heretics

Rethinking Conditionalism (Part 5a) – The Atonement
by

Rethinking Conditionalism (Part 5a) – The Atonement

(Notice: the blog series has moved to Rethinking Conditionalism on Our Common Salvation)

I would like to reveal and exegete more Scriptures that conditionalists use to affirm their position of annihilationism, but let’s cut to the chase. There’s an even bigger topic at hand. And it is in the area of atonement. Because whenever you change the nature/definition of eternal punishment or eternal life, you inevitably change your view of the atonement. And even though conditionalist claim to say that their view of hell doesn’t change their outlook on the atonement (in a heretical way at least), it seems that when the contributors write or speak on their podcasts, they betray themselves. And this issue is hard to tackle in writing seeing that those within the conditionalist camp are not only varied in their opinion concerning what happens in the intermediate state (between death and the resurrection), and the nature of Hell (whether it is retributive and/or restorative), but because of their hermeneutics and also some of their different applications of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). But I contest that this position is indeed not only a gateway doctrine to heresy, but it seems to accommodate heretical company. And hopefully, the concerns below will make this more clear.

Despite the above, there is one unifying doctrine within conditionalism – Death IS the punishment for sin. In other words, the act of Jesus Christ dying on the cross (when life left His body) is when sin was paid/atoned for and the punishment was satisfied. They say this in response to those of us who say that the wrath of God poured out on Christ was satisfied while He was still alive. But I don’t holistically disagree with death being a necessary component of the punishment, and neither should you reader. But their main challenge is that if the wrath of God that Jesus bore Himself was payment for sin, then why did He die? Great question! But this is, once again, making a distinction without making a difference. The challenge can easily be reversed in that if death IS the punishment, then why would Jesus endure such a brutal and tortuous beating from His creation, and bear God’s wrath while on the cross? Since death is the punishment, then Jesus could have just endured a slit throat like the lambs of old, and died for our sin (see this article I wrote that helps us to understand how what Jesus endured was more than what we are going to endure in hell because of who He was). Of course, in reading this, conditionalists may make up a ready response. They always do. But their leaders don’t want their responses challenged in a public dialogue (i.e. conversation) with me where their views can be scrutinized and critiqued for consistency. They would rather have the safety of timed debates, and social media platforms to defend their views. Where they can say their peace without being probed in dialogue by someone who has found extreme reason to doubt the veracity of their position, who also has taken the time to digest their position from the inside and can detect and call out the subtle linguistic shifts in their argument. Yes, I am saying that most of their published information does not address their specific challenges head on as I am doing.  But I digress. I still offer my open invitation for public dialogue here even though they continually reject my appeal on emotional grounds.

Gateway Heresy

Before I deal with the atonement, let me explain why I have concerns and why I believe that this theology is a gateway doctrine to heresy. If we were simply discussing the nature of hell, then a secondary conversation could possibly be had without any consequence to salvific implications (maybe), IF the person is simply inconsistent by believing this position, or if they are not a popular teacher saying our view is closer to heresy, like Chris Date says (you’ll see below).  This is the type of conversation conditionalist strive for. They want to treat this as merely a secondary issue. This is the proverbial “seat at the table” Chris Date and the Rethinking Hell contributors beg for. And this would be all fine and dandy if it were not for the fact that having alternate views of the afterlife affects your view of the atonement.* And, if it weren’t for the issues below. Continue reading →

by

Phil Johnson on MacArthur and “Lordship Salvation”

In the whole debate over “Lordship Salvation”, John MacArthur has had a big red target painted on him, and those who teach “easy-believism” have strung him up and flung him into the depths of Hell because of one paragraph of one book he wrote 7 years ago (“Hard To Believe”). See, the “easy-believer®” doesn’t want to hear the fact that if a person is saved, they will show evidence of their salvation through good works (even though the Holy Writ is clear in many places, such as James 2:14-24 and Ephesians 2:10) that believers are saved in order to perform good works–not that those good works save them. They are so focused on painting Johnny Mac as a heretic, that–well, why bother letting the facts get in the way?

Now, let me ask you this: who would give you a better and more accurate picture of what I believe–someone who heard me say something seven years ago–or someone who hears me teach every week, who knows me personally, and has heard me explain my beliefs over the last several years?

The same question can be asked of those who continue to bash Dr. MacArthur. Who would give you a better and more accurate picture of what he believes–someone who read one paragraph of one book written seven years ago–or someone who knows him personally, works with him every day, and in fact is the editor of most of Dr. MacArthur’s books?

Phil Johnson is the editor of Dr. MacArthur’s books, and is closer–much closer–to Dr. MacArthur than those who continue to smear Dr. MacArthur’s name with accusations based on a statement that Dr. MacArthur never made to begin with. The statement in question is:

Salvation isn’t the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it’s the fruit of actions, not intentions.

Now, it certainly sounds like Dr. MacArthur is teaching salvation by works. But, here’s the kicker–Dr. MacArthur never wrote those words! Here is the explanation from Phil Johnson, posted over at Paleoevangelical (Phil Johnson’s words are in green, Lou Martuneac’s words are in blue, text pertaining to the revision is in purple)–

Continue reading →

by

Quotes (780)

“There are hidden perils in our life with God whenever we disobey Him. If we are not obeying God physically we experience a craving for drugs, not only physical drugs out of a bottle, but drugs in certain types of meetings and certain types of company—anything that keeps away the realisation that the habits of the bodily life are not in accordance with what is God’s will.

If in the providence of God, obedience to God takes me into contact with people and surroundings that are wrong and bad, I may be perfectly certain that God will guard me; but if I go there out of curiosity, God does not guard me, and the tendency is to “drug” it over—“I went with a good idea to try and find out about these things.” Well, you plainly had no business to go, and you know you had no business to go because the Spirit of God is absolutely honest.

The whole thing starts from disobedience on a little point. We wanted to utilise God’s grace for our own purposes, to use God’s gifts for our own reasoning out of things in a particular way.”

Oswald Chambers
1874-1917

by

What is wrong with the prosperity “gospel”.

If you notice, at the end of the title there is a period–not a question mark. It is not great secret that the prosperity “gospel” is heresy. But, how do we explain just how many levels of heresy are involved in the TBN crowd’s twisting and perverting of God’s word for their own financial gain? Well, I made these videos for just that purpose. To tear the prosperity “gospel” apart, and show, piece by piece, why this is such a perversion and blasphemy. I apologize for the little places where the audio is kinda choppy. I guess I should have “sown” into a video production ministry, eh?

NOTE: In the 4th video, there is a 5-second still from “The Passion of the Christ.” It is not meant to be an endorsement of the film by any means (and I do not recommend it whatsoever). However, I wanted a picture of Christ on the cross, and, unfortunately, this was the only one that doesn’t portray Him with, as one fellow said, “pretty blue eyes and curly brown hair and a clear complexion.”