JESUS EXPLAINS THE NEW BIRTH BUT SHE DIDN'T

 

The following is an open letter I sent to an author featured on the "Townhall" website. Her credits comprise a lengthy list including: "being a media producer and conservative political/religious writer. She is a regular op-ed contributor to Townhall, The Hill, RealClearPolitics, National Review, Washington Examiner, RealClearReligion, PJ Media, RedState, Breitbart, Daily Caller, The Daily Beast, and more."

The title of her article is "Jesus Explains the New Birth." My letter is in response:

 

I read with interest your recent column in Townhall about being born again and Jesus' explanation of it. You hit on a vital topic as recorded in John 3. There are several things you mentioned concerning Jesus' explanation of the subject that bear examination that I would like to point out.

In discussing the new birth, you wrote, "With this rebirth, one can be redeemed after turning away from sin in the mind and body while trusting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." As I've read John 3 many times, there is something that troubles me and that is the requirement, "one must turn away from sin in mind and body" as being necessary for the new birth. I find it problematic for the following reasons:

1) I'm not able to turn from sin;

2) the authors or speakers I've read or heard who make turning from sin in mind and body a requirement for salvation have not been able to turn from their own sins just ask their wives or husbands; they and I and you (if we're honest) still sin;

3) in the next chapter, Jesus converses with a promiscuous/adulterous woman and yet, He never tells her that she must turn from those sins in mind and body to receive the living water, i.e. the new birth,. He's offering her.

4) in Jesus' illustration to Nicodemus, he cites the serpent on the pole incident in which each one must only "look" to be saved. They did and were delivered and then later rebelled against the Lord. They could not turn from sin in mind and body;

 

5) in the Gospel of John, the book on which you based your article, faith alone as a requirement for being born again is stated 100 times. John states no requirement of turning from sin.

 

6) John says he wrote the book for an evangelistic purpose, that his that readers "might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that by believing, you might have eternal life." He doesn't make the impossible demand that one turn from his sins.

 

7) placing a demand to "turn from one's sins" is to say, "Clean up your life and then believe, and then you can be born again" which is injecting works into salvation and Paul writes that we are saved by faith apart from works; (Romans 3:28 & 4:6)

8) when Paul reminds the Corinthians of what the gospel is, he says nothing about turning from sins but conditions being born again on faith alone that Jesus is God; that Christ died for our sins; and that He rose from the dead (I Cor. 15:3-4) He says nothing about turning from one's sins.

 9) then, there is everyone's favorite verse, John 3:16, so familiar there's no need to quote it except to point out that turning from sin is absent from verse 16, saying only "whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

10) leaving the Gospel of John, Genesis 15:6 is consistent with the New Testament in that "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness." Abraham didn't turn from sin as evidenced by the fact that he later lied about his wife, a lie which put her in danger in a pagan king's harem. Then there was his infamous plan to have a child by Hagar.

11) Jesus didn't tell Nicodemus to turn from his sin. The word "sin" does not occur in John 3.

You wrote on the subject of the new birth because you rightly believed it to be of vital importance. I find that to be the case with Paul because he called the gospel of "first importance." In Galatians 1, Paul says that a "gospel" of faith + works is no gospel at all. 

 

Therefore, a gospel of works has never resulted in a single new birth and never will. There is no good news in a "gospel" of faith plus works. It is my hope that you will search the Scriptures to see "f these things be true. A search of the  Scriptures will result in the fact that salvation is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. .

Yours truly,

Dr. Michael D. Halsey

CALVINISM'S TWO MONSTER'S

 

 

"We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Vol 2, "Judicial Supplements", Comments on Deut ch 13.

Wait. a. minute. O, me. Can you wrap your mind around that statement? John Calvin is saying that when a baby dies, that's a sure and certain proof that he's one of the non-elect and therefore he wakes up in hell and will be there forever. That's what he is saying, and, as one author commented, "I don’t say this lightly, but that honestly is the most horrific and disgusting theological doctrine I’ve ever heard in my life" What a cold-as-stone-statement that is. Would you say that to grieving parents? Who would put that on a sympathy card? Would you say that to the mourning mother that her baby is in hell for the good pleasure of God and for His glory?"

One perceptive author writes, "Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell [babies included, according to Jon Calvin]  is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, . . .Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of God’s wish, pleasure, and counsel."

The infant never had a chance, not one single opportunity to look up at the sky and think,"Who created this majestic precision of the universe? I'd like to know Him; I never had an opportunity to hear the gospel. This isn't fair. What kind of a God would do such a thing to me!"

Oh, wait a minute. There are Calvinists who would disagree and say, "No. God doesn't consign a baby to hell." As one wrote: "But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord."

But wait another minute. He said "willful decision" didn't he? According to his Calvinism, such a decision can't be "willful" because, in eternity past, God predetermined that he would reject Christ or accept Christ. 

But wait another minute.He wrote that the infant is incapable of trusting Christ (and rightly so). But that creates a monster problem for the Calvinist. According to Calvinism, in eternity past God unconditionally chose some to go to heaven and some (billions and billions and billions) for His good pleasure and glory to go to hell. 

Those billions in hell had no say, no choice in the matter. They are "dead" in trespasses and sin and are, all of their lives, incapable of trusting Christ and all of that was decided by God in eternity past, so says the Calvinist.

So the monster problem is, the infant had no choice; the adult who lives a full life has no choice either. One just lived longer with no choice than the other. Neither one had any control over the situation.So how could it be said that the infant goes to heaven and the adult does not since both never had a choice according to Calvin. Can anybody say, "Inconsistent?" Can anybody say, "Contradictory?"

Roger Olson, professor of Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary, writes, "In spite of their best efforts to avoid it, the 'good and necessary consequence' of their [the Calvinists'] soteriology—TULIP—is that God is morally ambiguous if not a moral monster."

LORDSHIP SALVATION: DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE

 The following statements come from various advocates of the Calvinistic position of Lordship salvation (the position that saving faith includes a vow of commitment, surrender, submission, and turning from sin to following Christ in obedience to His commands). This in direct opposition to the biblical "Faith alone in Christ Alone." I will give the name of the person to whom the quote is to be attributed so that you may be forewarned to beware of such teachers and authors. 

Here's what the Lordship Salvationists declare:

"The only thing that makes you acceptable to God is a pattern of obedience to the Word of God that is the product of repentance and genuine faith in Jesus Christ and truly abandoning your life to obedience to His lordship." John MacArthur

"We are not born again if we aren't living differently than if we weren't. People who claim to be born again but don't change aren't saved. I think if you don't believe in Christ as your financial advisor, you aren't saved." John Piper 

"Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing.” John MacArthur

"The astonishing idea is current in some circles today that we can enjoy the benefits of Christ's salvation without accepting the challenge of His sovereign lordship.Such an unbalanced notion is not to be found in the New Testament." James Montgomery Boice 

"Evangelists say, it takes only 5 minutes [to become a Christian]. NO my friends, it will take your life." Paul Washer

"You cannot cling to sin and to the Savior at the same time." John MacArthur

"In our own presentation of Christ’s gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress as Christ did on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness.” J. I. Packer

"Faith is essential for salvation. But we must be absolutely clear on what we mean when we speak of “salvation by faith.” There are various kinds of belief or faith, and not all are linked to salvation. In the New Testament, faith means more than intellectual belief. It involves trust and commitment." The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

"I talked about the young man’s need to surrender his whole life, his future, his ambitions, his relationships, his possessions, and everything he was to God. Only if he was prepared to do this, my friend explained, could Christ begin to work effectively in his life." Anonymous

"One thing that marks the difference between a true believer and a false believer and that is a pattern of living, eager submissive obedience to the Word of God." John MacArthur

"Saving faith must be obedient faith." James White (This fellow has other problems as we'll see next week. Serious problems.)

"You need to believe that Jesus is God and that He died for your sins, committing your whole life to Him in sacrifice and serving Him as Lord." John MacArthur

"Submission to the will of God, to Christ’s lordship, and to the guiding of the Spirit is an essential, not an optional, part of saving faith" John MacArthur.

"These, then, are the essential elements of the gospel: the sin of all men, the death of Christ on the cross to pay for those sins, the resurrection of Christ to provide life everlasting for those who follow Him, and the offer of the free gift of salvation to all. gotquestions.org (Following Him is a discipleship truth, not a part of the gospel)

"Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ"John MacArthur

"If you have true faith that faith will immediately , necessarily and inherently produce the fruit of sanctification." R. C. Sproul

"Faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone." David Guzik (This statement is a logical fallacy.)

"To define saving faith apart from feeling slash emotions, slash  affectations of glad dependence, fervent acclamation, pleased submission, centered resting, thrilled treasuring, eager reverence, heartfelt adoration, is futile." John Piper.

"Repentance is an old fashioned word which means to confess and forsake you sins because you don't want to be a hypocrite and say, 'I believe but I still lie and steal." Ray Comfort

"It's the doers who are saved. The gospel is a call to discipleship." John MacArthur 

"There are two things you must do to be saved. You must repent. Turn from all sins, no more lying, no more lust, no more blasphemy and trust in Jesus. You shouldn't let foul words come out of your mouth" Ray Comfort ((He often proclaims these words with a bull horn to passersby.)

The fallout from lordship salvation has serious repercussions:

1. Works become part of the definition of faith. (but, Romans 3:28)

2. It robs the believer of his assurance of salvation. (How much submission, obedience are enough?)

3. It produces confusion.

4. It takes the focus off the finished work of Christ and puts the spotlight on the performance of the believer.

5. It is a "gospel" that has yet to save anyone. (The message of a lordship salvationist is not good news.)

6. Children cannot be saved. (But, Acts16:32)

7. It's multitude of requirements are impossible to attain, such as "turn from ALL your sin." Even the erroneous evangelist hasn't done that. (I Jn. 1:10 was written to believers.)

8. In reference to the demand of "commitment," how many times has a believer "committed," "had to commit again, then again and once more and once more? The thief on the cross didn't "commit," didn't make Christ his financial advisor, didn't

How Paul's answer to the question of "How to be saved," we read, "“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31)

In the conversation with the woman at the well in John 4 about salvation, see if you can find a verse in which Jesus tells her to stop living with a man who was not her husband. Let me know when you find the verse.

I close with, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, ² by which also you are saved, if you hold fast ^[a]the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

³ For I delivered to you ^[b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures^{." That's it; faith alone.}

 

DO POLITICAL PRIMARIES MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

It has begun, the  political campaign season, that is. The two parties are holding their primaries to certify their respective nominees for the president of the United States. The political season has begun. Really? Not really, no it hasn't. We're subjected to politics immediately after the election of a new president or the retention of the old. Immediately after the winner is declared, we hear of the possible candidates four years down the  road and those seeking the position start gearing up their fundraising machines, the taking of polls, and the "experts" start talking about who the front runners are. There is no surcease the politics of primaries, ballots, speeches, and promises. It wearies the soul. Will all of this make a difference and save the republic?

Unfortunately in the midst of this around-the-clock and year political banter, speeches, and posturing, we've forgotten something somebody told us decades ago but we didn't listen then and aren't listening now. He did warn us, you know, but we had ears of stone.

The one who came to warn us was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a Nobel Prize winner in Literature in 1970. When he came to America, his warnings began. He said, "The strength or weakness of a society depends more on it's spiritual life than its level of industrialization. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect governmental structure. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." (Pause and think about that.)

One of the Founding Fathers said the same: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams) In other words, character counts. 

It was most interesting a few decades ago to listen to what the liberal establishment had as their talking point in defense of President Clinton when his adulterous character made headlines; "We elected a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief." Like most sloganeering, this one rings hollow.

Michael Brown was correct when he wrote: "I’m not keen on the line, “But we’re electing a president, a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief.” But when it’s used to justify voting for someone who has a long track record of being ruthless, cruel, unchristian, immoral, profane, full of pride, greedy, and double-minded, then I have a real problem with it. . . .Does the fact that we’re electing a president, not a pastor mean that the president doesn’t need to have a solid moral base? That he doesn’t need integrity? That he can mistreat and abuse others? That he can be petulant, self-centered, and nasty? That ethics don’t matter since he’s our political leader not our spiritual leader? . . .I will confront the empty, 'We’re not electing a pastor-in-chief” slogan wherever I find it.'"

Let's switch gears and move to the local church. When God instructed Paul to lay out the qualifications for being an elder, 86.6% of them have to do with the man's character. It bears repeating, character counts. 

As we tread on the tiresome path of politics, politics, politics,  we see Solzhenitsyn standing by the side of the road, pointing to a large sign with large letters: A TREE WITH A ROTTEN CORE CANNOT STAND."

SHE LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG

We employ an odd idiomatic expression without asking, "Where did that come from?" Such an expression is the odd saying, "Letting the cat out of the bag." Those who research such things tell us why we say, “Let the cat out of the bag” dates back to the Middle Ages. As the story goes, shady livestock vendors in medieval marketplaces tried to swindle their customers. 

When someone would purchase a pig, the vendor would sneak a cat into the bag instead, cheating the buyer out of the higher price for a pig. It wasn’t until the buyer arrived home and, literally, let the cat out of the bag that he'd realize he had been scammed, hence the phrase’s association with revealing a secret." (From "The Reader's Digest," Feb. 9, 2022)

A university professor held the bag and then let the kitty out of it and deliberately so.  (She either was or is a professor, I don't know the status of her employment.) Anyway, she delivered the following report which shows the state of American "education."

Here's what she said, and I'm paraphrasing: "Let's say you're doing research with due diligence. You are examining the data as you should; you're piling up the evidence that leads you to the correct, inescapable and absolute conclusion. The data and research have taken you there. 

But the problem is that you can't publish, teach, or publicize the truth you've proven. You must keep it quiet. Why? Because, if the conclusion hurts a specific group of people, that cat must stay in the bag. 

Let's say your research proves that a civilization based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic (i. e. the Bible) produces more freedom for women, is a more productive, and healthier country than a society based on the Koran, then you MUST sequester that kitty in the halls and journals of academia (i. e. the truth must be hidden). 

The only exception to this cat's staying in the bag is that any "research" that hurts a group of Christians or Jews must get out of the bag. Let's say that your statistics show that Christians were using bullhorns to chant slogans and then to block members of the Young Democrats from going to class in 96.7% of American universities, that cat would be out of the bag and mewing all over the U. S.  (The bullhorns, the chants, the use of force to harass Jewish students is what's happening in our universities, not by Christians but by those of the demonized antisemitic persuasion. In one case, anti-Jewish chanting and harassment lasted for 10 hours on one college campus.)

What this means is the collapse of a civilization because truth is dead.Roger Author Kimball writes, "Our educational institutions. . . have sacrificed their legitimacy on the altar of a corrupt and mendacious ideology... . Civilization, if it is to survive, must acknowledge the radical nature of that challenge and respond in kind."

You and I know the gospel is true; you and I know there is only one way to God and that is through faith alone in Christ alone. The "response in kind" for the follower of Jesus Christ is to let the cat out of the bag no matter what group is "hurt." You and I have the bag, let's open it up.

WHEN WILL CHRIST RETURN?

 We have a Scripture which tells us when Christ will return at His Second Advent, not the rapture of the church as described in I Thessalonians 4:13 -18 but His Second Coming. He told us in Matthew 23:39: "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

A fundamental rule of hermeneutics is to ask this question about any portion of Scripture: To whom  is this person speaking or writing?" Matthew 23:1 answers that question: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples." So, the answer is that He spoke to Israel, not the Gentiles. 

The next important hermeneutical question is this: What's the context in which the verse occurs? The end of the chapter brings the answer:  Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. ³⁸ Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! ³⁹ For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’” 

So there it is. Christ will return when the nation Israel recognizes Him as their Messiah. When will the nation of Israel say that about Jesus? They certainly aren't saying that today.

We must put that national realization into its context. Israel will realize that Jesus of Nazareth whom they had rejected is their Messiah after the Great Tribulation whose judgments will prepare them to come to that belief. 

In the Tribulation, Israel will come to believe that the antichrist is their Messiah. Midway through that judgmental time, he will turn on them and betray them, breaking his treaty with them.

Then all the nations of the world will come against Israel ant that, with the other factor, will cause them to realize that Jesus is their Messiah and will turn to Him saying, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" and will make the great confession of Isaiah 53:1-12.  

No one today can set a date for that confession when, as Romans 11:26 says, "and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”

CHRISTMAS AND THE MEMORY HOLE

CHRISTMAS IN RUSSIA

 Less than a century ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin outlawed Christmas. Russians could be sent to Gulag in Siberia for erecting an illegal Christmas tree. The celebration has never been the same in Russia since.

CHRISTMAS IN GERMANY

During the Nazi regime, they sought to eliminate Christmas. Among the most important part of the elimination was the celebration of the winter solstice. The Nazis attempted to move the date of Christmas to the solstice instead and mounted large performances and community bonfires that supposedly drew on pre-Christian celebrations. They also tried to redefine St. Nicholas as Wotan, the ancient Germanic deity.

As the years went on, Nazi attempts to take over Christmas intensified. The Nazis rewrote the lyrics of “Silent Night” to remove all attempts to religion or Christ. They distributed Advent Calendars for kids filled with propaganda and militaristic imagery. They even tried to rewrite Handel's Messiah. Mothers were encouraged to bake swastika-shaped cookies. Even the familiar star that topped millions of Christmas trees was replaced by a sunburst that looked less like the Star of David.

 CHRISTMAS IN CHINA

Christmas in Mainland China is not a public holiday and is not related to religion at all. It’s more of a novelty day like Valentine’s Day, rather than a religious celebration.  

Christmas is celebrated in North Korea, but not with the same fanfare as in other countries. North Korean celebrations don’t look anything like the Christmas we know in the West. Christmas is seen as an exotic foreign holiday in this country. There are no Christmas trees, no decorations, and no traditional activities like carol singing. Instead, North Koreans celebrate the day by going to outdoor performances or gathering for family dinners.

CHRISTMAS IN NORTH KOREA

In recent years, there has been some change in the way Christmas is celebrated in North Korea. Some people have started to put up decorations, such as pine trees and lights, in their homes and on the streets. It’s not uncommon to see Christmas trees in the capital city of Pyongyang, although the decoration is still very limited.

Christmas is not an officially recognized holiday in North Korea, so there are no national celebrations. However, some religious communities, such as Catholics and Protestants, are allowed to celebrate Christmas in a limited way. There are churches in Pyongyang, and priests and imams can visit them on Christmas Day.

But these celebrations are more muted than in other countries. Church services are limited to under two hours and worshipers are forbidden from singing Christmas carols or speaking out against the North Korean government. They are also forbidden from taking photos or making videos inside of churches. 

CHRISTMAS IN AMERICA

At the lighting of the national Christmas tree by the President and his wife, it was the continuation of a 100-year old tradition. During the President's remarks, he stated the theme at the White House of this year's "Holiday," was,  “Magic, Wonder, and Joy.” 

You can read the rest of his remarks by going to White House.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/11/30/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-national-christmas-tree-lighting-2/. When you get there I challenge you to find the words, "Jesus," "Christ," "manger," Bethlehem," "angels," "shepherds," "Joseph," or "Wise Men." Those words and the story in which they appear have been put down George Orwell's Memory Hole at the White House.

In a school district in Pennsylvania,  "A memo initially sent to drivers at Wallingford-Swarthmore School District demanded they remove any decorations associated with the holiday, citing a need for 'inclusivity.'

“If you have decorated your bus with anything specific to the Christmas Holiday or any other decorations relating to a specific religion, please remove them immediately,” a copy of the memo obtained by Crisis in the Classroom (CITC) reads. “'In addition, employees are instructed not to wear clothing related to Christmas or any other religious holiday.”

We see the result of all of the above in the following poll: 

"A Lifeway Research study finds 9 in 10 U.S. adults say they celebrate Christmas, including many non-Christians. Overall, 91% of Americans celebrate the Christmas holiday, unchanged from2  010.”

"Yet only 22% indicate they could “accurately tell the Christmas story found in the Bible from memory. A plurality of U.S. adults (31%) say they could tell the story but may miss some details or get others wrong. Another quarter (25%) could only give a quick overview and 17% say they couldn’t tell any of it.

“Almost half of Americans do not think they could share the Christmas story somewhat accurately from memory,” asserts Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. “Of all the Christmas programs churches offer in December, possibly the most important is simply reading the biblical account of the Christmas story itself.” 

The summation of the saga is this: a dictatorship will not and cannot tolerate an authority higher than itself. The Incarnation must be Memory Holed.