Gentle and Lowly: False Hope for Itching Ears (A Review)

Introduction

As a Biblical Counselor I was shocked to find Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortlund at the top of the 2020 Association of Certified Biblical Counseling (ACBC) list. I’ve lost Facebook friends and been banned from a popular—albeit less helpful than it used to be—group of biblical counselors merely for questioning whether anyone agreed with Dane Ortlund’s treatment of Hebrews 5 and stating that I saw merit in the Grace to You (GTY) article which raised red flags concerning the book's helpfulness. Originally I began to write a review in mid-2020, but deemed the GTY article sufficient enough of a warning, and I did not intend to finish this article, but since the GTY article has been inexplicably removed, I felt it necessary to declare a warning against this book: This book is unhelpful and heretical and should not be used in counseling, Bible study, counseling classes, or church.

There is strange affinity towards this book from people who otherwise could be considered solid; my expectation is that this affinity is to remain on good terms with Crossway and the Gospel Coalition (TGC), or more likely because the community as a whole has been seared to biblical discernment by decades of drivel coming from celebrity pastors. My initial cursory reading of this book led me to completely reject it on biblical grounds. In order to write this review I’ve accomplished an in-depth read-through, knowing that I may lose more friends and/or never be published by Crossway and/or never be invited to write or preach for TGC (which looks like it’s closed down anyways), it seems prudent to compile and post my warnings.

There are plenty of cautions out there concerning the author's father, Ray Ortund, but there is a great warning in this quote regarding the nepotism that perhaps has made this book so popular, “If you disparage one of my sons’ books, I might mute you. You are sincere, I’m sure. But I need solidly uplifting voices in my life.” Not biblical, but uplifting; not uplifting Jesus, but uplifting Ortlund. It’s no surprise then that Dane Ortlund would follow such error, “[My father] taught my siblings and me sound doctrine as we were growing up…” (p100) For all reading this, but especially for Ray Ortlund, I implore you to read Psalm 2:12 and consider which son you should be defending, if their opinions differ. Consider also Proverbs 5:12 and it's context.

My editing is far from complete, and this is not meant to be a comprehensive rebuke and warning of the entire book, but to give the main points of contention and support them with quotes from the book. After working for far too long to produce a piece full of paragraphs and transitions, I finally decided that the facts are here, and while it’s not the most readable thing I’ve written, I trust it will sufficiently warn the flock and the under-shepherds of this wolf in Shepherd’s clothing.

I’ve grouped my concerns into five categories. First, I want to look at the foundation of the book, Puritanism versus biblical exegesis, second is the gnostic (think secret/mysterious/code reading of the Bible) language it is written in, third is how Ortlund pits the Bible against itself, fourth is a rejection of responsibility for sin by emphasizing victimhood of sin, and fifth and finally is a nearly complete lack of the biblical gospel.

Not all that is Puritan is Gold

Halfway through the book I had the thought, “No one could ever come up with this book by reading their Bible,” and Ortlund agrees, pointing out that the book was birthed from Puritan writings (p14). Granted, there are many great Puritans, but the title of Puritan carries far more weight than the actual writings of the Puritans. I once said in a class on the Puritans, “John Owen takes forever to say nothing.” Puritanism is as wide and varied as 1600’s Christianity; the modern equivalents might be Southern Baptists where an overview would give you Albert Mohler and Adrian Rogers on one side and Ed Young Jr. and Steven Furtick on the other; in four hundred years I wouldn’t be surprised to see Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur lumped into Southern Baptist quotes, though neither hold that affiliation. In Puritanism you have undeniable heretics like Richard Baxter, controversial figures like Isaac Watts, and you have solid ministers like John Bunyan and Jeremiah Burroughs. Just because someone lived during the time of the Puritans doesn’t make them a solid Bible teacher; and they shouldn’t be quoted on par with scripture (Ortlund addresses this on page 14, but the rest of the book brings serious doubt to the authority of scripture in his life). Now I’m not saying that John Owen and Thomas Goodwin are the equivalent of Steven Furtick or Richard Baxter, but they’re certainly not on par with John Bunyan or Alistair Begg.

But Ortlund doesn’t even rightly represent the Puritan’s correctly, for example Jonathan Edwards said, “There is no love so great and so wonderful as that which is in the heart of Christ.” But Ortlund gives this commentary, which Edwards certainly would have thrown out, “The first thing out of Jonathan Edwards’s mouth, in exhorting the kids in his church to love Jesus more than everything else this world can offer, is the heart of Christ.” (p96) Do you see it? Edwards was focused on the person and work of Christ but Ortlund twists this quote to press his agenda.

And even when he rightly represents the Puritans, he quotes them when they’ve misrepresented scripture; for example Goodwin holds to the heresy that God hates the sin but loves the sinner (consider Revelation 21:8, among others), which Ortlund latches onto, “Yes, God has hatred, Goodwin says—toward sin.” (p168)

In our age, there is a strange magnetism towards the Puritans, and while we can certainly learn from the writings of godly men, not all Puritans are godly or correct. Richard Sibbes, who I have gleaned from in the past, makes this error, “Christ is nothing but pure grace clothed with our nature,” (quoted p177) when Christ is much more than grace, he is truth and righteousness and Saviour and Judge and an entire Bible full of attributes…compound that to the language of Sibbes is far from clear on what our nature is.

So beloved, reject Gentle and Lowly on its authority alone; anything that elevates the teachings of men over the teaching of God should be rejected immediately. Even if this misattributed authority were orthodox (consider Revelation 19:10)—which Gentle and Lowly is far from Orthodox—the reader should be exhorted by scripture and the man of God to worship God and listen to the testimony of Jesus! But Gentle and Lowly is not orthodox, instead it teaches an unconcealed Gnosticism.

Gnostic Leanings

Gnosticism is the idea and teaching that there are secret things in the Bible that should receive special attention, require special revelation, or specific prophets to see. Dane Ortlund unapologetically makes this error by using Matthew 11:29 as his hermeneutical key to the entire Bible. The problem with using one verse to interpret the entire Bible is that this verse wasn’t around for the writing of the majority of the Bible. Scripture should interpret scripture, but from the clear to the unclear; A great question to ask on every passage you study is, “What would be lost if this verse weren’t in the Bible?” This is a serious question to ask of thousands of years of believers who trusted God for salvation before Matthew penned what we now call Matthew 11:29. If this verse is truly the key to knowing Christ like Ortlund proposes over and over, then why wasn’t it recorded closer to Genesis 1:1? Rather, the gospel does not stand or fall on a single verse, compare from the beginning (cf. Genesis 3:15, Deuteronomy 18:18, 1 Samuel 2:25, Psalm 34:6, Isaiah 53:3-12, Zechariah 13:1, and thousands more) that God is not hiding the need for a Messiah or the salvific nature of the Son of God and Son of Man to be the propitiation for sin and the righteousness which are both required for reconciliation with God.

Instead of falling on scriptural promises or the exhortations of two-millennia of church history since Matthew penned his gospel, Ortlund takes a deep dive down the rabbit hole of a hidden, secret, deep magic of one verse (that I (and Jesus) would say doesn’t even say what he says it says.) The context of the keynote verse of the book is Matthew 11:29, which is in response to rejecting the Son of God. As I reread Ortlund’s book, I said incredulously and made a vocal outburst in a café, “No one who likes this book knows the context of Jesus’s statement.”

Consider this gnostic language from quotes from the book. I disagree with all of Ortlund’s conclusions; I’ve included some commentary:

“As we zero in on the affectionate heart of Christ, how do we ensure that we are growing in a healthy understanding…?” (p28, emphasis mine)

“…who God actually is.” (p14, emphasis mine)

“Do you know his deepest heart for you?” (p16 emphasis mine)

“There’s only one place where Jesus tells us about his own heart.” (p17, A very large and very real reason Jesus came is expressed in John 1:18, “the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” That Jesus is showing exactly who he is—and who is Father is—through his actions, not through one verse misapplied)

“In the one place in the Bible where the Son of God pulls back the vail and lets us peer way down into the core of who he is…” (p18, emphasis mine, compare again: John 1:18, 17:17, Heb 12:1-2)

“Only as we drink down the kindness of the heart of Christ…” (p22, emphasis mine)

“What he is, he does.” (p25, Consider elsewhere that what he does is flip tables, cleanse the temple, curse a fig tree, berate Pharisees, and hide the truth in parables… amongst many other things, and what he is, he surely does, cf. esp. Revelation 19:11)

“The leper was asking about Jesus’s deepest desire. And Jesus revealed his deepest desire by healing him.” (p25, emphasis mine, Jesus deepest desire is to glorify the Father, not every desire is his deepest, cf. Matthew 6:33)

“Simply seeing the helplessness of the throngs, pity ignites.” (p26, Jesus was driven by completing his mission, not by an internal instinct or whim)

“The Jesus given to us in the Gospels is not simply one who loves, but one who is love; merciful affections stream from his innermost heart as rays from the sun.” (p27, Jesus came to seek and save the lost)

“Deep into the heart of Christ” (p46, emphasis mine)

“He cannot bear to hold himself at a distance…His heart is too bound up with yours.” (p50, Jesus is not blown about by his emotions)

“Nothing can chain his affections to heaven; his heart is too swollen with endearing love.” (p55, Jesus is not at the mercy of his emotions)

“As we go down into pain and anguish, we are descending ever deeper into Christ’s very heart, not away from it.” (p57, emphasis mine, While I agree completely that God is redeeming pain and anguish for his glory (cf: Romans 8:28-29) my question for Ortlund would be should we seek out suffering for the benefit of knowing Christ better?)

“IT IS PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE to conceive of the horror of hell…that will sweep over those found on the last day to be out of Christ.” (p67, EMPHASIS ORIGINAL, Further, what is “out of Christ”?, it sounds like something someone who has heard about the Bible would say, not someone who has read it (cf. esp. Ephesians 1-2), see also page 68, 143)

“When we come to Christ, we are startled by the beauty of his welcoming heart. The surprise is itself what draws us in.” (p98)

“…he approaches us on our own terms and befriends us for both his and our mutual delight.” (p119, He does not need anything, if he were hungry or lonely or needing delight, he would not tell you.)

“If you catch God off guard, what leaps out most freely is blessing.” (p140-141, So many problems with providence and sovereignty, but especially that God is going to exude blessing in a startled state…consider the only two verses I know of that remotely hint that God may be caught unawares speak of the terror of his wrath and his rebuke: Psalm 73:20 & Mark 4:38-41)

Pitting Bible against Bible

Because Ortlund derives so much of his hermeneutic not from the scriptures, but from his own interpretation of one verse, it is no surprise that he finds contradictions throughout the scripture.

“But in only one place. . .do we hear Jesus himself open up to us his very heart.” (p18, many other authors have noted that the incarnate Jesus’ first and last command are, “Repent” (Mark 1:15, Revelation 3:19), as well as reiterated throughout the gospels and New Testament; if Matthew 11:29 is so important for understanding the rest of the Bible and who Jesus is, then it is extremely odd that John, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, and the Holy Spirit chose to omit)

“The posture most natural to him is not a pointed finger but open arms.” (p19, compare Matt 23, and find a place in scripture where Christ was able to welcome someone with open arms. If we want to play some sort of middle-knowledge game and assume men could humble themselves and seek Jesus apart from his cleansing and intercession them, then perhaps men could be welcomed, but then we run into the problem of Jesus never coming to earth if men could save themselves (Cf. Galatians 2:21)…so his most natural (to use this heretical language) posture is that of Suffering Saviour)

“If we are asked to say only one thing about who Jesus is, we would be honoring Jesus’s own teaching if our answer is, gentle and lowly.” (p21, emphasis original, again, scripture is clear that this is not his only attribute)

“He can’t un-gentle himself toward his own…” (p21, Jesus is in the posture of wounding and binding (Isaiah 30:26, Hosea 6:1, et al); so what about discipline? We know that the reproof of the Lord is not pleasant at the moment, but it does produce a fruit of righteousness and peace that are not to be repented of, my prayer is that Jesus would not be gentle, but that he would be efficient, measured, purposeful, and skilled, and he is! We’ll talk about “his own” more as we consider the gospel-lite nature of the book.)

“It is what gets him out of bed in the morning.” (p23, emphasis mine, God doesn’t sleep, his purpose is his glory.)

“This is the one whose deepest heart is, more than anything else, gentle and lowly.” (p24, emphasis original, compare Isaiah 63 and those who will face Christ scorned and receive his wrath for eternity.)

“We are apt to think that he, being so holy, is therefore of a severe and sour disposition against sinners, and not able to bear them. ‘No,’ says he; ‘I am meek; gentleness is my nature and temper.’” (p23, This same Jesus also said, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the Wrath to Come” (Matthew 3:7))

“Twice in the Gospels we are told that Jesus broke down and wept.” (p26, emphasis mine, Never in the gospels are we told that Jesus broke down)

“It is impossible for the affectionate heart of Christ to be overcelebrated, made too much of, exaggerated.” (P29, emphasis original, Jeremiah disagrees and despises those who declare “Peace, Peace!” when there is no peace, not on earth, not between man and nature, not between man and man, not between nation and nation, and certainly not between God and man)

On page 52, Ortlund is so desperate to find a proof text that he quotes Hebrews 5:1-4 as about Jesus, when it is not, it only begins to be about Jesus in verse 5.

“Jesus Christ was sinlessly weak (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).” (p57, see 2 Cor 13:3, Jesus Christ is not weak, meek does not mean weak, it is a faithful saying that in order to be meek you have to have real power to maim, kill, destroy, coerce, and rule, otherwise you are not meek, you are weak)

“It’s the only way he knows how to be.” (p57, compare Revelation 1-3 and the entirety of the Bible)

“a rare glimpse” (p73, unless you’re reading your Bible)

“Should we envision the Son as gentle and lowly but the Father as something else?” (p127, This eisegesis of forcing one verse to drown out 31,101 other verses is troubling and dangerous, if the Father is gentle and lowly only then we have no need to read verses like Proverbs 1:7: The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom)

“But at the theological bull’s-eye of the whole book, we are told that God does not bring such pain ‘from his heart.’” (p138, then where does pain come from, and is there supposedly joy to come out of being afflicted some other way?)

“God is rich in mercy. He doesn’t withhold mercy from some kinds of sinners while extending it to others…his heart gushes forth mercy to sinners one and all.” (p177, What about those it doesn’t? Are all saved? Are all victims of some historical sin that they themselves are not a part of? Or is God just in holding sins against sinners?)

Victimhood Versus Sin

The most dangerous, if I could pinpoint the most dangerous part of the book, is that it rejects that sinners—in their very nature—are not deserving of gentleness or restraint, but are deserving of the full, undiluted, infinite and eternal wrath of God.

If we aren’t in immanent danger because Jesus loves us so much and is doing everything possible to save us, then of course a jesus who just wants to give us a hug makes sense, but the truth is: we aren’t victims, we’re perpetrators, we’re not witnesses to the crucifixion, we’re orchestrators.

Consider some quotes that would make Charles Finney wince for their heresy.

“Open yourself up to him. It is all he needs.” (p20, why the cross? Poor little Pelagian Jesus who has done his best and now needs you to do the rest)

“Jesus Christ’s desire that you find rest, that you come in out of the storm, outstrips even your own.” (p21, The question then, of course, is why so many are lost and why Jesus has a small, difficult path that leads to Heaven and a broad well-paved well-marked highway leading to Hell?)

“Your very burden is what qualifies you to come.” (p20, This is bordering on Works Righteousness, and a painful misunderstanding a very astute Jonathan Edwards quote)

“But for the penitent, his heart of gentleness is never out-matched…” (p21, Cf. two verses earlier: Matt 11:27, “whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Penitence doesn’t open eyes or hearts, and it is not how you participate in the propitiated gentleness of the Father and the Son)

“He never tires of sweeping us into his tender embrace.” (p23, Cf. Jeremiah 3 and the divorce of Israel)

“We cannot avoid the conclusion that it is the very fallenness which he came to undo that is most irresistibly attractive to him.” (p30, If we can’t avoid that conclusion, then why would we avoid the conclusion that he could have stopped the fall but didn’t?! But the conclusion is false, because what is most attractive to Jesus is the joy and glory in being both Righteous and Saviour (cf. Isaiah 45:21-22))

“The same one who reached out and touched lepers puts his arm around us today when we feel misunderstood and sidelined.” (p32)

“He wants us to draw on his grace and mercy because it is who he is.” (p36, he is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29) and a jealous God (Deut 4:24))

“Jesus Christ is comforted when you draw from the riches of his atoning work, because his own body is getting healed.” (41, Jesus isn’t broken, compare Acts 7 and Stephen)

On page 63-64, concerning the fictitious exchange between Christ and a generalized seeker, every reader should be screaming: ‘Where is the cross?!’; While the cross does appear sporadically throughout the book, it is clear that Orlund does not understand its power, and here describes a sinner saved by a sympathetic jesus who is willing to take a sinner just as he is without any atonement or righteousness or propitiation or blood-shed.

“To those who do belong to him, sins evoke [in God] holy longing, holy love, holy tenderness.” (p70, [Clarification Added], A cursory reading of Revelation 2-3 would say otherwise, him seeking not to coddle the sinning believer, but to sanctify him)

“We all tend to have some small pocket of our life where we have difficulty believing the forgiveness of God reaches.” (p83, Ortlund’s hermeneutic can only promise half a gospel, that God forgives, but not to the uttermost)

“The only qualification needed is desire.” (p89, If this is true then Jesus spoke very deficiently when he said things like, “Repent and Believe the Gospel.” This quote of Ortlund's is similar to, but so much less powerful than, Joseph Hart's Come Ye Sinners Poor and Needy, “But to feel your need of him”, because Ortlund is so mired in victimhood that he ignores that Christ is the source not only of forgiveness, but of righteousness and fellowship as well)

“embraces the penitent with more openness that we are able to feel.” (p99, because your greatest need in Ortlund’s universe is a divine hug)

“…Romance the heart of Jesus…Allow yourself to be allured.” (p99, emphasis original, As I read this section, I thought about the fruit of this book; this sort of language will NOT produce glorious older saints who seek the will of God from the scriptures and exhort with all authority those they encounter, but who lean (if they lean on Jesus at all) on platitudes and “Jesus-is-my-girlfriend” language gleaned from secular Christian radio rather than the heart of God)

“Jesus wants to come in to you—wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, naked you---and enjoy meals together. Spend time with you. Deepen the acquaintance.” (p116, Except Jesus is actively rejecting this church quoted from Revelation 3:14-22)

“Christ not only heals our feelings of rejection…” (p118, Here is my sarcasm: because feelings of rejection are our greatest need and what was in the cup that Christ pleaded with his Father to remove if there was any way? You’re not a victim of sin, you’re a sinner rejected by the Living Christ)

“It looks like a Middle Eastern carpenter restoring men’s and women’s dignity and humanity and health and conscience through healings and exorcisms and teaching and hugging and forgiving.” (p169, this jesus is spelled with lower-case because he does not exist, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, and is certainly not the Carpenter described in the Bible)

“It means the things about you that make you cringe most, make him hug hardest.” (p179…not sanctify or reprove or justify or glorify…hug)

“Maybe you have been deeply mistreated. Misunderstood. Betrayed by the one person you should have been able to trust. Abandoned. Taken advantage of. Perhaps you carry a pain that will never heal till you are dead.” (p179)

“Paul’s deepest burden is our present security…” (p193, Paul’s deepest burden is the glory of God)

“His heart was gentle and lowly toward us when we were lost.” (p194, Alistair Begg has a wonderful quote stating without a read anger, a real wrath, the cross is robbed of it’s meaning.” Was Jesus gentle and lowly towards us when we were “children of wrath”? See Ephesians 2:1-10)

“Only a soul in Christ would be troubled at offending him.” (p194, what about 2 Corinthians 7:10, what about millions who think their good deeds are keeping them in God’s good graces?)

Lack of the Gospel

It could probably go without saying that a book so antithetical to scripture would not provide a way to enter into Heaven or the good graces of God, but if you’ve read this far, let me prove it to you. Are these coming from the heart of Christ revealed in the scriptures, or the heart of Dane Ortlund?

“You might know that Christ died and rose again on your behalf to rinse you clean of all your sin…” (p15-16 emphasis mine)

“generally avoiding deep fellowship with him, out of a muted understanding of his heart.” (p22, emphasis mine, did Jesus die for misunderstood people even while they were muted (Compare Romans 5:8))

“This book is written. . .for those of us who know God loves us but suspect we have deeply disappointed him.” (p13, this person doesn’t exist, despite some saying that this book has a niche readership, this person does not exist in the scriptures, as the problem is that a person who knows God loves them will be transformed by the love (Cf. 1 John 4:18 where this is a test of salvation))

“He was reversing the Jewish system.” (p31, missed the cross entirely)

“Christ as our heavenly mediator-that is, the one who clears away any reason for us to be unable to enjoy friendship with God…” (p37, while there is some truth in this statement, this is NOT what a mediator does)

“What keeps him from growing cold? The answer is, his heart.” (p66, The answer is the cross!)

“No such thing as grace” (p69, Gentle and Lowly is a weird Pelagian, oft Roman Catholic (RCC), book that claims that there is no such thing as grace because that’s RCC stuff? Grace abounds, and while it may be intangible, there certainly is such thing as grace and it’s amazing, and I hope someday Ortlund is able to taste it, feel it, and be saved by it!)

“What does it mean that Christ is a friend to sinners? At the very least, it means that he enjoys spending time with them…What he is really doing, at bottom, is pulling them into his heart.” (p114-115, except that they all left him.)

Chapter 12, titled “A Tender Friend” doesn’t even consider that a friend will die for another friend. If there is an easier place to tie the gospel together than Jesus, the Friend of Sinners, and his accolades of a man who lays down his life for his friends, I haven’t found it; but Ortlund didn’t see fit to include it. My written note on the last page of that chapter reads in bold red pen, “How dare he not touch on John 15:13!”

There is an assumed Christianity throughout the book, especially on page 167 that if you think you’re in Christ, you definitely get all of his blessings, there is no clarion call for repentance and faith or making your calling and election sure. “You’re that safe.” (p178, and you are that safe if you’re in Christ, but if you trust in the promises rather than the Saviour, you won’t meet a gentle and lowly jesus on the final day and you’ll be outside of his safe graces (cf Matthew 7:21-23))

“Do you know what Jesus does with those who squander his mercy? He pours out more mercy.” (p179, potentially, but should we then sin all the more? Or not trample his blood underfoot?)

“Repent and let him love you.” (p170, is this a quote from Pelagius, Arminius, Finney, Osteen, or Ortlund?)

“It means that our sins do not cause his love to take a hit. Our sins cause his love to surge forward all the more.” (p180, Our sins cause a separation between us and God; run to the cross, go reconcile with your brother)

“rinse muddy sinners clean and hug them into his own heart” (p191, You could reject the whole book on this one sentence alone…I think it was my second most angry moment reading this book; the first being the quote in the conclusion below)

“Open yourself up to him. Let him love you…Go to Jesus” (p216, a biblical invitation may have been in order here?)

“Whenever you feel stuck…most defeated…” (p216, because Jesus came to seek and save the victims?)

Conclusion

I’ll let Dane Ortlund close us with the most ridiculous sentence in the entire book: “This is a book about the heart of Christ and of God. What are we to do with this? The main answer is, nothing.” (p215)

Beloved, from Matthew 11:29 the answer is: “Yoke Yourself to Jesus!” Trust Christ! Know Christ! Enjoy Christ! Link your eternity with his!

What should you do with Gentle and Lowly? Toss it, read your Bible!

All is Discovered! Flee Now!

Consider for a moment that you just received a text from an unknown number, 

All is Discovered! Flee Now!

How would you react?

In the late 19^th century, and popularized by Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes), a tragically humorous anecdote was told of a person sending six telegrams to six upstanding Christian gentlemen (or pastors) stating only, “All is Discovered: Flee at Once!” The following day (or Sunday) not a single one of the men could be found, having left town in a hurry.

Tell this story at any gathering and you are sure to hear some nervous laughter. The joke is not that these six were accidentally discovered, for the author of the telegram had no knowledge or inkling of any secret sin, but that every man has a deep dark secret of which he would flee if it were found out, convicted by their own conscience.

The church has not been immune from secret sin, but beloved, there should be no unconfessed sin in your life that, if found out, would result in the end of your ministry, family, or life. This has been exacerbated in recent days by the findings of a major SBC investigation into Paige Patterson. The investigation began not because of secret sin, but because of public statements which were made in very poor judgment. Dr. Patterson had little to deny or even be ashamed of in his defense, other than a lack of clarity and of being out of line with the culture, but rather should have clarified and preached. But the investigation did not stop with public and defendable statements.

What was found that was utterly shocking and repugnant in Dr. Patterson’s investigation was that which was known by only a few people, that he had purposefully covered up rape allegations to either protect his seminary, or to protect the rapist. Either is abhorrent and a secret, which, when found out, led to his firing from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I had supported Paige Patterson up until I learned why he was fired, as the board revealed, this was truly “new information” and was a sin worthy of firing.

Paul writes to Timothy on these matters, speaking about being slow to associate with just any man who shows interest in ministry, because you may be found taking part in his sin. Paige Patterson is a hero in the Southern Baptist Convention and by almost all accounts seems to bear fruit keeping with repentance. I truly hope that his cover-up was a serious stumble, and not the exposure of much deeper spiritual issues.

Paul continued his thought, “The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later (1 Timothy 5:24).” I’ve always felt this was a direct allusion to Moses regarding whether the tribes of Reuben and Gad would provide warriors to conquer what would become Israel, “Be sure your sin will find you out (Numbers 32:23).” Some men are obviously sinners and few are surprised when they fall, such were Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Paul Crouch, Mark Driscoll, etc, etc, ad nauseum, but the sins of others are hidden, such as those of Josh Duggar, Paige Patterson, and Paul Pressler, and many are surprised when they are brought to light. I believe that the Apostle Paul was making the point that some sins are exposed before judgment, and others won’t appear until after judgment.

The tragedy of many is that they will never get a wake up call, “All is Discovered! Flee Now!” but their sins will only be made manifest on the great and terrible day of judgment when their faith is shown to be a fraud and their sin finds them out. For, dear reader, you may hide your sin from many people, but you will never hide your sin from God, for his Word is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. No creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:12-13). God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Romans 2:16).

Our associate pastor recently recommended a wonderful book to us on teaching children to keep their body’s safe, it is called God Made All of Me by Justin Holcomb. It makes many great points (the main failing is that it does not address the gospel, but dear parent, that is ultimately your job), but the most important for me was where it talks about how secrets make people feel confused, hurt, scared, sad, etc and how secrets have no place in the kingdom of Heaven. Christ came as light into the world and the darkness fled from him, lest their deeds be exposed. There is no place for secrets in the household of faith. We could argue minutia such as not revealing the identity of a rape victim, but we will not argue whether the rape should be reported, investigated, and punished. A secret has no place in Christian's life if we have truly come to the light.

Dear reader, make this decision now, that no secret will exist in your life that, if revealed, would ruin your career, your family, your life, or your eternity. Let no sin go unconfessed to God and man, and unrepented of. The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness.

There are some whom I know whose sin is evident to all but themselves; there are others whose sin is undeniably there, but which sin is unclear; there are others whom I pray would receive a wakeup call on par with, “All is Discovered, Flee Now!” Beloved, where do you stand on this scale, if a telegraph appeared at your door tomorrow would you have enough time to pack your bags, or would you know that all of your sin is already laid at the foot of a bloodstained cross and has no power over you?

And if all truly were discovered, to whom would you flee? At the end of the age many will flee to caves in mountains and under rocks but will have no reprieve from him who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. John the Baptist asked a wicked and perverse generation whose sin was more than conspicuous, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come (Matthew 3:7)!?”

Beloved, there is one Saviour, one name given under Heaven by which we must be saved, to whom we must flee: Jesus, raised from the dead, who delivers us from the wrath to come. Flee to him yourself, and call others to flee, instead of a telegram as a joke, implore men with all seriousness and love, “All is Discovered! Flee now to Christ Jesus who died for you while you were yet a sinner, defeated death, and is able to save completely all who draw near to him in faith!” For how will they call on him who is able to save and how will you declare it?

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages, but now has been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. ~ Romans 16:25-27

The Evidence Against Sye Ten Bruggencate

Introduction

I have long worried about the evangelism community being like sheep without a shepherd, or a ship without an anchor tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, and by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

Many of these evangelists had their start in following the method of evangelism invented by Ray Comfort where he asks, "Would you consider yourself to be a good person?" (Example) is a fantastic, biblical method, and is founded in solid truth in what he calls, "Hell's Best Kept Secret". But unfortunately many evangelists weren't drawn to this method because it was biblical, but because it was a method that seemed like it would win the world.

Of course, scripture teaches a clear slide into apostasy, where the world at the end will have practically no Christians, so Ray Comfort's method of presenting the gospel did not win the world (many souls, yes, but the world, no) and many evangelists, instead of admitting they could not win the entire world for Christ, sought out different and increasingly wicked methods to reap supposedly better results. Mark Cahill, for example, abandoned biblical teaching, teachers, and evangelists by embracing the idea that a simple prayer or choice can save a person. Others have fled to the political realm, many of these have rejected the return of Christ, and thus have made shipwreck of their faith. Others have wandered into HyperCalvinism, of waiting for people to come to Christ as God calls them apart any efforts of his saints. Others embraced the law and the Sabbath to say that God will bless you if keep his laws to the best of your ability. Some others even became atheists because they saw no results from the methods they were using, and because of the wicked draw of their own sinfulness. Some dove into evidentialism and made sinners the judge over God. And this list could go on and on.

The latest in these wicked methods is that of Sye Ten Bruggencate's "Presuppositional" Apologetics. It is in quotation marks because his method is not presuppositional, but that is what he calls it. Many examples will be given throughout this article, but the basic premise is that because absolute truth exists, things can be known, and that logic exists, there must be a God. It is reasonably a good foundation, but it ends there, not even mentioning Jesus or his gospel.

This article will prove to you that Ten Bruggencate's apologetics is a worthless evidential model, that he has ignored historic and useful presuppositional training, that he is in serious error concerning the Biblical teaching on knowledge and deception, that he fellowships with the American Vision cult, and that he has shown cult-leader-like tendencies, and has, through lack of gospel preaching, denied Jesus Christ. He is an enemy of the gospel and has deceived even the elect, and is doing severe damage to their ministries and the gospel witness they bear. Finally, this article will encourage you to use true presuppositional apologetics and to preach Christ and him crucified.

Foundation of Presuppositional Apologetics
and Ten Bruggencate's Departure

Presuppositionalism is found throughout the Bible (see esp Romans 1:16-32, Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:18-31), it says that the Bible is true and sin exists and that all men need a Saviour. It says, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one (Romans 3:10)." and "I (Jesus) told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins (John 8:24)."

Presuppositionalism is the correct way to do apologetics. I recommend Greg Bahnsen's book, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended for an extrabiblical look at this method (I will loan you my copy so you do not have to support AV, my copy was free because the cover is damaged).

One of my major problems with Sye is that his method is not presuppositional, it is evidential on the fact that logic is not made of matter, or that you can be absolutely sure that absolute truth exists. Visit Sye's website, http://proofthatgodexists.org/, and see all of the evidence he uses. (I am not against evidence, but it must be based on the presupposition that evidence points to God, and I encourage you to realize that fact when you're using evidence). See this video of him using logic and knowledge as the evidence of God. "God is the necessary precondition of knowledge." Even the atheists he debates see that he is using evidentialism (see @ 1:38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcwfvZHYQJE)

Pay attention especially in that video that Ten Bruggencate completely relies on the man he is debating to be able to understand and see God's evidence. He says, "I'm not trying to prove to you that a god exists, I'm trying to expose that you know this God and that you are without excuse for your sin against him." Bahnsen would freak out on Sye at this point, Bahnsen is clear that (p.51),

The man who follows the "wisdom" of the world...is unable to know the things of the Spirit and he cannot have the spiritual discernment to judge for the truth as long as he is steeped in unbiblical presuppositions...Fallen man is incapacitated from seeing things as they really are; he has incapacitated himself by suppressing rather than presupposing the revelation of God...Having the spirit of the world manifest in his reasoning, the unregenerate is unable to understand the things of God's Spirit.

Ten Bruggencate utterly misses the spiritual side of apologetics, that fallen man is blinded. There are no lack of Bible verses to this effect, let me share a few with you, "sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me (Romans 7:11." Paul said that prior to his conversion, he had, "acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13)." He makes a damning statement to Sye's evidentialism when he states, "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)."

Sye comes across as yelling at a blind man (or woman; See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQbL-dhuuCA) in a maze every time the blind man bumps into a wall (see also @ 2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcwfvZHYQJE). This is why Paul writes to Timothy, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:24-26)."

There is no gentleness in Sye's argument, nor any effort in his videos to get to the gospel. His website is devoid of a gospel message, and in my extensive research though it, I did not even see the name Jesus used. It ends with a declaration that arriving at the intellectual acquiescence of God's existence is his goal. His website sends you to the Disney Channel (which accidentally gets closer to the gospel than Sye ever does, see The Gospel According to Disney) if you select a certain link on his website, because he's only interested in debate and has no care if you go to Hell or not or if Jesus receives the glory or not (I base this on the evidence of what he makes public). He does no better than those who convinced Anthony Flew to be a deist, as many walk away from Sye maybe convinced in the evidence of God's existence, but unless they repent of their sin against the God who has blinded their minds, and put their faith in Jesus Christ, they will go to Hell. That is not victory. In fact it may be worse for this opponents (Luke 11:24-26).

Recently an atheist monument was setup in Florida, and granted, it does humorously look like a toilet, but Sye, instead of preaching the gospel, attempted to place a toilet seat upon it (see Atheists Unveil Monument) adding unneeded offense, quarrelsomeness, and argument. Thank God that Eric Hovind stood up and preached Christ and him crucified, for Christ is not without a witness.

Finally, Sye Ten Bruggencate fellowships with some of the most wicked heretics operating today, the Federal Visionists at American Vision, and the gospel deniers at Crown Rights Media. Seven years ago when many current evangelists were being trained by Ray Comfort, the idea that a person is saved by their baptism would have lead to outcry and the idea that Christ returned almost 2,000 years ago and is waiting for the world to become perfect would have been scoffed at and the errant people called to read their Bibles. But as evangelists are swept along by every wind of doctrine, these strange and blasphemous things are accepted (compare Thoughts on the Covenants). This Presbyterian heresy is prevalent today and is destroying ministries and suppressing the gospel. Therefore I warn you to flee from Sye's evidentialism and preach the gospel to a lost and dying world.

The Gospellessness of the Message

Dan Phillips says what is missing in Sye's message better than I can; he says masterfully,

Sye seems to focus on utterly destroying the unbeliever and his worldview, period. Winning the unbeliever to a God-centered worldview (conversion) does not seem to be the priority.

You see very little appeal, very little bridge-building, very little outreach. Paul's concern that he might win as many as possible (1 Cor. 9:19-22) isn't at the fore.

A lack of gospel preaching is one of the most dangerous things a preacher can do. If we are evidentialists or presuppositionalists, or we have everything else wrong, we cannot get the gospel wrong (Philippians 1:15-18, esp 18).

One of the most dangerous debates that is lauded today is the Greg Bahnsen versus Gordon Stein debate. There has been a lie perpetuated that this is one of the most crushing defeats of atheism in modern times. If you listen to the audio or read the transcript you'll see that no-one wins this debate, because Bahsen utterly balks on preaching the gospel. In fact, Stein comes closer to the gospel in his mockery of it.

I searched and searched for a video of Ten Bruggencate sharing the gospel, and I had many of his supporters looking as well. Granted, he does occasionally come close, but he is yet to preach a solid biblical presentation. I can share three semi-gospels with you that I have found, but the most clear is Sye's video, "Pray for Franco", this is a weird, unbiblical, muddle of Pelagianism (don't choose Hell) and HyperCalvinism (If God is speaking to your heart & I hope you're a sheep). No presentation in scripture of the gospel assumes that a person is elect or not before commanding them to repent, see especially Acts 17:30, "He commands all people everywhere to repent..." Notice as well that Sye emphasizes other things over salvation, such as salvation of knowledge and reasoning. The gospel is hard to find in Sye's preaching, and when it is found, it's only a portion of the gospel, which is no gospel at all.

This is a common problem in the Federal Vision movement, they cannot preach the gospel well because they do not know the gospel nor practice sharing it. See two videos by Federal Visionists where the gospel is destroyed and their own souls are forfeit, Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar.

The goal of every Christian is to properly preach Christ and him crucified. This message saves some, and it hardens others, but it is the central theme of most importance in the Bible. When I asked Sye to do a better job of preaching the gospel, he asked me to stop being a jerk (his ad hominem attack proving that he does not care about the purity of the gospel). Dan Phillips writes one of the most damning things against him, "Often, Sye takes a phrase and simply repeats it until he's kicked off a show or his hearer walk[s] away in a rage." No Christian should EVER consider that a victory, for the offense of the cross, not our own impudence, should be the reason people walk away and rage against us.

Impact on Others

Sye is having a terrible effect on others as well. Tony Miano is a great gospel preacher, but when he uses Sye's method, and never gets to the gospel. I would never have believed that Miano would press someone so hard with evidence that they would walk away without hearing of the Saviour. But here are two examples where he has, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL6N_VJFpXE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvnC23UvtMM.

An ardent supporter of Sye Ten Bruggencate is Richard Mailly, during our conversation the man mocked the gospel and called me a minced curse word. Towards the end of our discussion he proclaimed, "Sye Ten Bruggencate is my master. I follow no other!" Surely he was being facetious, but this is the quality of person who is born from the arrogant evidentialism of Sye Ten Bruggencate, a man who has no reverence for the gospel or respect towards its ministers.

A dear friend of mine who sees merit in Sye's methodology made an excellent point recently, that it is "only useful for atheists." I would argue that it is useful for no-one, but this is an excellent point, that the brand of apologetics (not presuppositional) which Sye has adopted does not do well with the contrite. See the above video with Franco where Sye had no idea where to go when someone was humble. If your method cannot work in more than one situation, it is tremendously lacking. Look at the presuppositionalism in the Bible, it works for Jews and Gentiles, for wise and religious, for indignant and humble. Be prepared to give a reason for the hope that lies in you, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Many of those who have grouped to Ten Bruggencate have followed his rejection of  evidentialists to such an extreme as to cut ties with great godly ministries. One of these people attacked one such ministry by saying Sye had taught her not to use "stupid arguments about bananas or the complexity of the eye." The ministry she is speaking of preaches the gospel often and boldly, and gains audience with many by using the incredible complexity of God's creation. Sye has gone so far as to call these ministries blasphemous. They are only using the vast corpus of creation to show the grandeur of God, and then to call them to repentance in the Living Christ, and yet Sye's followers are against them.

Finally, Sye is a divider of the brethren to the extent that he has one major characteristic of a cult-leader. Most cult groups encourage radical disengagement from family and friends. Criticism and truth is not the friend of the cult-leader, so cutting them off is absolutely necessary. When confronted by a Christian, Sye called for everyone who followed him to not follow his critic, and he went after supposed friends with a vengeance. One person only questioned whether Sye was right to say evidentialists were blasphemous, and he was instantly cut off from fellowship. It is cultic and it is dangerous, and I implore you to flee from Sye Ten Bruggencate and call him to repentance in the Living Christ and to hope in the saving work of God, and not in his vast intellect which is able to crush blinded atheists and make them twice the sons of Hell as himself.

Conclusion

There is nothing right about Sye Ten Bruggencate, he has bastardized presuppositional apologetics and has bastardized the gospel. He is a gangrene in the body and is destroying the fellowship and cohesion of brothers. He is so clearly an antichrist and cult-leader that if you name the name of Christ, you must flee from him, for, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19)."

Learn proper presuppositional apologetics aright, that the Bible is true, God is holy, men are not, and all are in desperate need of the forgiveness purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross and affirmed in his resurrection. Call all men to repentance and faith in the Living Christ.

Avoid the wickedness of Federal Vision, do not fellowship with those who think they are saved by their baptism. You do them no favors by pretending they are brothers, and for you, bad company ruins good morals. Never let a Christian tell you who you can and cannot be friends with, especially when they are bringing wounds rather than kisses (Proverbs 27:6). Emulate Jesus Christ in saying, "those whom I love, I reprove and discipline (Revelation 3:19)."

Judge ministries based on their adherence to the Bible, not on their results, for remember, Jeremiah had no converts, Noah had eight, and Jesus Christ could only count one-hundred-twenty prior to Pentecost. Mankind will go from bad to worse, this is no concern of yours, preach the gospel in season and out, plant and water seeds, and pray that God gives them the growth (1 Corinthians 3:7).

Above all, know and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). This is the central theme of scripture, you must get it right, for if you miss it, your life and ministry will be counted complete loss. For further reading, see my article "What is the Gospel?".

Finally, something that edified me in the long hours of writing and researching this is a thought by Keith and Kristyn Getty who exhort us,

"Our call to war: to love the captive soul,
but to rage against the captor;
And with the sword that makes the wounded whole
We will fight in faith and valor
When faced with trials on every side
We know the outcome is secure
And Christ will have the prize for which He died
An inheritance of nations"

New Versus Obsolete: Thoughts on the Covenants

Introduction

Historically, the doctrine of the covenants has sent many Baptists to their death (drowning, burning, beating) and it has sent many Presbyterians to Hell. It is not something to be taken lightly, and we must admit that there is a vast difference between the belief that there is one Covenant (Covenantalism) and at least two major Covenants (Dispensationalism). This article will seek to define and repudiate the heresy of Covenantalism, drawing all readers to a firm belief in the New Covenant of Grace.

Definition

According to the Covenantal document, the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF), the singular Covenant is expressed in two dispensations, "This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel (WCF Chapter VII, Para V)..." The covenant was administered through sacrifices, circumcision, and the like under the law, but under the gospel, they are administered through the preaching of the Word, and in Baptism and the Lord's Supper (WCF Chapter VII, Para VI).

The result of the law and the gospel, according to this anathema religion, is "full remission of sins, and eternal salvation (WCF Chapter VII Para V)..." They conclude by saying, "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations (WCF Chapter VII Para VI)."

The simplest definition of Covenantalism is that the covenant is between God and men, under works it was circumcision, and under grace it is baptism.

The Dispensational document, the Bible, utterly refutes this Papist heresy by clearly differentiating between two Covenants, a covenant of works, and a covenant of grace. The primary places to find these are John 10, Hebrews 7-8, 2 Corinthians 3, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 36; discussion of the covenants is not at all limited to these chapters, but is best expressed in them. Portions of each chapter will be quoted in this article, and I encourage you to read each in its context and entirety.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it this way,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
__when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
__and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
__on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
__and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
__after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
__and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
__and they shall be my people. - Hebrews 8:8-10

Note that there are two primary things happening, that two covenants are clearly expressed, and that the First is unable to save, and the Second makes a perfect salvation between God and his people. This is a direct quote of Jeremiah 31:31-34, but I quoted it from Hebrews in order to point out that the author here calls the first Covenant faulty (Hebrews 8:7) and obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), and the new covenant better (Hebrews 8:6).

The Old Covenant was conditional between men and God, but the New Covenant is conditional between the Father and the Son, for Christ says "I give [my sheep] eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand (John 10:28-29)."

Dispensationalism, defined most simply, is that the Old Covenant was a covenant between God and man, which man always fails, and the New Covenant is a covenant between the Father and the Son, which the Son fulfills perfectly.

The Sign and Seal of the Covenants

Covenantalism and Dispensationalism take another radical departure when the sign and seal of the covenants is discussed. The WCF states, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ...to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life (WCF Chapter XXVIII Para I)."

The Bible refutes this by saying "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)..." and "the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30)." and "circumcision is not outward and physical...circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29)." and "And I will give you a new heart, and a new Spirit I will put within you (Ezekiel 36:26)."

The sign and seal of the Old Covenant was circumcision, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit and the sign is a new heart. The Covenantal view of an outward and physical sign is modern day Judaising, placing people under bondage and works by requiring adherance to the (misrepresented) law in order to be saved. Furthermore, the unforgiveable sin is Blasphemy of the Spirit, of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to unclean spirits. Covenantalism seems to commit this sin unashamedly, by claiming that men seal themselves into salvation with a mere ritual.

The Application

Covenantalism is called, "The ministry of death" in 2 Corinthians 3. The Apostle Paul expands stating, "the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me (Romans 7:10)." The Covenant between God and men is perfectly upheld by God, who cannot break a Covenant. If men do good, they will be blessed, but a single sin results in their cursing. This Covenant is therefore weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18-19). It is obsolete, and its only use is to show men their need for a better hope (Hebrews 7:19): the guarantor of a better Covenant (Hebrews 7:22).

Jesus Christ has made us sufficient to be ministers of a New Covenant, the ministry of the Spirit, not the ministry of condemnation, but the ministry of righteousness (2 Cor 3:6-9). Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17, Hebrews 4:15), suffering completely for our sin, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18). For the Old Covenant brings curses to cursed humanity, but Christ brings blessing to an unconditional covenant for men, because he fulfilled all of the conditions.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. - Galatians 3:10-14

Invitation

Dear reader, if you are bewitched into the soul damning doctrine of Covenantalism, then I implore you to come out of her, to flee from the terror of Sinai to the glory of Zion and the city of the living God, to look not to your own works or covenant making, but to the perfect obedience of Christ who saved a people from every nation, tribe, and tongue because of the Covenant he made with his Father, which is partaken of by faith, sealed by the Holy Spirit, and expressed in the power of reborn life.

If you stay, then heed this terrifying warning and be sure that your end is eternal damnation, "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29)?" There is no salvation in the Obsolete Covenant, in fact it has passed away, so seek the Son while he may be found, place your faith in his faithfulness, not your own, and receive his blessings as he received your curse.

Dispensationalists, stand against this resurging Presbyterian heresy, your forefathers did and tasted death for it, their light momentary affliction preparing for them an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison (2 Cor 4:17). Obadiah Holmes, Baptist minister in 1651, received 30 lashes and nearly died at the hands of Covenantalists, yet his words to his persecutors are left to encourage us, "You have struck me as with roses. Although the Lord hath made it easy to me, yet I pray God it may not be laid to your charge." Do not consider Covenantalists your brothers, or be surprised when they show no fruit of the Spirit, for they have embraced a law that has cursed them and a veil lies over their hearts that only Christ can raise.

Above all, look to the perfection of the New Covenant which has made the Old Covenant obsolete and shown its weakness and uselessness. Look to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ending Abortion With the Law of Love

There is a massive movement of evangelists at current to Abolish Human Abortion, not just to outlaw it, but to criminalize it. I agree completely that abortion is murder: those who perform abortions, get abortions, and are accessories to abortion are guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. In fact I wrote a position paper in 2006 anathematizing the USAF's consideration to fund abortions through Tri-Care, and I went so far (to start conversation within the class) as to call for the UCMJ to make abortion a punishable offense under Articles 118, 119, and 133.

But, the legality of abortion is only a symptom of a much greater problem. If abortion were 100% illegal and punishable by death tomorrow, as it should be, the world would only be a little cleaner on the outside, but inside, it would still be filled with every manner of filth and sin. A symptom would be gone, but the root cause, the root corruption would be un-phased.

Consider the abolition of slavery in the United States starting in the early 1800s and culminating in 1863. Now, I am completely against racial slavery (compare: The Doctrine of Slavery), but the abolition movement is not the godsend which it is so often credited with. In fact, I would rather say it has made some things worse, and the abolition of slavery, and the continued farce of the "End-It" movement, do what Peter said of false teachers, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption (2 Peter 2:19)."

The abolition of slavery was done by law, it ought to have been perfected with the gospel. I will explain this in a moment. First though, the Bible does not use the word "slave" only for the first century or to be thrown out when our superstitious secularism warrants, "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust (1 Peter 2:18)." "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord (Colossians 3:22)." "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven (Colossians 4:1)." "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it (1 Corinthians 7:21)." Slavery exists today throughout the world, and nonetheless in America, and will until Christ returns. Slavery was not wrong because it is slavery, but because it was abused, it was racial, it required kidnapping, and many masters were unjust.

Had slavery been perfected by the gospel, then the nation and the world would be in much less bondage than they are today. In a perfect postmillenial world (one that does not exist and will never exist), where the gospel had been preached and believed and obeyed in America, slavery would have ceased to be the stain on the humanitarian history of these United States. Had the gospel been preached, fair treatment of slaves exhorted, and the refusal to partake in purchasing slaves who had been kidnapped or treated like cattle, then the manselling trade and the Middle Passage would have ceased to function. Imagine this, the Hannibal, a slave ship, deemed a pirate ship by an 1808 law prohibiting the importation of slaves, anchors in Mobile Bay with 692 slaves aboard. The average price per slave is $10.50; but Christian slave-owners, seeing the abysmal conditions on board, and finding that not a single slave was willingly indentured, refuse to pay $10.50 else they be in support of this illegal and immoral practice (Similarly, and a complete aside, supporting pornography, even only through your cable-internet bill, enslaves and destroys thousands of young people each year). What would happen next? At the very least the Hannibal would not carry any more slaves to the New World, for there is no profit in it, nor would any other ship. Perhaps the captain of this ship, in order to recoup some cost, would drastically reduce the price of slaves, in which case Christians desiring to show the grace of Christ might buy them to set them free (Compare This Story), or to act as just and fair masters. In either case, the gospel would rectify the slave trade without prohibition and without promising freedom only to deliver greater slavery.

For there are two sets of laws in the world, the worldly prohibiting kind which are rarely obeyed and frequently broken (do not steal, do not drink and drive, do not murder babies), and the heavenly law of love (love your neighbor as yourself). The law of love is so encompassing and perfect that it need not prohibit violence or racism, because if you love someone, you will seek their highest good and ignore superficialities. The law of love demonstrated in slavery would have benefited everyone far more than the Emancipation Proclamation. The law of love is infinitely more capable of ending abortion than any legislation. A mommy who loves God and their baby will not destroy that baby or the image of God being knit together inside of them. A daddy who loves his child will stand up and be a man and honor Christ in protecting life and raising that child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

An evangelist preaching the gospel indiscriminately to a crowd will (Lord willing) impact the lives of far more people than preaching focused messages at the abortion minded. Instead of fighting the symptom at a murder clinic, gospel preaching ought to start by addressing the root cause, a sinful heart which leads to fornication, disregard for life, and murder. In my ministry towards youth, allow me to boast for a moment, I know that it is more productive to ensure that little girls never need to consider an abortion and to teach them to love and obey Jesus and give them a hope in the Living God, than to try to ward them off at a moment of great despair and hopelessness.

A famous evangelist once compared addiction ministry to a playground near a dangerous cliff. Children regularly fell down the cliff, some were killed and others gravely injured. One response, the addiction ministry response, was to build a hospital at the bottom of the cliff in order to minister to those who had fallen. The other response, the gospel ministry response, was to put a fence and warning signs up to warn of impending danger. Beloved, which works better? The one that ministers to the effect, or the one that ministers to the cause.

The current abortion ministry and abolition movement are treating symptoms of sin, and while they are doing some good, the greatest good is to be done in full time gospel ministry, in treating the wicked heart which brings forth sexual immorality and murder. A girl converted to Christ in middle-school will never consider an abortion. A high-school boy who determines to honor Christ by waiting for his future wife will never pressure someone into taking RU-486 or be an accomplice to the murder of a baby. An abortion doctor who has no patients will have to resort to finding a second job.

It is a commendable thing to be against abortion, and to call it what it is: cold blooded murder. But beloved, just as the abolition of slavery did not abolish slavery, neither will the outlawing of abortion end abortion. The law has a way of awakening our nature to break that law, but Christ is the cure for the rebellion and fallenness of humanity, he alone has the ability to replace a wicked heart with a sanctified heart.

And finally, and probably most harshly, the abolition of slavery has done innumerable damage to the nation, not just to one people-group, but all who are enslaved without knowing their captivity to the devil. Christ came to set the captives free. A person who does not recognize their enslavement does not seek an Emancipator. The outlawing of abortion without a strong gospel presence will condemn many more people than are currently condemned. As harsh as it is to say, a child murdered is guaranteed instant Heaven by their faith in God (Matthew 18:3) and the faithfulness of God (Matthew 18:14). A child who grows up in a pagan culture is condemned by the sins of their fathers. Adrian Rogers once made the excellent point that fixing atrocities without the preaching of the gospel is only, "making the world a nicer place to go to Hell from."

Preaching the gospel faithfully to all men will result in fewer abortions and make famous the name of the One who is able to save to the uttermost all of those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. So beloved, I implore you to focus on the cause of abortion, and not the symptom of abortion, that you minister to lost sinners in your church, in their schools and universities, in the park, at the mall, at festivals. Wherever people may be found, preempt the need for abortion ministry by proclaiming Christ and him crucified.