The Difference Between Rome's Mary and Mary in the Bible

Allen Nelson IV:

Roman Catholicism is a dark religion and this is not by accident. It is demonically influenced to have a veneer of Christianity while actually leading its adherents away from Christ and to eternal destruction. Today’s post is to show you how the “Mary” of Roman Catholicism is not the biblical Mary at all.

Here are 5 demonic characteristics of Rome’s Mary:

Divine Attributes 

Immaculate Conception and Sinless Life 

Bodily Assumption

Queen of Heaven

Advocate, Helper, and Mediatrix

Read the entire post here.

Allen Nelson Debates with a Catholic Priest on the Gospel

In this debate, Allen Nelson debates with a Roman Catholic priest by the name of Stephen Hart on whether or not the Catholic Church is a gospel-denying church.

Allen Nelson IV: The Gospel of Christmas

Getting John 3:16 Right

The world's most famous Bible passage happens to be John 3:16, which says:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (LSB).

For those who do not believe in God's sovereign election in the salvation of souls, this verse seems to be the one they point out saying that God will save anyone because He loves the whole world. There are even some Calvinists that think we should not loved the world because God does not save everyone. Some have even said this is one of the proof texts that shows God will save everyone.

Is it true that God loves the world? Yes. Is it true that God will save anyone? Yes. Is it true that God will save everyone? No. 

Allen Nelson IV takes a look at the Exegetical Objections and Systematic Objections of John 3:16 especially to those who believe this verse does not teach that God loves the whole world:

Exegetical Objections

First, some object to the idea of the word “world” meaning every person in the world. Truly one theme of John’s gospel is that Christ has come not merely for the Jews but also the Gentiles, or “the world”. Thus, some may propose to think of “world” in John 3:16 as “For God so loved both Jews and Gentiles.” This solution, however, would only provide a synonym for the word “world” that functionally means the same thing.

Another exegetical objection might center on πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων and that the focus is not on the “whosoever” but on whosoever believes, meaning, the well-meant offer of the gospel is only good for those who believe, and thus it is not really a well-meant offer for it is the Lord who ultimately grants faith. The focus, however, is not so much on whosoever or believes so much as it is on whosoever believes εἰς αὐτὸν (in Him). The focus is on Jesus. It is not merely about faith in faith but a faith in Christ who is set before a lost and dying world as the only suitable and all-sufficient savior of any person who will come to Him. Yes, it is true that none will come to Him apart from the Father’s effectual call, but this does not negate the Father’s genuine offer of the Son to all and genuine desire for repentance rather than perishing (cf. Ezekiel 33:11). The offer God gives to the whole world of eternal life through faith in His Son is a genuine offer. All those who believe will not perish. And yet, none are willing apart from sovereign grace (cf. John 6:65, Eph. 2:4-5).

Others might argue that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων limits the entire scope of John 3:16 to the elect only. Again, it is true that only the elect will ultimately believe on Christ. It is also true that this verse does not teach libertarian free will or that all persons have the inherent ability to believe on Christ. Those who say it does miss the very thrust and wonder of the verse! The sinner’s inability lies in his love for the darkness and unwillingness to come to the light. He or she is a slave to sin (John 8:34) and unable to come to Christ because of his or her dead heart and unwillingness. All may come to Christ, but none can come to Christ apart from the Spirit’s work (John 6:63). Positively, then, John 3:16 teaches a love of God that reaches to all persons in the world. The point is, John 3:16 does not call a lost sinner to consider his or her election but to consider the gospel as a manifestation of God’s love for them and that if they will look to Christ in faith, they too will receive eternal life.

John Calvin, commenting on πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, writes, “[God] has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.” He goes on to say, “Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Systematic Objections

Other objections to John 3:16 tend to be Systematic in nature, meaning that God’s love for the entire world does not fit into one’s particular system. Exegesis, however, must form one’s systematic theology instead of one’s systematic theology obscuring sound exegesis. Exegetes must never approach a text like John 3:16 and start off by saying what it cannot mean. Rather, they must seek to faithfully handle the text in order to understand what it does mean and adjust their system accordingly. John 3:16 shows that God does love all persons, as backed up by other passages like Mark 10:21. This does not mean that God loves all persons in the exact same way, but it does mean that He loves all persons enough to give them a well-meant offer of the gospel.

And if John 3:16 is not supposed to be published to the nations, why did John pen it in the first place? John wrote that his readers might believe and have life and so he included John 3:16 in his work in hopes that sinners would see the universality of God’s love, the well-meant offer of Christ to all who would receive Him, and that they would look upon Jesus in saving faith. The verse is not about God loving you if you believe, but that God so loved the world so that everyone who does believe in Christ will not perish.

There is an element of mystery involved in the Holy One’s plans and purposes. After all, the secret things belong to the Lord (Deuteronomy 29:29). Ultimately an exhaustive explanation of God’s desires is not possible since He is infinite, and humanity is finite. Analogy, however, can help Christians grasp hold of the concept of God’s love and free offer of the gospel. For example, a man can genuinely love every child he knows while simultaneously loving his own children in a way that goes far beyond that. So too can God love the whole world in one way, and His elect in a special way.

Or, suppose a man purchases an entire city block worth of housing for the homeless and sends messengers out to let people know that anyone who will come can receive a free house. This is a genuine offer. At the same time, he can also go and specifically load up certain people and drive them to the homes himself. So too can God genuinely offer Christ to a world that does not want Him while also regenerating the hearts of His elect so that they may happily receive Him. If humans are able to differentiate between their love and well-meant offers, surely the infinite God is able to in a way that is consistent with His nature and a genuine expression of His desires. And though everything God decrees He does desire, this does not also mean that God does decree everything He desires. Dr. Bob Gonzalez notes, “God’s decretive purpose does not exhaust every possible state of affairs that God may deem desirable.”

Source: Rightly Understanding John 3:16 by Allen Nelson IV

Holy in All His Works

All that God does, decides, and decrees is holy. His thoughts, plans, and promises are all holy. Are these things holy because He does them? Or, does He do them because it is holy? The answer is yes. Like we’ve seen already, God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3). And all that pleases Him is holy. He is holy in His creation. He is holy in His election. He is holy in His justice. He is holy in His grace. He is holy in His compassion. He is holy in His mercy. He is holy in His judgment. He is holy in His wrath. All of His commands are holy.

As I write this, the United States continues its cultural battle over homosexuality being fully accepted as a norm. Several denominations have already capitulated on this issue and have sought in their minds to be more loving, welcoming, and affirming to the homosexual community. But, anything contrary to God’s Law cannot be beautiful or good. It’s never loving to affirm something God hates. All that God demands is holy. Affirming sin may welcome people into a building and an earthly fellowship, but it pushes them away from a holy God and directly toward the pit of hell. We must not condone or wink at sins which God detests (see Romans 1:32). Of course, conservative evangelicals must allow this truth to hit closer to home. When churches avoid church discipline because it seems “unloving” they are acting in conflict to God’s commands and become participants in unholy actions. Anything we do that is contrary to God’s word is not pure or beautiful, no matter how we may define beauty. Again, the reason being that all that God does, decides, and decrees is holy.

The unblemishable holiness of God means that God is free from culpability in all sin. While He is completely sovereign over the universe, He does not use men as robots forcing them to sin. God’s sovereignty is such that He is able to determine all actions after the counsel of His own will while simultaneously being free from all sin (Ephesians 1:11). We see the supreme example of this with the cross.

In Acts 4:27-28 Luke records the theology of the first Christians as they address God in prayer, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” Some have tried to take these verses and make them say that God predestined the cross and that’s it. The issue is that you don’t have a cross without a crucifixion and you don’t have the crucifixion without the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples and leaders of Israel. Acts 4:27-28 is easy to understand. It’s just difficult for prideful men to accept. Many mistakenly argue God’s predestining the actions of men as logically meaning He would have to be the author of sin. In reality, this view of God is too small—as if God can only bring about His intended purposes if He uses men as robots. Instead, Scripture teaches us that God predetermines all things, even the actions of men (Proverbs 16:9), while at the same time being completely and utterly free from the least tinge of sin Himself (and that men have real moral agency).

He is the God of unblemishable holiness. Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles, the Jewish leaders and the peoples of Israel chose to do to Jesus exactly what they most wanted to do, while at the same time they chose to do exactly what God had predestined to take place. God is Sovereign, and man is responsible.

Adapted from Before the Throne: Reflections on God's Holiness by Allen S. Nelson IV

Is The Church Really Necessary?

Today, people especially Christians are wondering if the church is really necessary. Can Christians just grow and serve on their own or do we have to be part of a church? Many believe that Christianity is a private matter because Jesus is their "Personal" Savior.

We have churches on the television, internet, and even on our hand-held devices. Do we still have to be part of a church because of we can simply do it on our own?

Allen Nelson IV has written a three-part blog series over at For The Church that expresses why the church is absolutely necessary for believers:

The Necessity of the Local Church (Part 1): The Promise of the Local Church

The Necessity of the Local Church (Part 2): The Inseparability of the Local Church from the New Testament

The Necessity of the Local Church (Part 3): Metaphors, Commands, and Plural Pronouns

A Review of Inspired by Rachel Held Evans

There was a time that I thought about reviewing the latest book from Rachel Held Evans, which is titled, Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again. The title sounded promising considering some of the comments, tweets, and blogs Evans has had regarding Christianity. She is a liberal, feminist theologian, who questions sound doctrine especially in the area of only men being pastors.

The synopsis of the book really caught my attention:

One Woman’s Journey Back to Loving the Bible

If the Bible isn’t a science book or an instruction manual, then what is it? What do people mean when they say the Bible is inspired? When Rachel Held Evans found herself asking these questions, she began a quest to better understand what the Bible is and how it is meant to be read. What she discovered changed her—and it will change you too.

Drawing on the best in recent scholarship and using her well-honed literary expertise, Evans examines some of our favorite Bible stories and possible interpretations, retelling them through memoir, original poetry, short stories, soliloquies, and even a short screenplay. Undaunted by the Bible’s most difficult passages, Evans wrestles through the process of doubting, imagining, and debating Scripture’s mysteries. The Bible, she discovers, is not a static work but is a living, breathing, captivating, and confounding book that is able to equip us to join God’s loving and redemptive work in the world.

This sounded like Evans has really wrestled with the truth of Scripture and maybe has even repented of her liberalism, but that was only on the surface. Allen Nelson IV, over at Things Above Us did an extensive review of Evans' book, which he divided into 7 parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Acts 2 is Not an Altar Call

The Sinner’s Prayer and the Altar Call go hand in hand in our day. I define the Altar Call as an intentional act from the preacher to coerce people to come forward at the end of the service in order to make a decision for Christ. It is one thing to extend an invitation for people to come forward if they have questions, but it’s quite another to either emotionally bully, or manipulate hearers to come forward so that the “altars will be full.”

Like the Sinner’s Prayer, we don’t see Altar Calls in Scripture. Jesus didn’t issue one after the Sermon on the Mount. We don’t see the Apostles incorporating it anywhere in the Epistles, or instructing the church on how to conduct one. But this doesn’t stop people from trying to build a case for incorporating them. In discussing Altar Calls one time, I had a brother tell me: “I fail to see how an Altar Call is in itself substantially different than what happened at Pentecost.” It’s not overly surprising that someone would say this as I’ve heard prominent denominational leaders express similar opinions. Well, then, was Acts 2 an Altar Call? I don’t think one can really build such a case. Here are some very important differences:

1. No Invitation to Come Forward No one was invited or commanded to come up front. They weren’t asked to close their eyes and lift their hands. They were commanded to repent and believe the gospel. Because of our culture, I think we actually see people in Acts 2 “coming forward.” I’ve heard men preach on Acts 2 who actually seem to think that’s how it went down. This is a misunderstanding of not only the situation of Peter’s preaching but also the point of the text, as well.

2. No Music was Played There was no invitation hymn in Acts 2. There was not one more verse and there was certainly no low lighting. But for the past almost two hundred years, churches have utilized anything—music, lighting, dry ice, etc.--as a way of “setting the mood.” We see none of that in biblical days.

3. The Holy Spirit Moved on the Hearers, Not Peter’s Manipulation. This is something I’ve labored to show you. God moves first upon the hearers of the gospel. Then, in this scenario, it’s the hearers who are actually the ones who initiate the response to the sermon, not Peter. They cried out, “What must we do?” It would be simultaneously startling and amazing if someone stood up during one of my sermons and cried out, “What must I do to be saved?” Let’s just say that hasn’t happened yet. Too often during an Altar Call, people are asked to make a decision for the sake of making a decision or even driving up an evangelist’s “numbers.” But in Acts 2, no decision had to be called for. These people were convicted by the Holy Spirit.

4. No One was Asked to Recite a Prayer This is the end game of Altar Calls. Get the sinner to recite a prayer and then tell them that if they really meant it, they are saved. That’s not anywhere close to Acts 2 methodology. Peter commands his hearers to repent and believe the gospel. Furthermore, he testifies to God’s prerogative and sovereignty in salvation saying that "promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The gospel was preached, the hearers were told what to do, and it was left to them and God. Peter simultaneously calls the hearers to repent while letting them know that it was God who called them. Again, we can’t force them to come to Christ. That’s the Lord’s work in the sinner. So, Peter didn’t have anyone repeat after him. Rather he exhorted his hearers to repent and be baptized, an evidence of true saving faith.

Acts 2 is most assuredly not a proof text for Altar Calls. However, it is an amazingly beautiful demonstration of the power of God in the gospel and His willingness to save sinners! Let us rest in that. Let us also see that Acts 2 shows us that the gospel demands an immediate response. Therefore, let’s proclaim the gospel from the rooftops and compel all men without distinction to come to Christ in repentance and faith, now. Let us extol the mercies of God in Christ. We must share both the glories of the gospel and the reality of the wrath that remains if sinners refuse to bow the knee to King Jesus.

Trust in the work of God in the hearts of sinners, not in our ability to extend an Altar Call. Again, don’t hear me saying that having an open door policy at the end of a service where people know they can come forward and speak with the pastor or other church leaders during a closing hymn is the same thing as an Altar Call. What I mean when I say “Altar Call mentality” are those who use manipulation in order to achieve results. In God’s grace, many people have been converted under such a scheme. But many have also been falsely led astray. This is why I am appealing to us to drop the Altar Call mentality from our services.

Adapted from From Death to Life: How Salvation Works by Allen Nelson IV

Is There Saving Power In The Sinner's Prayer?

The sinner's prayer has come in many forms, but it goes something like:

Dear God, I admit that I am a sinner. I ask Jesus to come into my life and forgive me of my sins. Amen.

Maybe you have prayed that prayer and think you are saved because you said some certain words like a magic spell. Resting upon praying a prayer makes it more like a works-based salvation than anything. Does the sinner's prayer have any saving power? In his book, From Death to Life: How Salvation Works, Allen Nelson IV answers that question and gives us four truths regarding the sinner's prayer:

Many true believers repeated this or some other prayer at the time of their conversions. I am not saying that if you came to Christ and prayed this prayer, you are not saved. I can’t count how many times I’ve prayed it. I’m saying that people cannot find assurance in Christ based merely on repeating this Sinner’s Prayer. Some may have spoken these words who were not true believers. Let me make myself crystal clear. There is no saving power in the Sinner’s Prayer.

1. The Sinner’s Prayer Is Not in the Bible Check your concordance for the term, “Sinner’s Prayer,” and you’ll come up empty. It is not found in one single verse in Scripture. In the Bible, those who come to Christ are never asked to pray a formula prayer. This should be quite a convincing case against it. Oh, but the Bible doesn’t say we can’t use a formulaic prayer, does it? First of all, that’s an argument from silence. Secondly, if the Sinner’s Prayer was so vital to someone being saved, why is it not in one place in Scripture? And thirdly, can we not at least agree that we can come into serious error when we begin to want to add things to Scripture that aren’t there?

2. The Sinner’s Prayer Is an Evangelical Hoop We rightly reject Roman Catholicism’s system of justification by faith and works. And yet, some Christian pastors use the Sinner’s Prayer as a means of obligating God to save us. It’s the hoop we require sinners to jump through in order to get to Christ. We might not articulate it that way, but when we present the gospel and then tell people to pray after us and mean it, that’s exactly what we are communicating.[409] “Go through this prayer to get to Christ.” And that’s just wrong.

3. The Sinner’s Prayer Comes from a Desire to “Close the Deal” We all want to see results. I get that. There is no greater joy besides our own salvation than seeing someone else come to Christ. What a blessing! But it’s not up to us to close the deal. We cannot play Holy Spirit. Instead, we must trust Him to work in the heart of sinners and to open their eyes to the truth. Salvation is not some kind of deal we can close if we’re sharp enough to bring it off. That mentality often leads to complicating matters even worse and, many times, produces counterfeit Christians.

4. The Sinner’s Prayer Comes from a Misunderstanding of Conversion Sinners are saved by grace through faith. No one is saved without repentance from sin and faith in Christ. A Sinner’s Prayer may be a kind of expression of that faith in Christ, but the prayer itself does not equal saving faith and repentance. In other words, you don’t conjure up faith via prayer. Instead, sinners calling on God for salvation should express what is in their hearts.