Romans 2:15 and Natural Law: by Dr. Robert Morey

Is The Law Written on the Hearts of All Men?

There is only one biblical text that is used by all Natural Law theorists and theologians. It has become a mantra that is chanted as if merely reciting the words is all that is needed. No exegesis is ever given. That text is Rom. 2:15. While they think it is their strongest text, it is actually their greatest weakness.

…in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them…

The Natural Law theorist interpretation has three basic propositions.

1. The text is universal in scope, i.e. has all men in view.

2. The word “law” referred to “natural laws” found either in Nature-nature ornature- reason.

3. These “natural laws” are written on the hearts of all men.

As we shall demonstrate, all three propositions are absolutely erroneous.

Without Excuse

In the first two chapters of Romans, Paul argued that some Gentiles do not have the Torah revealed to them. Yet, they are “without excuse.” When they stand before God on the Day of Judgment, they will not be able to escape the wrath of God (1:18) by giving the excuse that God failed to provide them with any revelation.

These Gentiles may not have the light of Torah, but they had the light of the Creation around them. In other words, the light is brightly shinning and the music is playing loudly but these Gentiles suppressed the witness of Creation and worshipped the Creation instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25).

The Basis of God’s Condemnation

God’s condemnation rests upon the fact of man’s ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18) and inherited depravity from Adam (5:12-21). Thus the presence or absence of Torah does not determine the condemnation of sinners. We are “born in sin and conceived iniquity” (Psa. 51:5); we are “already perishing” from the moment we are conceived (1 Cor. 1:18); we are “dead in trespasses in sins” (Eph. 2:1-2). Nowhere does Paul say that Creation tells us the way of salvation. While it is sufficient for condemnation, it is not sufficient for salvation.

All Natural Religions Condemned

Paul’s description of the “Natural Religions” of the Gentile world is graphic and condemnatory (1:18-32). All Natural Religions are idolatrous because they are not the result of man’s search for God but man’s flight from God. No sinner seeks the true God and thus no sinner understands God.

There is none who understands [God],
There is none who seeks for God. (Rom. 3:11)

The word “not” is taken out of its regular word order and placed first to emphasize that absolutely no one understands God because absolutely no one seeks God. Sinful man only seeks gods made in his own image who will condone his sin.

It is clear that the argument which intends to demonstrate the universality of sin builds up to a climax. ..The picture he draws is dismal: no one is righteous; in fact, no one understands his deplorable condition. And no one is even trying to understand, is even searching for God, the Source of all wisdom and knowledge. But are there no exceptions? Paul answers, “There is no one …no one …no one …no one …not even one.”

The Fate of the Heathen

What will happen to those who never had Torah? Will they perish and end up in hell? Can they give some kind of excuse to avoid punishment for their sins? Paul emphatically states,

For all who have sinned without the Torah will also perish without the Torah; and all who have sinned under the Torah will be judged by the Torah (Rom. 2:12)

Paul leaves no loopholes to escape divine judgment. Regardless of whether you have or do not have the Torah, you will perish in your sin. The Gentiles and the Jews who do not hear of and believe in Jesus Christ and His gospel will most surely perish in their sins and end up in the eternal conscious torment of Gehenna. Continue reading →

Roman and Orthodox: Same game, different name.

I have a “friend” on facebook who has gone apostate and received the heresies of the Orthodox Church. Virtually every one of his post has to do with church history and our supposed need for the church to interpret scripture for us stupid folks. Same tired crap we hear from her sister apostate church, Roman Catholicism.

You know the story………”Protestantism has so many denominations and everyone has a different interpretation of the bible, it’s total chaos. This is why only the Church has the authority to interpret the bible and all us lay-folk just need to except what they say.”

The argument suggest that “The Church” has some special gnosis which guides them in their interpretations; a gnosis that us retards don’t have. This is nothing more than mysticism which is wholly pagan. The bible is not some magical book which can only be opened by an elite team of Super Saints who have special access to the Spirit of God. It is a simple book written by simple men. If an uneducated fisherman can write it, why can’t an uneducated fisherman interpret it?

I find it quite odd that the bible refers to all Christians as prophets, priest, and kings; yet somehow these same prophets, priest, and kings are unable, nor have the authority to understand the bible without the aid of “Mother Church?” Individuals who have been spiritually raised and have “the mind of Christ” can’t know scripture apart from the “higher ups?”

Nevertheless, this does beg the question regarding why there are so many differing interpretations within the Protestant Church (we’ll set aside all the differing interpretations amongst Roman and Orthodox).

As the argument goes, the Protestant method of interpretation can’t be right given the wide diversity of opinions, even on a single verse of scripture. One of the failures of this argument is the fact that it is not taking into consideration that not all Protestants are using the same method(s) of interpretation. IOW, the argument seems to imply that all us filthy schismatics employ the same hermeneutic, and this same hermeneutic causes division.

I’m sorry, but I must inform the Roman/Orthodox Church that the Protestant hermeneutic is not “read your bible and interpret it any way you wish using any method you wish.” The Protestant/Reformed method of interpretation is the historical-grammatical method. Its purpose is to seek to understand the meaning of any given passage as the original author(s) intended and how the original hearers would have understood. We seek out the original languages, syntax, verb tenses, literary context, historical context, author, audience, and so forth.

Such methods are objective in nature, as a noun is a noun, is a noun. IOW, when applied properly, all persons reading the same verse should come up with the same interpretation. A noun to me, is a noun to you. A noun 500 hundred years ago is a noun today. These methods, in themselves, are not subjective. It’s only when we abandon these methods that we run into problems. Allow me to give a very recent example from just last night.

I was having a discussion with another “Protestant” on YouTube regarding Romans 3:23. This person had a problem with Dr. Morey’s “interpretation” of the passage. Dr. Morey said, “all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.” This person said that Dr. Morey was misinterpreting the passage by using the word “falling” (note the tense). I will quote the exact exchange which took place.

The moron:

“All HAVE sinned (past tense) and come short of the glory of God.” The “come” part is where most usually insert there own meaning but in the immediate context he is saying that because they HAVE sinned they have fallen short of Gods glory. Not that they continue to do so. They are now able by the spirit of God to obey and stop sinning.”

My response:

“Better check the Greek, friend. “have sinned” (aorist indicative—past tense) “and come/fall short” (present indicative—present time action). IOW, “all have sinned in the past and all are right now sinning.” You need to sharpen your pencil.”

As you look at my response, notice how I pointed out the tense of the verbs. This is the historical-grammatical method which is objective. It does not matter who you are, where you live, or when you lived; the tense of the verb, is the tense of the verb, is the tense of the verb. There is no escaping it. The verb tense does not care about your emotions, your background, experiences, denomination, color of your skin, whether you wear a funny hat, or if you have a long mangy beard.

This person is a perfect example of how not to interpret scripture. She was hot to trot on the verb tense when she thought it suited her needs and dogmas but totally abandoned the correct method of interpretation when her theology was blasted.

The reason of bringing this up is to point out that the Protestant method is not what is in error, but rather stupid sinful people abandoning the proper method is the problem. Since the Roman and Orthodox Church are made up of a bunch of stupid sinful people as well, it does not matter whether they are “leaders” or “authorities;” improper methods are improper regardless of who is doing it.

Moreover, what good does it do to have a Church which claims to be the only source of proper interpretation and yet never give any authorized interpretation of scripture? Seems a bit pointless to me. “Hey you idiots, only We can interpret scripture and you must follow Our interpretations.” “Great! Can you give me the authorized, stamped by Mother Churches teat, interpretation of Romans 3:23?” “No. We don’t have any interpretations which have been authorized.”

I submit, we should look to scripture and take a look at how Christ and the apostles interpreted scripture. Surely they have set the example for us to follow. Did the spiritualize everything? Did they turn everything into an allegory? Did they use natural theology? Did they rely upon man made traditions? Did they use the historical-grammatical method? Did they appeal to scripture or did they appeal to “Church authority?” Did Paul make constant appeals to the Pharisees as the only authorities on scripture? Continue reading →

James White and Robert Morey: My Response

Sometime this last summer, I believe June, James White had made some rather aggressive comments regarding Dr. Robert Morey on one of his Dividing Line programs. White was responding to some buzz regarding
Morey’s statement about bombing Mecca. Apparently many folks had approached White inquiring about his thoughts of bombing Islam’s holy site. White spent just over 20 minutes of his program which can only be described as a “rant.”

Let it be known that I admire and respect White for his knowledge, experience and defense of the gospel, but I was quite disturbed about his handling of this issue. Not simply regarding his attitude, but also some blunders he made during this rant. Needless to say, this post is not an attack on White, but I do feel some comments are necessary.

After the death of Osama Bin Laden, there were many individuals on facebook who had been posting Proverbs 24:17 on their walls.

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.”

These post were in response to many Christians “rejoicing” over the death of Bin Laden. I then emailed Morey and asked him his thoughts about the death of this terrorist and how a Christian should respond. Morey then posted a short article on this subject in which he stated:

“the war against the Muslim Jihadists will be long and costly and will not be won until we bomb the Kaaba in Mecca.”

This was the statement that has many folks very upset and led White to make some very disrespectful comments towards Morey. There are 5 things I would like to address regarding the comments made by White on the Dividing Line. Continue reading →

Christ the Adulterer!

In discussion with those who hold to universal atonement, it is often stated, “does it really matter, do we really need to argue over this issue?” You see, many on the side of that camp do not realize the importance of this topic. We are going to discuss Ephesians 5:25.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

Now, most people are familiar with this text and it is near to their hearts, but most people have not even considered how profound it is.

Calvinist will often quote this verse in order to demonstrate “who” Christ died for and since it is specific to the church, He could not have died for those outside of the church. The Arminian usually responds by noting that the text doesn’t say that He ONLY died for the church. This is true, however, there is much more to consider here.

I would like to point out the implications of this verse, an implication that both sides often miss, which of course, furthers the Calvinist position of a limited atonement.

Notice that Christ loving His church is paralleled to husbands loving their wives. We also find this kind of language in other text where the church is considered the “bride” and Christ the “bridegroom,” Revelation 18-22.

Now think about this. What are the kinds of things a husband might do for his wife? Well, first and foremost, he has a love for her that he does not share with any other woman. He provides for her daily needs such a food and shelter. He might buy her flowers for her birthday. But the ultimate way in which a husband demonstrates his love for his wife is when he makes love to her, something no faithful husband would participate in with another woman.

Likewise, what does Christ do for His bride, the church? He too provides us with our daily needs. He offers up His Priestly intercession on their behalf. He works in them the grace to become sanctified. But ultimately, He died for her.

I’m sure no Christian would have any problem condemning a husband if he began to send roses to his secretary; engaging in private and intimate phone conversations with her, and ultimately mounting her on his desk at the office. We would be just in declaring this individual as an adulterer, or in the vernacular, a cheatin’ dog.

Why then, when we come to Christ, do these same people have no trouble with Christ offering up His husbandly duties to those who are not His bride? Why do they have a smile on their face while promoting Christ atoning sacrifice on behalf of the whores and sluts also know as the reprobate?

You see, just as the ultimate act of love demonstrated by the husband towards his wife in love making cannot go outside of the marriage bed, so too, Christ ultimate demonstration of love cannot be extended to anyone other than His bride.

Without knowing it, the universal atonement crowd has turned Christ into an adulterer. This is why the subject of the extent of the atonement is so important.

Is Ezekiel 18 and 33 speaking of Israel ALONE? A failed attempt to refute me.

Today, two brothers posted a short article by John MacArthur wherein he was attempting to prove that God sincerely offers the gospel to the reprobate. Now this will not be a post about the “sincere offer,” but in that article, MacArthur cited Ezekiel 18 and 33 as proof of his position.

Having read the article, I then left a few comments about MacArthur’s failed attempt in applying these passages in support of his position. There were a couple of responses left by two individuals. I would like to address the failed attempt at getting around what Ezekiel 18 and 33 clearly state.

In my last blog I pointed out how these two passages were being addressed to Israel and not the pagans, and by extension, not every person to ever live. The two persons who responded gave basically the same answer. They claimed that just because the passages are addressing Israel does not mean it isn’t applicable to every person. Lets look at what they said.

Person 1:

“what about the prophecy’s of Ezekiel, should I also believe those too only pertain to the Israel of the Old testament, and not things to take place in the near future, that involve people other then the Jews. Really? Ezekiel 36:26, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Am I also to believe that this passage is exclusive to the Jew.”

Person 2:

“Secondly, to say that it refers to Israel ignores the fact that the NT often quotes texts which have a limited application, or a specific group in view, to draw general truths or principles. Case in point, Paul cites Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:22-26 to show how God has called Gentiles to salvation, even though the context of Hosea 1:10 is referring to Israel, not to the Gentiles.”

Now person 2 was a bit more sound in his reasoning, but he still failed. For the moment, lets keep it simple. Lets flush out how this reasoning is flawed. Allow me to paraphrase the argument once again.

“Just because the passages are addressing Israel does not mean it isn’t applicable to every person. There are passages in the OT which address Israel, but they are also applicable to us gentile Christians; therefore, Ezekiel 18 and 33 are speaking of every person to live and not just the Jews.”

I can simply retort by suggesting that Christians should put homosexuals to death because God commanded Israel to do so. Or, Christians should abstain from pork because Israel had to abstain. This would obviously be very sloppy thinking. But what about Ezekiel 36? Doesn’t that apply to Christians too? Continue reading →

Ezekiel 33:11: Rejoicing over the death of the wicked

Came across a video where an individual who goes by the name “Brother Hicks” was lamenting over the fact that Christians were rejoicing over the death of some unnamed person (presumably Muammar Gaddafi).
I will not spend much time on this as I wish only to point out two main errors found in his video. 1. His claim that its wrong to rejoice over the death of the wicked. 2. His misuse of Ezekiel 18:32 and Ezekiel 33:11.. He condemned such rejoicing as “wicked” and then went on to cite a couple of passages from Ezekiel which speak of God not rejoicing over the death of the wicked.

Is it really wrong for a Christian to rejoice when a wicked person perishes?

2 Chronicles 20:27

“Every man of Judah and Jerusalem returned with Jehoshaphat at their head, returning to Jerusalem with joy, for the LORD had made them to rejoice over their enemies.”

Psalm 58:10, 11

“The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous. Surely there is a God who judges on earth!”

Proverbs 11:10

“When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.”

Revelation 19:3

“And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! HER SMOKE RISES UP FOREVER AND EVER.”

Revelation 18:20

“Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.”

And let us not forget Moses and the sons of Israel singing songs of praise to God for destroying the Egyptians in the Red Sea. An entire chapter in scripture (Exodus 15) is dedicated to rejoicing over the death of the wicked!

Lets now turn our attention to Brother Hicks use, or should I say, misuse, of the Ezekiel passages. Actually, this is a very common passage utilized by Arminians when they attempt to refute Calvinism. Unfortunately, as Arminians do with most of scripture, they never bother with the context (many Calvinist fail here as well).

Ezekiel 18:32

“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.”

Ezekiel 33:11

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’”

One of the most common mistakes I see from Christians is found in their inability to recognize the context of the OT and not being able to distinguish between the OC and the NC. This is seen when they consistently equivocate on biblical terminology.

Todays Christians have been so inundated with NT terminology and meaning that on the few occasions they open the OT they read NT terms and definitions back into the OT.

One such example can be seen in the use of “repented.” I have had Arminians point to various OT passages which speak of wicked individuals who were able to “repent” without a renewed heart. This, of course, was used in an attempt to suggest that faith and repentance come before the new birth, rather than after.

What these Arminians fail to understand is that the NT usage and understanding of repentance is always viewed in light of those who have believed on the Lord Jesus and have been saved from eternal torment in hell. They then attempt to read the NT usage back into the OT/OC and do not realize that they are equivocating on terms.

In the OC, “repentance” was not viewed or understood in such a restricted sense. The sons of Israel could “repent” of their wickedness by simply following after the ordinances of God. IOW, faith was not a prerequisite for, nor a fruit of, repentance. “Repentance” simply meant that one was outwardly following the commands of the Lord but it did not carry with it the NT understanding by connecting it with faith and salvation from sin. An unbelieving Jew could repent of his sins and live out the commandments of the Lord all the days of his life and still end up in hell due to his lack of faith. To put it another way, OT “repentance” was an outward and external obedience that had nothing to do with an inward change of heart as we see in the NT/NC.

Other examples of equivocation can be seen in the difference between how the OT and NT use words such as “Savior,” “redeemed,” “saved” and so forth. Does “Savior” always mean One who saves from sin, or are there other context and situations in which God can be a “Savior?” Does being “saved” always mean “saved from sin?” Are there other examples where people are “saved” from various trials or circumstances not relevant to sin? Continue reading →

Doctrinal Regeneration

I recently stumbled across a video of William Lane Craig where he was discussing why it is that he rejects biological evolution. In this short clip, which seemed to be taken from one of his debates or lectures, he made it quite clear what his authority is when he said:

“Genesis 1 admits all manner of interpretation.”

Which led to the next relevant comment:

“Any doubts that I would have about the theory of biological evolution would be, not biblical, but scientific.”

My translation:

“Even though Genesis 1 allows for an evolutionary interpretation, I reject evolution based upon the scientific data.”

For William Lane Craig, science is his authority; not scripture!

I had originally planned on writing this blog about his unbiblical approach to truth, but instead have decided to focus upon some statements made by some fellow Christians. When I first saw this video, I posted it on facebook and left this comment, “I absolutely refuse to accept William Lane Craig’s profession of faith and this video is one more reason why.” I likewise shared the same concern in the comment section of the video itself. Here are two responses give by a couple brothers in Christ:

“He’s a heretic for not believing in a literal 6 day creation?”

And another which was a bit more detailed:

“Let me ask you this: Does WLC believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, who is God incarnate, 2nd person of the Trinity, crucified for believers’ sins, resurrected bodily? He certainly does. These are the essential doctrines of the Gospel. Interpretations of Genesis, views on modern science, the age of the earth, etc have nothing to do with the Gospel.”

This might seem like reasonable responses/questions in light of my comment; however, we need to look a bit closer. One might even suggest that I’m promoting some kind of “doctrinal regeneration.” I am not and to suggest otherwise would be quite silly in light of the fact that I’m a Calvinist.

What would make such a claim even more ridiculous/ironic can be seen by asking:

“Does one need to believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit in order to be saved?”

Or:

“Can a person truly be considered saved if they deny the virgin birth?”

Or:

“Must a person believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures in order to be received as a Christian?”

Why are these doctrines allowed while discerning ones spiritual condition and not others? Why is it that someone might rebuke me (and some have) for withholding the hand of fellowship from someone such as William Lane Craig when this same someone engages in the same kind of discretion, only hypocritically? Lets look at the brother’s quote again:

“Let me ask you this: Does WLC believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, who is God incarnate, 2nd person of the Trinity, crucified for believers’ sins, resurrected bodily? He certainly does. These are the essential doctrines of the Gospel. Interpretations of Genesis, views on modern science, the age of the earth, etc have nothing to do with the Gospel.”

Notice first the questions he ask, questions relevant to the gospel. Next look at how he answers his own question, “He certainly does.” This is where the accusation of promoting “doctrinal regeneration” would come into play. In other words, if the gospel is the “life, death and resurrection” (simplifying) of our Lord, and you add “6 literal days” into the gospel equation, one could rightly be accused of promoting doctrinal regeneration.

But notice the “slight of hand” in the comment. This brother has smuggled in the very conclusion which is up for debate. That is, he’s begging the question by claiming William Lane Craig believes in his “gospel checklist” when it is William Lane Craig’s profession of the gospel which is the very thing up for debate.

You see, I am not teaching doctrinal regeneration by suggesting that one needs to believe in 6 literal days of Genesis in order to be saved any more than I’m suggesting that one needs to get baptized in order to be saved. We are saved by grace, through faith, in Christ, apart form works AND doctrine! But what does it mean to be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone? To put it another way, what kinds of things should we expect from someone who has been saved by grace through faith?

Should we expect holy living? Ought we to see a transformed life, one where the person is continually striving after righteous living and obedience to God? Certainly! Granted, we know that such things take time, a lifetime, and we’ll never reach perfection until glorification; but does this negate the need for some kind of demonstrable evidence of being saved apart from works? No!

Earlier I accused my “opponents” of being hypocrites; here is why. No doubt these brothers believe that a person is saved through believing the gospel alone, but would they accept the profession of faith from one who willingly dives into sin every chance they get without any signs of repentance? No. But what happened to just believing “grace alone, faith alone, in Christ alone?”

You see, they would take no issue if I were to condemn William Lane Craig as an unbeliever if he were caught in a homosexual encounter with a powdered nose and a babies head in his sock drawer; but why won’t they question his salvation based upon his unholy doctrine? How much errant doctrine are we to allow before we question whether a person has truly believed the gospel?

When my “opponent” begs the question about William Lane Craig’s belief in the gospel he fails to understand that it is Craig’s belief in the gospel that is the very thing which is up for debate. I am NOT adding doctrine to the gospel, I’m simply evaluating whether his belief in the gospel is true by examining everything he believes. If we can rightly question a persons belief in the gospel through examining their behavior, why can’t we question their salvation by examining their doctrine?

If being saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone leads to holy living, why shouldn’t it lead to holy doctrine?

Lastly, I’m not suggesting that denying a literal 6 day creation (or any ONE incorrect doctrine) is sufficient grounds for questioning ones faith, but rather its the accumulation of errant doctrine which leads me to these conclusions. Note some other things said by William Lane Craig:

“The hypothesis is that God has done the very best He can, given the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him.”

“The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt.”

“Given the truth of certain counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, it is possible that God did not have it within His power to realize a world in which all persons freely respond affirmatively to His offer of salvation.”

Do these sound like the words of someone who believes in the God of scripture and the gospel?

(When I referred to the two brother who lefts comments in response to me and my claims, I mean no harm or ill will when I referred to them as “hypocrites” or “opponents.” I used these words for descriptive purposes only.)

Enslaved By Grace

Defending The Faith