The Crumbs Which Fall

Having a break....

2011-10-15T03:16:00.000-07:00

Light and Darkness.

2011-08-10T04:51:00.000-07:00

Please pray for Meaghan Gerety.....

2011-06-22T00:37:00.000-07:00

http://meaghangerety.wordpress.com/about/

Please pray for a fellow Brother and his family at this most traumatic time. May it please the Lord for this beautiful young girl to make a full and speedy recovery.
Our prayers go out to the Great God who does all things well, the righteous Judge who always does what is right. Blessed be His name.

Rom 8:26-28 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Hitchens Interview

2011-04-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

I was clicking through links as you do, and saw an image of what I thought at first glance was Dr James White, but was in fact Christopher Hitchens!
He is currently being treated for cancer.
Anyway, if you click on his image you can watch a multi part interview concerning world issues and his opinions on such issues.
I like listening to him speak, bust most of all I pray that he may find mercy in these "his" last days.

2011-03-25T12:18:00.000-07:00

David Ponter and Tony Byrne's Dualism theology.
UPDATED 2011.............

A response to David Ponter and Tony Byrne's Dualism theology, presented after 3 years of debate and failing to move on. (March 2007)

This response is primarily in relation to Mr Ponter's appearance as guest on Gene Cooks Unchainedradio show July 13, 2004, which sparked a debate between myself and some others over at the forums at Unchainedradio, even to this very hour.

The radio discussion is available for purchase at Unchainedradio.com (only .98 cents) if you follow the link below.

http://unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php??op=modload&name=ShopStop&&service2=21

It is Given in the hope that they will come back to where they once stood, regarding the extent of the atonement, but is mainly given for the Saints and the glory of God's accomplished salvation.

David Ponter wants to restore the balance, and yet he does not seem to grasp that the balance has been maintained in reformed Calvinism all along. There is no balance to restore.
Calvinism is "the" balance between Hyper Calvinism and Arminianism. What David and certainly Tony are closer to, as far as I can tell, is the influence of Amyraldianism, which the reformed Churches outright rejected at the Synod of Dort in 1618/19.

It is not my aim to discuss here the various opinions that are out there among reformed believers, for even I have come to see that some men hold to differing views upon the atonement, but such views are in degrees of closeness to one another, where as, the views of David Ponter are somewhat outside the scope of orthodoxy, well at least if we consider orthodoxy to be that which is not only historically traced to the reformed creeds, but more importantly, the view from scripture itself.
Sola Scriptura is the aim.

One of the problems that "must" be faced, and at one time even just a couple of years ago, I would have said "might" be faced, is the charge of being labeled all kinds of derogatory names, if one attempts to speak clearly upon this subject.
Such terms as "Hyper-Calvinist" are just so easily bandied about in the modern evangelical climate of our times.
I think this is to be expected in one way. It is an over reaction, to the common and therefore popular theology of the masses. It is a strange sound to the modern evangelical, when he hears a more robust and classical defense of the atonement, and the particularity to which it addresses.

Taken together with this kind of mood upon the landscape of modern evangelicalism, it also must be stated that certain ideas concerning the legitimate doctrine of "common grace" have evolved from the older classical teaching, to the newer movement from the Dutch Calvinists, which was fought against when it first made it's ways to Northern America and elsewhere in Europe.

Having said that, I must also defend the man behind that movement, a certain Mr Abraham Kuyper.
Even though he inspired the shift in common grace doctrine, he feared other men would run with it and end up saying too much.
I believe men like Mr Ponter were the very men even Kuyper himself warned about.

In their attempts to bring back a certain so called "balanced" universality to the atonement, they forsake sound exegesis of the relevant texts and ignore the Analogy of Faith, which plainly puts forward what they themselves have termed the "high Calvinist or strict particularistic" view of the atonement.
For them, this borders on Hyperism, or in my own case, out and out Hyper Calvinism, which of course, I reject.

In my recent studies upon this subject, and I must thank both of these men for pushing me in those studies, it seems clear to me now, that there are variations of opinion regarding the extent of the atonement within the reformed community, with some men even attempting to prove that Calvin himself held to a more universal atonement.
I would argue this move to be more of a modern shift within Calvinism and not particularly reflective of a much earlier and historically robust reformed Calvinism, but I digress.

I am not convinced about Calvin, and think that a close reading of not only his Institutes but commentaries, shed much light on his particular views.
I highly recommend reading Paul Helm and his work on John Calvin (CALVIN AND THE CALVINISTS.) Banner of Truth...

I am not going to argue for Calvin here. I have attempted that elsewhere and far too sporadically, but Helm does a great work in this area in my humble opinion. His work was a much needed correction to a previous work about Calvin, by the author Dr R T Kendall, called Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649.

One of the fundamental points of contention as I see it, is the whole matter of propitiation, and what that means. Mr Ponter has a less than biblical understanding of this important subject.

In fact, he is more conditioned it seems, to use the term "expiation" which is understandable given his views. For him, propitiation becomes a "means" of salvation, rather than an actual "finished" work of Divine "appeasement" that secures salvation by making peace with God.

As long as he holds out "any" condition to salvation and links that with the atoning work of Christ, he has departed from reformed thought regarding the finished work of the cross.

That is it in a nutshell. That is my beef with his views.

This cannot be underestimated, for it is the fatal flaw in his system of biblical thought.
Ponter confuses and perhaps even obfuscates the payment idea inherent within the atonement.

He is seeing some kind of "wooden" commercial transaction, when in fact, the metaphor of payment is relating to a debt we owe to God, and that debt,which includes both the obligation of perfect obedience and the penalty for all failure to perfectly obey, and
that debt is paid by the Son, to the father, in the Covenant of redemption.

The payment of this debt, which requires both the perfect lifelong obedience and wrath-removing sacrifice of Jesus Christ ,is of such value to the Father, that this payment actually appeases and satisfies the wrath of God against sins committed against a Holy and offended God.

As the Substitute of God's people from every Nation, tribe and tongue, the Sinless Savior satisfies God's justice, by providing perfect obedience as the second Adam, undoing what the first Adam had wrought for humanity by plunging ever person into sin.

We need to comprehend that not only do "we" need a sacrifice for our sins, but God "also" needs a sacrifice for sins. This may sound kind of strange to our modern evangelical ears, but it is such an important point, it must be said.

God, being Holy, and sinful man being an offense to His majesty and perfect righteousness, requires that a way must be provided to satisfy both His offended majesty and justice, in such a way that there is still punishment and judgement for sins, and yet a means for reconciliation between God and man.

Propitiation deals explicitly with satisfying offended majesty and Holy Justice, in that both are dealt with in the acceptance of the sacrifice being offered. This is an exchange between the Father and the Son in scripture.
The Old Testament picture foreshadows the explicit fact that offended majesty is propitiated by the sacrifice of the innocent Lamb, and thereby a sweet smelling aroma goes up to God. This means that God is at peace. Offended Deity has been appeased and justice has been served by the innocent taking the place of the guilty.
During that first "Passover" we see a glimpse of how God who is offended, treats the necessity of this sacrifice. He states the following to us, "When I see the blood!" (Exo 12:13).
The importance of this statement cannot be underestimated.

It is not when "we" see the blood, or make a confession, or meet a condition or make much of the blood itself. The most important aspect of the atonement, is when God Himself "sees" that blood.
The reason for the importance of this, is because it is God Himself, who is providing the sacrifice.

That is why I mentioned earlier how God "also" needs a sacrifice.
The story of the Passover illustrates this point even further, by telling us that the blood, must be applied to the "outside" of the door posts, while all are safe on the inside.
The blood is on the outside, for there God metaphorically "sees" the blood and comes in great wrath to consume the sacrifice made for those inside, and judge all the firstborn of Egypt outside.

Incidentally, this whole historical event harmonizes so well with New Testament atonement, in that all men born in their firstborn, Adam, being of the earth (Egypt) are born under the judgement of God, until the second Adam from Heaven (Christ) appeases the wrath for all those who are in Him. See also Rom 5.
Jesus Christ is the sacrifice. His blood has been shed, and appeased that wrath for some and not Egypt, or those in the likeness of the first Adam.

In the fulfillment of all of those types and shadows and sacrifices, Christ has come and offered Himself once for all, for a certain number of persons, and in so doing He has provided a propitiation for them.

God has been propitiated.

He has accepted the sacrifice, which has been provided for the sins of His chosen people.
Borrowing again Old Testament terminology, when God smells that sweet smelling aroma, He is well pleased, and the wrath of God has been undone for all those who are represented by the spotless Lamb offered upon the alter.

Of course, we all agree that Jesus Christ is that Lamb, and surely we can agree that He is the surety for His people. He is the great High Priest, the Ransom, Scapegoat, City of refuge, Passover, Ark and the Mediator for all of the elect throughout all time.

But, is He an actual ransom?
Is He a scapegoat that allows me to go free?
Is He my Passover (Second Adam), that saves me from the death of the firstborn (Adam?) or is He that for everyone without exception?

If all of these be true types and shadows about Jesus, then is it possible for us today to speak objectively of Him actually dying on the cross for me, just like Paul had stated? (Gal 2:20)

Is it possible for everyone to say this and for it to be a true statement just like it was true for Paul?
Was it true for Judas, or Pharaoh or Ghandi or Hitler?
These are the implications.

Ponter rejects the idea that anything was actually and really paid for at the cross. For him there is not a purchasing of certain sinners taking place "at the cross".
Did you get that?

The WCF confession states, Chapter VIII Of Christ the Mediator

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father;[34] and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.[35]

VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.[36]

VIII. To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;[39] making intercession for them,[40] and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation;[41] effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit;[42] overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.[43]

[34] ROM 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. HEB 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. EPH 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. ROM 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
[35] DAN 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. COL 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. JOH 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. HEB 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
[36] GAL 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. REV 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. HEB 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
[39] JOH 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
[40] 1JO 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. ROM 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[41] JOH 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. EPH 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself. JOH 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
[42] JOH 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. HEB 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; 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. 2CO 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak. ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. JOH 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
[43] PSA 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 1CO 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. MAL 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. COL 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

He would concede to a "decretal" plan being in effect, but not an actual "taking away" of particular persons sins 2000 years ago upon a cross.
Such logic of course negates any kind of meaningful decree does it not?

In effect, he believes that there has been a universal atonement for everyone without exception, but the whole work of the atonement is conditional, and only secured by faith alone.

No reformed believer denies the necessity of faith alone. It is the very catch cry of the Protestant reformation! No, what we do though, is put it where scripture puts it.

If we want to affirm "Sola Fide" (Justification by Faith Alone), we must fundamentally affirm "Sola Gratia" (Salvation by Grace Alone)

Salvation is by Grace alone.

That statement alone should put such nonsense as "insincere free offers" to rest once and for all.
Who are we to even suppose an insincerity in God when dealing with matters of grace in salvation.

Salvation is by grace alone. Justification is by faith alone.

WCF Chapter XI Of Justification
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
[11] GAL 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 1PE 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
[12] GAL 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. 1TI 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. ROM 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
[13] COL 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight. GAL 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. TIT 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 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; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The conditions, and just for Mr Ponter, that means any and "all" conditions, to salvation, are all met in "Solo Christo!" (By Christ's Work Alone are We Saved)

Faith is not a condition, and it only seems to be modern evangelicals who have latched onto this idea, thereby confusing Justification from Imputation [Chapter XI-1 Of Justification WCF] and giving a lopsided view of salvation.

Faith being a gift of grace, is the means or instrumentality that justifies the sinner.
This gift is given to all the elect of God by grace in order to meet the condition of being justified.

XI-1Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
[1] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. ROM 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
[2] ROM 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 2CO 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. ROM 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. TIT 3:5 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. 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. EPH 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. JER 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness. 1CO 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. ROM 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
[3] ACT 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. GAL 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. PHI 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: ACT 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

Incidentally, is it insincere for God to command all men to repent and believe, knowing that He must provide the necessary grace for this to happen?
I do not think so, and yet this is the logic of Mr Ponter and Mr Byrne when the implications of their position are weighed. Their theological commitment to certain presuppositions (universal atonement, universal offers and modern common grace theology) hinders them from getting past their system.

Mr Ponter has "faith" not merely as an instrument or as a means, but as the condition, which makes the atonement effectual.
It is the proverbial tail that wags the dog, but scripture has it's own way of putting these matters into a proper God honoring perspective.

It is not my intention to split hairs here with Mr Ponter, for the point I am here making is one of emphasis, not one of mere substance.
To speak of faith as a condition in the sense Mr Ponter means it, is to bring to naught the whole work of the cross, or at best, to present some kind of "hypothetical" atonement in time, which is made effectual in time by the condition of faith in time.

This is not what the Bible teaches Mr Ponter.

As you have publicly stated that John Owens work the "Death of Death in the death of Christ" is only good for lining the bird cage with, then I suggest you read John Murray's "Redemption Accomplished and Applied".

Scripture teaches an "accomplished" salvation upon the cross with "no" condition from sinful man being added to that work, and then teaches an application of that work applied in time by God the Holy Spirit to every one for whom Christ died for upon that cross. (See WCF points 39-43 above.)

The whole work of redemption is a Tri-unity of effort involving all three persons of the Godhead.
It is a work decreed from eternity by the Father, completed at Calvary by the Son and then applied at the sinners conversion by The Holy Spirit.
Or as the Old Testament reminds us, Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.
Please note four things stated and often overlooked right here in the text.
1/ God will provide.
2/ He provides Himself.
3/ Himself as a Lamb.
4/ Provides himself.
God is the provider. He provides for Himself. God is Himself the sacrifice (Christ), and Jesus is the Lamb.

Moving along.
What is the motive or reasoning behind Mr Ponter's views?

The main one is to maintain what has come to be called a "well meant offer" of the gospel to every single person, that is, in order to have an actual remedy, that can be held out to everyone, then we cannot genuinely call all to repentance, unless all sin has been provided for effectually but conditionally at the same time.

Now, for me that is a contradiction and a blatant rejection of any kind of meaningful decree by God from all eternity as chapter 3 of the WCF and London Baptist confession clearly teach with numerous scriptures provided.

For his views to obtain, we would need not only a sufficiency for all, but an efficiency for all at the same time. This is just contradiction, not even mystery or genuine paradox at heart.

The problems here are numerous, and kind of reminds me what Hyper-Calvinists and others do with the will of God.
Hypers take the idea of human responsibility and negate it so much, in light of the fact that God provides the condition for some to repent, therefore excusing any man of actually having a command to meet the condition, which is how God works with all that He saves.

Arminians go the opposite way, and overemphasize the work of man, negating the work of God in regeneration, and Mr Ponter and others do not seem to grasp that a genuine offer of salvation for all to repent and believe, which is in itself a command, does not imply an insincerity in God, if all men cannot meet the need to repent and believe.

That is the reason as far as I can tell, for this universal atonement view Mr Ponter and others hold to.
They think that if all sin has been appeased, then we can genuinely offer a real atonement to all without exception. This is the same thinking of the Arminain at this point also.

This view misses the mark, and tries to restore a balance that is not required.
But the damage such a view does to the finished work of Christ are numerous and completely unnecessary.
I will say it again.
A genuine offer of salvation to all who repent and believe, does not imply an insincerity in God, if all men cannot meet the need to repent and believe.

I shall go further.
Such an offer of salvation to all to repent and believe does not imply that God must provide a universally efficient atonement that covers all the sin of mankind conditionally.
We really need to get away from the word "offer" in my opinion, and present the purpose of the cross as scripture explains it. The Gospel is a command more than an offer or an invitation. (Act 17:30)

This leads me into the area of evangelism momentarily, for the charge is often made against strict particularists like me, that believing what I believe shall make void evangelism.
Even Mr Ponter, who is no Arminian, had a slight disdain for any confidence we might actually have as fellow believers in an accomplished salvation at the cross.

For Mr Ponter, the secret will or decretive will of God "as a confident foundation" reason for us to preach to all, is not very satisfying.
He has stated that to simply say that God knows who the elect are, and as we are commanded to preach indiscriminately to all, and therefore we cannot know who the elect are, does not sit well with Mr Ponter.

He wants the secret will of God to be so much more than what it is.

At that point, one wonders if we might just make it "not" a secret, then all will be well.

This undermines the whole idea of predestination and it is not my aim to discuss the implications of that here. What Mr Ponter wants, is not just a sufficient atonement for all, but an effectual atonement for all, which is conditioned by faith in order to provide what is called a "well meant sincere offer of the gospel" to all without exception.
It is easy to grasp what is driving the thought here.

Is it not true, that if we repent, then we shall be saved?
Scripture teaches this does it not?

Is it not also true that the condition of faith and repentance are gifts of grace and therefore purchased through the work of Christ upon the cross?

Ponter and Byrne deny this and yet scripture and the reformed confessions explicitly affirm this over and over.

It seems obvious to me, that the view Mr Ponter and others wish to maintain, logically leads to some astounding consequences.

What we need to do is at face value, consider that in Christ dying for some and not others, God is being insincere, for he offers Christ to everyone, but Christ only dies or atones or propitiates for some and not all.

To them this is a contradiction that cannot be harmonized with their particular understanding of well meant offers etc.

Where the contradiction is, I cannot see.
The argument is built upon a faulty premise, namely, elevating precept, which is concerned with what man ought to do, and is in fact commanded to do (Acts 17:30), but precept has to do with Law, not gospel, which deals with what has been accomplished in Christ for the elect.
It is not good news for nothing!

This system of theirs decides that mere "preceptive" command is not good enough. Now please bear in mind that Precept has to do with Law, and has to do with what man "ought" to do.

Their argument is quite simple.
If God commands all men to repent, then surely God wants or desires all men to be saved, for God sincerely wants what He commands. If He commands all to repent, then He must want all men to repent. This is the argument.

It seems to be a rather good and sound argument right?
For example. God says, "Do not lie". That is a commandment right?
Surely God wants everyone to obey His commandments, right? Therefore God wants all people not to lie.
This is the argument.

The problem is, what they have done is only a very shallow surface argument. It is an argument that does not take into full consideration not only God's "preceptive" will, but it utterly ignores God's "decretive" will. It brings God down to a rather time constrained linear and man centered way of viewing God.

It would make a mockery of God if unchecked.
The unbeliever would come and say things like, "if God doesn't want anyone to lie, then How come He puts a Lying Spirit into someone?" (1Ki 22:22)
If we base God's desires merely upon His precepts, we open up the way for all men to reject and fight against God's intentions and purposes in all things. What a price to pay!

My main argument against Mr Ponter has been one thing and one thing alone.

In the atonement of Jesus Christ, what was the Divine intention? What was the plan and purpose behind sending His Son into the world?
No matter how often I mention Divine intention, Mr Ponter shrugs it off completely. Mr Byrne calls this argument a disease called "Decretalism", and usually artistically stamps this condition upon the forehead of a Cyclops. A person who suffers from a one eyed condition of only "seeing" God's decretive will.

Is this fair? Is this a balanced response to asking the question of Divine intention?

One would think that Divine intention deserves better treatment than that.
Maybe, just maybe, these guys have never ever really examined what the reformed view of the atonement is really all about?

Certain passages bounce right off of them like a rubber ball hitting a brick wall.
Such passages as Jesus High Priestly prayer in John 17-9.

Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

Is it even remotely within the realms of consistency, to assume that Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, God incarnate, should not at the very least pray for everyone in the world, since God His Father desires the salvation and has provided an atonement for everyone in the World?

In praying for some and not others, The Lord goes on in verse 20, to say, "Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,

Anyway, so many passages could be raised at this point, but I shall come to a close here.

David Ponter needs a "sincere" effectual atonement that takes away all sin, and therefore excludes no one, and then the "means" of securing salvation becomes the condition of faith.

That way, no one could blame God for not doing something about their sins, and unrepentant sinners can never say that an atonement was not provided for them if they had only believed?

For me, it is amazing just how anthropocentric this thinking really is.

It almost sounds like an apology from God for not making everyone savable, so that Hell becomes the reason for rejecting what Christ has done, rather than Hell being the place for the just punishment of their own sins, with unbelief being one of many sins.

This is the same mindset of errors that both the Arminian, who clings to conditional universal atonement and prevenient grace, and it's "ultimate" sin of unbelief, and the same error of the Hyper Calvinist who ignores the preceptive will of God to preach to all without exception by trying to understand the scope of God's secret or decretive will as to who the elect are.

Where in the Bible is it explicitly taught that God is sincerely offering salvation to every single person every single time the gospel is preached?
Even the mighty Evangelist Paul the Apostle, who wanted to preach the Gospel in certain cities , was hindered by God Himself! God has His people, and shall direct His people in where they shall go! Act 18:10

Mr Ponters presuppositions say too much and cannot possibly find scriptural support for them.
Too many passages teach the exact opposite!

The clear teaching of the Bible is that God will show mercy to whomever He will show mercy.
That biblical fact which is clear and concise, cannot ever be reconciled with the idea that Christ is offered to every person every time the gospel message is preached.
Scripture says otherwise, and yes, the otherwise is found in the "decretive" will of God, which is God's exclusive domain and prerogative.

Does that then mean that God's decree is of no practical value to us as His ambassadors?
Does that then mean that we cannot plead with men to be reconciled with God?
Does it mean that we are being insincere in preaching Christ saves sinners to a large or even a small gathering of people?

Absolutely not!
For He will be merciful to whom He desires to show mercy! Rom 9:18

Insincerity does not even begin to come into the equation, unless one has certain presuppositions that they bring with them into the Bible and theology over all.

I have briefly mentioned some of those presuppositions above, and not one of them can be exegeted from scripture using balanced reformed hermeneutical principals. I am sure Mr Ponter shall change his views over time for his current understanding has been a work in progress since he abandonned his previous so called High Calvinism a few years ago, for he is immersing himself in the writings of those who made much of this issue, and not only that, but he is attempting to use more familiar reformed theologians to suit his ends. It is sad to see, it truly is.

One of the principals or doctrines in scripture that discriminates between persons, is called the General "outward" call of the gospel, and then from the "same" call, there is an internal and special call of the Holy Spirit of God to the elect.

This reformed teaching destroys the idea that all men are called at all times whenever the gospel is preached.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few chosen.
2Co 2:16 to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

But, finally, lets get to the conclusion of the matter. I will do so by asking a few questions to consider.
I will provide my own answers to these questions, for further study.
These questions get at the heart of certain specifics relating to the atonement and might be useful in opening up discussion with others, or to be used for private reflection.
If anyone would like a list of scriptures to back up anything I have said in this short article, then please feel free to contact me at http://doctrinesofgrace.net/ and I will be happy to oblige you.

May God bless this wee piece I have written for His glory, and the defense of an accomplished salvation.

The questions below are not meant to be reflective in any way as to what Mr Ponter believes. I have added them essentially because others, just like him, have wrong concepts about propitiation and the language of being purchased etc.

Q. Is there a debt that sinners owe to God?

Yes.
Some people think God owes the Devil payment for our souls, or that we owe a debt to the Devil or are ransomed from the devil etc but these ideas are not found in scripture.
Sinners owe a debt to God the Father.

Q. What is this debt?

Our perfect obedience to His law and a perfect righteousness before His presence.
That is what we owe God, and none of us can pay it. We are all debtors under the Law of God.

Q. Is debt the correct term?
(ὀφείλημα)--opheilēma--of-i'-lay-mah
Thayer Definition:
1) that which is owed
1a) that which is justly or legally due, a debt
2) metaphorically offence, sin

It is a helpful analogy, but scripture does use other language to express the same idea, such as "bondage", "wages", "right" and many more besides.

Q. Did Christ pay a debt?

Yes. In the same way that the offenses of the people (Israel) were transferred to the sacrifice, and then the High Priest puts his hand upon the sacrifice, thereby identifying with the sinful people, the effect being the transfer of the debt to the pure and spotless sacrifice, being the payment or offering for sins.

Q. To whom did Christ pay the debt?

A debt is paid to the one who is owed the debt.

In the atonement, a perfect remedy, a perfect righteousness is owed to God, in order to make payment for the offense of breaking His perfect law and offending His Holiness.
The sacrifice or payment is made upon the alter and is offered to God, who is owed our debts, which are paid for all the elect of God in full, by the Savior who came to Justify many and bear their iniquities. Isa 53:11, Mat 1:21

Q. For whom did Christ pay the debt?

The debt is "the death penalty demanded for sins committed" against God, and Christ comes to take that debt upon Himself, for all those that the Father gave Him from all eternity and not for every single person who ever lived.
Jesus becomes the sin bearing "substitute", the true High Priest representing His people, who pays the debt of our sins through the sacrifice of Himself at Calvary.
Sins not covered by the blood of the atonement, shall be paid for eternally in Hell by all those who are outside of Jesus Christ at their death or upon His second coming for the final judgement.

And in conclusion, a few practical implications of what I have been saying and in a nut shell, why this issue is important.

If we tell everyone we meet, that Christ loves them and died for them, what we are really doing is speaking presumptuously, for nowhere in scripture can this method of preaching be found. I challenge Mr Ponter and Mr Byrne to cite passages that teach this method of evangelism.

Rather, we are presented with preaching a message of commanding all men everywhere to repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is at hand! Mat 3:2, Mat 4:17, Mat 10:7, Mar 1:15 Jam 5:8

We are taken to places where Jesus preaches Himself as the long awaited and promised Messiah Joh 4:25-26, who has come to fulfill a mission, sent by the Father Himself Joh 17:4. With a view to His own death and resurrection Joh 2:19, which His father has been orchestrating from all eternity Act 2:23, for the purpose of saving many alive, just like Joseph of old in Egypt. Mat 1:21 Gen 50:20

He exposes sin and hypocrisy in all men and declares to large crowds that all that the Father gives to Him shall come to Him Joh 6:37, 44, 65, and all that come to Him shall never perish. At the same time He plainly declares the reasons why others will not come to Him and says these things openly to the offense of multitudes. Joh 5:40, Joh 6:26, Joh 12:40, Rom 11:7-8, 10

Most abandon Him and even the Disciples are left wondering whether they should forsake Him Joh 6:67.

The very same message recorded for us in John 3:16-18, (paraphrased by me, with reference to the analogy of faith) is repeated over and over again in scripture. The passage is a declaration of the intention in the atonement, not really a proclamation of the gospel message as is so often stated. The gospel is clearly taught in John 3:14(a), then the implications of the gospel declared in John 3:16.

That message is plain to all, but hated by all, and certainly misunderstood by many, unless the Holy Spirit comes and conquers the man, and changes him from a hater of Jesus to a lover of Jesus Christ. Joh 6:29
Eze 11:19

For God, in so loving this world of not just the Jews but Gentiles also, has sent His one and only Son, so that all the believing ones, shall not perish, but live everlastingly.
The world being already judged was not the primary reason He came into the world, but rather to save His people from their sins, from out of the world, from every Nation, tongue and tribe under heaven, for all that believe are not judged, whereas them that do not believe are judged already, because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God.
See John 3:19, Joh 5:22, Rev 7:9.

(a) The gospel is concerned with what is accomplished upon the cross, or as John tells us at verse 14, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up;"
This complies with the spirit of Paul, when he says,

"For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified 1Co 2:2.

Tartanarmy 2007...

An obervation on Glenn Beck

2011-03-19T07:20:00.000-07:00

Every time I see Glenn Beck on the O'reilly Factor, the man comes accross as a baffoon and a "wish I was accepted like you Bill"!!
Very uncomfortable to watch him on that show.....

No right to the defense of the Truth if you are not in a local Church.

2011-03-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

As my readers know, I am a great supporter of Dr James White.

I know his feelings with regards to the Local Church, and I actually hold his view in the highest esteem as what we should aspire to in regards to this thing we call Church. Scripture speaks to the matter of believers assembling themselves together, and therefore the "normal" pattern is certainly set.

Here is my issue.

What if, we as believers do not have the obvious set up that Dr White and others have?
What if the Churches in our own particular area are nothing more than Post Modern local admiration societies?

It is great that the good Dr has an ideal Biblical Church, and given that he has been happy there for many many years, then more power to him.

Many of us do not enjoy this Local Church connection he obviously has as a gift, and therefore his views as applied to some of us seems harsh and even judgemental....

If what he says here in this video is "strictly and Biblically" true, then many sincere believers have no legitamate voice, nor any valid Apologetic response to offer this world, which is a real shame, given not only the state of many evangelical Churches, but also the actual state of the world as we know it.

I truly value Dr White's opinion, and how much I covet what he obviously has in a local Church, but I do not believe what he is saying should be presented as an "absolute" with no room for alternative and non normal situations as in those who have no genuine and serious Church fellowship through no fault of themselves.....

It is truly great what "he" has, but maybe he should consider the many who would love to have what he has but do not have .

Something to think about.

The Salvation of All Men... (John Calvin)

2011-02-12T02:48:00.000-08:00

What does the Bible mean by "All Men"?
Calvin helps us understand what the Bible means when it says "All Men" should be saved.

by Dr. John Calvin

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour: who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:3,4.

When we despise them, whom God will have to be honoured, it is as much as if we made war against him. So is it, if we make no count of their salvation, whom God calls to himself. For it seems thereby, that we would stay him from showing his mercy to poor sinners, which are in the way to be utterly cast away. This is the reason why Saint Paul uses this argument: That God would have all the world to be saved; to the end that as much as lieth in us, we should also seek their salvation, which seem to be as it were banished men out of the kingdom of God, especially at such time as they are unbelievers.

Now we must always mark in what case the world stood in Saint Paul's time. It was a new thing and a strange matter to have the gospel published throughout all the world. For there was great likelihood that God had chosen the stock of Abraham, as though the rest should be deprived of all hope of salvation. (Ex. 19:5-6). And indeed we see how holy writer greatly sets forth this adoption that God had made of this people of the Jews. But Saint Paul commands us to pray for all the world. And so not without cause adds the reason which is here set down, namely, because God will have all men to be saved. As if he should say: My friends, it is good reason we should mark whereunto God's will bends, and to what end, and to what mark, that everyone of us may employ himself to serve him that way.

For why are we in this world, but only to set forward the good will of God as much as we can? So then, seeing it is God's will that all men should be partakers of that salvation which he has sent in the person of his only begotten Son, we must have a care to draw poor, silly, and ignorant creatures to us, that we may come all together to this inheritance of the kingdom of heaven which is promised us. And yet we must mark that Saint Paul speaks not here of every particular man, but of all sorts, and of all people.

Therefore, when he says that God will have all men to be saved, we must not think that he speaks here of Peter, or John, but his meaning is this, that whereas in times past he chose out one certain people for himself, he means now to show mercy to all the world, yea to them that were, as it were, shut out from the hope of salvation.

For we hear what he says in another place, that the heathen were without God, void of all promise, because they were not as yet brought to the fellowship of the people of the Jews. (Eph. 2:2ff.). And this was a special privilege that God had given to the stock of Abraham, to choose it.

Therefore Saint Paul's meaning is not that God will save every particular man, but he says that the promises which were given to one only people, are now stretched out through all the world.

For, as he says in this same epistle to which we alleged before, the wall [of partition] was broken down at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. For God had separated the people of the Jews form all nations; but when Jesus Christ appeared for the saving of the world, then took he away this diversity which was between the Jews and the Gentiles.

So then, God will now embrace us all, and this is the entrance into our salvation. For if that had continued always, which God ordained, then should we be now all accursed, and the gospel should not have been preached unto us. We should have had no sign or token either of the goodness, or the love of God. How is it then that we are come into the house of God, to be his children? Even because we are not more strangers from the promises, as our fathers were; but when Jesus Christ came to be a common Saviour for all in general, he offered the grace of God his Father, to the end that all might receive it.

As Saint Paul speaks now of all nations, so he speaks also of all estates, as if he should say, that God will save kings and magistrates, as well as the least and baser sort. And we must not restrain his Fatherly goodness either to ourselves only, or to some certain number of people. And why so? For he shows that he will be favourable to all. So then, thus we have Saint Paul's meaning. And to confirm this matter he adds that it is God's will, that all should come to the knowledge of truth. We must mark well why Saint Paul uses this argument. For we cannot guess or surmise what God's will is, unless he shows it [to] us, and gives us some sign and token, whereby we have some perseverance of it. It is too high a matter for us, to know what God's counsel is, but so far froth as he shows it [to] us by effect, so far do we comprehend it.

True it is that the gospel is called the mighty power of God to salvation, to all them that believe, it is the gate of paradise. It follows, then, if through the will of God the gospel be preached to al the world, there is a token that salvation is common to all. And thus Saint Paul proves, that God's will is that all men should be saved. For he has not appointed his apostles to keep himself only amongst the Jews; but we know that commission was given [to] them to preach to all creatures, to be witnesses of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem to Samaria, and from thence throughout all the world.

Are the apostles sent to publish the truth of God to all people and to all estates? It follows, then, that God presents himself to all the world, and that the promise belongs to both great and small, as well to the Gentiles now, as to the Jews before. Before we go any further, it is good to beat down the folly, or rather the beastliness of them that abuse this place of Paul, to make the election of our God a thing of nought and utterly take it away. For see what they say: if God will have all men to be saved, it follows that he has not chosen a certain number of mankind, and cast away the rest, but that his will remains indifferent.

So then, these beasts which are nothing exercised in holy writ, and will, notwithstanding play the Doctors, pretend that it stands in the choice of men to save themselves, and that God leaves us alone, and waits to see whether we will come to him or not, and so receives them that come unto him. But in the mean while, they destroy the ground of our salvation; for we know that we are accursed, that the inheritance of salvation is far from us, and if a man would say that Jesus Christ is come to remedy that, then we must examine the nature of men, what it is.

But we are all of us so contrary and such enemies to God, that we cannot but resist him. We are so given to evil and wickedness, that we cannot so much as conceive a good thought. So then, how can it be that we may be partakers of that salvation which is offered to us in the gospel, unless God draws us to it by his Holy Spirit? Let us see now, whether God draw all the world to it or not. No, no, for then had our Lord Jesus Christ said in vain, No man can come to me, except God my Father teach him, (John 6:44).

So then, we must needs conclude that it is a special grace that God bestows upon such as pleases him, to draw them and teach them in such sort, that they believe the gospel, and receive it with a true faith

And now, why does God choose one, and leave the other? We know that men cannot come to God by their deserts, neither is it so, that they which are chosen, have deserved any such thing, as to be preferred before their companions, as though there were some worthiness in them. It follows then, that before the world was made, (as Saint Paul says in the first [chapter of his Epistle to] the Ephesians) God chose such as it pleased him, and it pertains not to us to know why this man more than that man, we know not the reason. And yet must we confess that whatsoever God does, he does it justly: although we know not why.

So then, let us receive that whereof we are so thoroughly certified in Holy Writ, and let us not suffer ourselves to be led amiss under a shadow of this vain reason which ignorant men use, and such as know not one iota of God's word. True it is, that at the first blush, they think they have fair show, and some good resemblance. God will have all men to be saved, it follows then, that it stands in the free choice of every man to be lightened in the faith, and to come to salvation. You say well, if we knew not Saint Paul's meaning: but the very asses may have a bit there, as we say in common proverbs. If a man will read but three lines, he shall easily perceive, that Saint Paul speaks not here of every particular man; (as we showed already) but he speaks of all people, and of all states, and shows the case stands not as it did before the coming of Christ, when as there was but one chosen people; but now God shows himself a Saviour of all the world, according to that which was said: "Thine inheritance shall be even unto the end of the world."

Moreover, to the end that no man may abuse himself, or be deceived by their vain and foolish talk, which wrest and wrench Holy Writ, or rather pervert it, let us see how the saying of these enemies of God and all godliness may stand. God will have all men to be saved, that is to say, every one, as they imagine. If the will of God be so nowadays, no doubt it was like even from the beginning of the world; for we know that his mind does not change, he does not change as men do. So then, if at this day God will have all men to be saved, his mind was so always, and if his mind was so always, what shall we make of that that Saint Paul adds, that he will have all men come to the knowledge of [the] truth?

He chose but one certain people to himself, (as Saint Paul says, Acts 13) and left the poor Gentiles to walk in their ignorance. Could he not have executed his will at that time? Nay, even since the gospel, it was not his will that all should know the gospel at the first blow.

And thereupon, there were some countries where he would not suffer Saint Paul to preach, as in Bythinia, and in Phrygia, (Acts 16:7). And so we see that God would not have his knowledge come to every one at the first blow. And thus we may easily conclude against them which abuse this text, that Saint Paul does not speak int his place of the straight counsel of God, neither the he means to lead us to this everlasting election and choice which was before the beginning of the world, but only shows us what God's will and pleasure is, so far forth as we may know it.

It is true that God does not change, neither does he have two wills (emphasis Tartanarmy!), neither does he use any counterfeit dealing, as though he meant one thing, but would not have it so. And yet the Scriptures speak to us after two sorts touching the will of God. And how may that be? Seeing God uses no double dealing, seeing that there is nothing but a plain and simple meaning in him. How does it come to pass, that his will is spoken of in two sorts?

It is because of our grossness and rudeness, for we know that if God will come down to us, and give us any understanding of things, he must change his own hue. Why does he make himself to have eyes, to have ears, to have a nose? Why does he take upon himself men's affections? Why is it that he says [that] he is angry, [that] he is sorry? Is it not because we cannot comprehend him in his incomprehensible majesty? So then, it is no absurd matter, that Holy Writ should speak unto us of the will of God, after two sorts: not because his will is double, but to apply himself to our weakness, because our understanding is gross and heavy as lead.

And yet there is very good reason in all this same. Why so? When the Scripture tells us, that God has chosen such as it pleased him before the world was made, behold a straight counsel, whereinto we cannot enter. And why then does Holy Writ tell us that the election and choice of God is everlasting? It is not without cause. For it is a very profitable doctrine, if it be received as it ought to be.

For thereby we are put in mind, that we are not called to the knowledge of the gospel by reason of our own worthiness, for we are no better than others are, we are all taken out of the cursed root of Adam, we are all subject to one self-same condemnation, we are all shut up under the slavery of sin and death.

So then, when it pleased God to draw us out of the darkness of unbelief, and give us the light of his gospel, he cast not his eyes upon any service that we might have done, or any virtues that we might have brought him, there was no such thing; but he called us, as he had chosen us before. And this is the order whereunto saint Paul calls us in another place, in the eighth [chapter of his Epistle] to the Romans; in that, that we know God, we must not take the glory to ourselves, but hence it is, because our Lord and God chose us in himself, and would set it forth in effect and deed.

And thus the calling of the faithful hangs upon this counsel of God. Thus we see how, and how far our Lord and God declares and sets out unto us that which he had decreed of us, before we were born. Moreover, does he touch us with his Holy Spirit? We are ingrafted, as it were, into the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the true earnest penny of our adoption: this is the pledge which is given us, to put us out of all doubt that God takes us and holds us for his, when we are made one by faith with Jesus Christ, who is the only begotten Son, unto whom belongs the inheritance of life.

Seeing then that God gives us such a sure certificate of his will, see how he puts us out of doubt of our election, which we know not of, neither can perceive it, and it is as much as if he should draw out a copy of his will, and give it [to] us. He has the first copy, but yet he gives a counterpane good enough in law, to the end that even in our ignorance we may be notwithstanding out of doubt of our salvation, as we are put in hope, which we had been utterly void of, if Jesus Christ did not call us to be members of his body.

Thus we see how profitable this doctrine of election is unto us: first of all, it serves to humble us, in that we now that our salvation hangs not upon our deserts, neither upon our virtues which God might have found in us, but because he chose us before we were born, and before we could do neither good nor evil. And let this be for one note. Moreover, when we know that, according to this unchangeable election, God has called us to himself, we are hereby so much the more put out of doubt of our salvation as Jesus Christ shows it. No man shall take from him that that his Father hath given to him, (John 6:39). And what are they that the Father gives to Jesus Christ?

They whom he hath chosen, and whom he knows to be his. Seeing the case stands so that God has given us to his Son to be kept and defended, because he had chosen us before, and Jesus Christ promises and witnesses that none of us shall be lost, but that he will bestow al the might and power of his Godhead to save and defend us.

Is not this a comfort surpassing and surmounting all the treasure in the world? And is it not also the true ground whereupon all the assurance and certainty of our salvation is stayed and settled? For we are here all as birds upon boughs, as men say, we are set forth as a prey to Satan. What assurance then could we have for tomorrow, and for all our life; yea, and after death, were it not that God who has called us, will make an end of his work as he has begun. And how so? How has he gathered us together in the faith of his gospel? Is it grounded upon us? Nay, clean contrary, it proceeds from his mere and free election.

Therefore we have to be so much more out of doubt. So then, whensoever we are spoken unto touching election, we know that we must not busy ourselves to know more than God's counsel, then he speaks of [it] unto us, that is [to] say, then we have knowledge by [it] in Holy Writ. Behold I say, how simply we are given to understand of the will of God, I mean of that will which he shows us, so far forth as it is profitable for us.

There is moreover and besides, that a will of God, which is, as it were, open unto us. Such a one as he shows us, so oft as his Word is preached unto us. And what will is that? That it is, whereby he calls and exhorts us all to repentance. After that he has once shown us that we are all damned in his sight, and there is nothing but condemnation in us, he shows us that we must renounce ourselves, and get us out of this pit wherein we are [in] over the ears.

In that that God exhorts all men generally, thereby we may judge, that it is the will of God that all men should be saved, as he says also by the prophet Ezekiel; I will not the death of a sinner, but that he turn himself and live, (Ezek. 19:23; 33:11).

How will God [will] that sinners turn themselves? And how shall we know it? In so much as he will have repentance preached to all the world, both to great and small. When it is said that God will receive sinners to mercy, such as come to him and ask forgiveness, and that in Christ's name. Is this doctrine for two or three? No! no! It is a general doctrine. So then it is said that God will have all men to be saved, not having respect to that that we devise or imagine, that is to say, so far forth as our wits are able to comprehend it, for this is the measure that we must always come to. And that it is so, when the Scripture speaks of the love and will of God, let us see, if men can have repentance of their own motion and as they are self-taught, or whether it is God that gives it; yea, and that of an especial goodness. Mark how God says by his prophet, I will that all men turn themselves.

And can a man of himself turn himself? No! No! For if that were in us, it were more than to make us and experience itself sufficiently condemns us. It is moreover, an undoubted doctrine throughout the whole Scripture. For in every place, Our Lord Jesus gives himself the praise of turning us, saying that he will soften our stony hearts, and make them bow to obey him, and it is his work not only to give us that we may, but that we will and desire to obey his commandments, (Ezek. 36:26-27; Phil. 2:13). To be short, there is nothing that the faithful ought to do so much, as in this behalf to give God the glory, confessing that it is in him only to turn us, that it is he only that has adopted us in such sort, that he must needs draw us by the grace of his Holy Spirit. And this is one point, that we must be well resolved of.

As for faith, have men, I beseech you, so sharp wits, that they are able to attain unto this wonderful wisdom which is contained in the gospel, and such as the very angels themselves do reverence as Saint Paul speaks? But if we be so proud, let us mark what God says to us in his Word, that he must open our eyes, and he must bore open our ears, because the natural man does not understand one jot of the secrets of God. It is the Holy Ghost who opens them unto us. To be short, it is not possible to read three lines in Holy Write, but [that] we shall find some sentence or other, that men are utterly blind of their own nature, until God has opened their eyes, and they can in no wise come near him, until he draw them to him.

That it is a special gift which he gives us, when he [en]lightens us in the faith of his truth. Seeing the turning of men is in the hand of God, it follows that he does not give it to all men, for experience teaches us, and so the Scriptures speak: Thy God has not yet given thee an heart to understand, (Deut. 29:4). And again, it is showed us very often, that God casts not forth his grace as it were at haphazard, but that it is only for them whom he has chosen, and for them that are of the body of his church, and of his flock. And thus we see how the will of God is to be taken in this place of Saint Paul, when he says, that all men should be saved, that is to say, of all people and all states. And how is that? For he offers his gospel, says he, to all, which is the means to draw us to salvation. And does this profit all men?

No! No! As our own eyes can be witnesses. For when we have had our ears beaten with the truth of God, if we rebel against it, it shall be to our great condemnation. Yet so it is, that there are many which do not profit in the gospel, but rather become worse by it, yea, even of them to whom the gospel is preached, which are not all saved. Therefore God must go further to bring us to salvation, he must not only appoint men and send men to teach us faithfully, but he must play the matter within our hearts. He must touch us to the quick, he must draw us unto him, and must make his work not to be unprofitable to us, and cause it to take root in our hearts.

Moreover, we see it most evidently, and as a matter out of all doubt, that we have to consider the will of God after two sorts, in consideration and respect of our own reach; not that it is double of itself (as we said before), but in respect of our weakness, and because God abases himself, as well in this, as in all the rest, to make himself easy and familiar to our capacity. For we see how he frames his tongue and speech to us in his Word, as nurses use to do with young and suckling children. If God should speak unto us according to his majesty, his speech would be too high and hard for us to attain unto it, it would utterly confound us, it would astonish and amaze us. For if our eyes be not able to abide the clearness of the sun, are our minds, I pray you, able to comprehend that infinite majesty which is God? So then these beasts, which would destroy God's election, must not abuse this place, nor say, that we make a double will in God; for therein they do impudently and villainously misreport us. But we say as every man sees, that is, to wit, that as far as we can perceive, God would have all men to be saved, whensoever and how oft so ever he appoints his gospel to be preached unto us.

And why so? For (as we said before), the gate of paradise is opened unto us, when we are so called to be partakers of that redemption, which was purchased for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the will of God, such and so far forth as we can reach unto it, to wit, if he exhorts us to repentance, that he is ready to receive us when we come unto him. Now though we have answered and put away the doubts which may be moved upon this place, yet it shall be good to bring a similitude to make this doctrine more easy: I call a similitude that agreement and likelihood which God makes between the people of Israel and us. God said that he chose out for himself all the children of Abraham, to be his inheritance (Deut. 7:6-8), and dedicated them to himself, and loved them and took them for his own household.

And this is true: because he made his covenant with all them that were circumcised. Was circumcision a vain figure, and of no importance? Nay, it was a sure and undoubted gauge, that God had chosen [his] people for his own (Rom. 9:6-7), as he accounted all them for his flock which came of that race. And yet, was there not a special grace for some of that people? Yes surely, as Saint Paul well sets it forth. Not all they that came of the race of Abraham after the flesh are true Israelites; for God also deprived some of this benefit, to the end that his grace and goodness might seem so much the more and greater towards them who he had called to himself. Behold therefore, this will of God which was towards the people of Israel shows itself at this day towards us.

Wherefore? The gospel shall be preached where God has appointed it, and there shall be one self same order to hold throughout in all places alike, but we see that rather come to pass which was spoken by the prophet Amos, that God will rain upon one city, and be dry to another, that there shall be a famine of his truth in many places, (Amos 4:7). And so the Lord sends his gospel whither it pleases him, and yet is not his grace poured out upon Judea only, or upon one corner of that land, but upon all the world both here and thee, although there be not the like in every place. Yet can it not be, but God must work otherwise and further in them whom he will draw to himself.

For all of us have our ears stopped up, all of us have our eyes hood-winked; yea, and that more is, we are deaf and blind, unless he has touched us, and we receive his Word. And thus stands the will of God, which we have to understand after two sorts, even as holy Writ makes it plain unto us; not (as I said) that God is double in himself, or that his will is diverse and changeable. Now let us come to practice this doctrine, and let us mark first of all when the gospel is preached unto us, that it is as much as if God reached out his hand (as he speaks by the prophet Isaiah), and said unto us, Come to me, (Isaiah 65:2).

It is a matter which ought to touch us to the quick, when we see that God comes to seek us, and does not wait till we come unto him, but shows that he is ready to be made at one with us, although we were his deadly enemies, and seeks nothing but to wipe out all our faults, and make us partakers of that salvation which was purchased for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus we see how worthily we have to esteem of the gospel, and what a treasure it is, accordingly as we have already alleged out of the first chapter [of the Epistle] to the Romans, that it is the mighty power of God to salvation to all them that believe, that it is the kingdom of heaven, and how be it God opens us the door, to the end that being got out of the pits wherein we are of nature sunk, we may enter into his glory. And let this be for one lesson.

Yet let us mark moreover, that it is not enough for us to receive the word that shall be preached unto us by the mouth of man, which is but a sound, which may vanish away into the air without any profit, but after that we have heard the Word of God, he must speak unto us inwardly by his Holy Spirit, for that is the only means to bring us to the knowledge of the truth.

And so, when God has dealt so mercifully with us as to give us the light of faith, let us hold it of him, and pray him to continue it, and bring this work to perfection, and let us not proudly lift up ourselves above other men, as though we were more worthy than they. We know that it is our God which has chosen us, and sets us apart from others of his mere goodness and free mercy. And this we are to mark upon this place. Know we moreover, that men are very faulty, when God offers them his Word, and they do not receive it. And surely this is partly spoken unto us, to the end that all the faithful should with all humility glorify the grace of God towards them, and partly to the end that unbelievers and rebels should have their mouths stopped, that they might not blaspheme against God as though he had been wanting to them.

For we see how he calls all them to salvation, to whom his Word is preached. If a man reply and say: yea, sir, but they cannot come to God. We cannot stand to plead here, for we shall find ourselves always in fault. If a man would say, it rests only in God's hands, but if he would give me repentance, could not he do it? And if I remain stiff-necked in mine hardness and malice, what should I do in that case, seeing that God will not give me repentance to turn to him?

Oh, this is not in any wise to be allowed of, for God calls us sufficiently unto him, and we cannot accuse him of cruelty, or that he was wanting unto us. For if we had not his Word, yet must we needs confess that he is just although we know not the cause that moves him to deprive us of it. But when we are called to come to God, and we know that he is ready to receive us, if we do not come, can we deny but that we are unthankful and slack?

But let us further mark that we may not separate the one from the other; salvation from the knowledge of the truth. For God means neither to lie nor to deceive men, when he says that when they come to the knowledge of truth, they shall be saved. If he gives not this knowledge to all, (as it has been said already), he is not bound unto us nor so much indebted to us. And as for the rest we cannot but remain always faulty.

But (as I have said), let us learn to join these two words together, God will have all men to be saved. And how? If they come to a knowledge of the truth. For this will hold us short, that we cannot run out of our compass as others do. Every man would be saved, but no man will draw nigh to God. Thus the Scripture holds us in this simplicity, that if we desire salvation, we must hold the means which is appointed for us and which God sets before us, that is to say, we must receive his Word with obedience of faith. This is everlasting life, says Christ, to wit, to know God his Father, and then to know him also, and to receive him as the only Saviour, (John 17:3). And therefore let us learn, as we have it here set forth unto us, not to doubt of the certainty of our salvation, for the kingdom of God is within us. And will we that God receive us?

Then must we receive this doctrine which Saint Paul gives us. For the will of God is our way. How are we raised again from the dead? How are we called to the hope of salvation? Even by God's good showing his love and favour to us; then we must remain and stand fast there. And thus we see in few words, what Saint Paul's meaning is, to wit, that for so much as God will have his grace to be known to all the world, and has commanded his gospel to be preached to all creatures, we must as much as lieth in us, procure the salvation of all them which are at this day strangers from the faith, and seem utterly to be deprived of the goodness of God, that we may bring them to it.

And why so? For Jesus Christ is not the Saviour of three or four, but he offers himself to all, and let this be for one lesson. Moreover, so oft as the gospel is preached to us, we have to know and consider that God calls us unto him, and it is not in vain, it shall not be lost labour, so that we come to him. And can we come to him of the motion of our own nature? Alas no! For we are wholly against him, (Rom. 8:7), and there is not one iota of affection in us, but are his utter enemy, as Saint Paul says, and we do daily rebel against him.

But when God deals so graciously with us, that he touches us with his Holy Spirit, then he causes his gospel to work profitably to our salvation, then he displays his virtue, which Saint Paul speaks of, for we believe nothing but what he speaks. Again, let us know that when the gospel is preached to us, it is to make us so much the more void of excuse. And why so? For seeing that God had already showed us that he was ready to receive us to mercy, if we had come to him, our condemnation shall no doubt be increased if we be so wicked, as to draw back, when he calls so mildly and lovingly. Yet notwithstanding, (as we are here exhorted), let us not leave off to pray for all men in general, for Saint Paul shows us, that God will have all men to be saved, that is to say of all people and nations.

And therefore we must not settle ourselves in such sort upon the diversity which is seen amongst men, that we forget that God has made us all to his image and likeness, that we are his workmanship, that he may stretch forth his goodness over them which are at this day far from him, as we have good proof of it.

For when he drew us unto him, (as it was showed before) were we not his enemies? How then comes it to pass, that we are now of the household of faith, the children of God, and members of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it not because he had gathered us unto himself? And is he not the Saviour of the whole world as well? Is Jesus Christ come to be the Mediator between two or three men only?

No! No! But he is the Mediator between God and men. And therefore, we may be so much the more assured, that God take sand holds us for his flock, if we endeavour to bring them to God which are this day, as it were, far off. And therefore let us comfort ourselves, and take good hearts unto us in our calling, that albeit there be at this day an horrible forlornness, so that it may be well seeing that we are very miserable creatures, utterly cast away and condemned yet must we labour as much as we can to draw them to salvation which seem to be far off, and above all things let us pray to God for them, waiting patiently till it pleases him to show his good will toward them, as he has already showed it upon us.

Now let us fall down before the face of our good God, and confess our faults, praying him that it would please him to make us feel them in such sort, that being beaten down within ourselves, we may be bold, notwithstanding, to come to him, because he calls us so lovingly, and doubt not but he will hear our prayers, which we shall make unto him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he would make us always feel the fruit of our prayers, when we call upon him with a true faith and repentance. That he be not only gracious unto us, but also to all people and nations of the earth.

This sermon is from a Wm. B. Eerdmans' volume which was a reprint of the only sizable collection of John Calvin's sermons translated into the English language since the Sixteenth Century and the only volume ever published in America up to that time (1949). The collection was originally published in a limited edition in 1830 by John Forbes of New York.

Reflections from the past.

2011-02-11T12:15:00.000-08:00

On the matter of the well meant offer, God's love and accomplished atonement, it was interesting to read a conversation I had a while back at Phil's Team Pyro.

Mark

See Here

Scripture interprets scripture.

2011-02-11T10:12:00.000-08:00

Upward and God-ward.

2011-02-11T03:40:00.000-08:00

I was hoping that someone here could answer this for me. If we are so depraved that we are dead and dead in our sins and unable to respond, after all dead people do not respond, then how can a believer who is dead to sin still sin? I mean dead is dead right? Would this not be why we have prevenient grace that enables a person to either accept/reject the gospel? And while we are at it, why is accepting a gift called a work by Calvinists, it is still all of grace. Just accepting something that you do not deserve does not mean that you can boast or take credit that is just silly.

When Scripture (and Calvinism) refers to the deadness of mankind, it is talking about man's inability in one direction, IE Upward and God-ward. The direction of Spiritual good. The direction of God's righteousness. The direction of being able in and of itself to please God.
Being "dead" in sin has no biblical application that extends beyond that.
So, to say man is dead in his sin, does not mean he is literally dead and therefore being dead he cannot sin or being dead he cannot do anything!

Arminians need to follow the teaching/description of being "dead" as far as scripture applies it.

Think of man, all men, being on a "horizontal plain". All men are born as sinners and are equal in that sense. We are all like "worms" comparing ourselves to other "worms", but still worms.
On the horizontal plane, we are unable to rise above it and interact with the life of God. Let us call that realm the Vertical plane.
Man has no inherent ability to traverse from the horizontal to the vertical. Man is "dead" meaning spiritually unable to bridge the two planes.

Being "regenerated" or being "Born again" or being "made spiritually alive" bridges the gap between God and man.
Until that happens by God's grace alone, there is no "spiritual life" in man, but death only, leading to ultimate physical death and eternal death.

Hope that helps.

As far as "Prevenient grace is concerned, I do not find the concept in scripture. I see it as a way of holding on to libertarian freedom. A concept scripture does not teach in any way, shape or form.
Prevenient grace only facilitates the idea that men still have the ability to make use of God's grace. Such an idea is not compatible with "Grace".
And that answers your last objection as to faith and works. If one person makes better use of this supposed "prevenient" grace, then the difference between the saved and the unsaved is not "God's grace" but rather mans use of this thing called "Prevenient grace".
It makes real grace, into prevenient grace, which in turn depends upon the will and nature of man. It turns Grace into a work.
It is not about "simply" accepting a gift. It is all about a dead man being resurrected from his own spiritual grave!
It is like Lazarus being raised from the tomb. He did not accept anything! He was like an illustration of the old words in that Hymn Amazing grace. He was blind and made to see. He was lost and found. He was dead and stinketh, but was commanded to come forth! That is the new birth physically and graphically illustrated by Jesus Himself!

Baptism- A resource

2011-01-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

Uploaded files

Playlist: Baptism Debate

Had to post this, simply amazing!

2010-12-29T04:11:00.001-08:00

Bible-optional Christianity

12/28/2010 - Alan Kurschner

William Lane Craig

"As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

Paul of Tarsus

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:12-21

21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

45Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45-49.

H.T Steve Hays

John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen

2010-12-26T02:31:00.000-08:00

Merry Xmas All...and to all a goodnight!

2010-12-24T10:33:00.000-08:00

1. Behold the Christ of God and see

The glory of the Godhead Three,

The Father, Spirit, and the Son

Revealed in the incarnate One.

2. The fulness of the Godhead dwells

In Him who ransomed us from hell.

We know the mighty God above

Through our Redeemer's work of love.

3. Great, holy, sovereign, just, and true,

God's merciful and gracious too!

In justice He has slain His Son

That He might save His chosen ones!

4. In Christ, the Mediator man,

God has fulfilled salvation's plan.

He magnified His holy law,

Yet saves His people from the fall!

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 3/3

2010-12-08T09:47:00.000-08:00

The objection which the Arminians offer is frivolous: 'that there is a twofold intercession of Christ: one universal, which is made for the whole world, of which intercession Isaiah speaks, 53.12, and agreeably to which He is said to have prayed for His murderers, Luke 23.34; another particular, which is made for believers only, which is spoken of, John 9 and Rom. 8.'

The objection rests not on any foundation, either in Scripture or reason.

As Christ is always heard and answered by the Father, John 11.42, if He prays for all, all will be saved. The doctrine of universal intercession is not taught by the Prophet Isaiah, where he says, 'he made intercession for the transgressors,' Isa. 12; for it is not said that He made intercession for all, but for many whose character is delineated by the prophet, in a preceding verse, as those who shall be justified by Christ.

It is not said, Luke 23.4, that He prayed for all those who crucified Him, but for those who knew not what they did; and we are assured that these obtained pardon, no doubt the fruit of the prayer which Christ offered up on the cross to the Father, Acts 2.3.

Nor if Christ, through the impulse of humane affections of love, prayed for those who perished, is it to be considered that the intercessory prayers, which He offered as Mediator and in the discharge of His special office, are to be extended to others than the elect given Him by the Father. To the elect Christ Himself restricts His intercessory prayers.

3. The inseparable connection between the gift of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit bears the most conclusive testimony to the definite atonement.

As these two gifts, the most excellent which God has bestowed on us, are always in Scripture joined together as cause and effect, John 16.7, Gal. 4.4, 6, Rom. 8.9, 1 John 3.24, they must be of equal extent and go together; so that the Son is not given to acquire salvation for any others than those to whom the Spirit was given to apply the salvation procured. No reason can be assigned why the gift of the Son should be more extensive than the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is plain that the Holy Spirit is given to none but the elect. Hence, if there be any harmony between the work of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit, in the economy of salvation, Christ was given to die for the elect, and for them only. Pertinent to this purpose is the argument of the Apostle Paul, in which, from the giving of Christ, he infers the communication of every blessing. 'He that spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?' Rom. 8.32.

The apostle reasons from the greater to the less. Surely He who gave His Son, which incontrovertibly was the greater gift, will not refuse to give us faith and all other saving blessings, which are the less; and this the rather, because Christ, by delivering Himself up, has merited for us, together with salvation, all those gifts. Whence the conclusion is inevitable: either all those blessings shall be given to the reprobate, if Christ died for them; or if they are not given them, which is granted by all, then Christ did not die for them, i.e., He did not die for all.

This is not answered by alleging that the apostle speaks of Christ's being given in a special manner to the believers. For, as was said above, the supposition of a universal giving is gratuitous, and nowhere countenanced in Scripture; and since faith is a fruit of Christ's death, it cannot be a condition antecedent to His death. Further, since, according to the order which is laid down by our learned opponents themselves, the decree concerning Christ's death was antecedent to the decree relative to bestowing faith; it is inconceivable how at one and the same time, and in the self-same simple act, Christ could be delivered up for all, and for some only.

4. Another argument is, the superlative love of Christ towards those for whom He died. He loved them with the most ardent affection. Greater love has no one, than that one should lay down his life for his friend, John 15.13. In the same exalted strain does the Apostle Paul extol the love of Christ: he speaks of it as truly wonderful and unheard of among men. 'Scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would dare even to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us', Rom. 5.7, 8.

But this cannot be said of all men, and every man.

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 2/3

2010-12-08T09:46:00.000-08:00

To no purpose will our opponents reply, that 'the giving of Christ was conditional, not absolute; that the condition was that all who would by faith receive the offered salvation, should be made partakers of it; and since this was not to be the case with all, it is not surprising that they derive no advantage from it.'

This is a begging of the question; it is without foundation in Scripture, which nowhere mentions such a conditional giving of Christ. Though faith is proposed as a means and condition necessary to the reception of Christ, and the enjoyment of the blessings offered in the Gospel, yet it does not follow that it was a condition to the giving of Christ, since faith itself is a gift of grace and one of the fruits of Christ's being delivered up for sinners.

Further, if the giving of Christ rested upon any condition, the condition must depend either upon God or upon man. The latter of these can be affirmed by none but a Pelagian; if the former be affirmed, then it comes to this, that Christ is said to be given to us as a Saviour by God on these terms, that He will bestow Him on us on condition of His working faith in us; which faith, however, He will not give, though He alone is able to give it. How glaring an absurdity!

Our view is further confirmed by the connection of that twofold relation to us, which Christ sustains: the relation of a surety, and that of a Head. He is our surety, that He may acquire salvation for us, by rendering to justice that satisfaction which it demands. He is our Head, in order to apply this salvation to us, by working in us faith and repentance, through the effectual operation of his Holy Spirit upon our hearts.

Hence, as He is not given as a Head to all men, but to His members only, or, which is the same thing, to the elect, who are actually to partake of salvation, He cannot be the surety or sponsor of any other than these. Of whomsoever He is the surety, He is also the head. The one cannot be extended farther than the other.

This also appears from the connection between the death and resurrection of Christ, in which there is the same twofold relation. Since He died as surety, He must rise as Head, as the reasons for His death and resurrection are the same; nor can any reason be given, why the ground of the one should be more extensive than that of the other.

Hence it is, that the Apostle Paul speaks of these as being equal in efficacy and extent: 'Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification', Rom. 4.25. 'That he died for all, that they which live, should not live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again', 2 Cor. 4.15.

Hence it cannot be said that He died for any others than those for whom He rose, because no one will be a partaker of the fruits of Christ's death, unless by His resurrection. But that He did not rise as a Head to confer salvation upon all, is self-evident.

2. The same doctrine is established by the connection between the atonement and the intercession of Christ. As they are both parts of His priestly office, they must be of the same extent; so that for all for whom He made satisfaction, He should also intercede, and not make atonement for those who will never have a place in His intercession.

The object of His propitiation and of His appearance in the presence of God must be one, since the Apostles Paul and John represent their connection as indissoluble, 1 John 2.1, 2, Rom. 8.34. That He does not intercede for all, but only for those who are given Him by the Father, Christ Himself expressly declares: 'I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world', John 17.9. When it is so much more easy to pray for any one than to lay down life for them, will any one say that Christ would die for those for whom He would not pray?

Will they say that at the very moment before His death He would refuse His prayers on behalf of those for whom He is just about to shed His blood?

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement. Part 1/3

2010-12-06T06:23:00.000-08:00

The Case for a Definite and Complete Atonement

By Francis Turretin

Francis Turretin

1. We argue that the atonement was definite, from the fact that Christ was destined to die for none but those who were given him by the Father. All men universally were not given to Christ but a limited number only. Since, in the council of the Father which regulated Christ's death and defined its object, there was a designation, not only of Christ as Mediator, but also of those for whose redemption and salvation He was to suffer; it is plain that He could die for those only who were in this sense given Him.

Here we may remark a twofold donation. One of Christ to men, another of men to Christ. Christ was given to men for the purpose of saving them and men to Christ that through Him they might be saved. The former is referred to in Isa. 9.6 and 49.6, as well as in all those places in which He is said to be given and sent to us; the latter is alluded to in the places where mention is made of those given to Christ, as in John 17.2, 6,12, and 6.37.

Seeing this twofold giving is reciprocal, each of them must be of the same extent; so that Christ is given for none but those who are given to Him, and all those are given to Christ for whom He is given. Now, it is abundantly plain that some men only; and not all men, were given to Christ. This is asserted in many texts of Scripture, where those who are given to Him are distinguished from other men. 'Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou hast given me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me', John 17.2,6.

The Scripture designates those whom the Father gave Him by such phrases as these: the people whom He foreknew, Rom. 11.2; heirs and children of promise, Rom. 9.8; the seed of Abraham, not carnal, but spiritual, both of the Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 4.13, Gal. 3.18, Heb. 2.16; His people, His body, the Church, Matt. 1.21, Eph. 5.23; vessels of mercy prepared to glory, Rom. 9.24; chosen in Christ, predestinated to the adoption of sons and to conformity to His image, Rom. 8.30, Eph. 1.4, 5; and the posterity of the second Adam, all of whom are to be quickened in Christ, in opposition to the posterity of the first Adam, in whom all die, 1 Cor. 1 5.22, 23. From all which it appears, that Christ was not given for all of all nations, but for a limited number only.

Norm Geisler---Heretic. Plain and simple, and oh yeah...Nitric Acid!

2010-11-22T10:49:00.000-08:00

I know many shall call me out on this but I do not care anymore.
I simply do not care.

If the man believes what he says in this video and the others associated with it "as in a whole series" on God's Sovereignty, then the man is a heretic. Plain and simple.

In fact, just in this video alone he really and truly advocates the main tenant of OPEN THEISM.

There, I said what others will not say.

The god of the "possibilities and the best kind of all possible worlds" is what OPEN THEISM as heresy teaches, and so too does this man Norman Geisler.

There. I said it.
Proclaim the real truth and be proud no matter what men and even good men shall say.

Mark

And if Jesus is suffering and going through all that he did for "everyone", then what hope do I have for me, when Judas and Pharoah recieved as much for them that I did.

What hope is that to live by?

And as for "miracles so called" being very rare, what then of all the people every day being saved by the greatest miracle of all, namely regeneration or the new birth?
So much for the free will idea of many people everywhere coming to Christ.
Which is it?
Many miracles or few miracles?

Such is the inconsistency of Arminianism/Semi Palagianism, Such is the idea of open heresy.

Some ask me if Arminians, "real" arminians are saved, and I say the following.

Many might be saved in their inconsistency, but many more might actually be as lost as the city of Alantis. That is my sincere belief after years of interaction with many hundreds of Arminians.

I would rather be standing with George Whitfield than John Wesley on the great day of Judgement any day of the week.

Religion has caused more death and wars than anything else. Really?

2010-11-14T04:24:00.000-08:00

Book excerpt:

Religion the greatest danger to world peace? Think again

Contrary to what anti-religious zealots such as [Sam] Harris assert, throughout history far more lives have been snuffed out by faith-hating fanatics than by religious believers.

Historical demographers estimate that, in the 350 years between 1478 and 1834, the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the execution of between 2,000 (Encyclopedia Britannica) and 32,000 people (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.)

That works out to about ninety-seven people a year- a ghastly number, to be sure, but a far cry from the "millions" routinely cited by secular fundamentalists.

As for the "witch hunts," another example Harris and others give as irrational religious fanaticism, the British historian Norman Davies estimates 50,000 people, primarily women, were executed as witches over a four-hundred year period-an average of about 125 a year.

Yet as horrible as these examples of religious intolerance may be, they pale in comparison with the single-minded, bloodthirsty, satanic fury unleashed upon the innocent by secular fundamentalists-those militantly atheistic regimes that sought to expunge religious belief and "bourgeois" morality represented intolerable obstacles to social progress.

According to research conducted by the political scientist Rudolph Rummel at the University of Hawaii, the officially atheist states of the Communist bloc committed more acts of genocide than any societies in governments in the twentieth century-communist, socialist, fascist-equals about 170 million.

USSR: 61 million people murdered 1917-1987
Communist China: 35,2 million people murdered 1949-present
Mao's army: 3.4 million people murdered 1923-1949
Nazi Germany: 20 million people murdered 1932-1945
Communist Poland: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1948
Communist Cambodia: 2 million people murdered 1975-1979
Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1975
Communist Yugoslavia: 1 million people murdered 1944-1987
Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution: 1.4 million people murdered 1900-1920
Turkey:1.8 million people murdered 1900-1918
Pakistan: 1.5 million people murdered 1958-1987
Japan: 5.9 million people murdered 1936-1945

...Rummel's conclusion is as shocking as it is inescapable: War wasn't the most deadly evil to afflict humanity in the twentieth century. Government was! And not just any government, but atheist government.

As a result, ordinary people-whether religious or not-might be forgiven their general skepticism when today's secular fundamentalists talk about the "intolerance" and "violence" of biblical religion or the people who believe in it.

In terms of raw numbers-which is the only kind of evidence that rationalists such as Harris claim to accept-the evidence is incontrovertible: Freed of any moral restraint, believing that the ends justify the means, scoffing at the notion that they will ever answer to a power higher than themselves, the murderous dictators of atheistic regimes feel little hesitation in committing mass murder if they believe it will advance their more "rational," more "scientific" social aims.

I realize that the above information does not automatically mean that atheism is false. Nor do we believe (or mean to imply) that all atheists are bad people. We know some that are very nice.

The purpose of this book excerpt was to challenge the often proclaimed statement that "religion has caused more death and wars than anything else," or an objection like it.

Religion of Peace again presented.

2010-11-10T22:25:00.000-08:00

A Request for My Muslim Friends

11/10/2010 - James White

For those of the Muslim faith who abhor violence and murder, could you direct me, please, to the fatwas that are being pronounced from recognized Islamic centers of jurisprudence against the Muslims who are busily murdering the People of the Gospel in Iraq? Here is an example from today. I know there are Muslims who believe such actions are wrong, but I would like to see the official fatwas against this kind of activity. Please use the Contact link on the web page to provide the URLs to these statements. Thank you!

And then we have-------------------

And a Canadian Muslim Responds....

11/10/2010 - James White

A radical Muslim who has been banned from our chat channel decided to provide a glowing example of the problems Islam has with its followers by sending in this e-mail:

Email: yandiyandi16@yahoo.com

Subject: Islam

Message: YOU WANT FATWA CONDEMNING IRAQI CHRISTIAN ATTACKS?

HERE IS A FATWA FROM ME.

- Murder all cross worshipers in Iraq and send the survivors to USA and let them stay with Bush. Hows that?

I Agree:

IP: 64.229.168.150
HOST: bas2-toronto63-1088792726.dsl.bell.ca

Well there you go! Thanks to this Canadian Muslim, who lives in the Toronto area (in a nice area of town from what I'm told by those up in that area), for showing us the love he has for "cross worshipers." Of course, we do not worship the cross, but we worship the one who gave His life upon the cross to redeem guilty sinners and bring us peace with the Father. And it is that One, the Incarnate Son, prophesied long before in the Scriptures, the eternal Son of God, fully God and fully Man, who is the only hope this man will ever have of standing before God without experiencing His wrath. I pray God will be merciful to him and open his eyes to the glory of Christ Jesus.

Meanwhile, another Muslim (I won't give his name unless he wants me to---I have interacted with him before) wrote and basically said my request was silly. In essence, he said you won't find such fatwas since that issue was settled long before, and Islam condemns the killing of innocent people. Well, that's wonderful---so why is it that men like Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood mass murderer (who not only killed adults, but shot and killed a pregnant woman), are treated as heroes in the Islamic world? I pointed out that in the thinking of men like the Canadian Muslim above, there are no innocent people! Since we are all born Muslims, and then are perverted into Christians or Jews or whatever, then none of us are innocent, in their thinking. That's how they get around these things. I am glad for all the Muslims who think this is a "done deal," but when I see my brothers and sisters dying daily around the world, I am left wondering why the word can't be gotten out just a bit better by Muslim leaders, you know?

Note by Tartanarmy,

Here is what I think. If Islam teaches Muslims that they can deceive Christians ( Al Takeyya) when they are not in power, or to defend Muslims, then why would anyone be surprised if Muslims are not coming forward en mass to speak out against the violence done to Christians?
How can we trust Islam in any meaningful way? That is my dilemma.

Great sense of humor!

2010-11-04T05:18:00.000-07:00

Acts 17 Apologetics....great resource on Islam......

From AOMIN.....Jeff Downs

2010-11-02T11:49:00.000-07:00

Golden Chain

11/02/2010 - Jeff Downs

Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Seminary recently spoke at the Oklahoma Conference on Reformed Theology on the topic of the "Golden Chain of Redemption (Romans 8:29-30)." I am currently taking Christ & Salvation with Dr. Pipa, some of the same things mentioned in class are presented in this lectures. The advantage you have is you is that he is not going to ask you questions about what you read. The disadvantage is that the lectures total only five hours (the class is 3 hrs. every Wednesday over a semester - certainly more intense).

I've listened to part of the lecture on Predestination and here is my favorite statement:

Some may say “because I am elect, it doesn’t really matter how I live or what I do. Well the one thing I can say for sure about you is that you might be elect, but you are not yet converted.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know about you, but that comment seems not only a contradiction, but in fact, a sentiment that pushes works over grace, but of course I may be wrong.

Then again, I have never yet met a so called "elect" person who ever said such a thing.....

Mark

Closed for now!

2010-10-16T10:33:00.000-07:00

Temporarily!

....To God alone be the glory!....

An indictment against Piper and Warren...Pragmatism

2010-10-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

James White interviewed about Rick Warren.

2010-10-09T01:16:00.000-07:00

I was forced at gunpoint to join Mike Abendroth (one of the nefarious and widely feared Abendroth Brothers Gang) on his No Compromise Radio Program today. What was worse, he forced me to listen to Rick Warren's presentation at the DG Conference. Very painful. 350 pithy platitudes strung together on citations of the Message and the Living Bible interspersed with psychology and repeated references to how uber cool Saddleback is. But, I listened, because I was forced to! And then Mike made me go on the air and give a report! It was a traumatic experience, but I got through it. James White

Click here to listen!

Pit bull-related fatalities....Please consider.

2010-10-05T10:46:00.000-07:00

Yet again, another incident here in Australia results in two elderly people being mauled by this breed of dog.

Why is it, this breed has such a bad reputation?
Do the research and educate yourself as to why. The truth is out there if you care to find it.

Mark

It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities is disputed.^[48] One point of view is that pit bulls are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls.^[49]^[50] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous dogs than breed-specific legislation.^[51]^[52]

A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.^[53] Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition.^[54]^[55]

Fatalities reported in the United States (2005–2009)

Main article: List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

The following table summarizes the number of pit bull-related fatalities in the United States from 2005–2009 as reported by news organizations:

**Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States**.^[44]
Year	Total	Involving pit bull-type dogs
2005	28	17 (62%)
2006	29	15 (52%)
2007	34	18 (53%)
2008	23	15 (65%)
2009	30	14 (47%)

Silver tongue Warren......!!

2010-10-05T10:04:00.001-07:00

Lest we forget....Hmmm

2010-10-03T11:36:00.000-07:00

Paul told us that the purpose of the Body of Christ is to stir the Jews to jealousy. We are to share with them the Gospel and therefore the message that Messiah has come.

Here we have a series of videos from Synagogue 3000 which was held in 2005.
Just to remind everyone who may start talking again about Rick Warren and the Desiring God conference. If you watch the videos below you shall see why Warren is the great speaker he is, and he is.
But my problem is about whether Christians are discerning enough to see through what many of our sound teachers cannot see through. We shall see.

Remember, these are not Christians. These are Jewish leaders Warren is talking to.
They have no interest in Christ. Yet Rick Warren is more than happy to help them grow their synagogues and help them become "Purpose Driven".

Remember, I didn't say this...this is straight from the horse's mouth!
Also, please note where Warren actually apologises to this Jewish audience for bringing up Jesus!!
I kid you not. (Half way through short video 3 below)

Rick Warren is known to adapt to whatever group he is preaching to. It saddens me so many Godly men and women listened to this wolf in sheeps clothing. I love John Piper but He should be ashamed for allowing such a luke warm man to feed His flock.

1. BelongersAndBelievers_S3KRickWarren.mov
2. CongregationalTransitions_S3KRickWarren.mov
3. DoubtAndBelief_S3KRickWarren.mov (Pardon me for talking about Christian Jesus!)
4. InsidersVsOutsiders_S3KRickWarren.mov
5. ServiceVsServeUs_S3KRickWarren.mov
6. TheParametersOfFaith_S3KRickWarren.mov
7. WorshipAndFellowship_S3KRickWarren.mov

White Horse prophecy

2010-09-30T04:10:00.000-07:00

Interesting... I wonder if Glenn Beck believes he is the man to fulfill this prophecy?

http://www.mormonwiki.org/White_Horse_prophecy

Which Sword?

2010-09-30T03:50:00.000-07:00

Several new MP3s from John W. Robbins have been published at the Trinity Foundation (under Miscellaneous Lectures at the bottom of the page). I found John’s answer to a question at the end of one of his lectures to be very powerful, especially considering John’s background.

It’s very tempting and it’s very deceptive for conservatives to go along with a guy like Pat Buchanan because he says some things they like. But his theology and his philosophy is pure poison.

So the question you have to ask yourself is – and this applies to all sorts of things in the political arena.

Anti-abortion for example – Am I going to work together with people who deny the gospel in order to accomplish a political end?

Which is more important? Is it more important to be faithful to the gospel, to be faithful to Christ, or to get a law passed regarding something desirable? Which is more important?

The religious right has made the wrong choice for decades. They say, yes, we can work together with Jews. We can work together with Roman Catholics. We can work together with unbelievers of various sorts. You know, Mormons are strong on the family, so we’ll work together with Mormons – which is a real joke if you read about Mormon theology. We can work together with them all in order to accomplish our political ends.

So they compromise on everything important in order to accomplish something that is going to be temporary at best. They don’t realize that the free societies we have came about precisely because of the preaching of the gospel. That’s why we have this free society, or what’s left of it. And if that preaching of the gospel is muted or compromised or ended altogether, there is no hope for any political action.

If you’re going to take political action that is going to compromise the gospel, then you are sealing your own doom. Over the past 50 years, conservatives have spent tens of billions of dollars lobbying, trying to elect candidates, trying to organize in various ways. When I was a kid, I was out passing out literature for Barry Goldwater, back in 1964.

And what has it gained? Are we any better off, to borrow a campaign slogan – are we better off today than we were 50 years ago? What have all those conservatives and libertarians done with those billions of dollars that has shown any improvement in the political or the moral climate of the country?

Now, if that money had been put into the preaching of the gospel – the uncompromised, unvarnished, pure gospel, perhaps there would be something completely different to show for it. But it was put into compromised political action, and there’s nothing to show for it. Absolutely nothing. Tens of billions of dollars – when you think of all the campaigns, all the organizations.

And I’ve been involved – my [PhD] degree’s in political theory, political philosophy. I’ve been interested in politics all my life and have been involved from time to time, working on Capitol Hill. And I learned a very good lesson on Capitol Hill – that what happens there is of little consequence. That if one is interested in changing society, you don’t go to Capitol Hill, you preach the gospel.

If anybody is operating under the illusion that political action is going to make a significant change in society apart from a sea change in the beliefs in the American people, then they’re condemned to futility. They will waste their lives.

-John W. Robbins, former Chief of Staff for Ron Paul:

The Religious Wars of the 21st Century

False religion by Phil Johnson

2010-09-30T03:42:00.000-07:00

othing is more offensive to God than false religion. The first two of the Ten Commandments underscore that truth. The order of the Commandments is significant. By ruling out false religion before forbidding murder, adultery, or stealing, Moses' Law made clear that that false religion is the vilest of sins.

We have a tendency to regard all religion as inherently noble and honorable. We tend to think that a non-Christian who is devout in his or her religion is somehow morally superior to the wanton sinner who openly traffics in drugs or pornography or some other notorious sin.

But let's be honest: that is not a proper biblical perspective. False religion is gross sin. The person who worships a false god is as abhorrent to the true God as a publican or a prostitute. And the person who worships YHWH in a false or hypocritical way is engaging in wanton sin just as surely as the thief or murderer. Pharisees always think they are morally superior to publicans and sinners, but the ministry of Christ gave ample proof that they are not.

So you can be a religious person and devote your whole life to a broadly inclusive style of gentle piety and altruistic good works in a way that will gain you the respect of all society, but if you worship the wrong god—or even if you worship the true God in a wrong way—you might be worse off, and your life might be even more of an offense to God, than the lowest criminal or most degenerate social outcast. That is the very truth Christ stressed again and again with the Pharisees.

No sinner is more lost than the religious sinner. If you have ever done much personal evangelism, or if you have unbelieving family members who are in bondage to some religious tradition, you know what I am talking about. There is no salvation for the person who thinks his religion can earn him a righteous standing before God. Jesus said in Mark 2:17, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." False religion lures people into a sense of self-righteousness where they see no need for salvation. That's why it is so wicked.

We need to view false religion from a more biblical perspective. The reality is, of all the gross wickedness that runs rampant in this fallen world, nothing is quite as evil as religion that departs from the truth.

Mormonism and Biblical Christianity

2010-09-30T03:36:00.000-07:00

An FAQ on the Difference between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity

The following is adapted from the section on Mormonism (or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the ESV Study Bible article on religious cults. The attempt is to be concise yet still accurate. I’ve added questions in bold to break it up a bit.

What do Mormons believe about apostasy and restoration?
Mormons claim that “total” apostasy overcame the church following apostolic times, and that the Mormon Church (founded in 1830) is the “restored church.”

What’s the problem with this understanding?
If the Mormon Church were truly a “restored church,” one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods and God the Father having once been a man. Such evidence is completely lacking. Besides, the Bible disallows a total apostasy of the church (e.g., Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; 4:11–16), warning instead of partial apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1).

What do Mormons believe about God?
Mormons claim that God the Father was once a man and that he then progressed to godhood (that is, he is a now-exalted, immortal man with a flesh-and-bone body).

What does the Bible teach about the nature of God?
Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25–27; Mal. 3:6). He did not “progress” toward godhood, but has always been God.

What do Mormons believe about the Trinity and polytheism?
Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these.

What does the Bible teach about the Triune God?
Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

What do Mormons believe about human exaltation?
Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood.

What does the Bible teach about humanity?
The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21–23; contrast Acts 14:11–15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6–7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God’s creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14–30; 1 Cor. 15:42–57; Rev. 21:3–7). Believers will never become gods.

What do Mormons believe about Jesus?
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal “only begotten” Son of God the Father in the flesh (though many present-day Mormons remain somewhat vague as to how this occurred).

What does the Bible teach about Jesus?

Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).

What do Mormons believe about our eternal destiny?
Mormons believe that most people will end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, depending on one’s level of faithfulness. Belief in Christ, or even in God, is not necessary to obtain immortality in one of these three kingdoms, and therefore only the most spiritually perverse will go to hell.

What does the Bible teach about our eternal destiny ?
The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).

What do Mormons believe about sin and atonement?
Mormons believe that Adam’s transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. They think that Christ’s atonement secures immortality for virtually all people, whether they repent and believe or not.

What does the Bible teach about sin and atonement?
Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

What do Mormons believe about salvation?
Mormons believe that God gives to (virtually) everyone a general salvation to immortal life in one of the heavenly kingdoms, which is how they understand salvation by grace. Belief in Christ is necessary only to obtain passage to the highest, celestial kingdom—for which not only faith but participation in Mormon temple rituals and obedience to its “laws of the gospel” are also prerequisites.

What does the Bible teach about salvation?
Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).

A useful chart........

2010-09-30T03:13:00.000-07:00

Brief Comparison between Mormonism and Christianity

Mormonism	Christianity
God More than one god. God the father is an exalted man who was as we are now and has a body of flesh and bones.	God There is only one God who is spirit and eternal.
Trinity The father, son and holy spirit are three gods separate and distinct from each other.	Trinity One God Who exists in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Spirit brother of Lucifer, a literal off-spring of god the father.	Jesus Eternal Son of God, second person of the Trinity.
Holy Spirit A distinct god from father and son, a spirit man and a spirit son of God the Father.	Holy Spirit The third eternal person of the Trinity.
Salvation By presenting our best efforts and obedience to god’s commands and then by grace. Man can become a god.	Salvation A free gift from God received by grace alone through faith alone and not by works.

History according to Glenn Beck

2010-09-30T02:33:00.000-07:00

“The story of America is the story of humankind. 5,000 years ago, on the other side of the planet, God’s chosen people were led out of bondage by a guy with a stick who was talking to a burning bush. Man first began to recognize God and God’s law. The chosen people began to listen to the LORD. At the same time, those things were happening on this side. On this land. Another group of people were gathered here and they too were listening to God. How these two people were brought together again happened because people were listening to God. They didn’t have the right to worship God the way they saw fit. And so they got down on their knees. They didn’t want to come to this land, they just did because they felt that’s what God was telling them to do. And with malice towards none they got into their boats and they came. God’s chosen people. The Native Americans. And the Pilgrims.”

As he is a Mormon, let us look at what Mormonism teaches about history.

Christians.....Please wake up.
I know it's hard, and I know Beck says a lot of things that we would agree with, but please, let us realise that what he is doing is Anti-Christian to the core.
It may be a case of the "rocks" crying out in a sense, but his god is not the God of the Bible. He uses terminology that sounds Christian, and please keep in mind that the rally video at the top, he spent more time talking about god, theology and the need to return to god than he did about the constitution etc.

What god is he asking America to return to?
What history is he preaching?
Does the Bible agree with Beck and his Mormonism, his false history, his random quoting of scripture and his use of overtly Christian terminology.

And of course professing Christians are not influenced by all of this, right?

Is he pulling the wool over your eyes dear Christian?

Mark
More here......

Do not write off or ignore this guy.

2010-09-29T02:45:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post today from Dr James White's site regarding the subject of presuppositionalism, and specifically the post is called a "concise history" of presuppositionalism, and yet Dr Clark gets not a hint of a mention, so I am just trying to give a more balanced and fair approach to the subject by putting Clark's name a well deserved mention in the history of this field of apologetics. I note again that it amazes me that Dr White does not mention this man and yet from everything I know about James White's views upon theology, he would side more with Clark than Van Til, so it leads me to conclude that Dr White has either not read Clark or he has been put off Clark for other reasons.

Clarkian presuppositionalism

Gordon Clark

Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. The axiom cannot be proven or disproven; rather, the worldview that results from the axiom may be tested for consistency and comprehensiveness.^[24] Testing for internal contradiction exemplifies Clark's strict reliance on the laws of logic (He famously translates the first verse of the Gospel of John as "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.")^[25] Thus, in order to invalidate non-Christian worldviews, one must simply show how a different presupposition results in necessary logical contradictions, while showing that presupposing the Bible leads to no logical contradiction. By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture reveals apparent paradoxes.^[26]
However, Clark allowed that presupposing axioms (or "first principles") themselves do not make a philosophical system true, including his own; the fact that all worldviews he examined other than Christianity had internal contradictions only made Christianity highly more probable as truth, but not necessarily so.^{[citation needed]} Nonetheless, he believed that this method was effective in many practical cases (when arguing against, for instance, secular humanism or dialectical materialism) and that, in the end, each of us must simply choose (that is, make an informed selection) from among seemingly consistent worldviews the one that most adequately answers life's questions and seems the most internally coherent. (Some Van Tillian critics suggest that the concept of coherence itself must be defined in terms of Christian presuppositions but is instead being used by Clark as a "neutral" principle for discerning the truth of any proposition.^{[citation needed]})
Using this approach, Clark labored to expose the contradictions of many worldviews that were in vogue in his day and to defend the Christian worldview by proving its consistency over and against those who attacked it. His unflagging use of logic sometimes led him to what most Reformed theologians consider rather unorthodox ideas on such topics as the problem of evil — topics which are most often treated by theologians as paradoxes or apparent contradictions not resolvable by human logic. But Clark famously rejected the idea that Scripture teaches paradoxes and notion of "apparent contradiction", asking "apparent to whom?". He described an alleged biblical paradox as nothing more than "a charley-horse between the ears that can be eliminated by rational massage."^[27]
With regard to other schools of apologetics, Clark suggested that the cosmological argument was not just unpersuasive but also logically invalid (because it begged the question), and he similarly dismissed the other Thomistic arguments.^{[citation needed]} As a staunch critic of all varieties of empiricism, he did not tend to make much use of evidential arguments, which yield likelihoods and probabilities rather than logical certainties (that is, either coherence or incoherence).
Taken from Wikipedia -- Note, if they can get it right to give Clark a mention, I am sure us reformed believers can at least do what Wikipedia has got right regarding the subject of presuppositionalism.

John 3:16 (Revisited)

2010-09-20T09:12:00.000-07:00

I had come accross this post from here, and as I had written a gospel tract upon the subject matter of John 3:16, I thought to share Sprouls comments here.

From Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul, pg 73-75

It is ironic that in the same chapter, indeed in the same context, in which our Lord teaches the utter necessity of rebirth to even see the kingdom, let alone choose it, non-Reformed views find one of their main proof texts to argue that fallen man retains a small island of ability to choose Christ. It is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

What does this famous verse teach about fallen man’s ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing.
The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man’s natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
Some may reply, “All right. The text does not explicitly teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that.”

I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a thing. However, even if it did it would make no difference in the debate. Why not? Our rule of interpreting Scripture is that implications drawn from the Scripture must always be subordinate to the explicit teaching of Scripture. We must never, never, never reverse this to subordinate the explicit teaching of Scripture to possible implications drawn from Scripture. This rule is shared by both Reformed and non-Reformed thinkers.

If John 3:16 implied a universal natural human ability of fallen men to choose Christ, then that implication would be wiped out by Jesus’ explicit teaching to the contrary. We have already shown that Jesus explicitly and unambiguously taught that no man has the ability to come to him without God doing something to give him that ability, namely drawing him.

Fallen man is flesh. In the flesh he can do nothing to please God. Paul declares, “The fleshly mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

We ask, then, “Who are those who are ‘in the flesh’?” Paul goes on to declare: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9). The crucial word here is "if."
What distinguishes those who are in the flesh from those who are not is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No one who is not reborn is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. People who are in the flesh have not been reborn. Unless they are first reborn, born of the Holy Spirit, they cannot be subject to the law of God. They cannot please God.

God commands us to believe in Christ. He is pleased by those who choose Christ. If unregenerate people could choose Christ, then they could be subject to at least one of God’s commands and they could at least do something that is pleasing to God. If that is so, then the apostle has erred here in insisting that those who are in the flesh can neither be subject to God nor please him.

We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ. He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith.

Proud of my daughter Jannah.

2010-09-15T01:42:00.000-07:00

I am most proud of my Daughter Jannah who has been selected with some other students to record an album under the mentorship of International Christian artist Mike McCarthy.
So proud of her.

Why Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Produces So Many Calvinists.

2010-09-13T10:38:00.000-07:00

And after hearing one man's court statement in his country...

2010-09-12T11:15:00.000-07:00

What are some Muslims saying upon the streets of London about this Dutch patriot?

And here is what BBC will not let you see from Feb 2010 in my homeland, my ex-homeland that is...

1 Minute to 12? Is it? Maybe for Europe.

2010-09-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

All very well to give Islam a platform to freely debate it's teachings, where no reciprocal opportunities exist throughout a large part of the world.
But, here and now, right now, in the very courts of Amsterdam Holland, a politician is on trial for speaking out against a book, an ideology and what shall become of freedom.

Interesting times we live in.
Where are all the Dutch Calvinist's when we need them?

Just thinking out loud.

2010-09-02T06:04:00.000-07:00

This is more like a twitter post, but since I do not twit, I have said it here instead.
There is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, that brings us closer and deepens our appreciation, love and satisfaction than being given a view of God's utter and complete sovereignty in all things that do happen.

And it is indeed a mighty blessing to know and feel the goodness and severity of our God, even when it hurts and we feel like the lowest of the lowly and even in the depths of despair.
For whom the Lord loves, HE CHASTENS......

(Pro 3:12) for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

(Heb 12:6) For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."

Classic answer regarding sovereignty!

2010-08-31T10:42:00.000-07:00

Many of you may have heard the old "I dropped my pen" argument to disprove God's utter and complete sovereignty...I found it a wee bit humorous to see Piper say the same thing as part of his own view against Calvinism way back when, and here he tells the story.

An Introduction to Apologetics:

2010-08-19T06:25:00.000-07:00

John Robbins - An Introduction to Apologetics:
1. Introduction to Apologetics
2. Historical Apologetics: The Early Church
3. Historical Apologetics: Augustine
4. Historical Apologetics: Anselm
5. Historical Apologetics: Thomas Aquinas
6. Historical Apologetics: John Calvin and Martin Luther
7. Historical Apologetics: Joseph Butler and William Paley
8. Historical Apologetics: Friedrich Schleiermacher and Soren Kierkegaard
9. Contemporary Apologetics: Twentieth-Century Confusion
10. Contemporary Apologetics: Scientific Creationism
11. Biblical Apologetics: The Two Temptations
12. Biblical Apologetics: Jesus and Scripture
13. Biblical Apologetics: Jesus and Logic
14. Biblical Apologetics: Paul and Scripture
15. Biblical Apologetics: Paul and Logic
16. Biblical Apologetics: Summary and Conclusion

James White: Apologetic Methodoloy: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Lecture on Apologetic (16 Lectures - MP3) Gordon H. Clark.
Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, Class 5, Class 6, Class 7, Class 8, Class 9, Class 10, Class 11, Class 12, Class 13, Class 14, Class 15, Class 16

How can God die?

2010-08-14T06:12:00.000-07:00

The Gospel...My last post for a while!

2010-08-09T08:57:00.000-07:00

Is John 3:16 The Whole Gospel?
By Tartanarmy.

Many Christians say that one of the clearest passages of the Gospel, which is perhaps the most well known verse in the whole Bible is found in the Gospel of John.

It is found in a conversation between Jesus and a Jewish religious teacher named Nicodemus. A deep conversation under the cover of night. The well known passage is none other than John 3:16.

Quote:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

It is particularly used as a proclamation for the Universal love of God towards every individual person who has ever lived. It is the great statement that conveys the assertion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

It is the great text to declare to the entire world, that God loves everyone without distinction and that everyone should know that God loves him or her. It is the motivating force to preach and teach the Gospel to this world in need of God.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the foundation of this Scripture passage. The Gospel being the great love that God has for everyone, and the proof of that love being that He sent His Son into the world to die on the cross for everyones sins.

As this is the central message of Christianity and is the Gospel. We are to go forward and plead with the world to accept this love of God offered for them.

They are told to believe in this Gospel truth and accept Jesus into their hearts and lives, with the promise of living forever in Heaven and the promise of a new and better life here upon the earth.

Now all of this is the normative message of Christianity as it is generally taught and proclaimed today.

What would your reaction be if someone said to you that in actual fact, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not actually in John 3:16, but clearly in John 3:14

Quote:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

What would your reaction be if someone said that God does not love every single person in the world equally?

What if someone suggested that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for every person?

What if someone boldly claimed that the motivating principal of the Gospel is not to get people to accept Jesus into their hearts?

What if it was stated that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not primarily the reward of Heaven or getting a better way to live?
What about the common idea that we are all God's children being a false and misleading statement?

Many today would balk at such suggestions and denounce such twisted assertions with zeal and fervour.

How could the above comments have any merit? Is this some kind of cultic twist on God's character and nature?

The above comments are not only profoundly true, but are taught in every page of The Bible itself.
Many could be shocked at such a statement.

That should not surprise us if we are aquatinted at all with God's precious Word in regards to all of these claims.

The Gospel according to John 3:14

Quote:
John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up"

To understand this passage we now turn to the Old Testament for an overview of these words spoken. I will argue that John 3:16 is actually a proclamation of the sufficiency of Christ and a promise of eternal security for believers, but the actual Gospel or good news of that proclamation is related in John 3:14.

Please read Numbers Ch 21 for the Narrative.

The Gospel according to John 3:14
Numbers 21:5-9

Quote:
And the people spoke against God and against Moses: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread."

Here we have the Ancient people of God. People made in the image of God.
They have been witnesses to the Power of God and the reality of God.
They are like so many people today. We see a world of such grand design and a creation that speaks of God's power and glory.

We are a people who are also made in the image of God. We can reason, and create and show signs of special abilities that no other living thing can display. We are made in the image of God. We have a likeness to the very creator of the Universe that is reflected in our design and in our abilities. We are spiritual beings.

There is something wrong with us though, just as there was with the people in this story.

Having a knowledge of God and his power, and character, they are however, prone to doubt, fear, selfishness, greed, envy, slander, murder, immorality, lies, drunkenness and a whole host of other sins.

The image of God is there, but it is very much a shattered and broken reflection only. A mere shadow of what it should be and indeed once was in Adam.

These people here complain about God's provision, and thereby display their utter faithless hearts. No sooner has a good thought about God been turned into doubting His goodness and mercy.

How true is that even today in our great technological age filled with religion, knowledge and umpteen Bible versions and study guides?
So here we have the complaining unbelieving people doubting God's goodness and provision.

A people complaining about what God has indeed given them. The supply that sustained them is not valued at all. We do not even deserve that provision but Judgement instead.

We do not thank and praise God. In fact we despise His goodness.

Quote:
So the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

Here is the state of Humanity in this passage. It is a sad state indeed.

As representatives of sinful Adam, we see a glimpse here of Gods judgement upon unbelief, which is sin.

Even though this story is actual history, it clearly relates to judgement from God against sin and the result of that very judgement. Death.

This condition is the result of sin. It is in fact the reason that we do die.

Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

When we die it is because of our sin.

The Doctor may write on the death certificate Heart attack, cancer, or any other condition, but that is only the means by which death comes.

We die according to God, because of sin.
Doctors should actually write, that the cause of Death is Sin.

Our fiery serpents, is our own sin nature that we are born with, inherited from Adam. A curse from God, as a result of original sin in Adam.

That nature is the poison that kills us all.

A man does not become a sinner when he sins. He sins because he is born a sinner.

Quote:
Ephesians 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
Ephesians 4:18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;

We continue with Moses.

Quote:
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD that He take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people.

We need to become aware of our problem and be convicted of our state before a holy God.

Sin is not a problem that we can cure by ourselves.

We are like those people in this story. The poison of sin is flowing through our hearts and minds. We are sick and are dying and need a cure. It is a serious problem that needs more than a Band-Aid or any human effort or religion to fix.

As Moses prayed for His people, we need a Moses to pray for us.

Thank God that we have an even greater than Moses, who prays for His people who are sick and dying of a serious poisonous condition due to their own sin.

Quote:
John 17:6-10.
"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
"Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You.
"For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
"And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

This is known as the great high Priestly prayer of The Lord Jesus. Praying to His Father for His elect people whom he gave His life for. A great multitude from every tribe, nation and tongue.

Quote:
Revelation 5:9 And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Then the LORD said to Moses,

Quote:
"Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live"

Now here is the good news of the Gospel!

Listen to what God told Moses to do.

The very thing that was killing them was to be the remedy for their sin.

The fiery serpent was to be strung up on a pole and the People bitten only had to look at it and they would live.

This would seem like foolishness to the people.

Imagine what some may have been thinking! A pole lifted up with a serpent on it!

That is the answer to our most serious problem. If we look to the serpent up there on that pole we shall live!

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to this world. We have a dying world and yet,

Quote:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Jesus Christ crucified is the Gospel.
It is the answer and the cure. Nothing else.

The Apostle Paul wrote,

Quote:
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

The pole is His Cross, and the serpent is our sin being dealt with in Jesus Christ, suffering in the place of the sinner.

Quote:
2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It is all about Substitution.
Christ died effectively for the sins of His people.
We must do what God said to Moses. Look at the serpent on the pole lifted up.

If a sinner wants to be saved from death and judgement, he must look to Christ alone.

Not to good works or religion or any number of man made ideas.

Quote:
Tit 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Those people who looked at the serpent on a pole lived!

If they did not look they died.

The Gospel is so simple. Look and live.

Quote:
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Quote:
Isaiah 45:22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Quote:
Matthew 17:8 When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

Quote:
John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself"

Back to the story.

Quote:
So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

The strange remedy is effectual.

When a man is dying he can only receive life. He must look to the means of deliverance.
He can do nothing here for himself.
He is both helpless and hopeless and needs help.
He cannot contribute to that help, otherwise he could help himself.
He is not asked to get up and come to the Pole, or make a commitment to the serpent.
No! He is lying on the ground bleeding and dying in God's sight.

He cannot, for he is incapable of even trying. His faith here is exactly that, "His Faith". He needs another's faithfulness, not his own worthless efforts. He needs mercy.

Quote:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Can he allow the serpents to come into his heart and cure him? No!

He must only look at the cure itself. He is utterly incapable of doing anything else.

That serpent on the pole was absolutely 100% effectual in its design and purpose.

Quote:
"when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived"

Could all of the people be cured? Yes. Were they all cured? No. The text above tells us that only those who would look would live.

People today are denying that they have been bitten, so do not look.

They are dying with the poison freely flowing through them and choose to deny their condition.

Quote:
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Quote:
Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Others who have looked and been healed tell the dying to do the same.

We urge and warn them.

It falls on deaf ears. We are amazed, as we see the death taking its toll on them, yet they will not look.

They are dead already it seems, but they are still moving!

They are hardened and refuse to listen, preferring their own dying condition.

How foolish!

Like a dog with a bone who refuses to pick up the juicy steak because he may lose his dry bone.

In fact they would rather have any other cure than the one provided!

Quote:
Luke 19:14 'We will not have this man to reign over us"

Quote:
John 19:15 But they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!"

Quote:
So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

Quote:
John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up"

That is the Gospel.

God the Father put His precious Son upon that cross as a ransom, a sacrifice, a propitiation, mercy seat, atonement for His dying people.

To satisfy his Justice in punishing sin and to bring a people to Christ to redeem.

That sacrifice is completely efficient and satisfies The Father perfectly.

Quote:
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.

Quote:
Matthew 17:5 "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!"

We know that God was well pleased with His Son and that He satisfied God's Justice and in so doing reconciled sinners to Himself. His sacrifice was acceptable to His Father on our behalf.

There are three very important truths to know about the Death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.

1/ It was a voluntary act.

Quote:
John 10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father"

2/ It was a vicarious act.

Quote:
Matthew 20:28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

3/ It was a victorious act. The Resurrection.

Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scrip tures,
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

Quote:
Romans 1:4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Quote:
Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Quote:
Isaiah 53:8 For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

It brings life to dead sinners. It accomplishes exactly what it was purposed by God to do.
The poisonous sting of the serpents, our sin, has been destroyed and forgiven in Christ and remembered no more.

Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Now when we come to understand the Gospel of God's grace we shall know the Gospel. There is no other Gospel.

Look and live.

Quote:
John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Now I can proclaim God's intention in the Gospel by saying,

Quote:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

Are you one of the "whoever" or have you got your own cure?

Christ did not die for your cure.
He died as the cure for the "whoever" and them alone.

To believe otherwise is to be lost and believing a lie and another Gospel.

Quote:
Galatians 1:8,9, which says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed"

He is the only Saviour for this world.

Quote:
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Quote:
Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved

Whilst the above Scripture declares God's love for His people, the elect of God, there is a serious warning to those who will not believe. For they shall perish.

Quote:
John 10:26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

Quote:
John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Quote:
Romans 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Lord Bless
Tartanarmy 2003.

James White speaks on Hitchens.....

2010-08-08T11:10:00.000-07:00

I may have somehow missed this video, but it is 25mins of really good apologetics and preaching.
I always love it when James responds by way of these types of interactions.
I do hope the debate between he and Hitchens goes ahead in the not too distant future.

Enjoy and rejoice for such plain speaking that is inspirational.

Mark

Ergun Caner is such a liar!

2010-08-01T12:41:00.000-07:00

Yes he is...(No mistake about it)
More soon.

(48:26) Let me tell you great news, Willis, the Lutheran Hour not only here in America - but you have on your mission work, something that spreads into the middle east. And please do not think - for all those who say, "Well, we give our money and want to know, you know, is it being of any effect?" Speaking on behalf of all immigrants, I heard the gospel before I came to America. I heard it because of your transmissions, because of your work, because of the fact that you gave your money. Continue to do so, because you will never know what a profound effect it has on the lives of those -- I was in Islam! I was the son of a muezzin - the one who does the call to prayer - and yet I heard the gospel because of such moves as the Lutheran Hour and others. You got into our lives, because you got into our radios - you got into our televisions - and now, because of satellite, you have an incredible opportunity. This is a time for the church to rise up. For the Lutheran church to rise up, for the various denominations that preach Jesus Christ as the only savior to rise up. Man, this is our chance. (Caner)

I was listening to a talk he did on a Lutheran radio show and in order to impress the
Lutheran host he mentions how he himself had heard the gospel back in the muslim world thanks to a Lutheran radio hour broadcast to where he lived, and yet the man has stated so many times in other contexts that he never heard the gospel and was ignorant of Christianity, and that the Mosque and elsewhere is how he learned anything about Christianity.

Which is it?

For accurate timelines, factual proof and everything to do with the Caner debacle go here........

Who moved the Stone?

2010-07-25T13:03:00.000-07:00

A very very worthwhile read in Christian apologetics and harmonization. 5 Stars!!

http://www.gospeltruth.net/whomovedthestone.htm

I Luv U Lord

2010-07-12T12:59:00.001-07:00

Amazing Grace

2010-07-12T12:55:00.001-07:00

Out of the mouth of Babes.....

2010-07-12T12:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes an Englishman has his head guillotined by a Frenchman.

2010-06-22T08:07:00.000-07:00

CALVINUS—AUTHENTIC CALVINISM:
Dr Alan Clifford

A Clarification by Jean-Marc Bethoud

A great correction for the modern Calvinists over at The Calvin and Calvinism site, the modern butchers of Historical Calvinism, maintained by Ponter/Byrne and others.

For those of us in the minority, take a good, long read of the following corrective, which just , well, corrects!
And that's a good thing!

Click here then go to page 26 and read on.

Tartanarmy

Upcoming debate!................

2010-06-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

No Good Reason to be an Atheist

2010-06-05T05:55:00.000-07:00

Deep, but educational for apologetics.
Mark

Paul Manata vs Hitchen"s atheism.

2010-06-02T03:20:00.000-07:00

Dr James White shall soon be debating one of the "bulldog" defenders of Atheism, the one and only Christopher Hitchens on Aug 30 in New York. Mr Hitchens always draws a crowd, so should be an excellent opportunity.
Sadly, Hitchens does not really understand much about Christianity, and he is ever over emphasising with no regard to historical context any arguments he brings to the table. The man is on a mission it seems, and to that end he scores well with those already convinced of their atheism. For the thinking person however, his arguments are really very poor, and just about every position he takes has these obvious double standards, which he seems to not care can be used against his own position.

Anyway, for those with any interest upon this subject, below is an eight part critique provided by Paul Manata, on Gene Cook's Unchained radio. Mr Manata goes after Hitchens's arguments as presented in his book "god is not Great".

This is for the really serious student who has an interest in this area, and at times the critique goes a wee bit deep. However, Paul Manata many times makes excellent points, simply by using the very same standard of argument that Hitchens uses.

Enjoy,

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 1 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm06212008l.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 2 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm06212008bl.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 3 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm06282008l.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 4 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm06282008bl.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 5 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm07122008l.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 6 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm07122008bl.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 7 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm07192008l.mp3)

Christopher Hitchens Book Review Pt. 8 w/Paul Manata

Original audio source (nm07192008bl.mp3)

When non-Christians object to the Christian faith.

2010-05-30T11:20:00.000-07:00

Whenever we object to something, we always assume some standard or rule that the thing violates. Similarly, when non-Christians object to the Christian faith, they assume some standard that Christianity violates. But can non-Christians justify these standards that they so readily use?

In the following interchange, the editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Wilson and Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review, discuss the topic of justifying non-Christian standards of ethics and reason.

For the past thirty years, Farrell Till has been an English instructor at Spoon River College in Canton, Illinois. Prior to this, he was a preacher and foreign missionary for the Church of Christ. He attended two Bible colleges and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Harding University.

His preaching career spanned twelve years, five of which were spent in missionary work in France. After becoming an agnostic, he quit the ministry in 1963 and began a teaching career. For the past five years, he has edited The Skeptical Review, a quarterly journal that focuses on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He has regularly debated inerrancy-related issues in various public forums, including radio and television. Having begun this work as an agnostic, he now considers himself an atheist.

DW: Many unbelievers commonly object to the God of the Bible on the basis of ethical "problems" with the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Whether they use psalms of imprecation, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the eternal wrath of God on the impenitent, etc ., the central theme is usually the same "Who would want to worship a God like that !" But despite the surface plausibility of the objection, a careful examination of it shows their Achilles attacking our Hector with his bare heel. Far from being the unbeliever's strongest case against the true God, this objection actually reveals the radical futility of unbelief; without God there are no ethical objections to anything .

FT: Although you didn't expressly state the "objective-morality" position of evangelical apologists, you certainly implied it when you said that "without God there are no ethical objections to anything." The fallacy of this position is its failure to recognize that morality is an intellectual abstraction. As such, it is no different from abstractions of tragedy, sorrow, or any of many other abstractions the human mind has formulated from its broad range of experience. Arguing that human intelligence cannot determine if acts are immoral without a god to tell us they are is as illogical as arguing that we cannot tell if events are tragic without a god of tragedy to tell us they are.

DW: Fine, I'll bite. If there is no God, then all the things you mention are in the same meaningless category. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

FT: You bit too hard. In equating all human abstractions with "swamp gas over fetid water," you overlook verifiable facts. The human mind can think; swamp gas can't. Human intelligence can evaluate situations and formulate abstractions of beauty, happiness, sorrow, fairness and morality; swamp gas can't. Are these abstractions valid? Well, what IQ level is needed to conceptualize abstractions like beautiful, sad, fair, right or wrong? Can one with an IQ of 100 do it, or must his IQ be infinite? The existence of moral concepts is verifiable; the existence of gods who put such concepts into human minds is unverifiable. Please address this problem.

DW: You missed my challenge. You acknowledge the distinction between human intelligence and swamp gas, but you have no way to account for it. If there is no God, then why is there a distinction between the chemical reactions in your head and elsewhere? Suppose we agreed that the walls of a house are straight. I say there must be a foundation under it -- a precondition for straight walls. Your hypothesis is the house has no foundation at all and doesn't need one. "See, the walls are straight without a foundation." But given your worldview's assumptions, why ? Can you explain how time and chance acting on matter can produce the straight walls of reason and morality?

FT: No, you missed my challenge. You are the asserter, so you must bear the burden of proving your assertion. You have asserted that "without God there are no ethical objections to anything," so I insist that you prove that. You have admitted that human intelligence can formulate abstractions, but you say that " all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water." Prove that please. Can the brain's solution of algebra problems be right? If so, does "God" have to put the right solutions into the brain? If not, can a brain that correctly solves algebra problems correctly solve moral problems? If not, why not? Where did your god get his intelligence?

DW: Since you insist, I'm glad to repeat my argument. If there is no God , then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Thus, your atheism destroys rationality and morality. Intellectual and moral relativism have long challenged atheistic worldviews. No atheist has successfully addressed this problem, although you are invited to try.

FT: If I fizzed "flat-earthly," and you fizzed "round-earthly," would you argue that you don't hold your view because it's true but "rather because of a series of chemical reactions"? Would your "round-earthism" then destroy rationality and science? There is a truth in the theism-atheism controversy. The fact that no one can establish that truth to everyone's satisfaction doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. So I'll repeat my challenge. What IQ level is necessary to abstract moral concepts? To discover moral truths? Let's take the Amalekite massacre (1 Sam. 15:2-3). How much intelligence is needed to determine that no morally perfect entity could have ordered the slaughter of children and babies?

DW: "There is truth in the theism-atheism controversy." Amen. You are able to say so because you assume that truth is objective. Again, you bet. But objective truth cannot be validly derived from the premises of your worldview. You are borrowing objective rationality and morality from the Christian worldview in order to attack the rationality and morality of the Christian worldview. There was a moral problem in the Amalekite attack -- Saul was disobedient and didn't kill everything as God instructed. You should have no objection. Given your worldview, there is no moral difference between the Amalekite massacre and a day at the beach. In both cases, all you have is atoms banging around.

FT: If the Amalekite children who were killed with Israelite spears could speak, would they say there was any difference in what happened to them and a day at the beach? You know they would. What IQ level would they need to distinguish the difference? You have evaded the issue long enough, so why don't you tell us how much intelligence is needed to formulate abstractions of beauty, loyalty, justice, etc.? Without a god of beauty, can one validly determine that a sunset is beautiful? If so, why can't one determine that acts are immoral without a god of morality? Truth is objective because of reality, not because some deity arbitrarily decides what truth is.

DW: Well of course, you and the Amalekite children may assert some objective moral distinction between good and evil. But given the basic assumptions of your worldview, neither of you can justify that distinction. On your assumptions , the chance collection of atoms called Jews objected to the Holocaust; the random atoms called Nazis did not. And so what? Given atheism, what is the difference? Do the good atoms wear white hats? Your persevering but irrelevant inquiries about intelligence reveal that you do not yet understand the nature of the problem. Objective and universal standards of reason, morality, and beauty simply cannot exist in your purely material world. You are fighting Christianity with borrowed Christian weapons.

FT: When have I said that "objective morality" exists? It doesn't. To say that objective morality doesn't exist, however, is not to say that morality doesn't exist. Rational processes can validly distinguish "good" from "evil" just as they can validly distinguish happiness from sorrow, but I can't explain in 115 words how this can be done. If you care to debate this in a less confining forum than your "Disputatio" format, then let's do it. Meanwhile, why don't you explain where your objective morality came from? If you say, "From God," then please explain where he came from. No theist has successfully addressed this problem, but you're invited to try. Try to remember that you're the asserter.

DW: If morality is not objective, then it is subjective. If it is subjective, then it is as diverse as five billion subjective states of mind. Such fragmented subjectivity provides no authoritative ethical voice, and hence no morality deserving of the name. Related to this, you must now disclaim "objective rationality" as well as "objective morality," for the two are built on the same foundation -- or rather, in your worldview, not built on the same non-foundation. But if objective rationality does not exist, then your worldview does not permit you to reason for three words in a row, much less 115. The laws of logic are as nonmaterial as the God you so diligently oppose.

FT: Are you arguing that subjectivism cannot determine truth? If so, reality will not support your claim. You keep harping about my worldview, so please address the many problems in your "worldview." Where did "objective" reality come from? From God? Well, where did he come from? How can one determine what "objective" morality is? From the Bible? If so, a lot of subjectivism will be involved in reading and interpreting it. Looking for "objective" morality in the Bible will produce a morality "as diverse as 5 billion subjective states of mind." If not, why not? "Such fragmented subjectivity" will provide "no authoritative ethical voice" and so "no morality deserving of the name." Please address this issue.

DW: Reality doesn't support my claim? Would this be your reality or mine? Would this be subjective or objective reality? If subjective, then I don't think ice cream has bones either. If objective, then you would have to identify (and defend) the authoritative voice through which this reality speaks. Of course, I am arguing (and have shown) that subjectivism destroys truth. The fact that you have in effect embraced subjectivism means that the debate over the existence of God is over, and we are now discussing certain problems that arise from an affirmation of His existence. Having shown that atheism is inescapably false, I am happy to turn to the problems you raise. Next round.

FT: You've been a master of evasion. You assert the existence of "objective" morality, but you have evaded all challenges to prove that it exists. Nothing exists -- not even your god -- simply because it would be nice if it did exist. In your final installment, please address this issue. How do you know that "objective" morality exists? Where did it originate? If you say from God, please prove that God exists. If "objective" morality is revealed in the Bible, it becomes something inseparable from subjective interpretation, so just what is the great advantage that your "worldview" has over mine? If you ignore this issue again, I'm afraid your evasion will be obvious to all.

DW: The proof you seek has been pervasive throughout the debate. I have been pointing to the impossibility of your alternative. The debate over God's existence does not fit in the same category as a debate over the existence of peach jam. The jam may or may not exist, leaving our thought processes unaffected either way. If God does not exist (as this alleged "master of evasion" has pointed out repeatedly above), then our thought processes (yours and mine) are one thing. If He does exist, then they are something else entirely. The content of your affirmations has been atheistic, your unacknowledged presuppositions theistic. This means that, on a fundamental level, you and I agree that He is.

Open Theism

2010-05-27T05:25:00.000-07:00

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4