Apologetics and Evangelism: Roman Catholicism part 1 (I've been neglecting this for too long)

Imagine that you (as I was) were driving through Green Bay, WI and decided to take an alternate route in order to become more familiar with the layout of the city when you stumbled upon this sight:








------------------------------------>If you’re anything like me, you would be very disappointed/enraged/distraught/saddened by this spectacle. You would probably share the same sense of provokedness in your spirit as Paul did when he was walking through Athens amidst all of the idols that were being worshiped.

This picture, by the way, was taken of the side of someone's house.

I have been involved in quite a bit of study and interaction with Roman Catholics (RC’s) in the last 5 years or so and I have had quite a burden for them mainly due to the fact that my in-laws are RC’s. I have learned much about the way in which RC’s understand the Gospel (or misunderstand), and I have spent a lot of time on discussion forums discussing this and other issues with them.

Lately, I haven’t given much time or thought to the subject, but when I see disappointing examples like the one in this picture I have to ask myself why I’ve not been taking the time to evangelize these lost and deceived people. I have spent much time in a priest by the name of Sean’s house attempting to reason with him, but when he realized that the reason I was attempting to convince him of the truth of substitutionary atonement was because I didn’t believe him to be a Christian he told me not to come back. This greatly disturbed me, but it’s in the Lord’s hands, not mine. In the future, I hope to have some more interaction with him, and I pray that the Lord will reveal to him that I deeply care for him and am concerned for his soul. Nevertheless, I would like to spend some time on some future posts to explore the topic of Roman Catholicism and how to approach those infected by the false teaching contained therein.

Without getting into any specific issues in this post, I would just like to lay out some guidelines that I think to be helpful when approaching RC’s with the Gospel:

1. Do NOT attempt to argue with them about Mary, purgatory, the papacy, or any other absurdity that will appear absurd to them upon a realization of the true Gospel and the finished work of Christ.



2. If they attempt to cite any particular Bible verses as a proof text for their position and you have the luxury of looking at that text with them, do it. Without fail, an examination of the context will reveal the fallacy of their understanding of that verse. If you have a prior knowledge of the context of the verse in question and no time to look at it, remind them of it and invite them (humbly) to take a look at it.



3. Ask them if they think that they are a good person, and follow the steps in The Way of the Master evangelistic approach (see the link in the left column that asks if you are a good person). This approach is a good technique for showing someone the weight of their sin in God’s eyes and why they need the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well, I hope to add to this soon, and I hope to cover as many areas as possible by the time I’m finished. Until then, find a Roman Catholic and tell ‘em about the Jesus Who saves AND keeps to the very end (John 6:39).

Apologetics and Evangelism: JW's side note

I just wanted to make sure that everyone who reads this is clear on the fact that my goal in studying and practicing apologetics is evangelism. I think that I've been pretty clear on it, but I have received a comment on another post that indicates that others think that I shouldn't believe in evangelizing others based on my theology (the theology that I believe is consistently Biblical).

With that being said, I wanted to ask for some input from some more well rounded readers. While witnessing to the JW's at the Kingdom Hall last week, my focus was to understand what they believed and to approach them in the wisest possible way with the Gospel. I found that they would answer correctly when I asked what it takes to become a part of Jehovah's family and to take part in the life to come (more or less). I decided to approach them by pointing out that they can have a real, solid faith in this one whom they call Jesus Christ, but that if their faith was in the wrong Jesus Christ (they believe that Jesus is the alter-ego of Michael the archangel) they were lost in their sins. I attempted to inform them that for them to say that they believed in a Jesus Christ who is actually Michael the archangel then they are about as well off as I would be if I said my faith was in a Jesus who, in my mind, was actually John Fieck (my friend who just happened to be standing there at the moment).

I know that it's pretty evident by my previous posts that I'm not the most tactful fellow, so I wonder if anyone can contribute a suggestion as to how I can most tactfully inform them of this massive detail. I would like to be able to approach them with these facts without being offensive because the Gospel is offensive enough without my foot-in-mouth syndrome getting in the way of the perfectly pure, Spirit-designed offense. So, would anyone like to inform me of my flawed ways and how you would correct them?

Apologetics and Evangelism: JW's part 2

I recently paid a visit to the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was quite interesting. It actually reminded me of some old sales meetings that I used to attend when I sold CUTCO knives (which are the best ever). Thay did some role-playing in preparation for the front door visits and when speaking to people in the workplace. It was not what I expected, but in hindsight I guess it shoud have been. A few of the people from the Kingdom Hall actually stood up to speak and were given feedback by one of the more experienced JW's. I have to say, this type of preparation puts many (if not most) of our churches to shame. I won't say anything more about that.

The reason for my visit (on which I was accompanied by my two friends: John and Enric) was because I have been visited a couple of times by JW's, and the last time (last Tuesday) one of them told me where he attended. My goal was to be an open witness because I was told that it was a question and answer time. It wasn't, though. We had to endure the whole "service" before we were able to interact with the people. By God's grace, we had the opportunity to witness to several people.

I have noticed in my more recent dealings with these folks that they are apt to use Proverbs 8 as evidence for Christ's lack of eternality. They assert that Christ is who is being referred to as wisdom in this passage. They say that since this wisdom speaks of herself (wisdom refers to herself in the feminine) as being "produced" (v. 23 New World Translation=NWT) and "brought forth as with labor pains" (v. 24 NWT), then Christ was a merely a creation of God who was "beside" God (v. 30) during the creation of everything else.

There are a couple problems with this theory of theirs. First, there is no other place in Scripture, to my knowledge, which lends support for this view. I appreciate typology in the OT referring to Christ, but I think that since there are no explicit explanations of this passage as referring to Christ then we should be careful how far we take this. Second (and adding to the first), wisdom is said to "dwell with prudence" (v. 12 NWT). Does this mean that Jesus has a sister named Prudence? Wisdom is also referred to as a she in this passage. I know that that isn't the strongest argument, but no one is going to agree to the idea that Christ is a feminine being no matter how much our post-modern culture tries.

I think that Proverbs 8 needs to be stretched pretty far in order to apply it fully to Christ. Sure, wisdom could be some kind of picture of Christ as the ultimate example of wisdom displayed in history, but in order to fully apply a passage as a type we need more Scriptural interpretation than what is asserted by the JW's. For example, in Isaiah 6 we are told that Isaiah "got to see Jehovah" (v. 1 NWT). We are also told in John 1:18, "No man has seen God (notice the big G) at any time..." but "...the only begotten god (and the little g)..." If this is true, who did Isaiah see. The text says that he saw JEHOVAH. Well, in John 12:41 we are told by the inspired writer of Scripture that Isaiah was speaking of Christ. So if Isaiah said that He saw Jehovah and John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that Isaiah was speaking of Christ, then we are safe in concluding that Christ is Jehovah. That is a safe way of interpreting unclear passages in the OT. Look to a confirmation of your theory by a NT writer.

If your JW friend has a problem seeing the connection between John 12 and Isaiah 6, tell him to take a look at the cross reference at verse 41 in John 12. It references Isaiah 6:1.

And God said, "Let there be [LIFE]!"

Well, this is a fateful day for Scott and Elisabeth as they welcome the newborn baby Bryce (I hope I spelled that correctly) into this cruel world. I was smiling from ear to ear when I listened to the voicemail from Scott announcing this joyous occasion. I am truly ecstatic for the young couple, and I can't wait for our childrento all be running around together (unless they leave for the mission field sooner, that is).

I won't ask how many times Scott passed out during the ordeal, but I'm sure it's safe to say that they are both relieved to have it over and done with. I've been there. Come this time next year, you might even be doing it again. HAHA!

CONGRATS!

Thanks to God for answered prayer in the form of health for the baby and survival for the parents! We'll keep praying that Bryce will follow the Lord along with all of my kids...

And since I didn't have a picture of the boy to post on my blog I pasted a picture/link to Scott's website. We'll work on adding a picture of the newbie soon.

Apologetics and Evangelism: JW's part 1

The thing that has been most on my mind lately is the health of the church today. This has been overwhelming me to the point that I have made that passion supersede the practical outworkings that I’ve been so disappointed not to see in the Church today. Since I’ve been made aware of this problem, I’ve decided to attempt to share some of the things that I think necessary for us in the Church to be aware of in order for us to have a more effective witness with those around us. So I’ll be sharing some of the things that I’ve gleaned from my studies and the experiences that I’ve had with members of false religions in my future posts along with the issues that I believe are important in the Church today.

When I got saved, I was pretty anxious to tell people about Jesus, and I’m sure that this was the case with most upon their conversion as well. I, however, had the urge not only to tell others whom I knew didn’t know Christ, but I was also very interested in telling others from false religions. I began arguing with Roman Catholics and their priests before I got saved, but after I came to know the Lord I began to notice the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) leaving for their Saturday morning rounds as I was delivering newspapers. This introduced me to a unique evangelistic opportunity.

The first few encounters I had with JW’s were slightly confusing. I once had the opportunity to meet with two JW’s at the local Kingdom Hall to discuss their beliefs. I was hoping that it would be a good witnessing opportunity, but one of the two guys was overzealous and my head was spinning dizzily by the time we were through. Since this time, I’ve had encounters with JW’s in discussion forums (an incredible place to learn) and on my front door step. I have been blessed to listen to and read informative resources on JW’s and put that learning into practice. Now I feel quite comfortable speaking to them and find myself hoping to get a knock on my door on Saturday mornings but they have decided not to grace me with their presence anymore.

I’d like to encourage all born again believers to never avoid an opportunity to speak with a JW who shows up on your doorstep. This is a straight to your doorstep delivery of a potential convert. We should be anxious for these opportunities, right? And if a JW or two shows up at your door, consider these tips:

1. Whichever text he attempts to persuade you with, take the time to read through the immediate context with him. This is something that he will most likely not appreciate because the context generally will cause his argument to crumble.
2. Do not allow him to move to another verse to attempt to back up his claims. Make sure that he concedes to the fact that the passage he is hoping to use to prove his position does not in fact teach what he’d like you to think it means.
   
3. Inform him of the fact that Jesus is God and that he is commanded to repent of his sinful denial of Jesus’ position and his attempts to achieve and maintain a right standing before God by knocking on peoples’ doors to tell them about his religion. Inform him that God has commanded that he trust in Christ alone for his salvation. He will inform you that he believes that Christ is the savior, but he must also conced to the fact that he is hoping to maintain his “salvation” by his works.

I just wanted to add some initial encouragements and pointers, but I plan to add more as time goes on. One text I would encourage you to take your JW friend to is Philippians 2:1-11 focusing mainly on verses 5-7:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Php 2:5-7 ESV)

Point out to your friend the fact that Paul is encouraging the Philippian church to have a humble attitude in the first 4 verses, and then he uses Christ as an example. The example that Christ gave them (and us) was in humbling Himself by not grasping the position that He had “in the form of God.” Then ask your friend if an angel (which is who they think Christ to be) would be considered humble by not attempting to usurp the position of equality with God. It doesn’t seem as if that would be considered as humble; it would rather be something to be expected, right? The only way for this passage to make sense is if Christ was actually humbling Himself by stepping down from a position of “equality with God” that He had the right to have in the first place

A Contribution by D.A. Carson Highlighted on Andy Naselli's Blog

I cannot endorse everyone who contributed to this volume, but I recommend reading the outline of D.A. Carson's contribution at the following link:

http://andynaselli.com/theology/d-a-carson-the-wrath-of-god#more-404

I think he's on to something. I've done some meditating on God's wrath and righteousness and my relationship to that aspect of Who He is, and it is humbling and glorious.

I especially agree with one of Dr. Carson's headings:

“Rightly integrated into Christian theology, the wrath of God enhances our grasp of God’s love.”

This is such a worthwhile topic for meditation. Consider what you as a degenerate sinner were headed for before God touched your life and brought you up out the pit. You who hated him in all of your self gratifying actions previous to Him graciously bringing you to spiritual life and allowing you to serve Him. Consider how His love was demonstrated by His wrath being transferred to Christ on your behalf. The wrath that you deserved every bit of was poured out on Christ. May this come to mind as you neglect to consider Him in all of your thoughts and actions. Consider this demonstration of His love toward you each day, and give Him praise for sending Christ to absorb the wrath that should have your name on it.

Response to a Defense of 4 Point "Calvinism"

This is an article I found by Kevin Bauder defending the "4 point" position. I had a few comments that I had written down as I was reading, and I wanted to know what anybody else thought. I have nothing against Dr. Bauder; as a matter of fact, I hear nothing but good things about him from everyone I know. I hear that he is interested in moving the fundamentalist movement in a more positive direct, and I greatly appreciate that. I would love to assist him in that effort if I can, but in the case of the article that I’m linking to we disagree. Please take the time to follow this link and read the short article that Dr. Bauder has written before reading my response.

Thanks. Here’s the link:

http://www.thevine.co.nz/article/read/29175/1127/logic-limited-atonement?print


The question is not whether Dr. Bauder has arrived at logical conclusions. The question is whether he has started with logical premises, and I would argue that he hasn’t.
For example, Dr. Bauder begins with the premise that Christ died to provide salvation not merely for the elect of the Father, but for each and every person without exception. This, I believe is a definitely faulty premise.

First of all, let’s consider how a man is saved: Paul, speaking to believers in the book of Ephesians, says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” Now, the question is whether someone can be saved without having been given grace and faith. Considering the passage before us, we have to ask the question, “What does the word ‘this’ refer to in the phrase ‘And this is not your own doing’?” Without getting into the Greek behind it, I think that we can safely say that it is referring to all three things mentioned previously. Grace is definitely not something that we can conjure up on our own; we are definitely not saved by our own doing; and (I assume Dr. Bauder would agree with me on this one) we, in our depraved, separated, spiritually dead condition, certainly did not spontaneously generate the necessary faith towards God. For the moment, I will consider this last point something that we agree on; but if anyone would like to investigate further, go check out Philippians 1:29 and II Tim. 2:24-26.

Next, we must ask ourselves whether it is legitimate to assert that Christ has actually provided salvation for all those who have, do, and will end up in hell. Can we truly affirm this if they never have saving faith? If in order to be saved, a man must exercise faith in Christ as his all sufficient Savior, and the unbelieving multitudes who are suffering in hell because they never expressed this gift of faith, has Christ truly provided for their salvation? If He didn’t provide for this required faith, did He really provide for their salvation? Was it Christ’s intention to provide faith for the non-elect? I won’t even consider that to be true or that anyone would agree to that because of the potentially blasphemous conclusions that we would have to arrive at if it were. So, if we agree that Christ didn’t intend to provide faith for the non-elect then we must conclude that Christ never actually intended to purchase them fully; He never intended to provide salvation for them because a full provision would include the gift of saving faith that cannot be separated from the gift of salvation.

I will consider one more thing. I’m assuming that the other option would be that Christ never intended to die in the place of anyone in particular (which denies Penal Substitution), and that the purpose of His death was merely to provide a way for God to justify sinners by providing a general sacrifice which is meritorious enough for God to apply it to particular sinners’ accounts whenever He decides to do so. Well, I don’t think this works either because that would negate the teachings of Christ in passages such as John 6, 10 and 17.

In John 6, Jesus, when explaining why the unbelieving Jews are not believing explains that they do not and CANNOT believe unless drawn by the Father, and that all that the Father draws (based on His predetermination) WILL COME. So, if the Father has sent the true Bread down from heaven in order to give life to the world (vv. 32-33) and this life that He gives is eternal life (vv. 50-51, 54, 58), was Christ sent to provide this eternal life for each and every individual in the world without exception? No. We can all agree on that, so we must conclude that the eternal life which He intended to provide was specifically intended for the ones whom the Father had chosen to draw.

In John 10, Jesus is illustrating His relationship to His sheep as the Good Shepherd. He demonstrates the closeness of the Shepherd for His sheep, which is something that His audience would have understood clearly. I’m , quite honestly, not all that studied in the historical relationships between shepherd and their sheep; but the illustrations Jesus gave concerning the way that shepherds must’ve felt for their sheep gives me the idea that they were very close to them and were not willing to neglect them in any way. I doubt the same could be said for the other shepherd’s sheep that they knew, let alone the relationship Jesus would have had with the Devil’s sheep. The bottom line in this passage is that Jesus lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 14, 17-18) and He gives them eternal life (v. 28). He also says that the Jews don’t believe because they’re not His sheep (vv.25-26), which reminds me of the things I mentioned earlier about the gift of faith.

Some have argued that the conclusion that I come to concerning Jesus not laying down His life for the Jews because He says that He laid down His life for His sheep is merely a logical conclusion based on ambiguous premises. My intention here, however, is simply to provide evidence for a substitutionary atonement. On the other hand, since the people who have argued from the perspective that Jesus may have meant that He lays down His life for everyone else and that His sheep were the only ones He was mentioning in this particular instance, I would have to ask if He also gives everyone else eternal life since He also mentions this as something that He does in behalf of His sheep. I think that my conclusion is valid, but I’m open to critique.

I won’t say much about John 17 right now because I need to get to my homework and study, but Jesus was pretty clear about His relationship to His people again by saying things like, “…you [the Father] have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him,” and “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world BUT for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (all emphases mine)Finally, he prays for the Church in this present time: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…” Notice that He is very specific in His prayer, making it very clear that He is considering all that the Father had previously chosen, not the “whole world.”

I have one last objection. Dr. Bauder says:

“Prior to their conversion, even the elect are dead in trespasses and sins. Until they believe they remain children of wrath.”

This issue was raised to me not too long ago. I would affirm the first sentence; but it seems as though the second sentence is taken from Ephesians 2:3, and I would have to disagree with its usage in Dr. Bauder’s article.

I think that from the perspective of the elect sinner, we were dead in sin and had no desire for God whatsoever. We, according to this passage in Ephesians 2, were totally depraved in our nature. Paul’s goal in this passage (vv. 1-3) is to remind us of who we were, and how our minds and desires operated “…like the rest of mankind.” He points this out in order to point our attention back to the fact that God “raised us up” in order that we may see the things which God has done for us. And by pointing this out, he is pointing to the fact that God did this for us as an undeserving bunch of degenerate sinners. In short, the context indicates that Paul is speaking of our condition from our perspective, not God’s. This passage, therefore, is not a good support for the idea that the atonement wasn’t actually applied at the cross.

In summary, I believe that Limited Atonement is not only true, but it is a magnificent way in which God in Christ has decided to glorify Himself. And, as Shai Linne has put it: this is not controversy for the sake of controversy or theological nitpicking. Salvation is of the Lord, and Christ’s particular role in the bringing about of the salvation of the select persons that the Father has chosen and that the Spirit brings to spiritual life is every bit as important and meaningful and purposeful as the other two persons of the Godhead. This means that it is worth defending.

Soli Deo Gloria.