Y.A.C. Ep 8 - Blog

Y.A.C. Ep 7 - Blog

Are you an Arminian or a Calvinist? Is there a happy middle?

OSAS v POTS

Daily Meditation

The power of a legion of demonic entities cannot prevent God from saving a soul when He desires to do so...

... how much more is the will of a single sinner not an obstacle to the purposes of the living God.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 4)

So far, we've looked at a number of areas that are directly affected by the doctrine of limited atonement (1, 2, 3)

With all this being said, the question still remains... how can we find comfort in such a doctrine as limited atonement?

The answer, simply put, is this - if we love God, then we will find comfort in the doctrine because the doctrine is a reflection of who God is.

And to desire something different is to desire a god in ones own image. A god that is not the true and living God. A god that behaves how we want it to behave.

That is not the God testified about in the scriptures.

God has the freedom to do with His creation what He wants to do with it.

-

Romans 9:21 (ESV)  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

---

God has no obligation to treat everyone the same, and not doing so doesn't make God unjust.

----

Romans 9:14-15 (ESV)  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

---

The limiting of the scope of the atonement was necessary to keep God's righteous justice in tact - so that He's not guilty of any wrong doing.

---

Romans 3:21-26 (ESV)  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

---

The focus of the limiting atonement should not be upon those who are not elected to salvation.

In their case, God hasn't broken a promise to them, or acted unjust towards them.

Instead, we should look at those who have been elected.

They have been loved with a great love.

God has looked upon them with a kindness that they didnt deserve at all.

God has arranged it that they will enjoy Him forever, as children in His own household.

God has even promised that He will never leave or forsake them, but mold them into the image of Christ.

Our comfort is found in the fact that God freely chose us when He didn't have to.

1 John 4:10 (ESV)  In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

It's this knowledge about what God has done for and to us, and who God is, that should cause us to not only be comforted by the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but it should cause us to look at God as a merciful, gracious, and loving God.

---

I hope that the Lord God has blessed you through this "brief" look at limited atonement.

Amen

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 3)

In the last two posts, we looked at two aspects of what the doctrine of limited atonement affects as it pertains directly to God.

In the first article, we looked at God's complete freedom (sovereignty) to not only limit the scope of the atonement to only be applied to those whom He chooses... but also the freedom to limit any and all blessings in any fashion He chooses.

We see Him exercise this right as the creator of all things, repeatedly throughout scripture.

The second article looked at God's perfection in light of God's freedom.

The third thing we need to focus on, are the theological implications of what a rejection or acceptance of limited atonement, as Christ describes it, means.

Firstly, there is the obvious impact of God's word failing.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)  For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

-

Isaiah 46:8-11 (ESV)  Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country.

I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

-

Numbers 23:19 (ESV)  God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

---

The word of God is so sure, that those who falsify it are to be put to death. How does one know this crime has been committed? When what is said doesn't come to pass.

As scripture tells us...

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.

You need not be afraid of him.

----

The theological issue here is that Christ clearly teaches it's God who chooses.

The implication of God not being the one that limits the atonement, means that Jesus is a false teacher.

This is because He says at one point...

John 6:37-39 (ESV)  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

-

He also says, in another point...

John 10:25-29 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

---

So then, since Christ actually teaches it, we must realise that He stakes His very deity on it.

So, we should find comfort in this doctrine, for one, because it makes God... God.

The fact that the doctrine is taught by Christ Himself, and the word of God never fails, means that this is a prerogative of God.

For it to not be so, God would no longer be God.

---

Another theological implication of this doctrine, which i believe is more common to this discussion, is the issue of God's justice.

This is usually referred to as double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is a legal term which is defined as the following-

the act of causing a person to be put on trial two times for the same crime (source: Merriam-Webster)

Do we see this happening in any view of limited atonement? No.

So the issue that relates to the justice of God is not one of double jeopardy.

Instead, the legal term would be, a misscarriage of justice. This is defined as-

an error made in a court of law that results in an innocent person being punished or a guilty person being free (source: Merriam-Webster)

Some may see this and think that the work of atonement, as a whole, should be considered a misscarriage of justice.

Many unbelievers actually believe this.

However, that isn't the case.

The issue that needs to be brought to the forefront is the voluntary offering of Christ to pay the debt, and the acceptance of that proposal by the Father.

This is why salvation is achieved by the substitutionary sacrifice provided by Christ.

He voluntarily became the substitute, and received the wrath of God that we would have had to receive.

A miscarriage of justice would occur when the innocent involuntarily pays the price of the guilty.

To right this miscarriage, the innocent would be set free, and the guilty would face what they should've faced.

Bringing this thought into our context of the atonement now...  if it is true that the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope, God would knowingly be carrying out a misscarriage of justice.

Why would this be so?

If Christ is dying only for those whom the Father has elected and gave to Him, and all of those people are saved, then no miscarriage takes place.

Why? Because all those whom Christ volunteered to take the punishment for, receive the benefit of His actions, and God's justice is satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

The other view, however, presents us with the problem of the miscarriage of justice.

If the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope... that is to say, if Christ actually took the punishment for all people in the world, and any one of them doesn't receive the benefit of His actions, then the miscarriage has taken place.

How so?

You have to remember that God is omniscient. He is all knowing.

Scripture tells us the following...

Matthew 25:33-34 (ESV)  And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

-

Ephesians 1:3-4 (ESV)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

---

In other words, God knew who were going to be His before they were even born.

Even if one believes that God has to look forward in time to get the information about who would choose Him (which is an unbiblical and heretical position), they must still affirm that God, at that point, knows who will be His when all is said and done before it plays out in time.

Therefore, when Christ received the punishment from the Father on behalf of everybody in the world, the Father knew which people would go to hell anyway.

Meaning, that Christ receiving the punishment on their behalf is a complete waste, as they would never receive the benefit of His actions.

So, at that point, God willingly commits a miscarriage of justice, and will have to rectify this miscarriage by pouring out His wrath on these people at the last day.

So, when scripture states...

Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)  The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

---

This becomes false. All of God's ways couldn't be justice. God couldnt be just and upright if in the end He is punishing the Son for no reason, which is exactly what takes place when the atonement is limited in power, rather than scope.

The sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of justice in the sight of God.

The soul that sins, must die.

They've incurred an infinite debt by rebelling against the infinite God.

If God is just, He cant just let these things slide. He can't simply sweep them under the carpet.

But, the people are not able to pay for their sins, because they arent able to pay an infinite debt.

So, God becomes a man, and takes upon Himself the punishment that we deserve.

Not only that, He then turns around and gives those people His righteousness.

Anybody who doesnt put their faith in Christ, will bear their own punishment on judgement day... but God knows who these people would be from day one.

It's all well and good to say that God is giving them a chance, and pleading with them, but the problem is that not only does God already know what the answer is, but Christ was punished for no reason, when it comes to those people whom God already knows will face the second death.

When all is said and done, in relation to those people whom the Father already knew will face His wrath, punishing the innocent Christ is all in vain.

Just as it is written...

1 Corinthians 15:14 (ESV)  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

-

And again where scripture says...

1 Corinthians 15:10 (ESV)  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

---

If indeed Christ has been punished for the sins of these people, and based on that, God grants them grace to believe, yet He leaves it up to them...

... the very fact that God already knows before hand who will and who will not believe, means that Christ suffered punishment in vain and that grace is also in vain.

The innocent ends up being punished for no reason, and the miscarriage of justice, having to be rectified in the end.

This, actually makes God a sinner.

How? God's law says that there should be no injustice in court.

Leviticus 19:15a (ESV)  You shall do no injustice in court.

---

Remember, the sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of satisfying the justice of God.

God becomes guilty, a breaker of His own law.

Exodus 23:7 (ESV)  Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.

---

The Father becomes guilty of charging Christ falsely and killing the innocent and righteous.

Why? Remember, God already knows before hand that these people will be in hell. God already knows that these people will have to answer for their sins when the last day comes.

Since that is the case, the Father is not punishing Christ for their sins because He already knows that they will receive the punishment themselves.

If the cup of wrath that these people filled up, was actually poured out on Christ, then there is no wrath to pour out on them at judgement day.

There would be no sins for the Father to actually judge.

But we know that these people will have to answer to God for their sins. So their sins haven't been taken care of by Christ on the cross.

So, if it is true that the Father punishes Christ on behalf of these people, who He knows will have to answer for their sins anyway, then Christ is being punished unjustly - it is a miscarriage of justice.

Let's see if i can explain it a different way.

Let's say there were 10 people who owed large debts to the government.

The debts are so large that they are unable to pay it.

They have a window of time that they must pay the debt, else they will be put in prison. Once they are in prison, no further payments can be paid towards the debt.

A rich man hears about the plight of these 10 people, decides to pay their debt, and starts to make preparations to that end.

The rich man starts to make the payments, but the time has come to an end for 3 of the people before he was able to make payment. So they are now in prison.

The rich man is aware that they are in prison and no payment made will affect their debt.

The state, however, knows that the rich man intended to pay the debts for these 3 people as well, and requests the payments to still be made.

The state, the rich man, and the debtors, know that any payment made now will not matter as it will not go towards the debt.

The rich man is made to make the 3 payments anyway.

Is this not a miscarriage of justice?

The state has taken money from the rich man, knowing fully well that the money will never be paid to what the rich man wanted to pay.

The rich man is now out that money, suffering an unintended loss - as his purpose was to help the 3 debtors, but they will not receive the help even after the payment has been made.

The only one who benefits, is the state, and that is illegal.

It is known as misappropriation of funds.

Although this scenario isnt exactly what is taking place in the atonement, im hoping that the similarities will stick out to enable us to see the issue at hand.

If indeed the atonement is limited by power, rather than scope, then the Father becomes complicit in an injustice towards His own Son.

---

The third theological implication in regards to this issue, is the omniscience of God.

There are many who are able to identify the problem with limiting the power of the atonement while at the same time maintaining the biblical truth that God is all-knowing.

Instead of limiting the scope, they decide to remove God's omniscience.

By doing this, they attempt to reconcile their theology with the premise that Christ did pay for everyone's sins and no miscarriage of justice took place.

If God is not all knowing, then this would supposedly mean that God is not complicit in an injustice.

This, of course, doesn't follow.

Even if the Father didn't know of the implications of His actions towards the Son on behalf of everyone in the world, the result is still the same.

Something wrong has still occurred, regardless of whether it was known beforehand or not.

However, by this point, we've already ceased discussing the God of the scriptures.

The God described in the bible is all-knowing.

As a matter of fact, God takes this challenge to His knowledge quite personal.

As scripture tells us here...

Isaiah 41:21-23 (ESV)  Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.

Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.

Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified.

-

Isaiah 44:6-8 (ESV)  Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.

Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

---

The scripture shows that as far as God is concerned, if you can't declare the future, you can't be God.

It's a characteristic of His deity.

So, it's not possible to remove God's knowledge and yet still claim we are talking about the God of the scriptures.

This is why many say that to be a consistent arminian, meaning that they limit the atonement by power, one is forced to be an open theist (one who denies that God is all-knowing.

Meditate on these things and join us next time as wrap up our brief look at the doctrine of limited atonement.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 2)

In the previous article, i began looking at the doctrine known as Limited Atonement, in order to get an understanding as to how this doctrine can help us to find comfort in a God who would intentionally limit the scope of His atonement, i.e. picking and choosing whom He will show love to by dying in th3 cross for their sins.

The first thing we looked at is the freedom that God has to treat one human different than another.

This reality is shown all throughout the scriptures.

The second thing we need to look at, is the fact that since the scripture teaches that this is indeed who God is, that God is not going to change Himself in order to make our sensibilities, which are corrupted by sin, at ease.

God is the perfect and holy creator and sustainer of all things.

He is who He is, and never needs to change because of His inherent perfection.

It is natural that there will be things about God that we don't understand, or perhaps don't like.

The reason for this is because we are sinners, while God is Holy.

We will not always see eye to eye with God, and in those instances, we should confess our sin of defiance before our creator and supreme authority.

As it is written...

Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

---

It's one thing for the unregenerate to say that God should change His standard, or that His judgements aren't righteous in some way, but the believer is not able to say such a thing.

If it were true, then we are not worshipping a perfect God.

It makes perfect sense for a human to not agree with everything that God does.

For one, we are finite whereas God is infinite.

Furthermore, we hindered by the sin nature that dwells within us.

So there will be times when we think there is a better action that God should take, as opposed to what He is actually doing.

We may even find ourselves repeating the words of abraham.

Genesis 18:23-25 (ESV)  Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city.

Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Far be that from you!

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”

---

Look at abraham's concern. It's for the righteousness of God.

From abraham's perspective, if God kills the righteous during the judgement of the wicked, that isn't righteousness.

Is he correct?

No.

But from his limited point of view, he believes that he is correct.

The believer can't make such claims. We should always concede to God's judgements and His ways.

Why?

Because we confess that God is perfect in His attributes.

He has perfect wisdom, holiness, and righteousness.

He is not simply the most high in the sense that in all of creation He is above all but there is still a place above even that, that He hasn't attained.

That is not perfection. That is to be almost perfect/near perfection.

No. We state that God is the very example of perfection.

Since that is the case, we must confess, that even though we may not understand, every action that God takes is perfectly just and righteous.

What we should do, is to make sure our understanding of an action we believe God is taking is actually consistent with His character as revealed in scripture.

God limiting the scope of the atonement is very consistent with the way He deals with man.

So the claim that its wrong for Him to limit the atonement in this way or that God would be "better" somehow if He limited the power of the atonement instead, means that God is certainly not perfect in His attributes.

Meditate on that for awhile.

Join us next time as we look at another point in relation to the doctrine of limited atonement.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 1)

I was in the Reformed Pub recently, as one does, and was in a discussion regarding the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

The conversation was specifically centered around whether it's possible to find security or comfort in a God who uses the reformed view of limiting the atonement.

For those who are unaware, there are two views of limited atonement.

1. The non-reformed view is that the atonement is limited in its power.

That is to say, God has decided to give the authority for salvation to man.

Ultimately, God wants to save everyone, tries to save everyone, but can't save everyone, because He purposefully limits the power of the atonement.

2. The reformed view is that the atonement is limited by scope.

That is to say, God has decided to not save everyone.

Ultimately, God decides who He wants to save, and is successful in doing so. Those whom He chooses not to save, He leaves in order that they will, effectively, send themselves to hell.

He purposefully limits the scope of the atonement.

-

Often, you will hear people say that they can't serve, love, or believe in a God that would not attempt to save all people.

Despite this being the exact thing shown in scripture from Genesis to Revelation, the fact that they would even utter such words, is at times, completely mind-boggling.

The question will sometimes be put forth, how can any love, serve, and believe in such a God.

How does believing this about God give us any sort of comfort?

Well, let's take a brief look at this doctrine and how it should cause us to find comfort in God.

-

The first thing we need to briefly address is that God limiting the scope of not only His salvation, but even His other more general blessings to humanity, is something clearly taught throughout scripture.

God is not obligated by the fact of being our creator to treat everyone the same.

He is free to choose what we wants to do to and for the creatures He makes.

God directly states this exact thing.

Exodus 33:19 (ESV)  And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

---

God even puts this very idea into practice

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (ESV)  When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction.

You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

---

Joshua even reiterates this sentiment...

Joshua 11:20 (ESV)  For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

---

The Holy Spirit inspired the apostle paul to pick up on this, in regards to God being free to differentiate between two people as He sees fit and treat them differenyly based solely upon His own will and so he penned the following...

Romans 9:6-18 (ESV)  But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

---

So, we see that God, from the beginning, has always chosen some over others by His own will, for His own purpose.

So this God, who limits the scope of His blessings, both eternal and temporal, is the God who is described all throughout scripture.

Let that sink in.

The doctrine of limited atonement points us to who God is, and the inherent characteristic of His nature - the freedom to choose.

So, even if we didn't recognise it all throughout the scriptures, the doctrine brings it to the forefront of our minds.

Join us next time as we continue our brief look at why and how limitied atonement should give us comfort in the God of our salvation.

Amen

He died for All the World (part 5)

There are a number of other verses that are used by the anti-calvinist in an attempt to overthrow the direct words of Christ, in order to say that God attempts to save everyone in the world, without prejudice.

And based on that presupposition, salvation then, must be entered into and exited out of, by the will of man.

This is the doctrine that they maintain.

Unfortunately, this means that salvation is no longer by grace, but a combination of grace and works.

For God has to do His part, and man has to do his part.

And once man has done his part, and has entered into the position of being saved, then man must work to maintain that position, else man will fall away.

With that, scripture becomes false in many points.

Romans 9:16 (ESV)  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

This verse, where the context is specifically speaking about salvation (those who become part of the promised seed), becomes false.

Along with Jesus' many words.

Before i bring this brief series to a close, i wanted to revisit a point that the anti-calvinist that i was speaking to brought up.

They held the position that, not only can a person lose their salvation, but some can possibly not get it back.

They base this on the well known, but often misapplied, verses in the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV)  For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

They see these verses as showing that one can indeed lose their salvation. And that once it's lost, it cant be gotten back again.

Now, they didn't articulate why a person can't be saved again, only that they wouldn't actually be able to identify who these people are.

So they would still call to backsliders because they wouldn't know those who would fall into this condemnation.

Also, they hold that a believer can commit the unforgivable sin.

So, a person who is presently being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, isn't prevented from blaspheming the Holy Spirit by His very act of indwelling the person.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit can, and will leave if this sin is committed.

---

Now, what is the problem with this, keeping in mind, that we're looking at this from the pov of the anti-calvinist?

The problem is that this understanding directly contradicts the foundational belief of the anti-calvinist.

I pointed this out in my discussion, but they did nothing to address it.

How does this bring a contradiction?

The foundational presupposition for the anti-calvinist is that God is trying to save everyone.

The ones who aren't saved are those who chose not to be.

The verses in Hebrews pose a problem with this view. However, because they didn't explain why it is that a person can't be brought back, we can't really bring an accusation.

But, the verses regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit are crystal clear what is going on.

The person who commits this sin, will not be forgiven.

That is the primary issue.

How can you have a God wanting to save everyone, but withholding forgiveness from people?

You can't.

Those are two contradictory positions.

What makes it worse is that they apply this to the christian.

So, in their view, the christian who commits this sin, could be repenting, and asking for forgiveness, but Jesus directly tells us that they will not be forgiven.

God refuses to forgive these people, while at the same time, supposedly trying to save "all people".

Again, when i pointed this contradiction out, they dodged it.

"All", could never truly mean all people everywhere, when God actively refuses to forgive some people.

Which means that everytime the anti-calvinist goes on and on about God desiring to save "all", they are being deceitful, because they know full well that it's not true.

----

How should a calvinist view these verses?

Now, i've dealt with the verses in Hebrews before. But i'll reiterate how a christian should be viewing them.

The christian reading, should not be jumping straight to Hebrews.

First, they should ground themselves in what Jesus directly says about salvation.

---

John 6:35-40 (ESV)  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

---

John 10:25-30 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

I and the Father are one.”

---

These two portions of scripture, are so direct and unambiguous, that to contradict, is to say that Jesus isn't God.

This is what Christ says about salvation, from God's perspective.

So, according to Christ, people cannot lose their salvation. Those whom the Father has given to Him, cannot be lost or perish.

Now that we know this to be true, because Christ said it, we can look at the verses in Hebrews.

We know that all scripture is inspired by God. So there cannot be any contradictions between what Jesus and the apostles say.

When we look at Hebrews then, we have to conclude that this is a "what if" situation.

We know this the case by how the scenario ends.

Hebrews 6:7-9 (ESV)  For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.

But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.

---

Here, we see the writer getting to the heart of the issue.

A good tree, produces good fruit. A bad tree, produces bad fruit.

Someone who is in Christ, will not bear bad fruit. The one who is not in Christ, will not bear good fruit.

This is why the writer continues on to their intended audience by saying that they are sure of better things that belong to salvation.

---

Let's say, for arguments sake, that those verses weren't there. Would that mean that someone could lose their salvation?

No. This is because God has already spoken. Jesus has already told us how salvation works.

This doesn't mean that the verses are false, as they are true.

If someone could fall away, i.e. lose their salvation, they could not be saved again.

The question is why, and the answer is two-fold.

One, to fall away, means that there are now sins present that Christ has not paid for, is stands condemned.

Remember, to be saved means that one is not only seen as innocent before God, but completely righteous. As though the person had not sinned once in their life, but all at times was obedient to God's command.

So, for someone to once again be seen as guilty, to be deserving of the righteous wrath of God again, means that they now have sins that have not been atoned for.

So Christ would need to come down once again, to die once again, for these new sins that have come up  (v.6).

Not only that, but this would make Christ an open shame (v.6).

Why? Because it shows that His atonement was not sufficient. That, "it is NOT finished".

All that talk about Christ dying once for all sins and taking a seat, indicating that His work was complete, becomes false.

-------

Now, lets move unto the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

How should a christian see this? Can a christian even commit it?

Well, unlike arminians, calvinists have no need to fear committing this sin.

Why? Once again, its because the words of Christ tell us that He doesn't lose anyone the Father has given to Him.

If a christian could commit this sin, then He could lose people. Some people would perish.

Now, its not simply that God knows we wont commit this sin, but rather, He prevents us from doing so.

We see a similar thing happen in regards to the beast written in the revelation.

Revelation 13:5-8 (ESV)  And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.

It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

---

Notice who does not worship the beast. All those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Many believe that christians who take the mark will lose their salvation.

But scripture says none of the elect (those whose names are written before the foundation of the world), will worship the beast.

How is it that none of the elect will be deceived into doing this?

Because God causes us to overcome...

1 John 4:4 (ESV)  Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

1 John 5:4-5 (ESV)  For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

---

Not only that, but God makes moves in order to protect His elect from such things.

Matthew 24:22-25 (ESV)  And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

See, I have told you beforehand.

---

Notice. The level of deception is so strong that even the elect would go astray... if it was possible. But, God cut those days short for the sake of the elect.

So, not only does God prevents us inwardly, by the Holy Spirit doing His work in us, but outwardly, God changes times to prevent us as well.

----

With this, i feel satisfied ending this brief series.

It is always worth looking at the arguments from the other side from time to time.

Even if one has gone over the same verse before, it is always worth going over it once again.

The doctrines of grace, which are known as calvinism, and expressed in the acronym T.U.L.I.P., are not simply a biblical possibility - but rather, are the only conclusion one can come to if they simply let the scriptures speak for themselves, and not read it with presuppositions.

From the declaration of the angel to mary and joseph, all the way through to the new heavens and earth, the doctrines of grace are repeatedly shown to be at work, instead of the arminian view of salvation.

Not only is the arminian view self-contradictory (re: unforgiveable sin), not only does it turn important people into blasphemers by lying on God (the angel who proclaimed Jesus' birth, and john the baptist), but it makes Jesus no longer God - as His claims become false.

So, it was 100% correct that the church denounced the doctrines of arminianism as heresy, as they certainly strike at the very heart of the biblical gospel on all fronts.

With that being said, let us be praying for one another.

Salvation is granted to those who have all their theological tees crossed and is dotted.

Let us continue to grow together in the knowledge of the faith that God has given to us.

Amen

He died for All the World (part 4)

One of the things one will notice if they encounter an anti-calvinist, is that they use the same verses as a simple non-calvinist.

The difference between the two groups, however, is that the anti-calvinist will happily hold to a completely unbiblical position if it means the perceived defeat of calvinism in some way.

One example is that the anti-calvinist is more than happy to class calvinists as false prophets/teachers who teach the doctrines of demons.

While at the same time, they will claim to be protestant.

They don't realise that the vast majority of the protestant reformers were actually calvinists.

They also don't realise that arminianism came out of calvinism, as a break away group - instead of the other way around.

Let's look at a scriptural example.

1 Timothy 4:10 (ESV)  For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.

The anti-calvinist uses this verse to say, 'See. He is the saviour of ALL people.'

So, in this verse, the 'all people', once again means every single person on the planet.

What's wrong with this?

Firstly, if one was to understand this verse in that way, one would have to believe in universalism.

A saviour, is by definition, one who saves.

If Jesus is your saviour, it means He's saved you.

So if He's everybody's saviour, that means that He has saved everybody.

Many people simply gloss over that glaring issue.

The anti-calvinist wants to make this verse into a declarative statement by God regarding who He wants to save. Which by their logic, would be everyone.

But, because it says, He is the saviour of all, instead of He wants to be, desires to be, or something along those lines, this shows to be not a statement about intent, but rather a statement of fact.

So, we press them on their schizophrenic universalism.

And when they deny universalism, we say that this now becomes false then. Paul also becomes a false prophet, as He is telling lies about God.

Obviously, your claim will be brushed aside. There will most likely not be any attempt made to counter the claim as well.

With that being said, how should this verse be viewed?

If this verse is not saying that God wants everybody to be saved, what is it saying?

Before we answer what it says, we should first understand why it can't be what the anti-calvinist says.

The reason is found, as should be our habit to see, in the words of Jesus.

Remember, Christ tells us that all those who will come to Him, and be given eternal life, are those whom the Father has given to Him.

-------

John 6:37-40 (ESV)  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

-------

These are the ones the Christ has laid His life down for. These are the ones who were chosen to be saved out of humanity before the world began.

-------

Ephesians 1:3-6 (ESV)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

-------

Since Jesus tells us that this is the case, then we know that God is not attempting to save everybody in the world.

He is only seeking those whom He chose. In the passing of time, He will cause them to be born again by the work of the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit will convict them of their sin and draw them unto Christ. With their eyes now open, they will repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness. He will forgive them, and they will forever be His.

---

Now that we know why it can't be the other understanding, using biblical hermeneutics, and taking Christ at His word, we can look at what it actually means.

In what way can God can be considered the saviour of all people if the 'all' doesn't mean every person on earth?

Could it mean, all kinds of people, like the verse we looked at last time?

Although that is a possibility, because of the ending of the verse, 'especially of those who believe', i don't think that this is correct.

Rather, i believe that the verse is saying that God is the saviour of all - that is to say, there is no other saviour other than God.

This would make sense of the ending of that verse.

After all, if that's not what is being said, then we'd have to say that there are two camps that God saves. Those who believe and those who don't believe.

The arminian who insists that the 'all' means everybody on earth, has to also insist that God saves people who don't believe - because of the ending of the verse.

However,  paul is making the same claim that has been made on the past.

Isaiah 43:11 (ESV)  I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no saviour.

Hosea 13:4 (ESV)  But I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no saviour.

So, we serve the God who is the saviour of all... because there is no other saviour... because there is no other God.

But, He's especially the saviour of those that believe.

This, makes the clear distinction between the unbelievers and the believers.

Isaiah 49:26 (ESV)  I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Once again, we've shown how the anti-calvinist's view, using their own understanding, is in error.

And in their zeal to oppose calvinism, they end up contradicting the clear teaching of scripture.

He died for All the World (part 3)

One of the things i've learned, is that when one is dialoguing with a person that has a different set of beliefs, that it's best to understand where theu are coming from in order to not be speaking past each other.

Just because someone makes the claim that they are a believer in a term, doesn't mean that they actually hold to the general beliefs defined by that term.

For example, i've spoken to "muslims" who don't believe that mohammed was a prophet.

I've also spoken to "christians" who believe that the God of the Old Testament, is not the God of the New Testament.

One shouldn't assume a person holds to a set of certain beliefs simply because they claim a certain title/label for themselves.

It bothers me when I see people who claim to he christians, simply dismiss scripture because it doesn't fit into their theology.

They don't try to harmonise scripture at all, but seem content to have two "seemingly" contradictory positions within scripture, and not think of the consequences.

I once met a christian who believed in baptismal regeneration.

When I enquired about cornelius and his household in the book of Acts, he dismissed it as irrelevant and told me he doesn't teach from that section of scripture.

I find the anti-calvinist to be the same type of person.

Dismissing scripture is all too easy for them for my comfort.

This, of course, makes it hard for the concerned brother or sister to bring correction to the anti-calvinist by pointing to scripture.

So let's examine some other verses and think of how we can deal with them.

-------

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)  This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

---

The anti-calvinist uses this verse to say that God wants everybody in the world to be saved.

Using the skeletal argument to ground then on the words of Christ is dismissed.

They see these verses as trumping, or altering the meaning of the clear claims of Christ.

One could always try to appeal to the verses before this, which say...

1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV)  First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

---

These verses qualify the "all people" to mean "all kinds of people" - the widows, fatherless, and the poor as well as kings and those on high positions.

Of course, that idea will be dismissed.

So what should we do?

Give the anti-calvinist what they want.

The next two verses will show you what I mean.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

---

If God desires all men to be saved, and to that end, Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all - what must happen?

All men must be saved.

Why? Because Jesus paid the price for them. He paid for all of their sins. That's what being ransomed means. A payment... an exchange... has taken place.

That verse about being ransomed, must equal to universalism. Because the ransom has indeed been paid.

It's because the anti-calvinist has a low view of scripture, at least in action, why one is able to use their interpretation of the scriptures against them.

The calvinist doesn't have to introduce anything the anti-calvinist doesn't like, but rather just press the issue to it's logical conclusion if their view is correct.

Some might question why would Jesus being a ransom for all people in the world equal universalism.

Some might say that the person has the free will to accept or reject the gospel.

The problem with this is their view on the atonement.

When Christ died on the cross, did He actually pay for your sins?

The scriptures clearly says that He did.

If your sins are paid for, you can't be punished for them afterwards.

When we look at everywhere the New Testament uses the word "ransom", you will clearly see that those who the Son was ransomed for, will be/are saved.

Let's take a look.

Matthew 20:28 (ESV)  even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

(Parallel Verse)
Mark 10:45 (ESV)  For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

---

1 Peter 1:17-19 (ESV)  And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

---

Revelation 5:9-10 (ESV)  And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

-------

Now, will the fact that Jesus says His life is ransomed for many instead of all people on earth, cause the anti-calvinist to see the "all people" as "all of the many" that Jesus clearly speaks about?

No.

Will they see the clearness in the Apostle Peter saying that only those whom have God as their Father, are those whose lives have been ransomed by the blood of Christ?

No.

Will they take notice of the song that the Apostle John heard in his vision of all those that were redeemed?

No.

But, at least you know that the calvinist position is actually the biblical position.

And you know that even when using the logic that the anti-calvinist applies to those verses, one either has to become a heretic by believing universalism, or one has to become a heretic by denying that Jesus is the messiah and God

He died for All the World (part 2)

Recently, I ran into a couple of anti-calvinists.

Although i've heard of anti-calvinists i'd never spoken to one.

Anti-calvinists are not the same as non-calvinists.

Non-calvinists, although they don't agree with the theology, admit that some verses do seem to lend themselves to that view... even in context.

The anti-calvinist, however, is so opposed to calvinism that they are happy to demonise the reformers, throw away basic reading comprehension, hold directly contradictory beliefs, refuse to allow scripture to interpret scripture - all in their zealous refusal to allow scripture to actually confirm any part of calvinistic soteriology.

The biggest issue is in their handling of scripture.

Because of their huge bias, they will isolate verses and entire chapters from other related portions of scripture, then twist them to mean something else.

When you bring up the related verses, they will simply dismiss them as being irrelevant and having no bearing what-so-ever. Yet, they will go to completely irrelevant verses in an attempt to build their case.

When i realised this, i tried to come from a different angle.

Instead of going to direct verses, i though it would be best to build a framework using my Skeletal Argument.

Unfortunately, they didn't want to take it step by step, as they felt it was a waste of time. They wanted to get straight to the point, which clearly wasnt working.

Consequently, we never got anywhere. Nothing was resolved.

So, with that in mind, i want to look at some of their arguments, and show how their view fails from both the reformed view as well as their own view.

I'm going to try and use their hermeneutic as well... if you can call it that.

-----------

The first idea we need to look at is that Christ died for everyone in the world.

That God wants everybody in the world to be saved.

Verses like the following are used to back up this idea.

John 3:16-17 (ESV)  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

---

1 Timothy 2:3-6 (ESV)  This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

---

1 Timothy 4:10 (ESV)  For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

---

2 Peter 3:9 (ESV)  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

---

1 John 2:2 (ESV)  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

------

What do all of those verses have in common?

Those verses seem to indicate that Christ died for everbody in the world, or at least, that's what we are told they are saying.

How does a calvinist respond to these verses though? Surely, this is an open and shut case, right?

The issue here is that no exegesis is being used. These verses are just being taken out of their original context, and are being isolated from the rest of scripture.

If we look back to my Skeletal Argument, which will have us standing on the rock of our salvation, we will see that these verses do not mean what is being claimed.

For example, when we let scripture interpret scripture, a verse like John 3:16, becomes something different in the light of Jesus says about salvation later on.

John 10:11 (ESV)  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 10:25-28 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

----

According to John 3:16, Jesus tells us that He died for the world. Yet in John 10, Jesus tells us that He only lays down His life for His sheep.

Jesus forces us to say, "world" actually means, His "sheep".

But He doesn't stop there.

Not do we see that world equates to sheep, but He identifies the people He is speaking to as not being His sheep.

And since all of this is in the same chapter, all we have to do is simply follow Christ's logic.

He is the good shepherd. He has sheep. He knows who His sheep are. He lays His life down for His sheep.

This group right here, are not His sheep. Therefore, He did not lay His life down for them.

That is the logical conclusion.

However, the anti-calvinist will not allow you to make that connection. They will not allow you to interpret one of the things Jesus said, in the light of other things Jesus said.

And if you try, they will simply dismiss it as irrelevant.

So how can a calvinist deal with this?

Well, the problem we are having is that the anti-calvinist refuses to allow scripture to interpret scripture and has an unwillingness to allow scripture to disagree with their presuppositions.

Even though that's really bad when it comes to rightly interpreting scripture, their anti-calvinism is more important than understanding biblical truth.

So again, how do we deal with this?

We put them in a corner.

You see, the anti-calvinist is not the same as the non-calvinist.

The non-calvinist can be reasoned with via the scriptures. You will be able to bring them to a point where they will say they just don't know. Which is a fair position to have.

The anti-calvinist refuses to hold that position.

But, regardless of which position one is, if you are an arminian, there is one glaring issue.

All arminians must believe that Christ is a failure.

Sure, they will never actuall admit that.

However, the arminian theologians, including Jacobus Arminius himself - the man who arminianism is named after.

The arminian has to change the nature of salvation and the mission of Christ.

So Christ doesn't actually save people, no. He makes salvation available.

The non-calvinist would again recognise that, from their perspective, there are some verses that clearly support calvinism. So they are usually more careful when handling scripture.

The anti-calvinist isn't careful at all.

So, we push the envelope.

We rebut their claims with...

Matthew 1:20-21 (ESV)  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

-----

Why is this important? Because the very name of the coming messiah indicates that He will be successful in saving His people from their sins.

The arminian has the issue of people being again but then perishing.

The angel does not leave any room for such a thought.

The anti-calvinist will insist that Jesus does save all His people, but that we choose whether we are His people or not.

So one minute, we can be His people, which would mean He must save us, but the next minute, due to our will or sin, we can be made no longer His people.

The anti-calvinist will ignore any attempts to prove them wrong on that point.

But we don't have to do so.

The purpose of quoting that verse is to show that the angel's words has mary's unborn child, successfully saving His people - that's the very reason for His human name.

The next point we should make, is that we are told the following...

John 1:29 (ESV)  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

This is very important. Here, we see the prophet John telling us that Christ will take away the sins of the world.

This is a declarative statement. He is, in his office of a prophet, declaring what will happen.

If, as the arminian claims, that "world" means everybody in the world, then Jesus must take away the sins of everybody in the world.

And, if there was any doubt, John even tells us why he made this statement...

John 1:33 (ESV)  I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

In other words, God told him.

These verses brings the argument straight to the very door of the arminian/anti-calvinist.

No longer can they use verses that make salvation ambigious and up to the human decision.

Jesus must save His people, and He must take away the sins of the "world".

To say that Christ did not do these things,  is to say that Jesus is not the messiah, that the angel who spoke to Joseph and Mary was demonic as it lied, that John the Baptist is a false prophet, and that the word of God that came to John did not come to pass.

Jesus must save His people, and He must take away the sins of the "world".

A non-calvinist, should see these verses as a conundrum. They should take these as something to think through.

I suspect that an anti-calvinist will simply dismiss them as prima facie, they completely show that their view is wrong.

And, they are shown to be wrong using their own understanding of the terms.

The arminian will not really have an issue with the first scripture. It's the second that causes the real problem.

Why? Because they're view makes "world" to mean everybody on the planet, and because they aren't universalists, they make salvation an uncertainty - dependent on the will of man.

But the second quote, forces them into a position that would put them out of orthodox christianity, on their very own terms.

You see, because of where these statements are coming from, i.e. an angel, prophet, voice of God - if these are denied, christianity is false.

If they are dismissed, you might as well end the discussion as the person doesn't care about scripture at all.

I recommend using both quotes, instead of simply the second one.

This is to show that the certainty of salvation is literally the reason why Jesus is... Jesus. Salvation is not uncertain and left up to man. If it was, the angel couldn't say what He said. And this salvation is certain for the "world".

It must happen.

He died for All the World (part 1)

A few weeks ago, i was attempting to dialogue and reason through the scriptures with a couple of anti-calvinists.

Full disclosure... i found the experience to be incredibly frustrating.

Not because they weren't calvinists, but rather because their anti-calvinistic stance caused them to completely mis-handle scripture on a level that cults and false religions do.

In their view, calvinism isn't just an error, but doctrines of demons.

So even the reformers where deemed as false teachers who shouldn't be listened to because they were calvinists - yet they still claimed to be protestants.

No matter how clear a verse was, they must completely deny the clarity of it, and would readily abandon basic reading comprehension in order to make sure that nothing of calvinism could be shown to be true.

Again, it was incredibly frustrating.

However, even though it was frustrating, it caused me to pause and think through some of the objections they brought to the table.

Not because their objections had any actual merit to them, as basic reading comprehension showed their claims to be false... but rather, because it was pretty clear that they had never actually thought through what their claims meant.

Arminians generally do not think through the implications of their beliefs from God's perspective.

Usually, the focus is only from man's perspective.

Even when Christ starts to reveal some of the hidden things of God, God's perspective when it comes to salvation, they are able to completely shift the focus from God... to man.

So i wanted to look at the implication of a few of these beliefs.

For the benefit of any readers, i'll break up the posts so that they don't go on forever (as i'm prone to do).

This could easily be a continuation of my Once Saved Always Saved? series, as some of these verses weren't addressed as yet.