For the weak

I find it brutally ironic when an unregenerate soul boasts that Christianity is for the weak, or for the uniteligent or imcompetent. It is stange that so many unbelievers would say these things and still reject Christ. What sadly is even more ironic than the unbeliever's railings about Christianity being a religon for unintellegent weaklings, is the believer's denial of the accusation. We say Christianity is not for the weak! Christianity is not an incompetent man's religon! If we say these things we are only fooling ourselves. Let me ask you this brother or sister, did you arrive at the cross because you were strong? Did you arrive at the cross because of some intellegent desicion? Of course not! The railings of the world in this matter are certainly true. When you met Christ your were at your bottom, you were well aware of your sin and weakness and from there you gave yourself to Christ. You came to Christ as a fool not on some intellectual quest. I know a Christian who accepted the reality of God when learing about physics, it was not an intellectual thing it was a realization of how much God knows and how much order He created. Christianity certainly is for the weak. It is for those who mourn, and are poor in spirit, it is for the meek, it is for they that are persecuted, it is for those whose faith is as a young child. Christian never believe that you are strong, if you believe that you are strong then what need of God's stength do you have? If you believe you are smart, than why must Christ renew your mind?

It really is ironic. The world makes a true accusation about Christianity as if it is an insult, and Christians then deny the very truth which brought them to the cross in the first place. It is ironic that the world simply does not see its weakness and unintellegence. If they did they would surely see that the very accusations they make are the precise reasons that they themselves should flock to the cross. The next time someone makes these accusations to you your response should be something like this:

"It is true that I am unintellegent and weak, and more than that I have been indecent immoral, even more than that, there is not a single good quality about myself which I can call my own. The accusations you have made are true, and I fully realize this and I am willing to humbly accept your perception of Christianity as true. However let me ask you this, do you see yourself as strong? Intellegent? Moral? After these tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes have crushed us with ease, do you honestly feel strong? As our stock markets go up and down over nothing at all, and our schools fail, and our politcs corrupt, do you really feel smart? As our society spirals into immorality and the family is destroyed do you really feel moral? If you were honest with yourself you too would see that you are unintellegent and weak, and immoral and that the religon you rail against, is the very faith that you need."

I think that would be a very adequate response to the unbelievers who makes these accusations. I will leave it at that for the reader to think about. Maybe you all have come to this conclusion a long time ago, I confess that I just realized it recently. Anyway that is all for tonight


So much more than a smile

Have we sunk so far as to consider offering a smile a ministry, and nodding a head as evangleism? We are in a day when we preach "God is love" but do not prove that love by expounding the gospel message. We are in a day when we preach Christian unity without defining the term Christian. We talk about moral relativism as the evil our society faces, but I will go one step further and say that "Christo-relativism" is the real problem, that is to say that if a religon professes allegiance to Christ it is therefore a 'good' religon. In this age of 'Christo-relativism' we accept unitarianism, mormonism, catholicsm and others as acceptable Christian churches. While I do not desire sepratism, and I would rejoice at all these Churches uniting under Christ the reality is that unity with these churches is not unity in Christ. I could and maybe someday I will go into detail on each of these churches and why they are not in Christ but for now I will only address the results of 'Christo-relativity.'

If we unite with the afore mentioned Churches is mandatory that we do not contradict each other. Those who would have this unification would speak of Christian solidarity. Yet if I say you must believe in Christ, and the unitarian says you must believe in a good God, there is no way those thoughts can be in solidarity. So to show a unified front we must avoid that topic outside of the Church walls. If I were to say that believe means to have full faith and trust, and the Catholic might say believe means a mental acknowledgement of truth we cannot be in solidarity on this point, therefore to show a united front to the world we must avoid these facts outside of the Church walls. If am to say there is one triune God and a Mormon may say he is one of many Gods, we cannot stand unified and must avoid this point to put on a solid front.

Many people will say that we need to look at what each faith has in common, and certainly there is a lot in common between all 'Christian' faiths. But we also must remember that anti-chirsts come in sheeps clothing and that Satan is a great deceiver even to the point of deceiving some of the elect. So we must look at the differences between faiths to test them. For instance a baptist and a methodist may disagree fiercly about God's foreknowledge and election yet on point concerning the finality of the work on the cross, and salvation by Christ alone they are in agreement. Questioning the foreknowledge or the interperation of it is honest discussion. Questioning wether or not there is a time and place to bow down before statues (as in Catholicsm) is trying to determine wether or not idolatry is acceptable. Obviously it is not.

So if we determine to stay united regardless we come to the point that all we can really agree on is that there is a God and that Jesus existed, and that God is love. So the unified gospel message could simply be 'smile God loves you.' (Nevermind the fact that if you are not born again you will be cast into the pit by Him) The gospel so much more than a smile. Let us not be ashamed of the gospel, but preach it to those who reject it, not preach it with those who reject it.

thats my rant for the day.


transactions about prior blogs

The following is e-mail conversation with a friend about the previous 2 blogs.


I your most recent blog stated that we no longer possess a sinful nature. But in your 9-29-2005 blog, you write "The very prescence of God by His Spirit in the believers life is clearly evidence of grace and its purpose is the sanctification of the believer."

If we are already justified/regenerated/no longer possess a sinful nature, what needs to be sanctified.

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself.
(my response)
Sanctification is now natural. While rejection of God and moving further from Him was the nature of the old man, the nature of the new man is to draw near to God. Sanctification is not the changing of our nature, but submission to our nature which being redeemed is the nature of Christ. We still are disobedient, but we can no longer make the claim that disobedience is natural. I am not sure if that made sense or not. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation the old is passed away behold ALL things are become new. That 'all' is troubling if we still retain a sinful nature. Moreover if the work of Christ on the cross was complete and adequate how could we possibly being saved by Him still retain the sinful nature. I understand it is a difficult thing to grasp, and a very difficult thing to explain. At regeneration our nature is changed, the process of sanctification is not the reduction of sinful nature (that nature is gone) but the increase of our obdience and likness of Christ. That is a natural process in the believer and it is condusive to his regenerated nature. I would say that there is no contradiction between the most recent blog and the 9-29 blog. I am sure I contradict myself now and then on various things and I hope not to, but in this case I think I was consistent.

In Christ

So, what it sound like you are saying is the our disobedience is not our nature but an outright defiance of regenerated/justified nature.


I just want you to know that I am not wholy in disagreement but am rather posing what you may find a irritating questions to you help you look at the big picture. And I am not saying that I have a better view but maybe a different angle.
(my response)

That is pretty much what I am saying. The point that I try to hammer home on the blog, is that we cannot attribute our sin to our nature when we have been regenerated. Now as someone who has been regenerated and is not sinful (by nature) it is perfectly plausible for me or you to say "it is not I that sin, but sin that dwelleth in me, that is in my flesh." So in disobedience we give occaision to the flesh, and it always takes that occasion to produce sin. It is not our nature to do so, our nature being regenerated is to deny the flesh and to welcome the conviction of the spirit against our flesh. It is all about association, do we associate ourselves with the regenerated man and call the regenerated state our nature, or do we associate with the flesh of the old man and consider that our nature? In Christ we are a new creation, so I would say we are the new man, the flesh is simply present during this earthly life.


p.s. I plan on posting this dialog on the blog, I don't plan on including your name or anything like that, just the questions and answers. I think they have been very helpful in forcing me to articulate the position I hold to. Tell me if this is a problem.


What's our Nature

We who believe and have been granted faith are not depraved nor do we any longer possess a sinful nature.

I know that is a bold statement and it flies in the face of a lot of things we have been taught and believe, but before you reject this comment hear me out. Christ has saved us from sin. He has imputed his righteousness to us. He has replaced the old man with the new man. On that premise I would say that if we are still naturally sinful or depraved then the work of Christ was incomplete. I would be incomplete in the sense that it only has power over damnation and only brings us righteousness at the point of death. If we are still depraved then Christ merely helps to strengthen us, however if He has replaced our nature then Christ IS our strength. Now I have run these thoughts through my skull a lot before writing any of this, and I have thought of a lot of aspects of this truth and hopefully I will be convincing. I will go through the rebuttals to this that my mind generated There are six of them and they are as follows:

1.) We know that in our flesh dwells no good thing.
2.) We, though regenerated, still sin
3.) There is no one righteous
4.) Romans 7:14-15
5.) We still seem to have a natural attraction to sin
6.) Nobody is perfect / we cannot be perfect

Item 1— We know that in our flesh dwells no good thing.
This a very true statement and any believer surely can attest to the struggle with the desires of the flesh. In the epistle to the Romans Paul clearly outlines this struggle. In the naturally sinful depraved man there is no restraint to the flesh, nor should there be. It is unnatural for the unrighteous to starve the lusts of the flesh. Granted by guilt often the depraved and naturally sinful man will act against his flesh, but it certainly is not his nature to do so. On the other hand it is natural for the regenerated man to be at war with his flesh. My thesis is that a regenerated man is not naturally sinful nor depraved, if this is true the believer’s war against the flesh is a most natural thing. The natural desire of the believer is to NOT gratify the desires of the flesh. The flesh is a most unnatural thing to a believer.

Item 2 – We, though regenerated, still sin.
If we are righteous, why do we sin? Was Adam created good or evil? He was good, he was righteous and certainly no fallen. However by temptation Adam fell. Does that mean that he was not righteous prior to sin? No, it simply meansthat the righteous still may fall to temptation. Moreover if a righteous man is tempted does that make him sinful? If the flesh brings temptation does that imply sinfulness? No! we know Christ was tempted at all points yet he was and is righteous. This is one of the amazing facts of Christ. That he overcame all temptations. Moreover his righteousness has been imputed to us therefore it is possible that we can overcome temptation as well. Moreover it is natural for us to do so. I will address that shortly.

Item 3 -- There is no one righteous – no not one.
This statement is true with regards to all men, excluding the God-man, Christ Jesus. This statement though applies to man before he is converted. If we be in Christ we are a new creation, the old is passed away behold all things are become new. We have been recreated not with a righteousness of our own, but with the righteousness of Christ. We have been created wit hhis nature, we have not been recreated with the same depravity and sinful nature we once had. If we have been recreated and regenerated by God then our regenerated nature must be righteous and good. If we are still sinful by nature then God recreated us as sinful depraved creatures and the cross work of Christ wrought not for this present life, only deliverance from eternal damnation. I contest that Christ saves us in the present as well as the past and the future. Only acknowledging deliverance from hell we are neglecting so great a salvation. How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

Item 4 – Romans 7:14-15 “For we know the law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin, for that which I do I allow not: For what I would That do I not: But What I hate that I do.”
When initially recalling this passage and thinking about it I thought that it destroyed my whole premise. Here is Paul who is surely regenerated, yet he speaks as if he is naturally sinful, the exact opposite of what I am proposing. However when reading the context around this passage it becomes clear that Romans 7 does more to support my thesis than any other passage in scripture. Paul is writing specifically about how his flesh is completely unnatural to him. He no longer is naturally sinful, but he still resides in flesh which is inherently wicked. That fact that he is no longer naturally sinful allows him to say in verse 17 “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” It is clear that Paul is naturally righteous because when a person is converted they have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. This whole passage is Paul making it clear how unnatural the sinful flesh is to the regenerated man.

Item 5 -- 5.) We still seem to have a natural attraction to sin.
This is the masterpiece of Satan. We most certainly are not attracted to sin. We are tempted all the time and because we think we are naturally sinful or depraved we view being tempted as a sin. We then feel like defeated sinful rejects. Being tempted is not a sin!! Because your flesh tempts you to lash out at someone does not mean you sinned. Did Jesus sin because he was tempted by Satan? No! of course not, the temptation is not a sin. Sometimes we are so focused on sinfulness that we will attribute to ourselves sins we did not commit. We are guilty of all sin as the apostle James clearly states, but we have not committed all sin. It is false humility to attribute sin to yourself which you have not committed, moreover it is dishonest. There are enough sins we have actually committed to confess to, so there is no excuse to attribute sin to yourself because you were tempted. So if I am tempted to lust yet the word of God comes to my mind and holds my thoughts captive and my mind is not permitted to wander into concupiscence, should I then get on my knees and repent and plead forgiveness for being tempted to sin? No, I should be on my knees praising God for providing me with that one verse or pure thought that proved to be more powerful than temptation. If we attribute the total depravity of man to the regenerated man we will view everything as a sin. We by clinging to depravity reject the power of regeneration.

Item 6 -- Nobody is perfect / we cannot be perfect
This is true in the unregenerate state. Without Christ’s imputed righteousness perfection is impossible. By the law no flesh is justified. The law makes it clear that in our natural state we are fallen. But by faith we are created anew. Moreover Christ commands us, “Be ye perfect as my father in heaven is perfect.” Did he say this just to prove once again that we fall short? Not at all, the law did that. Christ brought new commands, “I tell you that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of judgment.” He made these commands know full well that he would give us His righteousness, and that by his power they can actually be fulfilled. He did not say “be ye perfect” to condemn us. “Christ did not come to condemn the world, but that through Him the world might be saved.”

I conclude: We who are regenerated are not by nature (our new nature) sinful. We are no longer totally depraved. We now have the righteousness of Christ imparted to us so that by his work we may be made perfect. There is no reason to be defeated, just obedient to our new nature which is the nature of Christ.


More on Works

In my Oct 1 post I made a critcal wording blunder that changed the entire meaning of what I was intending to say. However, it has prompted me to think a little more about the subject and I will relay those thoughts here.

First the incorrectly worded statement read:

"Why is it that works are ingrained into our hearts and souls, and why is it that we never seem to be totally purged from them?"

I would have been better saying "Why is it that works based justification is so ingrained into our hearts and souls, and why is it that we never seem to be totally purged from that mentality." -- Had the first sentence of the post read that way the entire thing may have been more clear.

Anyway what I had improperly wrote got me thinking: The motivaton behind good works is the evidence of true Christianity. A Christian has no real motivation for good works, it is their natural inclination. Just as the non Christian has no real motivation to serve themselves it is simply their natural inclination. Now I understand that we do good works for the glory of God "that men may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven." It is as redeemed believers our natural desire to let our lights so shine before men. When we sin now we are acting against our new nature, that is the righteousness of Christ, for what is the no longer natural unrighteousness or fallen state that we once lived in. I know that some people are going to want to rip me on this post by saying that we are all fallen and it is still our nature to sin, but I think that scripture contradicts that. The scriptures do not speak at all about how we will continue in sin after regeneration (God forbid). Moreover the bible makes some very harsh and difficult sayings (like crucifying Christ afresh) concerning sin after conversion. My question is this: Did Christ not conquer sin, and deliver us not only from the punishment of sin, but from sin itself? Have we not received a new nature that is contrary to sin yet finds righteousness to be natural. I confess I still sin against my new nature, just as I used to do good against my old nature. Praise God that there is forgiveness for sin. But I will not insult Christ's imparted nature to me by saying that I still have fallen nature, and His death was not enough to conquer that. I am not being arrogant by saying that I do not have fallen nature, no it is humility to say that I am disobedient to the point of acting against my new nature of righteousness imparted by Christ.

So back to the last post. Good works are ingrained in us as believers. Christ's imparted righteousness have made good works a natural desire for the believer. This is why we cannot be justified by works, because we must first have the imparted righteousness of Christ to perform them with a pure heart. That imparted righteousness is a result of faith by grace not ourselves. Moreover the righteousness of Christ will cause us to bear good fruit, because it is our nature, just like an apple tree will naturally bear apples. We could say that faith without works is dead, because faith will naturally bear fruit, if there is no fruit then naturally their must be no faith.

Anyway I still have some others things I need to address concerning Arminianism, and why they aren't quite as far off as we think they are sometimes, and how maybe we could show them their simple flaws that reject the providence of God. I hope to get to it eventually.


Are we so foolish?

note: from Jay Miklovic -- This blog post was worded very poorly, the intent was to address the notion of works justification and sanctification, and how we fall back into a mentality that we must work to receive grace. I understand that it may have come accross that doing good works is bad. That is ridiculous, I will address this more clearly in the next post which should be later today. (Sorry for any confusion) I left the post in its orginal context below, just remeber when reading that when I mention works I am speaking or justification by works. --

Galatians 3:3
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Why is it that works are ingrained into our hearts and souls, and why is it that we never seem to be totally purged from them? I read again Paul's epistle and it is so evident that too often I am just like the foolish Galatians. Don't we all fall back into the works mentality at some point or other? Think of when we find ourselves committing a sin that we were sure we had once repented of. We struggle and struggle and we question our faith, we question how genuine we were when we had repented in the first place. When this happens it seems that nine times out of ten we will then resort to works to alieviate our discomfort. For instance you sin and instantly you express the need to commit to reading your bible more, and praying more, and fasting, and whatever other good work you may think of. It is as if we try to work our way out of the sin we have committed. Are we so foolish? Were we not saved despite our sin, independent of our works? Yet being justified by faith only are we now going to try to work for the forgiveness of the rest of our sins? My question to anyone reading this is this: Are you trying to work your way out of a sin? Are you attempting to do works to make up for your unfaithfulness? Stop! It was by faith that you were justified, and it is now by faith that you are sanctified. Good works should be our desire as a result of justification at all times, regardless of past sin, but should never be thought of as a contribution to our justification.

There is a lot more that I want to talk about today, and maybe tonight or tommorrow I will get to it, but I am not sure. I have been given some pretty interesting insight that has allowed me to see a little more clearly the arguement between Calvinism and Arminianism, and I am not so sure that either side is totally aware of what the other side believes, and if they are I think there are somethings that both sides intentionally ignore or simply reject because they are more comfortable with their own system of belief.