A Lesson to Learn

Courtesy of Reformation Cartoons

If Jesus didn't choose you and pray for you,

you won't learn this lesson.

This lesson is the true story of a man who had 

made a deep personal commitment to follow 

and to serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

This man was quite open about his personal relationship with Christ, just as the familiar song says: "I have decided to follow Jesus... though no one join me, still I will follow... no turning back..." For he trusted in his decision and in his commitment to stay with Jesus, no matter what.

His name is Simon Peter. For him, the reality of this lesson came to the fore on the night of the last supper, when Jesus was betrayed and arrested. Jesus had said that all of his disciples would be offended and would forsake Him that night. But, on the strength of Peter's own personal commitment, he assured Jesus that, even though all of the other disciples would forsake Him, yet he would not. But Jesus said to Peter, "Truly, I say unto you that this night, before the cock crows, you shall deny me three times."

But Peter insisted, saying, "though I should die with you, yet I would not deny you."

This was Jesus' actual reply to Peter's words: "Simon, Simon, Satan has obtained you by asking, in order to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith might not fail. And, when you have turned back, strengthen your brethren."

That very night, after Jesus had been arrested, Peter did deny that he knew Jesus, three times! The last time, while he was denying Jesus with swearing and cursing, Peter heard a rooster crow. At that moment Jesus looked right at Peter. Then Peter went out and wept bitterly (Matthew 26:27).

Was this predestined? Was it irrevocable that Peter would do this terrible thing in spite of his personal resolve, his self-esteem, his vision of himself, his strong will and self-determination, even in spite of his faith in himself and in his own conscience and feelings? Obviously, it was preordained. What a humbling thing! What a lesson! What a deflation of the ego of man the true Gospel is! False evangelists tell us that--in order to feel good about ourselves--we are supposed to trust in--even to glory in--the very things that Jesus would not allow Peter to trust in. To glory in the abilities, the feelings, the emotions, the decisions, and the commitments of men is to please ourselves and not to serve God.

It was as if Peter had said that the Lord could count on him instead of Peter relying completely on the Lord. Peter had put his own love, purpose, and vision of himself ahead of Christ purpose. Now Peter had to learn not to trust in his own ability; he had to learn that God's purpose is not in the least dependent on man's "free will" and commitment. He had to learn that his soul's salvation and his Savior's love toward him did not depend on his own ability to choose and to make a commitment to the Lord. His faith in himself had to die, so that the faith that God gives might stand pure. Jesus will not tolerate any other doctrine: He said to his true disciples, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you..." (John 15:16). The saving work is "all of God."

All who base their salvation on their own ability to choose Jesus, all who put their trust in their own commitment have a very defective faith. They have not believed and submitted to Christ's words and the will of God. They have not submitted to the grace of God. In fact, they have been obtained by Satan. These are all in for a most severe sifting. Only those whom the Lord has chosen, only those for whom Jesus has prayed, will be turned back and restored from this foolish and presumptuous sin.

What is this sin? Anyone who trusts that God is subject to his free-will choice or that God is dependent upon his commitment actually violates the First Commandment. This is because the one who believes this puts himself right up along side God, as if he were a co-determiner of the eternal destiny of his own soul. To believe such a thing is not only egoism, it is idolatry. God first does the choosing: then He alone ennobles the spirit by making his people willing in the day of His power (Psalm 110:3). All of the saving work is God's work. Furthermore, the Lord is the only One Who is able to keep us from falling (Jude 24). For a man to say that his salvation has anything to do with his own natural will or ability is for him to try to grab some of the glory that belongs to God only. God will not share His glory with another. "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16).

Peter was only allowed to feed the Lord's sheep and to strengthen his brethren after he had been turned around from his presumptuous sin and vain self-confidence. Then he told his brethren that it is God Who does the choosing, not us, and that the ones who have been chosen are "kept by the power of God" (1 Peter 1:2 and 5). However, the lesson that the Lord taught Peter will only be learned by those for whom Jesus prayed (John 17). The rest will be left to go on deceiving and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).

By Edward E. Crawford

Seven Cautions for Eager Polemicists

Courtesy of Kevin DeYoung

“Polemic” comes from the Greek word for war. It refers to a contentious argument or controversy. A polemicist, therefore, is one who does not shy away from controversy but strenuously argues for his position, often trying to refute a rival position in the process.

I am not against polemics. It is a necessary virtue for Christians in so far as Christianity believes in the immovability and central importance of truth. Where would the church be today if Athanasius, Augustine, and Luther eschewed polemics? Christians must be willing to enter the fray and engage in controversy if they are to be faithful in a fallen world.

I also know there are many dangers with polemics. I see them in myself and can spot them (more easily, sadly) in others.

1. Polemicists can be over-sensitive to certain errors. Have you ever noticed that most Christians (at least the ones engaged in controversy) have one particular error they are particularly good at spotting? I admit that I tend to be most critical of liberal theology and liberalizing tendencies in the church. I’m sure this is owing, in part, to being taught liberal theology in college and being in a denomination where almost everyone is more liberal than I am. I think often this sensitivity to liberal trends helps me guard against error and protect others from the same. But it can also mean that I’m too quick to pounce on theological mistakes that are more in the category of “honest ignorance” than malicious mendacity.  For others, it may mean they are too eager to swing a large mallet every time a little fly of Arminianism (or Calvinism) or Egalitarianism (or Complementarianism) buzzes by.

2. Polemicists can be under-sensitive to other errors. Over the years I’ve had to learn that just because liberalism is a problem, it doesn’t mean the most conservative position is always the solution. It feels safest to swing as far away from our enemies as possible, but sometimes that only serves to push us into another mistake. I’ve come to appreciate (if that’s the right word) that liberalism isn’t the only mistake bedeviling the church. Some people are loveless, some don’t pray, some can’t get along with others, some are legalistic, some are antinomian, some get off track with justification, others with sanctification, others with end times nonsense, and on and on. A good pastor, or a good Christian for that matter, must have the maturity to see that theological dangers come in many shapes and sizes.

3. Polemicists can lose all sense of proportion. We all have a tendency to lock onto our “thing,” whether that thing is gender issues, homosexuality, doodling in worship, the regulative principle, church architecture, real wine at communion, the Trinity, the ordo salutis, the poor, or seeker sensitive churches. The problem is not with having convictions on all these things. I think many of the items in the list above are extremely important. Several get to the heart of the Christian faith. The problem is when every issue becomes as big as every other issue, so that family-integration, every week communion, and justification by faith alone are all equally essential to the gospel. It’s fine for the Lord to call us to fight certain fights in our day, but we must not assume every fight is as critical as every other.

4. Polemicists can see everything through a single lens. This is true across the theological spectrum. For some people everything comes back to gender roles. That’s their bread and butter. That’s what’s wrong with the world (on either side of the issue). Everything is about the empowerment of women or the assault of feminism. Other people can’t stop railing against revivalism and Charles Finney. For still others, everything is about confessionalism, or pietism, or polity. When I dove deep into the emergent church I vowed to myself that I would not be the anti-emergent guy my whole life. I did not want to see emergents under every rock and be dropping them into sermons and lectures for the next thirty years. They weren’t that important and I didn’t want to become that imbalanced. Some of us never learn to let go of old battles and we never learn there are other things worth fighting for.

5. Polemicists can be less than careful with their attacks. There is a tendency in controversy to oppose what we shouldn’t oppose just to make sure we can oppose what should be opposed. I’ve always thought that N.T. Wright’s correctives regarding Second Temple Judaism would be more helpful if he didn’t go out of his way so often, and in my opinion so carelessly, to take swipes at imputed righteousness, the Bush administration, and anyone who has ever believed in going to heaven when you die. Just as bad are those bloggers who may or may not have an important point to make, but they always find a way to make the point with as much vitriol and alarm as possible.

6. Polemicists can give their opponents too much power over them. There are lots of people in this world and plenty of positions that really bug me. Some of them deserve to be opposed. Many of them deserve to be ignored. None of them deserve to have mastery over your life. It saddens me to see Christians who can’t seem to go a day without thinking nasty thoughts about Tim Keller, or John Piper, or Rick Warren, or the Religious Right, or Barack Obama, or Mark Driscoll, or complementarians, or homeschoolers, or TGC, or two kingdom theology, or the missional mindset, or Sovereign Grace, or megachurches, or those prickly Calvinists, or inerrantists, or your denomination, or your fundamentalist upbringing, or the church that fired you, or that one pastor who hurt you, or that one time your ex-friends were mean to you, or that school that made you wear uniforms as a kid, or whatever. Fight the good fight in the day of battle and give the rest over to God. The only thing worse than That Thing you oppose is what you are like when you can’t stop raging against That Thing.

7. Polemicists can forget that there is more to life than controversy. We can get so wrapped up in the latest blog battle or political gaffe or theological misfire by someone we’ve never met that we forget about our own kids, our own church, our own flesh and blood friends and family members. We can forget to0, that the people we are opposing are complex characters, which doesn’t mean we always have to play “nice,” but it does mean we should remember that every human being we interact with is a mess of sins and struggles and hurts and fears and bright spots and dark places. A little dignified respect is in order, for the sake of God’s image if for nothing else. And most crucially, as we look at the fine print of some present controversy may our eyes not become so squint that we can no longer behold the wonders of being God’s children and the beauties of God’s world. Let us not become morose, peevish, and small when we serve such a good God with such a great gospel and such a glorious heaven. A heaven in which Christ will be all in all, and all our polemics will be put to their just and final end.

Why Evangelize Roman Catholics?

Courtesy of Reaching Catholics

T.A. McMahon

"Why would you want to do that?" inquired the sweet-spirited lady sitting next to me on a flight to New Orleans. Holding a Reaching Catholics For Christ card which I had given her, she was surprised that anyone would consider Roman Catholics a mission field. "In my younger days," she confided, "I had a few problems with Catholicism," but she felt that the Catholic Church had changed "quite a bit" since then. Admitting that her knowledge of Catholicism was limited, she nevertheless spoke optimistically about her Catholic neighbors, her sister's Catholic husband, and her grandchild's Catholic wife. Based upon her conversations with them, she was confident that they all knew the Lord "well enough to be saved." "Do you think all of the one billion Catholic souls around the world truly know and have accepted the gospel of salvation?" I asked sincerely. "Of course not. I rather doubt that everyone in my Baptist church is saved, either. But it's different with those I just mentioned," was her tentative response. By God's grace, what followed was an engrossing hour or so of questions and answers regarding Roman Catholic salvation in light of the Scriptures. But I was encouraged; before too long this dear lady admitted that her hopefulness for those whom she cared about had overshadowed her ignorance of what they truly believed. Sadly, her dilemma is rather commonplace among evangelical Christians today. Actually, it's worse than that. Too often these days, trying to convince evangelicals that nearly all Catholics are lost seems more difficult than convincing Catholics themselves that they need to put their trust in Christ alone for their salvation. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that most high-profile evangelicals (Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, Robert Schuller, Hank Hanegraaff, Paul Crouch, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, Bill McCartney, and many more) promote the idea that Roman Catholicism is definitely within the boundaries of biblical salvation. More than once have I been accused by evangelicals of being part of a "thankfully shrinking minority" and "out of step with highly respected Christians." In other words, "If they don't have a problem with it, what's your problem?" The problems in fact are far beyond the scope of this brief article, but please, if you are truly concerned about the salvation of Catholics, give the following your prayerful consideration. The most grievous aspect of the growing acceptance of Romanism is the effect it has on outreaches to Catholics. Missionaries returning from largely Catholic countries are sometimes cautioned by their support-church pastor to "go lightly" on negative experiences with the Catholic Church, as though it were appreciably different here, which is certainly not the theological case. While it's a blessing to note that each springtime hundreds of evangelical churches send thousands of our youth across the border for missions-to-Mexico ministry, few, if any, of these young, one-week-only "missionaries" have been given any instruction about the religion of the people they are hoping to help win to Christ. Even more inexplicably, many of these churches supporting missionaries in Catholic countries are reluctant to help their own congregations understand what Roman Catholicism teaches so that they might become more effective witnesses in their own community. Is sharing the gospel with our Catholic neighbors, friends, relatives and co-workers a less important outreach? Then again, is it really necessary? Aren't the teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism close enough to essential Bible doctrines to render any attempt to evangelize faithful Catholics both unwarranted and offensive to "our brothers and sisters in Christ?" Growing numbers of evangelicals feel that way. Youth Specialities (YS), perhaps the most influential organization among American evangelical youth leaders and pastors, has scheduled a Catholic priest (whose own speciality is "break[ing] down the walls of denominationalism by building unity") as their 2001 Conference general session speaker. Thousands of evangelical and Catholic teens will also be instructed by YS co-owner Mike Yaconelli in how to "use meditations, prayer, and [Ignatius Loyola's spiritual] exercises from the Christian tradition [read `Catholic'] to nurture your soul." Based upon our mail, by the way, we've seen a great increase in the numbers of letters from grieved evangelical parents regarding the marriages of their children to practicing Catholics. But wouldn't that be a good thing, if indeed, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ? On the other hand, the Bible teaches that a person is saved by faith alone in Christ alone. 1 This is so because only Christ could pay the penalty for our sin, which He did in full. There is then nothing we can do for our salvation except put our trust in Him. Any attempt to add anything to our Lord's finished work on the cross 1) is a denial of His complete atonement, 2) is a rejection of His "free gift" of eternal life, and 3) presumes that we can pay something for our salvation, which is impossible. Why impossible? Because the penalty for sin is death, spiritual separation from God forever (Gn 2:17). That infinite penalty cannot be paid in part. Death, physical or spiritual, doesn't function on a partial basis you're either dead or you're not. Only Christ can save us from so great a penalty. Catholicism, however, teaches that there is much a person can and must do to help pay the penalty and gain entrance to heaven. He must be baptized. He must receive the sacraments. He must expiate his own sins by suffering here on earth and/or in purgatory. Prior to his death he must be absolved (by a priest) of every previously unconfessed mortal sin. When a Catholic claims that he too believes in salvation by grace alone, he is saying that through the Roman Catholic Church, through its saints and its sacraments, God provides the grace necessary for him to do the works required to merit eternal life. Yet the Bible teaches that salvation is "through faith...not of works....it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8-9). If you pay for a gift, it's no longer a gift; man's works can have no part in his redemption. Yet if a Catholic were to believe this biblical truth, his Church would condemn him. The "sacred, infallible, and irrevocable" decrees of the Council of Trent declare (and every Catholic therefore must obey or be condemned to hell) that "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be anathema [i.e., condemned]." 2 Catholics are taught that the cleansing fires of purgatory exist for the punishment of their sins "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." 3 Again, this is a teaching which every Catholic must believe (even though it rejects Christ's sacrifice in full payment for sin): "If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema." 4 The Catholic Church imposes damnations (more than 100 specific anathemas are listed) upon Catholics who decide not to accept some of its teachings and practices. While liberal, lax, and even biblically leaning Catholics attempt to justify their contrary-to-official-belief views, they are mutinying against their Church which (according to Roman Catholic dogma) is their only means to heaven. The laws of the Roman Catholic Church, however, explicitly condemn those who hold "mutinous" beliefs. In other words, if a Catholic hopes to gain eternal life as a Catholic, he must abide strictly by his Church's proclaimed infallible rules. This manmade religious system does not tolerate a pick-and-choose approach to its faith. Most evangelicals (other than former Catholics) are not aware of how Catholic beliefs and practices critically differ from the Bible's teachings. For example, the Holy Eucharist, which Baptist Bill Clinton and Methodist Hillary received at a Catholic Church in Africa not too long ago, is the antithesis of the biblical remembrance of Christ's death and resurrection instituted by our Lord. This Catholic ritual, referred to as "the Sacrament of sacraments," is a total rejection of who Christ is and what He accomplished on Calvary's hill. In the Mass the priest (and only a priest) is said to transform a wafer of bread into "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."5 "For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated [killed as in a sacrifice] when `he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.'"6 The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is fully present in each of the wafers—millions offered simultaneously around the world each day—for as long as they exist (even though the leftover consecrated bread/body often putrefies—in direct contradiction to the biblical prophecies that His body would never experience corruption).7 If you have ever wondered why some of the great teachers/preachers of biblical faith have referred to the Catholic Mass and Eucharist as an "abomination before God," and why many saints of old chose to be burned at the stake rather than give credence to such a terrible perversion, I hope it's becoming tragically clear. What every Catholic is participating in is an occult ritual in which a man calls down the resurrected and glorified Christ from heaven, changes His body into a pre-crucified, pre-resurrected body, then turns bread into His body and blood, and kills this Christ on an altar. It is beyond ironic that daily Catholic priests do what their Church historically has blamed and persecuted the Jews for having done once. Since this Eucharistic ritual claims to "re-present" all that Christ suffered for our sins, Jesus must undergo the same experience millions of times every day. Worse yet than the unending brutality and mockery He must suffer is the continual experience of the agony of separation from His Father, which caused Jesus to "sweat...as it were great drops of blood..." and to appeal to His Father to "remove this cup from me" if it were possible (Lk 22:44,42). Hebrews is unequivocal in rejecting this ritualistic Catholic travesty: "[Christ] needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice...for this he did once, when he offered up himself"; "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many"; "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 7:27; 9:28; 10:10). And Peter, regarded by Catholics as their first pope, writes, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pt 3:18). All Catholic communicants must believe they are eating the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus, otherwise they commit a mortal sin: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema." 8 One of the many reasons we cannot take John 6:53 literally ("Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you") is that doing so would constitute cannibalism and the drinking of blood, which both the Old and New Testament specifically forbid. Even Augustine, the father of modern Catholicism, rejected the literal interpretation for this reason.9 Finally, Catholics must worship the "consecrated host" (wafer) as God: "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria [worship given only to God]...or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolators, let him be anathema." 10 The Catholic weekly Our Sunday Visitor reported that one of Promise Keepers' top evangelical executives was so overwhelmed by the "Real Presence of Jesus" at a Franciscan University Eucharistic Holy Hour adoration that he was compelled to prostrate himself before the sacred host.11 Considering only the few Catholic teachings which have been presented in this article, if every Bible-believing, born-again Christian reading this doesn't find them troubling enough to care about the eternal destiny of every Roman Catholic, they should sincerely examine their own understanding of the gospel of salvation. I'm hopeful that there are many who do see the serious problems and are willing to encourage their pastors and elders to teach their congregations to actively evangelize Roman Catholics. For those in the Northeast, Word of Life at Schroon Lake, NY, will be hosting a Reaching Catholics For Christ Conference this September (see TBC Notes). RCFC (reachingcatholics.org) has been formed for the specific purpose of helping equip evangelicals to witness to Catholics. Please pray that in these last days before the Lord returns, He will give His church a loving burden for the salvation of one billion Roman Catholics. TBC End Notes John 1:12,15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40; 8:24; 11:25-26; Romans 3:22: 4:5; 5:1; 10:8-13; Eph 2:8-10 (to name a few).  H.J. Schroeder, trans., The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Tan Books, 1978), 43. Catechism of the Catholic Church (The Wanderer Press, 1994), 268. Trent, op. cit., 46. Catechism, op.cit., 346. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Costello Publishing Company, rev. ed. 1988), 102-103. Psalms 16:10; 49:9; Acts 2:27. Trent, op.cit., 79. William Webster, appendix 8 of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 195, footnote 17; citing Augustine, On Christian Doctrine (n.p., n.d.), 3:16:24. Trent, op. cit., 80. Our Sunday Visitor (July 20, 1997), 10-11.