Who Do You Run With?

Let those be thy choicest companions who have made Christ their chief companion.

Thomas Brooks

1608 - 1680

____________________________________________________ 

Happy Birthday to my darling  3rd daughter, the brand new Mrs. Sharon A. (Metcalf) Jones of Perioa, IL. Happy Birthday my dear SAM3!

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part VI)

THE AFTERMATH

In 1972 Don McLean released an album entitled American Pie. The title song, American Pie went number one in 1972 for four weeks. The song is a lamenting of the plane crash and death February 3, 1959 of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and the Big Bopper. The song’s message proposes that this was “The day the Music Died.” This mysterious song has been the subject of many interpretations and McLean refuses to elaborate.

While the combination of the ministry of Charles Finney and the Dedham Decision may not have been “The Day that the Music of Biblical Evangelism” died, but it is close. The Doctrines of Grace are still taught today in many places. There is certainly a “revival” of the biblical doctrine of soteriology. However, many things changed in the American churches with the advent of Finney; particulary in the aftermath.

In the latter part of the 18^th century Henry Ward Beecher stopped preaching the “negative” aspects of the gospel, such as hell, judgment, and damnation and he began preaching a “gospel” of love. He came so popular that he was called to the Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, NY.

The latter part of the 19^th century became a breeding ground for newly styled preaching and evangelists. First, the bible doctrine of sin and its effect on the volition (will) has been rejected by Finney. Second, the New Divinity had developed various strains of aberrant theology, and third, prominent preachers were now changing the gospel to a gospel of love.

All the right ingredients were in place for men like D. L. Moody and Billy Sunday to come along and redefine evangelism and revivalism. In all fairness, from what is known, both of these men were “sincere” and had an almost insatiable desire to “win people to Christ” and they both possessed a tremendous distaste for, what one article called “complicated theology.” As a matter of fact Sunday was on record for stating that he knew as much about theology as a jack-rabbit knows about Ping-Pong.

Billy Sunday followed closely in the steps of Charles Finney. Sunday held to Finney’s free will teaching. Believing a sinner could will himself to salvation at any time he chose, Sunday developed revival techniques that were designed to “move” or “manipulate” the will of a sinner to make a decision.

Thus, with the advent of new “evangelists” like Billy Sunday, revival or evangelism became a performance. Evangelists would put on a show, preach a very simple gospel of love, and presto! Thousands of people would be “moved” to walk the aisle and make a profession or decision for Christ.

In 1949 another Evangelist came to prominence. After a number of celebrities reportedly converted to Christ in a 1949 Los Angeles crusade, William Randolph Hearst told his people to “puff” a new evangelist. This evangelist was Billy Graham.

Graham is an interesting and for some, complicated man. His theology and methodology has been debated by many for years. Graham studied and learned much from Whitefield, Finney, and Billy Sunday. Graham, although seemingly a model of purity and one of the most admired man in America can be an enigma.

Graham is not really a product of Edwards or Finney. It seems he does not believe that conversions come with the right use of the proper means. Graham does not hold to the biblical doctrines of grace and has a skewed view of salvation. He holds to “man’s free-will” theology of Pelagius and Finney. He certainly uses unbiblical terminology in his gospel presentations, such as “receive Jesus into your heart,” or “accept Jesus in your life,” or “make a decision for Christ.” Graham also has made some very poor choices with whom he has held crusades with and has moved to a more “universal” position of redemption in his older years.

I mention Graham because he has heavily influenced evangelicals, evangelists, preachers, and revivalists more so than any other man in the 20^th century. Revivalism has been heavily influenced by the Arminian, free-will decisional regeneration mentality. Since Finney’s day and the latter part of the 19^th century preaching has been aimed at leading sinners to make “a decision” for Christ.

GOD STILL SAVES

Despite all that Charles Finney, Henry Ward Beecher, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peal, Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, or even Rick Warren preach or practice evangelism, God still saves sinners. God alone saves sinners. Conversion is not a by-product of a well-staged theatrical event designed to “manipulate” the will to make a decision.

Decisional regeneration, defined as using whatever means and methods that are needed to induce a sinner to make a decision is not biblical. Many false conversions result from men and women making a decision. Some of these false professions are known in a short period of time. Some however are not made known until eternity. (Matthew 7:21-22)

The End

______________________________________________ 

Happy Birthday to my darling 4th daughter, Stacy A. Gallegos of San Tan Valley, Arizona. Happy Birthday SAM4

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part V)

The New Divinity

Thousands of people heard Whitefield and Edwards preach and responded. Most responded in true faith in what we now call the First Great Awakening. You would have thought that many of the men who followed these true gospel preachers would continue to perpetuate the biblical gospel. History tells us that many did indeed follow in the footsteps of both Whitefield and Edwards.

Wouldn’t you know it? Many of Edward’s followers chose to “modify” Edward’s message. What they produced is what is known as the “New Divinity.” A leading figure in this new movement was none other than the grandson of Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight. Nathaniel W. Taylor and Samuel Hopkins were  major promoters of this new doctrine which among many of its points redefined the human will and its ability to choose right or wrong. It appears from a cursory review of the 13 principles of the New Divinity that they are really a mixture of “free-will, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism.

Needless to say that modifying Edwards “Calvinism” and mixing in semi-Pelagianistic ideas, this “group” developed splinter groups. Such groups were known as the “Tasters” and others as the “Exercisers.” Others within this group ran amuck with various doctrines.

One individual who came out of this movement was Charles Finney. I wish I had the time to develop a portrait of this “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It is so ironic that so many people have been deceived by this man and his theology. It is even more ironic that he has been made out to be some sort of “poster-boy” for his supposed part in the “Second Great Awakening.”

Needless to say Finney while using Edwards’s language and terms rejected Edwards’s doctrine regarding conversion, the soul, original sin, and other things. Finney’s greatest error came when he rejected Edwards’s interpretation of scripture in his Treatise on the Will.

Finney erroneously believed that the sinner’s “inward being” enabled the sinner to control their own life, intellect, directly or indirectly by “willing” it to be so or not so. Edwards and Whitefield taught that both salvation and revival was absolutely dependent upon God. Finney taught that both salvation and revival did not depend on Spiritual or divine intervention. Conversion for Finney became simply a matter of determining the right motivator for the sinner’s will. He wrote in his Lectures on Revivals of Religion, “…conversion…is purely a philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” In other words, just find the right method to bring the sinner under conviction and you can convert the sinner.

Rather than being a prime figure in the Second Great Awakening, Finney worked a man-made circus in the 1820’s that spread through the northeast leaving what has been since called, “burned-over districts.” His theology was a disaster.

Unfortunately, Finney became a tremendous influence on many preachers and evangelists. It seems many began to adopt his “methods” when they saw how many people Finney claimed to “convert.” This was the beginning of the change of the gospel in America for the worse.

In 1820 a landmark decision was handed down in the case of Dedham, MA. This was a break with the “church” and the town in which it was located. It meant that the town no longer called or dismissed pastors and it also meant that the town no longer supported the congregation (including pastor). Each individual church was now required to be indigenous. Pastors were no longer paid by townships but had to scramble to gain and retain congregants in order to be supported. Pastors now had to “draw” big crowds in order to keep preaching and equally important, “eating.”

This led to what Nathan Hatch called in his book, The Democratization of American Christianity a “spiritual free-for-all.” In essence it was a “no-holds-barred” race to preach in such a manner to gain the largest amount of listeners as possible. Under Finney’s influence and twisted doctrine, evangelization was no longer viewed as in the hands of a Sovereign God who saved whom He desired and when He desired but in the hands of the most clever innovator of the right means to “stir” the will and mass produce converts. In other words, we see the door open and the concrete mixed in order to pave the way for what we now bemoan as “decisional regeneration.”

To be continued…

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part IV)

The Path of Conversion in America

The past seven years have given my wife and me several opportunities to visit a number of churches in southwest Washington and northwest Oregon. Many of these churches turned out to have few in number and were struggling to stay alive. Most of these churches were desperate in finding ways to grow, supply the budget, be relevant, and meet the needs of their respective community.

I found it to be interesting that each of these churches (and many that I have been in over the last several years or have read about) have a few common threads that tie them together. Each of these so-called churches had these things in common: 

• A lack of understanding spiritual leadership within the church
• An inherent philosophy of decisional regeneration evangelism
• A lack of understanding of the sovereignty of God in evangelism
• A feverish emphasis on sanctification or spiritual growth as their starting point
• A slavish commitment to church growth philosophy and methodology 

Let’s take a moment and see how the church has understood or viewed conversion over the last 400 years in America.

EDWARDS AND WHITEFIELD

Jonathan Edwards wrote in 1740,

“There is no kind of love in the world that has had such a great visible effects in men as love to Christ has had, though he be an unseen object which [is] an evidence of a divine work in the hearts of men, infusing that love into them. Thus the voice of reason, Scripture, and experience, and the testimony of the best of men do all concur in it, that there must be such a thing as conversion.””…seeing man naturally is unholy, there must be a change of nature in order to their being happy in God.” [1]

The great awakening did not materialize because of weak evangelistic presentations of “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” or sweet and sugary promises of “your best life now.” Gospel presentations and gospel invitations were 180 degrees in juxtaposition to what they are today. Listen to this excerpt from a sermon by Jonathan Edwards:

“The punishment that is threatened to be inflicted on ungodly men is the wrath of God. God has often said that he will pour out his wrath upon the wicked. The wicked, they treasure up wrath; they are vessels of wrath, and they shall drink of the cup of God’s wrath that is poured out without mixture.” (Revelation 14:10) “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture.” That is, there shall be no mixture of mercy; there shall be no sort of mitigation or moderation. God sometimes executes judgments upon sinners in this world, but it is with great mixtures of mercy and with restraint. But then there will be full and unmixed wrath.” (Yale Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14.304)

How do you think such preaching would be welcomed today in our modern churches? The significant difference lies in the fact that sermons by men like Edwards and Whitfield drove men to repentance and conversion. Today’s sermons drive men to be better husbands, or better fathers, or better wealth gathers, or even better lovers. All these things are good things but they can and in most cases are being done without the aid of the Holy Spirit and they surely do not drive men to repentance and/or conversion. Our evangelical churches are full of psychology  and self-help classes.

Listen to an excerpt from a sermon by George Whitefield:

“But thus must it be, if Christ be not your righteousness. For God’s justice must be satisfied; and, unless Christ’s righteousness is imputed and applied to you here, you must hereafter be satisfying the divine justice in hell-torments eternally; nay, Christ himself shall condemn you to that place of torment. And how cutting is that thought! Me thinks I see poor, trembling, Christ less wretches, standing before the bar of God, crying out , Lord, if we must be dammed, let some angel, or some archangel, pronounce the damnatory sentence: but all in vain. Christ himself shall pronounce the irrevocable sentence. Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord, let me persuade you to close with Christ, and never rest till you can say, “The Lord our righteousness.” Who knows but the Lord may have mercy on, nay abundantly pardon you? Beg of God to give you faith; and, if the Lord gives you that, you will by it receive Christ, with his righteousness, and his All. (From The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, London, 1771-1772, accessed online.)

What are sermons like today? Do you want a better life; do you want to go to heaven? “Make a decision for Jesus and ask him into your hearts. Don’t worry about your sin; he takes you where you are. Just decide today!” At best a few scriptures are given from something we call the Romans Road and we pronounce our sinner “saved.”

Edwards and Whitefield both to their hearers to beg God for mercy and for pardon. They never promised redemption or salvation, they thundered forth, “If God has mercy on you.” They pleaded with their hearers to “close with Christ,” in other words, take care of business. They did not tell them to pray a prayer, make a decision, or ask Jesus in their hearts. They didn’t say repeat after me – they preached, “Beg God to give you faith.” They did not give an invitation. They left the sinner to work through his or her conviction of sin and allowed the Spirit of God to work salvation into their lives. They didn't count "converts." They waited to see if fruit developed from the seed that was planted and watered.

What happened?

To Be Continued…

---

[1] Kimnach, Minkema, and Sweeney, eds., The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, 89)

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part III)

Decision or Delightful Duty

Mega church pastor Steven Furtick says he's setting "strategic goals in the areas of attendance, salvation decisions, (and) baptisms.”. That's what Steven reports on another post in which he shares how God told him that "100 people would give their lives to Jesus" , and before he preached a sex sermon God told him that "50 people would be saved.

A staffer at one church talks about their goal of saving "hundreds" over the upcoming year.

Another church, on the verge of their upcoming iPod sermon series, says that the 200 people that recently got saved are just the tip of the iceberg this year. How do they know that? What if God decides to melt that iceberg?

At Granger Community Church, where church-goers were once asked to make salvation decisions by coming forward and signing a Davinci painting, 600 were said to have "decided to follow Christ" this time, but they don't mention anything about God's role in those salvations.

The Cool Church mission’s blog points out that 300 made decisions when "Pastor George spoke". Elsewhere, Pastor Greg talks about 1600 people who got saved in jail, and makes a special point of mentioning that "I led over 130 to the Lord myself".

A nursing home evangelist says that he resists boasting about 'decisions' but, you guessed it, he ends up doing it anyway. Not only that but, he lets you know that the decisions occurred "due to our ministry".

Another church says 50 kids decided to let "Jesus be the boss of their life" through their VBS.

Here's a pastor that says in ALL CAPS that 6 people made "REAL decisions.” But just saying they are REAL doesn't demonstrate that they really are[1]

These wild statements, comments, and “promises” are not restricted to the fringe, or the Emerging Church, or to mega churches. You find this same kind of mentality right at home in our own evangelical/fundamental bible, community or Baptist churches. The average church today bases the eternal security of its membership on a decision that was made on a certain date.

The Apostle John wrote his first letter with a distinct purpose of providing “proof” or assurance of salvation in his readers. He never mentioned “decisions” or “dates” as the means of obtaining or maintain assurance. The whole body of his letter deals with the grounds of Christian assurance of salvation. He writes that the grounds of assurance are found in: 

• Defining and Describing true fellowship with God through the Son
• Discerning the truth from error in various conflicts of our faith
• Demonstrating true God-like love for both God and the children of God
• Determining our son-ship, or true Christian faith by the witness of the Holy Spirit 

John wrote some pretty deep and “heavy” things about these topics. He pulled no punches and minced no words. He was clear and direct as he spoke of the evidence of salvation. There was no “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” for John. Salvation was free and it was a gift. Salvation was received by faith. But true salvation was not guaranteed by a decision but by delightful duty as one worked out one’s salvation in works in fear and trembling.

How did we get here? Where did this hellish and demonic idea of decisional regeneration develop? Before we look at the evidences given by John for the assurance of salvation, let’s answer this question.

To be continued…

---

[1] Cited from “Philosophy of Joel” weblog, dated August 26, 2007 entitled Man Saves Man and Decisions are the Plan

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part II)

Works Necessary for Salvation

Calm down! Take a chill pill. I don’t mean that works are a part of becoming saved or converted. We know that salvation is a free gift of God obtained through faith. Not a single soul can earn or merit salvation based on any work, righteous or not.

…he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit…” (Titus 3:5a, ESV)

It is clear that no one is saved by any kind of a work, good, bad, or even indifferent. Salvation is a work of God in the soul of a man whom the Holy Spirit has been brought to the conviction of sin and sins. No one will ever enter heaven who worked for it.

There are at least two questions that must be addressed when we talk about salvation. These two questions are even inherent in our word “repent.” Repentance means that we turn from our sin and sins and we turn to God in faith and obedience. So, the first question that one must address in regards to salvation is, “What are we saved from?” In other words, why do we need salvation? This, I think, is the missing element from most offers of salvation. We must be convinced and convicted of the gravity of our sin against God. We must “feel the weight” of the judgment and damnation of our sin.

The second question that must be addressed is, “What are we being saved to?” In other words, what happens when we turn from our sin and sins and turn to God in faith?

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10, ESV)

Of course the epistle from James, half-brother of Jesus and first pastor of the Jerusalem Bible Church was written to demonstrate that true salvation results in a lifestyle of works.

“So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:17-18, ESV)

Paul exhorted the Philippian believers to, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12b-13, ESV)

My Confession

I confess to you that these thoughts have not just come out of the blue. Neither do I desire to stir up a hornet’s nest nor create fear or uncertainty in anyone who reads this about their own personal salvation. Yet, I do not wish to see anyone deceived concerning the reason for their “assurance.” I have no desire to see anyone base their assurance of eternal salvation off of a date or a decision.

My morning devotions at this time are taken from the first epistle of the Apostle John. As I am meditating through this letter I am seeing example after example of the assurance of salvation. As a matter of fact this is one of the reasons John wrote this letter, “…these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” (I John 5:13, KJV) John wrote about what constitutes the assurance of salvation and the confidence that a believer can have. Not once did he refer his readers to a date or decision. He listed works as the evidence of salvation. True salvation is evidenced by and results in various types of works.

To be continued…

The Damming Effect of Decisional Regeneration (Part I)

The Gospel for Believers

Paul wrote to the Christian believers in Rome, “So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.” (Romans 1:15, ESV) Why would he want to preach the gospel to men and women who were already Christians? In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul wrote, “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which also you stand…” (I Corinthians 15:1, NASB) Again, I ask you, why would Paul preach again the gospel that first of all he had already preached, and second, they had accepted, and third were committed to?

There are a number of reasons for this of course. The gospel, for Paul, was not just a call to saving faith. It was a call to continue in a daily walk of faith. The gospel converts the unconverted and completes the converted. We make a drastic and dangerous mistake when we relegate the gospel to just the unbelievers. The gospel is for believers!

I agree with Milton Vincent (A Gospel Primer) when he wrote, “God did not give us His gospel just so we could embrace it and be converted. Actually, He offers it to us every day as a gift that keeps on giving to us everything we need for life and godliness.” [1]

If you read Paul very carefully you will note that in each of his epistles he spends almost if not half of his letter restating the gospel. Paul rehearses the gospel to the recipients of each of his letters. Once he has carefully restated the historical data concerning the gospel of God, he then demonstrates how those gospel facts apply to their lives. Paul restates the gospel message so that it is accurately recalled and brings each believer to the same page in order to show how those gospel truths affect their lives.

False Assurance

The most damming and destructive effect of decisional regeneration is the false assurance it produces. When asking an individual such questions as, “How do you know you are “saved,” or “What are you placing your confidence in,” or “Why do you think God should let you in His heaven,” we usually are given the answer, “On such and such a date I asked Jesus into my heart.”  Or, one may hear, “I made a decision for Jesus.”

First of all, such terms and expressions as “receive Jesus,” ask Jesus into your heart,” or “pray the sinner’s prayer” are not biblical terms. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to receive Jesus or ask Jesus into our hearts. Second, a date upon which one hangs their eternal security is not necessarily the grounds for assurance of one’s salvation.

Neither the bible nor the gospel for that matter advocates using a date or a decision for assurance of salvation. Are you shocked? You should be! So, you say, “What does the bible teach about assurance?

To be continued...

---

[1] Milton Vincent, A Gospel Primer, (Bemidji: Focus Publishing, 2008), p.5