the fact that such females would be phenotypically healthy (assuming the healthy gene is dominant) while carrying a defective genome. These carriers would then be in a position to pass on their defective genes to the next generation, as they are not subjected to any negative selection due to non-expression of the defective X chromosomal gene. Since such is the case, shouldn't females be termed instead the bane of the species, by preventing natural selection from removing the defective genes from the population? Davis' superiority of women position thus actually work against her, unless she disgard the theory of evolution, which she can't since her entire theory is built on that foundation.
Also, I would want to challenge Davis and her followers to prove the statement that women have "superior physiological makeup and intelligence over men". (It wasn't so long ago that the reverse was held by some to be true.) Anyway, upon what basis can such statements be proven? With regards to "superior physiological makeup", last I knew, the strongest people in the world were men, women are in general less muscular than men, and although women are less susceptible to genetifc disorders than men, I know at least of quite a few women who are more susceptible to normal diseases than most men. Of course, no doubt this could be due to the differences in lifestyle between men and women, but the point that I was trying to put across is that Davis' point is not proven. The various indicators given by Davis (capacity for reproduction, greater resistance to disease, increased longevity, excellent metabolic efficiency), even if true, are not the only indicators of physiological makeup. Furthermore, for indicators like resistance to diseases, have expriments been done to prove such a case, and are the samples used unbiased? Are the experiments, if they are done, done is such a way such that factors such as stress level etc. are taken into account? I very much doubt so. With regards to "superior intelligence", this is even more doubtful. Definitely, not all women are smarter than all men. Collectively, women have also not been shown to be superior in intellect compared to men, as a cursory look at the intelligent people throughout history shows. If one objects that that is because of oppression of women throughout most of civilized history, then one truly wonders why is it that in the so-called "liberated" countries in the Western world, moral decadence is promoted by the "enlightened" women in the form of abortion, homosexuality, alternative lifestyles, etc. Some intelligence indeed (Rom. 1:22-23)!
I would not go into Davis' ridiculous hypothesis of how males came into being and subjugated the "superior" females, which is just plain ridiculous and distasteful , reducing women to nothing more than animals that are "incapable of controlling their sex drives" (p. 103). Readers who are interested may go and read it for themselves. Something I have noticed about these "liberated and enlightened" feminists is that they seem to be obsessed with sex. Some liberation indeed (Rom. 1:24-28)!
I would finish off this section by looking at sex determination at the genetic level, which should demolish all the nonsense of genetic pre-eminance of the female sex.
Davis made the assertion that the human genitalia will normally developed into the female reproductive organ in the fetus unless there is the presence of the male androgen hormones which is produced by the male fetus. This on the surface seems to show that femaleness is the default norm while maleness is not. However, those who make such a conclusion are basically showing their ignorance, as if sex determination was such an easy process in any fetus.
For most people who read and/or study a bit on sex determination, especially in mammales, they would have come across the term TDF (Testis Determining Factor), which is a gene locus located on the Y chromosome, upon which the gene SRY is found[8]. This particular gene is found to be the sex-determining gene, as its presence normally indicates maleness while its absence indicates femaleness. Thus, normal females, who don't have the Y chromosome, have the female phenotype, while normal males who have the Y chromosome have the male phenotype. The reason why I use the term normal is because abnormality do occus. Abnormal recombination between X and Y chromosome could result in transfer of the TDF gene locus, causing that XX individual to become a male (sex-reversal)[9].
If this is all we know of sex determination, then perhaps the feminists do have a point. However, this is not all. Another gene SOX9 (SRY-related HMG box gene 9) has been found, and this gene is NOT found on the X or Y chromosome. In fact, the human SOX9 is found on the autosome chromosome 17 of the human genome[10]. It has also been found that SOX9, like SRY, is both necessary and sufficient for testes formation, since SOX9 conditional knockouts in other mammals have reproductive organs akin to ovaries[11] while overexpressed SOX9 individuals develop as males[12]. In fact, due to this, it has been hypostasized that SRY somehow interacts with SOX9 as both of them are necessary and sufficient conditions for female-to-male sex reversals, although no one knows the exact interaction between the two gene products yet[13].
Moving on to other genes, we found an interesting gene called RSPO1, coding for a rather new protein R-spondin 1 found in 2004[14]. A rather large, consanguineous Italian family was found to have 4 XX sex-reversed brothers who were SRY-negative. It was found that these abnormal brothers have a mutation in their RSPO1 gene which codes for R-spondin 1 creating a non-functional R-spondin 1 protein, and this caused the sex change, independent of the SRY/SOX9 pair[15]. Of all the information found so far, nothing is more devastaing to feminism than this; that the production of a non-functional protein causes a female-to-male sex reversal! Therefore, the production of that functional protein is essential for femaleness! Furthermore, this gene is found on the human autosomal chromosome 1, and thus is not sex-linked.
Based on all these information, especially the last one, a case can be put forward that males are the first sex, and it is only because of a later evolution of functional R-spondin 1 in the species that females later evolve. Of course, this theory is nonsense, but such is the stupidity that feminist reasoning takes us. Also, the fact that two important sex determination genes (SOX9 and RSPO1) are not found on the sex chromosomes shows the utter nonsense of feminists who think as though maleness and femaleness comes only through the sex chromosomes, or worse still, that XX individuals are the first sex and that these XX individuals are necessarily female.
With all this said and done, it can be seen that science does not even remotely support the wild conjectures of the radical feminists of female superiority. Nor can it be used to support any egalitarian position either. Fact of the matter is, science has nothing to say about what is essentially a sociological and religious issue. In fact, I would even say that science can not prove anything with respect to absolute truth[16]. What I have just done is to beat the feminists at their own game, notwithstanding the fact that the game itself is illegitimate for the issue at hand, just to show the poverty of the Feminist position.
We will now carry on looking at the effects of Feminism, especially in Christian circles.
References:
[1] Magaret Mead (1949), Male and Female (New York: William Morrow and Company). As cited in Kassian, The Feminist Gospel.
[2] Magaret Mead (1935), Sex and Temperament (New York: William Morrow and Company). As cited in Kassian, The Feminist Gospel.
[3] Derek Freeman (1983), Magaret and Samoa (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). As cited in Kassian, The Feminist Gospel.
[4] Elizabeth Gould Davis (1972), The First Sex (Baltimore, Penguin Books). As cited in Kassian, The Feminist Gospel.
[5] von Hofsten J & Olssen PE. (2005). Zebrafish sex determination and differentiation: involvement of FTZ-F1 genes, Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol 3: 63
[6] Davis (1972), The First Sex, p. 63
[7] Dioecy comes from the field of plant sexuality. It basically means the existence of two seperate sexes. It is often used in plants due to the wide variety of sexual reproduction systems in them. With regards to other species, it is normally used only in the field of sex evolution.
[8] Most of the stuff presented here come from compiled lecture notes from a module I have taken in my university entitled Animal Reproduction and Development. To give proper credit when due, I would try to find journal articles which do in fact provide the information that I present.
[9] Wilhelm D., Palmer S. & Koopman P. (2007). Sex Determination and Gonadal Development in Mammals, Physiol. Rev. 87: 1-28; doi:10.1152/physrev.00009.2006
[10] NCBI database's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) search results for SOX9 under 'gene' category
[11] Barrionuevo F, Bagheri-Fam S, Klattig J, Kist R, Taketo MM, Englert C, Scherer G. (2006). Homozygous inactivation of Sox9 causes complete XY sex reversal in mice. Biol Reprod 74: 195–201.
[12] Vidal V, Chaboissier M, de Rooij D, Schedl A. (2001). Sox9 induces testis development in XX transgenic mice. Nat Genet 28: 216–217.
[13] Wilhelm & Koopman (2007)
[14] Kamata T, Katsube K, Michikawa M, Yamada M, Takada S, Mizusawa H.(2004). R-spondin, a novel gene with thrombospondin type 1 domain, was expressed in the dorsal neural tube and affected in Wnts mutants, Biochim Biophys Acta. 1676(1): 51-62
[15] Parma, Pietro et. al. (2006). R-spondin 1 is essential in sex determination, skin differentiation and malignancy, Nature Genetics 38: 1304 - 1309 .
[16] Gordon H. Clark (1964), The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, 3rd Ed. (1996) John W. Robbins (The Trinity Foundation)
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Recommanded resource
I just found out that I was missing a link to Pastor Bob DeWaay's excellent resource — Critical Issues Commentary, and the issue has now been remedied (on the sidebar). Do visit the site for excellent biblical commantaries on various issues.
Anyway, here is a good article from the website on Brother Lawrance and 'practicing the presence of God'.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Book: The Feminist Gospel (part 4)
[continued from the previous posts here, here, here and here]
In this installment, I would like to touch on and analyze some of the arguments put forth by the feminists themselves against biblical complementarianism, as stated in Kassian's book The Feminist Gospel.
We have seen previously that passages such as Gal. 3:28 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14 speak against the Feminist position. Other passages that feminists absolutely don't like are 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (on head coverings) and 1 Peter 3:1-7 (especially verses 5-7), which mitilate against their position. Excluding Gal. 3:28, which we have addressed before already, how do the Feminists in general approach these other texts?
Well, it seems that the Feminists just couldn't handle the texts; at least they cannot handle the texts on the basis of the texts themselves. Instead of adhering to the principle of Sola Scriptura, these 'biblical' feminists follow the same method as the secular feminists, defining everything else according to a presupposition of feminism itself. These 'biblical' feminists therefore invented an entirely novel hermenuetical matrix to interpret the Scriptures on gender issues. As stated by Kassian, they
...interpreted all questionable texts to align with their own understanding of sexual equality, which they defined as monolithic, undifferentiated role-interchangeability. (p. 208)
Kassian furthered revealed that the 'biblical' feminists choose Gal. 3:28 as "the crux around which to interpret Scripture" (p. 208), dubbing it "the Magna Carta" of humanity[1].
We have covered the proper interpretation of Gal. 3:28 previously, and we have then showed that Gal. 3:28 is talking about the equal worth and respect of all in Christ; more specifically on the basis of who could become a Christian and our equality as Christians in the sight of Christ. Nothing whatsoever of gender roles is mentioned here. A small point I would like to point out with irony here is the inconsistency of using this one verse which is written by Paul and then to attack Paul as a misogynist when one faces passages like 1 Tim. 2:11-14. If Paul was indeed a misogynist, why do you want to use a verse taken from one of his epistles (Galatians) as your key verse and "Magna Carta" of humanity?! The hypocrisy indeed!
The 'biblical' feminist, in order to substain their feminism, adopt a hermeneutical matrix which is more akin to liberalism than to true Christianity. In order for them to explain away the problematic verses such as 1 Tim. 2:11-14, they make Paul's instructions culturally relative. In other words, they say that these words of Paul are only for that culture, but not applicable now. This is of course then followed up by contextualizing the verses in such a way that Paul's commands are made to sound like some sort of problem shooting in the churches. For example, 1 Tim. 2:11-14 is said to arise because the women were unlearned and thus cannot teach and therefore such a verse arose. Nevermind that the reason given by Paul for such a command is based on the Creation account, and thus not amenable to such 'contextualization'. Another interpretation given by feminists who strive to more biblical is that this command is given as a consequence of the fall (Gen. 3:16), and now as new creatures in Christ, they are free from the effects of the Fall and therefore the verses do not apply to regenerate women. Somehow, the fact that these verses are written to the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ eludes them.
Deeper feminist thinkers have apparently seen the problems in holding such interpretations (cultural contextualization, effect of fall) while trying to hold on to the high view of Scripture as being totally inspired by God. Unlike the more evangelical feminists who maintain their inconsistencies, these deeper thinkers attempt to iron out their inconsistent position by throwing out the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of the Bible. Some would stop at the Neo-Orthodox position held by Karl Barth (some portions or the spirit of the text of Scripture is inspired), while others who see the inconsistency even of this position spiral downwards into greater and greater heresy and finally into apostasy. This can be seen in the lives of Mary Daly, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Virginia Mollekott (p. 227-239), which also demonstrates the slippery slope upon which feminism is on. This also demonstrates the nature of feminism as being totally antithetical to biblical Christianity, which is seen earlier on in the different epistemological foundations upon which both are placed; Christianity is based on Scripture, while feminism, like humanism, is based on (wo)Man. As Kassian says, no person can serve 'two authorities; they cannot serve a master called Scripture and a mistress called feminism. Seeking to do so creates a tension of conflicting loyalties. The infidelity will evantually force her to leave one and cleave to the other' (p. 240). Indeed! History has indeed borne out the fact that feminist leaders have drifted towards apostasy, leaving others to take their place, and the cycle starts all over again.
With this settled, I would like to just disgress a bit and analyze the scientific side of the feminist controversy, before returning and looking at the devastating effect Feminism has in the visible churches.
[to be conitnued]
References:
[1] Paul Jewett (1975), Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View, p. 75 (Grand Ripids, MI: William B. Eerdmans), as cited byMary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel.
Rank apostasy in the Anglican Communion
With all the news reports on the apostasy in the ECUSA, and the divide in the Anglican Communion between rank liberal heretics and conservatives, now come this. So we have the liberals destroying the Anglican churches on one side, and the conservatives destroying the churches on the other side by thinking of going back to the Romish Apostasy! The dialetic is at work again...
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Interesting verse...
I am presently in the process of trying to memorize the book of Romans, which would take rather long to do. Anyway, I was looking at Rom. 2:12 when I say something very interesting.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (Rom. 2:12)
Firstly, we can see here that Paul mentions that people sinned WITHOUT the Law, so therefore the Scriptures affirm here that even without knowledge of the law (or the gospel) for that matter, Man do sin. Sin is sin even when nobody knows it is sin! Sinners like e.g. sodomites can try to whitewash their sins, and even make their sin legal by enacting laws to protect them from so-called 'discrimination', and criminalize the Gospel, but God still calls it sin and they will ultimately be judged based on God's laws, not the laws of Man.
Secondly, those who sin without the Law will also perish without the Law. The main thing that can be seen here is that ALL who sinned apart from the law will also PERISH. This should silence all the universalists and inclusivists everywhere, but of course those heretics do not obey the Scriptures. From the rank liberals to the 'evangelical' liberals like Brain McLaren to the spineless Joel Osteen & Rick Warren, all of them deny this important Gospel truth, the latter when being given the public spotlight.
Thirdly, there is no partiality with God (v. 11). Those who have the law will be judged based on the Law of God which is revealed to them. Those with the Law should have known better, yet they continually violate the Law(Rom. 2:23-24), blaspheming God's name because they claim to follow God. And therefore,
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)
which sets the stage for the proclaimation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. ...
Happy CNY!
In anticipation of the upcoming Chinese New Year, let me just wish all my readers a happy and blessed Chinese New Year. And although this year is the year of the pig, don't be a pig during this festive season. =)
Anyway, to all:
Happy Chinese New Year, and may God bless you richly during this festive season. May you be filled with the love of God, that God's grace in Christ Jesus may transform your life, and that the Holy Spirit may eternally and powerfully preserve you in Christ.
新年快乐，万事如意，心想事成, 主福洋溢。在这季节里，愿上帝的爱充满着您的心，主耶稣的恩典改造您的生命，圣灵的权能永远保存您在基督里的生命。
中国の新年はおめでとうございます。そのお祝いの季節に、彼方は神様の祝福が有りますように。... [The rest, I don't know how to translate]
Bible study notes on James (finished)
Compilation: Assurance of Salvation (AOS) series
I have compiled the posts on the blog series regarding the topic of the Assurance of Salvation here. Hope it would be useful for the edification of the saints.
Friday, February 16, 2007
How deluded can Christians be?
You know the discernment and spiritual level of the Church is at a all-time low when such stupid things happen. May God have mercy on these deluded people and open their eyes despite their present service unto the devil as they seek to destroy the work of Christ. And let us continue to uphold the work of the Lord in the the various faithful churches and ministries through prayer.
Article: The Unequal Yoke - Seperation unto the glory of God
Here is an interesting article by C.H. Mackintosh linked by Paul Walker on the topic of seperation. Food for thought....
Article: How to handle the enroachment of heresy
Here is an interesting article on the subject of how to handle the enroachment of heresy by Pastor Jon Cardwell.
Monday, February 12, 2007
On the issue of Assurance of Salvation (Conclusion)
[continuing from previous posts here, here, here and here]
The basis of our assurance of salvation lies in our redemption by Christ in the propitiation through His blood. It is because Christ has died for us that we can be saved. Through the changes in our lives, we can know whether we are saved or not, and therefore are not deceiving ourselves. However, assurance of salvation is not only in knowing that we are saved, but also in knowing that we will never fall away, ever.
As I have stated earlier, salvation must be of God from beginning to end for there to be any possibility of assurance of salvation. Otherwise, what we have is a conditional assurance of salvation, since we must continue to keep the Christian faith in order to be saved, otherwise we are lost. Such was the error of the Judaizers as anathemized by the apostle Paul, and such is the error of the Romanists when they anathemized the Gospel in the Council of Trent. It is no secret that Arminians of all stripes and colors, including the Wesleyan holiness movement (especially after the times of the heretic Charles Finney), deny the possibility of having an assurance of salvation. After all, if there is a possibility of losing our salvation, then how can we have assurance that we would continue in the faith? Oh, how different is the situation of the true Bible believer, who takes God's Word as it is, and sees the power of God working in his salvation, through his sanctification, and onwards towards his glorification.
One reason why believers are sometimes weak in their faith and lacking in assurance of their salvation could very weel be due to their weak theology, or more specifically, their soteriology. After all, a 'God' who tries to saves, who depends on our choosing Him to save us, is really a powerless deity and can never give us assurance of our salvation. After all, how can He keep us from falling away, since we all can exercise our free will to do so? However, how blessed and wonderful it is for saints to be properly rooted in the truths of God's Word, who know that their security and assurance of salvation is in God alone, not based on their abilities and/or weaknesses, but purely based on the truth of God's personal election of each one of us to eternal life before the foundation of the world. It is because we have been personally predestined in eternity to be His children, that the Son came down and died for us as a propitiation for our sins, having paid the full price for us all, including unbelief, and that the Holy Spirit comes down and regenerates us individually, and now indwells us personally, that we have this full assurance of our salvation. This is the only consistent matrix upon which believers can have full assurance of their salvation.
I would end this entire series off with an exposition of Rom. 8:30-39, which, as I have said before, is the passage that offers the most comfort to us all true believers and assures us of God's eternal, unchanging love for us as expressed through our salvation, and in the provision of every good thing.
And those whom He predestined, he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
What then shall we say of these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justified. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the cone who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall seperate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
"For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, no heights, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to seperate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:30-39)
In verse 30, we can see that ALL who are predestined would be called and justified, and furthermore ALL who are justified will be glorified. I would like to concentrate on the latter part of the verse for this exposition, but suffice it is to note that the latter part makes no sense if the former part wasn't true, that all those whom God choses from eternity are indeed saved. The latter part of this verse makes the claim that every single person who is justified WILL indeed be glorified. Therefore, all of us can have full assurance of salvation in Christ, since we who are saved will most definitely persevere in the faith and will one day be glorified with Him.
In verses 31 and 32, we can see the arguments that the apostle Paul bring to bear on this topic. We are pressed on the issue further. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The answer is, of course, no one. "He who did not spare His own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" In this, we should trust God in everything. After all, after giving us His Son Jesus Christ for us, why wouldn't he give us the lesser things that we need? We can thus trust God for everything, since He has already given us the most valuable thing, His Son Jesus Christ, to die on the Cross for our sins.
In verse 33, we are pressed further by the force of Paul's logic and rhetoric. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" Answer: Obviously, no one. It is God who justifies. God being God, the highest authority, absolutely no one has the right, nevermind the ability, to bring any charge against any of us believers who are of the elect of God. Since God is the one who saves us, who is in charge of our salvation from beginning to end, we cannot but be saved by him absolutely and totally. In verse 34, similarly, "Who is to condemn?". Answer: No one. Furthermore, we are here informed that Jesus Christ is ever interceding before the Father on our behalf, and thus we shall never fall away, if we are truly His true followers.
In verse 35, the question is asked, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" Answer: Obviously, no one and nothing. Notice the list of things which follows: all kinds of severe hardship in this present age which could come upon us, and yet they do not have any power whatsoever to seperate us from the love of Christ. This list is followed up with the list in verse 39, of which the mention of the two extremities encompass all that is in between — "Neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, no heights, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation", which covers everything, including Satan (powers). Did you read that, beloved? Nothing can seperate us from the love of Christ! Nothing! We are more than conqueror through Him who loved us (Rom. 8:38)! Our salvation is fully secured in Him; it will never fail. It is more likely for heaven and earth to pass away then for any one of us to lose our salvation! O, how we should always thank God for our so great salvation, and this full, unchanging assurance of salvation which we have in Him, and which is as unchanging as His very nature itself! Beloved, are you learning to put your full trust in Him, to surrender all to Him, and to embrace the teachings of Scripture on this topic? Then you will know and experience the full assurance of our salvation in Him, knowing that though we are weak, yet we will never fall; though we are desperately wicked and sinful, we are reckoned righteous always in the sight of God. Nothing can ever "unsave" us, and our glorification is absolutely guaranteed in the beloved, Christ Jesus our Lord, and shown forth in his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 8:34)
I would like to post the lyrics of a hymn Before the Throne of God above which captures the essence of biblical soteriology. It is my personal favorite since I know myself and need to remind myself periodically of the ground of my salvation, which is not in myself, depraved person that I am. Pay attention to the bold parts and meditate especially on them.
1
Before the throne of God above,
I have a strong and perfect plea
A Great High Priest whose name is Love
who ever lives and pleads for me
My name is graven on His hands
My name is written on His heart
I know that while in heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart
No tongue can bid me thence depart
2
When Satan tempts me to despair,
And tells me of the guilt within
Upward I look and see Him there
who made an end to all my sin
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free
For God the Just is satisfied
to look on Him and pardoned me
to look on Him and pardoned me
3
Behold Him there, the Risen Lamb
My perfect, spotless Righteousness
The great, unchangeable I AM
the King of glory and of grace
One in Himself I cannot die
my soul is purchased by His blood
my life is hid with Christ on high
with Christ my Savior and my God,
with Christ my Savior and my God!
Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)