Tag: John Calvin

What The Holy Spirit Will Never Do

Neal Pollard

There is no question that the Holy Spirit, as an everlasting personality of God, is unlimited in power.  He can do whatever it is possible for God to do, for He is God.  It is interesting to read or hear religious people, from preachers to other members, claiming or asserting things the Holy Spirit is doing in churches and lives today.  In fact, several of these claims demand an answer, principles from scripture that must be considered before such claims are believed and embraced.  What are some things the Holy Spirit will never do?

The Holy Spirit will never override our free will.  John Calvin, a 16th century protestant reformer, went to an extreme that placed salvation solely in God’s hands.  He contended that man did not have a part in it at all.  From this premise came five broad religious ideas that eventually became identified as Calvinism.  One of these tenets is called “irresistible grace,” the idea that those God chooses for salvation are led to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit upon the human heart.  Tragically, this false idea is supported by many in religion today.  Yet, Scripture makes it clear that even in the first century, when the Holy Spirit operated miraculously in confirming the spoken message of Christ, His apostles, and other early Christians, He never directly operated upon the human heart in a way that overtook or overwhelmed the free will of the individual.  Cornelius received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:48-49), but how was he saved?  Acts 11:14-15 indicates that it was words told to him whereby he and his house were to be saved.  1 Corinthians 1:18 tells us that God chose to save souls through the message preached.  One can look in the Bible from cover to cover and never find a statement or implication that God acts directly upon the human heart in a way that overtakes our will and leads us to belief and salvation.  Scripture repeatedly urges man to choose for himself, if he wills (Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28-30; etc.).  The Holy Spirit works powerfully upon the human heart to persuade man to obey God, but He does so through the powerful word (Heb. 4:12; Rom. 1:16).  This message is so compelling and convicting, but God has left it to our free will to decide whether to accept or reject this message.

The Holy Spirit will never contradict revealed truth.  Increasing claims are made in churches today about what the Spirit is working in churches to accomplish.  Often, the Spirit has been given credit for a church’s change of policy in women’s role, how or on what to spend money (such as for a grandiose campus), or even a strange, new doctrine.  Such assertions, however, ring hollow.  If these contentions were true, such would reflect most negatively on the character and nature of God.  The result of God revealing one thing in scripture, then revealing something else directly, is contradiction and confusion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).  God claimed that He was giving us His will for all people of all time (John 14:26; 16:13; Jude 3, 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).  If He is still revealing new truth through the Spirit, was He right in those passages?  If He is still revealing new truth through the Spirit, how does this not reflect on His honesty?  God cannot lie (cf. Ti. 1:2), but those who claim Holy Spirit guidance in revealing new truth today, if they are correct, make Him such.

The Holy Spirit will never assert what cannot be confirmed.  Considering the work of Moses, then the later prophets, Jesus, His apostles, and others who asserted that their message was directly from God, one finds miracles being performed which confirmed without doubt the source of the message.  Without such tangible confirmation, how does the one who receives the claim know that claim to be true?  Anyone can claim that the Spirit revealed something to them or told them to do something, but how can anyone know they are right without clear confirmation?  That is what Aaron’s rod was for.  Isaiah (7:14), Jeremiah (44:29), Zechariah (3:8), and others all pointed to a sign that would confirm the veracity of their message.  History bears witness to the truthfulness of their claims (cf. Deut. 18:22).  After the church was established, Paul was already teaching in the first century that the miraculous gifts would not be needed once the written word was completed (1 Cor. 13:8-12).  God has never left Himself unsubstantiated.  How do we confirm doctrine?  We go to the Word God breathed.  It reveals His thoughts and His will.  He will not sanction men’s unconfirmed claims, and we are wise not to rest our hopes on such.  It is a dangerous and unfounded precedent to simply claim divine guidance without proof.  With such an approach, every person can claim a certain revelation, guidance, and heavenly message.  Without confirmation, no one’s claims can be tested!

The Holy Spirit is Divine, living, and powerful.  As God, He is at work in lives today.  He indwells the Christian (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14; etc.).  He strengthens the inner man (Eph. 3:16).  However, may we never fall prey to the false ideas that man creates and that cannot be verified by scripture (cf. 1 John 4:1).  The Bible exists for the reason of testing such ideas as these.  It must be the standard that proves and disproves men’s claims today.  Know for certain that the Holy Spirit does not today, nor has He ever, overtaken man’s free will.  He will never lead one to a conclusion or teaching that contradicts the Word He inspired holy men of God to pen.  If one claims a Holy Spirit-given message that is more, less, or different from scripture, it must be rejected!  If the alleged Holy Spirit-given message is the same as scripture, then why would God have given us scripture in the first place if He was going to directly dispense the same message apart from the Word?  Finally, He will never allow men to pass off as truth that which they cannot confirm in some way that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the message is divinely given.  Let God’s people be diligent students of the Bible and as such able to discern right and wrong in such matters as these!

Types of Faith

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent

Salvation is by faith, but not by faith alone (James 2.14–24). Faith without obedience is not a saving faith. Every example of saving faith emphasizes obedience (see Hebrews 11). The demons are the only group identified as possessing a type of faith without works (James 2.19). But “saving faith” produces good works (Ephesians 2.8-10).

But what of other types of faith? Indeed, the New Testament discusses various types of faith, not just the saving kind.

According to Matthew 8.10, there is “great faith.” Jesus praised a centurion for believing that Jesus could heal his sick servant from afar. Jesus remarked that He had not encountered such faith in anyone in Israel.

Paul writes that Abraham had “strong faith” (Romans 4.20). Abraham, a devoted follower of God, trusted the Lord’s promise to bless him and make him the father of many nations. Paul says that Abraham believed God’s promise to him and acted accordingly; his faith never wavered, even after being asked to sacrifice the son for whom he had waited.

Peter serves as an example of “little faith” on one occasion. Jesus invited Peter to walk on water with him in Matthew 14. Before Peter took his focus off of Jesus and onto the raging sea, he was doing fine. However, after taking his gaze off Jesus, he found himself sinking. Peter begged Jesus to rescue him. Jesus did so but rebuked him for his lack of faith (Matthew 14.31).

Romans 14.1 informs us that there is “weak faith.” A weak faith belongs to a brother or sister who stumbles over his brethren’s scruples in judgment rather than doctrine. It’s worth noting that Paul says that the stronger brother should keep his or her freedom in check so that the weaker brother doesn’t stumble. Paul says they shouldn’t argue about it or condemn a weaker brother for having a different view. We can easily see the compassionate nature of Christianity in this, as one would typically expect the one with weak faith to capitulate to the one with stronger faith.

Lastly, there is a dead faith. James reminds us that faith without works is dead (James 2.17). We should have faith that manifests itself in our actions rather than just words, as this shows others that we are sincere in our beliefs. In 2.16, James says that seeing someone hungry but telling them to be filled rather than feeding them is an example of ineffective (i.e., dead) faith.

Though not called “living faith,” we realize that the New Testament also implies the existence of living faith. Fruit is proof that the plant producing it is alive. In Galatians 5.22-23, faithfulness is a part of the fruit of the Spirit. Those led by the Spirit will possess this living faith.

While thinkers like Martin Luther and John Calvin have indeed clouded the waters when defining faith, we must be careful not to underestimate its significance. Faith saves us. All we have to do is make sure we’re on the same page about faith and how to explain it to others.

Regarding the various faiths we’ve seen, a weak believer can strengthen his faith. One with little faith can embiggen it. A person with dead faith can resurrect it through repentance and obedience. But a demon cannot rehabilitate his faith. Demons are powerless to change their fate as a result of their punishment. So, let’s check our faith to ensure it’s still living and saving so that other people can see that we have a great and strong faith.

Brent Pollard

We Need The Righteousness Of God

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent

The concept of righteousness is quite similar to holiness; both terms refer to a state of being morally upright and emotionally attuned to God’s will. It comprises all that we term justice, honesty, morality, and affections of the heart; in a nutshell, it is true religion. And while there is this type of righteousness to emulate, there are other types of righteousness to avoid. 

The first type of righteousness we need to avoid is that which originates in a person’s mind, which is distinct from the righteousness that originates in God. We identify this type of righteousness as “self-righteousness.” Self-righteousness, often born out of pride, is when a person relies on his or her sense of morality to judge right and wrong. 

Another example of false righteousness is John Calvin’s teaching on imputed righteousness. By imputed, Calvin meant that God credited the elect sinner with Christ’s righteousness. As a result, God shifted His attention away from the sinner and toward Jesus, whom He acknowledges to be sinless. Consequently, Calvin believed that a person God has chosen for salvation does not need to worry about living a good life. When God looks at him, he can only see Christ. (As a side note, it is expected that the one chosen by God will seek a life of righteousness. But the truth is that according to the doctrine, it’s possible to be a willful sinner and still have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.) 

There are seven occurrences of the word “impute” in the KJV. None of these verses suggests that a person can appropriate Christ’s righteousness as their own. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ allows for the transformation of sinners into saints through forgiveness. Entrance to the heavenly kingdom is granted only to those who do God’s will (Matthew 7.21–23). Thus, while imputation suggests that God finds one without guilt and blame, it does not mean that a person can take on the righteousness of Jesus Christ and expect to gain entrance into heaven. 

A sinful man becomes righteous through faith in God, not through any meritorious works he can perform. But faith does not exclude human participation. Man must do something. James 2 and Hebrews 11 remind us that faith works the works of God (Ephesians 2.10). A sinner becomes righteous, sanctified, and justified by God’s grace. God gave him his righteousness, and God counts it as his righteousness, not on account of the goodness of Christ or anyone else, living or dead. 

Abraham is a great role model for how to achieve righteousness. First, Paul says that Abraham believed in God, which God credited him as righteousness (Romans 4.3–9, 17–22). Second, it is also important to note that Abraham’s righteous status was independent of his being circumcised (Romans 4.10–12). Third, Abraham’s faith was active, working by grace (Galatians 3.6–9; James 2.21–23). 

So, it was Abraham’s faith in God rather than Jesus’ own sinless life and obedience that God credited as righteousness. Even though Abraham’s efforts would have been futile without Jesus’ perfect life and obedience, he could not leave everything to be accomplished by God. This truth meant that God gave Abraham the tools he needed, but Abraham was the one who had to use them.  

We must do as Abraham did. And just as God will not credit us with Christ’s righteousness, neither will He credit us with the righteousness of anyone else (e.g., a parent or spouse). Our evaluation before God is personal (2 Corinthians 5.10). We must avoid doing as Paul did before his conversion, seeking righteousness contingent on anything other than Christ (Philippians 3.9). 

Brent Pollard

A Simple Way To Identify The Church Jesus Started 

Tuesday’s Column: Dale Mail

IMG_1381

Dale Pollard

There are just too many voices in the world today muddying the waters when it comes to 21st century Christianity. In fact the term, “Christianity,” doesn’t mean much the average person. In fact, the average person will most likely have several friends who carry this title and they know based on their morals— they’re not really different. Sadly it’s a description that doesn’t describe much, other than an individual that believes in God. That’s really it! This word has been tragically stripped of what we understand to be the most rewarding life you could possibly live. There’s simply no higher calling, there is no greater purpose in life, and you just can’t beat the retirement plan. 

Now let’s do something to help the seeking world out. 

Let’s make it our priority to understand the church in such a way that we can simplify her mission and her origin. 

Here are two terms that will help:

  1. The term “restoration” may sound similar to “reformation”, but the two terms could not be more contrary to each other. Restoration is an attempt to return the church to the pattern we find in the New Testament, while reformation is a changing of what currently exists. It’s a modification or addition which creates something new entirely. The Old Testament is filled with the pleas of the prophets for the people to restore their relationships with God. 

    2.  The definition of the word “denomination” is evidence that restoration is not only possible, but needed. Denomination, in the religious world, describes a branch off of an  original. Any branch coming off of the New Testament church, is simply not it. 

Five Facts About The Lord’s Church 

  1. The New Testament church was established by Jesus, not Luther, Henry the 8th, Calvin, Smith, or Wesley
  2. The New Testament church was established in Jerusalem, not Oxford, London, or Amsterdam
  3. In New Testament times people were told to believe in Jesus, repent of their sins,  be baptized by a total immersion of water, and to live faithfully (Acts 2:38, 16:30-31, 2:16, Mark 16:15-16; Romans 6:1-4; Revelation 2:10) 
  4. Christians in the New Testament met on the first day of the week to partake in the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7)
  5. The New Testament church was a united church, while denominationalism is, by its very nature, divided. 

If the church you are a part of can say the same, you can be confident that it is the church that Jesus established. If this is not what the church you are a part of teaches and practices, then perhaps this will be some information that will help you begin a life-changing search to find God’s will for your life. 

 

How Often To Take “The Feast Of Love”?

Neal Pollard

I recently read a fascinating article by John H. Armstrong in the September, 2014, issue of “Christianity Today.” Armstrong starts out reminiscing on early childhood worship experiences in the denomination he attended. He writes that his church celebrated the Lord’s Supper “four times a year. I remember asking why we celebrated it so infrequently. The answer I got never satisfied, and it still doesn’t: ‘If we do this very often, it will lose its meaning'” (51). He goes on to say, “As I grew older, I discovered some churches took the meal weekly. I was then even more dissatisfied with the answer I had received” (ibid.).  He goes on to write a mostly historical examination of the Lord’s Supper, looking at the debates and developments of church history.  At the end, he summarizes by saying, “…[younger Christians] desire to receive the meal more often. And some of them—as I did when I was younger—have started attending congregations that take Communion ever week” (53).  The reasons given are that each observance gives us the opportunity to focus on Jesus’ crucifixion, expresses the unity of the body, and reflects our personal identity in Christ (ibid.). In other words, it offers commemoration, examination, and expectation.  We need that on an ongoing basis, and the Lord knew we would.  That is why He pointed ahead to a certain frequency when He established it, saying He would do it again when He established His Kingdom (Mark 14:25).  Paul says it was to be done with a certain frequency (1 Cor. 11:25—”as often as”).  Thankfully, Luke shows us how frequently it was taken (Acts 20:7—”on the first day of the week”).  It is good to understand that the Bible establishes the frequency of our observation of the Lord’s Supper, but it is also important to know why we take it each week.  We look up, look back, look within, look around, and look ahead.  Our all-wise God knew we would need this every time we assembled with our spiritual family.  Though so many have lost sight of its frequency, may we never lose sight of its significance!