Is the Bible Reliable? Part 3

Below is John MacArthur's article on


The Defense of Inspiration


A. The Testimony of Human Authors

We begin with these men because they of all people should know whether the words they recorded came from themselves or from the mind of God. Is the Bible merely a product of human creativity? That's not likely because many of the writers were unlearned men, not great classical philosophers. Some were fishermen, farmers, and tax collectors. Yet, they wrote with absolute confidence that what they recorded was the Word of God. Could they have been wrong?

Consider this: How could common men write something as magnificent as the Bible? It is so magnificent it has been studied throughout history because of its unmatched literary significance. When Peter and John went before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, Peter said, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Scripture records that the men of the Sanhedrin "perceived that they [Peter and John] were unlearned and ignorant men [and] marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13-20).

Theologian Henry Thiessen said, "The Bible is superior to all other religious books in content. It sets up the highest ethical standards, enjoins the most absolute obedience, denounces every form of sin, and yet informs the sinner how he can become right with God. How could uninspired men write a book like that?" (Lectures in Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 67). Men do not write books that condemns themselves!

Unity from Diversity

The Bible contains sixty-six books written by over forty authors and covers a period of at least fifteen hundred years. With only a few exceptions, the authors were Jewish men. Yet the Bible has universal appeal. Two writers were kings; two were priests; one was a physician; two were fishermen; two were shepherds. Paul was a Pharisee and a theologian; Daniel was a statesman; Matthew was a tax collector; Joshua was a soldier; Ezra was a scribe; and Nehemiah was a cupbearer. The writing of these men expanded over fifteen hundred years and yet there is not one contradiction and they develop the same perfect theme. As Thiessen points out, the Bible "has one doctrinal viewpoint, one moral standard, one plan of salvation, one program of the ages, one world view" (p. 67). Also, the Bible records history and addresses matters of science, medicine, ethics, and practical wisdom--all without error. Since, as they claimed, the authors wrote under the inspiration of God, it is understandable that the Bible is accurate. If God did not write it how could over forty men writing in different centuries make their thoughts harmonize? The accuracy and harmony of Scripture demand inspiration.

Inspiration is verified by the subjects it addresses. For instance, it wasn't until William Harvey's discoveries in the seventeenth century that we understood how the circulatory system keeps us alive. However the first book in the Bible speaks of, "Flesh with the life thereof, which is in the blood" (Gen. 9:4). Leviticus 17:11 says, "The life of the flesh is in the blood."

Through the years critics have challenged the historical accuracy of Scripture, claiming certain events recorded in the Bible simply could not have happened. Yet time and time again archaeology vindicates the claims of God's Word. Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck wrote, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." He applauds "the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact" (Rivers in the Desert [Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969], p. 31).Who but God could have written such a glorious masterpiece?

1. Old Testament writers

Over 3800 times Old Testament writers claim they are writing the words of God. After giving the law, Moses said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish anything from it" (Deut. 4:2). Moses said, "These are the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you ... that you mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments which I command thee.... And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and should talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates" (Deut. 6:1- 2, 6-9). The words Moses spoke were God's words and therefore must be treated as sacred.

In Amos 3:7 the prophet says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants, the prophets." God gave His revelation to the prophets.

2. New Testament writers

a) Their view of the Old Testament

New Testament writers believed the Old Testament was the Word of God. Over 300 times the New Testament directly quotes the Old. And there are at least 1000 references to the Old Testament in the New (Walter Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New [Chicago: Moody, 1985], pp. 2- 3).

(1) 2 Peter 1:21--"Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Peter believed the Old Testament was inspired.

(2) Hebrews 1:1--"God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets." The author of Hebrews believed the Old Testament to be the Word of God.

(3)Romans 7:12--"The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

(4) Acts 7:37-38--"Moses ... said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord, your God, raise up unto you of your brethren, like me; him shall ye hear. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give unto us." God gave His word to an angel, who gave it to a man, who gave it to us.

(5) Acts 13:34-35--David said, "He [God] raised him [the Messiah] up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said in this way, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore, he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not allow thine holy one to see corruption." In Psalm 16:10 David is speaking but here in Acts, Paul says God is the one who is speaking.

(6) Acts 28:25--Paul said, "Well spoke the Holy Spirit by Isaiah, the prophet, unto our fathers." Again the Holy Spirit spoke through a human instrument.

(7) Galatians 3:8--"The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Genesis 12:1-3 declares, "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Paul substitutes "scripture" where Genesis has "God." Whatever the Scriptures say-- God says. The Old Testament is the Word of God.

b) Their view of the New Testament

(1) The testimony of Paul

Paul said, "The scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the grain" (1 Tim. 5:18a). Here he is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 and calls it Scripture. In verse 18b he says, "and the laborer is worthy of his reward," a quote from Luke 10:7. So Paul viewed the gospel of Luke as Scripture.

(2) The testimony of Peter

Peter said, "Account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother, Paul, also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Here Peter includes Paul's writings with all other Scripture. That is a great statement on New Testament inspiration, which in effect identifies all of Paul's writings (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) as the Word of God.

c) Their view of themselves

(1) The testimony of Paul

(a) Galatians 1:11-12, 16--"I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.... To reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."

(b) Ephesians 3:3--"By revelation he [God] made known unto me the mystery (as I wrote before in few words)."

(c) 1 Corinthians 11:23--"I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."

(d) 1 Corinthians 15:3--"I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."

(e) 1 Thessalonians 4:15--"This we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede them who are asleep."

(f) 1 Timothy 4:1--"The Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons."

(g) Titus 1:3--God "hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me."

(2) The testimony of John

This apostle wrote the gospel of John, 1, 2, and 3 John, and the book of Revelation. He began each of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation with, "These things saith [the Spirit] (Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). Then at the end of each letter he said, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). John claimed his message was coming from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In Revelation 19:9 John says, "These are the true sayings of God." In chapter 21 verse 5 he says, "For these words are true and faithful." At the beginning of the book he said, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy" (1:3). Then at the end, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (22:18).

B. The Testimony of Jesus Christ

1. He was the theme of Scripture

Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). Revelation 19:10 declares, "Worship God; for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [the Lord] expounded unto them [the disciples], in all the scriptures, the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).

2. He came to fulfill Scripture

a) Matthew 5:17--"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

b) Matthew 26:24--"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born."

c) Matthew 26:54--"How, then, shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

d) Luke 16:17; 18:31--"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail ... Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

3. He believed the words of Scripture

In Matthew 22:24-32 the Sadducees were questioning Jesus about the resurrection, "saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first, when he had married a wife, died and, having no issue [offspring], left his wife unto his brother; likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.... And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (emphasis added).

Christ's argument turns on the verb "am" in verse 32. It indicates that by virtue of this name, God is the God of the living, not the dead. Therefore, our Lord took the precise terms of Scripture very seriously.

4. He acknowledged the power of Scripture

When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He responded each time by replying, "It is written" (Matt. 4:3-10). He used the power of God's Word to combat Satan.

5. He fulfilled the prophecies of Scripture

Jesus literally fulfilled hundreds of messianic prophecies (see Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict [San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life, 1979], pp. 141-77). For example, Christ was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:1), He suffered and died on a cross (Ps. 22; Matt. 27:46; John 19:28), and He rose from the dead (Isa. 53:9-10; Ps. 16:10; Matt. 28).

6. He corroborated the truths of Scripture

a) Adam and Eve--In Matthew 19:4-5 Christ said, "Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh?" (cf. Gen. 1:27; 2:24). Jesus did not believe in progressive creation or theistic evolution-- He believed in creation as recorded in Genesis.

b) The Flood--Jesus believed in a literal Noah and a literal flood. In Matthew 24:37-38 He said, "As the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark."

c) Abraham's hope--Genesis 15:6 says Abraham was justified by faith. Jesus said, "Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56).

d) Circumcision--Jesus confirmed the teaching of circumcision in the Old Testament (cf. John 7:22-23).

e) Sodom and Gomorrah--Jesus confirmed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:29, 32).

f) The burning bush--Jesus confirmed the miraculous call of Moses (Mark 12:26).

g) Manna from heaven--Jesus spoke of the manna that was provided for the children of Israel in the wilderness (John 6:31-51).

h) The brazen serpent--In John 3:14 Jesus referred to the brazen serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness.

Time and again Christ repeatedly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament. In addition, He established the sufficiency of Scripture to save mankind; "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" (Luke 16:29). In context His point was miracles are not necessary for men to be saved; all that is needed is the word of the prophets.

He who is the Truth knew, believed, and submitted to the inspired writings with no reservations. There are only three possibilities concerning Jesus' testimony to Scripture: 1) There are no errors in Scripture; 2) There are errors, but Jesus didn't know them and therefore was not God; 3) There are errors and He knew about them but covered them up and not holy. If God is holy, if Christ is holy then we must believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

The belief in the deity of Jesus Christ demands a belief in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.

C. The Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The testimonies of Jesus and the authors of Scripture are objective. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is subjective. After a person understands why it is reasonable to believe the Bible, it is the Holy Spirit who brings about belief.

The effects of sin must be overcome by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The entire human race was affected by the fall of Adam and Eve. So mankind's problem is moral, not intellectual: man doesn't reject truth because it's hard to understand, but because he is hostile to it and doesn't want to accept it. First Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:14a). Man will remain hostile and reject truth unless he is enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Preaching alone will not convince anyone to believe the Bible-- there must also be the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

So why should we bother to give evidence of the Bible's authority? Because Peter said, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15). The Holy Spirit ministers in conjunction with the preaching of the Word, Romans 10:14, 17 says, "How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?... So, then, faith cometh by hearing ... the word of God." The Spirit of God and the Word of God work together to give witness of the Bible's authority.

Is the Bible Reliable? Part 2

Inscription by Pontius Pilate It wasn't long ago when many scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus' crucifixion. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."

It reads:

Line One: TIBERIEUM,,

Line Two: (PON) TIUS

Line Three: (PRAEF) ECTUS IUDA (EAE)

This is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to Caesarea's theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. It is interesting as well that there have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate.
(taken from bible-history.com)



According to history Pilate made an immediate impression upon the Jews when he moved his army headquarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem. They marched into the city with their Roman standards, bearing the image of the "divine emperor" and set up their headquarters right in the corner of the Temple in a palace-fortress called "Antonia," which outraged the Jews. Pilate quickly learned their zealous nature and political power within the province and, according to Josephus, ordered the standards to be returned to Caesarea (Josephus Ant. 18.3.1-2; Wars 2.9.2-4).

Pilate made some other mistakes according to history before the time when he ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. One time he placed on the walls of his palace on Mt. Zion golden shields bearing inscriptions of the names of various gods. Tiberius had to personally order the removal of the shields. Another time Pilate used Temple revenue to build his aqueduct. There is another incident only recorded in the Bible where Pilate ordered the slaughter of certain Galileans (Luke 13:1) who had supposedly been offering sacrifices in the Temple. Here are some details:


"At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled."

(The Aqueduct- Josephus, War 2.175-177, Antiq 18.60-62)

Pilate and Jesus
1 So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him. 2 And the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe. 3 Then they said,[a] “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck Him with their hands.
4 Pilate then went out again, and said to them, “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him.”

5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!”
6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.”
7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our[b] law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”
8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
15 But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?”
The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”
16 Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. Then they took Jesus and led Him away. John 19

Is the Bible Reliable?

Is the Bible Reliable?


The "House of David" is inscribed on this victory stele excavated at Tel Dan, in the Galilee region of Israel. It is dated from the 9th Century BC.


Fragments of a large inscribed basalt stele were found in the square located in front of the Israelite city gate complex. The largest of these fragments measures 32 x 22 cm. and, of the original inscription, thirteen lines have been partially preserved. The language is ancient Aramaic.

The 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE were marked by military conflicts between the kings of Israel and the expanding kingdom of Aram-Damascus. (1 Kings 15:20) Thus the stele was erected by one of the Aramean kings of Damascus who captured Dan - although which king cannot be ascertained as yet. It is probable that in lines 7-8 two kings of Israel and Judah, who ruled at the same time, are mentioned: Jehoram, king of Israel and Ahaziah, king of Judah, referred to as a king of the House of David. These two kings were allies and were defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5)




The stele describing Hazael's victory over his enemies was, in all probability, erected by him when he conquered Dan in the mid-9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that Jehoash, king of Israel, who fought the Arameans three times and defeated them (2 Kings 13:25) recovering territories previously lost, including the city of Dan, symbolically smashed the stele erected there by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus.

Although the broken stele raises serious historical problems, it is one of the most important written finds in Israel and the first non-biblical text which mentions the House of David by name. It is hoped that more fragments of this unique stele will be uncovered in future excavations.

Anthony Flew

(this video interview is conducted by Lee Strobel and the interview below is conducted by Gary Habermas)


Anthony Flew was at one time a very outspoken Atheist. Now Anthony is a Diest, and you can read his definition of the word below.

Here Gary Habermas interviews Anthony about his conversion from Atheism to Diesm. Gary and Anthony have debated the resurrection many times and they are good freinds.
Dr. Gary R. Habermas is Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Dept. of Philosophy and Theology at LIBERTY UNIVERSITY.


HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

Talking about intelligent design Flew responds:

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

HABERMAS: If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?

FLEW: Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on. I suppose that does imply creation “in the beginning.”


While Flew does not claim to be a Christian his conversion from Atheism is one step in the the right direction. C.S. Lewis started this way as well.

I will post more about Flew later.

0 and 53!

How do you lose 53 straight to one team?

Our prayers are with the Clemson Tigers and their fans.

Well, maybe not.

Evangelism & The Sovereignty Of God Part 5

Here is J.I.'s final response to the Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God question.

II. The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism.

Some fear that belief in the sovereign grace of God leads to the conclusion that evangelism is pointless, since God will save His elect anyway, whether they hear the gospel or not. This, as we have seen, is a false conclusion based on a false assumption. But now we must go further, and point out that the truth is just the opposite. So far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility—indeed, the certainty—that evangelism will be fruitful. Apart from it, there is not even a possibility of evangelism being fruitful. Were it not for the sovereign grace of God, evangelism would be the most futile and useless enterprise that the world has ever seen, and there would be no more complete waste of time under the sun than to preach the Christian gospel.
Why is this? Because of the spiritual inability of man in sin. Let Paul, the greatest of all evangelists, explain this to us.

Fallen man, says Paul, has a blinded mind, and so is unable to grasp spiritual truth.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1Corinthians 2:14

Again, he has a perverse and ungodly nature. ‘The carnal mind (the mind of the unregenerate man) is enmity against God.

Romans 8:7 says, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."

In both these passages Paul makes two distinct statements about fallen man in relation to God’s truth, and the progression of thought is parallel in both cases.
First Paul asserts unregenerate man’s failure, as a matter of fact. He ‘receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God’; he ‘is not subject to the law of God’. But then Paul goes on to interpret his first statement by a second, to the effect that this failure is a necessity of nature, some- thing certain and inevitable and universal and unalterable, just because it is not in man to do other- wise than fail in this way. ‘Neither can he know them.’ ‘Neither indeed can be.’ Man in Adam has not got it in him to apprehend spiritual realities, or to obey God’s law from his heart. Enmity against God, leading to defection from God, is the law of his nature. It is, so to speak, instinctive to him to suppress and evade and deny God’s truth, and to shrug off God’s authority and to flout God’s law—yes, and when he hears the gospel to disbelieve and disobey that too.

Epehsians 2:1 says "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,.."

This means he is wholly incapacitated for any positive reaction to God’s Word, deaf to God’s speech, blind to God’s revelation, impervious to God’s inducements. If you talk to a corpse, there is no response; the man is dead. When God’s Word is spoken to sinners, there is equally no response; they are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’.

What does this mean for evangelism? It means, quite simply, that evangelism, described as we have described it, cannot possibly succeed. However clear and cogent we may be in presenting the gospel, we have no hope of convincing or converting anyone. Can you or I by our earnest talking break the power of Satan over a man’s life? No. Can you or I give life to the spiritually dead? No. Can we hope to convince sinners of the truth of the gospel by patient explanation? No. Can we hope to move men to obey the gospel by any words of entreaty that we may utter? No. Our approach to evangelism is not realistic till we have faced this shattering fact, and let it make its proper impact on us.

Regarded as a human enterprise, evangelism is a hopeless task. It cannot in principle produce the desired effect. We can preach, and preach clearly and fluently and attractively; we can talk to individuals in the most pointed and challenging way; we can organize special services, and distribute tracts, and put up posters, and flood the country with publicity—and there is not the slightest prospect that all this outlay of effort will bring a single soul home to God. Unless there is some other factor in the situation, over and above our own endeavours, all evangelistic action is foredoomed to failure. This is the fact, the brute, rock-bottom fact, that we have to face.
End Quote.

This is a bold statement by Packer. He is literally saying Salvation begins and ends with the sovereign purposes of God.

What do you think of this response by Packer?

Evangelism 101!

This is a great video.

The Lord said, "Prosper?" Must belong to Creflo's church.

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
Mark 8:38

Prevenient Grace?

Prevenient Grace? Have you ever heard the term. It is used by many whom baptize children and see other means for ones Salvation other than the "drawing of the Holy Spirit".

Below is an article by C. Michael Patton on this topic.

Tell me what you think? It is long but worth your time.


WHY I REJECT THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE OF PREVENIENT GRACE
~ c michael patton ~
It must be said at the outset that this blog is in no way meant for me to put an essential line of demarcation concerning the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. It is no secret to most that I hold strongly to the Reformed doctrines of grace. But it is equally no secret that I have deep respect for the godly character and scholarship of many of the Arminian persuasion that believe differently than I. It is my prayer that this post may serve as a place where robust and strong theological conversation can take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trustworthy representation. Having said that, I thought it time for me to blog a few thoughts on the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is a doctrine held by those who are theologically identified as Arminian. Prevenient grace literally means “grace that comes before.” Prevenient grace is the Arminian answer to the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible grace. It is important to note at the outset that both Calvinists and Arminians believe that people are born sinful. To make this a little more clear, both sides agree that all people are born with an inherent disposition of antagonism toward God. Both Calvinists and Arminians reject what is know as Pelagianism. Pelagius, a fifth-century British monk, taught that people are born neutral, neither good nor bad. Pelagius believed that people sin as a result of example, not nature. Augustine, the primary opponent of Pelagius, responded by teaching that people are not born neutral, but with a corrupted nature. People sin because it is in their nature to sin; they are predisposed to sin. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree with Augustine believing the Scriptures to teach that people are born with a totally corrupt spiritual nature, making their disposition toward God perpetually antagonistic. Therefore, according to both sides, people are absolutely helpless without God’s gracious, undeserved intervention. This is an important mischaracterization of Arminian theology that adherents to my position fail to realize. Arminians believe in the doctrine of total depravity just as strongly as Calvinists.

This adherence to total depravity makes the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace necessary. A former Wesleyan theology professor of mine who believed in Prevenient grace once called it the “ingenious doctrine.” Why? Because according to Arminians it allows them to hold to the biblical and orthodox position of total depravity, yet also allows true free will. You see, according to Calvinists such as myself, if people are in such desperate condition, being inclined toward enmity with God from birth, and unable to change their condition on their own (as a leopard cannot change�its spots - Jer. 13:23), having no “free will” to choose against this depraved nature, then the only way to answer the question, How is anyone saved? is to answer that the will of God saves them. In other words, if our will could not change our disposition, then God must have changed our will for us. Up to this point, both Calvinists and Arminians could agree. But the Calvinist will say that God’s intervention is radical. In our depraved state, God comes into our lives and opens our eyes to His beauty. This intervention happens by means of saving or “irresistible” grace. In our helpless and angry position, while shaking our fists at God, God sovereignly and autonomously regenerates us. Once regenerated, we trust and love the Lord because our nature has been transformed by Him. Therefore, God is the only one to credit for our salvation seeing as how we did not play a part in its genesis (this is sometimes referred to as monergism). But, according to Calvinists, God does not give this gift of saving grace to all people, only the elect. Otherwise, all would be saved.

How do Arminians deal with our depraved condition? Well, they reject the Calvinistic doctrine of “irresistible” grace believing that it does violence to the necessary freedom that must exist for God to have a true loving relationship with man. But something, nevertheless, must make belief possible. In comes Prevenient grace. This is an enabling grace that comes to the aid of all people so that their disposition can be made capable of receiving the Gospel. It does not save them as the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace, but it makes the savable. In essence, Prevenient grace restores people to a state of ability. As Adam before the fall was not predisposed toward sin, being able to make a true free will decision, so people, once affected by Prevenient grace are brought dispositionally to Garden of Eden type conditions. God’s grace comes to the aid of all fallen sinners restoring freedom of the will. Now, it is up to the individual to make an unbiased choice for or against God. Voila! With the doctrine of Prevenient grace, total�depravity and true freedom can be harmonized. Ingenious, right? Not exactly.

I agree with Calvinist commentator and theologian Tom Schreiner that “Prevenient grace is attractive because it solves so many problems [for the Arminian] . . .” but I also believe that it creates more problems than it solves. I am going to briefly list the two major problems that I see with the doctrine of Prevenient grace, but I, as always, want to remind you that there are many great men in the history of the church and in contemporary Evangelical philosophy and theology that do not see things the way I do. I encourage you to seek out their position from them in addition to reading my analysis.

1. Lack of Scripture: The biggest issue that Calvinists have traditionally had with the doctrine of Prevenient grace is its lack of biblical support. Tom Schreiner’s quote above is incomplete; it concludes with this, “. . . but it should be rejected because it cannot be exegetically vindicated.” While Prevenient grace may solve problems and allow Arminians to hold to an orthodox understanding of depravity, the biblical support for the doctrine is very difficult to find. Most Arminians would agree that direct and explicit support from Scripture is not there, but they would say that the concept is necessitated from other explicit teachings. Most importantly, God commands and desires that all people are to repent of their sin (Acts 17:30, 2 Pet. 3:9, et al) and holds them responsible if they do not. This assumes that “all people” have this ability, otherwise God’s desire is hopeless and His command is useless. While there may be some mystery in the fact that God desires the salvation of all and commands all to repent, this does not necessitate nor justify, in my opinion, the insertion of a fairy complected and even more mysterious doctrine of Prevenient grace. In other words, it could be conceded that God commands all people to repent because sin is at issue. People have violated God’s law. This necessitates God to act as God in accordance with His righteous character and reveal the violation of sin, even to those who have no ability to change on their own. In this case, God’s command is true and genuine. Even if no one were to respond, their sin is made manifest and God’s righteousness is exposed through God’s command. It can also be conceded that God does truly desire the repentance of all people, even if people do not have the ability to repent. God’s desire in this case is mysteriously not going to be an active agent in bringing about the salvation of some. Why? I don’t know. But my ignorance in this matter does not justify the implication of Prevenient grace. God can passively desire things that He does not actively will to come about.

2. It does not really solve any problems: Lets assume that we could overcome the difficulties of the lack of Scriptural support of Prevenient grace. Let’s say that I give the Arminians the benefit of the doubt and say that it is possible to interpret the biblical data in such a way that all people receive an enablement that neutralizes their antagonistic disposition toward God. God then would come to each person sometime in their lives and graciously restore their will to the point that they don’t have any predisposed inclination toward rejection or acceptance of the Gospel. What would this look like? First, this “balancing the scales” of the will makes any choice, good or bad, for God or against, impossible. Why? Because each person would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness. They would have no reason for choosing A rather than B. If there is no reason to choose one over the other, then all choices, if they were made, would be completely arbitrary. You see, we make choices according to who we are. If “free will” of the Arminian variety is going to be responsible for making the choice, and this will is neutralized by Prevenient grace, then there is nothing compelling you (character, upbringing, disposition, the Holy Spirit, genetics, etc.) to make any decision whatsoever. Who you are, the primary factor behind every choice, is taken away. There is no “you” to make the choice. It is arbitrary. It does not solve the “loving relationship”problem to say that God is pleased to have a relationship based upon the arbitrary decisions of people. Therefore, in order to hold to the doctrine of Prevenient grace, one is left with either perpetual indecisiveness or an arbitrary choice. Neither of which solves any problems.

Not only this, but lets do the math. Prevenient grace neutralizes the will, making the will completely unbiased toward good or evil. Therefore, this restored “free will” has a fifty-fifty shot of making the right choice. Right? This must be. The scales are completely balanced once God’s Prevenient grace has come upon a person. What would you expect to see if this were the case? Well, I can flip a coin and pretty much expect that the coin would land on heads just as many times as tails. The same should be the case with salvation. You should expect that just as many people to trust the Lord as those that don’t. But just a cursory look through Scripture tells us that this is not the case. For the most part the number of unbelievers has been dramatically higher than that of believers. Take the time of the flood for instance. How is it that out of millions of people (probably much more), there was only one who was found to be righteous? That would be like me flipping a coin a million (or more) times and it landing on tails 999,999 times and only landing on heads once. Impossible. Christ even explicitly said that there will be and always have been many more people who don’t believe than those that do (Matt. 7:14). How can this be if Prevenient grace created a situation of equal opportunity for all people? It can’t.

Now I don’t want to be accused of building a straw man here so I will attempt to represent how Arminians would respond to this. They would say that the contributing factors that influence people’s freedom are those in the outside world. As the snake came from the outside and influenced Adam’s otherwise neutral will, so also outside influences such as culture and family influence people’s will. Therefore, in the time of Noah, the reason why there was only one righteous person on the earth is because the culture had become so corrupt that God could not be found. This is why God destroyed everyone with the flood. This makes some sense, but in reality it simply re-introduces the same problem that Arminians are desperately attempting to avoid - divine unconditional election.

Let me explain. If outside influences play such a large role in influencing Prevenient-grace-restored-people in their choice for or against God, doesn’t that make God the determining factor in whether they are saved or not? If you had a choice, knowing that outside influences were going to play such a big role in the decisions you make, would you want to be born to a family of believers who teach and live the Gospel in a culture of believers that do the same, or would you rather be placed in a committed Muslim home in a Muslim country where the Gospel is unable to give a testimony of God? In other words, would you rather be placed in a Garden with the snake or without the snake? Of course you would say you want to be placed in the environment where the outside influences for belief in God would be most prominently exemplified. Why? Because you have a better chance. Maybe the odds are not perfect, but they would still be much better. Let’s face it, if you were in the preflood world at the time of Noah, as nice a person as you are today, I seriously doubt that you would have followed Noah rather than the rest of the world.

The problem is that you do not decide where you live or when you will be born. You do not determine your outside influences, God does.

Acts 17:26 26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.

This passage tells us that God determines the outside influences that are the ultimate influence, the determining factor, in our choice. God chose where you would be born, when, and to what family you would belong. Therefore, God’s sovereign unconditional choice is still the ultimate and determining cause in our salvation. This is the very problem that Arminians seek to avoid with the doctrine of Prevenient grace.

If Arminians were to respond by saying that God gives more grace to those in the most depraved conditions, this would not explain why it is that people in cultures and families that are godly have a higher percentage of believers. We are back to flipping the coin. It does not work either way.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that there is a reason for Prevenient grace outside of a prejudiced view of what some believe must be in order for the truth to be palatable. Since it really does not solve any problems, it is, in my opinion, superfluous and misguided. Even if it may seem more palatable to say that all people have equal opportunity to accept the Gospel, the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity. This is why I reject the doctrine of Prevenient Grace.

As always, I do hope and pray that I have represented the position fairly and accurately. Any comments are welcome.