Blog

Modern society tends to be deeply incoherent. On the one hand our culture demands justice for the oppressed and impartial benevolence toward all. On the other hand it teaches that no one has the right to declare right and wrong to anyone else, as secularism asserts that every person must determine his or her own moral values. This is cognitive dissonance. It demands moral behavior of others and yet insists morality is relative. The idea undermines itself. The promotion of universal justice, human rights, self-sacrifice, a commitment to human dignity and considering the poor can only coherently make sense in a world where morality is objective and whose source is God.

But the inconsistency does not end there.  Their view of the world also forces them to pretend in many other areas as well. 

----The Secularist Dilemma ---
There is no meaning, but let's pretend there is.
There is not objective morality, but let's pretend there is. 
There are no voluntary choices, but lets pretend there are. (since choices are hardwired)

The Christian view makes more sense of the real world we live in because we do not have to pretend thee is meaning, morality and real choices.   The reason there appears to be objective morality, meaning, logic, responsibility, and coherence is because there actually are such objective things in reality.  

Question: Can someone receive Jesus as Savior, but not as Lord?

Answer: When God opens someone's eyes to recognize and trust Jesus as Savior, they already affirm Him as Lord. The concepts are so interrelated that cannot really be separated. Here's why:

If, by grace, you want Jesus to save you from the guilt and power of sin, then it shows that you no longer want to be under sin's tyranny, but want Him to rescue you from it. And if you want to be out from under sin's tyranny then it reveals you want to be under the yoke of Christ. For to be under anything apart from Christ is sin.

On the other hand, those who want Jesus to rescue them from sin's guilt, but leave them under its power, have not understood the gospel. A truly regenerate person wants Jesus to save from both sin's guilt AND power.

Jesus did not come to approve or validate us in our sins, but to rescue us from our sins. That is why He is called the Savior.

That is why the no-Lordship position makes absolutely no sense. If you are not coming to Jesus to save you from sin then what are you coming to Him for?

-----

 Matthew 1:21, John 8:10-11, Romans 10:9, Romans 14:9, Acts 10:36, Philippians 2:11

Israel in the Plan of God

Replacement theology is understood to be the view that the Church has replaced God's chosen people, the Jews, entirely, and that God wants nothing more to do with them as a people. It says that since Israel rejected their Messiah, they forfeit all of their God-given promises over to the Church. So given this definition, is Covenant Theology the same as Replacement Theology? This phrase is often used as a pejorative term for what some imagine Covenant Theology to be, but as the following resources point out, it is a false accusation.  The following are some resources we have found that gives some thought to the subject.

Essays

The Church, Israel, and "Replacement" Theology - Part 1 by Sam Storms

The Church, Israel, and "Replacement" Theology - Part 2 by Sam Storms

The Church, Israel, and "Replacement" Theology - Part 3 by Sam Storms

The Church and Israel in the New Testament by Keith Mathison

Not Replacement... Expansion! by Fred Klett

by John Newton

Dear Sir,

Your letter breathes the spirit of a Christian, though you say you are not a Calvinist. I would have still confined myself, in my letters, to the great truths in which we are agreed, if you had not invited me to touch upon the points wherein we differ. If you were insistent in your present sentiments, I would not think it my duty to debate with you: in that case, we might contend as much for victory as for truth. But as you profess yourself an inquirer, and are desirous of forming your judgment agreeably to the word of God, without being influenced by the authority of names and parties, I willingly embrace the occasion you offer me.

You say, that though you are not prejudiced against the doctrines of election and perseverance of the saints, they appear to you attended with such difficulties, that you cannot yet heartily and fully assent to them. May the Lord the Spirit, whose office it is to guide his people into all truth, dictate to my pen, and accompany what I shall write with his blessing. It is not my intention to prove and illustrate these doctrines at large, or to encounter the various objections that have been raised against them. So much has been done in this way already, that I could only repeat what has been said to greater advantage by others. Nor need I refer you to the books which have been professedly written upon this argument. In a letter to a friend, I shall not aim at the exactness of a disputant, but only offer a few unpremeditated hints, in the same manner as if I had the pleasure of personally conversing with you.