apologetics

Human Heart and Unbelief: A Biblical Perspective

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin together, and were saying, ‘What are we doing? For this man is doing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’”  (John 11:45–48, LSB)

It is amazing how deep the human capacity is for unbelief and skepticism. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells the parable of the rich man who is cast into hell. The man begs for permission to allow Lazarus to rise from the dead to go and warn his brothers that hell is not only real but that they are heading toward joining him. The rich man believes that if only a dead man will warn them, then their hard hearts will melt and they will believe. In Jesus’ parable, Abraham tells the rich man that these five brothers have the Scriptures and that this testimony from God should be enough. The rich man disagrees. After all, he too had the Scriptures, and he ended up in hell! No, a man raised from the dead was needed. Something so miraculous, so irrefutable that they had to believe and repent. He had one shot at getting through to his brothers, and he knew he needed a BIG sign to get their attention.

After Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead (not the fictional man by the same name), we read in John 11:45-48 the response of those that were eyewitnesses. Many believed in Him, Jesus (v. 45). But notice where the emphasis moves after the mention of those who believed; some went to the unbelieving religious leaders and told them what Jesus had done. Since this group is set apart from those who believed, we shouldn’t be confused about what they were doing. They weren’t reporting the miracle as a good thing, but as a concern.

And the Pharisees, how did they take it? They didn’t deny that Jesus was doing sings that pointed people to God, and that they were irrefutable. They were past the phase where they considered Jesus a huckster and fraud. No, Jesus was demonstrating unmistakable power, most likely from God Himself. His power not only confirmed that He had been sent by God, but it further undergirded His own claim to be God.

This led them to a greater fear than the fear of God. They feared losing their positions of power and prominence. They feared that if word spread, the believers would grow to the point that everyone would believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. But their fears were unfounded. Everyone wouldn’t believe, and their own resistance in the face of proof was evidence of the stubborn hearts of men. A man had been raised from the dead and it was very clear that Jesus did this by His own power. Yet, those who reported didn’t believe in Him, and neither did the majority of the religious leaders.

There are some people who say they are agnostic in their beliefs, denying God because they think evidence is lacking. But will there ever be enough evidence for these doubters? The proof of God is all around them and even beats within their chests. God sent His Son, and His Son died on the cross as the Savior of the world. “But…I need more proof.” The problem isn’t that proof doesn’t exist. The problem is the human heart, laden with sin, doesn’t want to believe. There is no neutral ground. God has shown Himself in so many ways, but still the human heart wants to suppress that knowledge:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.  (Romans 1:18–21, LSB)

The people that watched Lazarus come out of that tomb believed in God, but they couldn’t believe in Jesus. The Pharisees believed in God, but they rejected Jesus. The agnostic doesn’t deny God exists, he just doesn’t have enough proof to believe. But that’s not an honest assessment, as much as the agnostic wants it to sound humble and honest. The evidence is “clearly seen” and so all people, are without excuse.

What’s the solution? Seek God. Go to Him in humble prayer and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Pick up a Bible and read it. It is God’s Word to you. Begin in the New Testament, maybe in John, the Gospel I am writing from this morning. Then as you read, let the God who came to save the world speak to you through His Word.  

Soli Gratia in a Pluralistic World

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“And you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all also formerly conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Ephesians 2:1–3 (LSB)

The Reformers did not set out to cause a split in the church. They wanted to bring the church back into a proper understanding of many of the doctrines that had been distorted and changed. The chief doctrine that they saw as the hinge of all their discussions was the doctrine of justification. How is a person made right with God? The doctrine of Soli Gratia (Grace Alone), and its connected doctrine of faith alone brought the true gospel to the forefront of the Reformers’ differences with the Roman Church.

This battle is not new. Jesus opposed the Pharisees, Paul fought the Judaizers, John fought the Gnostics, Athanasius fought against Arius, Augustine fought Pelagius, and Luther fought Erasmus, and the battles against false gospels continue to this day. All of them wanted to add the necessity of good works to their gospel message. Today, there is still a need for reformation because the gospel is still under attack, by cults, false religions, and even some within the church itself.

Soli Gratia, simply put, teaches us that salvation is not by works, but by the grace of God alone. Religious pluralism (above and beyond simple religious freedom) is the idea that there are many gods, many religions, and many roads that lead to heaven, and nobody is wrong as long as you are sincere. The opposite of pluralism is exclusivism. An example of exclusivism can be seen in Jesus’ words, “…I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6, LSB).

But there are at least three major problems in what religious pluralism teaches that need to be addressed:

Religious Pluralism says:

  1. Man may be morally sick, but he has the strength to help himself. This is contrary to Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in your transgressions and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1, LSB)

This is the heresy called semi-Pelagianism and it is still inherent in the doctrine of salvation in the Roman Catholic Church as well as any church that teaches that man must exercise his free will to come to salvation.

The semi-Pelagian slogan said this: “God will not deny his grace to those who do that which lies within their power.” This means that you do all that you can, and God will make up the difference where you fall short. The Roman Catholic Church called for people to draw close to God through the sacraments, and do their very best. When they fell short, they could add to their good works through the good works of others, such as purchasing indulgences, viewing relics, going on religious pilgrimages, and praying the rosary.

But this idea isn’t limited to the Roman Catholic system. It is part of every man-made system of religion, and unfortunately, we can find it in some Christian churches. If you think that praying, church attendance, ministry involvement, tithing, Bible reading, and other activities are things that earn God’s favor and help make you right in God’s eyes, then you are adding to the gospel. 

Look at what the Bible says in Ephesians 2:1. It describes us before salvation in Christ as spiritually dead. Dead means incapable. We are not simply spiritually sick or weak. We are dead! We cannot do anything to please God in ourselves. We have no strength in ourselves to do anything that might earn us favor with God.

Religious Pluralism says:

2. Man has many paths by which he can achieve peace within and with God. This is contrary to Ephesians 2:2: “in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,” (Ephesians 2:2, LSB)

If we accept that we can reach God on our own, assisted by our good works, then the next step would naturally be to discover the path that we must now take to achieve personal peace in ourselves and peace with God. 

I mentioned the Catholic path of the sacraments, but the RCC isn’t the only religious group to make a pathway to gain peace with our good deeds. Jehovah’s Witnesses fulfill their duties as well by door-to-door witnessing and regular attendance at meetings. Mormons go on their mission and meet the standard of tithing and right living, as well as regular attendance at meetings. Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, animists, and every other religion on the planet all have various paths on which they seek to find inner peace and peace with their gods.

But look at what the Bible says in Ephesians 2:2: there is one course or path that all of humanity naturally takes. There are not many roads in this life although they may slightly vary. Just like it was said that “all roads lead to Rome,” in the seeking after inner peace, all roads lead to hell. The Bible calls it “the course of this world.” It is the path that follows Satan himself, called “the ruler of the power of the air.”

The relativist might think that he has chosen his own path, but his spiritual deadness makes him unaware that he is on the same road as everyone else—and the road that all unsaved men are on leads to destruction.

Religious Pluralism says:

3. Man has the power to change himself and society if he simply changes his behavior. This is Contrary to Ephesians 2:3: “among whom we all also formerly conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” (Ephesians 2:3, LSB)

Another tenant of the pluralistic worldview says that we can all make a change in ourselves and our world if we simply try hard enough. Maybe you have seen the bumper stickers that say “Visualize World Peace.” This was a wacky campaign by a New Age group that taught that if enough people in the world stopped on a certain day and pictured in their minds a world without war and hostility, then it would come to be a reality. Guess what? It didn’t work! But that doesn’t stop people from trying!

Our society also thinks that things like education, economic equality, human rights, and environmental awareness will change society. However good these things might be, they are impotent to make lasting change. Why not? Because these things all require that we work on ourselves to be better persons. But this goes against what God says in Ephesians 2:3.

Simplified, this passage says that we are all selfish. We do what we want and only what we want. This makes us “children of wrath” because we oppose any sort of rule over us, and that includes God. We are children of God’s wrath. As the last phrase says, this isn’t just the worst criminals. This is all of us without Jesus Christ. This is our nature. That means it is who we are at our core. When we think about our ability to “just be good,” the prophet Jeremiah said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?  Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil” (Jer 13:23). You and I can’t just choose to be good because it is not in our nature. We are not sinners because we have sinned. In reality, we sin, because we are sinners by nature.

The baby tiger may drink milk when it is a toothless cub. But in that little tiger cub is the nature of a meat-eating man-killer. Time and opportunity will show that to be true. The same is true for all of mankind. We might be able to be good and religious for a time, but we will not be able to stay that way for long. Our true nature will eventually kick in and we will soon enough show who we truly are, sinners under the wrath of God.

These three reasons are why all man-made religions fall short of bringing salvation. We need to know this so we have a good grasp when we share with our unbelieving family and friends the difference between their understanding of salvation and the biblical gospel.

But we also need to make sure that our understanding is biblical and not a warped version of a do-it-yourself salvation.

So How Can a person be right with God? By Grace Alone!

The most incredible part is still ahead in the following verses!

Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Dangerous Middle (part 2)

/ Richard Bargas / 1 Comment

In my last post, I laid out an abbreviated history of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and a working definition of what I mean by fundamentalism. You can read my first part here. In part 2, I will give two historical examples of why this middle ground is a dangerous compromise for those that desire to stay true to the biblical doctrines. My final post will address some considerations for what this means in the Church today.

Seeking the Middle with New Evangelicalism

Around the time of the establishment of the World Council of Churches, the inauguration of a new movement was underway. Seeking to leave the separatistic fundamentalism that seemed to be more insulated from the world, conservative evangelical men such as Charles Fuller, Carl F. H. Henry, E.J. Carnell, Harold Lindsell, Harold J. Ockenga, and Billy Graham sought to influence the liberal denominations and scholars while still maintaining conservative evangelical doctrine through what they called “new evangelicalism.” All these men held to fundamental doctrine but felt that more needed to be done to reunite the churches, win back the denominations, and engage the liberal church.

The New Evangelical movement established (among other things) Fuller Theological Seminary (1947), the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (1950), and Christianity Today magazine (1956). Graham sought a kinder, gentler evangelicalism as evidenced in his vision for Christianity Today, a magazine begun by Graham and his father-in-law Nathan Bell. Of CT, Graham said, “It was my vision that the magazine be pro-church and pro-denomination and that it become the rallying point of evangelicalism within and without the large denominations.”[1] Over time, and under the influence of Dr. Bell, Graham had moved from separating from apostate denominations to seeking their approval and cooperation in hopes of winning them back to conservative theology.

This also proved true for Graham’s crusades as well. In 1957, the year after CT was launched, Graham held his famous New York crusade in Manhattan where he fully broke with his fundamentalist roots and connections by cooperating with “a group that was predominantly non-evangelical and even included out-and-out modernists. It also meant sending converts back to their local churches, no matter how liberal those churches might be.”[2] Iain Murray notes that newspapers at the time of the crusade reported Graham saying, “We’ll send them to their own churches—Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish…The rest is up to God.”[3]

The mindset of new evangelicalism was such that if evangelical Christians could shed their embarrassing fundamentalism and its unwillingness to bend, then liberalism would be willing to let them sit at the table as equals. As someone has said this “deal with the devil” was such that if conservatives would call liberals “Christians,” then liberals would call conservatives “scholars.” 

Church historian George Marsden observes, “ Such successes in culturally influential religious circles were leading Graham toward the conviction that he could make marvelous inroads into America’s major denominations if he could jettison the disastrous fundamentalist image of separatism, anti-intellectualism, and contentiousness.”[4] That Graham was in fact moving in this direction is made abundantly clear in a letter written by Graham to Harold Lindsell, then a professor as Fuller Seminary, regarding Graham’s vision for Christianity Today, to “plant the evangelical flag in the middle of the road, taking a conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems. [Christianity Today] would combine the best in liberalism and the best in fundamentalism without compromising theologically.”[5]

Fuller Seminary, BGEA, and Christianity Today stand as the most obvious examples of this failed philosophy, and today each of them stand as a testimony to the bankruptcy of the idea that one can seek a middle ground without compromising, and the eventual theological slide is clearly seen not only upon these institutions, but upon evangelicalism today.

Seeking the Middle within Presbyterianism

This challenge to historic Christianity happened across denominational lines. Another important example of this was in the Presbyterian Church U.S. denomination (not to be confused with the later PCUSA denomination that emerged from it). The flagship school of the PCUS for many years was Princeton Seminary, and as other schools, it was deeply affected by the incursion of theological liberalism in its faculty. Among the few remaining conservative professors stood J. Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament. Seeing the influx of liberalism into Christianity as a whole, Machen wrote in his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923) that “it may appear that what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.” In other words, liberalism is not Christianity at all, but another religion altogether.

This stand for orthodox Christian doctrine at Princeton came to a head with the denomination and faculty in 1924-1925, when the Auburn Affirmation was signed by 1,274 ministers in the PCUS. The Affirmation made it clear that the fundamentals of the faith (particular the first five listed from page 1 of my notes) did not need to be affirmed by PCUS candidates for ordination. This allowed for new ministers to deny these core doctrines privately while being ordained for ministry, so long as they subscribed to the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith.

Conservative in theology but seeking a middle road for the sake of unity, Charles R. Erdman, professor of theology at Princeton, sided with the so-called moderates in the PCUS General Assembly and created a peace commission to “study” the issue. The commission was to be made up of liberals and conservatives, but only conservatives that sought peace above all else.[6] Erdman himself was Premillennial, a Bible conference speaker, and a contributor to The Fundamentals. But all of these didn’t matter when it came to his alliances. Seeking the middle ground, Erdman held the door for liberals to walk in and overtake the denomination and seminary without question. As fundamentalist Ernest Pickering wrote, “This new evangelicalism approaches the liberal bear with a bit of honey instead of a gun.”[7]

Realizing that the PCUS was apostate and lost to modernism, Machen and the remaining conservative faculty members left and began Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA in 1929. In 1936 he began the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) denomination after being suspended by the PCUS regarding his establishment of an independent mission board that only supported conservative missionaries. The establishment of a new denomination and separation from the PCUS came at great personal cost to Machen who lost many friends for his abandonment of the PCUS. Was Machen overreacting? He didn’t think so. He wrote, “It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.”[8] Machen saw his actions as contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

[1] Billy Graham, Just as I Am, (London: Harper Collins, 1997), 291.

[2] George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 162.

[3] Murray, 29, fn. 2.

[4] Marsden, 159.

[5] Ibid., 158.

[6] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 158.

[7] Murray, 31.

[8] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1923), 67.

The Rage Against Truth (weekend repost)

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

As Paul proclaimed the gospel in Ephesus, the effects trickled down, affecting the very livelihood of those involved in the idol-makers guild. The testimony of Paul is clear, even when spoken from the lips of the pagan silversmith Demetrius–“gods made with hands are not gods.”

As he gathered the guildsmen to refute this challenge to their trades, Demetrius could have sought to put together a powerful rebuttal against Paul’s accusation. He could have challenged Paul to a debate, or showed where Paul’s reasoning went off track. He could have pointed out inconsistencies that he saw in Paul’s arguments against the practice of Diana worship, but he did none of these things.

Read the rest of this post here: The Rage Against Truth

The Rage Against Truth

/ Richard Bargas / 1 Comment

“These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”” (Acts 19:25–28, ESV)

As Paul proclaimed the gospel in Ephesus, the effects trickled down, affecting the very livelihood of those involved in the idol-makers guild. The testimony of Paul is clear, even when spoken from the lips of the pagan silversmith Demetrius–“gods made with hands are not gods.”

As he gathered the guildsmen to refute this challenge to their trades, Demetrius could have sought to put together a powerful rebuttal against Paul’s accusation. He could have challenged Paul to a debate, or showed where Paul’s reasoning went off track. He could have pointed out inconsistencies that he saw in Paul’s arguments against the practice of Diana worship, but he did none of these things.

Instead, Demetrius did what so many others do when they cannot refute the truth of the gospel–they resort to emotional appeals that focus on rage and victimhood. The best response that these tradesmen could come up with was to whip themselves up into a frenzied mob and shout “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” for about two hours (Eph 19:34). After all, they reasoned, everyone knows this is true! Why answer questions, and why reason or have a civil conversation? Raging anger, shouting, and mob violence were all they could come up with.

I wish I could say that society has become more “civilized” in its response to contrary ideas and viewpoints, particularly about religion–but it hasn’t. Emotional responses completely devoid of reason, civil conversation, and informed information are harder to find than ever.

As a Christian, I do not claim to know all the answers, but I am more than willing to sit down and talk to someone about what I believe the Bible and Christian faith teaches, and if they are truly sincere, I would invite a discussion of their challenges to my faith. Since I believe that the Christian Scriptures are utterly consistent with the laws of reason and logic, I am encouraged and even compelled to sit with those who might want to discuss the most important matters in life.

When people resort to mockery, ad hominem attacks, filthy language, and an unwillingness to honestly look at the evidence, there is little hope that a genuine conversation can occur. Christianity is not against reason and genuine dialogue with those who have questions, but instead invites it. After all, I serve a God who is willing to reason with sinners who are sincerely looking for truth: ““Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18, ESV)

Dear Christian, I would invite you as well to, “…in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)