COLOSSIANS 1:18 (FILES)

15 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

2011-11-12T14:20:00.001-08:00

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)

by Don Batten

How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”¹ Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.² A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: creation.com/loopholes.
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: creation.com/code.
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: creation.com/train.
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”³ See: creation.com/motor (includes animation).
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”⁴ Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”⁵ The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: creation.com/design_legit.
How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: creation.com/multicellularity.
How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: creation.com/evosex.
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.⁶ Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: creation.com/pattquote.
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”⁷ See: creation.com/werner.
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: creation.com/chesterton.
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”⁸ See: creation.com/sexstories.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”⁹ Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”¹⁰ Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.¹¹ Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: creation.com/science#relevance.
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”¹² See: creation.com/notscience#distinction.
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”¹³ Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”¹⁴ If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

References

Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

Total Depravity contribution

2011-10-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

Some say, "we can come to God" or "I can choose Him" or "I have a "freewill" so choose Him" and "I can coöperate with God".

What does the Bible say about the condition of men:

--..who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1)....
--"we are haters of God"... (Romans 1:30).....
--"the carnal mind is enmity against God"- (Romans 8:7).
--"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)
--"For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure."(Philippians 2:13)
--"Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.)"(Ephesians 2:5)
--"No man can come to me..... (John 6:44), ...that no man can come unto me.. (John 6:65),
---.....for without me ( Christ ) ye can do nothing." John 15:5;
---in John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you."

Romans 9:16: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

When we talk about free will it is almost always with regard to sin and salvation... not free will in some general sense. The question is whether the sinner is "free" to choose Christ or not? No, he is not. He is by nature hostile to God (Rom 8:7), loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19, 20). This is the only thing we are discussing when the topic of free will comes up.

When the term monergism is linked with the word regeneration, the phrase describes an action by which God the Holy Spirit works in the human heart, without this person’s assistance or coöperation, because and again "A man can receive nothing... John 3:27 "No man can come to me.. John 6:44 ..that no man can come unto me,.. John 6:65 "...for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5..."he is by nature hostile to God" Romans 8:7,..loves darkness and hates the light. John 3:19, 20

All men, yes all men is by nature, are not free to do good or evil, but are held in spiritual bondage to sin and the devil. Jesus refers to man's bondage to sin when He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (John 8:34).

"Freewill" teaches that man's choice is the decisive thing in salvation. HELLOo heresy alert!! This is a denial of predestination. Predestination means that God's will (God's choice) determines all things, including who will be saved (Ephesians 1:3-6)

Are you saying that 'salvation depends on human will', but the Bible teaches that 'it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) and that we "were born, not of...the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

In scripture we see this shown to us in John chapter 6:44 and, that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. John 6:37 says that all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to him and all who come to him will be saved. If you put the two ideas together, you can plainly see that is a person is not saved it is because the Father has not given or drawn that person to Jesus. God chooses who will be saved. And He does so based on no condition that we (humans) can meet. Therefore, God choice of who He will save is unconditional from our point of view, not by our own choice, good works,, faith, believing etc.

A view of Arminians.

2011-10-23T19:07:00.000-07:00

#1. The "true" Arminian is not regenerate.

#2. This leads us to ask what is the "true" Arminian.

#3. The "true" Arminian, at least include those who support all five tenets of Arminianism, and reject all 5 points of TULIP. There are two manifestations of this. #a. Those who talk, write, blog, and state their support of Arminianism and/or talk, write, blog, state their rejection of TULIP. #b. Those who not exposed to the typical language involved and thus do not use the typical language of the discussion, but nevertheless resemble those in #a. A large number of conservative protestants are in group #b.

#4. One can also be considered Arminian at differing levels of expression, which may seem to tedious to designate here. I have counted at least 30 mathematical combinations of rejecting points: 1,2,3,4,5;

1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 1 and 5, and so on. However, many today are opposed to "Limited Atonement" and adhere to "Once-saved-always-saved" (which is not truly the "P"); This article will not need to delineate all this variations and react to each.

#5. Some say, "But the people today are not Arminians they simply need discipleship, time for maturity, and clarification by clear teaching which they are not getting from the pulpit." I say, "Fine don't call them Arminians then." Why confuse apples with oranges. However, realize the danger of saying, "Most among Mormons and Popes, Freemasonry, and the Kingdom Hall are really not Mormons, Catholics, Freemasons, for these people simply need discipleship, time for maturity, and clarification by clear teaching which they are not getting from their current leader." I have preached against Freemasonry and 99% have stayed in Freemasonry, I cannot consider this an issue of failing to mature, but rather failure to be born again.

#6. We could not sit back for 5 years with a member who constantly denies the deity of Christ, and reply that, "this person is a Christian, and not an Arian, they simply need discipleship, time to mature." Likewise, I find it dangerous to broadly affirm people who deny the biblical doctrine of Man's Sin, Election, Grace, Atonement, and God's Sovereignty. Yes many conservative protestants verbally agree that man is a sinner, God is gracious, and God is sovereign, just as many under the Pope make the same verbal affirmation. So I am not surprised to hear Arminians hide under the same language.

#7. Solution. Give the individuals in question 7 of the best books on the main topics. (This should take about 7 months to read.) Give them 26 of the best sermons on the topics which provide exposition and clarification. (This should take about 6 months to hear.). Give them 2 years to digest this material, and watch them mature. If no maturity happens then it is no different than someone continuously rejecting the deity of Christ for 2 years despite clear teaching. If they refuse to read or hear the material, then it is no different than someone refusing to address material evidencing the deity of Christ. The doctrine of man's inability, election, atonement, effectual grace, and God's sovereignty is no more "hidden" in Scripture than the doctrine of Jesus' deity. So if they constantly kick and buck against sound teaching, then they prove themselves to be "true" Arminians and their ability to articulate such will move them from camp #B to camp#a. If they constantly refuse to even be exposed to the material or discuss the material, then likewise they are kicking and bucking in a passive-aggressive manner.

#8. If you think the "true" Arminian is regenerate, then we clearly disagree. If you think someone you know resembles Arminianism, but yet "isn't", then enjoy the chance to disciple them, and see them grow. It would be a dire tragedy to just "sit-back passively" and say "we will just leave them alone thinking they can lose their salvation at any moment." If I heard a professed Christian talk that way, I'd be very alarmed and very active to teach them "P" in place of their errant understanding of salvation. If I heard a professed Christian talk of man's ability, or the conditions of election, and the failing attempt of Jesus on the cross, then I too would be very alarmed and very active to teach them what the Bible says; You say, "But no one I know uses such language" Correct, and many among Mormons and Popes will hide behind words like Grace, Faith, and resting in Jesus all as a sly cover as Satan is crafty.

Real Faith

2011-10-18T07:48:00.001-07:00

Our justification is the direct result of our believing the gospel; our knowledge of our own justification comes from believing God’s promise of justification to every one who believes these glad tidings. For there is not only the divine testimony, but there is the promise annexed to it, assuring eternal life to everyone who receives that testimony. There is first, then, a believed gospel, and then there is a believed promise. The latter is the “appropriation,” as it is called, which, after all, is nothing but the acceptance of the promise which is everywhere coupled with the gospel message. The believed gospel saves; but it is the believed promise that assures us of this salvation.
Yet, after all, faith is not our righteousness. It is accounted to us in order to righteousness (Rom 4:5, GREEK), but not as righteousness; for in that case it would be a work like any other doing of man, and as such would be incompatible with the righteousness of the Son of God; the “righteousness which is by faith.” Faith connects us with the righteousness, and is therefore totally distinct from it. To confound the one with the other is to subvert the whole gospel of the grace of God. Our act of faith must ever be a separate thing from that which we believe.
God reckons the believing man as having done all righteousness, though he has not done any, and though his faith is not righteousness. In this sense it is that faith is counted to us for, or in order to, righteousness, — and that we are “justified by faith.” Faith does not justify as a work, or as a moral act, or a piece of goodness, nor as a gift of the Spirit, but simply because it is the bond between us and the Substitute; a very slender bond in one sense, but strong as iron in another. The work of Christ for us is the object of faith; the Spirit’s work in us is that which produces this faith: it is out of the former, not of the latter, that our peace and justification come. Without the touch of the rod the water would not have gushed forth; yet it was the rock and not the rod, that contained the water.
The bringer of the sacrifice into the tabernacle was to lay his hand upon the head of the sheep or the bullock, otherwise the offering would not have been accepted for him. But the laying on of his hand was not the same as the victim on which it was laid. The serpent-bitten Israelite was to look at the uplifted serpent of brass in order to be healed. But his looking was not the brazen serpent. We may say it was his looking that healed him, just as the Lord said, “lily faith hath saved thee”; but this is figurative language. It was not his act of looking that healed him, but the object to which he locked. So faith is not ourrighteousness: it merely knits us to the righteous One, and makes us partakers of His righteousness. By a natural figure of speech, faith is often magnified into something great; whereas it is really nothing but our consenting to be saved by another~ its supposed magnitude is derived from the greatness of the object which it grasps, the excellence of the righteousness which it accepts. Its preciousness is not its own, but the preciousness of Him to whom it links us.
Faith is not our physician; it only brings us to the Physician. It is not even our medicine; it only administers the medicine, divinely prepared by Him who “healeth all our diseases.” In all our believing, let us remember God’s word to Israel: “I am Jehovah, that healeth thee” (Exod. 14:26). Our faith is but our touching Jesus; and what is even this, in reality, but His touching us?
Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.
Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another’s. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be a righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like “the Lamb, without blemish and without spot” An imperfect faith may connect us with the perfection of another; but it cannot of itself do aught for us, either in protecting us from wrath or securing the divine acquittal. All faith here is imperfect; and our security is this, that it matters not how poor or weak our faith maybe: if it touches the perfect One, all is well. The touch draws out the virtue that is in Him, and we are saved. The slightest imperfection in our faith, if faith were our righteousness, would be fatal to every hope. But the imperfection of our faith, however great, if faith be but the approximation or contact between us and the fulness of the Substitute, is no hindrance to our participation of His righteousness. God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith. An earthenware pitcher can convey water to a traveller’s thirsty lips as well as one of gold; nay, a broken vessel, even if there be but “a sherd to take water from the pit” (Isa 30:14), will suffice. So a feeble, very feeble faith, will connect us with the righteousness of the Son of God; the faith, perhaps, that can only cry, “Lord, I believe; help mine unbelief.”
Faith is not satisfaction to God. In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It brings us to the cross, where there is expiation, and propitiation, and payment, and cleansing, and righteousness; but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice; it is not the altar, nor the laver, nor the mercy-seat, nor the incense. It does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago; it does not wash, but leads us to the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. It does not create; it merely links us to that new thing which was created when the “everlasting righteousness” was brought in (Dan 9:24).
And as faith goes on, so it continues; always the beggar’s outstretched hand, never the rich man’s gold; always the cable, never the anchor, the knocker, not the door, or the palace, or the table; the handmaid, not the mistress; the lattice which lets in the light, not the sun.
Without worthiness in itself, it knits us to the infinite worthiness of Him in whom the Father delights; and so knitting us, presents us perfect in the perfection of another. Though it is not the foundation laid in Zion, it brings us to that foundation, and keeps us there, “grounded and settled” (Col 1:23), that we may not be moved away from the hope of the gospel. Though it is not “the gospel,” the “glad tidings,” it receives these good news as God’s eternal verities, and bids the soul rejoice in them; though it is not the burnt-offering, it stands still and gazes on the ascending flame, which assures us that the wrath which should have consumed the sinner has fallen upon the Substitute.
Though faith is not “the righteousness,” it is the tie between it and us. It realizes our present standing before God in the excellency of His own Son; and it tells us that our eternal standing, in the ages to come, is in the same excellency, and depends on the perpetuity of that righteousness which can never change. For never shall we put off that Christ whom we put on when we believed (Rom 12:14; Gal 3:27). This divine raiment is “to everlasting.” It waxes not old, it cannot be rent, and its beauty fadeth not away.
Nor does faith lead us away from that cross to which at first it led us. Some in our day speak as if we soon got beyond the cross, and might leave it behind; that the cross having done all it could do for us when first we came under its shadow, we may quit it and go forward; that to remain always at the cross is to be babes, not men.
But what is the cross? It is not the mere wooden pole, or some imitation of it, such as Romanists use. These we may safely leave behind us. We need not pitch our tent upon the literal Golgotha, or in Joseph’s garden. But the great truth which the cross embodies we can no more part with than we can past with life eternal. In this sense, to turn our back upon the cross is to turn our back upon Christ crucified, — to give up our connection with the Lamb that was slain. The truth is, that all that Christ did and suffered, from the manger to the tomb, forms one glorious whole, no part of which shall ever become needless or obsolete; no past of which can ever leave without forsaking the whole. I am always at the manger, and yet I know that mere incarnation cannot save; always at Gethsemane, and yet I believe that its agony was not the finished work; always at the cross, with my face toward it, and my eye on the crucified One, and yet I am persuaded that the sacrifice there was completed once for all; always looking into the grave, though I rejoice that it is empty, and that “He is not here, but is risen”; always resting (with the angel) on the stone that was rolled away, and handling the grave-clothes, and realizing a risen Christ, nay, an ascended and interceding Lord, yet on no pretext whatever leaving any part of my Lord’s life or death behind me, but unceasingly keeping up my connection with Him, as born, living, dying, buried, and rising again, and drawing out from each part some new blessing every day and hour.
Man, in his natural spirit of self-justifying legalism, has tried to get away from the cross of Christ and its perfection, or to erect another cross instead, or to setup a screen of ornaments between himself and it, or to alter its true meaning into something more congenial to his tastes, or to transfer the virtue of it to some act or performance or feeling of its own. Thus the simplicity of the cross is nullified, and its saving power is denied. For the cross saves completely, or not at all. Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross alone saves, and that it saves alone. Faith adds nothing to the cross, nor to its healing virtue. It owns the fulness, and sufficiency, and suitableness of the work done there, and bids the toiling spirit cease from its labours and enter into rest. Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the “It is finished!” of the Sin-bearer, and says, “Amen.” Where faith begins, there labour ends, — labour, I mean, “for” life and pardon. Faith is rest, not toil. It is the giving up all the former weary efforts to do or feel something good, in order to induce God to love and pardon; and the calm reception of the truth so long rejected, that God is not waiting for any such inducements, but loves and pardons of His own goodwill, and is showing that goodwill to any sinner who will come to Him on such a footing, casting away his own performances or goodnesses, and relying implicitly upon the free love of Him who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.
Faith is the acknowledgment of the entire absence of all goodness in us, and the recognition of the cross as the substitute for all the want on our part. Faith saves, because it owns the complete salvation of another, and not because it contributes anything to that salvation. There is no dividing or sharing the work between our own belief and Him in whom we believe. The whole work is His, not ours, from the first to last. Faith does not believe in itself, but in the Son of God. Like the beggar, it receives everything, but gives nothing. It consents to be a debtor forever to the free love of God. Its resting-place is the foundation laid in Zion. It rejoices in another, not in itself. Its song is, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us.” vChrist crucified is to be the burden of our preaching, and the substance of our belief, from first to last. At no time in the saint’s life does he cease to need the cross; though at times he may feel that his special need, in spiritual perplexity or the exigency of conflict with evil, may be the incarnation, or the agony in the garden, or the resurrection, or the hope of the promised advent, to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe.
But the question is not, “What truths are we to believe?” but, What truths are we to believe FOR JUSTIFICATION?
That Christ is to come again in glory and in majesty, as Judge and King, is an article of the Christian faith, the disbelief of which would almost lead us to doubt the Christianity of him who disbelieves it. Yet we are not in any sense justified by the second advent of our Lord, but solely by His first. We believe in His ascension, yet our justification is not connected with it. So we believe His resurrection, yet we are not justified by faith in it, but by faith in His death, — that death which made Him at once our propitiation and our righteousness.
“He was raised again on account of our having been justified” (Rom 4:25) is the clear statement of the word. The resurrection was the visible pledge of a justification already accomplished.
“The power of His resurrection” (Phil 3:10) does not refer to atonement, or pardon, or reconciliation; butte our being renewed in the spirit of our minds, to our being “begotten again unto a living hope, by the resurrection from the dead” (1 Pet 1:3). That which is internal, such as our quickening, our strengthening, our renewing, may be connected with resurrection and resurrection power, but that which is external, such as God’s pardoning, and justifying, and accepting, must be connected with the cross alone.
The doctrine of our being justified by an infused resurrection-righteousness or, as it is called, justification in arisen Christ, is a clear subversion of the Surety’s work when “He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,” or when “He washed us from our sins in His own blood,” or when He gave us the robes “washed white in the blood of the Lamb.”
It is the blood that justifies (Rom 5:9). It is the blood that pacifies the conscience, purging it from dead works to serve the living God (Heb 9:14). It is the blood that emboldens us to enter through the veil into the holiest, and go up to the sprinkled mercy-seal It is the blood that we are to drink for the quenching of our thirst (John 6:55). It is the blood by which we have peace with God (Col 1:20). It is the blood through which we have redemption (Eph 1:7), and by which we are brought nigh (Eph 2:13), by which we are sanctified (Heb 13:12). It is the blood which is the seal of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20). It is the blood which cleanses (1 John 1:7), which gives us victory (Rev 12:11), and with which we have communion in the Supper of the Lord (1 Cor 10:16). It is the blood which is the purchase-money or ransom of the church of God (Acts 20:28).
The blood and the resurrection are very different things; for the blood is death, and the resurrection is life.
It is remarkable that in the book of Leviticus there is no reference to resurrection in any of the sacrifices. It is death throughout. All that is needed for a sinner’s pardon, and justification, and cleansing, and peace, is there fully set forth in symbol, — and that symbol is death upon the altar. Justification by any kind of infused or inherent righteousness is wholly inconsistent with the services of the tabernacle, most of all justification by an infused, resurrection-righteousness.
The sacrifices are God’s symbolical exposition of the way of a sinner’s approach and acceptance; and in none of these does resurrection hold any place. If justification be in a risen Christ, then assuredly that way was not revealed to Israel; and the manifold offerings so minutely detailed, did not answer the question: How may man be just with God? nor give to the worshippers of old one hint as to the way by which God was to justify the ungodly.
“Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), is a well-known and blessed truth; but Christ IN US, our justification, is a ruinous error, leading man away from a crucified Christ — a Christ crucified FOR US. Christ for us is one truth; Christ in us is quite another. The mingling of these two together, or the transposition of them, is the nullifying of the one finished work of the Substitute. Let it be granted that Christ in us is the source of holiness and fruitfulness (John 15:4); but let it never be overlooked that first of all there be Christ FOR US, as our propitiation, our justification, our righteousness. The risen Christ in us, our justification, is a modern theory which subverts the cross. Washing, pardoning, reconciling, justifying, all come from the one work of the cross, not from resurrection. The dying Christ completed the work for us from which all the above benefits flow. The risen Christ but sealed and applied what, three days before, He had done once for all. vIt is somewhat remarkable that in the Lord’s Supper (as in the passover) there is no reference to resurrection. The broken body and the shed blood are the Alpha and Omega of that ordinance. In it we have communion (not with Christ as risen and glorified, but) with the body of Christ and the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), that is, Christ upon the cross. “This do in remembrance of me.” “As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” If, after we have been at the cross, we are to pass on and leave it behind us, as no longer needed, seeing we are justified by the risen Christ in us, let those who bold that deadly error say why all reference to resurrection should be excluded from the great feast; and why the death of the Lord should be the one object presented to us at the table.
“Life in a risen Christ” is another way of expressing the same error. If by this were only meant that resurrection has been made the channel or instrument through which the life and justification are secured for us on and by the cross, — as when the apostle speaks of our being begotten again unto a lively hope by the “resurrection of Christ from the dead,” or when we are said to be “risen with Christ,” — one would not object to the phraseology. But when we find it used as expressive of dissociation of these benefits from the cross, and derivation of them from resurrection soley, then do we condemn it as untrue and anti-scriptural. For concerning this ‘life” let us hear the words of the Lord: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51), “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56). This assuredly is not the doctrine of “life in a risen Christ,” or “a risen Christ in us, our justification and life.” I do not enter on the exposition of these verses. I simply cite them.. They bear witness to the cross. They point to the broken body and shed blood as our daily and hourly food, our life-long feast, from which there comes into us the life which the Son of man, by His death, has obtained for us. That flesh is life-imparting, that blood is life-imparting; and this not once, but for evermore.
It is not incarnation on the one hand, nor is it resurrection on the other, on which we are thus to feed, and out of which this life comes forth; it is that which lies between these two, — death, — the sacrificial death of the Son of God. It is not the personality nor the life-history of the Christ of God which is the special quickener and nourishment of our souls, but the blood-shedding. Not that we are to separate the former from the latter, but still it is on the latter that we are specially to feed, and this all the days of our lives.
“Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us.” Hence we rest, protected by the paschal blood, and feeding on the paschal lamb, with its unleavened bread and bitter herbs, from day to day. “Let us keep the feast” (1 Cor 5:8). Wherever we are, let us keep it. For we carry our passover with us, always ready, always fresh. With girded loins and staff in hand, as wayfarers, we move along, through the rough or the smooth of the wilderness, our face toward the land of promise.
That paschal lamb is CHRIST CRUCIFIED. As such He is our protection, our pardon, our righteousness, our food, our strength, our peace. Fellowship with Him upon the cross is the secret of a blessed and holy life.
We feed on that which has passed through the fire; on that which has come from the altar. No other food can quicken or sustain the spiritual life of a believing man. The unbroken body will not suffice; nor will the risen or glorified body avail. The broken body and shed blood of the Son of God form the viands on which we feast; and it is under the shadow of the cross that we sit down to partake of these, and find refreshment for our daily journey, strength for our hourly warfare. His flesh is meat indeed; His blood is drink indeed.
Tags: Horatius Bonar

Questions for the Arminian

2011-10-08T07:13:00.000-07:00

Did the grace of God cause your salvation? Why didn't the grace of God cause the salvation of everyone? Did the power of God cause your salvation? Why didn't the power of God cause the salvation of everyone? Did the Holy Spirit cause your salvation? Why didn't the Holy Spirit cause the salvation of everyone? Did God cause your faith to be present and active? Or did you cause your faith to be present and active? (Diagnostic Questions for the Arminian)

God's Freedom

2011-09-29T11:52:00.001-07:00

Adam was not given a "choice", He could not "forbid" the existence of each tree, the serpent, the devil, the consequence, the Eve; If Adam had a "choice" he could have told God I want to be an elect angel instead of a human, and I don't want there to be any such trees in existence, and like you I don't want to even need food, nor make any such serpents, nor make an angels that will fall, namely Satan, nor allow serpents to be possessed by Satan, nor make Eve to confuse the situation by her attention to the serpent's lie; None of the elect angels were placed in this providence, but Adam was and he was not given a choice about that providence. God made Adam upright, but He did not make him immutable, and Adam did not have a choice about being made mutable. Just as Joseph's brother's meant it for evil, but God for good. God had redemption and His glory in view during the Fall, and His motive pure and Holy, whereas Adam's motive during the Fall, was rebellious, impure, and evil. God was free to make fruit that God could eat if He wanted to and forbid Adam if He wanted to, God is free to set a command and "choice" for Adam, that God himself is not required to follow. A police officer can drive 90 mph due to his office and yet I not be given that same freedom. The officer is granted choices, that the citizen is not given. God is a law unto Himself, He is not under some external law whereby men vainly attempt to judge him.

2 Peter 3:9, tinas

2011-09-28T19:47:00.000-07:00

A Careful Examination of 2 Peter 3:9 by Nick Migliacci.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many people misunderstand 2 Peter 3:9 because they believe the word “any” refers to “every single person on planet earth.” A popular English translation of 2 Peter 3:9 is as follows:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

The Greek word behind the word “any” is “tinas,” which is simply a pronoun. It is a particular form of the root word, “tis.” The word “tis” has ten different forms in the Greek language (based on different combinations of case, number, gender, etc.), each one being spelled slightly differently, of course. The New Testament has need for only five of those forms. In 2 Peter 3:9, this pronoun actually appears twice: 1) as the direct object in the phrase “any perish” (spelled “tinas”), and 2) as the subject in the phrase “some count” (spelled “tines”). That’s right, “some” and “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 are two different English words attempting to translate one and the same Greek pronoun, “tis” (simply spelled differently due to the former being nominative and the latter being accusative). But while the pronoun is spelled differently, it has the same definition in both cases. It means “some,” or “certain ones.” So a more careful translation that helps the English reader see at a glance that 2 Peter 3:9 repeats the same pronoun, would be:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that some should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

(The word “some” could be substituted by the phrase “certain ones” just as well.) There is no good reason to use differing English words to translate the same Greek word in the same immediate context. Peter deliberately used the same Greek word twice, and it behooves the translator, whenever feasible, to pass along such features of an original work into the translation. (For this very reason, it is unfortunate that many modern translations of 2 Timothy 4:2-3 fail to pass along to the English reader the fact that Paul uses the same word, “doctrine,” twice: once at the end of verse 2, and once at the beginning of verse 3. What Paul was telling Timothy to do was to feed his congregation the very thing that they would soon spit out! “Give ‘em doctrine, because soon they won’t take your doctrine!” That important relationship, however, is lost in modern translations which use differing English words to translate one and the same Greek word in those two verses.) So here, Peter deliberately used the same Greek pronoun twice in 2 Peter 3:9, and unless there is some enormous reason to do otherwise (which there is none), we ought to use the same English word in both cases.

Now if “tinas” is a pronoun in the phrase “some perish,” then what’s the noun? The noun is unwritten. In the Greek language, this legitimate literary device is called an ellipsis. It occurs when the writer purposefully omits certain words (to save papyrus, quills and candles), with the unspoken intention for the reader to naturally supply the missing words. Let me give some examples of ellipses in the New Testament.

John 14:6 – “Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life….” Here, the reader is supposed to understand Jesus saying, “I am the way, I am the truth, and I am the life.”

Matthew 22:37 – “Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’” Here, the reader is supposed to understand Jesus saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your soul, and You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind.’”

Romans 8:5 – “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Here, the reader is supposed to supply the missing words “set their mind” before the ending phrase, “the things of the Spirit.”

Philippians 3:10 – “that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.” Here, the reader is supposed to supply the missing words “that I may know” like this: “that I may know Him, and that I may know the power of His resurrection, and that I may know the fellowship of His sufferings….”

1 Thessalonians 5:9 – “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here, the reader is supposed to supply the phrase “God did appoint us” like this: “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but God did appoint us to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

As you can see, the ellipsis is a very natural, fluid occurrence in the New Testament. It’s nothing to become alarmed about, until, it seems, we’re discussing 2 Peter 3:9! Here, people let their theologies overrule the grammatical force of the verse, which is quite unfortunate. So the question on the table is, What is the unwritten noun in the phrase “any [noun] perish?” What does “any” refer to? Does it refer to trees? To demons? There’s no need to guess. In fact, the reader does not have the liberty to insert just any thing he so desires. If you were paying close attention to the previous examples, you’ll see that we supplied the last phrase mentioned prior to the omitted phrase. So let’s look at 2 Peter 3:9 again to find the missing word(s) which we are supposed to supply after the word “any”:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Grammatically, we are required to supply the word “us” after the pronoun “any.” Thus, to spell it all out, 2 Peter 3:9 looks like this:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

So the first thing we see is that “any” does not refer to every single person in the whole, wide world! In fact, the pronoun “tis,” occurring in its various forms 418 times in the New Testament, never refers to every single person in the whole, wide world. Instead of listing all 418 occurrences of this pronoun, I will list all 25 occurrences where “tinas,” that form of “tis” behind the word “any” in 2 Peter 3:9, occurs, to show that it never refers to every single person in the whole, wide world.

Mk. 7:2 – Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
Mk. 12:13 – Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words.
Lk. 7:19 – And John, calling some, that is, two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"
Lk. 18:9 – Also He spoke this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Acts 9:2 – and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Acts 9:19 – So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.
Acts 10:48 – And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay for some days.
Acts 12:1 – Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.
Acts 15:2 – Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
Acts 15:36 – Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing."
Acts 16:12 – and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days.
Acts 17:5 – But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Acts 17:6 – But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, "These who have turned the world upside down have come here too.
Acts 19:1 – And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples
Acts 23:23 – And he called for some, that is, two centurions, saying, "Prepare two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night;
Acts 24:24 – And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Acts 27:1 – And when it was decided that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment.
Rom. 11:14 – if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
1 Cor. 9:22 – to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
2 Cor. 10:2 – But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against certain ones, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
Gal. 2:12 – for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
1 Thess. 4:2 – for you know certain commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
2 Thess. 3:11 – For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.
Heb. 4:6 – Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
2 Pet. 3:9 – The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that some should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Now this sparks another question about 2 Peter 3:9. If the Lord is longsuffering toward us, and is not willing that any of us perish, to whom is the “us” referring? Again, the reader does not have the liberty to fabricate any answer he pleases. The “us” of 2 Peter 3:9, is sandwiched between, and refers to, the endearing word “beloved” appearing in the previous verse (v. 8) and in verse 17. It is a repeat of the word “beloved” in 2 Peter 3:1 where Peter writes, “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle….” (See also 1 Pet. 2:11; 4:12.) The “beloved” is not a reference to every single person in the whole, wide world. No, it’s much more selective than that. The “beloved” whom Peter is addressing are, according to the opening verses of 1 Peter, the “elect of God,” and according to the opening verse of 2 Peter, “those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In other words, in 2 Peter 3, Peter is addressing the scorn that the “beloved” are enduring, namely, “that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation’” (2 Pet. 3:3-4). Peter’s response to this is to remind the “beloved” that the reason the Lord has not returned yet is not because He has neglected His promise, but because there are others who still need to come to repentance before He can return. These “others” are among the elect of God, and Peter refers to them as “us” since, though currently unrepentant, they are nonetheless among God’s elect. Once the last of these elect persons comes to repentance, then the Lord will return. (Perhaps a day or two after…we aren’t told exactly.)

One important fact that needs to be stated is that the “promise” in 2 Peter 3 is NOT a promise to save everybody in the whole world! That is “universalism,” and it is unbiblical. God never promised to save every single human being. Often, however, people make a mental connection between two things that they imagine Peter to have said: 1), they imagine Peter said that God has promised to save every single person, and 2), they imagine Peter said that God is not willing that any single human being perish. But Peter taught neither of those notions. The “promise” of 2 Peter 3 is the promise of the Lord’s return, and the reason that He hasn’t yet returned, said Peter, is because He’s not willing that any of us perish, but that all of us should come to repentance. The first person plural “us” is the polite way of including himself among those who haven’t yet come to repentance. (See “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament” By Daniel B. Wallace, pages 394ff, for a thorough treatment of the scope of “we” in the New Testament.)

It is interesting to note that, if the popular idea of God not-wanting-any-single-human-being-on-the-planet-to-perish were true, then according to Peter’s own teaching, the Lord would not come back to earth so long as there remained even a single person on the earth who was unrepentant. And yet the Bible tells us that not all will be saved, hence, we know the Lord will return while there remains unrepentant people on the earth. Why doesn’t God wait for them to repent before sending His Son? Because there’s no verse in the Bible that teaches that. What we can be certain of, however, is that the Lord will not come back before all the elect repent. We can be sure of that because that’s what 2 Peter 3:9 teaches.

Some people dismiss this teaching because they suppose it is common knowledge that God wants His elect to come to repentance, and they feel like a verse in the Bible would not be so elementary. But even if it is common knowledge, it is still no reason to dismiss what Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended to communicate. Not surprisingly, this same truth is taught elsewhere in Scripture, namely, John 6:39 – “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Evidently, the Spirit of God wanted to communicate the same “elementary” truth at least twice.

If you think about it, it’s not only the scoffers who deny that the Lord will return. There is another group of people who, when pressed to take their theology to its logical end, would also have to deny that the Lord will return. This latter class of people are those who believe the Lord is waiting for every single human on the earth to repent. If that is really what the Lord is waiting for, then the scoffers will be right and He’ll never come back!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For similar treatments of 2 Peter 3:9, I recommend the following audio and video files:

WILL YOU CALL THEM ARROGANT

2011-02-05T08:52:00.000-08:00

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 7:26   And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

Matthew 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

Matthew 25:2-3 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. [3] For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,   Matthew 25:8 And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'

Mark 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

Luke 11:40 You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?

Luke 12:20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'

Luke 24:25   And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Romans 1:14   I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

Romans 1:21-22   For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1:31   foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Romans 2:20   an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—

Romans 10:19   But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

1 Cor. 1:20   Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Cor. 1:27   But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

1 Cor. 15:36   You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

2 Cor. 11:19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!

2 Cor. 11:21   To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that.

2 Cor. 12:6   Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

2 Cor. 12:11   I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Ephes. 5:4   Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

Ephes. 5:17   Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

2 Tim. 2:23   Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

Titus 3:3   For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

Titus 3:9   But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

James 2:20   Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

1 Peter 2:15   For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

SUFFERING IN AMERICA

2011-02-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

I have a tendancy to block out sermons on "Understanding Suffering", because I assume most pastors will rush to direct the focus on matters like: getting cancer, the death of an infant, the death of a spouse, losing the use of your legs, etc. I can easily see the need of edification if I were put in one of these providences, however I still block out these sermons because the focus becomes so immediatlely couched in physical connotations, instead of spirtual ones.

Second, I pass over these sermons because if the pastor does talk about Suffering for Jesus, then we are brought to consider the persecution of Christians in Muslim Nations, Communist Nations, and Atheist Nations. These Christians are threatened, beaten, arrested, driven from homes, tortured, killed, and separated from family. They live in abject poverty and face a tribulation very different from the comforts of the American Protestant scence. While this is important to remember, it still seems to be so far removed from what we are able to relate to and respond to.

However, I am learning now the important priority to speak on Christian Suffering in America. While this suffering holds no comparison to those Chrisitans in Muslim and Communist Nations, it is still a undeniable reality.

I want to make it clear, that Christian Suffering in America does not refer to Hollywood attacking morality, or the government taking prayer out of schools. This is not about immoral sectors attackign moral sectors. This is not precisely about the gay-agenda. In reality it is in fact a Suffering from groups holding a Bible against those who are truly Born Again. The current suffering is not yet physical, but the animosity and division is real. Those who proclaim SOVEREIGN GRACE are ignored, isolated, mocked, ridiculed, and maligned. They are to be silenced from the pulpit and from the congregation. Their conversation is to be squelched and dismissed as divisive and untimely.

LUTHERS THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

2011-02-01T03:00:00.000-08:00

The term, theologia crucis is actually used very rarely by Luther. He first uses the term, and explicitly defines it in contrast to the theology of glory, in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. During this debate, he represented the Augustinians and presented his theses that later came to define the Reformation movement.

ThesesThe pertinent theological theses of the debate are[1]:

The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.
Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works that apparently are good), as though they were crimes.
The works of God (those he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.
By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security.
To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God.
Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.
Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.
In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal.
Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin.
Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity.
Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in a passive capacity.
The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.
Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.
It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.
That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened.
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it actually is.
That wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ.
Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.
He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.
The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done.
Actually one should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work.
The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.

RESPONSE POLICY WHY STREAMLINE

2011-01-05T16:28:00.000-08:00

MUTUAL BENFITS FOR MY NEW POLICY

#1. (No repetition for you to create; Time Management)

#2. (No distractions for you or those reading your blog)
#3. (No size limitations for you)
#4 (No time pressure for you, more thoughtful, edited, substantive entries)
#5. (Less Tangents for you to be dragged into).
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves presented to you).
#7 (No fighting to get the Last Word with you).
#8. (No one falsely accuses you of being argumentative).
#9. (Your joy and peace should not be based on your blog's attempt to convince others; as some attempt in FB threads.).
#10. (Your readers will not take it personally).
#11 (You will not sense that you are being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, inundated, escalation).
#12 (Easier Editing, Reading, Formatting, Control, Archiving of your points)

for elaboration see:
1. THIS EXPLANATION
2. http://cid-ee707e96478c2486.office.live.com/view.aspx/118min/Policy%20Benefits.docx

Response Policy Why

2011-01-05T14:20:00.000-08:00

APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)

At least TEN ADVANTAGES FOR YOU (and me) from this new policy:

#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again. This translate to better time stewardship over the months, instead of repeating the same attacks 12x a year.

#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.

#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;

#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.

#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.

#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.

#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.

#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.

#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.

Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.

#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.

However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.

I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.

In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.

#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side, and to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.

I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.

So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.

Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

TULIP REJECTERS HUB

2011-01-05T09:48:00.000-08:00

I fully affrim TULIP. These internal links are provided for persons who affirm the TULIP to prepare a proper defense. They are also provided for those who REJECT Tulip, so that Facbook Threads will not be swamped with verses, pleas, and assertions that have already been heard and examined.

1.  Link to 50-70 Blogs, Books, Writiers, Persons who reject the TULIP.
2. Link to Verses cited to dispute each segment of the TULIP.
3.  Link to 45+ Questions/Accusations/Assertions to reject the TULIP.

A. Link to my new Facebook counterpoint policy.
B. Link to Mutual Benefits for this policy.

I've already provided you with 90% of the verses and counterpoints you would present.  I am not sure what is accomplished for you to clutter my wall with the exact same material that I myself have already stated, and rejected. If your post, verse, assertion is original I will seek to incorporate it into these materials.

If you are in some manner "undecided" in these matters, let it be known that Reformed Theologians are well-aware of these verses and questions and have responded in detail to each verse and question for centuries now.  One of my goals is to assemble those detailed responses on my blogs.

---- COPY AND PASTE FOR FUTURE FACEBOOK ----- For TULIP REJECTERS:

Unless you plan on stating an original angle in rejecting TULIP, just cite my own blog link below when you intended to counter my future posts. My own blog provides: 50 plus blogs for your position; 40 plus verses you plan on citing; 45+ assertions you plan on making. I do not know the benefit of telling me the claims I've already heard repeatedly and examined repeatedly. http://118response.blogspot.com/2011/01/tulip-rejecters-hub.html

------- END --------

CITED BY TULIP REJECTERS

2011-01-05T09:14:00.000-08:00

Last Modified 01/05/2011. Created: 01/05/2011/

Common References cited by TULIP-rejecters to dispute: Categorized (catch-all list to follow)

1. "Total Depravity"; Assert Free-will.

Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.

Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.

Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."

Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.

Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.

Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.

Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.

2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.

Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.

Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.

2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.

FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108

2. "Unconditional Election"

(premised off universal appeals, universal love, cited above)

b. To Assert that God loves each individual: John 3:16, 1 John 4:8,16; Matthew 5:43-48

3. "Definite Atonement. Particular Redemption."

John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.

John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"

Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.

2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.

1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.

4. "Effectual Grace" (also based #1. rejected appeals)

Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.

5. "Preservation of the Saints"

Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.

Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.

Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.

CATCH-ALL LIST 98% REPEATED, BUT JUST IN CASE.

Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.

Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.

FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108

Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.

Isaiah 53:6: Christ died for "all" people.

Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."

Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.

Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.

Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are capable of resisting God's grace. Therefore irresistible grace is not true. Jesus' love, offer, desire, appeal, doesn't get want He wants.

John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.

John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"

John 12:32: Christ will draw "all peoples" to Himself.

Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.

Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.

Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.

2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.

Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.

Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.

Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.

Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.

1 Peter 1:17 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.

2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.

2 Peter 2:20-22: People escape "the pollutions of the world" and then return to them.

2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.

Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.

Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.

-------

Hector Asserts Freewill

2011-01-04T18:33:00.000-08:00

Hector asserts Free-will.---to rebut later:

My almighty God exercised free will in the creation.Humanity is created in His image. therefore we possess the free will God "inherited."

Salvation, however, is a free gift of God through Jesus Christ atoning sacrifice.God is not "WILLING"... that anyone should perish but all of us should come to repentance. Jesus is God incarnate.ANYONE WHO REJECTS JESUS REJECTS GOD !!!

Chets post denying particular redemption

2011-01-04T18:22:00.000-08:00

Archiving Chet's Denial of Particular Redemption: To be rebuted later:

Obviously we disagree about this and I have no illusions of being able to convince you otherwise...but for the potential sake of someone else out there...let the reader of this note not neglect the clear teaching of John 3, I John 2, I Timo...thy 2, and the heart of the Scriptures as a whole. We have a merciful God who takes no pleasure at the death of the wicked, but rather, "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33) and does not desire for any to perish (II Peter 3:9). The argument that if Christ died for all men and yet some perish then Christ is a failure is exactly the same logic of the Muslims that tell me if God had a Son He would not fail by letting His Son die. These are both logical arguments of humans and not the clear teaching of Scripture. What success is from God's perspective is not that His Son would not die or that some whom He died for would not receive eternal life. But that His Son did die for all and that one way or another as the Apostle Paul stated, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,"

THE FALSE JESUS

2011-01-04T13:52:00.000-08:00

RHETORICAL QUESTION: Can one be a Christian, and believe:

1. Jesus is a sinner?

2. Jesus merely passed out on the cross without dying?

3. Jesus is not God?

4. Jesus was not a man?

5. Jesus was not born of a virgin?

6. Jesus failed the Father?

7. Jesus failed at what he attempted?

8. Jesus did not rise again, but his death was enough to save sinners?

9. Jesus merely adds to your works to make your efforts acceptable?

10. The sinner can and does make the difference in his salvation?

11. The sinner can and does met the conditions for his salvation?

12. Jesus was a self-proclaimed Lord, but not a fulfillment of Old Testament Promise of a Messiah.

13. Jesus could have died on the cross and zero souls be saved?

14. The entire bible is heresy except John 3:16?

15. Jesus is the same Jesus spoken of in the Koran as well as the writings of Joseph Smith as well as the messages from Mary.

16. Jesus was basically a Buddhist variant of his day teaching primarily "Christ conciousness" and the emptying of self.

17. God failed to accomplish what He intended to accomplish through Jesus Christ.

18. Neither the Father nor the Son intended to save sinners, but merely intended to make salvation a possibility.

19. that they are a sinner, but they can make the difference in their standing with God on the basis of meeting 2, 7, 10, 613 requirements.

20. Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven;

21. the Jesus of a 3 sentence prayer, without being dupped into Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22 False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

EMAIL ME

2011-01-04T12:10:00.000-08:00

If you have a comment or question or constructive criticism about the blog, you can email me at

read118@hotmail.com

However, I have a strict filter on this account and your "SUBJECT" line must read:

grace blogger

(two words, one space, no other strokes, all lower caps)

This will keep out all spam and prevent visitors from taking my my public email to enter into other spam sites.

After you contact me I can send you an email account without the filter.

RESPONSE POLICY

2011-01-01T20:47:00.001-08:00

SECTION ONE: (WHAT IS MY POLICY)

Why you have been given a link directing you to this entry? It is because:

1. My aim on Facebook is primairly to

a. state my views;
b. have discussions;.
c. allow disagreements to be stated.
d. allow opposing/modified/clarified assertions/stance to be stated. (but not the evidence). Feel free to state your stance and disagreement, on any matter posted. It is not my goal to censor you, or censor your view.

f. allow persons to ask for simple clarification or re-statement of my stance.   Such as "Are you suggesting, implying that we _______? Am I understanding you correctly?"

e. gain supportive points, quotes, articles, links, clarifications on what I stating.

2. My aim on FB is to avoid:

a. engaging in debates; and also fleshly debates.
b. rabbit- chasing-tangents,
c. name calling,
d. heated emotion, (brewing rants and raves)
e. strawman fallacies,
f. getting the last-word,
h. 40+ exchanges per thread which brings exhaustion and frustration to everyone invovled.
i.   9+ topics in one thread;
j.   ***I do not permit my wall be the location for your evidence.

***If you ignore this protocol I will delete your material, and you will have to type it all over again on your own blog, so in kindness, this warning is given for your own benefit.

j2.    If you want to state your evidence, you can state it on your own free blogger account or free wordpress account. Take the topics that interest you to your own blog, assert your view, evidence your view, and oppose the views of mine at that location. (your blog, not my wall).

j3. [EXAMPLE] Here is a great example of an ideal response to my orignal wall post:

"Todd, I take it by your statement that you are not profess (topic at hand). However, I do support (topic at hand). Here is a link to my blog entry/pdf/doc/file that I wrote to (topic at hand) if you have the time or interest to read it; If you do get around to reading it, I would be curious to your response if you likewise have the time and interest to do so in the next few months."

If your blog entry is 50% referals to videos, audios, articles, quotes, and blogs that you did not create yourself, then I might pass. (However, at times, I may decide to go ahead an consider these referals) I will likewise have outside videos, audios, articles, quotes, blogs for your consideration. But this pattern is still helpful to cut down on FB fussing. If the other person is interested--- the material is there; if they are not interested--- then there is no point in raving for 10 replies on a FB thread.

I do not send persons to this current entry to be dimissive, short, rude, abrupt, or offensive. You are not my enemy because I sent you here. In fact, my objective includes fostering the exact opposites concerning your counterpoint. My new system allows for more time, length, attention, care, analysis, thoughtfulness in reading and responding. So again, I appreciate your interest in the point or a counterpoint, however I will most likely not be responding to your material in the next week. Thus I ask that you locate your concerns and position on your blog instead of swamping my thread with long exchanges and material. (just send me a link to your related blog entry instead.)

4. I afford you these same standard for moderating your own wall and posts you started. I will not swamp your wall with material, but merely provide a link for my "positon paper/blog" for you to consider if you have the interest.

I am making this entry as a standard for my Facebook (FB) and online interactions from this day January 1st, 2011 and forward.   I am making this entry on 01/01/2011. Saturday Night; started around 8 pm finished 11:30 pm. EST.

(You do not have to read the rest if you don't have the time or interest)
---------------------

APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)

I am making this entry in light of the my FB and online experiences in the past 2-3 years.
We will BOTH have numerous benefits from this system.

#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads;  instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again.

#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link.  It is much easier for your readers.

#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs;  I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;

#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.

#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.

#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.

#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.

#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.

#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.

Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.

#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.

However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.

I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.

In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.

#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.

I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.

So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy.  This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.

Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

ARMINIAN PRIMARY SOURCES.

2011-01-01T10:22:00.000-08:00

I do not hold to Arminian Philosophy. However it is needful in apologetics and evangelism to know the primary sources of errant views. I do not suggest we spend 40 hours a week reading the writings of Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Atheists, Evolutionists, Arminians, Popes, etc. However, it is proper to be aware of their primary sources and central tenets. This list is to serve that purpose.

If you are Reformed in Theology, this list will help you avoid using the Strawman Fallacy in presenting your view. If you are not Reformed in Theology, this list might be shared to your detriment, but who knows, maybe God will bring you to see the inconsistencies presented by Arminians.

This list can serve another purpose, in that Arminians think, "You simply have not heard/studied/considered the other questions, views, concerns. So let me be the first to quote John 3:16 for you." In my case, I have read several Arminian books, articles, blogs; listened to many Arminian videos and audio files.

I was raised an Arminian for the 26 years as the son of a SBC Arminian pastor. I was Arminian in 4 years of college and 4 years of Seminary, and 2 years of Pastoral Ministry. I openly rejected the TULIP for 4-6 years during Seminary and ministry. I asserted then, many points that Arminians submit to me today; namely: "I do teach Savlation by Grace, God was gracious to make an offer, an offer that I did not deserve and could not earn."

But I digress, here is a list of primary sources for the aforementioned goals. In the future I might make annotations on which ones are more audacious than others, or on what parts of the TULIP they focus on.

PRIMARY SOURCES:

1. Norman Giesler. book "Chosen But Free" (youtube videos exist as well)
2. Dave Hunt. book "What Love is This"
3. Adrian Rogers.
4. John Wesley
5. Charles Finney
6. Luis De Molina (anything by Jesuits)
7. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell. book: "Why I am not a Calvinist"
8. C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Calvinism and Arminianism
8b. Tim LaHaye
9. C. Gordon Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
10 F. Leroy Forlines and J. Matthew Pinson: book: "Classical Arminianism"

OVER 70 ARMINIAN WEBSTIES: (not sure which ones are still active)

1. http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/
2. List entirely grafted from the http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/ sidebar; I appreciate his provision of 20+ calvinistic sites as well; and have not had time to survey his own entries.

Ancient Christian Defender
Armini
Arminian Baptist
Arminian Chronicles
Arminian Perspectives
Arminian Sermons Online
Arminian Theology
Arminiblog
Awakening Theology
Beauty For Ashes
Ben Witherington
Bible Doctrines Study Page
Bible Thoughts From Chris (UK)
Biblical-Theology.net
Center For Theological Studies
Christian Courier
Christian With A View
Classic Holiness Sermons
Cramer's Comments
David Wilkerson
David Willis
Deliberations of Dawn
Dividing Word
Eric Landstrom
Eric Smith
Eternal Outlook
Eternal Security Examined
Evangelical Arminian
Evangelical Outreach
Examining Calvinism
Faith Experience
Fundamental Wesleyan Society
Gentle Wisdom
Greek Geek
Holiness UK
Humble Arminian
In Death or Life
Inquiring Minds
Introspectives of an Arminian Christian
Jacobus Arminius
James Arminius
JC Freak
Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight)
John Mark Hicks
Jon Earls
Josh Taylor
Kevin Jackson
Larry McCallister
Leeward Hope
Leonard Ravenhill
Matt Summers
No Calvinism
Obey God
One Baptist Voice
OSAS Arminian
Pastor Hightower (Ohio)
Perspectivas Arminianas (Portuguese)
Pneuma Foundation
Preach Faith
Pursuit of God
Revival Theology
SBC Tomorrow
Set Apart Place
Shawn Wilson
State of the Church
Steve Gregg
Stone-Campbell Disciple
Stop Sinning
The Arminian Magazine
The Arminian.net
The Rabyd Theologian
The Society of Evangelical Arminians
The Sound of Thunder
Theology and Snack
Thru Faith
Treasures Old & New
True Paradigm
Truth and Faith
Wesleyan Arminian
Wesleyan Heritage Fellowship
Women In The Word
X Calvinist

(this material is still a rough draft and to be updated repeatedly)

QUESTIONS TO THE REFORMED

2011-01-01T07:54:00.000-08:00

last modified date: 1/01/2011 (original 2/19/2010)

For all those who profess the TULIP, and for all those who do not profess all or any part of the TULIP:
I am making and collecting an on-going list of Accusations against Reformed Theology.   I hope to create responses to each one that I have listed so far, and all the other ones that come to mind, and all the ones you add.

1. You are saying God made puppets/Robots; We are not puppets/Robots;

2. This makes God the author of evil.

3. Predestination precludes our responsibility, guilt, or judgment; but free-will, free-choice doesn't.

4. God cannot/would not cripple a man then punish hm for being crippled. (Why have you made me thus, what do you still find fault)

5. Command, and invitation, and offer: implies ability.

6. Without a choice we don't have free-will, or without free-will we don't have a choice.

7. But God is love;

8. This makes God to be cruel tyrannt, dictator, ogre, monster.

9. We are all God's Children.

10. Whosoever means Whosoever.

11. All means all.

12. World means world.   (go read John 3:16, etc)

13. But God gives us all a choice.

14. Look, some in the Bible choose evil; see; they had a choice;

15. Look, some in the Bible choose Jesus/good; see; they had a choice.

16. Why witness if the elect are sure to be regenerate and the goats never will be?

17. Why did God, prophets, disciples, or evangelists give any commands or warnings in/from the Bible, if God knows what's going to happen, and causes it to happen.

18. You're arrogant to be "the chosen." ; you are the “proudly elected ones” You have nothing but “PRIDE”.   (You are like the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14)

19. You're arrogant to "know it, understand it, all", no one has it all figured out.

20. (This is Gnosticism; Secret Knowledge); You are a Gnostic, focused on knowledge, and information; you are void of relationship to Jesus and peope.

21. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and get out to the more important matters like witnessing to the lost.

22. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and just love people and do good works.

23. Stop teaching Church History and doctrines of men, Stop following/reading/worshipping Calvin, follow Jesus, read your Bible;

24. This promotes lawless license, just sin all you want, it is all forgiven.

25. This promotes laziness all around from:evangelism, obedience, good works, labor, prayer.

26. Calvin murdered Severtus. Ad Homenim. Didn't Luther hate and despise the Jews.

27. I am neither an Arminian nor Calvinist.

28. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are right; or, neither is right; the answer is somewhere in the middle; each camp is taking the issues to extremes.

29. It is just a mystery that we cannot, or never will, figure out.

30. The calvinists I know are mean, rude, arrogant, short, argumentative, sinful, and instigate division;

31. Calvinist are unloving, Cavlinism is unloving, the God portrayed in Calvinism is unloving; You are spewing out hate. You are a hate-monger.

32. Calvinism divides congregations and the people of God;

33. Church attendance does dwindle, will dwindle, if you teach this.

34. There are plenty of examples in the Bible where God does not always get what He wants.

35. Acts 7:51 says men resist the Holy Spirit.

36. Hate means "love less"

37. In Romans 9, Jacob and Easu are two nations, not two individuals.

38. God foresaw what Easu would do.

39. Foresee/Foreknowledge; God foresees our decisions, faith, choice, response. The bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, etc.

40. But we teach our children the song, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world." Are we lying to them?

41. We are to have a child-like faith, and become like children; so I don't have to understand this complex stuff; keep it simple;

42. if I offer you a Birthday/Christmas gift/present and you choose not to accept it that is your problem, and while that gift will remain waiting for you if you choose to leave it and not accept it this is your problem, and won't be your gift until you choose to accept it.

42b. This is one of the key components to a "relationship" with Christ. A realtionship is two sided, and if it is not it is considered as stalking.

43. The Lord never forces anything on us. The Lord is a "gentleman"; He knocks on the door of your heart, He does not barge in.

44. That is the most unscriptural statement I have ever heard and straight from the pit of hell/mouth of Satan.

45. How will you raise your children in this; view children in this; Don't you know the age of accountability. (The "age of accountability" is a topic to be handled separately from this list.)

46. We are made in God’s image. God has Free-will, therefore we do too.

I will try to keep the list updated with new accusations, and in time create responses to these and other accusations.

FORGIVENESS AND STEWARDSHIP

2010-12-21T14:14:00.001-08:00

Ethics case: I submit that Biblical Forgiveness between sheep is not synonymous with restored entrustment of stewardship and responsibilities. One example, you entrust a 16 year old to babysit your 2 year old while you are 2 hours away visiting an ICU patient. You come home and suddenly the 16 year old pulls in behind you, you look to find your child is still in the house alone. The babysitter says, "I was only gone 30 minutes, I wanted to visit a friend to see her new jacket."; Biblical Forgiveness does not mean God requires you to entrust your toddler 7x70 to someone who has been negligent 1x, or 10x, 100x, 490x. But I often here persons mixing the two concepts up, and accusing me of beign unforgiving for not also granting persons previous levels of stewardship/responsibility that they have constantly failed to display. Your thoughts?

Gordon Clark, Sanctification, page 60

2010-12-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

(page 54-55: Deals with the QUESTION ONE: BAPTIZE WITH WATER OR SAND) [I have not included]
(page 56-60: Deals with the QUESTION TWO: THE MODE OF BAPTISM) [I have not included]

THIRD QUESTION:
(page 60, beginning halfway down the page)

The third of the four questions now is: To whom should baptism be administered? This question divides in two. Should unbelievers be baptized or believers only? And, should infants be baptized or adults only.

In the New Testament, so far as adults are concerned, the practice and the teaching were to baptize on confession of faith: Repent and be baptized. The Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized straightway after he asked, "What must I do to be saved?" This is a far cry from the Romish practice of baptizing the heathen in crowds, as for example upon the conversion of Clovis, or apparently upon the conversion of no one in Buddhist lands.

At the same time, it must be noted that the apostles gave very little instruction. The Jews at Pentecost knew the Old Testament and needed only to learn that Jesus was their Messiah; but the jailer surely knew little if anything, yet he and his household were baptized after one sermon. The next day Paul left the city. Later in church history there were catechetical classes, lasting a few months or even a few years. Though this bears the

(page 61)

appearance of wisdom, it was not the practice of the apostles. Yet they certainly required a profession of faith.

The second half of this sub-question also divides into two: Should infants ever be baptized, and if so, which infants?

The basic authority for baptizing infants is found in the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. Infants, male infants, were circumcised. Now, as the Lord's Supper grew out of and replaced the Passover meal, so baptism replaced circumcision. The most definite passage on the subject is Colossians 2:11,12 where baptism is called the circumcision of Christ. The less definite but more pervasive material concerns the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant, as found in Galatians 3:15ff.

In this connection one should note that it is not necessary to find explicit New Testament justification for every Christian doctrine. The Old Testament is a part of the Bible also. To be sure, the Mosaic ritual was a temporal expedient. To continue the sacrifice of lambs today would be to deny the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. But while the ritual is fulfilled, the covenant of grace remains the same in all ages. A relatively minor, though for that very reason pertinent, point concerns the condemnation of incest as 1 Corinthians 5:1ff. The New Testament gives no details concerning the limits of consanguinity and affinity in marriage. They are found in Leviticus 18. See I Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20; 6:16; 9:9, 10:7 and others, plus frequent verbal allusions that cannot be called quotations in the modern sense. In chapter five, however, Paul does not quote Leviticus but clearly Leviticus is the only place that affords Paul a basis for his condemnation. The correct principle of interpretation is not the Baptist one of discarding everything in the Old Testament not reasserted in the New; but rather the acceptance of everything in the Old not abrogated by the New Testament teaching.

(page 62)

Therefore to be more explicit, be it noted that the Old Testament church and the New Testament church are the same church. Not only does Acts 8:38 , "the church in the wilderness" so assert, but even clearer is Romans 11:17-24. There as a root; one of its branches was Israel; this branch was broken off; a Gentile branch from a wild olive tree was grafted into the good root; and God can and will at some future date graft back the natural branches into their own olive tree. The whole, as Galatians 6:16 indicates, is the Israel of God. Since, now, children were members of the ancient church, and were given the sign of the covenant, so also now.

Anyone who wishes to exclude infants from the church is under obligation to show that the New Testament alters the procedure that dates back at least to Abraham. It is the Baptist who must bear the burden of proof. He must explain how it comes about that children, who were members of the church before the time of Christ, are now excluded from the church. All other Christians aer satisfied with the household baptisms of Acts 16:15, the jailer in Acts 16:33, and the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16.

The other subdivision of the QUESTION is a more difficult one: Whose children should be baptized? It is not at all difficult to show that a child of two believing parents should be baptized, nor even that a child of only one believing parent should be. I Corinthians 7:14 is sufficient. The difficulty arises when one considers the case of a child whose parents were perhaps baptized infancy, who attend church services with some regularity, and who want their child baptized, even thought they themselves have never become communicant members. Today in the United States the very large majority who are in regular attendance are communicant members. But it so happens that regular attendants who are not communicants want their children baptized. Should the church acquiesce?

(page 63)

In Europe and in early America the children of baptized but non-communicant members were regularly baptized. Robert Ellis Thompson, in "A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United States (1895, p.14) reports: "The absence of regularly constituted sessions for the administration of church discipline, and the refusal of baptism to the children of baptized persons who were not communicants marked the local congregation as un-Presbyterian." That is, communicant membership was not essential for the parents of infants to be baptized; and the author notes that this was the rule in all Reformed churches.

The argument was that there is a visible and an invisible Church. The members of the latter are precisely God's elect; but many members of the former are not. Ishmael and Esau were both circumcised. Furthermore, since the promise and the covenant extended to a thousand generations, the visible church today may and ought to baptize infants of unbelieving parents who want them baptized, on the basis of their ancestor's faith. Surely not every Israelite, at any period of its disappointing history, was regenerate; yet no priest would have hesitated to circumcise the children of such parents. But in New England, as was not true in Europe, an inference drawn with respect to the Lord's Supper deserves mention at his point. Like baptism, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, came to be regarded as a sacrament of the visible church. The grandfather of Jonathan Edwards argued that regeneration is not a necessary qualification for admission to the Lord's Supper. In fact the sacrament itself is a converting ordinance. Increase Mather opposed this view; Jonathan Edwards in time came to oppose it also, for which cause he was dismissed from the pastorate he had inherited from his grandfather. Presbyterians generally followed Mather and Edwards in this regard.

(page 64)

Now, even if it be granted that baptism may properly be administered to children of non-professing parents, the inference to a similar stance on the Lord's Supper is fallacious. The two sacraments should be distinguished. The distinction is this: Admitting for the sake of argument that the covenant extends to thousands of generations, one must still remember that the apostle commanded each person to examine himself and so let him eat, on pain of eating and drinking damnation to himself. Obviously Paul did not intend the Supper to be a converting ordinance. The radical individualism of regeneration prevails.

But now, beyond admissions for the sake of argument, what must be said on the substantial question? Does the Bible require or prohibit baptisms to the thousandth generation? If it does, and if a generation is roughly thirty years, a thousand generations from the time of Christ would include just about everybody in the western world. Then the church should have baptized the child of an intensely Talmudic Jew whose ancestor in 50 B.C. was piously looking for the Messiah; Or, George Whitefield should have baptized Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Tom Paine, as children, because one of the their ancestors played a small role in the Reformation. Strange as this may seem to many, it ought to have been done if the Bible so teaches.

Some very eminent theologians have so held. The strictest view has not been universal; it is more American than European. The view that only the children of professing parents should be baptized seems to have been the result of colonial revivalism. An historian might care to determine whether Tennant was its originator. In those days, as also in the early twentieth century, the Presbytery of New York was lax in doctrine, while the Philadelphia Presbytery was noted for orthodoxy. Gilbert Tennant, pastor in New Brunswick, New Jeresy, too vigorously

(page 65)

castigated the Philadelphia ministers for their dead orthodoxy. This led Synod to condemn Tennant on charges of slander and to exclude him with one of his associates from the Synod. Tennant eventually repented, but at the moment the New Brunswick Presbytery withdrew from the Synod and the New York Presbytery followed them. The Synod then tightened its ordination vows, which from the Adopting Act of 1729 allowed candidates for ordination to state their scruples or disagreements with the Confession. The Synod now required unconditional subscription.

There was a strange mixture of ideas in the minds of these revivalists. In theology they were more lax than the Philadelphia ministers were; but they were more strict with reference to baptism. But though strange, it is understandable. Their pietism and evangelistic zeal led them to place great emphasis on conversion as a traumatic experience. Zeal in preaching false doctrine was better than preaching truth without zeal. Let it be noted that this was not the case with Whitefield. He preached the truth with zeal. He did not, however, use a mourner's bench or a sawdust trail. Tennant, on the other hand, can be called the forerunner of Finney --- that disaster which Christianity suffered in the next century --- though of course, being a century earlier, Tennant was far more orthodox than Finney.

This emotional pietism, as it demanded a particular type of experience for regeneration, tended to view the ideal church as consisting entirely of regenerate persons sharing such an experience. The logical result is the Baptist position; but in Presbyterianism it stopped short at requiring faith of the parents who wanted their children baptized. But if it did not result in Baptist practices, it involved a change in the theology of baptism.

(page 66)

This now is the FOURTH QUESTION: What is the meaning of baptism and what does the rite accomplish? The Presbyterian position is neither Baptist, nor Anglican, and of course not Romish. The discussion of the older view, that of baptismal regeneration will come first.

One of the verses used to support baptismal regeneration is John 3:5: "Unless one is begotten of water and Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Does this mean that the rite of baptism produces regeneration and that no one without water baptism can enter into heaven? An examination of the context can alone give the answer.

Point one: Nicodemus was a Jew, honestly seeking the truth. Therefore Jesus, in explaining the earlier phrase "unless a man is born over again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God," had to appeal to what Nicodemus already knew. i.e, the Old Testament. Jesus could not assume that Nicodemus knew something foreign to the Old Testament. This is not the surmise of a modern theologian: It is the planing meaning of verse 10: "Art though the [outstanding] teacher of Israel and knowest not these things?" Jesus was basing his teaching on the Old Testament.

Point two: Therefore the meaning of "water" must be determined by the Old Testament. In the Christian era water might suggest baptism, Christian baptism, but in the historical circumstances the preceding usage is what was meant, not something later about which Nicodemus had had no opportunity to learn. Now, the previous usage differs from the later in several respects: It was not Trinitarian; it could be repeated, even several times, whereas Christian baptism is administered just once.

Point three: In the Old Testament baptism or washing with water symbolizes cleansing from sin. In Isaiah 4:4 the Lord 'washed' away the filth of the daughters of Zion; Zechariah 13:1 mentions a 'fountain' for sin and impurity; Malachi 3:2 predicts a purification, by fire indeed, but also by 'soap', which no doubt requires water. Then further, the

(page 67)

combination of water and spirit in John has its background in many Old Testament passages. Psalm 51:2,7,10 combine the washing, a clean heart, and a right spirit. Isaiah 44:3 also.

Point four: The Kingdom of God is also something Nicodemus should have understood. It is an Old Testament idea, for God is King. The term itself does not occur in I Chronicles 29:11, but the idea is emphatic. Explicit are:

Psalm 22:28 For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations. Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Psalm 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;

To these add Isaiah 24:23, Daniel 2:44 and many other references. Since such passages teach about the Kingdom, one can at least hope to find, in the Old Testament, the conditions of membership in that Kingdom. The conditions are repentance, faith, trust, sacrifice, redemption, the new heart, the Spirit --- all gospel terms. Is it then peculiar that 'water' should be there also?

The conclusion is that Jesus was teaching the Old Testament to Nicodemus, and that therefore there is no reference in John 3 to Christian baptism, and therefore again no theory of baptismal regeneration.

Another New Testament verse requires mention in this connection. Baptismal regeneration is sometimes supported by an appeal to Titus 3:5: "By the washing of regeneration and the renewing of [or,by] the Holy Spirit."

The Anglican and Romish argument is that washing regenerates. But this interpretation causes grammar to suffer. The second half of the quotation, in which 'the Holy Spirit' is in the genitive case, obviously means that the Holy Spirit renews us. The Holy Spirit is a subjunctive genitive.

(page 68)

The Holy Spirit renews us; neither we nor anything else renew the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be the objective genitive. Similarly it is regeneration that does the washing; it is not the washing that was regeneration. To get anything like baptismal regeneration out of these words, it would be necessary to rearrange them so as to say, "the regeneration of washing." This would mean that regeneration is produced by washing. But this is the reverse of what the Apostle wrote. Therefore the Reformed churches in baptizing adults assume, even if mistakenly, that they have already been regenerated. On this understanding regeneration cannot be conceived as produced by the rite of baptism.

If the preceding is a sufficient refutation of baptismal regeneration, the Baptist position will not so much require a formal refutation as a positive statement of the Presbyterian view. Baptists regard baptism as a sign of regeneration; and regeneration is to be recognized by a profession of faith. Presumably most Baptists would admit that the Holy Spirit can regenerate infants, and some no doubt concede that He does. Luke 1:44 says that the babe in the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy when the mother of the Lord came to visit them. Contemporary murderous abortionists do not like this verse. Of course a newly born infant cannot express his faith. No matter, say Lutherans, infants can and some infants do have faith because some infants are justified and justification is by faith alone. This is an impressive argument; but Presbyterians, thinking of a theological expression of faith, allow other means of justification for the incompetent exceptions such as infants and the insane. The Baptists do not allow for faith in infants, and hence they will not bapitze them.

Some Presbyterians claim to bapitze infants on the basis of "presumptive regeneration." "Presumptive election" would be a better basis. But this is only a partial answer to the main question.

(page 69)

That baptism, the sign of washing and purification, is somehow related to regeneration should not be denied; but the Baptist view of that relationship is untenable. They rebel at the apparently empty formalism of the established churches in Europe. They observe that too many 'baptized' infants give no later evidence of regeneration or election, which is unfortunately true. But neither Tennant's ideal of regenerate ministry, much less that of a regenerate membership, is possible. If this is true of churches that baptize infants, it is equally true and equally regrettable of churches that immerse adults. There are millions of apostate Baptists, with their champion of a generation ago, Harry Emerson Fosdick. Every church, with the possible exception of a few very small congregations, has its black sheep. This was the case in the churches of the New Testament and remains true today. Therefore it is impractical to operate on the belief, and impossible to operate on an asserted fact, that all church members are regenerate. Adult baptism does not avoid the difficulty.

The problem is solved by insisting that the New Testament gospel is the same as that given to Abraham. Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. The terms of the Abrahamic covenant provide the rules for the administration of baptism. The New Testament application of the covenant cannot be more restricted that than of the Old. In fact, it is wider, for girls are now baptized. Since therefore it is wider, not narrower, and since infants were then included in the covenant, they must not be excluded now.

That some or even many remain dead in sin after receiving the sign of the covenant, is no greater an objection to infant baptism than it is to circumcision. Ishmael and Esau bore the sign of the covenant. So too did Simon Magnus and Hymenaeus, presumably unregenerate, or Diotrophes, Demas, Alexander, and others who made shipwreck of the faith.

(page 70)

In spite of the fact that they are criticizing the divine provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, so definitely said to be operative today (Galatians 3:7ff), Baptists and others will ask, "But then, what good is baptism?" Of course, one might ask in return, "What good is adult immersion?" It does not regenerate, and some of you deny it is a means of grace. What then is left?"

Now, Presbyterians can answer these questions better than Baptists can. To repeat, baptism has all the value of circumcision.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? [2] Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Doubtless this is not so much value as some might expect. But if so, these expectations are not Scriptural. Perhaps the Calvinist must say that while baptism symbolizes internal blessings, it guarantees only external.

However, this is still a means of grace, i.e. something God uses to show us his favor. For one reason, the rite, entered into sincerely, helps to fix the Word in the convert's mind. The Word is necessary. Baptism is not a magical incantation.

(page 71)

It does not exercise "physical causality," as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' describes it, referring to Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (3a62); a physical causality such that "the sacramental rite is directly involved in the infusion of grace in a manner analogous to that in which an instrument, such as a pen or brush, is said to be the cause of an effect, the written page or picture." No, the rite of baptism though a visible performance, requires understanding, intelligence, mind.

When God made his covenant with Abraham, in Genesis 17, he explained its terms. There are approximately nine verses of explanation before circumcision is mentioned. then follow five verses explaining circumcision. to this is added the promise of a son to Sarah. Here something peculiar appears: The covenant will be established in his son Isaac, not in Ishmael; nevertheless Abraham circumcised Ishmael, along with servants who had been bought with money and were not of his family. Thus at the initation of the rite there was explanation.

In Joshua 5:2-9 where the uncircumcised second generation are circumcised, there is no explicit explanation to these people; the book explains the events to its reader; but it is almost impossible that Joshua would or could do this on a nation-wide scale without giving them an explanation. Thus the minister today must explain its significance ot those who present themselves. Even the Philippian jailer, baptized so suddenly, recieved some instruction; and what was lacking in time was more than compensated for by the preceding miracle. Baptism pictures the washing away of sin by Christ's blood. We are baptized in to his death, as the Baptists are fond of repeating. This is true; but it is incomplete: We are baptized in the name of the Trinity, not just Christ's death alone. Thus must be explained. The rite itself presents the promise of the covenant in the form of an action. As a picture of the washing away of sin, baptism is a "visible word." Now, the difference between the audible

(page 72)

and the visible Word is this: The word is preached in general terms to everyone. Baptism is administered to this one individual person here and now, showing him that the convenant is not merely some corporate arrangement in general, but showing him that God gives to him individually the promises of the covenant. This is absent when baptism is not accompanied by the Word, or where the words are Latin which th people do not understand.

The Protestant Reformation was a tremendous break with the encrusted superstitions of a thousand years. It is no derogation to the Reformers to suggest that they did not completely wipe out every last trace of so enrenched a superstition. The Second Helvetic Confession seems to retain a bit in its words, "Nam intus regeneramur---in it we are regenerate." The French Confession of 1559 is better: "parce que la nous sommes entes au corps de Christ, a fin d'etre laves et nettoyes par son sang...by it we are rafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood..." And then, "Ainsi nous tenons que l'eau etant un element caduc, ne laisse pas de nous testifier en verite le lavement interieur de notre ame au sang de Jesus-Christ." In English: "Thus we hold that the water, though a powerless element, nevertheless truly testifies to us the internal washing of our soul by the body of Jesus Christ."

The less important QUESTION of who may properly administer baptism can form a concluding paragraph on this subject and serve also as a transition to the discussion of the Lord's Supper.

<....he address this in his next 2 pages, concluding the issue of Baptism; then moves to the topic of the "Lord's Supper" >

MY BIO

2010-12-04T07:23:00.000-08:00

This biography is to introduce myself to friends online, and yet not be self-absorbed and self-centered. I am also concerned about online privacy issues of how liars might try to pose as me or pose to know me based on this material. I will try to be as succinct as possible, though we all have hundreds of episodes we would like to convey (those interchanges can happen as our friendship deepens).

I grew up in the parsonage of an SBC congregation, being the son of an SBC pastor. This parsonage was connected to the church parking lot and within 20 yards of the fellowship hall. I stayed in this parsonage from the age of 3 months to 19 years and something. The church attendance ranged from 120 to 180.

MY MUSIC HERITAGE

Even from Kindergarten years I was involved in the music program with such programs as "Down by the Creek Bank", needless to say our congregation had a strong music program relative to it's county. I always saw a 12 youth ensemble perform on Sunday Mornings, and in yearly concerts; Soon I joined a junior high ensemble, and then high school ensemble, along with the all inclusive youth choir; then also joined the adult choir around 16 or 17. Our high school also had a very gifted chorus director and I sang in that in 11th and 12th grade, both in the choir form and ensemble form; We put on a dinner theatre each year, and created a lot of great memories.

I went to a small SBC supported college, and majored in Music; singing in the chorus class, ensemble class, and had solo lessons; After two years I switched majors because I simply could not hang with the discipline demanded of my piano professor. Practicing 2 hours everyday with 18 hours of college credit is just not happening for this college guy; So I completed a degree in Communications; though I maintained my love of music and piano; I also on ocassion sang with the local church choir; Our CSU (Christian Student Union) had a singing ensemble and we sang for a few churches and also a football half-time;

My last semester of college I felt (had) an inward desire to become a pastor and attend Seminary. I knew nothing of Seminarys or my options, but was directed to SEBTS, and accepted. I started out with a general pastoral track, but of learning of a nice ensemble, auditioned, and was accepted, thereafter I changed my track to Music Ministry.
Again I sang in Open Chorus, Ensemble, and Solo Lessons. I eventually spent 2 years as a music director for a congregation; After three years in this track, I was convicted that God's primary means of transforming people was through Scripture, not song, so I switched from Music Track to Pastoral; needless to say, I had used up all my electives on music, and barely squeaked out of my aloted credit hours; In fact had to take several J-terms and summer terms to make up the time;

In Seminary I began to take up guitar, and made some gains, but nothing to brag about; I even taught piano and guitar in 4 homes. 1 home and a son and daugther taking lessons, a 2nd home had 3 kids taking lessons, another home actually had 7 kids taking piano from me at the same time, and that all sat in the room and dry erase board learning the musical terms and concepts.

That is about all of my music heritage, after graduating Seminary, I began preaching, and had little time for music, and that has been for the most part, the pattern for the last 12 years. I will close this section by saying, overall, I am not a great musician, I still struggle in reading rhythms and coming across natural, but I enjoy singing with large choirs regardless;

MY RELIGIOUS HERITAGE

This will be short. I was at church 4 days a week. Sunday School, Church, PM Service, Wednesday Service. VBS, January Bible School, 5-6 week long youth camps, 4-5 ski trips, 4-5 Carowinds trips, travelling to the mountains for apples with the seniors, yearly revivals, 4-5 lock-ins, some RAs (Royal Ambassadors); All SBC, all an unstated Arminian viewpoint, all for 19 years. Even so, many wonderful parents and friends who treated me like their own son and nephew. I was very blessed at a level, despite the theological famine.

I went to an SBC funded college. I was not pleased with the lax policy and lax voice of the school. I cannot say I was a stellar soul either, but I didn't have much help either. In one class, a student brought forth my first ever experience with "Arminianism vs. Calvinism" discussion, I never heard this for 20 or so years, I quickly dismissed it off, being a pastor's son with such a heritage I would have surely heard of Calvinism if it were true, so begone I thought, and my hands were clean of it all.

At Seminary a few students were Calvinists, my typical response was, "I don't have time for debates, I am simply going to build friendships with the loss and be an impact, not get bogged down in all this in-fighting and discussion of history; I don't have time to read through all these issues, I want to go help people"...However, I can note 3 persons who really befriended me and took the time to (in a warm and friendly way) challenge me, expose the issues to me, follow-up with me about the Doctrines of Grace; I continued to reject it, but nevertheless they planted a seed that I could not shake off;

MY ATHLETIC HERITAGE

Bottomline: I wasn't much of an athelete. I did play tennis in 9,10,11 grades; and hung out at a tennis camp for 2 summers; (but was never that great) I ran cross-country in 12th grade; (and my times were horrible); I often played basketball in the church parking lot on Sundays, but was never a good player, despite being 6"3 I rarely ever touched the rim. I never touched a weight bench and was one skinny, scrowny dude;

After being mocked for my weakness through high-school and my first weeks at college, I decided to bury myself in the gym; My first week I could barely bench press 85 lbs; my progress was extremely slow and in retrospect laughable, but I at least became very defined in my upper body; The end of my senior year I think my max was 225, certainly not more; It was funny because my roommate would always start with 225 for 8 reps on his first set; but he was always positive and supportive in my efforts;

I worked out in Seminary for two years, and made great gains in that short time; My best bench was doing 265 for 3 reps, I tried that night to do 285 for 1, but got stuck half way up. After that school and life got busy, and I got burned out, so I didn't touch weights for another 12 years. I never in college or Seminary worked out my lower body, which all my friends said would help my overall weight gain and strength gain, but I found it simply too draining to squat, so I didn't.

MY MINISTRY EXPERIENCE

This spans 12 years and could easily take 120 pages to share, but let me share the mainpoints.

1st Ministry: Interim Pastor and I was still Arminian. Had a Secretary; Studied from 8-12, Visited from 1-5; loved the ministry; Congregation wanted to call me, Search Committee did not. Search Committee resigned, new committee was appointed and approached me, I declined, seeing the tension with the 5 previous families that would create;

2nd Ministry: Pastor: Small Country church; Was Arminian for a year; God changed my heart through Scripture, A.W. Pink's "Sovereignty of God", JM Boice's "Doctrines of Grace", John Owen's Death of Death. I became a militant Calvinist; On a side note, I was able to speak at a jail 10-12 times during this ministry, and that was fun.

I also created enemies by preaching on the Masonic Lodge, and 3 key members were Masons, I also preached against Santa coming down the aisle, which they still did despite my direct sermon addressing. On a Sunday I preached that "God does not love everyone since Jesus did not die for everyone." Tuesday all the deacons came to my parsonage after giving me 10 minutes notice, arriving in the church van with one united voice that I resign immediately; I agreed.

3rd Ministry: Interim Pastor, following a closet Reformed Pastor. Search Committee interviewed me, but called someone else; I don't think the leader of the Search committee was Reformed; I will not share all the reasons why.

4th Ministry: Interim Pastor, search committee approached me. I declined; because I already knew it had too many Masons; 7 months later I preached on the Masonic Lodge and reaped a storm, but they were within 2 months of calling their pastor;

2 years without a ministry: Courted My wife, and got married;

5th Ministry: This is 20 pages of problems. After following the tradition of singing Happy Birthday every solitary week before the Doxology for four months, I ended the tradition, and created major relentless enemies; After a 3 year old came up on the pulpit for 8 weeks straight during the middle of singing, and prayer, and sermons, I mentioned it was a distraction to the deacons (of whom one is the grandparent), and created more enemies, when I merely said it was a distraction, as numerous families agreed with me. 2 Deacons never came, never heard one deacon pray, one rarely brought his bible, one only talked about sports; One Sunday Night Service a man had his cellphone ring aloud, and he even answered it and talked to the phone for a solid minute; There were 2 Masons there, and possibly 4, and I told a man my concerns which of course he passed on to his cohorts;

I got two anonymous letters given to me, and an anonymous note; I had deacon's meetings pointed at me, and not "ministering to the people"; One Night I get a phone call saying, "we need you in the fellowship hall." I show up to see 14 persons of the Church Council all in agreement to ask for my Resignation, though these persons never came on PM or Wednesday, nor ministry efforts; I agreed, but gave a 15 page resignation letter that Sunday exposing their evils of breaking the by-laws and failures in the last 18 months; Early that year I voluntarily submitted a 20% pay cut, but that didn't matter to them.

I have more battles to share, that have occured; one with my father who is an Arminian pastor, and at odds with my ministy, but that is a painful 20 page report; and also numerous battles with peer pastors who are Arminian;

I have not been in the pastorate for 2 years. I have sent my resume out numerous times, but realize I will never accept a congregation that I cannot be openly Reformed with to the search committee or congregation, which lowers my options dramatically. We also have committed to not attend a congregation that cannot openly preach Reformed Theology, exposing the errors of Arminianism; Thus we have to drive 38 miles one way (mostly interstate) to find such a ministry. It is only 5-6 families, but it has solid preaching, solid focus, and very warm and loving leadership.

I have failed to indicate the many, many blessings and strengths that I enjoyed at each ministry; There were positive encounters and wonderful friendships at each ministry, even while surrounded by opposition;

I have failed to convey my own failures at each ministry; I have several areas of weakness to grow in, and mistakes made; (albeit, none in my opinion warrant being fired and isolated...and their opposition has revolved around Arminianism, Masonic Lodge, Santa Claus, Church Growth, Singing Happy Birthday, irreverence, and Tradition;)

I have failed to convey the daily, weekly, monthly thanksgivings of God's goodness, mercy, grace, and overflow, that has constantly been present;

I have also failed to include issues around my conversion; but as it is, what I typed is lengthy already; I guess it just takes time to get to know someone;

IN CLOSING

There is tons more to share, but these are the basics. I have been staying home with my 2.5 year old son. Though I deeply desire to be in the pulpit, and also desire to be the breadwinner for the family; I have searched for jobs, but have not found any that would allow my wife to quit her job and us avoid major debt; I am against having both of us work to merely pay a babysitter; If I am making 8 an hour then all my money is going to a babysitter, and I have lost time with my son.

I am really torn now, wanting to preach, but feeling my hands are tied; I have applied to 4-5 Reformed ministries, but none responded; In the past 12 years I have also filled served numerous pulpit-supply opportunties and found trials with their either Arminian or Masonic theology. I have two good friends who share similiar and even harder trials.

I am afraid that this has been too self-centered and self-absorbed, but it may convey more about my mindset in addressing future topics of discussion.

You can get to know more about me by:

> surveying my "Beliefs" page,

> interacting with my Facebook Info and Facebook Chat,

> I have also kept an on-going Quote Blog;

Now...how can I get to know you???

God's Glory

2010-12-03T16:09:00.000-08:00

A friend wrote: Hey, brother. I wanted to ask you a few questions regarding God's decree and His desires. God has decreed all that has come and will come to pass. Yet, it seems to me, that God gets angry, or upset when Israel fails to do obey Him. What do we do with something like that? Seems to me, that God, decreed their disobedience, which they did willingly, and God gets angry. Is it safe to say that God decrees His displeasure? Do i have this right?

MY RESPONSE:

1. God issues Decrees. (Let there be light). All His Decrees Infalliably come to pass precisely as He Wills; And all are that which He desires and all please Him. God is not angry nor displeased at His decrees.

2. God issues Moral Prescriptions. (Do not lie). All His Moral Prescriptions please Him and are as He desires. His moral Prescriptions only come to pass through Jesus, his elect angels, and as He sanctifies his elect; but never through the unregenerate, and only in the regenerate as He himself empowers and fulfills. God is never angry nor displeased with His Moral prescriptions;

3. As stated, the unregenerate never keep his Moral Prescriptions something is always corrupt either external in action, or internally in motive; God is always angry and displeased with the rebellion of the unregenerate to His moral prescriptions.

4. God has purposed to display His Glory and Glorify Himself above all. His Glory is manifest and will be manifested in many ways including: Displaying the glory of His grace to His Creation, and Displaying the glory of His justice and Holiness and Truth to His Creation. God always takes pleasure in Displaying the glory of his grace and always takes pleasure in displaying the glory of his justice. He is God and does all that He pleases, and who shall say what are you doing (Daniel 4:35)

5. The glory of His grace includes pouring His wrath on His Son in mediation to His objects of grace (sheep),

6. The glory of His justice and Holiness includes pouring His wrath on rebelious souls who have no mediator.

1b. God decreed the death of His Son, and was pleased in the decree;
2b. God made Moral prescription not to reject or murder his Son, and was pleased with that prescription.
3b. All men in their unregenerate state fail that Moral prescription and do reject and murder His Son
5b. God is pleased to purpose the death of His Son to glorify Himself and save His sheep. (God's motive's are Holy).
6b. God is pleased to purpose the punishment of men who with unholy motive murdered Jesus, so this punishment glorifies Himself and judges the goats in wrath (God's motive is Holy).

God is pleased to save the Sheep for His Glory.
God is pleased to display His wrath on the goats for His Glory.

God is pleased to put Jesus in bruising, lashes, mockery, crucifixion, and death for His Glory to display the perfection of Jesus: perfect in the Law, perfect on the outside, Perfect on the inside, Perfect in obedeince even to the point of the DEATH ON THE CROSS. (Philippians 2:8), showing himself to be a perfect High Priest and Mediator, unlike Moses who halted and murmured;

Though Jesus who is fully God experienced real "pain" physical and otherwise....(your point of displeasure)

A. Hebrews 12:2 JESUS....who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

B. Also note what Romans 9 says, God has not failed, but designed the hardening of the Jews in order that He might show mercy to the Gentiles; The hardening of the Jews was not "accidental" that God merely reacted to with a plan B, but intentional; God is displeased with the motive of the Jews in their rebellion, but yet pleased with His own motive in leaving them to their own devices in that it would serve His purpose to display His glory in His grace.

C. In Isaiah 6, God sent Isaiah to close eyes, close ears!

D. In Exodus, God sent Moses to Harden Pharaoh, who is still accountable for his pride and rebellion. God's motive to Glorify God....Pharaoh's motive to glorify Pharaoh. God was displeased with Pharaoh's motive, but pleased with Hardening His heart for God's motive in doing so was Holy for His own glory.

E. God meant Joseph's slavery for good, the brothers meant Joseph's slavery for evil. Genesis 50:20. God was displeased with them, but pleased with Himself.

F. Jonah meant his rebellion for evil, God decreed Jonah's rebellion to foreshadow someone being buried for 3 days and being raised: Christ. God was displeased with Jonah's moral failure, but God was pleased with His own design to point to Jesus.

G. The Serpent lifted up in the wilderness was to point to Christ, God's motive for the event was pure and Holy to display Jesus, man's motive in rebelling was evil and not designed to give God an opportunity to point to Jesus via looking to a snake;

There are several other examples that could be given;

I would say in closing, that God's anger and displeasure is real.... as it is His wrath and justice and Holiness being presented in contrast to man's injustice, rebellion, and unholiness....yet God takes pleasure in displaying this wrath, justice, and Holiness; Man's motive was to evil...to rebel, God's motive in their disobedience was to voice His righteous wrath in contrast. (whether it be wrath and justice on the Cross, or wrath and justice to goats in Hell);

Much could be said about the close connection between God's wrath being a manifestion of God's L-O-V-E for His Holiness His Righteousness, His Glory.

2nd, We must always look at the ULTIMATE END of God's joy in the justice being fulfilled.

This is a bad illustration, but....I've heard plenty of TV COPS say, "I am glad I was able to get drug dealers off the streets" and society echoes, "I am glad cops are able to get drug dealers off the streets" and yet Cops are angry that drug dealers are on the streets, and society is angry that drug dealers are on the streets. They are angry at them, and glad to remove them. God is angry and displeased with sinners, and is glad to judge the goats;

Did God decree His displeasure? God did not decree rebellion, rebellion is a manifestation men are breaking His moral prescription, God is displeased with this rebellion, but God did decree that His Holiness, Justice, and Glory will be manifest in judging the rebels...and in that decree being manifest He takes great pleasure.

God enjoys crushing the head of the serpent, despite the pain of having the heel bruised. God designed the bruising to manifest His Own Glory in crushing the head; God put the serpent in the Garden for Holy Motives, the Serpent's motives in the garden were unholy.

Romans 9:21-23 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

There is so much there.
1. Made a pot of dishonour.
2. Willing to show His wrath.
3. Make His power known.
4. Endured with much longsuffering; ***YOUR POINT JULIO*** Suffering Long;
5. Vessels of wrath....fitted to destruction.
6. Why??? That he might make known (ULTIMATE END AND DESIGN)
6B. The Riches of His GLORY....on the vessels of mercy.
7. which he had AFORE PREPARED unto GLORY.

Hope this helps....(but there is even more examples if time permitted).

QUOTES ON FREEWILL

2010-11-18T17:44:00.001-08:00

01 Quotes on Free Will

1) God’s Word

Psalm 33:10: "He maketh the devices of the people of none effect."

Psalm 81:12: "So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels."

Proverbs 21:1: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."

Proverbs 28:26: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool."

Ecclesiastes 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Jeremiah 4:22: "For my people is foolish, they have not known me … they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."

John 1:13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

John 3:27: "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

John 6:44: "No man can come to me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:65: "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

John 15:5: "I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing."

John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you."

Romans 3:10-12: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is no that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Romans 5:6: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

Romans 7:18-19: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

Romans 8:7: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Romans 9:16: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Romans 10:20: "I was found of them that sought me not."

Ephesians 2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."

Ephesians 2:5: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.)"

Philippians 2:13: "For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Colossians 2:13: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

Titus 3:3-5: "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

2) Before the Reformation

Augustine: "I once laboured hard for the free will of man, until the grace of God at length overcame me."

Bradwardine: "What multitudes, O Lord, do this day join hands with Pelagius in contending for free will and in fighting … free grace."

Waldensians: "Whosoever upholds free-will absolutely denies predestination and the grace of God."

3) Luther

"Free will is an empty term."

"Free-will cannot will good and of necessity serves sin."

"This is plainly to ascribe divinity to ‘free will.’"

“I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground …; but because even were there no dangers … I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success … But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God” (The Bondage of the Will).

4) Calvin

"The Papists … hold that man, through his own free will, returns to God; and on this point is our greatest contest with them at this day."

"Concerning that this clown babbleth of free will, it is sufficiently rejected throughout the whole scripture."

"Faith is a special gift of God, which proceedeth not from our free will."

"Let that ethical philosophy therefore of free-will be far from a Christian mind."

"No free will of man can resist Him that willeth to save."

5) Reformation Confessions

Thirty-Nine Articles, X: "The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will."

Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 8: "Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness? Indeed we are; except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God."

Belgic Confession, XIV: "… we reject all that is taught repugnant to this, concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin; and has nothing of himself, unless it is given from heaven. For who may presume to boast, that he of himself can do any good, since Christ saith, No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him? Who will glory in his own will, who understands, that to be carnally minded is enmity against God? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God? In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. For there is no will nor understanding, conformable to the divine will and understanding, but what Christ hath wrought in man; which he teaches us, when he saith, Without me ye can do nothing."

Canons of Dordt, III/IV:3: "Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation."

Westminster Confession, IX – Of Free Will:

Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

6) 16th Century

William Tyndale: "they go and set up free-will with the heathen philosophers and say that a man’s free will is the cause why God chooseth and not another, contrary to all scriptures."

Robert Ferrar (Welsh Bishop of St. David's martyred in Carmarthen on 30 March, 1555) with ten other reforming ministers: "... we disallow papistical doctrines of free will, of works of supererogation, of merits, of the necessity of auricular confession, and satisfaction to God-wards."

John Knox: "… the general consent of all that sect is that God (by his foreknowledge, counsel, and wisdom) has no assured election, neither yet any certain reprobation, but that every man may elect or reprobate himself by his own free will, which he has (say they) to do good or evil … [All these things are] forged by their own brains, and polished by the finest of their wits, when yet in very deed they are but the rotten heresies of … Pelagius, long ago confuted by Augustine …"

John Knox: "Ye [Anabaptists] be proud contemners of the free grace of God offered to man in Christ Jesus. For with the Pelagians and Papists ye are become teachers of free will, and defenders of your own righteousness" (An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous Cavillations Written by an Anabaptist and Adversary to God's Eternal Predestination [London: Thomas Charde, 1591], p. 121).

Jerome Zanchius: "No free will of the creature can resist the will of God" (quoting Augustine).

7) 17th Century

Henry Ainsworth: "we grant evil freewill (or freewill to evil) is remaining in all natural men: we believe that freewill to good, is from grace and regeneration."

Daniel Featley: "many men have too much Free-will, and take to themselves too free liberty now a days to advance and maintain free will."

John Preston: "not by the power of free will but by the infused grace of His spirit."

Peter Moulin: "It is proved out of the holy scriptures that an unregenerate man is altogether destitute of the power and liberty of his will, in those things that pertain to faith and salvation."

John Owen: "the whole Pelagian poison of free-will … a clear exaltation of the old idol free-will into the throne of God … That the decaying estate of Christianity have invented."

John Owen: Free will is "corrupted nature's deformed darling, the Pallas or beloved self-conception of darkened minds" (Works, vol. 10, p. 150).

William Jenkyn: "The bending of men's hearts to believe and persevere are the supernatural fruits of God’s eternal decree, and not the natural fruits of man’s depraved and frail free will."

John Trapp: "The friends of free will are the enemies of free grace."

Thomas Watson: "This crown of free will is fallen from our head" and "If it be God’s purpose that saves then it is not free will."

Francis Turretin: "The word "freewill" (as also "self-determining power" [autexousiou] used by the Greek Fathers) does not occur in Scripture … I Cor 7:37 does not mean freedom of the will."

8) 18th Century

Matthew Henry: "The counsels and decrees of God do not truckle to the frail and fickle will of man."

Augustus Toplady: “A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul.”

George Whitefield: "Man is nothing; he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him" and "you dishonour God by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend, not on God’s ‘free grace’ but on Man’s ‘free will.’"

William Huntington: "This brought me out of the free-will fog, and truth shone in my heart like a comet … from that moment I waged war against free will."

9) 19th Century

J. N. Darby, early leader of the Plymouth Brethren: "This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to support that of the pretension of the natural man to be not irremediably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this conviction is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill" (Man’s So-called Freewill, p. 1).

10) Charles Spurgeon

"I will go as far as Martin Luther, where he says, ‘If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly.’"

"Free-will doctrine—what does it? It magnifies man into God. It declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent on human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice, it holds God to be a debtor to sinners."

"His will cannot be neutral or ‘free’ to act contrary to his nature."

"Free will has carried many souls to hell, but yet never a soul to heaven."

"I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will."

11) 20th Century

Arthur W. Pink: "if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate ‘freedom’ of it."

Louis Berkhof: "Freedom of the will is a psychological fiction."

John Gerstner: "We have already shown that there is no such thing as free will. That’s a will-o’-the–wisp. You never make choices without reasons, not as a responsible or a rational person" (A Primer on Free Will, p. 11).

W. E. Best: "God’s character is maligned by every person who believes in free will."

Gordon H. Clark: "the Bible consistently denies free will."

Donald S. Fortner: "The false Christ of Arminianism cannot regenerate and save anyone who does not first choose to be saved by him. We are told that man has a freewill, but that Christ's will is bound by and must wait upon man's will because it would not be right for him to violate man's will! The true, saving Christ does violate man's imaginary freewill; and I am very thankful that he does. Had he not violated my freewill, I would be lost or in hell now! The same is true of you. He sovereignly regenerates and saves every chosen, redeemed sinner. His operations of grace are totally independent of the will and choice of the sinner. Apart from his work of grace in us, spiritually dead sinners never would or could believe on him and come to him in faith. Faith is not our contribution to the work of salvation. Our faith in him is the result, not the cause of God's saving operations. 'Let God be true, but every man a liar'" (John 3:3-7; 6:44, 65; 15:16; Acts 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 9:16; Eph. 2:1-4, 8-10; Phil 1:6, 29; Col. 2:12; Heb 12:2).

R. C. Sproul: "The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire."

James White: "Then why do you embrace Christ, and your moral Buddhist neighbour across the street does not? Are you smarter than he is? More spiritually sensitive? Better, in any way? What makes you to differ? Is the Holy Spirit working just as hard on him as He did on you? If so, why do you believe, and he does not? No matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid coming to the conclusion that, in a 'free will' system of salvation, those who believe do so because there is something different about them. If the Spirit is bringing equal conviction to bear upon each individual, the only deciding factor, given equality in everything else, is something in the person himself. I believe the only possible difference between the redeemed in heaven and the guilty, condemned, punished sinner in hell is a five-letter word ... It’s called 'grace.'"

Steven Houck: "This free-willism is a serious error which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures."

DECEMBER EVENTS

2010-11-13T17:22:00.001-08:00

Christmas

by A. W. Pink

"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen...for the CUSTOMS of the people are vain."

Jeremiah 10:1-3

Christmas is coming! Quite so; but what is "Christmas?"

Says someone, 'Christmas is the time when we commemorate the Saviour's birth.' It is? And who authorized such commemoration? Certainly God did not. The Redeemer bade His disciples "remember" Him in His death, but there is not a word in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, which tells us to celebrate His birth. Moreover, who knows when, in what month, He was born? The Bible is silent thereon. Is it without reason that the only "birthday" commemorations mentioned in God's Word are Pharaoh's (Gen. 40:20) and Herod's (Matt. 14:6)? Is this recorded "for our learning?" If so, have we prayerfully taken it to heart?

And who is it that celebrates "Christmas?" The whole "civilized world."Millions who make no profession of faith in the blood of the Lamb, who "despise and reject Him," and millions more who while claiming to be His followers yet in works deny Him, join in merrymaking under the pretense of honoring the birth of the Lord Jesus. Putting it on its lowest ground, we would ask, Is it fitting that His friends should unite with His enemies in a worldly round of fleshly gratification? Does any truly born-again soul really think that He whom the world cast out is either pleased or glorified by such participation in the world's joys? Verily, the customs of the people are vain; and it is written, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Ex. 23:2).

Some will argue for the "keeping of Christmas" on the ground of "giving the kiddies a good time." But why do this under cloak of honoring the Saviour's birth? Why is it necessary to drag in His holy Name in connection with what takes place at that season of carnal jollification? Is this taking the little ones with you out of Egypt (Ex. 10:9,10) a type of the world, or is it not plainly a mingling with the present-day Egyptians in their "pleasures of sin for a season?" (Heb. 11:25). Scripture says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Prov. 22:6). Scripture does command God's people to bring up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4), but where does it stipulate that it is our duty to give the little ones a "good time?" Do we ever give the children "a good time" when we engage in anything upon which we cannot fittingly ask the Lord's blessing

There are those who do abstain from some of the grosser carnalities of the "festive season," yet are they nevertheless in cruel to the prevailing custom of "Christmas" namely that of exchanging "gifts." We say "exchanging" for that is what it really amounts to in many cases. A list is kept, either on paper or in memory, of those from whom gifts were received last year, and that for the purpose of returning the compliment this year. Nor is this all: great care has to be taken that the "gift" made to the friend is worth as much in dollars and cents as the one they expect to receive from him or her. Thus, with many who can ill afford it, a considerable sum has to be set aside each year with which to purchase things simply to send them out in return for others which are likely to be received. Thus a burden has been bound on them which not a few find hard to bear

But what are we to do? If we fail to send out "gifts" our friends will think hard of us, probably deem us stingy and miserly. The honest course is to go to the trouble of notifying them — by letter if at a distance — that from now on you do not propose to send out any more "Christmas gifts" as such. Give your reasons. State plainly that you have been brought to see that "Christmas merry-making" is entirely a thing of the world, devoid of any Scripture warrant...and that now you see this, you dare no longer have any fellowship with it (Eph. 5:11); that you are the Lord's "free man" (I Cor. 7:22), and therefore yourefuse to be in to a costly custom imposed by the world.

What about sending out "Christmas cards" with a text of Scripture on them? That also is an abomination in the sight of God. Why? Because His Word expressly forbids all unholy mixtures; Deut. 22:10, 11 typified this. ...By all means send cards, preferably at some other time of the year, to your ungodly friends, and [at] Christmas too, with a verse of Scripture, but not with "Christmas" on it. What would you think of a printed program of a vaudeville having Isa. 53:5 at the foot of it? Why, that it was altogether out of place, highly incongruous. But in the sight of God the circus and the theatre are far less obnoxious than the "Christmas celebration" of Romish and Protestant "churches." Why? Because the latter are done under the cover of the Holy name of Christ; the former are not.

"But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." (Prov. 4:18) Where there is a heart that really desires to please the Lord, He graciously grants increasing knowledge of His will. If He is pleased to use these lines in opening the eyes of some of His dear people to recognize what is growing evil, and to show them that they have been dishonoring Christ by linking the name of the Man of Sorrows (and such He was, when on earth) with a "Merry Christmas," then join with the writer in a repentant confessing of this sin to God, seeking His grace for complete deliverance from it, and praise Him for the light which He has granted you concerning it.

Beloved fellow-Christian, "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh." (Jas. 5:8) Do we really believe this? Believe ...because God says so — "for we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor. 5:7) If so, what effects does such believing have on our walk? This may be your last Christmas on earth. During it the Lord may descend from heaven with a shout to gather His own to Himself. Would you like to be summoned from a "Christmas party" to meet Him in the air? The call for the moment is, "Go ye out to meet Him" (Matt. 25:6) out from a Godless Christendom, out from the Christ —deserted "churches," out from the horrible burlesque of "religion" which now masquerades under His name.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10) How solemn and searching! The Lord Jesus declared that "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36) If every "idle word" is going to be taken note of, then most assuredly will be every wasted energy, every wasted dollar, every wasted hour! Should we still be on earth when the closing days of this year arrive, let writer and reader earnestly seek grace to live and act with the judgment-seat of Christ before us. His "well done" will be ample compensation for the sneers and taunts which we may now receive from countless souls.

Does any Christian reader imagine for a moment that when he or she shall stand before their holy Lord, that they will regret having lived "too strictly" on earth? Is there the slightest danger of His reproving any of His own because they were "too extreme" in "abstaining from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11)? We may gain the good will and good word of worldly religionists today by our compromisings on "little (?) points," but shall we receive His smile of approval on that Day? Oh to be more concerned about what He thinks, and less concerned about what perishing mortals think.

"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." (Ex. 23:2) Ah, it is an easy thing to float with the tide of popular opinion; but it takes much grace, diligently sought from God, to swim against it. Yet that is what the heir of heaven is called on to do: to "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2), to deny self, take up the cross, and follow a rejected Christ. How sorely does both writer and reader need to heed that word of the Saviour, "Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thou crown." (Rev. 3:11) Oh that each of us may be able to truthfully say, "I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep Thy Word." (Psa.. 119:10

Our final word is to the pastors. To you the Word of the Lord is, "Be thou an example of believers in word, in deportment, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Tim. 4:12) Is it not true that the most corrupt "churches" you know of, where almost every fundamental of the faith is denied, will have their"Christmas celebrations?" Will you imitate them? Are you consistent to protest against unscriptural methods of "raising money," and then to sanction unscriptural "Christmas services?" Seek grace to firmly but lovingly set God's Truth on this subject before your people, and announce that you can have no part in following Pagan, Romish, and Worldly customs.

SHORT OVERVIEW

2010-11-10T23:25:00.000-08:00

Calvinism is split up into five points with each point expanding on the previous points. Calvinism is the view of Salvation held in Reformed Theology.

Total Depravity: At the fall, man fell completely. Every aspect of man is corrupted by sin; his mind (Genesis 6:5), emotions (Jeremiah 17:9) and will (Ephesians 2:3), the non-Christian is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Man’s will is in bondage to his sinful nature which cannot understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), please God (Romans 8:7-8) or choose God (Romans 3:10-12).

Because no one can choose God, the only way someone can believe is if God draws them (John 6:44). People are born again by the will of God (John 1:12-13), belief is the work of God (John 6:28-29) and no one can come to God (John 6:65). God chose man; man did not choose God (John 15:16).

Unconditional Election: God predestined whom he would save before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is called election. God’s choice is based solely on His sovereign will (Romans 9:15-16), not on any faith or virtuous quality (Romans 9:11) foreseen in man. Those God sovereignty elected (2 Thessalonians 2:13), He brings through the power of the Holy Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ (Titus 3:5). If you have questions like ‘isn’t it unjust to only choose some people’, I suggest reading Romans 9, additionally Paul Washer deals with the issue here.

Limited Atonement: Christ died for only the elect (John 10:11, 15) - those chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ’s blood is sufficient to save everyone, in that if he wanted to save anyone else he wouldn’t need to die again, but Jesus only died for the elect so his death is only effective for the elect (Acts 20:28, Ephesians 5:25-27). Jesus death is a propitiation (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 4:10) which means ‘a sacrifice that turns God’s wrath into favour’. If Christ died for everyone, His wrath would be satisfied against everyone, so everyone would be saved, contracting John 3:36.

Irresistible Grace: To the elect, God sends an internal call (2 Corinthians 1:21-22) to believe which cannot be resisted (John 6:37, Romans 9:19-21, Ephesians 2:4-5) because God is omnipotent (Acts 13:48, 1 Corinthians 1: 23-25). This call is by the Holy Spirit who regenerates the elect bringing them to repentance whereby they come to God (Ezekiel 36:26, Titus 3:5, Romans 9:16).

Perseverance of the Saints: You cannot lose your salvation (Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 6:11). Because salvation is entirely the work of God (Ephesians 2:8-9), those saved are eternally secure in Christ (John 6:37, Revelation 3:5). By the power of God you will preserve in faith from being sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) to the end (John 10: 27-28. 1 Corinthians 1: 8-9, Philippians 1:6).

Conclusion: In my opinion the following point should convince all Christians of Calvinism. Are not the words choose and believe verbs (actions)? So if one believes that they choose God, they actually believe salvation by human works. John 6:28-29 states faith is a work, and Philippians 1:6 refers to both faith and perseverance as works. If man plays any part in salvation, we have a works gospel.

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not you own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

(C), J. Williams, 2008.

This document may not be sold without the written consent of the author. If the document is quoted remember to say so.

Atonement

2010-03-28T13:53:00.000-07:00

Take from http://nwbingham.com/2009/11/11-arguments-for-limited-atonement/

11 Arguments for Limited Atonement
Dr. Robert Shaw offers 11 arguments for limited atonement as he comments on WCF 8:8:

The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the dignity of his person; it must, therefore, have been intrinsically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human race had it been so intended; but, in the designation of the Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation. This important truth may be confirmed by the following arguments:

1. Restrictive terms are frequently employed in Scripture to express the objects of the death of Christ: “He bare the sin of many.” “He gave his life a ransom for many.” (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 20:28). Does not this intimate that Christ died, not for all men, but only for many?

2. Those for whom Christ died are distinguished from others by discriminating characters. They are called the sheep, John x 15; the church (Eph. 5:25); God’s elect (Rom. 8:33); the children of God (John 11:52).

3. Those whom Christ redeemed by his blood are said to be “redeemed from among men” (Rev. 14:4), which, if Christ had redeemed all men, would be an unmeaning and inconsistent phrase; they are also said to be “redeemed out of every kindred,” &c. (Rev. 5:9), which certainly implies that only some of every kindred are redeemed.

4. The redemption obtained by Christ is restricted to those who were “chosen in him,” and whom the Father gave to him to redeem by his death (Eph. 1:4, 7; John 17:2).

5. Christ died in the character of a surety, and therefore he laid down his life only for those whom he represented, or for his spiritual seed (Isa. 53:10).

6. The intention of Christ in laying down his life was, not merely to obtain for those for whom he died a possibility of salvation, but actually to save them—to bring them to the real possession and enjoyment of eternal salvation (Eph. 5:25, 26; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Thess. 5:10). From this, it inevitably follows, that Christ died only for those who shall be saved in him with an everlasting salvation.

7. The intercession of Christ proceeds upon the ground of his atoning sacrifice; they must, therefore, be of the same extent with regard to their objects; but he does not pray for the world, but only for those who were given him out of the world; his sacrifice must, therefore, be restricted to that definite number (1 John 2:1, 2; John 17:9).

8. An apostle infers from the greatness of God’s love in delivering up his Son to death for sinners, that he will not withhold from them any of the blessings of salvation; we must, therefore, conclude that Christ did not die for all mankind (Rom. 8:32).

9. The same apostle infers the certainty of our salvation by the life of Christ, from our reconciliation to God by his death; now, since all are not saved by his life, we must conclude that all were not reconciled by his death (Rom. 5:10).

10. Christ, by his death, procured for his people not only salvation, but all the means leading to the enjoyment of it; consequently, his intention in dying must be limited to those who do repent and believe, and not extended to the whole human race.

11. The doctrine that Christ died for all men leads to many absurd consequences, such as: That Christ shed his blood for many in vain, since all are not saved; that he laid down his life in absolute uncertainty whether any of the human race would be eventually saved; that he shed his blood for millions who, at the very moment of his death, were consigned to the pit of everlasting destruction; that he died for those for whom he does not intercede; that he died for those to whom he never sent the means of salvation, yea, to some of whom he even forbade his gospel to be preached (Matt. 10:5; Rom. 10:14); and that God acts unjustly in inflicting everlasting punishment upon men for those very transgressions for which he has already received full satisfaction by the death of Christ. To affirm any of these things, would be blasphemous in the highest degree, and, therefore, that doctrine which involves such consequences must be unscriptural.

Taken from The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (pp. 158-59)

2010-03-16T08:33:00.000-07:00

Evidence#1

This is all mankind before the grace of regeneration, despite whatever external shells of morality, religion, piety, and restraint. This is the nature of the "old man". This is the "choice" of idolaters of self and pleasure. This will not be fixed by a quick Billy Graham crusade, nor 2 hour youth concert with lights..., powerpoint, and comedy. This will not be fixed by a church ski trip. This will not be fixed by a 28 minute sermon and 7 verses of "Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling."

By Sara Sidner, CNN
March 16, 2010 10:25 a.m. EDT

Port-au-Prince, Haiti (CNN) -- Carine Exantus should be sitting in her college communications class. Instead, the 22-year-old is teaching herself how to avoid being attacked by the men who live in her new neighborhood -- a maze of makeshift shelters spaced so close together that it is hard to get between them but easy to get inside.

"I, like everybody else, live in a very precarious situation," said Exantus, who was forced to make her own shelter when her home was crushed in Haiti's January 12 earthquake.

"As a young woman," Exantus said, "I am afraid because I notice a lot of young men being aggressive toward women at night."

In her camp, there has already been trouble. The camp leaders told CNN that two cases of attempted rape have been reported in the past few days and one suspect has been arrested.

"When the guys don't have no money, their brain is not good," said camp leader Jean Joseph Rudler. "When they have no work or food and just sit around, it is bad. When a guy is drunk, he will do anything [to a woman]."

Women can be easily preyed upon when their four walls consist only of bed sheets or thin tents. But camp conditions, a government official said, isn't the underlying problem in Haiti when it comes to violence against women.

"I'm gonna be blunt," said Aby Brun, a member of Haiti's Commission for Reconstruction. "Promiscuity resulting in absolutely condemnable violence and abuse against women is something that has been going on in the slum areas and other levels of society for years. It's a cultural problem."

Exantus says she is often jarred awake by what she hears through the thin shelter wall. "There are some men who beat their girlfriends at night," she said.

During the day, women from the camp bathe topless in an outdoor fountain, their naked children trying to make a game of bath time by skidding around on the wet tiles in the blinding sun. Men sit nearby -- watching and sometimes make lewd comments.

Before the earthquake, Haiti was in the midst of implementing what the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) called an impressive five-year plan to curb violence against women and change the culture.

"It was a very ambitious achievement for Haiti to create a five-year plan," which began in 2006 and was to be complete by 2011, said Lina Abirafeh, the UNFPA gender-based violence coordinator in Haiti. "It looks at response to cases, data collection, monitoring and prevention. It really is a very robust plan."

Abirafeh says the quake destroyed many of the services for women, such as rape counseling centers and Haiti's Ministry for Women's Affairs. It also took the lives of three of Haiti's most revered female leaders.

Steps are being taken to safeguard women in the camps now. Solar flashlights are being handed out, proximity to bathrooms and lighting are being worked on, and security patrols increased.

Authorities point out that rape is by no means an epidemic in the camps. Citywide, police say, they have received 20 reports of rape and made 10 arrests. But it is common knowledge among experts that most of these types of incidents go unreported.

"Figures for sexual violence are underreported everywhere in the world. Every country has an issue with this, and the figures are only the tip of the iceberg. They tell us very little," said Abirafeh. "As far as I'm concerned, even one rape is one too many."

Whatever the numbers, young women like Carine Exantus say it's hard to sleep well at night.

"We have to be afraid," she said, "because we don't know when somebody may have bad intentions."

2010-03-06T03:44:00.000-08:00

BELIEFS

2010-03-05T14:22:00.001-08:00

LEVEL ONE: NON-NEGOTIABLE

Christian

Credobaptist

Calvinist in Soteriology, Supralapsrian, Double-Predestination.

thus: Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election

Particular Redemption, Definite Atonement

Effectual Grace to Regenerate

Preservation of the Saints

Five Solas: Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, God's Glory Alone

Women are not to be Elders, nor Deacons,yet a Woman's Servant-Ministry Group is presented in Scripture.

Elder, Deacon Ecclesiology.

A True Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly, a converted Gentile is no-longer a gentile, but a true son of Abraham.

The True Arminian follows a "different" Jesus and teaches a "different" Gospel.

Christ is Head of the Church, Head of the Husband, Husband is Priest and Head of the Family; Mutual Submission.

Freemasons & Order of the Eastern Star (and related brances) should not be members in a local Church until recanting Lodge Membership.

"Tongues" is hearing a human language, not a mysterious new divine gibberish.

Scripture never teaches having Santa-Claus on church property or at any Church event.

Scripture never teaches having Christmas Trees on Church property or at any Church event.

The Regulative Principle is good and should be examined and applied more often.

Gambling is a sin, and should not be viewed as a game or form of entertainment.

The Education Lottery is Scam, Sham, and Shame upon Mankind.

Strongly Prefer Weekly Communion, but at least Monthly.

Pro-Life, Anti Infant Genocide.

Lord's Day is not observed like the OT Sabbath, but more resembles Acts 2:42-47 as each day should.

LEVEL TWO: FIRM, BUT NOT FORCED UPON

Presuppositional Apologetics

Christian Home-Schooling is the best option, true Christian schooling is the 2nd best option,

Scripture does not indicate sending kids to Egypt, Babylon, or Rome for nurture.

We are not under a New Testament Tithe; rather, we submit all that we are stewards over to the Kingdom of God.

Tentative Amillenial in Eschatology.

Head-Coverings are to be "Cloth" and not merely "hair" and should be observed in Corporate Worship.

Alcohol is not Forbidden, but Drunkenness is.

Remarriage is Adultery unless the spouse has deceased.

Adultery is not permission to Divorce.

Offerings should be in Remembrance of Jesus Christ, not Annie Armstrong nor Lottie Moon.

The Best Bible is the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, not the King James of 1611.

The Gospel is a command to all mankind to "repent from sin and self-reliance and believe in Jesus Christ", it is not "an offer".

The most Scriptural and ideal setting is for the mother to stay at home with the children, if circumstances really deter then at least one parent should be home with the children.

Prayer and having the Ten Commandments in School is only deistic hypocrisy, not help.

God does give a "oiktirmon" mercy in Luke 6 to the reprobate, yet which only hardens them.

For Capital Punishment.

Zoho Papers

2010-03-05T07:31:00.000-08:00

The Zoho Site (with all files, or listed below with newest papers listed first)

Questions to the Reformed
Total Depravity

Recommended Books

2010-03-03T07:31:00.001-08:00

Supralapsarian versus Hyper-Cal

2010-02-26T19:07:00.000-08:00

The term "hyper-calvinist" is often defined differently by every individual. It would be helpful for me to define what I consider the proper use of the title "hyper-calvinist" and state that I am not one.

In short a hyper-calvinist would reject any and all forms of proclaiming the Bible, Jesus, grace, salvation, repentance, and faith to the lost; I've meet some (sadly) that even say the elect would not even need to know the name of Jesus or anything of the Bible in order to go to heaven; other stripes in essence reject most forms of sanctification, maturity, obedience, (this is more known as antinominianism (no law); under those banners of hyper-calvinist, I am not one in any shape.

However, in distinction a supralapsarian would say we do tell all mankind about Jesus, heaven, grace, salvation, repentance, faith, the Bible; and Christians do (and will) exhibit and grow in sanctification, maturity, and obedience.... See More
Yet, the reason a supralapsarian gets "lumped-in" (unfairly and inaccurately) with a hyper-calvinist, is that we see God hating Easu before he was born, and completely free to do so. Thus God determined to destroy Easu even BEFORE he fell as a person, and even before a Fall existed in the first Adam.

Here is a short illustration. Before I go to the lumber yard, you ask why am I going, I say to buy two pieces of wood, you ask why, I say, well I am going to burn one for heat, and carve the other into a nicely Engraved sign of "love" to put on my door mantle. You say, but you have not even bought them yet; I say true, but my purpose to please myself in these two fashions has already been determined before I even have them present here. So before God even made Adam (or Jacob and Easu), (and made them present in his shop/reality) he purposed to please himself first, it pleased him to spare one and pleased him to destroy another, though technically neither person had yet disobeyed God nor even present. (not yet created Adam, nor Jacob, nor Easu).

Many are angered at this portrayal of God, and say, "This is unloving and unfair." Well, there is a long defense of Scripture for it, which I could express later on; First, God loves Himself and can "do what He wants." Second, no one in orthodox Christianity preaches, "hey Jesus never died for demons and lucifer, so God is unfair!!!," nor "hey, Adam is made in the image of God, but dogs are not, how unfair of God to make dogs differently." We simply say, God didn't make them that way, and He does not have to do so, and He is not unfair for doing so. A lot of other insights can be shared for those who disagree.

Sometimes other questions come up like, "Well, why witness if God has already determined to destroy Easus before they are ever born"..."Well why witness if God knows all things before they happen if the Easus will always reject him." Responses: Well, God knows, but we don't. So likewise the supralpsarian does not know who the Esau's are either, so we tell all men that Jesus saves the sheep, and He deserves their faith; but Second, if God knows that all the Easu's will say no, then there is likewise no point in Him sending anyone to them; If I know for SURE as God's perfect knowledge knows, that Congress will never give me the burial remains of Abraham Lincoln, would I not be insane to send Gunda out to Congress asking on my behalf, "hi I am Gunda, todd has sent me asking you Congressman if He can have the burial remains of Lincoln." God's perfect infalliable knowledge would know it "isn't going to happen." so why send anyone to Easu.

Thus God will use evangelism to find the sheep and Jacob, and also intends the same evangelism not to "attempt finding Easu's" but in fact to heap hardness and judgment on Easu. God was not expecting 800 people to jump on Noah's Ark on the last day, and Hebrews tells us that by the Ark Noah condemned the world.

I think I upset Shawn and David Barbour over the matter, but there many other issues to explain; John Newton, Augustus Toplady, Issac Watts, Martin Luther (who each wrote key hymns in our hymnal were all calvinists, and also Spurgeon, and also James Kennedy who wrote our Evangelism Explosion material we used at Oak Grove). I did not hold to these views while in Seminary, but God brought me to them about 2 years after.....around 2002;

I had a chance to do 2 days of intense witnessing in Boston, MA about 4 years ago, and me and my buddy handed out 75 tracts of "Romans 3" to people....because we do not know who the sheep are (john 10), we know if they are his sheep, God will draw and convert them, if they are not his sheep God will leave them in their rebellion, in the same manner he has left demons without a Redeemer.

I'd be happy to explain or answer any other concerns, and hope to show in kindness and Scripture why I hold these things;

NO CONFLICT

2010-02-23T00:00:00.000-08:00

Illustrations for Arminians.

10 people run for the office of USA President, the nation only votes one in.

The choice of 9 runners did not make a differnce, there are numerous places they are not allowed to go, even though they are not guilty of anything, those locations are simply not theirs, and they have no rights to them.

Obviously mankind are all Timothy McVeighs, and we do not suspect anyone to vote-in those 10 criminal candidates, but point being, the 9 did NOT HAVE A CHOICE in being denied access, even when not guilty.

So the Bible teaches, all 10, do NOT HAVE A CHOICE in their being denied access, and how much more denial, when knowing their guilt. The choice was "the voters" or "God's" alone, not those who run; (nice play on the verse, not according to him that runneth, ha ha ha)

2nd illus,

Society votes for a man to be president, and thus does not vote for millions of people, so again it is not based on him who runneth; but now, it is a bonafide fact that millions of people have ABSOLUTELY ZERO interest in running for presidential office. They know nothing of politics, care nothing about politics, have no ideas, no aspirations in the slightest, they do not want to be voted in;

Point here, Adam's fall was akin to "not wanting to run", "not wanting to trust", being upright does not mean "not able to sin", at that rate there was no point in telling him what not to eat, since he would not be able to eat anyhow, this would be like saying, "Adam don't jump to Saturn", when he can't. So upright also has physical and mental limitations. So when people attempt to say, "God predestined Adam's fall, it couldn't have been any other way." That is immaterial, If Adam predetermined his own fall, then it couldn't be any other way either, so how does that fix anything?

They say, well, he was at least choosing not to obey instead of it being forced upon him; not true, you just said it could be any other way; they reply, well, it couldn't be any other way because Adam wanted it that way; No, to determine beforehand, means to determine BEFORE IT HAPPENS, not AS IT IS HAPPENING. So when the scenario arrived Adam had no choice at the moment, since BEFORE HAND HE FORCED HIMSELF to not have a choice when it arrived. If someone jumps off a plane, they have no choice not to hit the earth, that is a separate matter from even jumping off the plane;

But my whole goal was this...upright Adam did not want to trust God, "run for office", obviously God did not choose to stop him and "put him in office against his will" and Adam is glad he didn't; just like there are plenty of citizens who are glad society did not put them in office, they were NOT running, and had no interest of anyone choosing them.

So.....It is not a conflict to say, "God predetermined and Adam freely desired not to trust."

"Soceity predetermines not to vote for 9 candidates, but there are millions who are glad society never votes them in office anyhow." The predetermination did not counter my will.

"North Korea has predetermined not to make me the next successor, and in fact that is OUT OF MY CONTROL, even so, I have no desire to be the next successor, and would upset if they attempted to impose that on me."

BE OF GOOD CHEER, KNOWING THE GOD OF JACOB-ISRAEL

2010-02-20T12:43:00.001-08:00

The past 3-4 days a fire has been in my bones in 2-3 different facets, could type 30 pages about it, but here is one facet.

If the God of

...Abraham, and of
...Isaac, and of
...Jacob, and of
...Joseph, and of
...Moses, and of
...the slaves in exodus, and of
...the infants of the jews, and of
...those at the bottom of Mount Siani,
...those sent to spy the land
...those stuck in the wilderness for 40 years, but with manna, the pillar, the ark, the tabernacle, the rod of Aaron,
...those like Joshua and Caleb who entered,
...those like Joshua who conquered, and like Rahab spared.
...those blessed by the numerous Judges
...those heard like Hannah, and those called like Samuel
...those mercied like David, and Solomon
...those sent like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
...forerunners like John the Baptist, unworthy to loose his sandals
...an unamed person like the leper, prostitute, man born blind, theif on the cross
...sinful men like Peter
...those graced like doubting Thomas
...those forgiven like at Pentecost
...murderers like Saul-Paul
...gentiles, whom the believing Jews were astonished that God hath granted them eternal life; Acts 10:45
...countless episodes, events, issues per each individual above and more individuals not named.

AND, realizing Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow
AND realizing Hebrews 13:6 that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

THEN, realizing all these things, what a radical difference it will make in our life,in our:
...obedience,
...prayers,
...study of the Word
...proclamation of the Word and Jesus
...zeal
...denial of self, sacrifice
...labor
...redemption of time;
...stewardship of money, possessions, time, and self.
...joy
...peace
...thankfulness
...hope;

This is mainly for myself, and consideration of my own past and present providences; yet I subsequently pass it along;

We need not worry about our current trials, difficulties, stresses, extremities, circumstances, unknowns.

He sent ravens to Elijah, a nice provision,
He sent Jesus to sinners without strength, a gracious, redeeming, atoning provision,
He sent the Holy Spirit to all his Sheep, a uniting, sealing, indwelling, eternal provision
He sent the Scriptures from Greek to Latin, to Luther's German language for those in bondage to the Pope, to modern English, a provision that will not return to him void, but accomplish it's purpose.

Be of good cheer indeed, He has overcome the world, and greater is He that is in us, than He that is in the world.
Be of good cheer, He is preparing a place for us, He will bring us back unto Himself,
Be of good cheer, all the numerous aspects of Revelation 21 and 22 are true and sure
Be of good cheer, Rev. 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

and so like Piper is trying to say to me: "Todd, Don't Waste your life."

2010-02-17T03:20:00.000-08:00

Read Google.Doc version
Among this Collection.

Matthew 23 Jerusalem

2010-02-13T22:50:00.000-08:00

I. Matthew 23:37, 20 evidences of Total Inability are shown.
Evidences of a wicked heart, wicked mind, wicked nature, man's natural choice and response:

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered YOUR CHILDREN together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! >>Arminians reword "your Children" to "you".

1. Mat 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
2. Mat 23:5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
3. Mat 23:6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
4. Mat 23:7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. (both errors of v.12 exalting self)
5. Mat 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces.
6. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
7. v.15 you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
8. Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides
9. Mat 23:19 You blind men!
10. Mat 23:24 You blind guides
11. but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
12. Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee!
13. within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
14. Mat 23:28 but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

15. v.30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' v. 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

16. v.33 how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
17. Mat 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,

18. the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
19. v.37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!

20. v.37 ....and you would not!

This is 20 things in one chapter, how much more exists in all of Matthew itself of man's rebellion, and this by the elite minds of Hebrew and OT, the Tiger Woods of OT, the Bill Gates, the Michael Jordan of the OT. To yet not recognize, love, trust, or understand Jesus, but Kill Him? and to think that Todd a gentile like evil Gentile Goliath, or evil Gentile Pharaoh is going to make a better response to the Holy Spirit than they? (???)

II. Matthew 23:37.
A. Jesus states a moral prescription, Jerusalem fails the moral prescription. Romans 9-11 makes it clear God purposed the jews to be blinded and stumble so the gentiles could be engrafted, even as Isaiah 6:9-11 state. Jesus makes it clear that the Father "has hidden" these things from the wise and prudent.. The Father could have said, "I would take every sinless person to heaven, but you would not be sinless." Jesus says, "I would have taken your children in like a hen, but you would not." We both have moral prescriptions, but you will not keep them. I would buy the meal for Abraham Lincoln if he comes and sees me today, but he is not coming.

If the Father gives John the Baptist the Holy Spirit in the womb, the Father can give all of Jerusalem the same thing in the womb, it wasn't John's choice, John could have been another son of Korah bor 2000 years earlier instead, and God could have used Balaam's donkey or a donkey of Jesus' generation to speak and be the forerunner of the Lord. God could have given all of Jerusalem a burning bush to be the forerunner of the Lord.

It is telling that Jesus speaks to Jerusalem, why not travel to Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria and tell them that, is Jesus being selective? So much for universal equality; This verse simply denotes what God said in Deut 7-8-9, you jews are no better than other pagans, you are just as bad. The Jews murmured 10x (Numb 14:22) ironically just like Pagan pharaoh rejected Moses 10x. 14:23 says they will die in the wilderness, just like Pharaoh died too.

John 15:16 you did not choose me, but I choose you; Peter, unlearned fisherman, said "Depart from me! For i am sinful man. " He did not say I will follow, trust, and love you. All Jesus had to do with choose all of Jerusalem just like he choose Peter who said depart. An entire city told Jesus to "Leave" Matthew 8:34, yet Peter alone is chosen and the city shunned. Jesus prayed for Peter despite Satan wanting to sift him like wheat. John 17:9 Jesus does not pray for the world; If He would have prayed for the world, like He prayed for Peter, His prayer would have been answered.

Joh 6:44 and 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." All the Father has to do is grant everyone to come to Jesus.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. All the Father has to do is reveal it unto all Jerusalem.

All Jesus has to do is give a blinding light to all of Jerusalem just like he did Saul of Tarsus, or give all of doubting Jerusalem a nail scared hand like he did for Doubting Thomas.

Luk 24:11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. If Jesus is going to be merciful and later Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures; Jesus can then go to all of Jerusalem who likewise thought it was an idle tale and disbelieve and likewise "open their minds to understand" the Scriptures via one on one lesson.

Romans 5 v10 part 1

2010-02-12T19:58:00.000-08:00

Some suppose that Romans 5:10 teaches that all of mankind, including the goats, tares, and non-elect are reconciled to God, but this is not an accurate understanding of the verse, and we will explain here, why it is an inaccurate understanding of the verse.

Here is the verse: (Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. )

#1. The pronouns in this verse are not referring to “goats, tares, the non-elect, or each individual in the world.” Here is the proof.

A. The book is not written to the: “goats, tares, the non-elect, or each individual in the world.”

A2. The book is written to the saints. Romans 1:7-8 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [8] First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

Romans 1:7,8 begins using plural nouns such as: all those, you. It is wrong then to immediately think that this plural “you” is referring to Pharaoh, Goliath, Korah, Judas. These men are not saints, their faith is not being spoken of in “all the world.”

Consider another use of “we” in Romans prior to Romans 5:10, found in Romans 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
This “we” cannot be referring to Pharaoh, Goliath, and millions of individuals because Abraham is not their forefather, but Paul says “WE gained by Abraham, OUR forefather.”

B. The numerous pronouns (I have counted 17x) found in the immediate context of Romans 5, are all referring to “the saints” of Romans 1:7-8, not “each individual on the planet.”

Despite using the term “we”, all pagans do (are) not:

1. ) v.1 have peace with God; Every individual on the planet does not presently “have peace with God”, because it is a present tense reality, based on a past tense reality of “already been justified”, thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

2. ) v.1 acknowledge Jesus as "our Lord" relationally, nor by position. (Phil 2:11). The present tense verb "have peace" is stipulated by the past tense verb "having been justified". If one is not already justified he will not have peace with God.

3. ) v.1 "already been justified." Every individual on the planet is not “already justified” , thus they do not have peace with God, thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

4. ) v.2 stand in God's grace; Every individual does not stand in God’s grace, thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet. but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

5. ) v.2 rejoice in hope of God’s glory; Every individual does not rejoice in hope of God’s glory thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet. (Rom 1:23); Yet it is being done now by saints;

6. ) v.3 glory in tribulations; Pagans do not hate fellow pagans, like the Church. (John 15:18-16:4). Unbelieving Jews murmured, not gloried, in the wilderness, unbelieving gentiles do the same.

7. ) v.5 grow in patience, experience, hope, being unashamed of Jesus; nor given the Holy Spirit. (Else Acts 15:8 is non-sense. “them” is not all mankind, otherwise all mankind is Holy Spirit sealed = universalism). Every individual does not grow in patience, experience, hope, being unashamed of Jesus; nor given the Holy Spirit. thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

8.) v.9 "now justified" by his blood. (Like v. 1); Readers cannot insert (v.1, v.9) ""if one ever does have faith in Jesus then they…". Paul wrote to specific people/saints about what they presently currently really possess (justification, faith, peace) who are already believing, justified, rejoicing (which is not true of pagans). Paul is not engaging in theories/potentials for unbelievers. Every individual is not “now justified” by his blood thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

>>>.) v.10 Every "we" addresses Author-reader specifically/only;

(While writing a personal letter to a college classmate) We: went to Wingate College, were handed a diploma from Wingate, shall leave Wingate Dorms. I am not implying all mankind will: attend, graduate, leave the dorms. (even if they read this letter.) Others are enemies of God too, but Paul is not talking about them, even if Hitler reads the letter.

In case you didn’t attend college with me, here is one if you live in America: We: have been given a new president in 2009. When a resident of North Korea, or Iran, or Russia, reads this blog, they are not going to think their own nation has been given a new president. The "we" is referring not to "all mankind" but to "my readers" the "citizens of America" or "my readers" the saints.

"We were reconciled" (All mankind is not reconciled). Reconciliation is by the death of the Son (2 Cor. 5:18-20 Ephes. 2:16 Col. 1:20 Col. 1:22, Jesus' body, flesh, death, cross, blood is the effectual cause of reconciliation).

“we shall be saved by his life.” (Not true of all mankind). "Shall" is a guarantee for the saints, not all mankind. Every individual will not be saved by his life, but the entire flow of the chapter is to use “we” as one set of people the saints ( Romans 1:7-8) thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet.

One cannot splice this verse to say, “all are reconciled but only some will be saved if…..” Any one who asserts that every individual is reconciled, must also conclude that every individual will be saved, and every individual has the other attributes provided in this chapter. The term “much more” in v.10 increases the assurance of this salvation by the life of Jesus given to all those who were reconciled by His death.

9.) v.11 rejoice in God, nor reference Jesus as "our Lord."; Sarah called Abraham lord as a bride; Christians call Christ “Lord” as a bride. Every individual does not rejoice in God, nor reference Jesus as “our Lord
“ thus “we” cannot be a reference to every individual on the planet, but only the saints of Romans 1:7-8.

10.) v.11 have now received atonement/ reconciliation.

"Us all" in Rom 4:16 cannot refer to John 8:39 Pharisees, (despite a blood lineage from Abraham, they were not sons of Abraham, nor even true Jews. Rom 2:28-29) so it cannot mean every soul ever born; Keeping the context of chapter 1, 4, 5 there is no basis to think that 5:8 is now suddenly referring to all mankind;

If v.8 "we" means "every soul ever born" then the v.9 "we" has to be the same set of people, thus "every soul ever born" will be saved from the wrath through Jesus. (universalism). The promise of what "will/shall" be done, (saved from wrath v.9) is addressed to the same v.8 "we"

Conclusion: Romans 5:10 does not teach that every single individual is reconciled to God

The verse does not broaden (nor counter) the scope of the atonement as presented in Scripture: only to his “people” (Matt. 1:21); his “friends” (John 15:13); his “sheep” (John 10:11, 15); his “body,” the “church” (Eph. 5:23–26; Acts 20:28); the “elect” (Rom. 8:32–34) as the recipients of His atonement;

C. The meaning of the word “reconciled” precludes that each individual is reconciled to God, otherwise the term itself requires a belief in universalism.

The term “reconciled” is from καταλλάσσω, katallassō and is defined by Thayer’s Dictionary as 1) to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value 1a) to reconcile (those who are at variance) 1b) return to favor with, be reconciled to one; 1c) to receive one into favor; and is defned by Strong’s Dictionary as: to change mutually, that is, (figuratively) to compound a difference: - reconcile.;

If God is reconciled to every individual, then by the very term, He is at peace with every individual, and no longer enemies, and this peace is not merely a peace of “we are even-stephen you keep to yourself and I’ll keep to myself”, but rather a unity, bond, communion among friends and family. It will be impossible for God to throw men in hell, He is no longer their enemy, He has nothing against them, He is reconciled to them. Another proof is seen in the gospels.

Matthew 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
One cannot come to Jesus and say, “Well, we are reconciled, but I have not forgiven him yet, so I assume my gift at the altar is acceptable anyway.”

We will not, in this article, examine every text on the matter but close with this one:

Ephes. 2:15-19 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, [16] and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. [17] And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Again, when reconciliation is present, there is no hostility of God to the reconciled. He is at peace with them. All those who are reconciled are also “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Updates Feedback

2010-02-10T18:12:00.000-08:00

This blog will now host:

1. Any updates of content and goals for the website and blogs.

2. A means for visitors to post comments, questions, feedback, and pursue conversations via email or Facebook email.

So feel free to use the comment box of "Feedback" headings to reach me, or leave me an email through your Facebook Account.

I can be found at: www.facebook.com/118min

Acts 14, Romans 10

2010-02-10T03:42:00.000-08:00

Acts 14:2 (ESV), "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

On the Arminian Today Blog we find these comments:

... "these Jews refused to believe. By their own choice they rejected
the gospel. "

And later begins to explain:

....that "without the preaching of the gospel there can be no salvation (Romans 10:14-17) "

I, who affirm the TULIP, see this verse and statement as a clear example of Total Depravity. Man's choice before regeneration is ALWAYS a refusal to believe and a choosing to reject the gospel. (I could digress into a distinction of what the "good news" is, in contrast to the Arminian position, but will not here). In later replies I hope to continue to examine the train of thought presented in the original article at Arminian Today Blog.

But for now, I would like to provide the evidence that Romans 10 actually further demonstrates the Total Inability of the unregenerate. Granted, the writer has not asserted yet that Romans 10 teaches otherwise, but it is helpful to import the full message of Romans 10 into this discussion without merely citing 3 verses for one selective precept that is being used from the chapter.

#1. Romans 10:18-21 goes on to describe that the ethnic jews
a.] had heard. (v.18) and
b.] had understood. (v.19) and yet were
c.] disobedient and
d.] contrary (to God and God's command)
e.] and this disobedience and contrariness occurred "all day long" v.21
Isaiah 65 is riddled with evidence of the jew's sternly and repeatedly rejecting God,
f.] Despite v.2 having a zeal for God,
g.] v.2 but not according to knowledge.
h.] and v.3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God,
i.] and v.3 seeking to establish their own,
j.] and v.3 they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So Romans 10:14-17 provides no hope that ethnic jews of themselves will ever stop: "refusing to believe, rejecting the gospel" nor provides any hope that ethnic jews of themselves will ever start "deciding to believe, accept the gospel." Paul and God clearly communicates a disapproval to the jews, yet does not indicate any praise to the gentiles, because they did not even seek God, nor ask for God,

Furthermore, v.20
j. Isaiah is so BOLD to say,
k. "I have been found........ by those who did not seek me;
l. I have shown myself........ those who did not ask for me."

What is the explanation for this difference? Was the difference made by the gentiles? The gentiles who were not seeking, nor asking, who did not receive a long list of benefits in the book of Moses, the writings in Genesis about God's covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, getting preferential treatment in relation to the Pharaoh, though they lied to him twice, the writings of Exodus how they were spared the hardship of the plagues, delivered from slavery and death, given access to God at Mount Sinai and the covenant He provided, the manna in the wilderness, the promise of land in a few weeks , and 10 more mercies in the wilderness, a history of Joshua conquering the land by God's promise, and a history of David reigning;----and thus the Jews still end up in Isaiah 65 with adamant rebellion and idolatry;

Yet the Gentiles who have no history of this, no heritage of this, no exposure to this, no such blessing, are not seeking YHWH, nor asking for YHWH....just simply "make a better choice" than the jews? It would be the height of pride and arrogance to suggest that individual gentiles made the difference by making a "better choice" than individual jews, when the context does not limit the matter to merely "belief" but "obedience" in general. Neither Romans nor Isaiah allow a notion to credit the Gentiles for making the difference in their salvation.

In brief, Romans 11 says: (Isaiah 29:9-14; and Isaiah 6:9-12)

a. Rom 11:8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor,
b. eyes that would not see and
c. ears that would not hear, down to this very day."
d. Rom 11:9 And David says, "Let their table become a snare and
e. a trap,
f. a stumbling block and
g. a retribution for them;
h. Rom 11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
i. and bend their backs forever."

How is God "trying to save" them now, when he is making them drunk, blind, deaf, ensnared? Is this a tactic of evangelism that we should employ today?

#2. So far, neither of us have, in citing Acts 14:2, dealt with the larger context of :

Acts 13:45-52 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. 50 But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

nor:

Acts 14:11-19 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." 18 Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.

nor:

Acts 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.

WHAT BASIS

2010-02-08T01:53:00.000-08:00

Science cannot prove that:

1. Truth is better than Lie.
2. Peace is better than War.
3. Life is better than Death.
4. Equality is better than Inequality.
5. Justice is better than Injustice.
6. Intended Results is better than failure to accomplish intended results.
7. Knowledge and Understanding is better than Ignorance.
8. Humans are better than any other organic or inorganic item.
9. Freedom is better than Oppression.
10. Evidence is better than Brute Force.
11. Relevance is better than Irrelevance.
12. Accuracy is better than Inaccuracy.
13. Morality is better than Immorality or Amorality.
14. Social Contract is better than Anarchy.
15. Progress is better than no progress.

Links to Keep

2010-02-05T00:14:00.000-08:00

Boettner Reformed Faith

http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/timeline.htm

FIVE POINT INTRO

2010-02-04T17:33:00.000-08:00

TAKEN ENTIRELY FROM THIS BLOG: http://refocusingoureyes.com/doctrines-grace

I. Total Depravity/Total Inability teaches that man’s nature is so depraved that he cannot even believe on Christ unless God draws him. The Scriptures indicate that man in his sins is, among other things, dead (Ephesians 2:1-5), blind (Ephesians 4:18); powerless (Rom. 5:6); stoney-hearted (Ezek. 36:26); an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7); all of which imply a complete inability (John 6:44) to do anything to remedy his condition.

Key Scripture passages:

Jer. 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

1 Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are spiritually discerned.

Rom 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God...

Eph 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins..

Other references: Gen 2:17; Job 14:4; John 3:19; John 6:53; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom 5:12; 2 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor 1:9; Eph. 2:12

II. Unconditional Election teaches that those who will be saved are chosen before the foundation of the world, based not on whether one chooses to believe but on God’s eternal decree. The Scriptures teach that God chose His elect completely apart from any merit of our own, even that of believing, which in itself can become a work and a point of boasting. In a key passage on this subject of unconditional election, Romans chapter 9, the Apostle Paul, knowing that this doctrine would be offensive to his readers, does not soften its meaning, but asserts God’s right to do as he pleases: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Romans 9:20-21)

Key Scripture passages:

Psalm 65:4: Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Of Your holy temple.

John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.

John 13:18: I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.

John 15:16: Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit.

Acts 13:48: And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Acts 16:14: And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 18:27: And when he [Paul] wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed.

Rom 8:29-30: For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren; and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Rom 9:11-12: The children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Eph 1:4-5: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love; having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.”

2 Thess 2:13: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Rom 9:15-18: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy…. 18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom. 11:7-10: What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

Jude 1:4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Other references: Exodus 8:23; Ex. 33:19; Deut. 7:6-8. Deut 10:15. 1 Kings 19:18 Ps. 147:20.. Prov. 16:4; Prov. 21:1; Amos 3:2. John 6:37: John 6:65: John 15:16: John 17:9: Romans 9:12-24; 1 Cor. 1:27-29; Eph. 1:4-14; 1 Thess. 5:9.

III. PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. DEFINITE ATONEMENT (Limited Atonement) teaches that Christ died on the Cross specifically for the elect, and thus all for whom He died will be saved. While this point among the five may raise the greatest objection because of verses that appear to teach a universal atonement, the Scriptures indicate that Christ died for His own people (i.e., the elect) and that His death was completely effectual in accomplishing its purposes, despite the fact that much of mankind does not believe unto salvation. As noted above, unless one is prepared to say that all mankind shall be saved, one is limiting the atonement. It is more in keeping with God’s character to limit the purpose or scope of the atonement than to limit its power.

Key Scripture passages:

Isaiah 53:11: He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many [not all]; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Acts 13:48: As many as were ordained to eternal life [and only they] believed.

Mat 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people [and only they] from their sins.

Mat 26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many [not for all] for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24: And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many [but not for all].

Luke 1:68: Blessed [be] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people.

John 6:39: This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

John 6:45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

John 10:11: I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Act 20:28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Other references: John 10:14-15, 27-28; John 11:49-52; John 15:13; John 17:2, 6, 9, 12; Rom. 5:19; Rom. 8:28-30.

IV. EFFECTUAL GRACE (Irresistible Grace) teaches that when God’s electing, unconditional saving grace is extended to man, man will respond and the effects will be life-transforming, for God’s purposes will not be thwarted. The term “irrestible” has often been opposed on the grounds that it appears to say that man may try to resist God’s grace but cannot. That argument is irrelevant because when God regenerates the depraved heart, that person’s will is changed, and he will not resist because he is no longer at enmity with God. This is described beautifully in the Westiminster and 1689 Confessions in the section on Effectual Calling, paragraph 1: “Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, He is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightning their minds, spiritually, and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His Grace.”

Key Scripture passages:

Jer 32:40: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will not turn away from following them, to do them good; and I will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not depart from me.

Ezek. 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.

Ps. 51:6: Thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Psalm 110:3: Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power.

John 3:8: The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

John 15:16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit.

Acts 16:14: And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

2 Cor. 5:17: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

2 Cor 9:8: God is able to make all grace to abound unto you; that ye, having always all sufficiency in everything, may abound unto every good work.

Eph 2:10: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

2 Thess 3:3: The Lord is faithful and will establish you and guard you from the evil one.

Tit 2:14: who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Tit. 3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Other references: Ezek. 11:19-20; Jer. 31:18; Rom. 6:14; 1 Cor. 10:13; Eph. 1:19; 1 Pet 2:9; Col. 2:13.

V. Perseverance of the Saints teaches that true saving faith cannot be lost but will cause one to continue in the faith and ultimately be eternally saved. “The saints, even in this world, are compared to a tree that does not wither (Ps 1:3); to the cedars which flourish on Mount Lebanon (Ps 92:12); to Mount Zion which cannot be moved, but which abideth forever (Ps 125:1); and to a house built on a rock, Matt 7:24. The Lord is with them in their old age (Isa 46:4) and is their guide even unto death (Ps 48:14), so that they cannot be totally and finally lost” (Boettner). This is stronger than today’s replacement term, “Eternal Security,” which focuses on eternal life in the future but does not give due recognition to the Holy Spirit’s power in this life to keep the child of God faithful in the Christian walk.

Key Scripture passages:

Ps 34:7: The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him and delivereth them.

Ps 138:8: Jehovah will perfect that which concerneth me.

John 5:24: He that heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

Rom 8:29: For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained … and whom He foreordained, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Rom 11:29: The gifts and calling of God are not repented of.

Rom. 14:4: Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

2 Cor 4:8-9,14: We are pressed on every side, yet not straightened; perplexed, yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed; … knowing that He that raised up the Lord Jesus Christ shall raise us also with Jesus.

Phil 1:6: Being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.

2 Tim 4:18: The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom.

Other references: Ps. 23:6 Jer 31:3, John 4:14. John 6:47. John 6:51. John 10:28. John 14:19. 2 Cor 2:14. Eph 1:5. Eph 4:30. Phil 3:20 2 Tim 2:19. Heb 10:14. 1 Pet. 1:5 1 John 5:13.

Adapted from Faith Bible Church.

2010-02-02T20:22:00.000-08:00

IN GENERAL OF THE END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AS IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURE PROPOSED.

By the end of the death of Christ, we mean in general, both, —
[1st] first, that which his
a. Father (intended)
b. and himself (Jesus) intended in it; and,
[2nd] secondly, that which was: effectually fulfilled and accomplished by it.

Concerning either we may take a brief view of the expressions used by the Holy Spirit: —
A. [The Holy Spirit says, i.e. Scripture says]

I. For the first. Will you know the end [purpose, goal, objective] wherefore,
and the intention wherewith,
Christ came into the world?

B. [Jesus says:] Let us ask himself [Jesus]
(who knew his own mind, as also all the secrets of his Father’s bosom),
[Owen highlighting the supremacy of Jesus' mind and knowledge]
and he will tell us
that the “Son of man came to save that which was lost,”
Matthew 18:11, — to recover and save poor lost sinners;
that was his intent and design, as is again asserted, Luke 19:10.

C. [Apostles say] Ask also his apostles, who know his mind,
[Owen highlighting the supremacy of inspired Scripture] and they will tell you the same.

C2. [Paul says] So Paul, 1 Timothy
1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”

Now, if you will ask who these sinners are towards whom he hath this gracious intent and purpose, himself tells you,

A. Matthew 20:28, that he came to “give his life a ransom for many;” in other places called us,
B. believers, distinguished from the world:
>>for he “gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father,” Galatians 1:4.
>> That was the will and intention of God, that he should give himself for us, that we might be saved, being separated from the world.

C. They are his church: Ephesians 5:25-27, “He loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish:”
>> which last words express also the very aim and end of Christ in givinghimself for any, even that they may be made fit for God, and brought nigh unto him;

C2. — the like whereof is also asserted, Titus 2:14, “He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

RECAP: Thus clear, then, and apparent, is the intention and design of
A. Christ and
b. his Father in this great work, even:
>> what it was, and
>> towards whom, —namely,
1. to save us,
2. to deliver us from the evil world,
3. to purge and wash us,
4. to make us holy, zealous, fruitful in good works,
5. to render us acceptable, and to bring us unto God;
for through him “we have access into the grace wherein we stand Romans 5:2.

The Importance of Exposing the Error of Free-will.

2010-01-30T15:39:00.001-08:00

Mormons, Popes, and those in the Kingdom Hall confess a doctrine of sin, but one they can overcome. It is certainlhy an important doctrinal issue to emphasis what is "real grace" and a true awareness of "real grace" will never be uunderstood until "real sin" is acknowledged.

To say, "I confess sin, the sin (or wrath of God) that I can ropitiate by my decision, choice and and faith; where the basis of my atonement and reconcilation is hinged on my decision, choice, and faith" is not any closer of a true confession of sin than a Mormon or Pope. It is inconsistent to say Jesus is God, and Jesus bled, and Jesus raised himself, but then assert this Jesus has not done enough to secure my regeneration, atonement, reconcilation, savlation.

How can one call it grace, while saying the sinner makes the ultimate and pivotal difference?

Various Issues 1

2010-01-28T20:22:00.000-08:00

By David Barbour:

Todd, ,,
first of all, the Bible as a whole does not teach that,[Limited Atonement.]

,,,,secondly, if it did, why on earth would you want to boast of it. If it were true, you're Happy about it????

You know, I've watched your posts for several months now,,, I'm sure I've not seen them all, but the great majority of the ones I've seen are,,,,, * Anti free will* At what ...level do you want to take this choice thing,,, will you choose to respond to this? *Never do I see a concern from you for the Lost, or the reprobate as you call them* ,,

*Never do I see you reaching out to the Lost,,who knows, maybe you'll uncover one of your elected brothers* I'm sorry brother, but if I believed for one moment in the type of God that you portray in your posts, I'd denounce him today,,,,,,

Yes, man had no choice in his first birth,,,, but may I say this...... Think about something.... Man,,who had no choice in his first birth,,and apparently according to you, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his second birth,,,,, You're saying man's responsible for his sinful life,,,, but most will never have a chance of salvation,,

The God I know and that lives in me would NEVER CRIPPLE A MAN AND THEN BLAME THE MAN FOR LIMPING. I''m certainly about done arguing about this silly stuff. I may post one more later tonite and then I'm done. This is rediculous. You're really hung up on one topic and neglecting the rest of scripture.
--------------

Todd's reply:

#1. It does teach it, are you interested in reading the evidence, and responding to it.[Limited Atonement]

#2. Since it does teach it, I do want to boast in what the Bible teaches, in what God says, I am happy about what the Bible teaches, in what God says.

#3. You are correct, a hefty bulk of my FB post address the issue of free-will. I keep an archive on my 118min blog.

#4. A proper denial of free-will, is a key facet of confessing the sin of self-reliance and self-righteousness, which confession of sin is one of the first fruits and evidences of regeneration. Thus this is a concern for the lost in exposing them their pride and sin.

#5. If you would like I could post my efforts to evangelize in the past 8 years. Jails, Prisons, Mormons, Kingdom Hall, Atheists, Nursing Homes, Masons, 70 tracts in Boston Mass, to a saleman I met while on Vacation, and the frequency of each. I also consider witnessing to non-Calvinists (Arminians) as Evangelism to the lost, since I consider them unregenerate.

#6. Right, man has nothing to do whatsoever in his second birth; Just like Lazarus had nothing to do with coming alive when Jesus commanded him to come alive.

#7. Yes man is responsible for his sin and condition. Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the Bombing, but no man can "make-up" for that much devestation of property and life. Yet the courts held him responsible though he could never fix the problem he created. (your thoughts???)

#8 Even today 2400 languages do not have a bible in their language, how many more did not have one a 1000 years ago. What "chance" of salvation did they have?

#9 Adam sinned, Adam died spiritually before physically; "Death" did not "have-to-be" the punishment, God could have made it "eternal color blindness" but yet "eternal life in paradise otherwise." So Adam is to blame for his disobedience and his punishment. God was not required to make Adam immutable before the fall, nor omnipotent before the Fall. Since God knew Adam would sin, and knew most in Adam would go to Hell, God could have easily decided to never put the tree in the garden in the first place.

#10 I am hung-up on it, because it humbles man's pride, and exalts God's grace. It exalts God's freedom and Sovereignty giving Him alone all the glory.

#11. The key point of your post and key deduction is...you simply denounce God.

Whosoever short intro

2010-01-26T23:17:00.001-08:00

"the living ones will not be buried, but have every lasting life" "the ones not living will not see life, but are appointed to burial already." (Whosever is not in the text; the term says nothing about who can make themselves alive, or who can make themself believe.)

added from another source:----

The original text has pas, "all, everyone," "whosoever" is an old English translation. Everyone who believes -- are those who will not perish. There is no statement about the ability of spiritually dead humans (Eph 2) here. The promise is to all-the-ones who believe---they will not perish. Before they believed, or even saw the kingdom of God or entered it (by faith and repentance) they were first born from above John 3:1-8, 1 John 5:1.
---------------------------------------

How was I regenerated.

2010-01-26T19:29:00.000-08:00

A FB friend wants to know specifically how I was regenerated, I will use this blog for a reply, since it allows for more room to type. [and my reply is off-the-cuff, not one prepared over 3-4 days]

1. Regeneration is from John 3:3 and John 3:7 "born again": gennaō anōthen.

Thayer Definition:
1) of men who fathered children
1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaphorically 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ’s work

anōthen
1) from above, from a higher place
1a) of things which come from heaven or God
2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3) anew, over again

(but also a similar term used in 1Pe 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

"Born again": anagennaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to produce again, be born again, born anew
2) metaphorically to have one’s mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God Part of Speech: verb.

A. The Father elected me solely on the grace that is manifest in Jesus, theChrist.

B. The Father sent the Son to purchase me according solely on God's grace alone.

C. The Son agreed to purchase me and did purchase me since it pleased the Father to do so, and solely according to God's grace alone.

D. The Spirit agreed to regenerate me and all that Christ did purchase, as according to the pleasure of the Father to do so, and solely according to God's grace alone.

E. The Holy Spirit used the means of Scripture to draw me to Christ.

F. The Holy Spirit used His divine power "in time and space" to give me a new birth on the basis of the Father's election of me and the Son's purchase of me;

II. NOW, THE FRUIT MANITIFESTING THIS NEW BIRTH OF THE SPIRIT ALREADY GIVEN.

A. Upon having this gift of the new birth given to me, the Holy Spirit continued to use Scripture to reveal Christ as: Fully God, Fully Man, the King, THE Prophet, the High Priest, the Crucified Lamb of Atonement, the Risen Lord, the Savior, the Good Sheperd. I had spiritual eyes to see him, spiritual ears to hear him, a spiritual mind to know him, and a spiritual heart to love Him, a spiritual nature to trust AND believe Him.

[Fruit order: Spirit imparted, using Scripture, pointing to the Living Jesus, then I did Confess, Believe, Repent, be Baptized]

III. THE SPECIFICS, THE ABRIDGED VERSION DESPITE ITS LENGTH.

I grew up the son of a SBC pastor in the same parsonage for 19 years straight, and for 19 years attending 88% of every

1. AM, PM, Wed, service.
2. weekly youth events, yearly week camps from 7-12th grade.
3. kids choir, youth choir, adult choir, youth ensemble,
4. Royal Ambassadors,
5. 2 revivals of 4 days each year; Vacation Bible School; January Bible School.
6. 3-4 trips to revivals at other locations, or national conventions. (and more)

(Mental Assent) Somewhere around the age of 12-13 I walked down the aisle, said the prayer, didn't want to go to hell, didn't want Jesus to leave me, and got baptized. However, I do not believe in retrospect I was "born again" then. I did the same thing at a youth camp around 15, after telling the counselor I already believed what he said, he said, well you are coming for rededication then.

1988 Went to Alexander Central High School. Was bothered that teens got drunk, did weed, and fondled other girls, cursed in excess, and cheated in excess, mocked the Church, Christians, the Bible, and Jesus; and I knew they were in sin for doing all this stuff I would never do. (well, I did cuss, and I did cheat, among other things)

1992 Went to Wingate College. Had the same mentality as in High School. Even speaking for youth groups, telling them Jesus saves, God is wise trust Him, and avoid all the corrupt behavior I see going on at Wingate. Heard one discussion about Calvinism, but brushed it off, after all I've been a pastor's son for 19 years and dad never brought it up, so dad can't be wrong.

1996 Went to Seminary and Oak Grove Baptist Church; I thought if I become the next Steven Curtis Chapman I will really get peoples attention and start talking about the wisdom of Jesus and trusting Him. The topic of Calvinism came up about every 2 months over the 4 years; Each time I brushed it off on the same basis above, also merely wanting to play ping-pong, become the friend of lost ping-pong players, and then saying "Hey Jesus changed my life.".

2000 Was an Interim Pastor for 15 months, never discussed the Calvinism issue there, again, just visit the sick, get'em back in church, and say we need to trust in Jesus to forgive us. After 15 months I was called to be the pastor of a congregation in Pageland, SC. Started in September 2001.

I saw the complete apathy of the congregation to come, sing, read, pray, witness, learn, grow, mature. They had at least 3 main leaders as Masons, they had Santa Claus down the altar during the service, two years in a row, despite me preaching against it twice. They had a man on committee who was gay, and everyone knew it, and was puzzled over it, but did not want to offend the honor of his parents who were long time members.

So around March 2002, I gave away my only T.V. I committed to pray, read the Bible eight hours a day, think nothing but only of evangelism. I am going to know the Bible, memorize the Bible, and be a flame for Jesus. The TV was gone, the prayer list was long, the reading of the Bible was extensive; I decided in my fervor to destroy this Wingate conversation 6 years earlier that supported Calvinism, and settle in bold print all the assertions I heard about Calvinism about 20x while at seminary. I bought books on both sides, and wanted to catalog all the errors of Calvinist to refute them.

Also in this time I went drove to preach at a jail ministry weekly 35 minutes away without compensation, hoping God would bring revival even if this congregaton yawned at every song, every verse, every sermon, every prayer, and every warning. I went to 25 neigbhors on my street, knocking, asking, talking, listening, telling; Meanwhile PM and Wednesay services were only 7 of the same folk, one of who always antagonized all that I did. She defended the Masons, opposed devotions on the youth ski trip, and purposefully chattered to her mouth about her day directly and noticeably as I taught on the 1 Samuel. Frequently the other 5 would look over at her in frustration.

By October 2002, with 6 months of Scripture focus and prayer focus, [that never occured in Seminary because I was busy playing ping-pong and "gettin-by" to pass whatever class it was]

...God the Holy Spirit caused:
1. the T (Doctrine of Total Depravity) to destroy me from the Scripture;
2. The sheer freedom of God to do as He pleases to humble me.
3. The utter and absolute grace of God to silence me.

A. Apart from Christ I can do NOTHING. [extremely numbing] John 15:5
B. I choose you, you did not choose me. [jaw dropping] John 15:16
C. He began a good work in you. [not breathing inside]. Phil 1:6
D. My list of verses grew to 30-40.
E. I thought, "Why am I not having more purity in my life of self-promotion, self-centeredness, and lust when I have the divine power of the Holy Spirit helping me, and if I am having this much difficulty then how much harder if someone does not yet have the Holy Spirit and is left to their own mind, heart to love God."

I could paste 30 thick pages of my notes from that time, of Scriptures, book notes, unanswered questions; but I won't.

I knew people from:
-- my childhood church had made "decisions" but were lost.
-- the College Campus Church, resembled nothing of the Bible.
-- people at Oak Grove who should zero interest in Evangelism Explosion, nor the offered Prayer Ministry;
-- classes at Seminary of people who were once pastors but now apostate.
-- my first interim that where merely there for social reasons.
-- my current Pageland church, who showed no honor to Jesus or Scripture despite their attendance.
-- Masonic Apologetic Videos, men who asserted Jesus, Grace, and the Resurrection on Sunday, but asserted King Solomon, Works, Lies, and Secrets in stern loyalty to the lodge.

So what was wrong with these people??? John 2:23-24; and John 6 and Judas were part of the answer; Just like Pharaoh made numerous decisions to let the people go, but lied, and later was not a genuine God-fearer;

(Strong Drawing) So I think it was during that March to October 2002 when the Holy Spirit was strongly drawing me, (though He was doing so, in partial, for years)

(New Birth) Then somewhere in October-November 2002 is when the "new birth" (I.F) was given to me, then the Holy Spirit produced all the fruit of the "new birth" that November via II.A; But that new birth was just as mysterious as John 3:8 promises.

(Fruit of the New Birth)My confession of sin, trust in Jesus, love to Jesus, knowing of Jesus, repentance of self, in November was only fruits AFTER the regeneration had occured that month.

You may ask, "What was different from that month from all that existed since you were 12-13 walking down the aisle to that age of 27.5? 14-15 years of even going to Seminary, 2 years of preaching, and talking about Jesus saving?"

A lot. Mental assent to facts is not geninue trust in Jesus, and a verbal statement of sin, guilt, need, and grace is not a geninue belief in the true sin, guilt, need, and grace. Deep down for all these 15 years I adamantly defended that it was my decision, faith, prayer, choice, to be the fundamental basis of my salvation; that I was able. That God was obligated to give everyone a choice;

I learned that denying:

A. Total Depravity is to confess a different definiton of sin, guilt, need.
Thus, one has not confessed sin truly; nor repented of self truly.

B. Unconditional Election, is to confess a conditional election of works.
Thus, one is not resting on grace, but on contribution and the law of pentecost- rules being kept and repaid as a wage.

C. Definite Atonement, is to deny Jesus and His work altogether. Which, is to live a life void of faith in Jesus and His work.

D. Effectual Grace,is to deny the sovereign power of God over the mind, heart, and nature. and paints God is impotent, without power, and thus a form of idolatry, deism, or atheism.

E. Preservation of the Saints by God, is to deny the promise of God, but must be denied if one is consistent in holding to the power of free-will and man's decisions.

F. These Doctrines, is to deny clear, repeated, abundant passages of Scripture; Precisely of what Jesus said of the Pharisees not knowing Moses or Scripture.

Ok, I could add more, explain more, clarify more, and edit more, this is not trying to be exhaustive nor beyond the need for revision.

To summarize, the topic is, "How, specifically, was I born again?"
In Short, by the Holy Spirit alone, using Scripture alone, pointing me to Jesus Alone, by grace alone.

[EXTERNALS] My time in Scripture and prayer whether it be: 27 years as a pastor's son, finishing 4 years of seminary, 3 years of preaching, 9 months of deeply intense study of the Bible, or 1 month of being speechless at my helpless evil heart--- are not point to anything I did of mind, heart, nature, or independent will. God gives the rain, the ground need not boast that it caused that to be given.

My afternoon that November 2002 of sobbing, and sobbing, and sobbing, over my guilt, sin, hopelessness, evilness, need, unworthiness, repulsion, shame before the Holy God of billions of stars, billions of angels, and billions of angels, ...[INTERNALS] was the beginning fruits after the "grace of regeneration", ... had ALREADY OCCURED PRIOR TO THE SOBBING AND CONFESSION.

To attempt to pin point anything more specific is to go agaisnt the clear teaching of John 3:8 where no man knows where the wind comes or goes.

---------
It would be like answering the following questions:
How did John the Baptist get the Holy Spirit while in the womb?
How did Lazarus "choose" to come back to life?
How did Saul "choose" to get a blinding light.
How did Moses "choose" to stumble on a burning bush.
How did Samuel "choose" to hear his name called.
How did Isaac "choose" to be born to Abraham and not Pharaoh.
How did anyone "choose" their own physical birth.

How did Abram "choose" to stumble on YHWH and the Genesis 12 covenant while living among the moon gods of his culture.

How did infants "choose" a Lamb to be slaughtered with blood covering the door posts for their life at Passover.

How did Mary "choose" to be born in the line of Kings and be the specific woman to carry the God-man.
------------------

I was confessing my sin as sin indeed. But it was not my confession that caused the new birth, it was the new birth that cause the confession.

I was repenting of self. But it was not the repentance that caused the new birth, it was the new birth that caused the repenting which is on-going.

I was believing and trusting in Jesus as: Fully God, Fully Man, the King, THE Prophet, the High Priest, the Crucified Lamb of Atonement, the Risen Lord, the Savior, the Good Sheperd. But it was not my believing and trust in Jesus in these offices that caused my new birth, it was the new birth that caused this belief and trust in Jesus.

I was bearing the fruit of regeneration (confession, repentance, belief, faith, loving Jesus, knowing Jesus), but it was not the bearing of fruit that caused my regeneration, it was God's grace of regeneration that bore the fruit from the Holy Spirit.

Author of Sin

2010-01-26T08:48:00.000-08:00

God made creatues angels and men who were not immutable, omnscient, omnipotent. So God is the author of that; God is not under a law to make creatures with these traits. God is the author of the chain of command, laws, accountability, and judgment. God's nature, character, and being all require thost things by default. God answers to no one for... See More that; God answers to no one. God is not under a law, nor under man's tribunal. Without God upholding our breath, heart beat, and brain wave, we would not have the energy nor life to function. Yet the function we carry out within our own finite mind and nature is accountable to God when against His moral will. Man is drawn away of his own desire, and it has been God who left men alone in their own desire. God is not obligated to iimpart to upright Adam the same power and wisdom that God has.

Arminians still have a deity that knownly allowed Satan and Adam to rebel and even crucify Jesus, that the brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. (Genesis and Acts); They still have a deity that put the characters in motion without restraint. If Satan is the author of sin, or Adam is the author of sin, then God is still the author of Satan and the author of Adam. Again, God is a law unto himself and judged by no man or no law.

An author writes. When an author writes that his main character murders, we do not charge the author of sin, though the author could have written otherwise. We do not get angry with the author for placing the main character in front of a firing squad, and call him an immoral author. So I don't understand what the "charge against" Calvinism is attempting to say, other than they do not like God being God since they think they have the right to judge God;

Acts 15:7-9 (Topic 2)

2010-01-12T11:00:00.000-08:00

Acts 15: 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

James Rondon said: "Even so, the follow-up passage in Acts 15 that I referenced indicates that, after Peter preached the gospel to them, they "believed", and their hearts were subsequently purified "by faith". "

Position Z of this new thread Topic 2: The implication is that, beforehand, their hearts had yet to be purified, and furthermore, that this was the point of their initial conversion.

=== MY REPLY ===

Cornelius; Works outside of Christ. (Topic 1)

2010-01-12T10:44:00.000-08:00

This entry is merely an attempt to state the two positions and edit them to be accurate so neither stance is being misdefined.

Position X: Works outside of God's grace in Christ, not being sanctified by Christ, are NOT acceptable to God. (my position)

Position Z: Works outside of God's grace in Christ, not being sanctified by Christ, MIGHT BE acceptable to God.

If Position Z is not the position being taken, then what is a short concise manner of stating the issue, so to be sure I am addressing the issue and not a strawman.

Suggested Evidence for Position Z.
1.was it incumbent upon Cornelius to repent of his prayers, and even more, his alms?
2. Remember, he had not yet been converted (cf. Acts 11:14).
3. these "alms" had come up as a "memorial before God", and not as filthy rags.
4. the fact that he had yet to be saved,
5. at the time of conversion, one's good works stand in need of repentance. [of which you ask the question: was Cornelius to repent of his prayers and alms??? assuming a no reply, thus assuming PosZ is accurate.]

=== MY REPLY ===

PREFACE

2009-10-28T09:23:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: This page is for my replies to blogs, forums, websites, videos, Facebook posts, and other materials online. It will allow more space and layout that FB allows.

#1. My assertions and stance are given with kindness, gentleness, meekness, warmth, and friendliness; I will be addressing the "topic at hand" not the "person." However, Jesus and John did call men a brood of vipers. Please do not take any post as on-edge because I bring it to this blog, that is not my goal. I fully believe in the fruit of the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 13, washing feet, James 3, 2 Timothy 2:23-26, and other relevant verses. My goal is not to start a quarrel, be in a quarrel, or be contentious; It is not my goal to hammer anyone, humiliate anyone, or snipe. However, I may be thorough in my reply. The aim of this disclaimer is not to ratchet up the heat, but rather make every attempt to assure readers that diligence and vigilance for truth is important.

#2. I aim to state what was wrong or unclear in the material to which I am replying, by what is either explicitly stated, or from what I infer from that material. At times, my goal is to merely receive clarifications on what I infer from the material I find. My posts are not to be taken as a shouting match.

#3. I do not see argument itself as bad, evil, sin, or rude. I personally see little difference between argument and conversation. Both are productive, both are constructive, both are means of learning.

#4. There are absolutes and not every assertion is right. Assertions need evidence and should stand the scrutiny of detailed investigation. I have been in numerous choirs, ensembles, and private voice lessons where daily I was told that I was wrong in pitch, volume, rhythm, pronunciation. I did not accuse my directors of being arrogant in telling me this.

#5. Having said that, there are times when nothing new has been added to a on-going discussion and it is best to pick a new topic if communication is not occurring. Please feel free to advise me on other tips for my response page.

#6. I am not claiming to be omniscient, inerrant, perfect on any level, whether theologically, or in grammar, spelling, syntax, logic, or any matter we discuss.

#7. This public setting will give me an accountability to other readers if I am giving a strawman post, harsh tone, or other errors, to which I should apologize, ask forgiveness, and repent of. (Though some straw-man errors are not intentional, but simply the product of communication breakdown.)

#8. Maybe in the future I will set space limits per reply, maybe 2000 words per post or something. I will certainly censor any vulgarity, outright name-calling, or ad hominem remarks.

Actually I will try these 2 formats.

#8b. A reply length of: Arial Narrow. 11 point font. Double-Spaced. Front and back sheet of paper. One inch margins all around. And no longer per post, unless either: a reply has been given, or unless 3 days have passed. (Realize additional posts after 3 days is not an attempt to hog the floor. but rather to provide extra response for other visitors who are curious; What Supreme Court or Human court says your evidence must not go over 2 pages? Of course they sleep for 8 hours in a break, thus I will have a few days off till we reconvene.

#8c. A reply length of: Indefinite Length (10-40+ pages) in the same font, font size, and spacing. Such material is not intended to hog the floor, but grant me my personal organization of thoughts on the topics, so I will not be offended if you are not interested in reading the longer version, but it will be available on certain topics if you are interested.

#9. I will always label my position as Position X (PosX), and the position I am trying to counter as Position Z (PosZ). I also designate Position Q. (PosQ) as a position that hopefully neither of us would assert and in debunking this PosQ I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, but merely addressing another camp that might attempt such a view.

I will label my topics in the title so I will have PosX on 15 different topics, and if you are disagreeing with my PosX I will assume it is in relation to this specific Post Title Topic. Likewise if I am referring to a PosZ that is not directly related to the Post Title, then I will then try to designate which previous PosZ-topic that I am referring to.

Philippians Prayer 1

2009-08-13T21:22:00.000-07:00

A Prayer through Philippians 1.

Dear Gracious God, May we, and Christians we know,

1. pray for others frequently with joy.

Php 1:3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
Php 1:4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,

2. be a partner in laboring in the good news gospel with others who do.

3. be granted partners in our labors in the gospel. We are thankful for those we know laboring in the gospel.

Php 1:5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.

4. have God begin and complete a good work in us and others.

Php 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. Php 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

5. yearn with affection for fellow believers with the affection of Christ Jesus.

1:8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

6. abound in love more and more, with knowledge and discernment.

Php 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,

7. approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,

1:10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,

8. be filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory & praise of God.

1:11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory & praise of God.

9. realize that our hardships can really serve and used to advance the gospel.

Php 1:12 I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, Php 1:13 so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ.

10. become more confident in the Lord and much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Php 1:14 And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

11. say, live and display that : For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

12. have our labor and life contribute to the: progress and joy in the faith, for Christians around us.

Php 1:25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,

13. have a manner of life that is worthy of the Gospel of Christ

14. Stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Php 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

15. Not be frightened in anything by our opponents.

Php 1:28 and not frightened in anything by your opponents.

16. realize For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.