712 thoughts on “Our Beliefs”

1. Are you able to recommend a church in Houston, Tx. that utilizes expository preaching / teaching, that rejects contemporary music and is Gospel centered. Usually, this is a combination that is only found in a Calvinist setting.
   Thanks
   John Trimm

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hello John and welcome
      Let’s see if anyone here can answer your question

      blessings
      br.d

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Why do Calvinists/Reformists always use the New American Standard Bible 1995? Are some of the Scriptures worded differently as to help the cause?

         Loading...

      2. Hello Thomas,
         I was not aware they use that Bible.
         But the reason you suggest is quite common and comes part and parcel with human nature.
         When you listen to a person – in this case a Calvinist – quote a scripture -watch carefully to see what words they remove and replace with their own words.
         What you will notice is they have simply reworded the text to make it conform to their doctrinal teachings.
         The fact that they can so easily alter the text to conform to their doctrine doesn’t bother them at all because the practice is part of their doctrinal social structure.

         Loading...

      3. I was not aware of this. I use the NASB extensively but am not a Calvinist. My understanding is that their favorite translation is currently the ESV.

         Loading...

      4. I seem to have heard that also.

         Loading...

      5. I wish someone would answer John’s question, as I have noticed the same thing. It’s the reason I’ve even considered the Reformed faith, not that I have accepted it.

         Non Calvinists tend to be unserious, shallow, and sometime downright goofy, if you’ll pardon my saying so, and all over the map concerning morality. I saw one guy at VBS chasing a girl with a spray bottle of water saying “You’re a lost sinner, and this is the Holy Spirit”. I halfway expected lightning to strike the man.

         This is but one of the strange, and silly things I’ve seen over the years in SBC churches that I doubt I would ever see at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley.

         I suspect many have been DRIVEN into the arms of Calvin because of these things.

         Please understand that I’m not meaning to insult, but to express real problems I and others like John are having with contemporary pop culture Christianity.

         Loading...

      6. Hello Brian,
         I understand!

         Years ago – Regent College released all of Dr. Gordon Fee’s seminary lectures into audio format and I purchased every one of them I could get my hands on. They were highly insightful and provided a perspective of serious Biblical scholarship.

         They still sell many of those lectures today.
         However, unfortunately, the prices for them have gone up significantly.

         Loading...

      7. In response to John’s question:

         If I understand right about John’s comment he wants to know why non-Calvin tend to be “unserious, shallow, and sometimes down right goofy.” He also states “one guy at VBS chasing a girl with a spray bottle of water saying you’re a loss center, and this is the Holy Spirit.”

         The first thing I noticed about Calvinists and yes my pastor is one (he’s a good guy even though we disagree on many theological issues), is that they believe God is all controlling, they’re not sure why God picked them before creation, and there is nothing you can do to earn salvation, but they always seem to be looking at your works and judging you.

         Christians sometimes called traditionalist and I do consider myself to be a traditionalist, believe the text of the Bible. I do not follow a bunch of old men in the 1500s trying to tell me I need to interpret the Bible like they want me too with their doctrine that goes against scripture.

         Going back to John’s question, Christians should be extremely happy, thankful, and having fun or “goofy” with the children at VBS well illustrating the importance of the Holy Spirit. Christians try to support each other in love, laughter, fellowship, and teaching. Our heavenly father has the same attributes and that is why we are also created with them.

         I don’t know much about Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, but all the attributes I stated above should be Evident in that church. If it’s not, and again I don’t know that church, you need to find a non-Calvinist church so that you can grow properly in the Lord. Don’t let anybody take away the joy that you have in Christ

         Loading...

      8. Hello Thomas and welcome

         I appreciated your comments.
         One thing you stated about Calvinists – I found very insightful – because many people are not insightful enough to identify the psychological consequences of the Calvinist belief system.

         Thomas:
         They [Calvinists] always seem to be looking at your works and judging you.

         The reason for this behavior pattern with Calvinists is 3-fold:

         1) Per the doctrine – the Calvinist has a god who creates/designs the vast majority of the human race – specifically for eternal torment – for his good pleasure. So the Calvinist has a god whose intentions for the beings he creates is for the most part malevolent, and to a very limited part benevolent.

         2) Per the doctrine – Calvin’s god’s intentions for believers follows this same pattern. He gives the MANY within the Calvinist fold a FALSE SENSE of election – while giving the FEW within the Calvinist fold a TRUE SENSE of election. Thus the MANY within the Calvinist fold represent a portion of those who have been created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.

         3) Per the doctrine – the Calvinist is granted NO CERTAINTY of whether or not the divine intent for himself is benevolent or malevolent.

         Based on those 3 aspects of the doctrine – the Calvinist struggles internally with dread and doubt – concerning which is the case for himself.
         The natural human response to that situation – is to look for INDICATORS of the divine intent for every individual.

         So the Calvinist reads the behavior patterns of his fellow Calvinists – looking for INDICATORS of that one’s future destiny – the same way people read tea leafs looking for indicators of one’s future destiny.

         Blessings!

         Loading...

      9. I started responding but I dictate my messages on my iPhone and the wife turned up the volume on the television so I had to go to another room and I might’ve deleted what I dictated, sorry.

         The guy didn’t think Christian should be happy and joyful. They seem to be very controlling. About two weeks ago we had a guest speaker come, and of course he was a reformist. In his public talk he put down Catholics and traditionalist. They’re always looking and judging people to see if the Calvinist thinks that they’re saved. I hope the guy that was on your blog doesn’t lose the joy he has in Christ.

         They have so many holes through the theology. They believe that God picked them for an unknown reason and picked everyone else to go to hell. Then they say he is a loving God. God created all of us with common sense and that reasoning has no common sense at all. all they have to do is look at Ephesians and some of the other scriptures and it tells Christians why God pick them. It’s because they excepted Christ. That is what he foresaw. That’s another thing they constantly say excepting something is works. They always have a funny way of redefining words into definitions that do not make sense (they’re wrong).

         I commented earlier. I think a month ago about my pastor who is a Calvinist (Reformist) well I finally had a meeting with him and basically what he told me is his theology is what helps him to get to the gospel. Basically, it’s not how you get there as long as you get there. Super nice guy, very intelligent, but whenever I brought anything up it just didn’t register. I think there’s like a brainwashing that goes on when you go to a Calvinist school. I don’t know how to explain it because how can you believe in the things that they say when they don’t make any logic.

         I want to thank Dr. flowers for his YouTube channel and his two books God‘s provision of for all and the Potter.

         Loading...

      10. Hello Thomas
          I would ask you to try a simple test.

          As you are observing Calvinists of any stripe – I would ask you to look for indicators of DOUBLE-THINK.
          The outward expression of DOUBLE-THINK is going to be DOUBLE-SPEAK.

          So your primary observation will be statements which are essentially DOUBLE-SPEAK statements

          WHAT IS DOUBLE-SPEAK:

          William Lutz, an American linguist on DoubleSpeak:
          -quote
          “Doublespeak is language designed to make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive, or at least tolerable.

          Doublespeak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistake in use of language. It’s exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent, and very sophisticated in the use of language. And know that you can do an awful lot with language.

          Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing.

          Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.
          It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication — and what doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.

          Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.

          It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative.

          Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding facts which are disturbing to the individual.“

          Loading...

   2. Sugar Land Bible Church, Sugar Land TX. Dr. Andrew M. Woods, Sr. Pastor

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Non-Calvinist and President of Chafer Seminary.

         Loading...

      2. Hello Tim – and welcome

         Loading...

   3. I don’t think contemporary music should be a barrier between you and a Gospel-centered, Biblically rooted church.

      Check out Seventh-day Adventists. They’re pretty solid, Biblically, and a typical rural SDA church will actually lean more towards traditional Christian music i.e. hymns.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello Jaime, and welcome

         Loading...

      2. Jaime, I think you might want to look a little deeper into the SDA teachings. If it is not tying obedience to the Mosaic law as part of the gospel, they are at least wrongly tying it to sanctification. But the teaching of Romans, Galatians, and Colossians will help cure one’s loyalty to the teaching of E.G. White, imo.

         Loading...

      3. Jaime, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord”(Eph. 5:19; cf Col. 3:16). Also, this should be acapella music. *Mechanical instruments are not authorized in new testament worship.* The only instrument the early Christians were authorized to “twang” were the strings of the heart (making melody in your heart to the Lord)! “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).

         Loading...

      4. Aidan,

         What’s all this talk about “not authorized”?

         Can we compare that cars aren’t authorized, since they rode donkeys and camels.

         How does John 4:24 equate to “not authorized”?

         Do you understand what “spirit and truth” means?

         It means “no rules”. Previously they had rules and locations.

         Hence the phrase “spirit of the law” vs. “letter of the law”.

         Jesus was talking to a woman at the well, where she said that her people (Samaritans) worshiped God on a mountain, but that Jews worship God in Jerusalem.

         That’s what sparked the conversation about spirit and truth.

         You can worship God while sitting on the toilet. It’s not about location, and it’s not about rules.

         But if we are going to discuss instruments, I was never a fan of ORGAN-ized religion. I’m into GUITAR-ized religion, of the electric persuasion.

         Ed Chapman

         Loading...

      5. Ed, John 4:24 doesn’t mean “no rules.” It means precisely the opposite! In John 17:17 Jesus prayed to the Father for His disciples, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” This means that the word of God is truth. Therefore if we “must worship in spirit and truth.” It must not only be with the “inner man”(in spirit) but also in keeping with what “God’s word” has determined!

         That’s what it means to “worship in spirit and truth.” 

         Loading...

      6. There are no rules. Point blank. Even in your desperate attempt with another John reference, that still fails.

         Besides, you left out the word spirit in your John 17:17 reference.

         Spirit of the law vs. Letter of the law.

         God judges the heart of the matter… the heart.

         That means that if your heart is to sing worship songs with a band, electric guitars, drums, tambourines, trumpets, bass, or new years eve noise makers, then by God that’s what God accepts as proper worship.

         Anything is proper worship if your heart is in it.

         If your heart is not into your mind of worship, then God won’t accept what the heart isn’t into.

         I’m not into Baptist 1370 hymns that put the congregation asleep. Worship is supposed to be fun, not boring. If you ain’t smiling and dancing in the aisle, then you got issues, dude.

         I’ve seen the newsboys 3 times, and if you don’t think we are worshipping God while being at a newsboys concert, then you are missing out, big time.

         Ed Chapman

         Loading...

      7. So, Aidan, since you are being DOGMATIC about worship in a capella, are you telling me that you only worship God on Sundays, and maybe Wednesday for a brief few minutes before and after the preacher preaches? You are not authorized to worship God at any other time but at church in a capella?

         By the way, my sister used to attend The Church of Christ, and that’s what they do, as well. They are about the only denomination that I know of that does that.

         I guess I gotta give up my car now, since automobiles were never authorized outside of a mule, because that’s what Jesus rode into town on, huh? And if the king rides a donkey, then what is authorized for us lowly Christians? A cow?

         Spirit of the law does not mean inner man of the law.

         Loading...

      8. Well spoken.

         Loading...

      9. Thank you, Ezekiel, much appreciated.

         Loading...

      10. I disagree. The discussion from John 4 dealt with “location”. And when you see that “location” used to be important for both Jews and Samaritans, that’s when Jesus chimed in with “spirit and truth”, showing that “location” didn’t matter anymore. No set location.

          You don’t have to go to Jerusalem to worship God. You don’t have to go to the mountain to worship God.

          No rules. But don’t misuse scripture to prove a point, especially when the word “prophecy” is the topic of the verses, regarding taking away words, trying to equate that with musical instruments. Or to obey commandments that we were never given, when the verses state to obey, otherwise, you just put yourself under the law of Moses.

          And since Aidan wishes to “obey”, in such manner, he just put himself under “works”, rather than “grace”. Both those words are exact opposites.

          Anything not of faith is a sin. But not so under the law of Moses. Any violation of commandments is a sin under the law.

          Abraham was before the law, so how did he do things? He was justified by what? Works, or Faith? What works? There was no Law of Moses during his time.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      11. Are you disagreeing with me or with the commentator whose statement I endorsed?

          Loading...

      12. Both.

          Loading...

      13. Hello Ezekiel and welcome

          Loading...

      14. Hi Aidan – I think you know that the word “psalm” means a song sung with a stringed instrument. You might also know that there is no verse in the NT commanding the regulative principle, which is self-defeating for those who want to dogmatically impose that principle as a command to the church. And you might also know how much the NT points to the use of the OT as a good thing for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

          Loading...

      15. Hi Brian – I think you know that its the context which determines the “instrument” that is to be used — and in this passage, it is the heart (Eph. 5:19). Also, if there is no “regulative principle” in the NT as you suggest, where does the command to assemble come from? And what about partaking in the Lord’s Supper on the 1st day of the week? Where does that come from? And, the very command to sing with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs — are these not a “regulative principle” imposed by the NT?

          Do you have rules for worship in the church you go to? If so, where do these regulative principles come from? From heaven or from men? If it doesn’t come from heaven then scrap it! But if you teach that men can go to the OT to instruct them for worship under the NT you are greatly mistaken!  How then will you object if they build an altar, wear priestly garbs, and use incense like in OT worship? Perhaps you could visit the Catholic Church for some ideas on that one!

          As for me, I think that I have pretty much established authority for acapella music in NT worship — and that’s as far as I’m prepared to venture.

          Loading...

      16. Thank you, Aidan, as usual, for your thoughtful reply. You need to look up the meaning of “regulative principle”. It says that only things commanded or are clear examples in the NT are morally right for Christians to do. The problem is there is no written command in the NT that says – “Do only the things commanded or are clear examples in the NT”.

          The regulative principle is a man-made tradition. The NT is indeed our final authority for faith and practice, and it teaches us how to use the OT. Yes we should obey NT commands. But there is no command that says only do what the NT commands. 👍

          Loading...

      17. I did already look it up! Your position then must be “the normative principle” which is the idea that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in corporate worship. This only works if you have generic authority for a particular practice. But if there is absolutely no authority for something in scripture then it is an unauthorized practice. Don’t you know that the silence of the scriptures is “prohibitive” not “permissive?” (Heb. 7:13,14).

          You said:- “Yes we should obey NT commands. But there is no command that says only do what the NT commands.”

          You seem to be unaware that the NT commands are simply the Lord’s commands! When Paul wrote “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17) he meant that we must have the Lord’s authority for ALL that we do! The fact that Jesus “is head over all things to the church, which is His body” means that the body does only that which the head commands. Or to put it another way, what the NT commands since it is His word!

          And since you are so fond of referring to the OT lets see what it says about this principle:

          *Deut 4:2* “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I am commanding you.”

          *Deut 12:32* “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take anything away from it.”

          *Prov 30:6* “Do not add to His words lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

          And the same principle holds true in the NT:

          In *Luke 20:4* the question was asked “was it from heaven or from men?” If we only do what God’s word says then we know it is from heaven. Anything beyond His word is from men!

          *1 Cor 4:6* “..that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written,..”

          *Col 3:17* “whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (i.e. by His authority).

          *1 Pet 4:11* “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God..”

          *Rev 22:18* “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;”

          *Rev 22:19* “and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.”

          Yes we should only do what the NT has authorized us to do! Where the scriptures stop our teaching and practice must stop.

          Loading...

      18. Again, Aidan, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, it is true that everything falls in some sense under the commands and examples of the NT. But there are many general positive commands in the NT which are not defined as to the parameters of their application. And you still have to give me a verse that says obedience must be only to things given specific examples or as commands with recognized parameters spelled out in the NT.

          You mentioned the command “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus”. A person playing an instrument in worship “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is fulfilling that command.

          No, it’s not either the regulative or normative principle. The normative principle also isn’t given as a command in the NT in any clear verse. Actually, the NT teaches a combination of both the regulative and normative principles, imo

          If you want to read my view in detail for NT ethics – https://www.academia.edu/9828617/The_Superiority_of_a_Dispensational_Approach_to_Ethics

          I’ve nothing more to add, because we both know how stubborn we both are. 😉

          Loading...

      19. Aidan,

          You’ve got some strange beliefs, buddy. I have yet to see the word “corporate” in the bible.

          Apparently, what is being missed by you in your CORPORATION is that the law of Moses came AFTER Abraham. I’m still trying to figure out why religious fokes call it a CORPORATE to begin with. I think that the bible just calls it CHURCH.

          The Law of Moses was given to the Jews only, not the Gentiles, so I have no idea why you are quoting UNRELATED to the conversation scripture from the Law of Moses to try to prove your point. It has no bearing on the topic we are discussing at all.

          You quoted the following:
          *Deut 4:2* “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I am commanding you.”

          *Deut 12:32* “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take anything away from it.”

          *Prov 30:6* “Do not add to His words lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

          That has nothing to do with us lowly Gentiles. That’s all Jew stuff, and that is the difference between LETTER of the law and spirit of the law.

          They had the letter, they had the do’s and don’t’s.

          They couldn’t eat meat offered to idols. Remember that command while reciting your above verses? But we can. 1 Cor 8 tells us we can. FREEDOM.

          Oh, and we can eat a ham sandwich and bacon. Keep the commandments? LOLOLOL. I’m not giving up my freedom for your dogma.

          And then, you use the following examples:

          *Rev 22:18* “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;”

          *Rev 22:19* “and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.”

          ******************BUT YOU IGNORED THE WORD “PROPHESY” from both verses, indicating that you MISUSED those two references in order to try to prove your point. The book of Revelation is about PROPHESY of the end times, and that is what it is discussing. It has nothing at all to do with what you are trying to make a point of.

          The Catholics do that same tactic on the following:

          2 Peter 1:20
          Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

          They think it states that no one can interpret SCRIPTURE, except those who wear the dunce caps and dresses in Rome. But that’s not even close to what it states.

          It states that “PROPHECY, AS WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURE IS NOT ABOUT ME, OR YOU”. It’s about one person and one person alone, and that is Jesus.

          I am not a fan of those who misuse scripture as you just did here.

          We are FREE to worship God as we see fit. And that was the purpose of our 1st Amendment Rights in our Constitution, having come from the Church of England where they DICTATED how to worship.

          You need to get back to Abraham, if, of course, you are a son of Abraham, as the bible states. Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. The words “OF THE” is key here, because it shows a freedom from the law, which you wish to return to, which was something that was never given to you to begin with.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      20. Aidan,

          What is sin regarding a Christian? The same as it was regarding Abraham.

          Anything not of faith is sin.

          Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses telling him how to blow his nose, or cut his fingernails.

          We, as Abraham was, are not under the law of Moses. We are under the law of Christ:

          and being under the law of Christ is the law of faith. And in that law of faith is only 2 commandments. Love God and Love People.

          And John tells us that if we don’t love people, then we don’t love God. So, loving God is by loving people. After all, people is his creation.

          It’s obvious that you really don’t know the freedom that you have under the law of Christ.

          It is you who are ADDING to scripture by COMMANDING things that Jesus never said, by insinuating that instruments are unauthorized. And I’m gonna ask, BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you cite that instruments are not authorized? Just because you can’t find it written in the NT?

          The JW’s do that already regarding holidays and birthdays. And now you do the same thing as they do. Ughhhh.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      21. As ever, Brian, it’s always a pleasure. I found your article interesting but didn’t read all of it. It looks like it would be suitable in a more general discussion. Also, I find the “regulative principle,” in the definition you gave to be too narrow in its scope for determining what is authorized and what is not. For example, what about “necessary inferences,” or what about “specific and general commands or statements,” and what about the “silence of the scriptures?” Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to include any of these principles of scripture for determining what is or isn’t authorized.

          At the start of this conversation I gave you a very specific NT verse (Eph. 5:19; cf, Col. 3:16) that under apostolic authority commands singing and making melody “with your heart to the Lord.” The careful student will discover THAT THE HEART IS THE INSTRUMENT in this verse. As we speak to one another in our songs, we must sing and make melody with our hearts to the Lord. I agree with the principle in your article that an apostolic charge in the NT supersedes what was instructed under the Old Covenant. This is precisely what we have here with no call for mechanical instruments anymore. As I’ve said, this indeed authorizes acapella music for the worship of the church AND gives no approval or authorization for anything beyond that. Unfortunately, you have been unable to produce any NT verse that would approve or affirm the use of mechanical instruments of music in the church today. Instead, you have appealed to the silence of the scriptures which is prohibitive rather than permissive in nature according to what we learn from Hebrews 7:13-14. Other than that, all you can do is give your opinion which in the end contradicts the main evidence found in the NT.

          You also misunderstand what it means to “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” which is very unfortunate even though I tried to explain it to you!

          Also, you said:  “Actually, the NT teaches a combination of both the regulative and normative principles, imo”

          Response: That’s funny because earlier you said that “The regulative principle is a man-made tradition.” ??? Well, if it is nothing more than a man-made tradition it is not something found in the NT. It is either one or the other, it can’t be both! And, if it is somehow taught in the NT, then it is not a man-made tradition but rather an instruction from heaven that men must obey.

          The music in the early church was vocal music. The Christians sang psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The use of mechanical instruments of music arose centuries after New Testament times and without the approval of God. Christians today who wish to do that which is known to be pleasing to God will sing to Him without the use of mechanical instruments of music.

          Thanks for the conversation!

          Loading...

      22. Thank you for your reply, Aidan. We’ve given others some things to think about. Out of curiosity, does your congregation own a building for worship, and what NT verses would you use to support using buildings for worship? How about a baptistry? How about “church” weddings? Thanks.

          Loading...

      23. Hi Brian,
          Yes we do own our own building and have a baptistery, but we don’t have weddings at the church because some have a conscience against using the building for such. How do we establish scriptural authority for these and many other things?

          Step 1: By using the three basic ways in which the bible teaches us. Another way of stating this is three ways by which authority may be established. It should be clear from the outset that theses are not rules of interpretation which we impose upon the Scriptures, but rules which are found in the Scripture.

          THE BIBLE TEACHES IN THREE WAYS.
          The bible teaches by direct command, approved examples, and necessary inferences or conclusions.

          A. DIRECT COMMAND or STATEMENT. Examples: 1. All must repent (Acts 17:30; Acts 2:38,39) 2. You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13; Rom. 13:9).

          B. APPROVED EXAMPLES. By this we mean the practice of the people of God in the NT under the guidance of the apostles. This is sometimes called an “approved apostolic example.” 1. Assembling on the first day of every week (Acts 20:7) 2. Observance of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week (Acts 20:7) given a stamp of approval by the apostle Paul who joined them and preached.

          C. NECESSARY INFERENCE or IMPLICATION or CONCLUSION. This is something that is neither expressly stated nor specifically exemplified, yet is necessarily implied or inferred by the clear import and meaning of the language used.
          1. We infer from the language and context that Philip baptized the eunuch, rather than the eunuch baptizing Philip, though such is not specifically stated (Acts 8:38).
          2. Not all inferences or conclusions are necessary. For example, some infer infant baptism from the household baptisms of Acts 16:15,33. This is not a necessary inference but a forced one. There are many households without infants.

          THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE GENTILES AND THE LAW OF MOSES. The controversy over whether the Gentile Christians must keep the Law of Moses was settled by the use of these three methods (Acts 15). The apostles and elders appealed to this same threefold rule. It can easily be understood simply on the basis of logic.

          The question (vs. 5): Is it necessary for Gentile Christians to keep the Law of Moses (circumcision)? Observe how they reached their conclusion.

          A. NECESSARY INFERENCE.
          1. Peter drew many inferences from the things that occurred in (Acts 10:17,28,34,47; 11:17,18).
          2. Peter concluded that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9).
          3. James drew the conclusion, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God…” (Acts 15:19).
          4. No inference could be drawn that the Gentiles must keep the law. Such a conclusion would have been a forced one.

          B. APPROVED EXAMPLES.
          1. Peter said: God gave them the Holy Spirit, even as He did to the Jews (Acts 15:8).
          2. Barnabas and Paul: Related how God did many signs and wonders through them among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).
          3. These examples showed the multitude that God had accepted the Gentiles WITHOUT obedience to the Law of Moses.

          C. DIRECT STATEMENTS OR COMMANDS FROM GOD.
          1. Peter related how he was commanded to go to the house of Cornelius so the Gentiles would hear the gospel and believe (Acts 15:7).
          2. James then cited the direct words of the prophets (Acts 15:15-18) to show how they agreed with this.
          3. God did not tell the Gentiles to keep the law of Moses.

          This is nearly like your article, but don’t worry, be patient, I’ll soon be getting to answering your questions.

          Loading...

      24. I’m guessing, Aidan, you don’t have ready answers so you’re going to have to do some research from your denominational traditions to find answers. Fine. But I think you see that my questions point to obvious conflicts with your rejection of using musical instruments for worship, since it is just like your use of a building for worship or baptistry for baptisms! But I look forward to your reply. 😀

          Loading...

      25. By the way, I’m not doing research, Brian, as you have assumed. But, just like the 20-page article you gave me to read to show how you establish authority for ethical decision-making, it takes time and preparation for people to understand how scriptural authority is established for any practice. This is stuff from the Scriptures that I have known for many years. Have you even properly read through what I posted?

          Did you know that Jesus used these three methods in His teaching? Obviously, He used direct statements/commands and OT examples to teach the truth. But, He even used the grammar in Exodus 3:6 to teach by way of “necessary inference” concerning the resurrection. And, what’s great is that the common people put two and two together and got it. Another example is when the disciples forgot to bring bread and He said beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But when they didn’t understand Jesus rebukes them for their hardness of heart. He expected that they should have made the “necessary conclusion” by putting two and two together from previous examples (Matt. 16:5-12). They weren’t being spiritually minded at the time! When you think about it, Brian, these three ways are not only used in the bible, but people of the world use them in everyday life, all the time without realizing it. If you think hard enough you’ll see what I’m saying is true.

          And, do YOU not use a building with facilities for worship? If so, on what basis do you scripturally justify it? Otherwise, you are just following another tradition of men. I’ll see you in my next post!

          Loading...

      26. Still waiting Aidan! Yes I did read your view of ethical decision making. We actually agree on a lot. But it sounds like you are going to say there are verses that support the “necessary inference” that buildings and baptistries should be used for worship, but that only “spiritually minded” people like you can see those inferences are necessary! That smacks of gnosticism.

          In logic a “necessary inference” is based on two clearly stated true premises that must logically lead to one conclusion. I wait to read your proof where congregational owning of a building and use of a baptistry are necessary inferences based on two clear statements in Scripture.

          Loading...

      27. Hi Brian. It appears that I picked up on this conversation midway. I have been trying to get my theological bearing on the issue at hand. I am gathering one thing – that the arguments relates what is permissible for believers in the light of OT laws?

          Loading...

      28. Hi Ezekiel, There are some denonimations, like Aidan’s, who try to be loyal to what’s called the Regulative Principle – (wiki) “The regulative principle of worship is a Christian doctrine, held by some Calvinists and Anabaptists, that God commands churches to conduct public services of worship using certain distinct elements affirmatively found in scripture, and conversely, that God prohibits any and all other practices in public worship. The doctrine further determines these affirmed elements to be those set forth in scripture by express commands or examples, or if not expressed, those which are implied logically by good and necessary consequence.” One clear example is not to use musical instruments in worship, because the NT gives no command or example for it, though one could argue, imo, using instruments is “logically” implied as much as using building and baptistries are implied for worship.

          Others follow what’s called the Normative Principle – (wiki) “The normative principle of worship is a Christian theological principle that teaches that worship in the Church can include those elements that are not prohibited by Scripture. The normative principle teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.”

          My view is that the normative principle must submit to the regulative principle, and that the regulative principle must include the normative principle. So it is not only what “is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church”, but the practice that is “not prohibited by Scripture” must fit under some positive command of NT Scripture, a dozen of which are pretty general and universal (like do all with love, and do all in the name of Christ). This does limit the normative principle further, but also opens up the practice of the regulative principle more than some denominations like to, since their control of their members depends on obedience to their subjective use, imo, of the regulative principle.

          Loading...

      29. Noted thanks.

          Loading...

      30. You are forgetting the time difference between us, Brian! I’m at work while trying to juggle answering your questions in a timely fashion. This is in real time, so I’m afraid you’ll have to be patient and wait. And, No! I wouldn’t say that a church should own a building for worship. The use of a building is simply an expedient to the command to assemble (1 Cor. 10:23). And stop playing the hypocrite by pretending that you don’t try to be “spiritually minded.” You don’t have to be spiritually minded to see a necessary inference. I made it clear that even the world use “necessary inferences” in their daily lives.

          And you don’t need two clear statements of scripture for a necessary inference. What two scriptures did Jesus use for the necessary inference in Exodus 3:6? Yet it was enough for the people, even His enemies, to make the necessary conclusion. You said your questions were “out of curiosity,” is that all it was, Brian? Let’s say you find that I’m being inconsistent with the truth, what would that prove? It would simply prove that I was inconsistent, but it wouldn’t change the truth. The truth would still remain the truth whether you recognized it or not!

          Loading...

      31. You have the time Aidan, to give lengthy replies to my recent interactions, but you do not have a quick reply to two simple examples I honestly asked about. I had figured your denomination must have met up with these questions before and so you would have had Scripture references handy to show from where they got their spiritual “inferences”.

          No – we will disagree on the meaning of “necessary inference”. It must be based on clear stated premises that, yes, even the common man can see are clear statements, even if they don’t believe the truth of them. Ex 3:6 is a good example. Jesus was using a clear statement that God made to Moses – “I am the God of Abraham…”, not “I was the God of Abraham”. He was making a logically necessary inference from that clear statement.

          Do you know how songs are composed for worship? I doubt that any were composed that you sing on Sunday that were composed without using musical instruments. Even the notation of musical notes are “instruments”, and hymn books are “instruments”, neither of which are commanded, have examples, or are necessarily inferred in the NT!

          Loading...

      32. I agree, I could have given much shorter answers to your questions, but your responses have confirmed that you first need to know and understand the biblical principles I would use to establish authority.

          You wrote: “Ex 3:6 is a good example. Jesus was using a clear statement that God made to Moses – “I am the God of Abraham…”, not “I was the God of Abraham”. He was making a logically necessary inference from that clear statement.”

          Response: So we are in agreement that you don’t need two passages of Scripture to establish a “necessary inference” as you had said in your previous post. As long as that is clear from here on in. As you said, “He was making a logically necessary inference from that clear statement.” That’s all I’m saying we should do too!

          Your last comment: “Even the notation of musical notes are “instruments”, and hymn books are “instruments”, neither of which are commanded, have examples, or are necessarily inferred in the NT!” Shows me , Brian, that you don’t use the biblical principles of General (Generic) and Specific authority, and the biblical principle of expediencies to determine what the church can or cannot not do. I was about to explain these things (short version) in my next post until we got side-tracked.

          Loading...

      33. Aidan, Jesus supplied the second statement in the logical inference – “God is God of the living and not of the dead.” Based on the OT statement and Jesus statement He made the necessary inference that there is indeed a resurrection of the dead. Yes, logical inferences are based on two premises that lead to a conclusion. Even when phrased as “if-then” there is an assumed middle statement “and the if premise is true”. The third law of logic is based on the excluded middle which means every logical inference is based on two premises that have the same middle statement. It cannot be excluded from either premise, and it only exists because there is always two premises in every argument used to point to a conclusion.

          Now you’re going to also have to give clear verses that establish what you mean by “the principles of General and Specific Authority”, and the “principle of Expediencies”, or I’m going to think those principles made up from outside of Scripture. Please give your biblical support for buildings and baptistries first! I think I have waited long enough! 😉 But the use of instruments and hymn books to be expedient aids in worship certainly seems good to me!

          Loading...

      34. Once we have established authority for something either by direct statement, approved example, or necessary inference (or a combination of these) the next question is, what kind of authority is it? All authority is either General or Specific authority. General authority “includes” while Specific authority “excludes.” What do I mean by that? Note the following:

          1. THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL AUTHORITY and how it “includes.”

          a. “Go” Matthew 28:19: — How?… [Walk, Ride, Fly, Sail, etc,] Which? –[God did not specify. He gave us the choice. Whatever is expedient. It could include any or all of these. No man has the right to bind a specific method]

          b. “Teach” Matthew 28:19-20: — How?…[Private, Public, or Classes, etc,] Which? –[God did not specify. He gave us the choice. Whatever is expedient. No man has a right to bind any specific arrangment or method].

          c. “Assemble” Hebrews 10:25: — Where?…[Home, Rented Building, Own Building, Outside, etc,] Which? –[God did not specify. Left to man’s judgment to select most expedient].

          d. “Sing” Ephesians 5:29; Colossians 3:16: — How?…[With book, Leader, By memory, Alto, Soprano, etc,] Which? –[ God did not specify but left the choice to man’s judgment for what is most expedient. No man has the right to legislate or specify]

          e. Noah “Make” an ark Genesis 6:14: — How?…[God did not specify what tools but left it up to Noah to include whatever tools or equipment would aid in building it once it did not violate any other command].

          2. THE PRINCIPLE OF SPECIFIC AUTHORITY and how it “excludes.”

          a. Noah’s Ark. Build it of “Gopher Wood” Genesis 6:14:
          Gopher wood excluded…[Oak, Popular, Cedar, Pine, etc,]. It excludes ANY SUBSTITUTION [God specified Gopher. No man had the right to add another kind. Such would NOT be expedients but additions, substitutions].

          b. “The water of cleansing,” Numbers 19:2.
          It says the ashes of a red heifer. A red heifer excluded…[Sheep, Goat, Pig, Camel, and every other colour of heifer]. God specified not only the kind of animal but even the colour. No man had a right to add another colour or kind. Such would not be expedients but additions, substitutions.

          c. “The Lord’s Supper” Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23.
          God specified the first day of the week…[The first day of the week excludes every other day]
          God specified the elements — bread, fruit of the vine. They exclude every other element…[Roast Lamb, Sweet Milk, etc,]

          d. Music. “Sing” Ephesians 5:19.
          Excludes every other “kind” of music. Instrumental music is another kind of music and is excluded by the fact that God specified “sing.” It excludes “playing” because playing is not “singing”…[Such would not be an expedient, but rather, an addition or substitution]. No man has the right to grant a liberty which God’s authority EXCLUDES.

          e. Collective Functioning. “The Congregation” (local church) Acts 14:23; 20:28; Phil. 1:1
          God has specified congregational government under elders or bishops. There is nothing larger or smaller in the NT scriptures. Man has to accept God’s arrangement and be satisfied or rebel against divine authority by substituting or adding some other organization.

          CONCLUSION:
          In order for a thing to be authorized there must be either a DIRECT PRECEPT, APPROVED EXAMPLE, or NECESSARY INFERENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES: If that means of authority is GENERAL then anything included within the scope of the thing authorized is permissible. But if God has SPECIFIED the kind or method of execution then no substitute or addition is allowed but is excluded. In such cases God has left man no choice but to respect God’s stipulations by obeying His word or rebelling against divine authority by substituting or adding in his own will.

          One final point regarding buildings. I believe there are also enough EXAMPLES in the NT to show that churches assembled in homes and buildings including perhaps even a synagogue in James. With that said, I hope all of this suffices in showing you how to establish biblical authority for everything in the word of God.😀

          Loading...

      35. Aidan,

          With all due respect, Aidan, my friend, that’s gotta be the dumbest thing I’ve read since becoming a Christian, that you would even have to STRAIN AT A GNAT to even try to find authorized vs. unauthorized.

          For example, The Lord’s Supper is a metaphor that represents the Last Supper at Passover. They ate more than bread there. It was Passover, where the “required” meal included lamb, and a whole lot of other stuff, like bitter something or other, as well.

          However, some people from Catholics to various other protestant churches calls this Communion.

          You reference:
          1 Cor 11:23

          Was that Passover on SUNDAY? I think it was on Thursday night (Time “reckoning” to be Friday for the Jews (Nisan 15). See Luke 22:1. We break bread at my place 3 times a day, calling it Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. Not just on Sunday.

          But my reference would be:

          1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is the COMPLETE story. But it seems that people are isolating the story down to a couple of verses only, thereby CREATING a ritual called, Communion.

          When you read the complete story, you will see that this is nothing more than a Chicken Dinner (with all the fixings), and with desert included (Apple Pie) CHURCH BANQUET with the teaching of ETHICS on how to conduct yourselves at the dinner table at this church banquet, and Paul uses the LAST SUPPER (Passover meal), as his example as how to be polite, and this church BANQUET is called The Lords Supper. It’s not about Bread or Wine. It’s about eating and drinking, tho.

          Again, this is about ETHICS, on how to conduct yourself at the dinner table. Something that mom should have taught you as a child in the first place.

          Let’s review:

          First, let’s see what Luke has to say regarding “do this is memory of me”:

          Luke 22:19
          Then Jesus took bread. He gave thanks and broke it. He handed it to them and said, “This is my body. It is given for you. Every time you eat it, do this in memory of me.”

          NOTE: It is important to note that none of the gospels indicate anything about “EVERYTIME YOU DRINK OF THIS CUP, DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. But Paul mentions those exact words. Do you know what that tells me? That tells me that there is a MISSING testimony that never got put in the Canon of scripture of the GOSPELS. But that’s another topic.

          Now, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (The COMPLETE story). Let’s do this in the NIV version, then you can go back to your favorite version of your preference.

          17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

          18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

          19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

          20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,

          21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.

          22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

          23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

          24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

          NOTE: See Luke 22:19

          25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

          26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

          27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

          28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

          29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

          NOTE: DING DING. Verse 29 “body of Christ” is the “congregation”, not Jesus’ physical body. See Verse 31 below.

          30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

          31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.

          32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

          33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.

          34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

          Conclusion:

          Is this really about a ritual called communion, or is it about a church banquet? A Chicken Dinner at Church! Or eating bread only?

          Loading...

      36. Thank you Aidan for another thoughtful reply, though I’m guessing you won’t see how inconsistent your 1d is with your 2d. Singing with an accompanying hymnbook is no different than singing with an accompanying instrument, in my spiritually minded inference. 😉

          Your reasoning might only exclude playing an instrument by itself as a way to fulfill the command to be filled with the Holy Spirit. There is no command that says, sing only a capella, or sing only when with other Christians. But you can infer that all singing, if it is to seek obeying the command to keep being filled with the Spirit, should be sung in the heart to the Lord, whether with or without hymnbooks or instruments.

          You left out giving proof for baptistries for some reason, but you don’t need to give me the verses now. I’ve pushed too much already, I think, and you have clarified what is or isn’t your denomination’s thinking on these types of things which are not commanded or given examples in the NT.

          And if the Scripture gives only examples of meeting in homes owned and lived in by believers then that seems to be the specific authority, according to your definitions, that purchased buildings by the group are to be prohibited.

          I hope the Lord helps you see the man-made traditions that your denomination has imposed upon Scriptures. I certainly know why denominations do that.

          Loading...

      37. Brian, you wrote: “Thank you Aidan for another thoughtful reply, though I’m guessing you won’t see how inconsistent your 1d is with your 2d. Singing with an accompanying hymnbook is no different than singing with an accompanying instrument, in my spiritually minded inference. ”

          Response:  I think the thoughtful reader will see that your perception of inconsistency on my part — grows out of your lack of knowledge concerning the nature of authority. When authority is established, it is either General or Specific. And, as explained in my previous post 1d is _general or generic_ while 2d is _specific authority._ Therefore there is no inconsistency between them. God has specified the kind of music He wants in worship, namely, “singing” — nothing more, nothing less. People might not realize this, but “instrumental music” is actually another _kind_ of music and is nowhere authorized in Ephesians 5:19, or Colossians 3:16 for that matter. Now, if the only kind of music God authorized in the NT is singing, then, “singing with an accompanying instrument” is not an expedient, but another kind of music that has NOT been authorized by God.

          But how is this different than “singing with an accompanying hymnbook?” Hymnbooks are simply used as an aid to expedite the generic command to sing. They in no way violate God’s command by adding ANOTHER TYPE of music into the worship of the church. It’s as simple as that!

          We have authority to baptize according to (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16). But, because God did not SPECIFY WHERE to baptize He left it to man’s judgment to select what is most expedient. This is what makes us free to have a baptistery to baptize people in, or to baptize anywhere else for that matter. This of course does not mean that you must have a baptistery, but as I said, such is authorized under a GENERIC COMMAND where God has told us to baptize but HASN’T SPECIFIED WHERE. The baptistery has often proven to be most expedient (1 Cor 10:23).

          Regarding your contention on the purchase of buildings, and the examples that churches only met in homes! What trumps all of this is that Jesus has made it clear it is no longer the PLACE that matters but only that we worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). THEREFORE, NO MAN CAN LIMIT WORSHIP TO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE! It is also erroneous to assume that in order for a thing to be scriptural it must be “specifically authorized.”  Why? Because it leaves out the fact that all authority is either General or Specific and not just one thing.

          Let me just say in finishing, that there is no other way by which truth can be revealed except in at least one of these three ways, by express statement, approved example, or necessary inference! This is how the Bible directs us and reveals that His authority both _generic_ and _specific._ But I believe that I have already scripturally demonstrated these things enough for you to know the truth.

          Therefore, I would hope that the Lord opens your eyes to His word in this matter so that you might learn to accurately handle that word and come to the knowledge of the truth. 

          Thank you, Brian, for the time and opportunity.🙂 

          Loading...

      38. Aidan,

          You are wrong on all accounts, Aidan. You are just too stubborn to realize it.

          I will say it again, one last time:

          I am going to approach Ephesians 5:19 with sentence structure, from the KJV, and not any other version.

          Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

          Actually, I’m going to expand this, due to the semi-colon.

          18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

          19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

          20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

          21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

          Ah, yes, the complete sentence.

          Notice first, that the KJV in verse 19 states, “Speaking to yourselves”, rather than “speak to one another”.

          Then look up the Strong’s Concordance as it applies to the KJV for the word “yourselves” in Ephesians 5:19.

          Yourselves is a pronoun, but it is singular in this case, not plural. The “s” at the end of “yourselves” is indicating that the audience is more than one person, of course, but it is discussing a single persons action, not a group action.

          In other words, if the audience was only one person, it would state “speak to yourself”

          There are other Greek words for the plural use of “yourselves” *(G240), such as:

          John 6:43 Jesus G2424 therefore G3767 answered G611 and G2532 said G2036 unto them, G846 Murmur G1111 not G3361 among G3326 yourselves. G240

          and

          John 16:19 Now G3767 Jesus G2424 knew G1097 that G3754 they were desirous G2309 to ask G2065 him, G846 and G2532 said G2036 unto them, G846 Do ye enquire G2212 among G3326 yourselves G240 of G4012 that G5127 G3754 I said, G2036 A little while, G3397 and G2532 ye shall G2334 ➔ not G3756 see G2334 me: G3165 and G2532 again, G3825 a little while, G3397 and G2532 ye shall see G3700 me? G3165

          But Ephesians 5:19 “yourselves” is:

          Ephesians 5:19 Speaking G2980 to yourselves G1438 in psalms G5568 and G2532 hymns G5215 and G2532 spiritual G4152 songs, G5603 singing G103 and G2532 making melody G5567 in G1722 your G5216 heart G2588 to the Lord; G2962

          G1438 ἑαυτοῦ heautoû, heh-ow-too’; from a reflexive pronoun otherwise obsolete and the genitive case (dative case or accusative case) of G846; him- (her-, it-, them-, also (in conjunction with the personal pronoun of the other persons) my-, thy-, our-, your-) self (selves), etc.

          G846 αὐτός autós, ow-tos’; from the particle αὖ aû (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:—her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, – by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.

          G848 αὑτοῦ hautoû, how-too’; contracted for G1438; self (in some oblique case or reflexively, relation):—her (own), (of) him(-self), his (own), of it, thee, their (own), them(-selves), they.

          Next:

          Notice, if you will, the sentence structure of:

          “singing and making melody in your heart”.

          Notice, if you will, where the comma is not? There is not a comma after the word “singing”, or should I really say, there is not a comma before the word “and”.

          That is important, because this shows that the singing is “in your heart” as well as melody.

          If it were dealing with only melody in the heart, then there would be a comma before the word “and”. So, both singing and melody is in the heart, meaning that not a word is vocally spoken.

          The conclusion is, when taken into account the whole sentence beginning with verse 18, and ending with verse 21, this is not, I repeat not discussing Sunday Morning Worship Service at Church at all.

          This is discussing what to do outside of church. Again, there is two checks and balances to go from here. The first being the singular “yourselves”, and the other is that both singing and melody is in the heart, where there is no vocal cords used to sing.

          And that is today’s English lesson on sentence structuring, and definitions of words, and the use of commas.

          Loading...

      39. Aidan said:

          “d. Music. “Sing” Ephesians 5:19.
          Excludes every other “kind” of music. Instrumental music is another kind of music and is excluded by the fact that God specified “sing.” It excludes “playing” because playing is not “singing”…[Such would not be an expedient, but rather, an addition or substitution]. No man has the right to grant a liberty which God’s authority EXCLUDES.]”

          But I say:

          Let’s look at Ephesians 5:19, shall we?

          Ephesians 5:19
          Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

          This is not about a gathering at church on Sunday breaking bread. This is when you are outside of church by yourself. Speaking to yourselves in psalms, etc.

          It’s no different than hearing mom’s annoying humming in the car on a long trip.

          So, this shows that you are once again misusing scripture to attempt to prove your point.

          But in regards to “singing” (And I must note that I don’t believe that any instruments were made of Gopher Wood…lol).

          Psalm 33:2
          Praise the Lord with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.

          1 Chronicles 13:8
          And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.

          1 Chronicles 15:16
          And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.

          1 Chronicles 15:19
          So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed to sound with cymbals of brass;

          2 Chronicles 5:12
          Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets:)

          2 Chronicles 5:13
          It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord;

          2 Chronicles 30:21
          And the children of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the Lord.

          Nehemiah 12:27
          And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with gladness, both with thanksgivings, and with singing, with cymbals, psalteries, and with harps.

          Psalm 33:3
          Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.

          NOTE: Notice the word “new” above? Old fuddy duddy hymnals are out of date!

          Psalm 71:22
          I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

          Psalm 98:5
          Sing unto the Lord with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm.

          Psalm 144:9
          I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.

          Psalm 147:7
          Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God:

          Psalm 149:3
          Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.

          Conclusion:

          If God had a problem with instruments, he would have commanded that they be stopped during worship in the Law of Moses.

          But again, you misused Ephesians 5:19, when it was not discussing worship IN CHURCH at all, but when you are NOT in church, and from the wording, it sounds as tho the person is BY THEMSELF, alone.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      40. Aidan,

          Let’s expand Ephesians 5:19 for more clarification as to my conclusion that Ephesians 5:19 is when one is outside of a Sunday only breaking bread building:

          Ephesians 5:18-21
          18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

          19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

          20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

          21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

          Notice the period at the end of verse 21, whereas there is a semi-colon at the end of verses 18-20?

          Now, I know that Greek has no punctuation, but translators put them there. I trust the translators.

          The previous was the following:

          17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

          After verse 21 is the following:

          22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

          So, verse 19 cannot be isolated by itself, as it is of the same sentence as verses 18-21.

          And in reading the whole chapter, it’s discussing your Christian behavior/conduct outside of the church gathering on Sunday’s.

          It is amusing the conclusions people come up with, though.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      41. Aidan,

          Speaking of punctuation:

          Ephesians 5:19
          Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

          Notice where the comma’s are not?

          There is no comma after the word “singing”. Singing and making melody is both “in your heart”, not with vocal cords.

          Now, if I were to put a comma after the word “singing”, then you make melody in your heart, singing with your vocal cords.

          But without a comma after the word “singing”, then both singing and making melody in your heart is what it states.

          The comma is important here.

          That, coupled with “speaking to yourselves”, is an extremely great indicator that it’s all done without speaking a word vocally.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      42. Aidan,

          Well, your “Church of Christ” seems to use a different Bible Version than that of the KJV.

          Words matter.

          From one “Church of Christ” website defending what you are defending, it states that Ephesians 5:19 reads:

          speaking to one another in psalms

          But the KJV states:

          Speaking to yourselves in psalms

          Based on what I already laid out, your version can’t be correct, because of the Strong’s concordance use of the word “yourselves” is personal, not from one to another, and by personal, I mean singular personal pronoun.

          yourselves G1438

          Now, the plural form of “yourselves” is G5210, and that word isn’t used in Ephesians 5:19.

          Now, it needs to be known that the Strong’s Concordance is in conjunction with the KJV, which was translated from the original Greek manuscripts. Therefore, I couldn’t even begin to figure out how your translators got “speaking to one another” out of G1438.

          Eph 5:19
          Speaking G2980 to yourselves G1438 in psalms G5568 and G2532 hymns G5215 and G2532 spiritual G4152 songs, G5603 singing G103 and G2532 making melody G5567 in G1722 your G5216 heart G2588 to the Lord; G2962

          And, as I said before, based on the non-use of a comma after the word “singing”, then both singing and making melody in your heart is the proper rendering. Notice it doesn’t say FROM the heart, either, just “IN” the heart.

          So there is a check and balance here by two different means. The first, yourselves, the other, both singing and making melody in the heart.

          Greek words matter.

          Again, my sister dragged me to the Church of Christ when she was going thru her alcoholism sobriety phase. I know all about this. I just can’t remember what Bible version they used.

          I have nothing against acapella at all.

          I just have a problem with church’s that don’t know how to comprehend what they read from the bible.

          If worship isn’t from the heart, but rules, then that isn’t worship at all.

          Isaiah 29:13/Matthew 15:8/Mark 7:6
          Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

          Seriously, Aidan, do you actually read Ephesians 5:19 as an event that happens in church on Sunday, or do you see it as an event that happens outside of church, while alone

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      43. Ed – ἑαυτοῖς – in Eph 5:19 is plural! Whether it is to yourselves as individuals or to yourselves as a group is not made clear. I think both are in view, starting with yourself and then including others. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

          Loading...

      44. Brian, the audience is plural, the action is singular. It can be proven by the nonexistent comma before the word ,”and” after the word “singing” bringing the conjunction “and” together with the word “melody in the heart”. Meaning that the singing is in the heart as well, not just the melody. That’s what makes it clear. This is not about corporate worship. Put the whole chapter together, especially the previous verses and the following verses, as verse 18 ends in a semicolon, and verse 19 ends in a semicolon, as well. You can’t isolate verse 19.

          Loading...

      45. Come on Ed! Are you saying you don’t have to be filled with the Spirit when singing hymns together, giving thanks together, submitting to one another. Verse 19 can’t be separated from 18, 20 and 21 either.

          At least you should admit you were wrong about the Greek word being singular. And you wonder why people avoid discussions with you. 🙄

          Loading...

      46. That’s not what Ephesians 5:19 is discussing. If it is, then put a comma after the word “singing”. Then it will say what you and Aidan imply.

          Loading...

      47. No, I’m not wrong with that Greek word being singular. The usage determines, and there is a rabbit trail to follow on that Greek word. The plural would be, in the English of the KJV as, “Ye, yourselves”, which is a different Greek word. Ye is plural of the you singular.

          Loading...

      48. The parallel passage Col. 3:16 makes it clear that this is among a group and that the action is reciprocal in nature. Teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, if memory serves.

          Loading...

      49. My comments are not being posted, but Aidan is making reference to colossians 3:16 as being a parallel verse, which many also do.

          But again, how does one ADMONISH another with a song? The word structure in the whole sentence needs to be broken up. Jesus is the word of God, and the word of God is what is written in scripture, and that is what admonishes us. The words used in colossians 3:16 is the same Greek word as used in Ephesians 5:19, which Ephesians 5:19 states, “yourselves”, but colossians 3:16 states as “one another”.

          Do you see the translation problem? Do we really admonish one another with a song? No, we don’t. The word of God admonishes us, which shows that this verse needs to be broken down from the Greek again, and using “yourselves”, instead of “one another”, and to use a conjunction before the mention of songs.

          Loading...

      50. Brian,

          When I said that verse 19 can’t be isolated, I was discussing verses 18-21, due to the semicolon. All of those things are relating to things outside of church. Not within the church service. Otherwise, we’ve got some serious wine drinkers coming to church. How do we submit ourselves, one to another, during church services? This is done outside of a church service setting.

          Loading...

      51. Brian,

          That same Greek word is used in several verses. Several. One of which is the following:

          Matthew 12:26
          And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself (G1438)…

          Himself.

          Matthew 6:34, itself;

          Matthew 3:9, yourselves;

          Matthew 8:22, their;

          Matthew 9:3, themselves;

          Matthew 9:21, herself;

          Matthew 23:37, her

          etcetera…

          My point, it’s not always plural. That’s why I discussed the rabbit trail to follow that one Greek word.

          In Ephesians, if the audience hearing Paul’s words was an audience of one, it would say. “yourself”, and that is not plural.

          When I look at things, I look at the whole spectrum before I speak.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      52. Ed, you are only showing your ignorance of Greek inflected forms. 🙄 The endings tell you if the word, in this case the reflexive pronoun, is singular or plural. In Matt 6:34, ἑαυτῆς, is the Genitive Feminine Singular form.

          We are talking about, ἑαυτοῖς, in Eph 5:19, which is the Dative Masculine Plural form. The next closest use of it by Paul is in Eph 4:32. What do you think it means there – forgive yourself? 😂

          God wants us to be filled with the Spirit, not so we can be happy alone… but to be a blessing to others. I wonder how much personal interaction you have with other believers while you are filled with the Spirit. Go sing some hymns together with them today! 🤓

          And take some more NT Greek lessons before trying to point to it in support of your thinking.

          Loading...

      53. I stand by what I said, Brian.

          It is only plural based on the number of people that Paul is talking to. It’s not a group activity that he is discussing.

          For example, your Ephesians 4:32 states “one another”.

          The word “one” is singular.

          It doesn’t say forgive a group of people.

          Forgive each person, in other words.

          Another example is:

          Matthew 3:9
          And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father…

          That could be translated to, “Each of you, think not…”

          Singular person, but several people being spoken to, because everyone doesn’t think exactly the same words.

          I look to see how the word is used.

          And you still have that non-existing comma problem after the word sing to deal with.

          Loading...

      54. Brian,

          When I discussed Colossians 3:16 regarding “one another”, and I said that it should be “yourselves”, that is not related, as far as I’m concerned, to your Ehesians 4:32.

          And I already went over that.

          Look at the New Living Translation for Colossians 3:16.

          To me, that translation is what I believe is the correct rendition.

          Notice the word, Each?

          Colossians 316 (NLT)
          LET THE MESSAGE ABOUT CHRIST, IN ALL RICHNESS, FULL YOUR LIVES. TEACH AND COUNCIL EACH OTHER WITH ALL THE WISDOM HE GIVES. SING PSALMS AND HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS TO GOD WITH THANKFUL HEARTS.

          And that’s the way it should read, Brian.

          That makes more sense than to admonish someone by singing the admonishment… doesn’t it?

          Loading...

      55. Besides, we sing to God, not to each other.

          Loading...

      56. Even the English Standard Version (ESV) has Colossians 3:16 right, as far as I’m concerned.

          Loading...

      57. Would you care to revise your statement about my ignorance?

          Loading...

      58. Each one of you.

          Each is singular, you is plural. That’s the best example I can give, as to my uneducate Greek rendition of G1438, put in simple terms that a two year old, without a doctorate, can understand.

          Loading...

      59. I like how the “GOD’S WORD” translation does Ephesians 5:15-20.

          “15 So then, be careful how you live. Don’t live like foolish people but like wise people.

          16 make the most of your opportunities because these are evil days.

          17 So don’t be foolish, but understand what the Lord wants.

          18 Don’t get drunk on wine, which leads to wild living. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

          ****

          19 by reciting psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs for your own good. Sing and make music to the Lord with your hearts.

          ***

          20 Always thank God the Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          ***

          And that’s the way I see Ephesians 5:19.

          This whole chapter is how to live your Christian walk… outside of Sunday morning church services.

          The whole chapter.

          For the life of me, I can’t understand why some are so dogmatic, thinking that verse 19 is about a church service setting.

          Loading...

      60. Aidan,

          You are not engaging with me, and that’s fine.

          However, the following fits this narrative perfectly:

          Matthew 23:24
          Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          Check out the whole chapter. You are being a pharisee. Woe unto that line of thinking.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      61. I’m sorry, but it is impossible for me to work and engage with two people at the same time! And besides, Brian is good cop, and you are bad cop. 😉

          Loading...

      62. Aidan,

          Ahhhh. Just call me, The Devil’s Advocate!

          Psalm 150:4
          Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

          2 Samuel 6:5
          And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals.

          1 Chronicles 15:16
          And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.

          1 Chronicles 16:42
          And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters.

          2 Chronicles 5:13
          It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord;

          2 Chronicles 7:6
          And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the Lord, which David the king had made to praise the Lord, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood.

          2 Chronicles 23:13
          And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise.

          2 Chronicles 29:26
          And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.

          2 Chronicles 29:27
          And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel.

          ***********ROCK AND ROLL*****************Note the word “Loud”.
          2 Chronicles 30:21
          And the children of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the Lord.

          2 Chronicles 34:12
          And the men did the work faithfully: and the overseers of them were Jahath and Obadiah, the Levites, of the sons of Merari; and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to set it forward; and other of the Levites, all that could skill of instruments of musick.

          Nehemiah 12:36
          And his brethren, Shemaiah, and Azarael, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethaneel, and Judah, Hanani, with the musical instruments of David the man of God, and Ezra the scribe before them.

          Psalm 68:25
          The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.

          Psalm 87:7
          As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there: all my springs are in thee.

          Psalm 150:4
          Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

          Isaiah 38:20
          The Lord was ready to save me: therefore we will sing my songs to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the Lord.

          Amos 6:5
          That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;

          Habakkuk 3:19
          The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

          ****************

          If God had a problem with instruments, I think he would have let us know about it. Seems that a lot of God followers worshiped God using instruments of music. WORSHIPED with instruments of music!

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

      63. Hi, Brian, just wanted to add this because I felt it was important to answer more fully.

          You wrote: “Yes we should obey NT commands. But there is no command that says only do what the NT commands.”

          Response: On the other hand, where is the verse that says we don’t have to only do what the NT commands? It might not be stated the way you have phrased it, but we are most certainly taught in the Bible only to do what God has commanded.

          Proverbs 30:5-6, says, “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Notice that this applies to “Every word of God.” This, of course, covers the whole of the Bible, all of God’s word, not just the OT but the NT as well, “every word of God.” And what are we commanded NOT to do? “Do not add to His words.” Therefore, this certainly means that we cannot add doctrines and commandments of men to what God has commanded in the NT.

          Matthew 15:1-9 records a controversy with the Pharisees over the disciples not washing hands before eating. The practice of washing hands before eating was a religious obligation the Pharisees established by the “tradition of the elders.” There was nothing said in the law about such a practice, either positively or negatively. God did not forbid it, nor did He say anything close to the subject in the law. 

          The violation of the Pharisees was that they had added something “which the Lord had not commanded.” Again, I will say it, the violation of the Pharisees was that they had added something “which the Lord had not commanded.” Jesus rebuked them sharply, quoting Isaiah;

          “But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.”

          He also told them:

          “ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.”

          This condition exists whenever man adds anything the Lord has not authorized in His word and then makes it a religious observance. There was nothing wrong with washing one’s hands before eating, itself; most people do! The wrong came in making something a religious ritual not authorized by God. Such is always the case when men add like so to the word of God. We override and make void the word of God by adding to it the doctrines and precepts of men. This pays nothing but lip service to God, and because of it, many will be condemned!

          In view of these passages, tell me then, can men add to what God has commanded in His word, or are we to do ONLY what God has commanded?

          Loading...

      64. Aidan, I don’t think continuing the discussion will help either of us or others. I will only repeat this one thing. Hymnbooks, baptistries, and pastor officiated weddings in a building owned by a congregation are not wrong, but they are traditions of men added to the Scriptures. I continue to wish you the best.

          Loading...

      65. Well then, Brian, it is very sad that you see nothing wrong with the traditions of men added to the Scriptures! And I continue to wish you the best as well.

          Loading...

   4. Twin City Community Church located in Rosenberg, Texas, 1122 4th Street

      Pastor Christopher Rodriguez
      281-509-5845

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Thank you, Christopher!

         Loading...

      2. Hello Pastor Christopher – and welcome

         Loading...

   5. I just now saw this. Our church is in Pasadena, I do expositional preaching/teaching most of the time (not exclusively) and like and sing commemorate worship songs that meet our doctrinal standards as well as the older guns and songs, and we are not Calvinistic in the least. Just thought I’d answer just for fun. 😁

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello Walter and welcome

         Loading...

   6. You do understand who the rich man and the five brethren of Luke 19 represent?

      Do you not?

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello Steve and welcome

         Loading...

   7. Hi John, here are a few non-calvinistic church networks to check out. I’m in the Houston area also. I’d love to connect with you sometime.

      Check out the web-site Texas Baptist-org
      Navigate to about/churches

      Check out the web-site free grace alliance-com
      Navigate to church-tracker

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello johnsdr and welcome

         Loading...

   8. I most certainly can recommend a non-calvinist church here in Katy: Current – a Christian church!

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello Gillian and welcome
         .
         Thank you for providing that info!
         blessings
         br.d

         Loading...

2. Thank you for responding back. My church was a traditional Baptist Church. Got a new Paster two years ago. Him and His wife are very nice people and the church voted him in. He never said anything about being a Reformist until about 9 months ago. He is attempting to change everything reformed. He gives a sermon that sound good, but I am now catching the Calvinist words in it. The rest of the church does not.

   I will probably end up leaving. I have brought up that when a person adds or takes away from the Gospel it becomes a different gospel and thus a false gospel. If a person believes that they were saved before Jesus Christ died on the cross or a person can not accept salvation. It becomes a false gospel.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. I would suggest that you confront the Calvinistic doctrines and demonstrate from your knowledge of Scripture why they cannot be accommodated in a Bible believing Christian congregation. It will be unfair to simply walk away from the church without outlining your well reasoned objection.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. I would not suggest that myself.
         The Calvinist pastor will play the role of the spider and you will play the role of the fly.

         Calvinism entails a very long tradition of a well developed expertise in DOUBLE-SPEAK

         If you are not prepared – and keenly discerning of exactly how to identify it within his statements – you are guaranteed to be deceived by it..

         And it takes time to understand the underlying doctrine – and how the Calvinist hides the doctrine behind a mask of word games

         Over the centuries numerous non-Calvinist authors have recognized this.
         And today we have Non-Calvinist pastors in denominations actually begging Calvinist pastors to stop using dishonest language.

         Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely
         -quote
         “Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence.
         For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false”

         In other words – the practice involves using language that is designed to mislead.
         In order to not be misled – you will have to have an intense understanding of the aspects of the doctrine which Calvinist language is designed to hide. And without that familiarity you’ll be a drift in an ocean of highly evolved word games.

         He will twist you around his finger in 50 different ways you didn’t even see.
         And over time – as you start to get glimpses of the misleading language – if you share what you are seeing with others – you will be branded as having a rebellious spirit – and you will end up leaving anyway.

         Loading...

      2. Noted thanks. I think it all depends on the depth of one’s conviction on the errors advanced by the Reformed group and their grasp of Biblical theology. A trained pastor or scholar who is familiar with Calvinism will obviously discern the doctrinal errors no matter how semantics are engaged in concealing the tulip weed. What I meant to say is that walking away quietly wont be helpful. Other innocent and less discerning members of the congregation will suffer under the doctrinal deceptions. I agree with you that some teachers can be brutal if one is ill prepared in contending with them.

         Loading...

      3. Thanks Ezekiel!
         I totally understand

         Personally however, I would’t send a soldier into a battle which guarantees he’s simply going to get slaughtered.

         And yes I agree with you
         A scholar – Jerry Walls for example – who has a keen understanding of Universal Divine Causal Determinism – which is the underlying foundational core of the Calvinist system – would know exactly how to respond to the various language tactics and how they work to paint false pictures.

         As a matter of fact it was Dr. Jerry Walls who said: “If Calvinism didn’t depend so heavily upon misleading rhetoric – it would probably die in two years”

         And Dr. William Lane Craig said: “The Calvinist unfortunately and yet consistently fails to enunciate the radical distinctions of his belief system”

         So yes – the scholars understand the reality of the situation.

         Loading...

      4. BR D – could u provide names of resources that would help us identify the double-speak etc? I really want to be versed in this.

         Loading...

      5. Dr. LEIGHTON Has a lot of resources in his books ( I have purchased a few of them and find them very helpful) that Is sold on Amazon and on his website that can help you. Another one that I liked is called the Darkside of Calvinism by George Bryson.

         Dr. LEIGHTON Again has a lot of resources on his website that also goes into scripture supporting a provisional or traditional Christian view and then his videos talk about and guide you through ways to counteract the Calvinist misunderstanding of the Bible.

         Loading...

      6. Hello Thomas and welcome
         We appreciate your post.
         Very happy to know you were blessed by Dr. Flower’s book and work!

         Blessings
         br.d

         Loading...

      7. Hi Ivy – and sure.

         First lets get a good working definition of DOUBLE-SPEAK

         Dr, William Lutz, an American linguist, in an interview on CSPAN concerning his book DoubleSpeak
         -quote
         “Doublespeak is language designed to evade…..to make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive, or at least tolerable.

         Basically, it’s language that pretends to communicate, but really doesn’t. It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.

         Doublespeak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistake in use of language. It’s exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent, and very sophisticated in the use of language. And know that you can do an awful lot with language.

         Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing.

         Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be,

         Between the essential function of language, which is trustworthy communication — vs what doublespeak does, which is mislead, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.

         Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.

         It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative.

         Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts.
         ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

         So first take a look at the “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP

         The current “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP is strategically designed to mislead.
         It is designed to attribute man’s impulses and inclinations to man’s nature.
         This – in linguistic terms – is a lie of omission.

         A lie of omission – is a statement designed to mislead – by the strategy of omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.

         The critical fact that is being obfuscated here – is the fact that per Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – the TRUE “T” in the TULIP would not stand for Total Depravity – it would stand for TOTALLY PREDESTINED NATURE.

         Nature – including man’s nature – is 100% meticulously predestined – at every instance in time.
         And man has NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of anything that is predestined.

         And since EVERYTHING is predestined – it follows – man has NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.

         John Calvin
         -quote
         The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
         decreed. (Institutes, 1, 16, Par. 3)

         Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
         -quote
         “God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)

         So in Calvinism the TRUE cause of man’s impulses and inclinations are not man’s nature.
         Because NOTHING HAPPENS in nature – that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.

         The “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP is designed to OBFUSCATE the truth.
         And it therefore fits the description of DOUBLE-SPEAK

         Loading...

      8. Here are some book Authors who acknowledge that Calvinist language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK

         The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism writes this concerning the language used by Calvinist Paul Helm:
         “Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”

         Dr. William Lane Craig, in his interactions with Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth, in the authoring of the book Four Views on Divine Providence writes:
         “A A. Hodge’s six-point summary of the classical Reformed view of divine providence, quoted by Paul Kjoss Helseth under ‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”

         Dr. Jerry Walls, in his presentation What’s wrong with Calvinism states:
         “If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”

         Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free writes:
         “Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
         “This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)

         Laurence M. Vance in The Other Side of Calvinism writes about:
         “The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)

         Micah Coate in his book The Cultish side of Calvinism writes:
         “Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”

         Ronnie W. Rogers, in his book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist writes:
         As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”

         Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood in their book Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology write:
         “This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”

         Gilbert VanOrder Jr in his book Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology writes:
         “Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.

         Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book Calvinism a closer look writes:
         “Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
         This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”

         Francis Hodgson in his book The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855 writes:
         “The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
         In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”

         Loading...

   2. Hi, Thomas,
      I would also suggest that if you are going to confront this, that you would first go to your new preacher privately. Go prepared, find out what he actually believes, try to reason with him and convince him of the truth from the scriptures, for his sake. This is probably going to involve more than one visit, but, in the end you might have to spell out what can’t be taught from the pulpit. And if he won’t listen to you in terms of not preaching his doctrines, then bring one or two other trusted witnesses with you, perhaps even one or two of the elders if you have them. If he listens to them, great, but if not, then ye bring it before the church. At least by then ye will have a fuller knowledge of where he is coming from.
      But, one way or the other, ye will still have to ask yourselves, ‘does the church still have a right to know who this man is, and what he represents?’ The approach I have outlined above might be the best way to minimize the possible damage here. It’s still early days, he has not rooted himself too deeply yet. You don’t want to be dealing with this 10 or 15 years down the road when the damage would be much greater. As we say over here, “a stitch in time saves nine.” But all of this is just my suggestion if you decide to confront this.

      Loading...

      Reply

   3. I am in the midst of a pastoral confrontation myself — not over Calvinism, but over different matters. I agree with Aiden that you should first go privately to your pastor and ask a simple question: “are you theologically reformed?” If he answers affirmatively, then you approach your elders. It is their job to hold him accountable — not yours. You simply first ensure that you are walking on solid ground, not conjecture and assumptions, regarding his foundational theology.

      Once you have confirmed his beliefs, and assuming he confirms he is a Calvinist, leaving quietly without confrontation is not really Biblical in my opinion. It is being a peaceKEEPER instead of a peaceMAKER. You have an obligation to speak the truth in love as a Christian. First, if your church has a published statement of faith, and it is not Reformed, and it is not subject to revision on such a profound level as Reformed vs non-Reformed theology by the pastor, then I would first ask those that interviewed him whether those questions (“are you Reformed in your theology?”) came up during the interview process. If not, lesson learned: ask them in the future. If they did come up, and he answered evasively or opaquely, that too is a problem that must be addressed. Or if they came up, he answered truthfully, and was hired anyway, that too is a problem — not with the pastor but with your board.

      Pastors that quietly creep in unaware to bring Calvinism into churches is becoming more and more of a problem. I encountered it just this past weekend where a friend related a story about leaving an AofG church in the area for a variety of reasons. Among the reasons was that the young pastor described himself as a “Reformed Pentecostal”. And by that he meant theologically Reformed — not just “a cleaned up and redeemed sinner.” I was frankly shocked that he had made it into the pulpit because the AofG statement of faith is emphatically not Reformed. It made me very curious as to their vetting process. I am also concerned about those seeking pastoral jobs who aren’t more up-front about such beliefs in non-reformed churches such as Foursquare, Calvary Chapel, AofG, etc. If you are Reformed you know you are Reformed. Keeping that “under the hood” borders on deception. Not asking during the interview process borders on negligence.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. If you approach him with the question however – be personally prepared for him to not tell the truth – and be prepared for the congregation headed for a split.

         It happens

         Loading...

      2. It certainly does happen. But if it has to be dealt with, then the sooner the better seeing that he has not being there that long. Don’t wan’t to give time for the leaven to leaven the whole lump. The question in my mind is why aren’t the Elders dealing with this issue now that he has publicly admitted to being Reformed? Why leave it to this young man? — (he sounds like a young man to me). And, if the elders are not bothered about this preacher’s admission, then that group is already in trouble.

         Loading...

      3. I concur. The sooner this tulip weed menu is removed from the congregation’s stable of spiritual food, the better.

         My view is that a mature and well well instructed Christian congregation is more likely to summon its collective resolve in fighting heresy. The residual haemorrhage will be considerably low. For a congregation that still feeds on milk, false the teachers will easily drown them in heresy, hands down.

         This is where the distinction lies…

         Loading...

      4. Maybe his congregation doesn’t have an eldership yet, mine doesn’t. But I can tell you now that if a preacher came into our congregation and somewhere down the road admitted to being Reformed, the men would have a meeting with him and sort it out quickly. Even before we brought it before the congregation we would have consensus among the men who are the ones who make the final decision in the absence of elders. If we left it on the long finger the collateral damage would be huge.

         Loading...

      5. Sounds like a very well established group – with good wisdom!
         Nice!

         Loading...

      6. Thanks, Br.d, let’s hope we can keep it that way. But the hardest ones are when the wolves grow up among you – they are the ones that cause the most collateral damage.

         Loading...

      7. Yes – I remember a split in which two brothers came into a Non-Calvinist church at the same time.
         The church currently had no pastor.

         Those two became hyper zealous over all of the church activities
         And the other people appreciated their zeal and it didn’t take long before they became elders

         They then wanted to search for a pastor – and conveniently enough – had one they highly recommended.
         They then manipulated the pastoral search rules – not allowing any questions to be asked about Calvinism.
         Low and behold – the pastor they recommended just happened to be reformed.

         At first he told the congregation his theology was a secondary issue and should not divide anyone.
         But what he was actually doing was identifying members whom he could pull over to his side.
         After having accomplished that – he began to make life miserable for those who would not accept reformed doctrine
         They left

         And he and the two elders got what they wanted from the beginning.

         Loading...

      8. I suppose the lesson is that we have to be on the watch for wolves, even among elders.

         Matthew 7:15-20
         15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

         Acts 20:29-31
         29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking [h]perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

         Loading...

      9. Well said Aidan!

         Loading...

      10. Well said Jesus, and well said Paul.😉

          Loading...

   4. Has he clearly confirmed he is Reformed or are you surmising?

      Does your church / denomination openly embrace or reject that theology?

      Those two questions should guide you. It is then a matter for the elders to deal with. If he lies or is evasive, that is frankly cause for immediate dismissal. It sounds as though adequate due diligence was not done 2 years ago and now the congregation is paying dearly for it. Yes, a split may ensue but there is always a risk that when you lovingly confront, it will not be received. It doesn’t relieve the elders, however, from their obligations to hold the shepherd accountable.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Mrteebs
         Has he clearly confirmed he is Reformed or are you surmising?

         br.d
         In a casual conversation – tell your pastor that you love Dr. Flower’s youtube videos about Calvinism – and then watch his body language.
         :-]

         BTW: Thomas

         If you are not familiar with Dr. Flower’s Youtube videos on Calvinism – you might find them highly helpful.

         You’ll start to get a taste for what I’ve been describing concerning Calvinism’s strategical use of misleading language.

         Loading...

3. I concur. The sooner this tulip weed menu is removed from the congregation’s stable of spiritual food, the better.

   My view is that a mature and well well instructed Christian congregation is more likely to summon its collective resolve in fighting heresy. The residual haemorrhage will be considerably low. For a congregation that still feeds on milk, false teachers will easily drown them in heresy, hands down.

   This is where the distinction lies.

   I reckon that Calvinism is one of the stealthiest of Gnostic soteriological constructs in Christian history. They are heavily tinged with confusing but well choreographed philosophical suppositions that easily escape prudence of the ordinary pew Christian.

   Loading...

   Reply

4. hallo Dr. Leighton flower, my name is Tommy, i am from indonesia. my english is not good, i wish you can understand what i say. i am a non-calvinist, i dont believe God had predestinate some people to go to the heaven and some to the hell, but how we can understand what John say in John 10:26
   “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.”
   some calvinist said that a person don’t believe in Christ because he is not Christ sheep not because he have free will, what do you think of that verse? tq Dr Leighton Flower

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hello Tommy and welcome
      Dr. Flowers – due to his busy schedule – is not here regularly to interact with posters.
      You may more readily find him on Facebook if you are an FB user.

      As to your question concerning Calvinism – I hope you don’t mind if I provide a little information that will greatly help you to understand it.

      The underlying foundational core of Calvinism – and what separates Calvinism from its alternatives – is Exhaustive Divine Determinism.

      The idea is of a THEOS who at the foundation of the world – before creatures are created – determines what the state of nature will be – for every instance in time.

      And this includes the state of every human being’s nature at every instance in time
      So every nano-second of man’s nature is 100% meticulously predestined to come to pass infallibly.

      Therefore in Calvinism – if a person’s state of nature is that they believe – it is because that state of nature was meticulously determined.
      And since every human impulse is 100% meticulously predetermined – the human has no say in the matter of anything he will think, say or do.

      Humans in this case – have no say in the matter of anything concerning themselves or concerning anything external to themselves.
      Every impulse and perception which comes to pass within the human brain – does so infallibly
      And thus – all impulses and perceptions which come to pass within the human brain are totally irresistible to the human.

      So whatever the human “will” is – is also 100% meticulously predetermined *FOR* each human and not *BY* that human.
      In this case – man is said to have free will.
      But he is granted no say in the matter of what his will will be.

      That should help explain to you a great deal about how the Calvinist interprets scripture.
      For the Calvinist – all scripture interpretation – must conform to that understanding.

      Once you understand that underlying foundation – you then can understand how the Calvinist interprets any verse in the Bible.

      Blessings!
      br.d

      Loading...

      Reply

5. Do you guys know of a simple to use study book/workbook that introduces new believers to the Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus, and salvation. I know the watch tower has for Jehovah’s Witnesses ( I don’t recommend It) or “Foundations of Faith” by John MacArthur, but without the Calvin junk.

   I think this would be a good tool when witnessing to other people.

   Thank you in advance.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hello Thomas Farrell and welcome

      I think we’ve had this question before.
      Brian – had a recommendation – lets see if he pipes in here.

      A book that I know of which I believe is very valuable is Gordon Fee’s “Reading the Bible for All its worth”

      Blessings
      br.d

      Loading...

      Reply

   2. You can also try the study guide and 10-part video series “Foundations of Faith” by Rick Renner. The videos are on YouTube and 30-min each. Guaranteed TULIP-free. 😉

      Loading...

      Reply

   3. Hi Thomas,
      We have an online Bible Correspondence Course that people can download. But I think you can order them as well if that suits better. It’s called “Know Your Bible.” If you want to have a look just type in churchofchrist.ie and click into “online resources.”

      Here are what the lessons are about:
      Lesson 1 – Distinguishing between the Old and New Testaments
      Lesson 2 – Sin and the blood of Christ
      Lesson 3 – Salvation
      Lesson 4 – The New Testament Church
      Lesson 5 – Denominationalism
      Lesson 6 – Baptism

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hi, Aiden. When you say “We” have an online course, who do you mean?

         – Canny

         Loading...

      2. Hi Cannier,
         Have you tried going into our website http://www.churchofchrist.ie? Then just click into “online resources” at the top, it will bring you into where our Bible correspondence course is. These are Bible lessons in pdf format. All you have to do is download each one onto your home pc and complete each lesson using your bible. I can get the moderator here to give you my email if you are interested in doing these lessons.

         Regards, Aidan

         Loading...

6. The link to connect316 has been taken over by some kind of spam or virus page – you may want to take a look at that. Hopefully you’re monitoring this.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Thank you Robert!!
      Much appreciated!

      br.d

      Loading...

      Reply

7. br.d. Do does Eternal Security for All true believers mean “Once Saved Always Saved” or do you believe It’s possible for a Truly Saved Christian to sin so severely that if they don’t repent and Change , ask for forgiveness that they can be lost Forever and doomed to Hell

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hi Jeff
      For the NON-Calvinist Christian this question is typically found to be a personal position for each unique believer. Some believers read the warning verses in the N.T. and they are personally persuaded that those verses require a due-diligence for them to “make their calling and election sure”. Others may be persuaded that the only thing in jeopardy is the type of crown they will wear in heaven.

      Calvinism as you know – is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
      Per the doctrine – Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of human creatures specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.

      And in Calvinism – a person does not do anything to deserve eternal torment – because for the Calvinist that would entail Calvin’s god looking down the corridor of time – OBSERVING what each person does – and then decreeing their eternal fate accordingly.

      And in Calvinism – that would entail Calvin’s god LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION what each person will be and do. And that for the Calvinist would be considered an insult and compromise to divine sovereignty.

      So in Calvinism – what makes a person “deserve” damnation is that Calvin’s god decides before he creates each person whether or not they will “deserve” damnation – because he determined to create/design them specifically for damnation.

      John Calvin
      -quote
      By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god)

      Additionally according to the doctrine – a percentage of Calvinists are specifically deceived by Calvin’s god – and given a FALSE SENSE of salvation/election.

      John Calvin
      -quote
      But the Lord…..instills into their minds such a *SENSE* of his goodness as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes pg 342)

      John Calvin
      -quote
      He also causes those whom he illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….forsakes them…..and strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.2.11)

      Calvinists have what they call “Perseverance” of the saints. But you have to understand – there is a “Dark Side” to “Perseverance” in Calvinism.

      In Calvinism – every event that is coming to pass over time – is coming to pass by infallible decree – and while that infallible decree is in effect – that event is “Persevering”

      So it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in Calvinism – there are Calvinist believers who are given a TRUE faith and TRUE election – and that TRUE faith is “Persevering” by virtue of the decree which established it.

      And there are also Calvinist believers who are given a FALSE faith and FALSE SENSE of election – and that FALSE SENSE is also “Persevering” by virtue of the decree which established it.

      FEW Calvinist believers are designed/created for heaven and are given TRUE election.

      MANY Calvinist believers are designed/created for damnation – and are given a FALSE SENSE of election salvation.

      They one’s given a FALSE SENSE of election salvation – are typically not permitted to discern they have been given a FALSE SENSE of election salvation.

      John Calvin explains
      -quote
      A small and contemptible number are hidden in a *HUGE MULTITUDE* and a few grains of wheat are covered by *A PILE OF CHAFF*, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his SECRET election. (Institutes 4.1.4)

      So Calvinists believe in once saved always saved – but no Calvinist has any CERTAINTY that he is saved – because he could easily be among the *HUGE MULTITUDE* whom Calvin’s god gave a FALSE SENSE of salvation election – and not permitted to know it.

      According to the doctrine – a *HUGE MULTITUDE* of Calvinists go through their whole lives being divinely deceived by Calvin’s god about their salvation – and then at some point wake up in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure

      Loading...

      Reply

8. I can agree with the spirit of your stand but may I disagree with these:

   1. “We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ “: what about Christus Victor and overcoming the powers of evil and darkness (see e.g. Col 2:15)
   2. “We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God”: only if it’s the sin that God is angry at and not the person because if it’s the person it would be internally at odds with itself i.e. the individual has inherited the consequent mess of the fall but God is still angry at this person who has necessarily fallen and is incapable of being sinless.

   Loading...

   Reply

9. All soteriological and theological considerations aside, Calvin was a terrible, terrible man. Note the pleasure he took from slowly torturing Servetus to death (and anyone else who disagree with his “christianity”. Are we really sure Calvin was even a Christian?
   Yes, yes, an ad hominem for sure…but a worthwhile and insightful one I say!

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hello Marc and welcome
      And yes – from Calvin’s own statements about the affair – it becomes obvious he was driven by malice and revenge.

      Also many letters he wrote were retained. And some of those include letters to Catholic head-hunters telling them the where-abouts of protestants who openly disagreed with Calvin’s doctrines. Calvin wrote to the head-hunters to tell them where they could find those protestants and he asked them to kill them.

      There was also a type of paranoia about him.
      When a woman in the town would help a sick person and restore that person back to health – Calvin would claim she must have done it through witch-craft and have her killed.

      Calvin’s behavior and writings betray him as a man driven much more by the spirit the god of this world then by a Holy Spirit.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Scripture teaches very clearly that we are to judge a tree based on its fruit. We are naturally inclined as humans to judge based on gifts and talents rather than fruit. There is a tendency to in Calvinist circles particularly (but not exclusively) to judge based on gifts. “Oh, he’s so eloquent!” “Oh, he’s such a gifted teacher!” (here, they even unwittingly admit it is all about gifts). What you rarely hear, however, is “Oh, he bears so much good fruit!”.

         Jesus went out of his way to illustrate the difference in Matthew 7:15-23. I would paraphrase the passage this way:
         – Judge the tree by its fruit
         – Even people operating in spiritual gifts (casting out demons, miracles, prophecy) are not exempt; they could conceivably do these things and yet be disqualified from entering heaven

         I do not assume that because Calvin had a logical mind, could generate volumes of theological treatises, and could rule Zurich with an iron fist that he was bearing good fruit. I consider Luther to have born much better fruit, in fact.

         Loading...

      2. br.d
         I would love to see a Calvinist married couple sitting in the pew just after the sermon was completed.

         And the husband turns to the wife and says “Those were really interesting impulses that Calvin’s made infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within the pastor’s brain today. I’ll be the pastor had no ideal that Calvin’s god was going to make him say all that! ;-D

         Loading...

      3. Sorry – meant to say “Geneva” instead of “Zurich” above.

         Loading...

      4. Also, please understand that I am not singling out Calvinists as being unfruitful or of judging based only on gifts. I am simply saying:
         1) Calvin is almost always held up admiringly based on his gifts – not his fruit (“Institutes” is not fruit)
         2) Calvin’s character is sketchy to say the least; pride got Lucifer kicked out of heaven and I detect more than a small amount of spiritual pride in Calvin. Just sayin’

         Loading...

   2. Hey Marc and BRDMOD. What is your source for saying that Calvin took pleasure in slowly torturing Servetus to death? I read about it at GotQuestions.org, which I halfway expected to deny the story or play it down… (and in a sense, they did play it down somewhat by contrasting the execution with those of the Spanish Inquisition). Their account says that Calvin tried to get the Geneva Council to execute him with the sword, but they refused and burned him at the stake. Would you mind giving your source for your version of the event? Thank y’all!

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Hello cannier
         I don’t remember ever stating Calvin took pleasure in slowly torturing Servetus to death.

         What I have stated on numerous occasions – is that it was obvious from Calvin’s statements about Servetus, that Calvin wanted Servetus dead – and had no reservations about letting people know it.

         Servetus took a copy of Calvin’s institutes and wrote critical comments in various places throughout it – and then mailed that copy back to Calvin. Those comments in all probability infuriated a John Calvin – who by that point in time enjoyed magistrates in Geneva who would punish anyone for the slightest offence against Calvin. Obviously he exercised a great deal of influence and authority over them.

         From Wikipedia:
         -quote
         Following his return to Geneva (1541-1564) Calvin introduced new forms of church government……despite opposition from several powerful families in the city who tried to curb his authority.

         Geneva records – during that time period – translated by Stefan Zewig, Eramus
         Compiled by Jack Moorman

         – During the pestilence of 1545 more than 20 men and women burnt alive for witchcraft.

         – 1542-1546 – 58 judgments of death and 26 decrees of banishment.

         – 1558-1559 – a total of 414 punishments.

         – One citizen smiled while attending a baptism: 3 days in prison.

         – One citizen fell asleep during one of Calvin’s sermons: sentenced to prison.

         – A workmen ate pastry at breakfast: 3 days on bread and water.

         – 2 citizens were caught playing skittles: prison.

         – A citizen was heard complimenting Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.

         – A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a citizen offered his neighbor a pinch of snuff during Calvin’s church service: these were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted and ordered to do penance.

         – Two citizens talked about business matters while walking out of church: prison.

         John Calvin
         -quote
         If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive.
         (A letter from Calvin to Farel dated 1546)

         I think you get the picture.

         Loading...

      2. GotQuestions.org is a Calvinistic forum and I am not surprised by what you have reported concerning their explanation. Calvinists will always brush off legitimate criticism leveled at their founders.

         Loading...

      3. Hello Ezekiel and welcome
         Yes – I agree – and its understandable that they would.
         Within human social groups – we have a phenomenon sometimes called “Vicarious boasting”

         It is not unusual – that an individual person may find that belonging to a group or guild which perceives or touts itself as being superior (which is typical of Calvinism) gives to that individual person a persona he would not otherwise have outside of that group.

         The individual identifies himself with some corporate unit (church, guild, company, lodge, party, team, college, city, nation, etc.) – and by praise offered to that unit, he vicariously compliments himself.

         You may notice – one characteristic trait of Calvinism is the respecting of persons. Those persons may be Calvin, or Augustine, or Jon Edwards, or any other renowned Calvinist.

         By raising those respected persons up on a pedestal – the individual Calvinist vicariously raises himself up as a member of the respected guild.

         So it makes sense that with that as an emotional investment – a Calvinist is not going to want to acknowledge anything that would besmirch the sacred image – because any negative reflection would likewise be reflected back on that Calvinist.

         Blessings!
         br.d

         Loading...

      4. Hi Canny, I don’t know if Calvin was sadistic, but he certainly supported capital punishment for those he deemed heretics, which included those who rejected their infant baptism. Here’s some evidence.

         Calvin – statements pro capital punishment for heresy.

         In his Prefatory Address to the Institutes –
         “For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they [the heretics] vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea.”

         In Schaff’s Church History, vol VIII, para 157 – from Calvin’s Treatise Against Servetus –
         “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church.”

         In his commentary on Christ’s command in Matt 13:30, “Let both grow together until the harvest” –
         “This passage has been most improperly abused by the Anabaptists, and by others like them, to take from the Church the power of the sword. But it is easy to refute them; …. I shall satisfy myself with replying, that Christ does not now speak of the office of pastors or of magistrates, but removes the offense which is apt to disturb weak minds, when they perceive that the Church is composed not only of the elect, but of the polluted dregs of society.”

         In his Letter 389 –
         “…papers and books of his Castalion [a heretic], in which an attempt was made to impugn our doctrine touching predestination, have been condemned with a prohibition to publish them on pain of death.”

         Responsio ad Balduini Convicia, Opera, IX. 575: (in Schaff, VIII, 137)
         “Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.”

         Loading...

10. Do the Calvinists believe that everything we do is pre-determined by God? If so what role does Satan and/or Demons have? Are mans actions pre-determined even after he is born again? If so, is the role of the Holy Spirit in conflict with the predetermined sinful actions we do, so that the trinity is a house divided against itself?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome John! Yes they do, though it is very difficult to get them to admit that “pre-determined” means God is therefore the cause of every sin, including the ones believers commit after being born again.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hi y’all. I would like to add to John’s question, BrianWagner. Are there some “Reformed” who take more of a “SEMI”-determinism view? IOW, do they ALL generally believe that everything that comes to pass is ordained/determined by God? What about a leaf that falls from a tree in my backyard– do they believe that God determined THAT to happen?

       I’m curious as to how far they take God’s “determinism,” or whether it varies among those who call themselves “Reformed.” If ever you can provide a reference for your answer, I would very much appreciate it! Thank you!

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hello cannier and welcome

          Loading...

       2. cannier
          Hello Hi y’all. I would like to add to John’s question, BrianWagner. Are there some “Reformed” who take more of a “SEMI”-determinism view?

          br.d
          Hello cannier
          I know you addressed your question to Brian – but if you don’t mind – I would give my 2 cents on this question

          One would assume that since Calvinism’s foundational core is founded on Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD) – the Calvinist would be logically consistent with it.

          But the truth is – the implications of EDD are such that no Calvinist can actually accept them.
          They are simply too radical to accept.

          Take another belief system as an example – and that is the belief in Solipsism.
          The fundamental doctrine of Solipsism is that the believer is the only living person who really exists – and everyone else he interacts with is a figment of his imagination.

          Now consider the consequences of that doctrine.
          What would a married man’s wife say about her husband treating her as a figment of his imagination?
          It doesn’t take much to understand – she is not going to find that demeaning – and not take kindly to it.
          If he is a recent believer – and he treats his wife according to the dictate of his belief – then the consequence could be a divorce.

          Or lets say he works in a company and has a boss or a supervisor.
          Neither his boss – or his supervisor are going to take kindly to a person under them who treats them *AS-IF* they are a figment of his imagination.

          Long story short – the Solipsist belief is not a belief that be lived without heavy consequences.
          Most Solipsists are careful to treat people *AS-IF* they are real in order to avoid those consequenes.

          What this means is – the Solipsist asserts his doctrine as TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
          This is the consequence of embracing a belief system that is very radical.

          Determinism has the same exact effect for hits adherents.
          Both Atheist Determinists and Theological Determinists face the same consequences.
          And they both go about their office *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE.

          Nationally recognized Theoretical Physicist – Sean Carrol – is a devout Atheist Determinist
          Sean Carrol
          -quote
          “People tend to say things like, I drink coffee. But I can DO OTHERWISE and not drink coffee.
          But is that TRUE for an Atheist Determinist? The answer is no!
          For an Atheist Determinist, the arrangement of universe determines everything I will do and I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE. But that is not a practical way of talking. So when I talk to people I speak *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE.”

          Stephen Hawking – a staunch determinist in a presentation given at Lady Michel Hall Oxford
          -quote
          After looking at the matter for many years I believe Determinism is true
          But in order to live a normal life – I have concluded I must live AS-IF determinism is false.

          John Calvin
          -quote
          “All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.” (Institutes Vol. i. p.193)

          John Calvin
          -quote
          “Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about any part.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)

          So you can see – Determinism is such a radical belief system – no one can live it coherently.
          And the Calvinist solution is to hold the doctrine of decrees as TRUE – while treating that doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE

          And this is the reason – Calvinist language is recognized as a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.

          Loading...

       3. Welcome Canny! Like most theological groups, reformed theology has a variety of views on the same subject they say they agree on. They say they agree with the wording of the Heidelberg, Westminster, or London (Baptist) confessions, but when asked to explain specific words they will often reveal significant even contradictory sounding differences.

          But basically there are two views of determinism.
          One is called “hard determinism”, including the eternally foreknown movement of every atom and no freewill. The other is “soft determinism” or “compatibilism” which includes the eternally foreknown movement of every atom and of free will (meaning free to do, according to its nature, those foreknown movements).

          You can read about these views and the various nuances of each at monergism.com. But I recommend that you keep in mind there is no verse in Scripture, especially none of the verses the articles on that site may point to, that clearly teach everything was eternally immutably predestined before creation to work out only one way.

          They try to read that into various verses, but none of those verses have the two ideas of everything predestined or before creation. And there are many verses that clearly contradict that premise of the pre-creation pre-determinism of everything.

          Is God Himself really locked in and limited to a future where there are no possibilities still existing for Him to freely choose between? Does He know, can He know, of decisions that have not yet been made by Him?

          Loading...

       4. Hi Cannier
          The answer to that question is two-fold
          1) Technically – any Calvinist who does not embrace Divine Determinism in its EXHAUSTIVE form – which it is within Calvinism – is technically speaking – not any longer a Calvinist.

          Within all of the Calvinist confessions – Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees specifically stipulates WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is determined and FIXED by infallible decree – at the foundation of the world.

          So technically speaking – that is the determining factor – of whether a person is a Calvinist or not.

          However – that being said we have
          1) It is well known by Atheist Determinists and acknowledged within academia concerning the belief in Determinism – that it is not humanly possible for a person to be totally logically consistent with Determinism – and at the same time – retain a sense of human normalcy.

          Determinism – has as an acknowledged thesis – that all things which come to pass are Determined by antecedent factors outside of human control.

          In the case of Atheist Determinism – the Atheist does not have a THEOS.
          So the DETERMINER within Atheist Determinism – is the movement and evolution of the arrangement of the cosmic materials in space.

          As stated for example by Atheist Determinist Sean Carroll – nationally recognized theoretical Physicist
          -quote
          People tend to say things like: “I Like coffee and I drank this coffee but I could have done otherwise”.
          Well, if you define yourself as atoms and particles in a certain configuration, then NO, you could not have done otherwise – because the laws of physics DETERMINE what will happen.

          Now for the Determinist who has a THEOS (namely the Calvinist) the laws of physics are not the DETERMINER of whatsoever will come to pass – a THEOS who functions as the DETERMINER what what will happen

          But again – the same truth applies.
          if the Calvinist says “I drank coffee but I could have done otherwise” – the answer is still NO you could not have done otherwise – because a THEOS at the foundation of the world determined by infallibly decree – whatsoever would come to pass concerning you – and NO ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed to come to pass is granted existence.

          The problem for both the Atheist Determinist – and the Calvinist is the same.
          He cannot live coherently with that belief system – and still retain a sense of human normalcy.

          Therefore – the 2nd part of the answer to your question is – both the Atheist Determinist – and the Calvinist – go about their office *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE – in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.

          Loading...

11. To BRIANWAGNER, BRDMOD, BR.D: I don’t see any way to reply to your replies to my questions, so I’ll say “Thank you” right here, if that’s OK. I appreciate y’all taking the time to address my questions.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hi Cannier,
       Thank you for stopping by – and blessings to you.
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. br.d Why does this message give me an opportunity to reply, but other messages do not? There are a couple I’d like to reply to with a followup question, but there’s no “Reply” link given.

          Loading...

       2. Sorry Cannier,
          That is just how the system works – we have no control over how it was designed to function.
          But what you can do – is take a given post by someone and quote it within a new post which you yourself start.
          And then add your comments to it.

          Loading...

12. Thank you for this!!! I have spent many frustrating hours looking for non-calvinist commentaries that I can add to my logos software before I found this page. I thought I might be a calvinist until I learned what they believe. It’s popularity is disgusting and depressing.

    Can this list be maintained in alphabetical order? It would make things much easier as the list grows longer.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Maureen – and welcome
       Thank you for your comments.
       And unfortunately, I don’t be believe there is a way to sort topics in alphabetical order.

       I thank the Lord that he gave you discernment to not be ensnared by Calvinist talking points.
       You were delivered from Calvinism’s world of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.

       One piece of information that will help you understand what it means to survive as a Calvinist.
       The doctrine works to puff-up the religious ego.

       The consequence however – because the doctrine is so radical – the Calvinist mind becomes conditioned to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain any sense of human NORMALCY.

       The Lord giving you wisdom not to get ensnared in it – saved you from its DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. This is completely off topic ,Leighton made a video discussing the translation issue concerning the Greek word apo & pro in certain scriptures. Ephesians 1 uses the word pro is this correct? Would the text be more accurate using from the foundation of the world? Please clarify this issue when you have the time please & thank you.

          Loading...

       2. Hello Michael,
          Brian teaches the Greek – lets see if we can get him to address this question.

          br.d

          Loading...

       3. Thank you Michael for the question. In Eph 1:4-5 the idea of before creation is clear, just like the idea from creation is clear in those other verses.

          The understanding of Eph 1:4 is focused more on how to understand “us in Him” as it relates to “before” creation. Maybe this will help.

          Eph 1, 4&5 Individual Election was not before creation!

          Determinists have always tried to read too much into these verses that Paul wrote in a context about blessings we now have, now that we are in Christ. Some of those blessings were given to Him (the only Elect one) before creation, to be shared with all who would later be joined to Him and become one of the elect in Him. The ones in verses 4 and 5 are such blessings… Verse four is not about being chosen in Christ, but chosen in Christ “to be” holy and blameless.

          The pronoun “us” is being used in both verses, 4&5, in a general reference, anachronistic sense, like me saying – “The Native Americans were chased by us before the Revolution so that they would live west of the Appalachian Mtn range.”

          Another similar example would be the Levites in David’s day who were chosen to carry the ark. David said, as recorded in 1Chr 15:2 – “No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.”

          Any Levite that day could have said to another Levite – “God chose us in Aaron, before Israel entered the promised land, tgat we should carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.” Of course, he would not have had the ridiculous thought that God had his name written down in a book during Aaron’s time, along with the names of all future Levites. He would not think that he individually or physically would be ministering before the Lord forever in this special task as a priest. He would just be using the “us” as a pronoun of reference with a corporate connection because of the promise made to Aaron, and because of his being added into Aaron’s lineage by physical birth.

          We say, with Paul, we have the same privileges/blessings granted to the Son of God before creation that would go to any in His lineage. This is just like a written will grants privileges to children not yet conceived or even thought about, the privileges granted to Jesus before creation were made available then to all who would be born again through personal faith. Those inheritance privileges are now ours individually, since we are now individually joined to Him by spiritual birth through our personal faith. We now have the blessing to stand holy and blameless before God as one of God’s chosen in the Chosen One – Christ, and we are now predestined for the inheritance that all sons receive.

          ********
          Questions to ask a determinist:
          When God supposedly “chose” you before creation, were you unchosen at some point and then chosen, according to the normal meaning of that word? What did God see when He supposedly chose you… just your name, your life up to some point where He decided He wanted to get involved noticeably to you, or your whole life forever and all His involvement in it already? In other words, what does “you” mean when He chose “you” back then before you even existed? Trying to answer these questions will hopefully help a determinist see they are being dogmatic about a premise – determinism – that Paul wasn’t even trying to teach about in this passage, and which is illogical when using the words “chose… before the foundation of the world”, if no actual choice of any individuals, who didn’t even exist back then, was made.

          Here’s a good 10min video discussion in support of this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FxHfnqLBmg

          Loading...

13. Hi, just to comment that William G MacDonald, Phillip Towner and Michael Brown are mentioned twice on the list

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello David, and welcome
       Thank you very much for pointing that out!!

       I’ll pass that on to the content developer.
       We greatly appreciate!

       blessings
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

14. Hello Dr. Flowers,

    I would like to recommend Norman Geisler as one of the non-Calvinistic scholar, because of His soteriology view does not adhere to Calvinistic TULIP. Thank you

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Eka! Geisler certainly has not made some Calvinists happy by his critique of it in Chosen but Free. I wish he had had a clearer understanding of God’s foreknowledge. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future (including who will be the elect) before creation, which I believe was Geisler’s view, only confirms a deterministic view compatible to Calvinism in the end.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello Eka and welcome

       Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here to interact with people posting comments.
       You may more readily find him on Face-Book – if you are a FB user.

       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hello Mr Wagner. I also find that John Stott and John Lennox, they are not calvinistic too.

          Loading...

       2. Yes, Eka, though I think both of those theologians have not thought enough about biblical teaching on foreknowledge, imo.

          Loading...

       3. WOW WOW WOW. So this list is just the people you personally think are good enough theologians who have “thought enough about biblical teaching on foreknowledge”?

          I requested a while ago that John Lenox be added. You refused. Despite the fact that Dr.Flowers has repeatedly praised his view on his YouTube channel. John Lenox book “Determined to Believe, The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility” has even been recommend by Dr. Flowers. I suspect that John Lenox will never read these comments but if he ever did it will not help Dr. Flowers get the interview with him that he has also repeatedly said he wants.

          How can you say that he thought enough when his book is sold all over the world in many languages. He is not only a theologian but has multiply doctorate in science he is more than qualified. Especially as you have put people like Ravi Zacharias on the list. Do you really feel that the people on the list have thought more about biblical teaching on foreknowledge?

          Both John Stott and John Lenox are greater theologians and scholars than most of the list. I ignored it when you refussed previously to put John Lenox on the list. However is this list now a list of who you like not a “list of modern day scholars who do not affirm the Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures:”?

          Loading...

       4. Sorry Andy … But I think you are over reacting. The “list” in this thread was made back in 2015. I’m sure Leighton would add others to it today, like Lennox, which he learned about since that list was made.

          My comment was a personal one, not disagreeing that Lennox and Stott or Geisler were anti Calvinism. I was only pointing out my opinion that if one hasn’t thought through the implications of holding a traditional view of foreknowledge, they don’t yet see how it undermines their anti determinism view.

          Leighton knows how I disagree with him on this.

          Your request was probably not seen by Leighton who rarely visits anymore this blog page that he started. You would have better opportunity sharing your request for an updated list when you find and respond to a recent comment of his on Facebook, or by commenting during any of his live online sessions that he has from time to time.

          Loading...

15. br.d
    I’m not familiar with John Stott

    But since the list is stated as those who do not agree with the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture – then it would seem to be perfectly logical that John Lenox would be on the list – simply because he fits into that category..

    I would guess – John Lenox is not on the list as an oversight and the list hasn’t been updated.

    Is there somewhere on the web that you could point me to – so that I could find out who John Stott is?

    Thanks
    br.d

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Thank you for the very quick reply.

       It is very logical that John Lenox is on this list as he has a book which is sold all around the world which is against “the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture”. BTW this book is literally sold all over the world and translated in many languages. It could be argued it is one of the best sold books opposed to Calvinism.

       I am not sure you can say it is an “oversight” as back in JULY 22, 2021. I requested Lenox be added and you refused stating “I personally haven’t found any of John Lenox’s arguments convincing.” But I will be gracious and except that it is hard to get over personal opinions.

       With John Stott. You really do not know who he is? He is an English Anglican cleric and theologian who was noted as a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement. He was one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant in 1974. In 2005,

       Even the secular “Time magazine” ranked Stott among the 100 most influential people in the world the only evangelical to be listed as higher was Billy Graham.

       You just need to type his name into google and you get hundreds of pages on him.
       But here is his wikipedia page:
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stott
       Here is his own website:
       https://johnstott.org/
       Here is a list of all the books he has written
       https://langham.org/who-we-are/about_john_stott/bibliography-of-john-rw-stotts-books/

       His book the “The Cross of Christ” is one of my all time favorite books. It is in defense of Penal Substitution.

       Thank you again for your quick reply. It is a good reminded that just because someone is famous to most of the world does not mean everyone will know them.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Andy
          I am not sure you can say it is an “oversight” as back in JULY 22, 2021. I requested Lenox be added and you refused

          br.d
          You totally got the wrong idea!
          I did not refuse – because I am not a content developer or decision maker.
          So content is not mine to refuse or accept.

          I simply gave you my personal opinion about John Lenox

          Anyone who posts here – wishing to address Dr. Flowers for anything – including a request for a content change – is always told that Dr. Flowers does not have time to interact here – and that person is instructed to look for Dr. Flowers on FaceBook.

          So if you requested a content change – and I responded to your comment – and you thought because I responded that I was a content decision-maker – then somehow you go the wrong idea.

          If I gave you the impression I was a content decision-maker – then I appologize.
          But I certainly would not have given anyone that idea on purpose.

          Loading...

       2. br.d, I owe you an apology, you are correct, it did not even occur to me that the moderator would not have rights to edit the site. This belief led me to interpret the lack of change to be because you were refusing based on personal opinion. I am sorry. I have written to Dr. Flowers. You showed a real gracious heart in the way you dealt with this. (Maybe Dr.Flowers should give you some editorial power 😉 ).

          Loading...

       3. br.d
          Thank you Andy!
          You showed a very gracious heart in your response
          My sincere thanks!

          Loading...

16. Hi, thanks for the ref. to a Systematic Theology; could you also suggest exegetical works on Ephesians and Romans, please? These two letters are often where the discussion lands?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Daffy. You can find Lange’s Commentary on Bible Hub .com. Even though it’s old, and he’s Lutheran, and Reformed in theology, he’s exegetical and gives various views, even if he disagrees with them. That will show you some passages which should not be used dogmatically because of grammatical options. And you might find yourself agreeing with one of the options Lange did not.

       Books in the recent Zondervan Commentary Series, EGGNT, Exegetical Guide to the Greek NT, are worth purchasing. They too are exegetical, but try to give the various grammatical choices in verses usually argued over. I liked the one on Ephesians. I haven’t worked through much of the Romans one yet. 🤓

       Loading...

       Reply

17. Hi, can someone help me. There is a very popular young and angry Calvinist in the country I serve in who I often have to counter the teaching of. He often likes to show how smart he is by using big terms. Usually I am able to counter this but occasionally he uses terms I do not know, I can look them up but recently he talked about “soteriological reductionism” in positive terms but without explaining in anyway what it is and although I understand each word on their own am unsure what together them may specifically be referring too. Maybe I am just being dumb but if anyone can explain please do. Thank you.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Don’t be afraid, Andy, to ask such people who try to debate by jargon to give you their definition of those terms and an example. Ask – “What do you believe ‘soteriological reductionism’ (or whatever term they use) means and give me a good example.” Then ask them if they think the Scripture clearly teaches that idea, and where in Scripture it is clearly taught.

       My guess, in this case, is they might be trying to say that a specific verse or wording of Scripture is a type of “soteriological reductionism” and that he must bring further dogmatic understanding to that verse and wording from his theology to really make sense of it. Is that what he is doing?

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. I agree and in a debate I would do this. I have met the man a few times, but in this case it was a post he wrote which some of the young people here were discussing. I am the Director a Mission School and I often have to explain this man’s errors. Sadly he is admired more for using big terms with unclear meaning. Young naive people often admire those who use the bigger words or terms and think if you do not know what they mean you clearly are no as wise as them.

          Loading...

       2. Tell them, Andy, they only have to read some philosophy to realize it is a game of terms that people argue over the meanings and tend to keep modifying the meanings so that they can tell their followers that the other philosophers just don’t get it right. 😉

          Loading...

       3. Andy,

          I just did a Google search of the term. I admit that I had never heard the term, either. Seems that Calvinists are famous for creating new jargon that no one has ever heard of before.

          But it appears that the term has been around since at least 2008. Probably sooner than that, tho. From my google search, a blog post with comments came up regarding said topic, opposing it.

          Someone likened it to a “Cross-less” ideology, if that makes sense.

          In any case, do a Google search…you will find it.

          Loading...

       4. Many years ago – I had this same experience with Calvinists.
          But I soon learned that manipulating language is Calvinism’s strong suite
          And Calvinism’s greatest weakness IMHO is logical thinking.

          If you are a logical thinker – you will eventually discover – Calvinists have created a large library of talking-points – which – if you are a logical thinker – you will discover are self-contradicting.

          Loading...

       5. Hello Andy and welcome.

          I agree with Brian.
          In my years of dialog with Calvinists – they are very inventive – and can invent all sorts of ideas which in many cases only they know what they are talking about.

          So I would agree with Brian.
          Simply ask him what he means – and have him explain it.

          But one thing you should be extremely careful for.

          Calvinists are experts in playing games with words.
          They will take words which have a STANDARD meaning – which all people commonly understand and take for granted – and the Calvinist will create HIDDEN meanings for those words.

          They will then put those words into sentences – in such a way as to lead people to assume the STANDARD meaning for the word – when they secretly have a HIDDEN meaning.

          This is called INSIDER language.
          It is designed to mislead people who are OUTSIDERS and who are not anticipating HIDDEN meanings for words that are common within language.

          There is a large amount of SEMANTIC MAGICIANRY in Calvinism
          So you are very wise to be asking about words Calvinists use!

          Don’t hesitate to ask any question here!!

          Blessings
          br.d

          Loading...

    2. One more thing to consider Andy

       I would suggest you not approach Calvinists with the idea of getting into debates with them.

       A debate is often times like a boxing match – and the focus is not on the discovery of TRUTH – or a desire for TRUTH. Debates are most often all about winning.

       When you get into debates with Calvinists – they are not going to be focused on TRUTH.
       They are going to be focused on winning.
       And when that happens – everyone loses.

       It is best to have dialogs with Calvinists – and avoid giving the appearance of being combative.

       I personally – approach Calvinists from the stand-point of sound logic.
       If a Calvinist makes a statement which commits a logical fallacy – I simply detail the fallacy.
       There is no intention of insulting them – just informing them of the fallacy committed.

       I communicate what is logically follows with every proposition.

       I learned years ago – that Calvinism is a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system.

       Loading...

       Reply

18. In your opinion, can we still gain value from reading popular Calvinist pastors’ books, if one knows what to look out for? Or will it all slowly start to blend, potentially causing confusion and deception?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Pam. Good question. There is no substitute for reading the Word. And even when reading good Calvinist authors writing on other subjects then Soteriology it is good to see what Scriptures they point to in support, and if they are using them correctly according to grammar and context.

       I tell students to take the time to look up references listed in a text of a book in support of a point the writer is making and suggesting that Scripture supports it. They will soon be surprised to find too often the Scripture does not clearly support what they are trying to prove.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Thank you for this. I don’t usually look up references—trusting that they are accurate. However, this will be something that I will put into practice from here on out. I appreciate the advice.

          Loading...

    2. Hello Pam and welcome.
       I would most definitely and categorically say no – because of the strategically misleading nature of Calvinist language.

       Calvinist language is designed to manufacture masquerades of things which do not exist within the belief system.

       This is why Calvinist language has been observed for many years as a language of double-speak.

       For the average Christian who is not familiar with the underlying foundational core of the Calvinist system – there is no way the mind can discern where and when a Calvinist statement is designed to paint a false picture.

       Calvinists themselves are conditioned to assert aspects of the doctrine as TRUE – while treating those things *AS-IF* they are FALSE.

       The Calvinist is taught that the foundational core of Calvinism is what the Bible teaches.

       And he is also silently conditioned to treat the foundational core of Calvinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy and human person-hood.

       Consequently – the Calvinist is conditioned to treat what (for him) the Bible teaches *AS-IF* it is FALSE.

       No believer in his right mind – who is aware of that consequence – would want to give himself over to it.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Thank you so much for this perspective; it’s definitely helping me to look at this from a different angle. Also, thank you for answering my question.

          Loading...

       2. br.d
          Thank you very much Pam
          It was a very well thought out question!
          And a very appropriate concern for a sincere Christian

          Loading...

19. I am not a Calvinist or a Christian Zionist. Is there a positive or negative correlation?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Michael and welcome.
       To your question – one would have to have a more clear understanding about what you mean by it – in order to address it.

       You will find – we don’t apply “positive” vs “negative” judgement onto labels.
       That – for example – is a practice of the “Woke” belief system – where people are manipulated “positive” and “negative” labels.

       We do however acknowledge that certain beliefs will have a “positive” vs “negative” affect on an individual. But that is in relation tho whether a belief system is “beneficial” vs “detrimental” for the individual who adopts it.

       Thanks
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Do Cavinists tend to be Zionists or is there no noticeable relationship.

          Loading...

       2. Hey Michael,

          From my experience on this blog, with all the debates between Calvinists and Non-Calvinists, I have yet to see anyone defend Zionism here. I’m not of either camp (Cal vs. Non-Cal). I’m non-denomination. I am a Christian, just not of the Original Sin believing Christians, who metriculated from the Catholic Jew hating line.

          However, I am a Zionist, big time.

          Zionism, however, comes generally from the dispensation camp. I believe in a rapture, but I believe in a mid trib rapture at the end of the 6th seal, not the “come up hither” from chapter 4, but after the 6th seal, before the 7th Seal in chapter 7.

          What you generally find here between Cal and non Cal is “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile”, which I consider and conclude to be a different topic, but they don’t.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       3. Hi Michael,
          It depends on what you mean by Zionist.
          There is no particular fondness for the Jewish people in Calvinism – if that is what you mean.

          Calvinism came out of Catholicism
          But it retains Catholic characteristics.
          And you may know – Catholicism has historically been noted as anti-semitic
          If you google for it you will probably find articles to that effect.
          Luther was also anti-semitic
          And we should be able to see where it gets that from.

          Loading...

20. Thanks Ed and BARMOD

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Michael,

       I did a blog post not long ago which explains why I am a Zionist that you might want to consider:

       https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2021/11/25/preterism-debunked-with-one-reference-conntect-the-dots/

       I do note that you indicate that you are not a Zionist, so that has me curious as to why you want to know about Calvinism’s take on the subject. From what I’ve seen in most of all of Christendom, there are not that many Zionists out there at all. But I am one. And it baffles me that there aren’t more.

       Ed Chapman

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Michael,

       An addendum to my last:

       Add the following as well:

       https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/70-weeks/

       Ed Chapman

       Loading...

       Reply

21. Here are a few recommended resources.

    SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY:
    H. Orton Wiley’s 4 volume “Christian Theology” (pub. 1946) is a substantial Arminian/Wesleyan systematic that dialogues throughout with Baptists like Mullins and Strong.

    Southern Baptist, William W. Stevens, wrote a layman’s doctrinal textbook “Doctrines of Christian Religion” (pub. 1967) reflecting the best of the Mullins/Conner tradition with great footnotes and indexes for those building their theological libraries.

    PASTORAL THEOLOGY:
    Southern Baptist, Roy J. Fish’s 1974 classic “Coming to Jesus: Giving A Good Invitation” was updated and expanded in 2015 to offer 21st Century preachers a Biblical commendation for conducting responsible public invitations.

    THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT:
    Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was shaped by the thirty-nine-year tenure of Walter Thomas Conner. While I could recommend several of Conner’s works, “The Cross in the New Testament” (pub. 1954) stands out as a Historical, Philosophical and Exegetical look into the nature and significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. For those interested in learning more about Aulen’s Christus Victor theory, Conner’s work will prove helpful.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Noah. Thank you for the recommendations.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello Noah and welcome

       I believe William W. Stevens is considered modestly reformed – and Walter Thomas Conner is classified as a moderate Calvinist.

       That entails the DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS of Calvinism

       SOT101 would in no way recommend any form of Calvinism to anyone – because it is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM which conditions the mind of the believer into various degrees of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS and conditions the believer to justify Calvinism’s language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.

       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Dr. D

          Conner is listed above in Dr. Flowers’ list of “modern day scholars”. Dr. James Leo Garrett Jr., whose systematic Flowers recommends above, was also one of Conner’s students. Conner’s so called moderate theology is what most Traditional Baptists mean when they refer to themselves as Calminian, believing somewhere between 1-4 points of TULIP. (BTW, some claim Mullins believed in pre-faith regeneration and he is also in the list of modern day scholars above.)

          As far as Stevens goes, he pools the best of E. Y. Mullins and W. T, Conner. Stevens includes thorough notes and indexes that would be profitable for any pastor or layperson who is beginning to build a library. I believe this was evident in my previous post, but I wanted to be clear that I was not endorsing everything all of these authors said. These are all fine starting places for those who care to investigate the aforementioned topics.

          Thanks

          Loading...

       2. Hello Noah,
          My warning is still a sound warning

          The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)

          And Determinism is a belief system which forces the believer into various degrees of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – and consequently into various degrees of DOUBLE-SPEAK.

          So the degree to which any theologian leans towards Calvinism – that theologian is going to lean towards those characteristics – simply because those characteristics come part and parcel with EDD.

          If one is going to drink a glass of water with a few drops of poison in it – one should at least be aware of the risk.

          Here are a few quotes from authors on the subject of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK

          The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism writes this concerning the language used by Calvinist Paul Helm:
          “Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”

          Dr. William Lane Craig in his interactions with Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth, in the authoring of the book Four Views on Divine Providence writes:
          “A A. Hodge’s six-point summary of the classical Reformed view of divine providence, quoted by Paul Kjoss Helseth under ‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”

          Dr. Jerry Walls in his presentation What’s wrong with Calvinism states:
          “If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”

          Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free writes:
          “Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
          “This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)

          Laurence M. Vance in The Other Side of Calvinism writes about:
          “The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)

          Micah Coate in his book The Cultish side of Calvinism writes:
          “Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”

          Ronnie W. Rogers, in his book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist writes:
          As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”

          Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood in their book Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology write:
          “This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”

          Gilbert VanOrder Jr in his book Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology writes:
          “Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.

          Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book Calvinism a closer look writes:
          “Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
          This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”

          Francis Hodgson in his book The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855 writes:
          “The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
          In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”

          Loading...

22. BR.D,

    Warning heeded.

    If, in your words, Leighton Flowers is recommending drinking “a glass of water with a few drops of poison in it,” should this website not make that explicitly clear in their list of scholars above? Perhaps a note beside each name would suffice.

    In your initial warning, you state: “SOT101 would in no way recommend any form of Calvinism to anyone.” Flowers overtly recommends Conner and Mullins in his list above. (As well as Richard Land who claimed to be a “3.25” pointer as early as 2016)

    If you speak for this ministry, please review your list of recommended authors above. At present, it would appear that you are recommending “water with a few drops of poison in it”.

    I appreciate reading and listening to several scholars that you listed in your last response regularly. Craig, Geisler, Allen, Harwood, and Hankins are all top notch scholars with ministerial sensibilities.

    Flowers himself writes that God, at times, “does intervene to determine some things.” I share Flowers’ understanding in that while “God uses means similar to what some,” who hold to EDD describe, this does not exclude belief in libertarian free will nor does it equate to compatibilism.

    Your warning rings clear.

    I fear the greater danger lies in not being well read in list of scholars as they stand recommended above, engaging with each as honestly as one can.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Noah:
       If, in your words, Leighton Flowers is recommending drinking “a glass of water with a few drops of poison in it,” should this website not make that explicitly clear in their list of scholars above? Perhaps a note beside each name would suffice.

       br.d
       Yes – point well taken!
       Thank you!

       Noah:
       Dr. Flowers himself writes that God, at times, “does intervene to determine some things.”

       br.d
       And of course there is a world of difference between that and EDD.

       Firstly – EDD stands for “EXHAUSTIVE” divine determinism.

       John Calvin explains
       -quote
       The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, 16, 3)

       Accordingly – it is a logical impossibility for Calvin’s god to “intervene” in any event – because is since it is the case that NOTHING HAPPENS that is not knowingly and willingly decreed – then it follows – Calvin’s god would be “Intervening” in that which he knowingly and willingly decreed to infallibly come to pass.

       The word “Intervene” comes from the Latin “intervenire” – which means to come between, to stand in the way, to oppose, or to hinder.

       Calvin’s god would be a house divided against himself – if he comes between or stands in the way or opposes or hinders his own decree from coming to pass infallibly.

       So this provides a good example
       There is no such thing as divine intervention in Calvinism.

       However we do have Calvinists who have a high urgency to argue for various kinds of divine intervention – as existing within their system.

       And if you examine Calvinist statements in regard to that – you will find they represent examples of the DOUBLE-SPEAK which the authors I quoted – have pointed out.

       Loading...

       Reply

23. Is ESV safe to use by non Calvinist? Are there any similar to ESV committee or other bible translations? What Bibles of non Calvinist translation to counter Calvinist Bible translations?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hi Diego – I like the NKJV… but here are some thoughts on the ESV –
       Calvinistic Influence in ESV
       1. In Rev 13:8 where it translates the Greek preposition apo as “before” when it clearly can only mean “from”, as the ESV itself even thus translates apo in the parallel passage Rev. 17:8. The word “from” gives the logical and biblical idea of names being added to this Book of Life when each individual personally trusts in God’s mercy for salvation. This Greek preposition apo never means “before.”
       2. In Luke 13:23 where the ESV translated the present tense as future – And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” The text literally reads – “Lord, if few [are] the ones being saved?” The question is not what has been determined for the future, but what is happening in the present time.
       3. In Rom 9:22-23 where the ESV translated two different Greek words with the same word – “prepared”, one “prepared for destruction”, and one “prepared before for glory.” But the first “prepared” should be translated “fitted”, more clearly indicating the sense of the verbal action of changing something that was already made. Even “prepared before” does not indicate before birth or before creation, but just some time before “glory”.
       4. In Luke 2:14 where the ESV translated the one word in the genitive case – “He is pleased” – instead of the literal “of good pleasure”. This word is describing the men to whom the angels are announcing peace (if the UBS manuscript view is followed). They are men “of good pleasure” or “of benevolence”. Nothing in this genitive word suggests it is God being pleased with them or how they got this character trait “of benevolence”.
       5. In 2Cor 4:3 where the ESV translated the preposition en as “to” when it clearly means either “in”, “by”, or “with”. The context indicates that Paul’s gospel was heard but is veiled now “in” those lost, or is being veiled “by” lost teachers that Satan is using to do it. There is no indication of “veiled from birth” in this passage.
       6. In Ps 139:4 the ESV translated the conjunction chi as “before”. The כִּ֤י that starts the sentence is either “that” or “because” which is confirmed by the LXX use of ὅτι for it. In this verse David explains the previous verse 3, which makes “because” the better choice, and definitely not “before”.
       7. In John 1:9 where it does not associate the phrase “coming into the world” with its closest antecedent “every man”, as even Calvin himself does, but with Christ, the true Light. It seems the ESV wants to negate the idea that Jesus would truly enlighten everyone who comes into the world, and wants to reject the idea of Christ drawing each of them to a bona fide opportunity of salvation at least once in their lifetime, which is what light does.
       8. In John 12:32 where it adds “people” to the word “all”, to encourage a distributive meaning for this universal adjective, i.e. “all kinds of people”, instead of leaving the choice for a comprehensive meaning for this universal adjective, i.e. “everyone”, which again would aid in promoting the biblical idea, that, in agreement with His own divine desire for all to be saved (1Tim 2:4), and since He provided the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2, a verse the ESV thankfully did not alter), Jesus can and does draw everyone to an opportunity of repentance, which also was His plan (2Pet 3:9)
       9. In Isaiah 48:8 It adds the word “before” to “from birth”, to suggest this verse clearly teaches God’s knowledge of the deterministic outcome of Adam’s fall into sin upon the nation of Israel – and thus everyone else also. But the Hebrew – מִבֶּטֶן – only means “from the womb”, which the ESV has as the correct translation in Is 44:2, 44:24, 46:3, 49:1, and 49:5, without adding the word “before”.
       Also the ESV does not follow the traditional Greek manuscript evidence used through the centuries, but it follows the modern text UBS for choices that go against the truth of Scripture’s inerrancy. In Matt 1:7, 10 did Matthew really not remember the correct names of Judah’s kings – Asa and Amon? And in John 7:8, did Jesus really lie to his brothers telling them He was not going up “to this feast” and yet He did?

       But the Eternally Sovereign Version (ESV) 😉 has messed up… using the word “decree” twice in ways that undermine reformed theology’s idea of divine decree!

       God didn’t decree everything! Jeremiah 19:5 ESV — and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire… 👉which I did not command or decree👈….

       Unregenerate man knows God’s decree! Romans 1:32 ESV — Though 👉they know God’s righteous decree👈 that those who practice such things deserve to die….

       God must have “decreed” these helpful self-corrections in this reformed theology influenced translation! 😁

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello Diego and welcome
       We have a seminary teacher here – lets see if he will answer this question for you.
       But it has been my understanding that the ESV is Calvinistic leaning.

       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

24. Unlimited atonement is bringing me out of 40 years of Calvinism. TULIP has been falling like dominos after I realized Jesus Christ died for everyone. I’m currently reading “God’s Provision For All” and ran across a thought that I cannot accept concerning unlimited atonement. Here is the quote from the book, page 40-41. “No one can rightly claim they fell under condemnation because of how they replied to the specific news about Jesus.” I understand that we have all sinned against God and justice demands punishment, but that is exactly what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross. Took the punishment of sin for all of mankind.

    2 Corinthians 5:14,19 ESV
    For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;

    I believe this verse means exactly what it says. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, thereby, presenting a legitimate offer to every man that salvation is possible because the divine blood of Christ has covered every sin of humanity. If the wages of sin is death, then Jesus Christ tasted death for every human being.

    [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

    My interpretation of this verse may have been described as, “every man, in “the world”, stands before God in a neutral position”. That is exactly what I believe, “not counting their trespasses against them” is saying. The blood of Christ took away the sin debt of the world. (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!) If you go to Hell, then it won’t be because of your sin debt. The reason you go to Hell will be because of your unbelief in the Gospel of Grace. Your sin debt has been paid, but you refused your pardon so you will have to live with the consequences of your unbelief in the work of the cross, which is the second death.

    John 3: [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved (reconciled) through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

    This verse is the verse by which each person’s eternity is determined. The unlimited atonement of Christ puts all men on a level playing field and therefore is totally responsible. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for the sin of every person, past, present and future. Every man died with Christ, therefore, no one goes to Hell as a result of their sin burden. Rather, Hell is reserved for unbelievers. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. There is no double jeopardy here where Jesus paid the penalty for a sinner’s sin, then the sinner paid for his sin “again” in Hell for all eternity. Jesus paid the penalty for the sinner’s sin, while the unbeliever spends eternity in Hell for his unbelief. Just as the believer receives rewards in Heaven based on his work during his lifetime, unbelievers will receive punishment (reward) based on their sin during their lifetime. Neither arrives at their eternal destiny because of “their works” or “their sin”, but rather because of “their belief” or “their unbelief”!

    Hebrews 3:18-19 ESV
    And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? [19] So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

    Revelation 20:12-15 ESV
    And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. [13] And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. [14] Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

    During the Great White Throne Judgement we see a set of books that we assume contain the unbelievers records of his lifetime of works and sin. We also see another book which is the Book of Life. Then each man was judged by “what they had done”. This judgement was not to determine salvation, because the fact that they were there meant they were unbelievers. Rather they were being judged for their degree of punishment in the Lake of Fire, their reward. (Matthew 10:15 ESV Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. Matthew 11:21-24 ESV “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. [22] But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. [23] And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. [24] But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”) Then if their name was not found in the Book of Life they were thrown into the Lake of Fire. How does our name get written in the book of Life? (or not get erased out of the Book of Life depending on what you believe about the Book of Life) By faith, or believing what God has told us about what Jesus Christ did on behalf of mankind. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ESV
    For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

    Am I missing something?

    Thanks for your response,

    Jeff

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Jeff! Great comments. As to those verses –
       John 8:24 NASB95 — “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

       Romans 2:16 NASB95 — on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

       God will judge each in how they responded to the light given them to get them to seek Him and His mercy (John 1:9). If they seek they will find!

       Loading...

       Reply

25. Hi Dr. Flowers,

    I’ve been trying to support your ministry through paypal, but I am having difficulty navigating. Would you be able to provide detailed steps to submit donations through paypal? By the way, I also tried Zelle, but this is not supported by my bank. I prefer making one-time donations. Also, the “up to 6 week” time for a check to clear is a big deterrent to my sending the donation through USPS.

    Please feel free to contact me any time through the email I’ve provided.

    I appreciate your ministry.

    Bob Ruff

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Bob and Thank you very much!
       Dr. Flowers is not here to interact
       But let me see if I can get someone from his ministry to respond.
       .
       Sincere thanks
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

26. I think I’m in general agreement with Leighton Flowers re the errors of Calvinism. However, I’m getting the impression from this comments section that he may be in agreement with universal reconciliation; or put another way, that all of mankind in life or after this life will have a second chance to make the choice to accept Christ and be thereby redeemed out of the eternal consequences for unbelief during life. I hope that he is not proposing this idea.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Mark. I can assure you that Leighton believes that those who die in unbelief will die in their sins and will be condemned to everlasting punishment.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. I recall having an online discussion with someone a few years ago on why they felt the same Greek word (Eon, I think) that they insisted meant “forever” when it came to heaven could turn around and mean “finite duration” when it came to Hell. I never received an answer. If the reward of the believer is infinitely everlasting, then the same word(s) to describe the duration of punishment for the unbeliever also apply. You can’t have it both ways.

          Regardless, I have never read anything on these pages by Dr. Flowers or others that subscribes to Universalism.

          Loading...

       2. br.d
          Hey Steve!
          Good to hear from you!
          I hope this finds you and your family well! :-]

          Loading...

       3. Brian,

          I hope you will answer this, as I know we have differences of opinion…

          You had said:
          “I can assure you that Leighton believes that those who die in unbelief will die in their sins and will be condemned to everlasting punishment.”

          My question is: Can we define “unbelief” in the context that you used the word?

          The reason for the asking is that many Christians preach that for those who have never heard the gospel, Jesus, or God for that matter, that they are considered “unbelievers”.

          But…

          Romans 10:14
          14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

          My default would be:

          Romans 2:14-16
          14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

          15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

          16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

          My conclusion would be:

          Only those who flat out reject the gospel are the ones classified as in “unbelief”. Reject, being the major key word.

          There are many Gentiles who lived before Jesus came. And then we see this:

          Acts 17:30
          And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

          Winked at ignorance of idol worship. Unbeliever, or just plain ignorant?

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

27. Dr. Flowers, you mention “ordo salutis” frequently in your videos and stress that regeneration does not precede faith. Would you please address the entire ordo salutis from a Provisionist perspective? This would be helpful to me.

    For example, the entire o.s. from a Calvinist perspective is, as I understand it, election-predestination-calling-regeneration-faith-repentance-justification-sanctification-perseverance. So what would it be as a provisionist?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Christie and welcome
       .
       Dr. Flowers – due to numerous demands is not available to interact with people at SOT101
       But I understand he is often on Facebook to interact with people if you are a Facebook user.
       Also Dr. Flowers has 2 books – “The Potter’s Promise” and “God’s Provision for All”
       Both are available at Amazon.
       .
       Sincere blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Welcome Christie: Here is what I see as the Provisionist order – calling (invitation), enlightenment, repentance, faith, election-regeneration-predestination-calling (naming)-justification, sanctification, glorification. More could be squeezed into that list. Notice the ones joined together at the moment of new birth, after faith is expressed in Christ. Let me know if you have any more questions. Blessings.

       Loading...

       Reply

28. Hello, I recently came across your Youtube page and podcast. I am extremely thankful for your ministry. I was wondering if you have any of this material translated in Spanish. I currently serve in Argentina as a missionary and would love to have your material in Spanish. Or if you have any recommended authors who have their works in Spanish.
    Thank you.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. br.d
       Hello Jesse,
       I have passed your question on to Dr. Flowers

       Loading...

       Reply

29. Hello, I’m wondering if you can recommend some kind of a “church search” web site where I can input my zip code and have a list of churches near me that at least somewhat line up with what you are saying on your website? Thanks!

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Donna and welcome!
       Lets see if anyone here has an answer for you.
       But there are also – a certain degree of indicators one can look for within a given assembly.
       The key indicators I look for – are language patterns.
       .
       The Calvinist leaning pastor who is not concerned about losing “sheep count” will typically use Calvinistic language.
       If you watch Dr. Flowers youtube videos in which he plays clips from John MacArthur or John Piper – you will get examples of the type of language we are talking about.
       .
       The MacArthur/Piper mode of language – is often antagonistic and critical of other theologies.
       And in the process – it can manifest as a form of boasting.
       .
       There are key words or phrases to look for:
       Doctrine of Grace and emphasis on divine Sovereignty are language indicators.
       .
       Then there are Calvinist leaning pastors who are concerned about losing “sheep count”
       These pastors are going to be much more subtle and deceptive about their Calvinism.
       The indicators I look for with these people – have to do with the materials and persons they recommend.
       They will try to promote materials that are Calvinistic leaning in order to deceptively draw people into Calvinism.
       They will try to dissuade people from Non-Calvinist sources and materials.
       .
       There is a general trend also with all Calvinists today in regard to the writings of John Calvin.
       During Calvin’s day – he was the only promoter and defender of his doctrine.
       And he had detractors who disagreed with his doctrine
       Consequently – Calvin could not afford to back-pedal or be wishy-washy.
       He had to fiercely defend his position against all who would disagree.
       The result of that is found within his language
       Calvin’s language contained a consistent degree of emphasis on divine malevolence.
       He paints a picture of a god who creates/designs the vast majority of the worlds population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
       .
       Calvinist pastors today – often have a mixed congregation.
       There are a few staunch Calvinists in their congregation – who would not flinch at statements depicting a god who takes pleasure in evil.
       But the majority of the Calvinist congregation are not going to have that temperament.
       And there will be people within a congregation who are not Calvinists at all.
       .
       So Calvinist pastors who are in that situation have to be very deceptive about how they promote the doctrine.
       And you will find many Calvinists who reject are large percentage of statements made by John Calvin because they reject depictions of a god who takes pleasure in evil.
       .
       So within Calvinism – there is a general disposition where people are trying to “distance” themselves Calvin.
       And this can even be the case with Calvinist pastors.
       .
       These pastors will create an “ARMINIANIZED” version of Calvinism
       It is a sugar-coated version of Calvinism.
       .
       I eventually found it becomes very easy to detect a Calvinist by the language they use.
       Blessings
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hi Donna!

       No such site or app yet exists for congregations that self-identify as Provisionist in their theology. A Southern Baptist website that call themselves Traditional in their theological stand would probably be close. Calvary Chapel and Independent Baptist congregations are usually not Calvinistic, but are probably Provisionist in their theology, though they probably don’t know this new label.

       But calling or visiting the leadership of a congregation, with whom you are thinking about joining your testimony, is the best idea… Then just ask them these two questions.

       1. Is regeneration an act of God before faith is expressed in Jesus is after?
       2. Was the Lamb’s Book of Life at the dawn of creation already filled with names with no more to be added, or was it empty and names of those freely trusting in God’s have been added ever since?

       If the say “before” and “filled” they are Calvinistic, even if they deny they are. Then you could ask, is you wanted, would they allow SS teachers who taught regeneration was after faith is expressed and names added to God’s book after they are joined to Christ.

       Loading...

       Reply

30. Hi
    Love your work on counting Calvinism
    At one stage in my life i almost believed Calvinism but my heart would not allow me too, then than GOD i saw your debate with James White, then i realised why my heart would not allow me to. Calvinism is just not correct.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Ishwar! Yes, Holy Spirit does help a child of God feel uneasy when they hear false teaching. But the need is to check to see what the Scriptures say, to confirm if those feelings were from Him or not.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello Eshwar and welcome
       .
       And we thank the Lord – he gave you wisdom and allowed you to recognize the ensnarement that is i Calvinism!
       .
       Calvinism – as you are probably aware at this point – is a self-contradicting belief system.
       It is a belief system that is in conflict with itself.
       It is a belief system that is divided against itself.
       .
       So the fact that you were shown light sufficient to recognize that as a problem was the Lord protecting you!.
       And we thank the Lord for his loving-kindness!!!
       .
       In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird! :-]
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

31. Hello Leighton and admin, I appreciate your ministry so much, thank you. I asked my pastor’s wife for book recommendations on suffering well for Christ. A year ago, I would have just purchased the books that were recommended to me; however I was unaware most of my library were calvinist authors – I do know this now, and I want to try and balance my library out, and sometimes have resources to counter recommend. Would you or anyone who comes across this post be able to point me in the right place for sound books on suffering? Thank you for your time. T.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello tj – I have not read it, but am told that C.S. Lewis’ book The Problem of Pain is good. He is not strongly Calvinistic. But far better is prayerful meditation on Psalms, Job, 1Peter, 2Corinthians, imo, and listening to good Christian music on the subject.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello TJ and welcome
       Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here to interact with people.
       But he is on Facebook.
       So if you are a Facebook user you may very well find him there.
       Also – make sure to check out Dr. Flower’s Youtube channel – its awesome!
       .
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

32. In 2022, i sat in a service at Shadow Mountain Church when David Jeremiah preached Calvinism. I was shocked. I used to listen to him on the radio and never heard him preach Calivinism before.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Yes, Robert… all preachers have to pay their “dues” to their Reformed circle and show their support, so as not to lose that sector of followers. It would be interesting to know who, what person or persons, was/were the pressure behind his feeling he needed to preach on Calvinism. Was it from within His church or from outside, or both?

       Loading...

       Reply

33. I am new to this site and interested in the doctrine of Provisionism. What is the Provisionist view of God’s foreknowledge? Does God have perfect knowledge of all future events or is God omniscient as to all things knowable (including his will for future events that he has determined), but responds to all other free will choices as they are determined.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Mike and welcome
       .
       On your question – I would suggest you get Dr. Flower’s book
       I’m sure he answers that question
       .
       I can’t speak for him – but I would hardly assume he does not hold to perfect divine foreknowledge.
       .
       BTW: Divine foreknowledge in Calvinism is not perfect – it is in fact lacking.
       .
       In Calvinism – divine foreknowledge of [X] is nothing more than A-Posteriori knowledge (knowledge after the fact) of that which was (past tense) decreed concerning [X].
       .
       So in Calvinism – prior to that decree which establishes what [X] will be – divine foreknowledge of what [X] will be is lacking.
       .
       The classic orthodox doctrine of divine knowledge/foreknowledge is that it is an “ESSENTIAL” attribute.
       An “ESSENTIAL” attribute is an attribute which is never lacking – simply because it is “ESSENTIAL”.
       .
       Therefore the Calvinist position on foreknowledge is a deviation from and does not meet the standard for the orthodox doctrine of divine foreknowledge.
       .
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

34. Dr. Flowers, How does the theology you embrace differ from that of Free Grace? ‘Seems to me that you are pretty close. Calvinism is heretical and its precepts are not found in scripture. Free Grace to me is once you believe you are immediately justified and the rest if Sanctification. You cannot lose your salvation once your are justified. You cannot lose your position in your family but your relationship can suffer by not trying to emulate Christs life. Some verses in John’s Gospel mention the act of belief as the sole requirement for salvation, including John 3:16 and John 5:24. And John 6:47 says, “The one who believes has eternal life.” The fact that works lead to rewards in heaven may be seen in passages such as Matthew 5:1–15; 1 Corinthians 3:11–15; and Hebrews 10:32–36, particularly verse 36, which reads, “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.” I am interested in your thoughts. I think you are attacking the heretic because he ensnared you and you want to make sure others are not misled. This is good but do you have other areas that God might be able to use you?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Steve… I am not sure of Flowers’ view on Free Grace, but I know he believes in OSAS. I am guessing he, like me, would not believe a child of God could in their heart stop believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, like those in the Free Grace movement believe is possible.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. The early Christians (A.D. 90-300) would disagree.

       In the days of the early Christians (the first three centuries), there was a religious group who strongly disputed the Congregation’s (“Church’s”) stance on salvation and works. This religious group taught

       – that man is totally depraved,
       – that we are saved solely by grace,
       – that works play no role in our salvation, and
       – that we cannot forfeit our salvation once we obtain it.

       This religious group was labeled as heretics by the early Christians.

       You might be thinking, “This group of ‘heretics’ were the real Christians while these ‘orthodox’ Christians were really heretics.” However, such a conclusion is impossible. Who was this religious group, you ask?

       The Gnostics!

       If you think the Gnostics were “true Christians,” observe what the apostle John said about them: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 7).

       If our Evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by “deceivers and antichrists” before it was taught by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others.

       Ponder that point promptly.

       Scholars have noted that “Calvinism” (a.k.a. “TULIP” or “The Doctrines of Grace”) has risen up in popularity four times over the past 500 years. Every single time, it always dies back down. Why do you suppose that is? Well, either God ordained it to be such, or else the system just does not hold any water theologically and/or logically. When Christians actually hold Scripture as their authority rather than what some preacher has told them to believe (or what is dictated in their creeds, confessions, catechisms, constitutions, statements of faith, or systems of theology), they inevitably come to a conclusion that is opposed to these beliefs.

       Calvinists teach that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end. However, Scripture teaches otherwise (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11) with God urging His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4). Let us see what Scripture and the early Christians (A.D. 90-300) have to say:

       “and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” 2 Chronicles 15:2

       “Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Psalm 51:11

       “And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, ‘The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.'” Ezekiel 33:12

       “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.” Matthew 10:22

       “But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”” Luke 9:62

       “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:1-4

       “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?” Romans 11:17-24

       “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:2

       “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them;” Ephesians 5:3-7

       “And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.” Colossians 1:21-23

       “If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;” 2 Timothy 2:12

       “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,” Hebrews 10:26

       “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20

       “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;” 2 Peter 1:10

       “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”” 2 Peter 2:20-22 (see also Matthew 24:13; Luke 17:31-32; John 8:31-32; 15:1, 6; Galatians 6:9; James 1:12; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:36)

       “We ought therefore, brethren carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” —Barnabas

       “The whole past time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger. . . . . Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called, we fall asleep in our sins. For then, the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, will thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. . . . And you should pay attention to this all the more, my brothers, when you reflect on and see that even after such great signs and wonders had been performed in Israel, they were still abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found to be, as it is written, the “many who are called,” but not the “few who are chosen.”” —Barnabas

       “[WRITTEN TO CHRISTIANS:] Since all things are seen and heard [by God], let us fear Him and forsake those wicked works that proceed from evil desires. y doing that, through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. For where can any of us flee from His mighty hand?” —Clement of Rome

       “Let us therefore repent with the whole heart, so that none of us perish by the way.” —Second Clement

       “For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which ha seen fixed, he will not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints. But to the unbeliever, repentance will be possible even to the last day. . . . For the Lord has sworn by His Son, that those who denied their Lord have abandoned their life in despair.” —Hermas

       “There is but one repentance to the servants of God.” —Hermas

       “If you do not guard yourself against [anger], you and your house will lose all hope of salvation.” —Hermas

       “Put away doubting from you, and do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself, “How can I ask of the Lord and receive from Him, seeing I have sinned so much against Him?” Do not reason with yourself in this manner. Instead, with all your heart turn to the Lord, and ask of Him without doubting. For then you will know the multitude of His tender mercies and that He will never leave you, but will fulfill the request of your soul. For He is not like men, who remember evils done against them.” —Hermas

       “The apostates and traitors of the congregation have blasphemed the Lord in their sins. Moreover, they have been ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they were called. These persons, therefore, at the end were lost unto God.” —Hermas

       “I hold further, that those of you who have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation [i.e., the Mosaic Law], and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death—you will by no means be saved.” —Justin Martyr

       “These men of old time, . . . for whom the Son of God had not yet suffered, when they committed any sin and served fleshly lusts, were rendered objects of great disgrace. Accordingly, what will the men of the present day suffer, who have despised the Lord’s coming, and have become the slaves of their own lusts? Truly, the death of the Lord brought healing and remission of sins to the former. However, Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin. For death will no more have dominion over Him. . . . We should not, therefore, as that elder remarks, be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of olden times. Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said, “For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also not spare you.”” —Irenaeus

       “It was not to those who are on the outside that he said these things, but to us—lest we should be cast forth from the kingdom of God, by doing any such thing.” —Irenaeus

       “Knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness.” —Irenaeus

       “Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” —Irenaeus

       “God’s greatest gift is self-restraint. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you, nor forsake you,” as having judged you worthy according to the true election. Thus, then, while we attempt piously to advance, we will have put on us the mild yoke of the Lord from faith to faith, one charioteer driving each of us onward to salvation.” —Clement of Alexandria

       “He who hopes for everlasting rest knows also that the entrance to it is toilsome and narrow. So let him who has once received the Gospel not turn back, like Lot’s wife, as is said—even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation. And let him not go back either to his former life (which adheres to the things of sense) or to heresies.” —Clement of Alexandria

       “It is neither the faith, nor the love, nor the hope, nor the endurance of one day; rather, “he that endures to the end will be saved.” —Clement of Alexandria

       “God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning the past deeds, and by begging the Father to blot them out. For only the Father is the one who is able to undo what is done. . . . So even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him. For at the climax of the drama, he has given up his part.” —Clement of Alexandria

       “No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end.” —Tertullian

       “The world returned to sin . . . and so it is destined to fire. So is the man who after baptism renews his sins.” —Tertullian

       “We ought indeed to walk so holily, and with so entire substantiality of faith, as to be confident and secure in regard of our own conscience, desiring that it may abide in us to the end. Yet, we should not presume [that it will]. For he who presumes, feels less apprehension. He who feels less apprehension, takes less precaution. He who takes less precaution, runs more risk. Fear is the foundation of salvation. Presumption is an impediment to fear. . . . More useful, then, is it to apprehend that we may possibly fail, than to presume that we cannot. For apprehending will lead us to fear, fear to caution, and caution to salvation. On the other hand, if we presume, there will be neither fear nor caution to save us.” —Tertullian

       “[The Valentinians claim] that since they are already naturalized in the brotherly bond of the spiritual state, they will obtain a certain salvation—one which is on all accounts their due.” —Tertullian

       “Some thing that God is under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy what He has promised [to give]. So they turn His liberality into His slavery. . . . For do not many afterwards fall out of [grace]? Is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who, . . . after approaching to the faith of repentance, build on the sands a house doomed to ruin.” Tertullian

       “God had foreseen . . . that faith—even after baptism—would be endangered. He saw that most persons—after obtaining salvation—would be lost again, by soiling the wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their torches.” —Tertullian

       “Hoodwinking multitudes, [Marcus, the heretic] deceived many persons of this description who had become his disciples. He taught them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin. However, he said that they were beyond the reach of danger because they belonged to the perfect Power. . . . Subsequent to baptism, these [heretics] promise another, which they call Redemption. And by this, they wickedly subvert those who remain with them in expectation of redemption. As if persons, after they had once been baptized, could again obtain remission.” —Hippolyus

       “A man may possess an acquired righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away.” —Origen

       “Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” —Origen

       “The same reply must be given to them with respect to the statement of the apostle. . . . On whom does He have mercy? . . . He has it on those who are capable of incurring destruction if they did not receive mercy. They will obtain mercy in order that they may not incur that destruction of which they are capable. That way, they will remain in the condition of those who are saved.” —Origen

       “He who has not denied himself, but denied Christ, will experience the saying, “I also will deny him.”” —Origen

       “Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.” —Commodianus

       “Let fear be the keeper of innocence, so that the Lord, who of His mercy has flowed into our hearts in the accesso of celestial grace, may be kept by righteous submissiveness in the home of a grateful mind. Otherwise, the assurance we have gained may beget carelessness, and so the old enemy will creep upon us again.” —Cyprian

       “There remains more than what is yet seen to be accomplished. For it is written, “Praise not any man before his death.” And again, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life.” And the Lord also says, “He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.”” —Cyprian

       “You are still in the world. you are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives. So you must be careful, that . . . what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement will be consummated in you. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. it is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, “Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” . . . Solomon, Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.” —Cyprian

       I ask . . . that you will grieve with me at the [spiritual] death of my sister. For in this time of devastation, she has fallen from Christ.” —Cyprian

       “He who wills that no one should perish, desires that sinners should repent, and by repentance, should return again to life.” —Cyprian

       “They should not think that the way of life or of salvation is still open to them if they have refused to obey watchmen. For in Deuteronomy, the Lord God says, “And the man that will do presumptuously and will not listen to the priest or judge, . . . that man will die.” —Cyprian

       “[ADDRESSED TO CHRISTIAN LEADERS:] Endeavour that the undisciplined ones should not be consumed and perish. As much as you can, by your salutary counsels, you should rule the brotherhood and take counsel of each one with a view to this salvation. Straight and narrow is the way through which we enter into life.” —Cyprian

       “It is clear that the evil is driven out in baptism by the faith of the believer. But he returns if the faith should afterwards fail.” —Cyprian

       “Although they forsake the fountain of life, the [heretics] promise the grace of living and saving water. . . . Begotten of treachery, they lose the grace of faith.” —Cyprian

       “Whoever that confessor is, he is not greater, better, or dearer to God than Solomon. Solomon retained the grace that he had received from the Lord, as long as he walked in God’s ways. However, after he forsook the Lord’s way, he also lost the Lord’s grace. For that reason it is written, “Hold fast that which you have, lest another take your crown.” Assuredly, the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away if it were not that the crown must depart when righteousness departs. . . . “He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.” So whatever comes before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation. It is not the finish, where the full result of the ascent is already gained.” —Cyprian

       “To anyone who is born and dies, is there not a necessity at some time . . . to suffer the loss of his estate? Only let not Christ be forsaken, so that the loss of salvation and of an eternal home would be feared.” —Cyprian

       “We pray that this sanctification may abide in us. For our Lord and Judge warns the man who was healed and quickened by Him to sin no more—lest a worse thing happen to him. So we make this supplication in our constant prayers, . . . that the sanctification and quickening that is received from the grace of God may be preserved by His protection.” —Cyprian

       “There is need of continual prayer and supplication so that we do not fall away from the heavenly kingdom, as the Jews fell away, to whom this promise had first been given.” —Cyprian

       “The quarrelsome and disunited . . . will not be able to escape the crime of brotherly dissension. For it is written, “He who hates his brother is a murderer.” And no murderer attains to the kingdom of heaven. Nor does he live with God. A person cannot be with Christ if he had rather be an imitator of Judas than of Christ. How great is the sin that cannot even be washed away by a baptism of blood!” —Cyprian

       “What a wonderful providence, how great the mercy, that by a plan of salvation it is provided for that more abundant care should be taken for preserving a man after he is already redeemed. . . . Nor would the infirmity and weakness of human frailty have any resource, unless the divine mercy, coming once more in aid, should open some way of securing salvation, by pointing out works of justice and mercy. So, by almsgiving, we may wash away whatever foulness we subsequently contract.” —Cyprian

       “You are afraid that perhaps your estate might fail if you begin to act generously from it. Do you not know, miserable man, that while you are worrying that your family property may fail, life itself and salvation are failing!” —Cyprian

       “He says, “He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.” And again He says, “If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples” [John 8:31-32]. . . . So there needs to be patience in order that hope and faith may attain their result.” —Cyprian

       “Let us press onward and labour, watching with our whole heart. Let us be steadfast with all endurance; let us keep the Lord’s commandments. Thereby, when that day of anger and vengeance comes, we may not be punished with the ungodly and the sinners. Rather, we may be honoured with the righteous and with those who fear God.” —Cyprian

       “Those who are snatched from the jaws of the devil and delivered from the snares of this world, should not return to the world again, lest they should lose the advantage of their leaving it in the first place. . . . The Lord admonishes us of this in His Gospel. He taught that we should not return again to the devil and to the world. For we have renounced them and have escaped from them. He says, “No man looking back after putting his hand to the plough is fit for the kingdom of God.” And again, “Let him that is in the field not return back. Remember Lot’s wife.” . . . So we must press on and persevere in faith and virtue. We must complete the heavenly and spiritual grace so that we may attain to the palm and the crown. In the book of Chronicles it says, “The Lord is with you so long as you also are with him; but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.” Also in Ezekiel: “The righteousness of the righteous man will not deliver him in whatever day that he may transgress.” Furthermore, in the Gospel, the Lord speaks and says: “He that endures to the end, the same will be saved.” And again, “If you will abide in my word, you will be my disciples indeed.””—Cyprian

       “In the Gospel according to Matthew: “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire” [Matt. 3:10]. . . . Even a baptized person loses the grace that he has attained, unless he remains innocent. In the Gospel according to John: “Look, you are made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing happens to you” [John 5:14]. Also, in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God abides in you? If anyone violates the temple of God, God will destroy Him” [1 Cor. 3:16-17]. Of this same thing in the Chronicles: “God is with you, while you are with Him. If you forsake Him, he will forsake you” [2 Chron. 15:2].” —Cyprian

       “He put a seal upon him, for it is concealed as to who belong to the side of the devil and who to the side of Christ. For we do not know out of those who seem to stand whether they will fall or not. And of those who are down, it is uncertain whether they might rise.” —Victorinus

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. br.d
          Yes – there are scholars today – who identify Augustine as having mixed both Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism into Catholic doctrine. And later – a young John Calvin – who appears to be interested in making himself a shining star within Christianity – swallows Augustine’s camel.
          .
          A few examples:
          “The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism” by Dr. Kenneth Wilson
          “Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good” by Kam-Lun E. Lee
          .
          Something that is very interesting to note concerning Calvinism’s relationship to Gnosticism – is that it incorporates MORAL DUALISM.
          .
          MORAL DUALISM is the concept that there are two moral opposites “good” and “evil” at work.
          .
          In Calvinism “Good” and “Evil” as Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary.
          .
          Augustine
          -quote
          And because this orderly arrangement maintains the harmony of the universe by this very contrast it comes about that evil things must need be In this way, the beauty of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from antitheses, that is, from opposites this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
          .
          However – Calvinists do not find the aspect of DUALISM within their belief system to be palatable. And Calvinists over the years have devised many strategies for Obfuscating the aspect of Divine Evil inherent within the doctrine.
          .
          LANGUAGE A KEY INDICATOR:
          Language is critical business for the Calvinist – as it can be used to Obfuscate the aspect of DUALISM within the doctrine.
          .
          Calvinists use Language in a strategically misleading manner.
          Calvinists are not intentionally trying to deceive people
          They are essentially using language to lie to themselves
          And the lies they tell themselves – in order to find the doctrine palatable – are the lies they will naturally tell others – in order to get others to find the doctrine palatable.
          .
          Calvinists practice what is called INSIDER LANGUAGE
          Insider Language – is the practice of taking words out of the standard English lexicon – and assigning Altered meanings to those words – in order to use them in a misleading manner.
          .
          Misleading terms which are common within Calvinist statements entail the use of terms which have Libertarian inferences and terms which have benevolent inferences.
          .
          The word “Permission” is an example
          Calvinist often refer to what they call: “The permissive will of god”
          .
          What the you eventually learn – is that the Calvinist has altered the meaning of the term “permissive”
          1) What Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN by infallible decree – he permits
          2) What Calvin’s god does not RENDER-CERTAIN by infallible decree – he does NOT permit.
          .
          The Calvinist is hoping the NON-Calvinist will understand the term “Permission” by its STANDARD meaning – and not by the Calvinist’s HIDDEN meaning.
          .
          Thus Calvinists lie to themselves by the use of “Permission” language.
          .
          Another example is “Grace” language
          Calvinist in their attempts to lie to themselves – will call their doctrine a doctrine of “Grace”.
          .
          But once again – the Calvinist has an Altered meaning for the term “Grace”.
          .
          Consider the god Moloch
          On a sacrificial day where for example 50 babies are assigned to be thrown into the fire of Moloch – he might decide to ELECT and thus SAVE one of the babies from being thrown into the fire.
          .
          The priest of Moloch would declare – Moloch had extended “Grace” to that baby.
          .
          That concept of “Grace” is in fact the same “Grace” found in Calvinism.
          .
          Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of the human population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
          .
          Thus – Calvin’s god’s PRIMARY PROVISION for mankind – is eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
          .
          Out of that total population – Calvin’s god ELECTS a few individuals whom he will SAVE from his PRIMARY PROVISION
          .
          Calvin’s god has extended “Grace” to those individuals.
          .
          But Calvin’s god does not extend that “Grace” to the vast majority of individuals he creates.
          .
          John MacArthur intuitively understands Calvinists lie to themselves.
          As part of that lie – he calls his ministry “Grace to you”
          .
          But notice here – how that language is designed to paint a picture of Divine Benevolence while Obfuscating the over-arching Divine Malevolence which is dominates the doctrine.
          .
          So you can see that Calvinists lie to themselves.
          They use language in a deceptive manner in order to obfuscate the DUALISM within the doctrine because they don’t find it palatable. And what they personally don’t find palatable – they calculate all Christians will not find palatable. So they obfuscate it.
          .
          Blessings!
          br.d

          Loading...

35. Were Paris Reidhead, Robert Murray McCheyne, or D. Martyn Lloyd Jones Calvinistic?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. br.d
       Hello Timothy and welcome
       Personally – I happen to know Martyn Lloyd is Calvinist
       I will see if there are any quick to find indicators on the other names.
       .
       One way to look online is to use Google – and type in the person’s name followed by the word “Reformed”
       Another way is to look for any books published by the individual
       Calvinist book titles have a tendency to have tell-tale signs.
       .
       Another indicator of an individual’s Calvinism – is the opinions expressed about that person on the “Puritan Board” forum.
       The Puritan Board forum is for the most part a representation of “staunch” Calvinism
       So if one finds positive or glowing commendations about a given author there – its a pretty good indicator.
       .
       However the fact that you ask the question is revealing.
       Calvinists have for many years – practiced what is called “STEALTH” Calvinism.
       There is a certain degree of dishonesty that is justified within it social structure.
       “STEALTH” Calvinism entails the practice of “CLOAKING” one’s Calvinism in a deceptive manner.
       .
       Here is one statement by a Member of the Puritan Board
       -quote
       if I remember correctly reading Paris reidhead’s website he is leaning towards Calvinism
       .
       On Robert Murray McCheyne – here is a statement from a web-page “Banner of Truth”
       -quote
       “….an earnest and intelligent commitment to the principles of Scripture and of Reformed theology”
       Apparently – this reformed web-site considers McCheyne to be a reformed pastor.
       .
       Its wisdom for you to ask!!!
       If one is going to drink water – one would be wise not to drink water mixed with poison – no matter how little the amount of poison which has been mixed with it is.
       .
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. I don’t remember this ‘Timothy’ placing that comment responded to above. However, I will speak and say that I have witnessed for myself “stealth” Calvinism in action. There is a difference between one who hides his/her strong acceptance of TULIP, knowing that many are shocked by this naked teaching, waiting to stealthily reveal such incrementally. I refer to a small church I attended that after going years without a Pastor accepted one without real push-back. There is also another group who passively hide such belief (Loose Calvinists who hide) because they also are shocked/dismayed themselves, but cannot reject TULIP in whole or in part, because of their love for scripture (at least how they were taught to understand certain passages). They may feel that they are standing against God Himself by denying TULIP in whole or in part.

          Loading...

       2. br.d
          Thank you Timothy – and yes!
          .
          But there is more concerning the TULIP which is never conveyed to the average Calvinist.
          When you understand it – you will know why – Calvinist leaders/teachers do not convey it to their congregations.
          .
          Calvinism’s TULIP was crafted approximately 100 years after Calvin’s death and was distributed in the form of a booklet.
          .
          The strategy behind the TULIP is to give the doctrine an acceptable *APPEARANCE* while *HIDING* aspects of the doctrine which Calvinist leaders know when Bible believers discover them – they will reject them.
          .
          Calvinism’s TULIP is designed to *HIDE* more than it is designed to reveal – about the doctrine.
          .
          The “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP for example – is designed to function as a lie of omission.
          A lie of omission – is communication designed to mislead by strategically omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
          .
          The critical fact the “T” in the TULIP is designed to *OBFUSCATE* is the fact that per the underlying doctrine – the state of nature (including every man’s nature) at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined by infallible decree. And at any nano-second in time cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
          .
          Calvinists use the “T” in the TULIP to *FALSELY* attribute man’s inability to believe the Gospel and man’s consequent eternal damnation – to man’s nature.
          .
          What they are not telling you – is that per the doctrine – the state of man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined – and at any nano-second in time – cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
          .
          The Calvinist is painfully aware that if he tells Bible believers the *TRUTH* – that Calvin’s god designs the vast majority of the creatures he creates specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure – those Bible believers are garanteed to reject the doctrine.
          .
          The TULIP is thus designed to *HIDE* evil aspects of the doctrine which the Calvinist himself cannot endure coming to grips with.
          The TULIP is thus designed to *HIDE* those aspects of the doctrine – he does not want others to see.
          .
          The more we recognize these characteristics of the Calvinist system – the more we recognize how unholy it is.
          .
          Blessings!
          br.d

          Loading...

       3. Thanks for the response.

          Loading...

36. CHAPMANED24,

    Sorry, but you are 100% WRONG! “IF you love Me, you WILL obey My commandments/teachings.” This isn’t a suggestion. This isn’t optional. There ARE rules, whether you like it or not, want to admit it or not, or accept it or not. Try reading and paying attention to what Scripture says. Pay attention to that magical little conditional word ‘IF’ when you read. “IF you love Me, you WILL obey My commandments/teachings.” The opposite is likewise true. “IF you DO NOT love Me, you WILL NOT obey My commandments/teachings.” If you don’t like the word “rules,” call it whatever you like, but obedience is a requirement. “The one who HEARS My words and DOES (obey) them, I will tell you what he is like…” “Why do you call Me “Lord, Lord” and DO NOT DO (disobey) what I tell you?” “Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter Heaven, but only he who DOES (obey) the will of My Father.”

    It is NOT merely “about the heart.” That is a FALSE teaching. All I have to do is look at your outward character, conduct, and behaviour and I will know EXACTLY what is in your heart. The genuine believer’s walk matches their talk. Four times Paul said, “walk in a manner that is worthy of…” If I list every single verse that is opposed to you, we’d be here all day.

    I think you’re under the false impression that anything you do somehow equals earning salvation. Are you a Dispensationalist? They don’t believe you need to repent or be obedient because they consider such to be “works based salvation.” Examine every verse pertaining to the Judgment and you will discover that every single one without exception says that we will be judged according to our . . . (wait for it) . . . WORKS! Are there people who think that by doing this they earn salvation? Absolutely! But we DO NOT throw the baby out with the bath water. Scripture states this FACT and it is TRUE, so instead of trying to ignore, deny, reject, or explain it away, how ought we to understand it? Christians need to STOP engaging in Reactionary Theology. Like a pendulum, one group takes a biblical truth and abuses it by running all the way to the left with it. Another group, reacting to their abuse, runs with it in the opposite direction.

    You can say, “There are no rules. Point blank,” all you want, engaging in proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting, and you will still be WRONG. The entire New Testament teachings are opposed to you. The early Christians (A.D. 90-300) are opposed to you. If you think there are “no rules,” does that mean I can sleep with your wife? Does that mean I can steal whatever I want of yours? If you say, “No,” you have just confessed to there being SOME rules. In other words, you suffer from cognitive dissonance. What you believe is at odds with reality.

    Every single denomination has their “scholars” and they all think their systematic is inerrant and infallible. So who’s telling the truth? Who is correct? None of them! Most of modern Christianity holds to a distortion of biblical Christianity and a rejection of the historic teachings of the early Christians to various degrees.

    Go to my website, timothyklaver dot com, and under ‘Community’ click on ‘Apostolic Teachings’ and read my punch-in-the-gut article, “Are We in Line with Apostolic Teachings?” If professing Christians are unwilling to have their concept of “Christianity” seriously examined, challenged, and turned upside down, then they SHOULD NOT read the early Christians. This is a rabbit hole that will shatter A LOT of Catholic, Protestant Reformed, and Evangelical perspectives.

    Loading...

    Reply

37. BRDMOD,

    It’s much simpler than that.

    In the days of the early Christians (the first three centuries), there was a religious group who strongly disputed the Congregation’s (“Church’s”) stance on salvation and works. This religious group taught

    – that man is totally depraved,
    – that we are saved solely by grace,
    – that works play no role in our salvation, and
    – that we cannot forfeit our salvation once we obtain it.

    This religious group was labeled as heretics by the early Christians.

    You might be thinking, “This group of ‘heretics’ were the real Christians while these ‘orthodox’ Christians were really heretics.” However, such a conclusion is impossible. Who was this religious group, you ask?

    The Gnostics!

    If you think the Gnostics were “true Christians,” observe what the apostle John said about them: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 7).

    If our Evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by “deceivers and antichrists” before it was taught by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others.

    In other words, the Gnostics were the first to teach these heresies. Augustine, the father of both the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformed, revived them, and 1000 years later John Calvin plagiarized and embraced them. If it was a heresy then, it is still a heresy now. Back around 2005, God was saving me out of the bankrupt system of Dispensationalism. My first book, “The End Times: Letting the Bible Speak for Itself,” deals with this. Since about 2020, God has been saving me out of the bankrupt system of Calvinism. Studying the early Christians has been pivotal to this. If you examine my blog, you will find that a number of my old articles are steeped in Calvinist understanding. I’m in the process of either refuting, re-writing, or deleting them. Haven’t decided which yet. But as I study any denomination, I can spot the holes in all of them, both in belief and practice. In order to understand truth, one must not only go back to the genesis, the beginning, but also to the primary sources.

    Again, thanks for your previous response. God bless!

    Loading...

    Reply

38. Our church is in the middle of a take over by a Calvinist. Which of Dr. Flowers books would be most helpful to the remaining members at this time.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. br.d
       Hello Mo – welcome and thank you for asking!!!
       .
       Let me reach out to a few people and get back to you.
       I am very sorry to hear about your situation.
       But I have to be honest – I’ve heard it many times.
       .
       Calvinists pastors are instructed – there are various forms of dishonesty they can operate in – and that dishonesty is justified.
       .
       So at bare minimum – the congregation is going to have to deal with persons who operate in various forms of dishonesty – who because they have an agenda they must push – they will absolutely refuse to acknowledge that dishonesty as dishonesty.
       .
       Dr. Flowers has two particular books you might at least start with.
       1) The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology
       2) God’s Provision For All: A Defense of God’s Goodness
       .
       But it is critical to understand – that 90% of the conversations you have with a Calvinist – are going to be conversations in which the Calvinist has a critical need to OBFUSCATE the underlying foundation of his doctrine.
       .
       And the underlying foundation of Calvinism – and that which separates it from all of its alternatives is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
       .
       John Calvin
       -quote
       The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
       .
       Accordingly – the only way a sinful evil impulse can happen within a human brain – is if that sinful evil impulse was knowingly and willingly decreed.
       .
       That decree is infallible and immutable (unchangeable).
       And an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
       .
       Therefore – if a sinful evil impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed to come to pass within a human brain – that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
       .
       That which I just described for you – is stipulated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
       .
       But you will find that all Calvinists will EVADE and OBFUSCATE anything that is stipulated within their doctrine – which they know people will reject – or which they themselves cannot face with honesty..
       .
       So in Calvinism – you are dealing with people who have a belief system which they cannot face with honesty.
       And since they cannot be honest with themselves – there is no way they can be honest with you.
       .
       Also – please check out Kevin Thompson’s Youtube channel “Beyond the Fundamentals”
       Kevin has a great deal of experience with STEALTH Calvinism and church takeovers.
       .
       Let me get back to you.
       Sincere thanks
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hi Mo! Flowers has two books, both good. God’s Provision For All: A Defense of God’s Goodness https://a.co/d/9g7SMsV
       The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology https://a.co/d/1XU5uzd
       Of course, all the blog posts on this site and videos on the sister YouTube site (or app) are helpful too.

       Loading...

       Reply

39. Here is my comment i believe that after first being saved and unlearned of what scripture says and not confident in my comprehensive skills i was willing to believe a lot of what i trusted my brothers in Christ were sharing but always having a reservation and some reluctancy in what i was being told, or taught. But when i would read scripture myself always reading something different than what i was being told i would be in question of what i was being told. I did at one time submit to a full belief of calvinistic views but always believing in the provision of God’s grace to make a decision or to come to a decision by the conviction of the Holy Ghost. Iam not completely ruling out a calvinistic view because there are a few questionable verses but as of right now i believe on the provisions view and would like to share this quote from Matthew Henry that i came acroo today after referencing his thoughts on scripture……..COLOSSIANS 1: 20,212……….MATTHEW HENRY. How the redemption is procured: it is through his blood (v. 14); he has made peace through the blood of his cross (v. 20), and it is in the body of his flesh through death, v. 22. It was the blood which made an atonement, for the blood is the life; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission, Heb. 9:22. There was such a value in the blood of Christ that, on account of Christ’s shedding it, God was willing to deal with men upon new terms to bring them under a covenant of grace, and for his sake, and in consideration of his death upon the cross, to pardon and accept TO FAVOUR ALL WHO COMPLY WITH THEM

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. That’s right, man has a choice in whether he lives or dies. In Deut. 30:19 they are given the choice between life and death and told to choose life. We find this idea all through scripture.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. I have yet to hear a personal testimont of one’s salvation that contained: “Then the Holy Spirit regenerated me and gave me the gift of faith whereby I was saved!”

          Loading...

       2. Welcome Tim! Good observation!

          Loading...

       3. That would seem to be the personal testimony of many Calvinists. There was a Calvinist who frequented this site for years who constantly testified that he was first regenerated by the Holy Spirit, then given the gift of faith whereby he was saved. There are many who have been deluded in this way.

          Loading...

       4. A “personal” testimony is one where one “recalls” the circumstances, thoughts, convictions, and feelings just before, at, and just after salvation. What you described is someone who long after changed what was “personal” to just parrot the party line.

          Loading...

       5. Maybe he was parroting the party line, or maybe he was expressing his salvation experience, either way it’s of no consequence. The only thing that really matters is does it match with what the scriptures teach. I’ve heard many “personal testimonies” that don’t.

          Loading...

       6. br.d
          Hello Aidan – and Merry Christmas my friend!
          .
          I interpreted what you said – to indicate what logically follows within Calvinism – based on what the doctrine stipulates
          .
          But we both know what logically follows within Calvinism – based on what the doctrine stipulates – is often something the Calvinist does not find palatable.
          .
          Because the Calvinist does not find aspects of his doctrine palatable – he will quite naturally seed to evade it.
          .
          That evasion process – is what produces Calvinisms language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
          .
          An inherent characteristic of DOUBLE-SPEAK is the use of evasive and equivocal language.
          .
          For example – I had a conversation with a Calvinist last week.
          I was very careful to use to be precise in my language and refer to “what the doctrine stipulates”
          .
          He was having some very strong emotional reactions to what the doctrine stipulates.
          He didn’t want to face “what the doctrine stipulates”
          .
          His evasive maneuver was to insist I was creating a -quote “Strawman” of the -quote “Reformed Position”
          .
          This is deceptive language!
          The “Reformed” position – is not the same thing within Lutheranism (the original reformed position) as it is within Calvinism.
          .
          So the phrase “Reformed” position functions as a FACADE which the Calvinist will hide behind.
          .
          Next we have the word “position”
          And what we find here – is Calvinist_A will have a “Position” which is in contradiction to Calvinist_B
          And yet both of them will claim his “Position” to be the “Reformed” position.
          .
          Both of them will in all probability be in some denial of what their doctrine stipulates.
          And *THAT DENIAL* is in fact what their “Position” is.
          .
          So what we find in Calvinist statements – often language which contain these SUBTLE CLOAKING mechanisms – because the Calvinist does not want to face what his doctrine stipulates.
          .
          Blessings
          br.d

          Loading...

       7. Hello Br.d, it’s good to hear from you again.

          I see you don’t put much trust in Calvinist statements. I think that’s wise because of their doctrine.

          There also seems to be a general tendency today to put too much trust in “personal testimonies”. They are made to be proof of salvation. But that seemingly is not how Jesus sees it, for He tells us that one day He will reject the personal testimonies of the many.

          And many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”

          When I look at the context, I don’t get the sense that they were insincere, I get the sense that they were shocked.

          Loading...

       8. br.d
          Yes! You make an excellent point Aidan!!!
          .
          That reminds me – I recently heard a testimony from a pastor – who had a near-death experience.
          He was pronounced dead on the operating table.
          .
          His story is he had always been a legalistic pastor
          He claims while he was in heaven he spoke with Jesus – who told him “Depart from me I never knew you” was his current status.
          .
          He claims he argued with Jesus
          You can’t possibly reject me because of all of the things I’ve done for the kingdom.
          He argued that he had earned the right to be accepted – by his good works.
          .
          He claims Jesus then gave his mind understanding.
          And then he realized he was worthless and did not deserve to be in Jesus’ pretense.
          When he acknowledge that to Jesus – Jesus told him he would be given a second change.
          At that point he woke up.
          .
          I tend to take such testimonies with a grain of salt
          But then again – the Lord is wonderful and full of grace and loving kindness
          .
          Blessings
          br.d

          Loading...

       9. Thanks Br.d, I love that analogy.

          But I hope that pastor realizes he was not rejected for DOING the will of the Father (v.21) in obeying His Son’s teaching (vv. 24-25), — but rather, for NOT DOING the will of the Father (v.21), working lawlessness (v.23), NOT obeying His Son’s teaching (vv. 26-27)! THIS is what Jesus has already told him.

          While he is correct that no one can earn the right to be accepted – by his good works — One must still strive to obey the Son if he is to avoid the rejection of Jesus in (Mt. 7:21-27).

          THEREFORE,

          “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and DOES them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”

          Blessings,
          Aidan

          Loading...

       10. br.d
           Yes – I agree
           There is an old story about a practice that was common among Jewish religious leaders who wanted to travel on the sabbath.

           Concerning traveling on the sabbath – there was a certain maximum distance which was forbidden to go beyond.
           If one went beyond that distance one would disobey the sabbath commandment.
           That distance had to do – with the distance from one’s home.
           .
           If the person wanted to travel further than that distance – they had to figure out a way of doing so without disobeying the sabbath commandment.
           .
           So the practice was to have a dumb person go before them and stop at certain locations and have food waiting for the religious leader. When he would eat the food he would say “Where my food is – is my home” Therefore I may proceed further.
           .
           He would again send the dumb person to travel in advance of him and at another appointed place have food waiting for him. The once again he could perform that ritual. And continue traveling.
           .
           We humans have all sorts of strategies for getting what we want – and getting our way.
           .
           This pastor was in all probability performing certain works – which in his mind qualified him for getting his way.
           .
           However – the scripture says:
           Man looks upon the outward appearance.
           But if we walk in the Spirit we shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh
           But he who is OF THE FLESH will always persecute he who is OF THE SPIRIT
           .
           There are probably going to be a lot of religious leaders who define “walking in the spirit” as simply being religious
           Some religious leaders will define legalism as “walking in the spirit”
           The Calvinist often considers himself “walking in the spirit” by virtue of being faithful to his doctrine.
           .
           I suppose there will be many pastors who will insist that because they had a certain number of sheep in their congregations – whom they taught certain doctrines – that that constitutes “Walking in the Spirit”
           .
           blessings
           br.d

           Loading...

       11. Very interesting Br.d,

           The story of the Rabbi and those pastors all remind me of the Pharisees, those religious leaders who, rather than looking to the heart of the law of God, treat it simply as a legal document in which to find loopholes to suit their own purposes and soothe their conscience.

           Jesus said:

           “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

           For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

           Loading...

       12. br.d
           Yes! Rock solid right-on Aidan!
           Totally agree!

           Loading...

       13. Guys…

           Keep in mind that NO ONE under the Law of Moses was ALLOWED to look at the HEART OF THE LAW. If you broke the law, and everyone has…there is no mercy under the law. There is no faith under the law. And God told them to punish those who broke the law…under 2 or 3 witnesses. They had no choice.

           Hebrews 10:28
           He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

           And in the Matthew 5 area that Aiden mentions about the LEAST OF THESE COMMANDMENTS, this is where Jesus gets into the “YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID…BUT I SAY…” area.

           Such as, You have heard it said…eye for an eye.

           Well, where did they “heard it said”?

           Leviticus 24:18-20
           18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
           19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
           20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

           If I’m not mistaken, from God himself, right?

           But Jesus comes along and states, “BUT I SAY…”

           Matthew 5:39
           …whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

           So, the law of God under Moses is different than the law of God under Christ. No mercy vs. mercy. So who, under the law, could even see the HEART OF THE LAW? No one. They weren’t allowed to.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       14. br.d
           Hi Ed – I hope this finds you well
           .
           How do you understand where Paul says “The Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shows the work of the law written in their hearts”
           .
           I think what you’re saying has a certain degree of truth to it.
           But we have certain people who are identified within scripture – who come pretty close to having an understanding indicative of understanding the heart of the law (IN PRINCIPLE) because of their understanding of the heart of God.
           .
           We have Enoch who walked faithfully with God and was no more – because God took him away.
           We have Noah who was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.
           .
           Of course these ones lived prior to the law.
           But that is what I meant by understanding the heart of the law (IN PRINCIPLE) by virtue of understanding the heart of God.
           .
           There are other examples here and there.
           Paul says – concerning the law – he was blameless
           But he put away everything in order to obtain the TRUE prize – which is Christ.
           .
           So – for me – it would be difficult to make a blanket statement that no one was allowed to understand the heart of the law.
           .
           However – we also know that God gave the law as a schoolmaster – to show man his inability – and thus his need for Christ.
           .
           I think its fair to say – we often meet Christian believers who even though they have Christ – appear to fall short of knowing the heart of the law. :-]

           Loading...

       15. Hey there, br.d,

           Yes, you are right about those who are righteous outside of the law, [that followed God]…

           Genesis 4:26
           And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

           Now, about those in Romans 2:14-16, they are not God followers, because they were never introduced to God, but they lived a life of that proved that the law of God was written in their heart, and so that is how they are judged. This is why I do not adhere to the notion that those who never heard of Jesus, that they don’t believe in Jesus, therefore condemning them to hell, as a lot of Christians do. I’ve had conversations with people that believe that most of creation is in hell, because they didn’t believe in Jesus, becasue Jesus was never preached to them. So, I point them to Romans 2:14-16 which proves otherwise. Even so, they won’t change their minds. And, this is also ONE OF MANY reasons that I do not believe in ORIGINAL SIN doctrine, because the law is written in our heart by God, so what is it, exactly, that we inherited from Adam? Death of the Body is what I read in Romans 5, not Adam’s sin, nor spiritual death, either. We do that on our own.

           Now, regarding Paul being blameless under the law, keep in mind that this guy murdered Jewish Christians.

           Philippians 3:6
           Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

           Deuteronomy 6:25
           And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

           1 Timothy 1:13
           Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

           A couple key words here…MERCY, IGNORANTLY, UNBELIEF.

           And it is for this reason that I argue with the Preterists, in that God is NOT a respector of persons, and Paul, being a Jew, obtained mercy due to his ignorance in UNBELIEF, what about the rest of the Jews who are just as blind as Paul was?

           Luke 1:6
           And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

           And yet…

           Romans 3:23
           For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

           So why did Paul murder Jewish Christians? Under the law, it’s a sin to follow other “gods”, and the Jews who converted from the law of Moses to the Law of Christ…Paul had no clue that Jesus is God. Paul was a LAWYER, and therefore, had no clue about the HEART of the Law, because he was a LAWYER. He was concerned about the LETTER of the Law, the Deeds of the law, works of the law.

           Now, about the law…

           Galatians 3:12
           And the law is not of faith:

           Galatians 3:23
           But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

           Romans 5:20 (first half)
           Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound…

           Some translations say, INCREASE instead of ABOUND. But notice that it does not say, DECREASE?

           In other words, the law was a SETUP for FAIL.

           The law was all about the LETTER of the law, not the heart of the law.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       16. br.d
           Yes! I agree :-]

           Loading...

       17. Hi Br.d,

           I suppose what I was saying is that God did expect men to apply their hearts to His law. The very foundation commands of the Law were to love God with all your heart and soul…, and one’s neighbor as oneself (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). Jesus made these the bulwark of His own teachings (Matthew 7:12; 22:34-40). The tenth commandment of the Decalogue speaks directly to the mind and heart (Exodus 20:17). Who could read this ancient Jewish covenant and imagine that the God who spoke from Sinai would allow His people to hate as long as they did not kill, or lust as long as it was not consummated? It was He who said, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev. 19:17) and “‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Deut. 5:21). The ethical principles of the OT were never meant to be superficial ordinances which governed muscle but not mind. The law of Moses, in its very essence, reflected God’s true ethical demands.

           “Ye have heard that it was said…but I say unto you” (Matthew 5) was not an attack on the law, but rather, on the Pharisaic perversions of the law. Jesus had just made a point of expressing His reverence for the law and the prophets (5:17-19). Is it reasonable to think that He would then turn and make a withering attack on that very law? The immediate context as He begins this section shows that He is addressing the sham righteousness of the Pharisees (verse 20). This is the problem He is dealing with in the succeeding verses (21-48). But more than that, this is also a discourse on true righteousness. It was not too much devotion to the law that evoked Jesus’ devastating attack on the Pharisees, but too little. With their arrogant hypocrisy they had produced nothing more than an empty parody of God’s law. It is in this part of the sermon that Jesus exposes their sham for what it really was — in light of the true and unchanging righteousness of God.

           Blessings,
           Aidan

           Loading...

       18. Aidan,

           Matthew 7:12
           12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

           The Golden Rule.

           And

           Romans 13:9-10
           9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

           10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

           The problem…they didn’t have two commandments like we do. They had 613. They were too busy walking on egg shells to worry about two. The law of Moses was about the CONTROLLING the flesh, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do. The law of Christ states that you are already dead, THEREFORE live in as if you have no flesh at all. SPIRIT. Then you can LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR very easily. The Jews didn’t have that option.

           Loading...

       19. Also, Aidan,

           You are alluding to…

           20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

           Note the word “YOUR” righteousness? Are we saved by OUR righteousness? Or the righteousness of Jesus?

           There is a righteousness of the law, which NO ONE can attain. So how can anyone’s righteousness EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees?

           James 2:10
           For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

           Loading...

       20. Ed,
           There were people who lived under the law who were righteous in the sight of God, such as Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (Luke 1:6).

           And all one has to do is not have a sham righteousness to be more righteous than the Pharisees.

           Happy holidays🤧🥳

           Loading...

       21. Good Morning and Merry Christmas Aidan,

           Ya, I’ll accept your explanation, regarding THE LAW, in that the Pharisees were hypocrites in just about everything that they did.

           Loading...

       22. Enjoy the holliers, ed.

           Loading...

       23. br.d,

           This is response #2 from my previous. The goal of the law was to obtain RIGHTEOUSNESS…but nobody can. And God KNEW THAT ALREADY.

           First, before the law, we see that righteousness is obtained by FAITH.

           Romans 4:3
           For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

           Romans 4:5
           But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

           Galatians 3:12
           And the law is not of faith:

           Deuteronomy 6:25
           And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

           Romans 10:5
           For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

           Romans 3:21
           But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

           Romans 9:30
           What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

           Galatians 2:21
           I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

           Romans 9:31
           But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

           Romans 10:3
           For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

           The law is righteous, but there is no way that anyone can attain righteousness from the law…

           but it was God who told them to follow the law when he gave them the commandments…they weren’t suggestions, but commandments. And they were held CAPTIVE under the law, and Jesus sets those under the law, free FROM the law.

           I think it’s sad when Christians classify the Jews as APOSTATE ISRAEL, when FOR ALL HAVE SINNED applies to ALL, and that no one can be righteous under it. As far as I’m concerned, all of humanity is apostate, all because FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, and we all know that all Christians STILL sin to some degree until we die, and yet, we are righteous.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       24. Hello Tim and welcome!
           .
           Good point!!!
           .
           You are definitely not going to hear a Calvinist make that statement – because they know the doctrine paints a picture of humans as being designed with the functionality of a puppet or a robot. And they don’t like that picture.
           .
           They are extremely careful to stay away from any language which would highlight that aspect of the doctrine.
           .
           When you scrutinize the Calvinist TULIP for example – you will discover it is designed to OBFUSCATE that aspect of the doctrine
           .
           Take “Irresistible Grace” for example.
           .
           The underlying doctrine stipulates that every movement of every atomic particle in the universe is fixed by infallible decree.
           .
           This means every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain – comes to pass infallibly.
           And it is humanly impossible to *RESIST* that which is infallible.
           .
           Consequently – Calvin’s god predetermines *ALL HUMAN FUNCTIONALITY* and makes functionality irresistible.
           .
           The Calvinist does not like that picture!!
           So he is going to OBFUSCATE it.
           .
           He is ok saying “Grace” is irresistible because he knows you will find “Grace” acceptable
           But he won’t tell you every impulse in your brain is made irresistible and thus totally outside of your brain’s control – because he knows you won’t find that acceptable.
           .
           Blessings!
           br.d

           Loading...

40. I noticed that A.W. Tozer was the first person on your list of modern-day scholars who do not affirm the Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures. You might want to read his book, Discipleship, precisely the section under MARKS OF DISCIPLESHIP where he addresses John 6. I’m not suggesting he would identify as a Calvinist, but I’m not sure he fits in your box. Also, you lost me when you included men like Fisher Humphreys, Clark Pinnock, Jack Hayford, and N.T. Wright and others. I will say you did a job in compiling a list of the “big boys” in spite of their obvious theological differences.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Remiller! Ultimately it is what the Word says and not what smart men think,

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello REMILLER,
       The reason Tozer is noted as in disagreement with Calvinism – has to do with its definition of divine sovereignty.
       .
       I don’t have the quote from Tozer in front of me at the moment – but he holds the Calvinist concept of divine sovereignty in disdain.
       .
       If I could summarize:
       It would be that in Calvinism – divine sovereignty is defined as pre-determining the movement of every atomic particle in the universe – such that the state of nature (including every man’s nature) at every nano-second in time – is 100% predestined by infallible decree – and at every nano-second in time – cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
       .
       This means – if a sinful evil impulse is decreed to come to pass in your brain at TIME-T
       That decree is infallible
       An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE to that which it decrees
       Thus NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted to your brain at TIME-T.
       .
       Tozer’s response to that is essentially to call it deficient.
       .
       For Tozer – a God who has to determine every impulse in the human brain – in order to make man be what he is – and doe what he does – and thus cannot let man think for himself – or have an impulse in his brain he can call his own – is NOT a TRULY divine being.
       .
       Blessings
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

41. Hello everyone.

    Does this site have a church directory?

    We’re looking for a church, anywhere at this point. Most are Calvinist or a combination of Calvinist. Many are kind of… Not forthright with it either until you directly ask, after hearing the lingo.

    Also we have several questions we’d like help with, but don’t want to clog up the comments.

    – Husband and Wife

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome H&W! Unfortunately, there is no such Provisionist directory yet. But you can email me your city and I can see what I can find for you. brianwagner@vbc.edu The three questions to ask to see if they teach Calvinism are – 1. Was the book of Life filled with names at the dawn of creation or are names added as people trust God for His salvation? 2. Is regeneration before faith or through faith? and 3. Would someone who teaches against Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace be allowed to teach in SS or become an elder?

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Hello husband and wife
       We would want you to feel free to ask the questions you have.
       You appear to already have good insight (when you said you are able to identify Calvinism by the “lingo”)
       That is insightful – because Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language
       Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language designed to produce an appearance which the Calvinist at that moment calculates people will accept.
       .
       So please feel free to ask any questions you have.
       .
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

42. Hi, I wanted to get clarity on a particular statement:

    From Article 2- “We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty (?) before he has personally sinned.”

    Does the phrase “before he has personally sinned” refer only to a person’s guilt
    or does it apply to both (1) a person’s guilt and (2) “the incapacitation of a person’s free will”?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Hennie! I think I know what you are asking… The Provisionist position is that at birth there is no inability in the human spirit to respond to God’s grace, and there is no guilt passed on from Adam. Most Provisionists seem to believe there is a nature prone towards sin that was passed on from him, but not all. There is no denial among Provisionists that all will personally sin when they reach the age of moral maturity. But, though they are now guilty before God, like Adam, or Cain, they are still able to hear and respond positively to God’s gracious initiatives towards them. They are able also to become self-hardened, through personal sinning and constant rejection of God’s gracious initiatives.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Thank you Brian .
          Thinking through your response I am curious about your statement “There is no denial among Provisionists that all will personally sin when they reach the age of moral maturity.” Is it inevitable that “all will personally sin?” Is there no freedom for us to never choose sin?

          From BRDMOD’s response “Calvinism’s current teachings of TOTAL DEPRAVITY is designed to make it *APPEAR* that man has CHOICE of whether he will sin or not.” Does Provisionism say that man always has a choice of whether to sin or not, or will all personally sin? Is it not possible to fight and overcome the inclination of Sin and freely choose to not sin.

          Loading...

       2. Thank you Hennie for the question. I’ve not met a Provisionist yet that denies the clear truths of

          Romans 3:23 NASB95 — for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

          Romans 11:32 NASB95 — For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

          I see sinning as inevitable because of the inclination towards sin in our nature from birth, received from Adam’s nature which was corrupted when he sinned. Those who don’t believe that usually think it is inevitable because of the world’s/devil’s influence, even though our wills are free.

          Loading...

       3. Hennie, just to let you know, there is nowhere in the Bible that teaches we inherited a corrupted nature from Adam. And, even though it’s true, all have sinned, yet Genesis 4:7 indicates the ability NOT to sin when it knocked on our door. Freedom demands we have the power to choose between good and evil.

          Loading...

       4. I have generally heard this summed up as follows:

          Do we sin because we are sinners?
          Or are we sinners because we sin?

          I tend to align with the latter.

          Loading...

       5. Agreed! Not because our nature is programmed to sin.

          Loading...

       6. “All we like sheep have gone astray”

          is not the same as

          “All we like sheep cannot help but go astray”

          The importance of the virgin birth was not because Jesus needed to be born sinless. I believe all babies are born sinless. The importance of a virgin birth was instead that He was truly the son of God – not merely the son of man. A mere man that lived sinless could save only himself – not all mankind. God in the flesh, on the other hand, can satisfy the penalty for sin universally for all that repent and believe on Him.

          Loading...

       7. Yes, agreed Steve.

          The fact that babies are born sinless makes a big difference. But I would add, He is the author of salvation to all who obey Him. Therefore, to those who are willing to believe, repent, confess Him, and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

          Loading...

       8. Where in Scripture is it taught that Children are born sinless?

          Loading...

       9. Hi Ezekiel… Important question… First consider Ezekiel 18:20 that guilt is not passed on from our fathers, which would include Adam.

          Age of Accountability – Here’s my take –
          NO GUILT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF LAW:
          Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

          AN INFANT’S CONSCIENCE IS NOT CONSCIOUS OF THE LAW:
          Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

          Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

          Jonah 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?

          BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF ASSURANCE OF INFANT SALVATION:
          DAVID of his son by Bathsheba
          2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (But seemingly not of Absalom, cp. 2 Samuel 18:33)

          GOD of the infants offered to Molech
          Ezekiel 16:21 That thou hast slain My children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through [the fire] for them?

          JESUS of the children praising Him during His Triumphal Entry in Jerusalem
          Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

          PAUL of his own experience as an infant
          Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

          This last verse seems the strongest because it is in a theological passage about sin and salvation. Paul was “alive” physically without the law, i.e. the law’s convicting presence in his life. When the commandment came to his awakened conscience at his age of accountability, sin, which was lying previously dormant and unable to bring a sentence of guilt upon his soul, now comes alive and Paul dies, not physically, but spiritually, i.e. he becomes guilty before God, having agreed with Adam by his own willful sin against God. Presumably, if Paul had died before that moment, he would have died in personal innocence. But more than innocence is needed to approach God. His imputed righteousness is required. Ultimately, this disputable matter needs to be left in the hands of God.

          Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:25

          Loading...

       10. Romans 5:13 is a great place to begin… begin, that is.

           But…

           Deuteronomy 1:39

           Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it

           Then,

           Romans 7:7-9
           7 …I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

           8 …For without the law sin was dead.

           9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died

           Then…

           Matthew 19:14

           But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven

           We each die a spiritual death…We are not born spiritually dead.

           That means that children haven’t died that spiritual death yet.

           When they get their KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, then they die their spiritual death. Until then, they are not sheep that have gone astray.

           The prodigal son… he was once with his father…then he left… to sow his wild oats… then he came BACK.

           WE ALL go thru the same system that Adam and Eve did.

           Innocence until knowledge.

           In essence, God told Adam to stay ignorant, for as long as you are ignorant, you are innocent.

           But Satan tells your to stop being so ignorant, and get educated.

           Genesis 3:22
           And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

           And that was the day that Adam died his spiritual death. His.

           According to Romans 5, we inherited natural death from Adam. Not spiritual death. We die our own spiritual death… when we get educated on our sins.

           Loading...

       11. Hi Ezekiel,

           Brian just cited one passage (Ezekiel 18:20) which would make it impossible for sin to be passed on to babies. If sin was passed on, so would it’s guilt and consequences. By necessary inference this passage teaches that children are born sinless and guiltless. Nor does it teach we are born with a sin nature!

           In view of this, any passage you might interpret as teaching the opposite is an erroneous interpretation. All interpretations must harmonize with the truth that is taught in this passage.

           Loading...

       12. br.d
           Yes – I would agree with that Aidan
           The idea that our nature is programmed to sin – comes from Calvinist influences
           .
           Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
           -quote
           “God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
           .
           Calvinist Paul Helms
           -quote
           Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)

           Loading...

       13. Brian, thank you again for your response. I am really battling with seeing determinism here. If all people inevitably sin then I really don’t have a freedom of will not to sin (ever)? Or do I?

           Loading...

       14. br.d
           Hello Hennie,
           I hope you don’t mind if I provide an answer to this question.
           .
           You are right to understand Calvinism is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated in Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
           .
           John Calvin
           -quote
           The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
           .
           You are correct to understand – creaturely “Freedom” is not going to be what NORMAL people understand.
           In Calvinism – this is the case for both “Freedom” and “Permission”
           .
           Creation is NOT granted “FREEDOM” or “PERMISSION” to countervail an infallible decree
           .
           1) Any event which is NOT decreed – is NOT granted existence within creation
           2) Any event which is CONTRARY to the decree – is doubly NOT granted existence within creation.
           .
           However:
           Any event that is decreed to come to pass – must be granted “FREEDOM” to come to pass.
           Any event that is decreed to come to pass – must be granted “PERMISSION” to come to pass
           .
           John Calvin explains
           -quote
           When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
           .
           So in Calvinism it works this way
           1) That which is CAUSED to come to pass – is “FREE” and “PERMITTED” to come to pass
           2) That which is NOT CAUSED to come to pass – is “NOT FREE” and “NOT PERMITTED” to come to pass
           .
           In Calvinism
           1) Adam was granted “FREEDOM” to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit was decreed
           2) Adam was NOT granted “FREEDOM” to NOT eat the fruit because NOT eating the fruit was NOT decreed.
           .
           So the bottom line in Calvinism is – you are NOT FREE to be or do that which is NOT decreed.
           .
           If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T then Calvinist_A is NOT FREE to do otherwise.
           .
           Not only that
           If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
           Then the option of Calvinist_A doing otherwise is not even granted existence.
           .
           Calvinist_A does not have any CHOICE in whether he will sin or not – because the option to NOT sin does not exist for him to choose.
           .
           That is the way “FREEDOM” and “PERMISSION” work in Calvinism.

           Loading...

       15. There is a difference, Hennie, between pre-determinism of all specific sins and God having permitted the first sin followed by His just permission to allow that created sin nature, from that first sin, to continue to multiply in every soul born from Adam, a weakness that will make their sinning inevitable in each of them, as they freely choose how and when to disobey God’s law, the works of which are even written in their hearts.

           How do you fit the verses I gave you into your beliefs? Will everyone sin? Why, or why not?Here they are again.

           Romans 3:23 NASB95 — for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

           Romans 11:32 NASB95 — For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

           Loading...

       16. Thank you Brian. I am trying to synthesize the various elements of Provisions in my mind.

           I was taught that we inherited guilt from Adam, because He was the representative head of Humanity. So,
           Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (would mean that all have sinned in Adam) I was taught: We are born sinners in need of a Savior, not born righteous (or neutral). There is much to Provisionism that I like the sound of, but I have difficulty coming to an understanding of the position.

           There seems to be an aversion to determinism in the Provisionist position, but at the same time there are limits to free will because “all will inevitably sin…” ( I have read up a little bit on Historic Calvinism, and as far as I can see the position historically would not attribute sin to God’s decree… I think they attribute it to man’s sin nature.)

           How would Romans 5 fit with Provisionism? Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For 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.

           Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Greatly appreciate it.

           Loading...

       17. You seem to be doing some good research and evaluation, Hennie! But you’ll need to ask yourself, what are the strongest Scriptures that teach that idea of Adam as representative head, and our receiving guilt from his sinning. Ezek 18:20 clearly says there is no guilt from the father passed on to the children. A nature towards sinning from Adam, yes. Guilt, no!

           If God’s decree established everything before creation to work out only one way, how is He not responsible for every sin! He did not decree a story to play out that someone else wrote in His mind before creation. So, either the story can keep changing in some ways, and has open ended possibilities, undecided within it, or God is guilty for having decreed every sin as necessary. A slanderous idea Calvinists reject, because they reject logic when it counters their premises. Man’s nature did not exist before creation, so future sins could not be attributed to that.

           Here’s my take on Romans 5:18-19. I hope this helps.
           Romans 5:18-19 NKJV — Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men [as a propensity for sin, passed on in the body and soul received from Adam] , resulting in condemnation [when the mature conscience fails, when confronted by the law], even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men [as an offer, at least, by a few enlightenment opportunities during their lives to freely seek that gift], resulting in justification of life [when personal faith is expressed in the Giver of that gift] . For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners [excluding those who die before their conscience matures], so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous [excluding those who personally refuse to trust in God’s offer of mercy].

           Loading...

       18. Brian,

           Sorry, but you said: “Ezek 18:20 clearly says there is no guilt from the father passed on to the children. A nature towards sinning from Adam, yes. Guilt, no!”

           Are you saying that Ezek 18:20 clearly teaches that a nature towards sinning is passed on from Adam? If so, how so?

           And if not, then what passage would you cite as “clearly” saying “A nature towards sinning from Adam” is passed on to the children? Something a bit more concrete than an opinion perhaps? And, if not for me, at least for the lady who asked!

           Thank you, Brian.

           Loading...

       19. Yes, Aidan, I should have been more clear. I was only pointing to no guilt from Adam being based on Ezekiel 18:20. My guess is that we have discussed the sin nature issue before. 😃

           I see when Paul’s use of the word “sin” as a subject in a sentence, it is as a synonym for the word “flesh”, which we inherited from Adam. The flesh is our mortal body with selfish appetites and passions. I see that use of that word “sin” in that way in Rom 5:12 and 7:9 as specifically pointing to the sin nature from Adam.

           But we can all agree with –
           Romans 3:23 NKJV — for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

           Romans 11:32 NKJV — For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

           – even though we might not fully understand how that result happens. I see the “sin nature” from Adam, which God allows to rebel against His law when the conscience is mature, as the best explanation for those verses.

           Loading...

       20. Brian,

           With all due respect…

           Romans 11:32
           32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all

           I don’t see the word, “disobedience” as you do.

           And, the word “all” is in regards to the Jews, all because of verse 8, which originated in Deu 29:4.

           Now, as far as “Nature” is concerned, I see that the gentiles, by nature, do as the law requires.

           So, I don’t read how humans are naturally born with selfish appetites and passions.

           Sin is as a seed planted, with temptation from the enemy, being Satan.

           1 Cor 15 tells us that our bodies are a weak and dying, and dishonorable, but without Satan tempting us, sin has no power, sin is dead. It’s not our nature to sin, but it is our nature to succumb to it.

           Why isn’t Abraham being discussed in all of this. He’s our example.

           Was he a sinner? Yes. Did he know it? No. Why? Because he had no knowledge of it. Sister Sarah! Why did God give them promised Isaac, while sinning? Blessed them in their sin.

           Abraham never gets discussed.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       21. Absolutely Brian, as I said, if not for me, at least for the lady who asked.😉

           I see that neither Rom 5:12 or 7:9 “clearly” say “A nature toward sinning from Adam is passed on to the children.” It seems like more of an opinion rather than an exegesis of these verses.

           Lets see how it looks with your explanation of the verses:

           Rom 5:12 NKJV — Therefore, just as through one man “INHERITED sin-NATURE” entered the world, and death through “INHERITED sin-NATURE” and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

           Nope! I think that’s whats called ADDING TO THE WORD OF GOD!

           What about the next verse?

           Rom 7:9 NKJV — I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, “INHERITED sin-NATURE” revived and I died.

           Yep! You are still ADDING to the word of God here too.

           And, if Jesus had to be made like His brethren in ALL THINGS (Heb. 2:14,16-17) wouldn’t that imply He had the SAME NATURE AS OURS? Obviously not an INHERITED sin-nature, but a SIN-NATURE all the same. To be precise, the implication from Hebrews 2 would mean that Jesus was ALSO born with a “corrupted nature” JUST LIKE OURS.

           Kinda messy, don’t you think?🙄 But I’m sure you have a way of explaining it away to avoid the obvious implications.

           Thanks,
           Aidan

           Loading...

       22. Yes, Aidan, I see “sin nature” fitting well in those verses. 😀 Thanks for demonstrating that. And I see that you are reading too much into Heb 2:17. Jesus was not in every way like His brethren, for He was God and man, and they were not.

           Do a word study of ὁμοιόω and you’ll see in the NT it primarily has the meaning “to be compared with” and does not have the idea of”being made like” in its root meaning. Yes, we should compare Jesus with everything associated with humanity, to show how He is qualified to be our faithful, high priest.

           Loading...

       23. OMG Brian…

           Jesus was man in the FLESH…of MAN, which you said is…”The flesh is our mortal body with selfish appetites and passions.”

           But, because he’s God…what?

           Jesus, being God, didn’t have a GOD body, he had a man body. He’s God by the SPIRIT, man by the flesh (BODY).

           Yes, Jesus was CAPABLE of sinning. Several Bible references prove that. Sounds like you have some Catholic baggage!

           Ed

           Loading...

       24. Firstly, your position is not merely that there is a “sin nature,” but rather, that there is an “INHERITED” sin-nature. The difference being, the former is developed because of the corruption that is in the world, while the latter is said to be inherited at birth. Nowhere does Paul talk about “inherited” sin-nature.

           And I’m not reading too much into Heb. 2:14-18. The context there focuses on the fact that Jesus had to become human like us. Also, a word study shows that ὁμοιόω does sometimes have the idea of ”being made like.” Vine says, “of Christ in being “made like” unto His brethren, i.e., in partaking of human nature, apart from sin (cp. Hbr 2:14).” The scriptures say, “the Word BECAME FLESH” John 1:14. — NOT “He became something compared to, or like flesh.” That means Jesus was not just God, but also became fully human. To liken His human nature to something that merely “compares” to humanity is to water down the scripture which says “the Word BECAME FLESH.”

           The fact that you think there is something “INNATELY” corrupt in man’s flesh sounds Gnostic to me. Again, the Bible teaches that Jesus BECAME FLESH. But in the Old Testament God told His people:

           Ezek. 36:26 NASB95 “…I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” It seems the root problem was the heart, not the body being INNATELY corrupt.

           Was all flesh born corrupt, or did we BECOME corrupt?

           Gen. 6:12 NASB95 “God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; FOR all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.”

           It is clear then that Moses explains WHY the world was corrupt in the days of Noah, it was because all flesh BECAME corrupted.😉

           Thank you,
           Aidan

           Loading...

       25. As you can imagine, Aidan. We will not agree. A word study of the word “flesh”, like the word “world”, will reveal that sometimes it is neutral, meaning just what’s physical, and sometimes it has a negative, moral meaning, as a synonym for “sin”, as a subject in a sentence, being personified. Paul clearly uses it that way. I’ve nothing more to add.

           All the best is wished for you in my favorite country! 😀

           Loading...

       26. Thank you, Brian, for giving me the last word.

           The issue was never that the word “flesh” can have more than one application.🙂 It was whether Paul spoke about man’s corruption as being “inherited” at birth.

           The fact that Paul makes no mention of this —and that man is not born but becomes corrupt —settles that question once and for all.

           From the emerald Isle, ☘️
           Aidan

           Loading...

       27. br.d
           Aidan – would you mind if I ask you a theoretical question?
           .
           Lets say a baby boy is born to a king
           The baby boy is the rulers first born son
           .
           The baby boy however – is born in a comma
           The doctor tells the king he has seen this before and some day the boy may come out of the comma
           The king decides since it is his first born son he will do that
           .
           Many years go by and and the baby is now a 19 year old boy still in a comma.
           One day the boy comes out of the comma
           And the king and his family rejoice
           .
           But here are the questions:
           .
           1) Does that boy need salvation?
           .
           2) And if so – does he need to repent – and believe upon Jesus to forgive him his sins?
           .
           3) So so – how can that be – because while in that comma – didn’t he retain the innocence of a new born baby?
           .
           Thanks in advance
           br.d

           Loading...

       28. Hi Brd,

           I’m not sure where you are coming from, but thank you for your questions.

           1) Does that boy need salvation? No, not yet anyway. I believe mentally he would basically be a 19 year old baby having just come out of a coma – not having done anything good or evil (Rom. 9:11). And still being like a baby, then as Jesus said, “…for of such is the kingdom of heaven”(Mt. 19:14).

           2) And if so – does he need to repent – and believe upon Jesus to forgive him his sins? No! Because like a baby, he wouldn’t know the difference between his right and left hand (Jonah 4:11). He would still be innocent at that point. He most likely would only have the comprehension of a baby and would need to learn to talk and walk, and how to feed himself etc,.

           3) So so – how can that be – because while in that comma – didn’t he retain the innocence of a new born baby? Agreed. God our Father gave the spirit (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9), which means babies are pure and innocent and beautiful, he is made in the image of the One who gave him his spirit. There is nothing corrupt in a new born baby!

           Thank God for that.😇

           Loading...

       29. br.d
           Thanks for answering the questions Aidan
           Your answer to the first question was the most critical
           And your answer was clearly no.
           .
           From my own experience – I think you are the first believer I’ve met – whose answer to that question would be no.
           .
           Sincere thanks
           br.d

           Loading...

       30. br.d,

           Put me ont he list totaling two. This is one of the reasons I keep using the word, “knowledge”. Until you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil…

           Many think that the sin of Adam was in the disobedience of eating from a tree. Maybe it was, but why was Adam so concerened about being naked? And God said, “Who told you that you were naked?” And God put clothes on them since they had the guilt of being naked.

           They got knowledege from a tree. Paul got knowledge from the law. Is ignorance bliss, or isn’t it? When is someone’s sin “imputed” to them?

           Most sin that I have ever come across in are sins against PEOPLE. Who did the person in a coma steal from?

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       31. br.d
           Hi Ed,
           I can understand the reasoning
           People are free to take the different positions they do – and there obviously will be different positions.
           .
           I’m personally not much of a risk taker.
           I wouldn’t want to stand before God assuming my position is correct – telling him I don’t need Jesus as my savior.
           I would be taking the risk that my position is wrong. And God might say “OK you’ve made your choice”

           Loading...

       32. br.d,

           We are not born dead at birth. That means that we are not separated from God at birth. God is with us at birth. You are not on need of salvation in that case. You are not a lost sheep at that point. There is no need for mercy, grace, forgiveness at this point. Prodigal son was with his father before he left town.

           All of that is my reasoning.

           Loading...

       33. br.d
           Yes I see the reasoning behind that!
           I’m personally not a risk taker – so I won’t take any risk in this case.
           But I do see the reasoning.
           Thanks Ed :-]

           Loading...

       34. My pleasure, br.d,

           I appreciate your position as a moderator in many of these issues. It can’t be easy remaining neutral at times. But I get the sense from your third question that you might have given a similar answer to number 1 as I gave.

           Thanks again, br.d,

           Aidan

           Loading...

       35. br.d
           Thank you Aidan
           As always – you are appreciated!!
           You are a man with a good and kind spirit!
           I love the good people Jesus brings me in contact with!
           .
           And I’m thankful to have you as a friend.
           And that goes for Ed also. :-]

           Loading...

       36. Thank you br.d! Total respect for you… and yes, Brian, you too! And all who comments here, too.

           Ed

           Loading...

       37. Thanks br.d,

           Your response goes beyond what I deserve, especially since you are the one with the kind and generous spirit. And I would go along with what Ed just said, namely, that one is not in a condition of separation from God at birth. Therefore he has no need of forgiveness and salvation. Otherwise, what do we do about those who are mentally handicapped, who grow up with the mental age of a 1 year old or something equivalent? When Jesus said “OF SUCH is the kingdom of heaven” I believe that covers cases like this.

           Regards, br.d, and Ed,

           Aidan

           Loading...

       38. I am not persuaded that Ezekiel 18 should be read together with Genesis 2:16-17 and Genesis 3 to imply that the original sin [and or its consequences] is not imputed on men. I believe that the implications of the fall of Adam are distinct from what the Ezekiel 18 contemplates in context.

           Loading...

       39. Ezekiel,

           Genesis 2:16-17 is about spiritual death, and is related to Romans 7:7-9. And the key topic in spiritual death, as told in both references is KNOWLEDGE of sin.

           You are not born spiritually dead, you die a spiritual death, instead.

           Natural death, that’s a completely different topic to discuss. That’s what Romans 5 is about. We inherited natural death… that’s all we inherited from Adam.

           Adam began his life dying a natural death. He was going to die a natural death no matter what he did, or didn’t do. 1 Cor 15:42-46 so states.

           The tree of life, which no one talks about, is the only means to eternal life.

           He failed to eat of the Tree of life, and was forbidden to eat of it after he ate of the other tree of knowledge of good and evil. But he could have had eternal life in a fallen state had God not blocked access to the tree of life.

           Bottom line, there’s no such thing as the doctrine of “Original Sin”.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       40. Thanks for your reply to my comment. I disagree with your assertion that there is no such doctrine known as Original sin. My view is that it is impossible to deny the spiritual impact of Adam’s fall on his offspring without debasing the power of Jesus’ redemption work at Calvary. Genesis 3:15 points to Calvary. Ezekiel 18 cannot oust the universal implications of the authority of Genesis 2-3. Adam’s sin was not merely personal. It was universal in scope and impact and Romans 5 amplifies that truth. The notion that man is born is sinless theologically confounding, in my view. 2 Corinthians 5:21 separates Jesus from the rest of humanity. He was without sin. We are not.

           Loading...

       41. I have been following this thread with interest. I would have been tempted to call myself a Provisionist until now. I do reject the Calvinist idea that we can not respond to God call without being regenerated first (most people who call themselves Calvinist where I am do not even realize that Calvinism teaches this). This leds me to reject the “T” of TULIP because nearly all theologically trained Calvinists make “T” about more than Total Depravity, saying if you are Totally depraved then you are totally incapables of responding to God call (without regeneration first). As total inability is not found anywhere in scripture, so, I reject it, therefore, reject Total depravity.

           However, the idea Original Sin is just a doctrine from the Catholics I also reject as there is clear evident in scripture of the spiritual impact of Adam’s fall on his offspring, even on nature itself. The bible does teach we are born in sin so many verses but the clearest would be David in the Psalms in Psalm 51:5, some say he is only talking about himself but he applies it to everyone in Psalm 58:3. Also in the NT it is made clear (Romans 8:3, Colossians 3:5, Romans 6:6…) that our earthly nature the one we are born with is sinful.

           If Provisionism means rejecting Original Sin, then said by the same rule I reject the “T” of Tulip, I have to reject Provisionism.

           Loading...

       42. Andy,

           Just to clarify, in not a provisionist. I’m not calvinist either.

           I’m the one who is against original sin.

           I’m the one against the doctrines of grace.

           I’m not speaking for anyone else, but myself.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       43. Andy,

           Something that I notice a lot in these conversations is the lack of discussion on the TEMPTER that we call Satan, who is the instigator that entices an INNOCENT person to sin.

           The other guy that gets rarely any mention is Abraham and his righteousness, which was before the law of sin and death, the law of Moses.

           Abraham’s righteousness in and of itself should be enough to ignore original sin.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       44. br.d
           Hello Andy
           .
           What you need to understand about Calvinism’s TULIP is that it is designed to *HIDE* aspects of the doctrine the Calvinist does not want you to see.
           .
           Calvinism is primarily a doctrine of divine malevolence.
           Calvinists want to present their doctrine as a doctrine of divine benevolence.
           .
           In order to do that – they have the *HIDE* those aspects of divine malevolence they don’t want people to see.
           .
           The TULIP is designed as a marketing tool
           Marketing tools are designed to make a product *APPEAR* desirable
           Marketing tools do not TELL THE TRUTH about the product.
           .
           The “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP for example is designed to function as a lie of ommision
           .
           A lie of omission is communication designed to mislead – by the strategy of omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
           .
           Do not be fooled by the TULIP!!!

           Loading...

       45. I have a lot of experience with Calvinists. I know that each doctrinal claim they admit hides another one that is less palatable (and more clearly unscriptural) Total Depravity hides Total Inability (If you are totally depraved then you are unable to choose God). Total Inability hides regeneration before faith. (You need to be regenerated before you can choose). By this point T not only becomes unscriptural but anti-scriptural.

           However, is Provisionism hiding other beliefs. Does Provision have a view on Original sin? Are we born spiritually dead?

           Loading...

       46. Hello Andrew and welcome
           .
           Yes you are absolutely correct when you say Calvinists arguments are designed to hide things which are less palatable!
           .
           As a matter of fact – when we examine Calvinist language modes – what we find is that many Calvinist statements are carefully designed to function as lies of omission.
           .
           A lie of omission – is communication designed to mislead – by omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
           .
           And you are correct about the “T” in the TULIP
           It is designed to function as a lie of omission.
           .
           The critical fact that it strategically hides – is the fact that per the underlying doctrine – the state of nature – including every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined. And at any nano-second in time – cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be. And man is granted NO SAY in the matter.
           .
           Calvinists use the “T” in the TULIP to falsely attribute man’s ability/inability – and thus his eternal destiny – to the state of his nature.
           .
           When the truth is – in Calvinism – both the state of man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – as well as man’s eternal destiny are *FIXED* and *FATED* – and man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter.
           .
           Blessings!
           br.d

           Loading...

       47. Ezekiel,

           You say that it is impossible…

           I would not.

           First,

           Romans 5:13, which many of the original sin clan fail to reference when discussing this topic.

           Romans 5:13
           13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

           It was Adam and Eve that ate from the Tree of knowledge. Not Cain or Abel.

           Yes, I’m sure that they passed whatever knowledge that they had at the time, but over time…

           Then we come to Abraham.

           The law of Moses was 4 generations later. Abraham was sinning just by sleeping with sister Sarah. Did he know this? No. Did God tell them? No. God gave them a promised inbred, named Isaac.

           Hence Romans 5:13. Sin is not imputed where there is no law.

           1 John 3:4
           …sin is the transgression of the law.

           Romans 3:20
           The law is the knowledge of sin

           Romans 7:7
           I had not known sin, but by the law

           Our Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is the law. No Knowledge, no sin.

           Deuteronomy 1:39
           Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it

           Possess what? The Promised Land.

           To a Christian, what is the promised land? Heaven.

           So, in those days, who got to go to the promised land?

           1. Those who have faith
           a. Caleb
           b. Joshua

           2. Those who have no KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

           Where’s the inheritance of sin? It’s not there.

           But then again, it’s not about sin at all. It’s about knowledge of sin.

           Abraham is a great example. He died righteous, whether he sinned, or not. Romans 5:13.

           And, Romans 5:13 includes those who died in the flood. Peter talks about them, that Jesus died for them, as well, the righteous Jesus, for the unrighteous people in the flood.

           There is so much to learn here, and when you do, you will see that Augustine’s creation of original sin is one of the most worst doctrines to have ever been created, because it brought forth all sorts of related crazy doctrines, such as the doctrines of grace, i.e., prevenient and irresistible, who seems to think that David committed sin in the womb. I guess he stole from his neighbor, or coveted in the womb… lol.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       48. Allow me to clarify that I am neither a Calvinist nor Roman Catholic. I am not therefore not a member of the so called “original sin clan”, whatever that means. I do not subscribe to Augustinian theology. My convictions are drawn from my study of Scripture. Genesis 2:16-17 conveys the law of God to Adam which he knowingly violated. The implications of Adams sin are elaborated elsewhere in Scripture, including Romans 5:12-19.

           The notion that Adam’s sin is not imputed upon men therefore flies in the face of Scripture, in my view. As stated earlier, this trajectory is perhaps founded on an attempt to discount the impact of Adams fall. I am therefore not persuaded by your treatment of Romans 5 in relation to the impact of Adams fall. No person is/was born sinless except Jesus Christ. This is the reason that Christ, the new Adam, came to offer redemption to sinful humanity.

           Loading...

       49. Ezekiel,

           And to clarify, I disagree with your conclusions.

           Genesis 2:16-17 is about spiritual death. That’s all. Period. End of story.

           Romans 5 is about natural death. Not related to Genesis 2:16-17.

           We die a spiritual death, we are not born spiritually dead. Not everyone dies a spiritual death, but we all die a natural death.

           All of what I provided proves that.

           You need to bring Abraham into the conversation and his righteousness.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       50. I have not denied that Genesis 2:16-17 concerns spiritual death. I simply disagree with you treatment of Romans 5 and your attempt to read Ezekiel 18 into Genesis 2-3 while denying the theological nexus between Romans 5 and Genesis 2-3. My view is that it is impossible to separate Roman 5 from Genesis 2-3 without distorting the revelation of Scripture. I am further convinced that nothing in your statement proves the assertions you have made. I do not a convincing grounds for bring Abraham into this conversation. He was never part of it from the beginning.

           Thanks for the engagement.

           Loading...

       51. Ezekiel,

           The reason that I can separate Romans 5 from Genesis 2 is because spiritual death has nothing to do with natural death.

           The only thing we inherited from Adam’s sin was natural death of the body, and that was the consequence of Adams sin.

           Adam was going to die regardless, however. That’s what 1 Cor 15:42-46 tells us.

           Adam was formed in a weak, dying dishonorable body of dirt.

           So are the rest of us.

           Sin entered the world, but when is sin IMPUTED?

           I keep talking about righteous Abraham. His obvious sin… married to sister Sarah. That’s a major sin.

           But he didn’t have knowledge of it, and God never told him. That sin was not imputed to him, let alone Adams sin.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       52. Ezekiel,

           You do make a reference to Romans 5:12-19, but it seems that Romans 5:13 is left out of your conversation, to the point that you reject that idea. For you said, “The notion that Adam’s sin is not imputed upon men therefore flies in the face of Scripture,”

           You may want to revisit that, because this is my main point.

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       53. Ezekiel,

           Not only Romans 5:13, but also 4:15, which also applied to Abraham, too.

           Romans 4:15
           15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

           Romans 4:8
           Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

           The word “Righteosness” is the key word.

           Abraham was righteous because he believed God’s promise.

           But, the law of sin and death, the law of Moses people…

           Deuteronomy 6:25
           And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

           Self righteousness, filthy rags, works, and the wage… death.

           Gentiles were never under the law.

           Acts 17:30
           30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

    2. Hello Hennie,
       I believe Brian is answering your question.
       .
       However – I thought you might appreciate having a little further knowledge on this issue.
       .
       Concerning the issue of man’s FREE WILL – Calvinists today are concerned that people will not accept TRUE Calvinism as it is.
       .
       In TRUE Calvinism – every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain (starting with Adam) is 100% FIXED by an infallible decree before man is created – and predestined to infallibly come to pass.
       .
       Man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter
       The decree determines what man is “FREE” to be and do
       Man is NOT FREE to be and do OTHER than what is decreed
       So man’s will is “NOT FREE” to be OTHER than what is decreed
       .
       Thus – if it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T then you are NOT FREE to do otherwise.
       And your will is NOT FREE to be otherwise.
       .
       John Calvin explains
       -quote
       The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
       .
       Calvinists today understand that many Christians will not accept the doctrine as it TRULY is.
       So they’ve developed arguments to produce the *APPEARANCE* that man is FREE to be or do OTHER than what is infallibly decree – which of course is logically impossible.
       .
       Calvinism’s current teachings of TOTAL DEPRAVITY is designed to make it *APPEAR* that man has CHOICE of whether he will sin or not.
       .
       But the TRUE underlying doctrine forbids it.
       Therefore the Calvinist seeks to obfuscate the TRUE underlying doctrine – in order to get people to accept it.
       .
       Part of this article – is a response to the Calvinist inference that Adam was originally FREE to NOT sin.
       But the truth is in TRUE Calvinism Adam was NOT FREE to NOT sin
       1) Adam is a fallible.
       2) That which is fallible cannot countervail that which is infallible
       .
       blessings
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. Hennie

       Hennie,

       I’m more Wesleyan, but I agree with Provisionists much of the time. This is an involved question, so please bear with me. Here are my thoughts.

       We don’t sin every time we have opportunity to sin, nor do we sin every time we are tempted. This fact is true even before we are born again from above. Therefore, we have freedom to choose not to sin from birth, at least some of the time.

       Yet, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Therefore, in a sense, until a person trusts God through Christ, no matter what he does, it’s sin, because it’s not of faith. Yet, I do believe that a person can trust God to some degree before the new birth, yet not savingly. To be saved from one’s sins, one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

       Now, I believe that, from birth, we are born with an inclination, or a proclivity, to sin. I believe that we are actually born enslaved to some sins. We cannot free ourselves. We can only be freed from these sins through Christ, by believing upon him, which we can do through the enabling work of the Spirit of Christ, through the gospel.

       I do not believe that we are guilty of Adam’s personal sin. Only he can be guilty of it. We are guilty of the trangressions that we commit because all have sinned because and like Adam did.

       We inevitably sin because of weakness and because we are born naturally rebellious against God. Therefore, because we are weak, because we have a proclivity to sin and because we are rebellious by nature, we inevitably will sin. Therefore, every one of us needs the Savior.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. br.d
          Hello Dan and welcome
          .
          On the topic of “Freedom” – and “Free will” it is my observation that the vast majority of Calvinists are highly confused.
          .
          The doctrine of decrees stipulates – that EVERYTHING that comes to pass within creation is Determined by infallible decree.
          .
          An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
          Within academia – this is understood as the PRINCIPLE OF ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES (PAP)
          .
          Dr. Peter Van Inwagen
          -quote
          Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE* . (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
          .
          That makes perfect sense within Calvinism – because for every human event – and every human impulse – the decree grants only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option.
          .
          If any ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed were to exist within creation – its existence would falsify the decree
          .
          Calvinists however are completely DOUBLE-MINDED about this aspect of their doctrine.
          Every Calvinist goes throughout his moment-by-moment day *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist for him to choose between.
          .
          Will he drink coffee in the morning – or NOT drink coffee in the morning?
          Will he put on his black shoes – or will he NOT put on his black shoes?
          .
          Now here is the big one …….will the Calvinist [SIN at TIME-T] or will he [NOT SIN at TIME-T] ?
          .
          Every Calvinist assumes he is granted CHOICE between such ALTERNATIVES
          When his doctrine stipulates EVERYTHING has already been decreed – and there is NO ALTERNATIVE to that decree.
          .
          Consequently – the Calvinist will blindly assert that LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist
          While he goes throughout his moment by moment day – making LIBERTARIAN CHOICES.
          .
          He insists he is granted a CHOICE between whether he will [SIN at TIME-T] or [NOT SIN at TIME-T]
          Such a CHOICE by definition is a LIBERTARIAN CHOICE.
          .
          Thus the Calvinist exists in a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
          .
          Blessings
          br.d

          Loading...

    4. Hennie,
       I see a lot of opinions but not one verse mentioning an inherited corrupt nature. This most likely proves there’s none.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hey Aidan,

          That’s from the “Original Sin” Doctrine from the Catholics (Julystein I think his name was…or Septemberstein?) from Augustine! I think someone suggested that it’s inherited by means of the fertilizer of a male! I laughed so hard when I heard that one. But ya, Original Sin is the culpret…all because they think that David committed sin in the womb! I laughed twice as hard at that one, too.

          As I’ve said over and over again, their “doctrines of grace”, whether it be “prevenient”, or “irresistable” are both DEPENDENT on the doctrine of Original Sin. Debunk that, which is easy to do, and I do mean EASY, then both doctrines of grace fall flat.

          So it’s all tied together in what they call “INHERITED” sin “NATURE”, which I also debunk “SIN NATURE” as well.

          This is why babies are sprinkled with water…because they think that you are born DEAD IN YOUR TRESPASSES AND SIN, becasue they think that you are a sinner from the womb. INHERITED.

          First of all, it’s NOT A SIN if you don’t KNOW it’s a sin, hence, the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

          Deuteronomy 1:39
          Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

          Possess what? The Promised Land. What is the Promised Land to Christians? Heaven.

          So…in those days, who got to go to the promised land?

          1. Those who had faith…
          a. Caleb
          b. Joshua

          and

          2. Those who had NO KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil
          a. Children

          When to children in Judaism get this knowledge? At their Bar/Bat Mitzvah’s. I think it’s 12 for girls, 13 for boys.

          Then their sins are accounted to them once they get knowledge of sin. Their own sins.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       2. Hey Ed,

          Yep, I agree! These doctrines of original sin, inherited sin nature, inherited corrupt nature, etc, are all just a mishmash of Augustinian and Calvistinian dishes served to the masses. And don’t the masses just love it!

          But in the end these doctrines are just a cop-out for sin.

          If you pre-program a lion’s nature to hunt and kill for meat, you can’t blame the criter for doing what it’s nature is to do.
          And if you pre-program humans with a corrupted sinful nature, then we too are only doing what’s in our nature to do.

          Right from the beginning when Eve blamed the snake, and Adam blamed God and his wife, man has always sought ways to excuse his sin.

          And so they BLAME God and Adam by suggesting we inherited a corrupt sin nature. And then try to convince people that is not what we are doing. But that is precisely what you are doing, whoever you are!

          BUT, like you suggested Ed, it all “falls flat” when you discover there’s no scripture for any of this.

          How sad!

          Loading...

43. Dr. Flowers,
    I think you can add Dr. J. Vernon McGee to the list of those who do not believe in Calvinism.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Michael. Your link was removed. Leighton usually doesn’t read comments, but you can try to catch him in comments on FB Soteriology101 Discussion Group, or Soteriology101 YouTube comments.

       Loading...

       Reply

44. From this morning’s reading / devotions:

    But no, all have turned away;
    all have become corrupt.
    No one does good,
    not a single one!

    Ps 14:3 (NLT)

    This reads an awful lot to me as though each individual *becomes* corrupt of their own volition. Not that they were born that way.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hi Steve,
       But some would try and get out of that by redefining the Biblical word “corrupt” to mean “innocent” but with an inclination toward sin. In other words, innocent because they haven’t sinned yet, but inherently corrupt in nature.

       The difference being, they are only interested in defining it in keeping with their theology. But those who want the truth, are interested in seeing it according to the scriptures.

       Loading...

       Reply

45. Thank you, Brian. I apologize. I didn’t know audio links were not accepted. However, here are several quotes from Dr. J. Vernon Mcgee regarding free will and election (as listed on the website examiningcalvinsim.com) where Dr. McGee holds to a free will view of salvation. Blessings, Michael.

    According to McGee, being “chosen in Christ,” means being chosen as a believer. This is in stark contrast to the core principles of Calvinistic Election, which holds that God sovereignly creates certain people to comprise His “elect” sheep, whom on that account, He gives the faith to believe at the moment that He wants them to believe, and hence they are not chosen on the basis of being believers, but chosen to become believers.

    J. Vernon McGee: “God chose believers in Christ before the foundation of the world, way back in eternity past.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.27, emphasis mine)

    J. Vernon McGee states: “God sees the believer in Christ and He accepts the believer just as He receives His own Son. That is wonderful. That is the only basis on which I will be in heaven. I cannot stand there on the merit of Vernon McGee. I am accepted only in the Beloved. God loves me just as He loves Christ, because I am in Christ.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.38, emphasis mine)

    J. Vernon McGee states: “I cannot repeat often enough that election is God’s choosing us in Christ.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.33, emphasis mine)

    J. Vernon McGee states: “It is the overall purpose and plan of God that believers should have a part in Christ’s inheritance. They are going to inherit with Christ because they are in Christ.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.50, emphasis mine)

    J. Vernon McGee comments on 1st John 2:2: “By the way, that answers once and for all the question of a limited atonement, that is, that Christ died only for the elect. This verse in 1 John makes it clear that He died for the world. I don’t care who you are, there is a legitimate offer that has been sent out to you today from God, and that offer is that Jesus Christ has died for the world. I don’t care who you are, there is a legitimate offer that has been sent out to you today from God, and that offer is that Jesus Christ has died for you. You can’t hide and say, ‘I am not one of the elect.’” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.29)

    J. Vernon McGee writes: “God has never predestined anybody to be lost. If you are lost, it is because you have rejected God’s remedy. It is like a dying man to whom the doctor offers curing medicine. ‘If you take this, it’ll heal you.’ The man looks at the doctor in amazement and says, ‘I don’t believe you.’ Now the man dies and the doctor’s report says he died of a certain disease, and that’s accurate. But may I say to you, there was a remedy, and he actually died because he didn’t take the remedy. God has provided a remedy. Let me repeat, God has never predestined anybody to be lost. That’s where your free will comes in, and you have to determine for yourself what your choice will be.’” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.35)

    J. Vernon McGee writes: “One drop of the blood of the holy Son of God can save every sinner on topside of this earth, if the sinner will put his trust in the Savior.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, pp.41-42)

    The blood of Christ is God’s remedy for sin and His provision for salvation. When a person believes in Him, he receives the remedy. But until then, the blood of Christ remains as an unused medicine.

    J. Vernon McGee: “God’s reconciliation is already complete. He is ready to receive you if you are ready to come.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.83)

    J. Vernon McGee: “Because He bore it for us upon the cross, our sins are forgiven, and we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, you don’t have to do anything so that God will forgive you; Christ has already done it when He died for you. All you have to do is believe and receive Christ.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Hebrews, p.63)

    J. Vernon McGee comments on John 3:16: “The Lord has extended the invitation. Whosoever will may come. Don’t try to say that you are left out. God so loved the world.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.30)

    J. Vernon McGee: “Does it say God so loved the world that He saved the world? No, that’s exactly what it doesn’t say. God so loved this world that He gave His only begotten Son. You see, God couldn’t save the world by love because He goes on to say, ‘that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.’ You and I are going to perish. We’re lost sinners, and God still loves us, but the love of God can’t bring us into heaven. God had to provide a salvation, and He paid the penalty for our sins.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.75)

    J. Vernon McGee: “God has His arms outstretched to a lost world and He says, ‘You may come if you will come My way.’ Let me remind you that this is God’s universe, and He is doing things His way. You may think you have a better way, but you don’t have a universe to rule. He makes the rules in His universe and you’re going to have to come His way. He loves you; you can’t keep Him from loving you. Neither can you keep the sun from shining, but you can get out of the sunshine. Sin, being out of the will of God, turning your back on Him, all these will keep you from experiencing the love of God. If you will come to Him through Christ, He will save you and you will experience His love. God is rich in mercy.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: Ephesians, p.76)

    Loading...

    Reply

46. I didn’t grow up in a church that was Calvinist however I could not reconcile my mind with the Calvinist idea of penal substitutionary atonement. I spent a great deal of time reconciling my understanding with scripture and not the opinions of others. Which brings me here.

    Provisionalism is a refreshing take compared to Calvinism. However, I may be overlooking the mechanism of salvation. Is it still penal substitution?

    Through much study and prayer I have come across an alternative perspective that resolves my issues and is so expressed in scripture that it seems that I had to be taught to overlook it. The ransom theory of atonement is that we are slaves to sin and Christ became our brother and died to ransom us from Satin’s kingdom. I have much more to say about this and how it works if anyone is interested in listening. It completely changes the soteriology I grew up with.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Samuel and welcome
       .
       Although we do find some people deliberating over some of the more tangential elements orbiting around Calvinism such as substitutionary atonement – it is critical to not forget the more critical aspects of the doctrine.
       .
       Per the doctrine – Calvin’s god has two provisions for mankind:
       1) His first provision is for the MANY
       He creates/designs the MANY specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
       Because this provision is for the MANY – it is his PRIMARY provision for mankind.
       .
       2) His SECONDARY provision for mankind – is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
       .
       As you can see – Calvinism’s doctrine does not have Jesus or his redemptive role as its focus
       The doctrine’s focus is on divine control and divine sovereignty.
       .
       The role that Jesus plays is non-essential – because divine sovereignty can choose any means it wishes in order to carry out any form of redemptive role.
       .
       In Calvinism – Jesus – and the death of Jesus simply functions as a MEANS to an end.
       But in Calvinism – divine sovereignty could just as easily offered no redemption at all.
       And all humans throughout the human time-line could simply be created/designed for nothing more than eternal torment – for his good pleasure.
       .
       blessings
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Thank you for your reply. I agree Calvin is wrong to assert that the primary provision of torture for many and salvation for few is illogical and would not be necessary if there assertions were correct.

          However I do not believe that penal substitution is a peripheral issue. Rather it is the core principle that requires Calvin to come to his conclusions. For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of penal substitution I will give a brief overview of the concept. The argument of penal substitution is as follows:

          1. God is holy and cannot allow sin to go unpunished
          2. All have sinned
          3. No one can pay the penalty for sin except someone who is perfect
          4. God gave his son to pay the penalty for sinners so that they can be saved
          5. It’s ok to sacrifice the son because he is part of the trinity and it’s all one person anyway.
          6. God’s wrath is satisfied with the payment and the redeemed are absolved of guilt and restored to right relationship with God.

          This is the core issue in communicating the Gospel. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross and how was that effectual to redeem?

          Ezekiel 18 is written almost as a treatise against penal substitution. No one can pay for anyone else’s sin. And upon repentance there is forgiveness offered. Both the availability of forgiveness and the inability for imputation to be effectual contradict core principles of penal substitution.

          I submit that the entire work of Calvin should be rejected and not just the tulip. I suppose that I have similar objections to Michael Servetus’. Unfortunately they cost him his life and the critique is no longer existent.

          Why is the trinity such a big deal? That has bothered me for a while. It would seem that scriptures would emphasize something that was an absolute for Christian fellowship. It is my understanding that it became an absolute in order to justify the murder of Sevetus. Also the existence of a trinity is a necessary premise in the argument of penal substitution. Understand I am not arguing against the trinity. I am trying to understand why it’s given disproportional emphasis to that given to it in scripture.

          If not penal substitution then how can Christ be the Randsom for our sins?

          Satan is the accuser of the brethren not God. God is love and love keeps no record of wrong. We were slaves to sin and Satan was the king of this world. C S Lewis wrote in the chronicle of Narnia that when Aslan died on the stone there was a dark magic that redeemed the world. So with Christ, when he died on the cross there were things in the law that ensnared satan, and ransomed us to Christ.

          Loading...

       2. Samuel,
          [penal substitution] is the core principle that requires Calvin to come to his conclusions.
          .
          br.d
          Samuel – all academia has acknowledges for many years – the core principle which requires Calvin to come to his conclusions is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) – as enunciated within his doctrine of decrees
          .
          John Calvin
          -quote
          The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
          .
          The foundational core of Calvinism is EDD
          It is the foundation and the corner-stone of the house of Calvinism
          And as the corner-stone EDD functions as the blue-print for the rest of the house.
          .
          Calvinism’s TULIP for example – simply function as ORNAMENTAL components upon the sides of the house.
          The underlying framework and foundation and structure which support the TULIP are EDD.
          .
          I applaud you however – for your disciplined manner of thinking and working to understand what is going on “Under the hood” in Calvinism..
          .
          But the essence of Calvinism is EDD.
          .
          Blessings!
          br.d

          Loading...

       3. I may have overstated my point about the core principle and I really would have to immerse myself into Calvin’s work to fully grasp the timeframes of what brought about what logical progressions. In as much as you assert that EDD is the core I can concede that without materially changing my argument.

          We agree EDD is bad too.

          Thanks and blessings to you too

          Loading...

47. Just a Christ gospel only christian .. to support Dr. Flowers bold stance for truth.. did not satan and his fallen angels have free will?? Isn’t that the reason of their choice?? Haven’t heard that on your platform unless I missed it.. if I did, forgive me!! Keep doing what you you’re doing brother!!

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Chris and welcome
       .
       And yes – your point is correct!
       What is critical to understand is that Calvinism is a belief system with very radical distinctions.
       So there are many concepts within Calvinism which also have radical distinctions.
       .
       Those concepts are enunciated within language but specific terms.
       The there are many words and terms within Calvinism which do not have the same meanings that NORMAL Christians understand.
       .
       Free-Will is one of the terms in Calvinism which has a NON-NORMATIVE meaning for the Calvinist.
       .
       1) In Calvinism NOTHING HAPPENS within creation unless it is established by a decree which is infallible.
       2) Everything that exists within creation (including every movement of every molecule) must be decreed
       3) An infallible decree cannot be countervailed or falsified
       4) So creation is not granted “Freedom” to countervail the infallible decree
       5) However – Calvin’s god must grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees
       6) IF he decrees [X] to come to pass – he must grant “Freedom” sufficient for [X] to come to pass
       7) But in such case – there is NO “Freedom” for [X] to DO OTHERWISE than what is decreed.
       .
       So lets use Adam in the garden as an example:
       1) It was decreed that Adam would [EAT]
       2) In such case – Adam must be granted “Freedom” to [EAT]
       3) But Adam is NOT granted “Freedom” to [NOT EAT] because that would countervail the decree
       .
       So for the Calvinist:
       1) If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T then
       2) Calvinist_A is granted “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
       3) But Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
       .
       So you will find Dr. Kenneth Wilson (see other articles here) call this NON-FREE FREEDOM
       .
       The Calvinist will tell you that man is granted “Free-will”
       But he will obfuscate the fact that “Free-Will” in Calvinism is NON-FREE Free-will
       .
       So you will find that Calvinist language is quite frequently a language of obfuscation.
       Because the Calvinist wants his system to APPEAR NORMAL when it really isnt.
       .
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Thank you so much for answering my reply. I’m so excited for your platform. I’ve been a john macarthur advocate for years. Got his resources in my library. But I always thought the calvinist approach was what Christ was telling the religious entities of His days, the woes as it were. Dr. Flowers.. that doctrine is what Christ preached against? Isn’t that Mathew 23:13! Has to be detrimental to new followers of Christ to here this doctrine! Bless you and your ministry!

          Loading...

       2. br.d
          Thank you very much Chris!
          Because Calvinism is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) it takes time for a NON-Calvinist to understand how concepts which one would take for granted – are radically different in Calvinism.
          .
          The same is true for the Atheist Determinist.
          The way the world works for the Atheist Determinist – are almost identical to the way the world works for the Calvinist.
          .
          Both systems (Atheist Determinism) and (Calvinist Determinism) are founded on Determinism
          So they share the same consequences of Determinism.
          .
          The difference between the two are the “DETERMINER”
          For the Atheist Determinist – NATURE is the DETERMINER of whatsoever comes to pass
          For the Calvinist – a THEOS is the DETERMINER of whatsoever comes to pass
          .
          Now here is a statement by Sean Carrol
          Sean Carrol is a nationally recognized Theoretical physicist
          But Sean is also an Atheist Determinst
          .
          Sean
          -quote
          There are 2 questions for the Determinist.
          1) How does the world work
          2) What words should we *ATTACH* to how the world works
          .
          Notice here that Sean is indicating – the Determinist has to find words which work to describe how a Deterministic world works.
          .
          Here is John Calvin – describing how a Deterministic world works in his mind
          .
          John Calvin
          -quote
          The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
          .
          So in Calvinism – everything without exception which happens is *DETERMINED*
          .
          For people who are not Determinists – the world does not work that way
          And the language that people who are NOT Determinists use – is going to be different
          The Determinist needs to find words which are *CONGRUENT* with Determinism – because that is the way his world works.
          .
          So there is language – which is *CONGRUENT* with Determinism
          And there is language which is NOT *CONGRUENT* with Determinism.
          .
          Here is an example:
          1) It was decreed that a sinful *IMPULSE* would infallibly come to pass in John MacArthur’s mind
          2) John MacArthur made a *CHOICE* concerning a sinful thought.
          .
          Sentence (1) above is *CONGRUENT* with Determinism
          Sentence (2) above is NOT *CONGRUENT* with Determinism.
          .
          What you are going to find – is that John MacArthur will be contemplating how he is going to explain a sinful thought.
          If MacArthur is to use language that is *CONGRUENT* with his belief system – he would speak sentence (1)
          But MacArthur is then going to be worried that his audience will not accept sentence (1)
          So MacArthur will re-frame what he is going to say – and opt for sentence (2) because he calculates his audience will find sentence (2) acceptable.
          .
          The problem with this – is that MacArthur is not being honest with his audience
          He is framing sentences based on calculating whether those sentences will be accepted by his audience
          .
          So what we start to understand – is that Calvinists are very concerned about their doctrine being accepted.
          And Calvinists will use language which is *NOT CONGRUENT* with Determinism for the sake of acceptance.
          .
          But when the Calvinist does that – he is using misleading language.
          .
          So you are going to find there are many statements Calvinists make which are actually in *DENIAL* of their own belief system.
          They will constantly make statements which are in *DENIAL* of their own belief system – because they want to paint a picture of Calvinism which they calculate you will accept.
          .
          If they use language that is *CONGRUENT* with Determinism – they know you will not accept many statements they make.
          So they use language that is NOT *CONGRUENT* with Determinism – for the sake of acceptance.
          .
          So while you are reading John MacArthur’s materials – you are going to be reading statements which are *DENIALS* of his doctrine.
          .
          This is an unfortunate – and yet very critical aspect about Calvinism that you will need to be aware of.
          Calvinist literature is misleading – because the Calvinist’s primary concern is acceptance
          He will sacrifice being TRUE to his doctrine for the sake of acceptance.
          .
          If John MacArthur were 100% TRUE to his doctrine – the NON-Calvinist audience would reject it.
          MacArthur – (along with all Calvinists) knows this is true.
          That is why all Calvinist literature is misleading.
          .
          The Calvinist will use language designed to paint a FALSE PICTURE of his belief system because he is concerned that if he tells the TRUTH – people will not accept Calvinism.
          .
          So it is critical to understand the conflict that Determinism forces on the Calvinist
          And once you understand that conflict – you will understand the misleading nature of Calvinist language.
          .
          blessings!
          br.d

          Loading...

48. Hello, I am a recovering 5-point Calvinist so be easy on me. I was recently asked by a brother in Christ that is not a Calvinist to look at scripture without the lenses that a Calvinist would wear to read through scripture. What I found was that Calvinism truly is a false doctrine. After study and searching for more about what scripture actually says, I stumbled across Soteriology 101. I have to say that it is a breath of fresh air, so thank you very much for what you are doing for the faith. The brother that I mentioned before is a member of a denomination that believes that Baptism is required for Salvation. He has shown me several passages, such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and several others and I truly don’t know what to believe on this topic, can you help me make sense of this? Thank you very much.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Eric and welcome
       And it is wonderful the hear the Lord delivered you from Calvinism.
       I think when you read posts here which outline what Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees stipulates – you will find further information that will confirm your analysis of Calvinism as a belief system which is TOO RADICAL to embrace.
       .
       On the subject of Baptism – there is one individual who posts here occasionally who I believe embraces the same belief – that the physical ritual of water baptism is required for salvation.
       .
       But all other participants (including myself) do not hold to that.
       .
       If it were truly a requirement by God – then it would follow that a person at the point of death who is given the Gospel message and believes upon Jesus as his savior – would not be saved simply because he did not get dunked in a body of water.
       .
       I tend to be a rational person – and I believe God is not irrational.
       And thus would not require a condition that is impossible for a person to meet.
       .
       But let me ask someone here who is familiar with the scriptures to respond to your question.
       .
       blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Welcome Eric… As concerning baptism…Acts 2:38 NKJV — Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

       Peter had just preached, “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (vs 21), with no mention of baptism as part of his gospel preaching. Now Peter called people to repent of their rejection of Jesus, exhorting them each to be baptized, presuming they were calling in faith “upon the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness” to be saved (Acts 2:38).

       Instead of the translation suggesting “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness”, the preposition – επί- suggests “each one be baptized, on the basis (of your calling in faith upon) the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”

       We learn from Peter more clearly how to interpret baptism’s disconnect from the moment of forgiveness by his experience and description of what happened to Cornelius. Cornelius trusted Christ immediately when hearing Peter’s preaching of the gospel of forgiveness through Jesus.

       God demonstrated that Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit and salvation’s forgiveness so that Peter exclaimed they should now be baptized (Acts 10:43-48). Peter later affirmed without mentioning baptism that Cornelius had received the HS and a purified heart through believing the gospel he heard (Acts 15:7-9).

       Peter clearly says baptism does not cleanse, but is an answer of an already 👉good conscience👈. (1Peter 3:21).

       Those who add baptism to the gospel make a false gospel and make the cross of Christ of no effect. (1Cor 1:17). But I find you can only present this truth to those who have defended baptismal salvation. You can’t convince those who have taught and defended it for years. Only God can, if they’ll let Him.

       Baptism is like a wedding ceremony. Does the Scriptures teach that a wedding ceremony makes one married, or does it just announce and confirm publicly the bond already formed by leaving, cleaving, and their hope for conceiving? But if one doesn’t want a wedding ceremony, one could easily doubt the commitment exists.

       So if one doesn’t want to get baptized, one could easily doubt they really are trusting in Jesus and have been born again.

       Another favorite verse they try to use to prove baptism is necessary for salvation is – Acts 22:16 NKJV — ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

       Act 22:16 — καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου 👉ἐπικαλεσάμενος👈 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου

       The baptizing and purifying of Paul’s testimony are after having called on the Lord in faith. The participle – “having called upon” – is Aorist tense and would normally be taken as an antecedent action to the main verb unless the context demands otherwise.

       Here the main verbs are “baptize yourself and wash away”. So the “calling upon the name of the Lord” is being assumed by Ananias as something Saul/Paul had already done, since Ananias was already informed Saul/Paul was praying (9:11) and was a chosen vessel for God. It is better translated, imo, as – “having called in the name of the Lord.”

       The word here for “wash” is also only used twice in the NT. I believe this verse is exhorting Paul to clean up his past testimony now as a believer. Paul speaks about this purification responsibility of believers in –
       2 Corinthians 7:1 NKJV — Therefore, having these promises, beloved, 👉let us cleanse ourselves👈 from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

       Note also that Luke records the inference that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (a sign of salvation) before being baptized. Acts 9:17-18 NKJV — And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

       Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

       Let me know if you have other questions.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hi Eric,
          I am the individual BRDMOD was referring to when he told you about one who believes baptism is necessary for salvation. I would like to answer the two passages you brought up, Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.

          First of all, its not that the command to be baptized and its purpose is difficult to understand, it’s not. What makes it difficult for people is unbelief and those who make it more convoluted than it ought to be — thus confusing people.

          Mark 16:15-16 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

          Notice v.15 Jesus tells the apostles to go preach the gospel in all the world. In v.16 He then gives the basis upon which one will be saved and upon which one will be condemned. He who believes the gospel AND is baptized will be saved. BUT he who does not believe the gospel will be condemned.

          Lets look at the conditions Jesus gives for salvation and condemnation in this verse.

          THE CONDITION FOR SALVATION is this… “he who believes AND is baptized — shall be saved.” Therefore, Jesus makes baptism a necessary condition of salvation in this verse. Can you imagine if Jesus had said, “He who believes and sticks out his right hand — shall receive a million bucks?” How many people would misunderstand that instruction? I can guarantee you there would be a long queue of people coming forward to stick out their right hand for that prize. Likewise, it is the one who believes the gospel and is baptized — he is the one who will be saved.

          THE CONDITION FOR CONDEMNATION is this… “but he who does not believe — will be condemned.” This is the part of the verse that many twist and confuse. They say, ‘See? Jesus makes no mention of baptism in the second half of the verse!’ If baptism was so necessary why didn’t Jesus include “not baptized” as part of being condemned? To answer that lets go back to the million bucks illustration. What if some did not believe? Would they come forward to stick out their right hand? No, certainly not! Their UNBELIEF would be the very thing that would prevent them and disqualify them as candidates! Likewise, our unbelief would not only stop us from coming forward to be baptized, it would also disqualify us as candidates. For that reason we would already be condemned at the first hurdle — UNBELIEF. Jesus had no need to mention baptism after that…there was no point!

          Loading...

       2. Aidan,

          You reference:
          Mark 16:15-16 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

          My response:

          But as I just showed, we had some believers in Acts that were already believers and were indeed baptized…in water…That didn’t work out so well. No Holy Ghost!

          But then we also have this, too:

          Matthew 28:19
          Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

          I don’t see any examples of “I baptize you in the name of YHVH, and in the name of Jesus, and in the name of…what’s the name of the Holy Ghost? First name Holy, last name Ghost?

          I never even seen any examples of the phrase, either, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

          All I see is “in the name of Jesus”. The apostles didn’t follow instructions very well.

          Loading...

       3. Hi Ed,

          I agree with you on Acts 19 concerning John’s baptism because it had become obsolete by then.

          But Acts 2:38 is talking about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This is not the same as the baptism of John in Acts 19.

          Also, I believe baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ would also be baptizing a person into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

          I believe we may have covered all of this before in previous conversations. So I don’t think we will make any more progress in this one either.

          Happy St. Patrick’s day☘️🥳

          Loading...

       4. Aidan,

          Yes, we never did settle the issue, either.

          You had said:
          “But Acts 2:38 is talking about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This is not the same as the baptism of John in Acts 19.”

          So, Acts 19:5
          5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

          ——————

          Acts 2:38
          38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

          But according to Acts 19, water didn’t do the trick to receive the Holy Ghost. So how can one get the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:38 if you think that the trick is in the water? Where does it say water in Acts 2:38?

          This is the same argument that we can also have with the book of James, too, regarding the word “works”. It means something completely different than Paul’s use in Romans 4…one word, two completely different topics.

          All Baptism means is “immersian”. Being immersed in the Holy Spirit isn’t the same as being immersed in water.

          I talk about this all the time regarding a small piece of real estate in the middle east, that there is a carnal, and there is a spiritual, where the carnal represents the spiritual.

          Promised Land equals:
          Carnal: Small piece of Real Estate in the Middle East
          Spiritual: Heaven

          Promised Seed…two things as well…
          Carnal: Isaac
          Spiritual: Jesus

          So, Baptism:
          Carnal: Water
          Spiritual: Holy Spirit

          The water is nothing more than a REPRESENTATION, or reflection of the REAL DEAL, but is not the real deal itself.

          That’s why we say that it’s an outward show of an inward thing.

          Before you had even responded today, I was going to post, Phe, Phi, Pho, Phum, I see the the coming of the Irishman! Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you, as well!

          Ed

          Loading...

       5. That’s right Ed, in Acts 19:3 when Paul met them they had only been baptized in John’s baptism which had become obsolete.

          But then when they heard that they should believe on Christ Jesus they got baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus in verse 5, which is also water, but a different baptism than John’s.

          The power is not in the water, but in the LORD’S NAME. As Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

          ☘️☘️☘️

          Loading...

       6. Aidan,

          You had said:
          “But then when they heard that they should believe on Christ Jesus they got baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus in verse 5, which is also water…”

          My response:

          Verse 6

          Acts 19:6
          6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

          No, Aidan, it was not water…it was the laying on of hands.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       7. Ed,
          In Acts 19:5 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Paul laid hands on them to impart spiritual gifts in Acts 19:6, which was something that was done by the apostles in the 1st century (cf. Acts 8:18).

          Loading...

       8. Aidan,

          Again, the subject was about receiving the Holy Ghost, and the WATER didn’t do the trick. The laying on of hands did. Why are you stuck on WATER?

          There is no commandment in any of the Bible that commands that Baptism is WATER. Especially in the following:

          Matthew 3:11
          I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

          John=water
          Jesus=Holy Ghost and fire

          John=obsolete, as you note. That only leaves Jesus.

          But, 8 glasses of water does the body good! I just mix my water with coffee grounds.

          Loading...

       9. Ed,
          The subject is water baptism. Holy Spirit baptism is another baptism.

          Jesus did command water baptism AFTER Johns baptism. Most all of the churches have practiced it since the beginning, or at least tried to. They didn’t pluck it out of the air, it came from the apostles themselves. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in water (not in the name of John, but in the name of Jesus). Peter specified water baptism in the name of Jesus etc, etc.

          Water baptism was certainly commanded and practiced in the name of Jesus. And THIS is the baptism that was commanded in the name of Jesus in Acts 2:38.

          Again, we’ve have discussed all of this before. And we both have our minds made up. Therefore I have nothing more to add to this conversation.☘️👍☘️

          Loading...

       10. Aidan,

           Are you familiar with Shirley Temple? Remember the face she would make sometimes, with the look that said, “my mind is made up!” LOL. Have a great day, Aidan!

           Ed

           Loading...

       11. YOU have a great day.

           And don’t call me Shirley.

           Loading...

       12. Ed,
           The subject IS water baptism. Holy Spirit baptism is another baptism altogether.

           Like we agreed, Johns baptism was water baptism and became obsolete.

           But Jesus also commanded WATER BAPTISM. Churches have practiced it from the beginning. They received it from the apostles.

           The 3000 were baptized in water. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in water. Peter commanded WATER BAPTISM in the name the Lord Jesus. It is foolish to deny that the baptism commanded in the NAME OF JESUS IS WATER.

           As I said, we’ve done this all before. We both have our minds made up. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this conversation.🤧☘️🤧👍☘️✌️

           Loading...

       13. Aidan,

           Laying on of hands…

           Acts 8:18
           And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

           Loading...

       14. Ed,
           In Acts 8:18 the apostles laid hands on them sometime after they had already being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:12,13,16). In other words, they were already saved.

           Loading...

       15. Adian,

           No, you are not saved until you get the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the promissary note…the Seal of Promise, God inside you, proving that you are a child of God. Without that, you are NOT SAVED.

           Loading...

       16. Ed,
           They ALREADY believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12,13). Therefore they were WELL SAVED according to Jesus “He who believes and is baptized WILL BE SAVED” (Mk. 16:16).

           And they already HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT according to Peter when they were baptized like those in Acts 2:38.

           We no longer have apostles today to come down and lay hands on Christians to impart miraculous gifts.

           Loading...

       17. br.d
           This depends upon what one means by “Get the Holy Spirit”
           .
           Acts 19
           He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
           And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
           .

           Loading...

       18. Curious point br.d, but I’m not sure what you mean.

           What’s also interesting is Paul’s next question. After he asks “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?” Paul then asks “Into what then we’re ye baptized?” Then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

           This follows the same pattern as Acts 2:38. Those who believed were told to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

           Loading...

       19. br.d
           Yes – I can see how this could be interpreted in two different ways.
           One Christian tradition will identify two different baptisms here
           One in which the person believes upon Jesus (with or without water) and receives the indwelling Holy Spirit
           And then later receives what they call the Baptism in the Holy Spirit – rather than the baptism in water
           .
           So my comment here appears to be a mute point.
           Thanks Aidan! :-]

           Loading...

       20. Thanks br.d🙂

           Loading...

       21. br.d
           You are welcome my friend!
           You are appreciated! :-]

           Loading...

       22. Ed,
           Yes, the apostles did lay hands on them in Acts 8:18. But that was after they had already believed the gospel and were baptized in verses 12,13, and 16.

           In other words, they were already saved:

           He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:15-16).

           Loading...

    3. Exhibit A: the thief on the cross (saved without baptism by Jesus own admission that he would “be with Him in paradise today)
       Exhibit B: Acts conveys that belief was usually or always followed by baptism, but I don’t read this as prescriptive for salvation – I read it as descriptive of what happened, and that baptism is simply a sacrament that doesn’t save us any more than taking communion saves us. Judas was not saved by eating the bread and the wine during the last supper.

       I realize that not all reading here agree with this, and I am a firm believer that everyone who repents and is truly saved SHOULD be baptized as an outward expression of what has occurred inwardly. But I do not believe it is a “MUST” requirement because there are more than a few “foxhole Christians” that get saved in the throes of death and are unable to get baptized (like the thief on the cross) – nor do I subscribe to Lutheran ideas of “emergency baptism”.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hi Eric,

          Acts 2:38 is another verse that needs to be clarified because of those who twist its meaning. Acts 2:38 reads — And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

          The context of this command is from verse 14 where Peter preaches the message of the gospel to them, they believe and are told to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, etc,.. which reminds us of what Jesus said in Mk. 16:16.

          In vs. 21 quoting the prophet Joel Peter says,
          “And it shall come to pass
          That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
          Shall be saved.’”

          From that point onward he begins to preach who the LORD is, namely Jesus, so that they might call on Him and be saved. Nor has he yet told them HOW to call on Him.

          Peter proceeds with proving who Jesus is. But then notice at the end of his sermon what he calls on them to believe: Peter said in Acts 2:36, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” So now they know WHO the LORD is they must call on.

          What’s their response? Acts 2:37 “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” So, they believed Peter’s message and want to know what to do. The question is, to do what? What to do to call on the name of the LORD, namely Jesus, and be saved.

          Peter gives them their answer in the next verse:

          Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” THIS is what they were told to do to call on the name of the LORD and be saved.

          Notice that even though they had already believed in (v.37), they are still in their sins in (v.38). They must now “Repent AND be baptized” in the name of the Lord (i.e. Jesus Christ) FOR the forgiveness of their sins, and gift of the Holy Spirit. This is where and how they were to call on the name of the LORD and be saved.

          Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized — for the forgiveness of your sins.
          Mt 26:28 This My blood poured out — for the forgiveness of sins.

          Just as Christ shed His blood “FOR the forgiveness of sins” they were to Repent and be Baptized in His name “FOR the forgiveness of your sins.”

          Loading...

       2. Aidan,

          The only problem I have with all this is:

          1. Acts 19:2
          He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

          So, here we have believers that did not get the Holy Spirit.

          But they were baptized in WATER already!

          3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

          Therefore, your water baptism is insufficient!

          4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

          5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

          Luke 3:16
          John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

          Acts 1:5
          For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

          Acts 11:16
          Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

          TWO different baptisms, but only ONE gets you the holy spirit, and it’s NOT from the water. Cornelious is a great example.

          Thererfore, I see NO COMMANDMENT at all, commanding anyone to get baptized in water…what I see is:

          “DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT SINCE YOU BELIEVED?”

          “No, but I was baptized in water already!”

          “But no Holy Ghost?”

          “Nope!”

          So much for the water! What verse is it that COMMANDS that you that you must be baptized in water? Specifically a COMMANDMENT of water. Or does it just say BAPTIZED?

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...