Practical Wisdom For Calvinists*

[b]Practical Wisdom For Calvinists*[/b]

[b]Practical & Theological Guidelines for Those
Who Embrace the "Doctrines of Grace"[/b]

[i](*With practical and spiritual applications for fellow SermonIndexers)[/i]

The following practical and theological items, although they apply to every believer regardless of their particular theological tradition, are especially directed to those who adhere to Reformed/Calvinistic theology.

[b]I. Recognize that Salvation is Broader than the Calvinist Camp.[/b]

1. All of us, at one time or another, were Arminian in our thinking. A professing Arminian may be just as unregenerate as a professing Calvinist, but one’s adherence to Arminian theology does not necessarily exclude them from the kingdom of God. It is disturbing to hear some Calvinists assign all Arminians to the lowest abyss while conveniently forgetting that they too, at one time, were Arminians. Although the great 18th century evangelist, George Whitefield, had his differences with the staunch Arminian John Wesley, he was able to see the hand of God in Wesley’s ministry and count him as a brother in Christ. Thus, we must be patient with our brethren and recognize that both ethical and theological maturity takes time. In fact, there are some truths that, for whatever reason, we may not yet be ready to receive – as Jesus told His own disciples, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12).

2. God commands us to accept one another in Christ, in spite of our differences (Romans 14:1; 15:7). If Christ has accepted our Arminian brethren, who are we to reject them? The 19th century Baptist preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, once said:

We give our hand to every man that loves the Lord Jesus Christ, be he what he may or who he may. The doctrine of election, like the great act of election itself, is intended to divide, not between Israel and Israel, but between Israel and the Egyptians – not between saint and saint, but between saints and the children of the world. A man may be evidently of God’s chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe the doctrine of final perseverance. We do hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any willful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus (New Park Street Pulpit [London: Passmore & Alabaster, Vol.6] p.303).

In another place, he also said:

Far be it from me to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views (cited in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966] p.65).

3. Most Arminians reject the Doctrines of Grace out of gross ignorance, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation on the part of sincere, but misinformed Calvinist’s. Thus, often they are not rejecting genuine Calvinism, but distortions of it. One’s heart may be right, while one’s head may be wrong.

4. Calvinism is not the Gospel. One is not saved by a proper understanding of election, Divine sovereignty, or the extent of the atonement. These issues, no doubt, are important, but they are not the core of the Gospel; they indirectly relate to the Gospel (as do many other Biblical teachings), but are not the essence of it. The puritan, John Bradford, stated: "Let a man go to the grammar school of faith and repentance, before he goes to the university of election and predestination." In the same way that it is wrong to detract from the Gospel message, so it is wrong to add to the Gospel message one’s particular theology. Once again, this is not to deny that the five-points of Calvinism are not important matters; but simply to point out that the minute one makes mandatory for salvation a correct understanding of election, effectual calling, or the extent of the atonement (regardless of how true they might be), they are guilty of adding to the Gospel. This is usually the error of young, zealous Calvinists (although not always), but to use the words of James, "My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).

[b]II. Don’t Make the Mistake of Accepting Everything "Reformed" or "Calvinistic."[/b]

1. Scripture alone is the final standard of authority for doctrine and practice (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21), not Luther, Calvin, Owen, or any other great Reformed theologian. This is not to deny that these men – and men from other theological traditions – have made great spiritual contributions to the church, but only that they are not the final arbiters of truth. I know that many Reformed people would assent to this, but how many truly practice it? If we accept everything under the banner of "Reformed" or "Calvinistic," without serious scriptural investigation, are we truly practicing "Sola Scriptura"? Let us not make a pope out of Calvin, Luther, or any other mere mortal (Jeremiah 17:5).

2. Be very careful about accepting entire systems of theology (e.g., Covenant theology, Dispensationalism). Most often, the truth is found somewhere in the middle – and usually, a system of theology contains a part of the truth, but not the whole of it. It appears that God has spread His truth throughout various theological traditions (Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) so that we might not put our trust in men or institutions, but in the testimony of God’s Word.

3. The truth is, some aspects of Reformed theology are erroneous.

A. Infant Baptism. For a thorough evaluation and refutation of this doctrine, see Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1978); T.E. Watson, Baptism Not For Infants (Worthing, England: Henry E. Walter, 1962); Alexander Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications [Reprint]); Greg Welty, A Critical Evaluation of Infant Baptism (Fullerton, CA: Reformed Baptist Publications, n.d.).

B. The Covenant of Grace. For a critique of this view, see Jon Zens, "Is There A ‘Covenant of Grace’?" Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1977, Vol.6/No.3), pp.43-53; Richard L. Mayhue, "Hebrews 13:20: Covenant of Grace or New Covenant: An Exegetical Note," The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall – 1996, Vol.7/No.2), pp.251-257.

C. The Reformed View of the Law. For an evaluation and critique of the traditional view of the Law and its relationship to the believer under the New Covenant, see Douglas J. Moo, "The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View," [Chapter 5] in The Law, The Gospel, and the Modern Christian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); "‘This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!’: The Foundation for New Covenant Ethics and Ecclesiology," [ed. Jon Zens] Searching Together (Summer – Winter, 1997, Vol.25/1,2,3); Fred G. Zaspel, "Divine Law: A New Covenant Perspective," Reformation & Revivial [Journal] (Summer – 1997, Vol.6/No.3); Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1988); John G. Reisinger, Tablets of Stone (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1989).

D. Theonomy. In fairness, not everyone who is Reformed accepts Theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism. I have noticed, however, that many who embrace the Doctrines of Grace, make the unfortunate mistake of accepting Theonomy. For a critique of this unscriptural system, see Jon Zens, "Moses in the Millennium: An Appraisal of Christian Reconstructionism," Searching Together (Vol. 17:2,3,4 – 1988); [eds. William S. Barker & W.R. Godfrey] Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

E. The Protestant Reformers Persecuted the Anabaptists and Catholics as Well as Sanctioned the Use of the Sword Against their Opponents. The Reformers had no scriptural authority to malign, persecute, and even kill such groups as the Anabaptists and Roman Catholics. While this is no longer a practice among those who are Reformed, there were many prominent Reformation theologians who thought it was perfectly acceptable – even to the point of citing Scripture for its justification (e.g., Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al.). This, once again, demonstrates how important it is to not accept everything that comes from the pen of our Reformation heroes since, not only did they err in their interpretation of Scripture at points, but they sometimes engaged in great acts of sin. The late historian, William Warren Sweet, was correct when he said:

There is a widespread notion among Protestant groups that the separation of church and state, and thus religious liberty, was one of the immediate products of the Reformation, that the early Protestants were advocates of a large tolerance, and that religious liberty was but the logical development of the principles held by all the Reformers. Just where this notion arose is difficult to say, and no reputable historian of our times would endorse it. The fact is that the rise of Protestantism was accompanied by an unprecedented outburst of intolerance (Religion in Colonial America, p.320).

J.C. Ryle, a favorite author among many Reformed people, was quite candid in stating:

Any religion, like that of Mahomet, who made converts with the sword, is not from above but from beneath. Any form of Christianity which burns men at the stake, in order to promote its own success, carries about it the stamp of an apostasy. That is the truest and best religion which does most to spread real, true peace (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Vol.4], pp.387-388).

In light of these statements, one wonders what Ryle, and even Reformed people today, would think of Calvin, who had Michael Servetus burned at the stake, or of Zwingli’s complicity in the drowning of the Anabaptists? These men, indeed, should have known better than to commit such evil deeds against other humans – particularly in the name of the Prince of Peace! But, as the old adage goes, "The best of men are men at best." For more on this, see Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1964); Leonard Verduin, The Anatomy of A Hybrid (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1976); William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans [Revised], 1996).

F. Rigid Clericalism/Unscriptural Ecclesiology. The Protestant Reformers as well as most Reformed churches today, have been unable to break with the strict clericalism which they have inherited from both Rome and Constantine. The Reformers were right in their soteriology (doctrine of salvation), but wrong in their ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). They rediscovered the Gospel, but were unable to fully recover the ecclesiology of the New Testament. Thus, in many respects, the Reformation was only a partial reformation. Not only did the Reformers fail to break with the rigid clericalism of their past (including the error of infant baptism), but church attendance in Protestant territories was compulsory. Thus, believers and unbelievers were forced to gather together under the same church membership:

It is one of the incredible paradoxes of history that the Reformers, who so boldly and effectively recaptured the Gospel of grace from its medieval distortion and restored the central message of justification by faith, should have retained the mass church of the mixed multitude, the territorial church of the Constantinian compromise, in which real faith was not a requirement for membership (H. Bender, These Are My People, p.70).

Unfortunately, much of the ecclesiology within our historic Reformed denominations is fraught with practices and cherished traditions which run counter to the New Testament. For further study, see Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1986); William A. Beckham, The Second Reformation (Houston, TX: Touch Publications, 1995); Greg Ogden, The New Reformation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Frank A. Viola, Rethinking the Wineskin (Brandon, FL: Present Testimony Ministry, 1997); Alex R. Hay, The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary (Published by the New Testament Missionary Union, 1947).

[b]III. Don’t View Any Period of Church History as Perfect[/b] (e.g., the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century), Nor Any Particular Group of Christians (e.g., the Reformers, Puritans, Anabaptists).

1. We must value the spiritual contributions of different men and different periods of time within church history, but never idolize them.

2. We must be willing to look at both the good as well as the faults of our spiritual and theological heroes.

3. We must seek to guard ourselves from the error of a party-spirit as well as from making a virtual pope out of Calvin or Luther – something which, by the way, the apostle Paul explicitly told us not to do (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-6; 4:1).

4. When we fail to realize the faults of our spiritual/theological heroes, or when we are guilty of idolizing the past, we end up:

A. Making man the measure or standard of righteousness, instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

B. We fail to see the progression of church history and end up chained to the past – not recognizing that each period of history has its own unique contribution and blessing (including ours in the twenty-first century).

C. Romanticizing the past ("the good-old days"). We end up viewing history from a romanticized perspective, rather than from reality, which includes both great achievements as well as great down-falls. If even the Bible records the failures and sins of the greatest saints (e.g., David, Peter, et al.), why should we then ignore the faults of lesser saints throughout church history (e.g., Calvin, Luther, et al.)? Perhaps one of the major reasons why God allowed the failures of various biblical characters to be recorded, is so that we would not idolize such persons nor form theological parties around them. For those willing to look at the faults of our Reformation and Puritan heroes – not for the purpose of discrediting them, but for the purpose of seeing a true picture – I recommend the following: Thomas N. Smith, "The Perils of Puritanism," Reformation & Revivial [Journal]: Puritanism I (Spring – 1996, Vol.5/No.2), pp.83-99; Jon Zens, "What Can We Learn From Reformation History?" Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1978, Vol.7/No.3), pp.1-13; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1964).

[b]IV. Because We Have Been Given Greater Scriptural Insight, Calvinists Should Be the Model of Humility and Love.[/b]

1. Consider the grace and blessings which God has lavished upon you: He could have chosen to create you into a mouse or even a cockroach but, instead, chose to make you into a member of the human race; He could have chosen to plant you in the most remote and harshest place on this planet but, instead, chose to plant you in the free and prosperous land of America; He could have left you in sin and darkness but, instead, chose to redeem you and adopt you as His child through Christ Jesus; And He could have left you in your Arminian confusion but, instead, chose to graciously reveal the Doctrines of Grace to you. Therefore, do you have any excuse for pride or arrogance toward others – particularly toward our Arminian brethren? As the apostle Paul says, "For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7).

2. Because of the tendency to become prideful over the Doctrines of Grace (1 Corinthians 8:1), we must continually remind ourselves of the words of our Lord: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35; cf. John 15:12,17; Romans 12:3,10; 1 Corinthians 13:4,13; Ephesians 4:1-3,32; Philippians 2:1-4; Colossians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:8; 1 John 3:14-18; 4:11). For further study, I highly recommend: Jonathan Edwards, Charity and its Fruits (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust [Reprint], 1969).

3. Seek to cultivate and improve such spiritual characteristics as patience, kindness, and non-retaliation. Robert Chapman, whom Spurgeon considered to be the most saintliest man he ever knew, once said: "There are many who preach Christ, but not so many who live Christ. My great aim will be to live Christ" (Robert L. Peterson, Robert Chapman: A Biography [Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1995] p.29). This, likewise, should be the goal of the Calvinist (or any believer for that matter).

4. The only way to reverse the common assumption that Calvinists are haughty and proud, is to simply not behave in this way.

5. Although those who adhere to the precious Doctrines of Grace should be ready always to articulate and explain their beliefs, we must be careful to not go looking for debates or disputes with our Arminian brethren – as Paul reminds us in Philippians 4:3, "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Let us also remember that we do not always have to have the last word, nor is it necessary to always "win the debate" – as Spurgeon wisely warned his own students at The Pastor’s College:

In all probability, sensible conversation will sometimes drift into controversy, and here many a good man runs upon a snag. The sensible minister will be particularly gentle in argument. He, above all men, should not make the mistake of fancying that there is force in temper, and power in speaking angrily. A heathen who stood in a crowd in Calcutta, listening to a missionary disputing with a Brahmin, said he knew which was right though he did not understand the language – he knew that he was in the wrong who lost his temper first. For the most part, that is a very accurate way of judging. Try to avoid debating with people. State your opinion and let them state theirs. If you see that a stick is crooked, and you want people to see how crooked it is, lay a straight rod down beside it; that will be quite enough. But if you are drawn into controversy, use very hard arguments and very soft words. Frequently you cannot convince a man by tugging at his reason, but you can persuade him by winning his affections (Lectures to My Students [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Reprint, 1977] Vol.1, p.188).

6. Christian love, however, does not exclude a proper and humble boldness. Proverbs 28:1 reminds us that "the righteous are bold as a lion" (cf. Acts 4:29,31; Philippians 1:14).

[b]V. Don’t Major on the Minors. Be very Careful Where You Plant Your Flag.[/b]

1. There are some issues or controversies not worth getting involved in – at least not to the point of disrupting the unity and peace of the church.

2. If you end up majoring on things not truly essential, you will either ignore those that are important and worthy of your efforts – or – people will tend to not take you seriously on vital matters because of your propensity to make a big deal over insignificant issues. This would be the spiritual or theological counterpart of "crying wolf." I am amazed at how many Christians are obsessed with reclaiming America as a "Christian Nation" or who spend most of their available time warning other Christians of the threat of secular humanism or the latest conspiracy theory, yet cannot define the doctrine of justification (Martin Luther believed that justification was the article by which the church stands or falls). Many of these same people want the Ten Commandments to be the moral basis for our country, yet cannot even name them! Quite frankly, if the Devil can divert you to endlessly chase unedifying or non-essential issues, he has won the day.

3. Don’t allow others to drag you into their personal theological controversies.

4. In many cases, those who are in constant friction with others over relatively minor theological issues, do so because: (1) They are spiritually immature; (2) Lack discernment in recognizing what is essential or non-essential; and (3) They engage in unimportant disputes because they’re not truly engaged in genuine spiritual warfare. It’s akin to soldiers, during peace-time, who concentrate on the relatively petty details of shining shoes or making certain that their uniforms are always starched because there’s no real war to fight. Thus, they spend much of their time concentrating on insignificant duties. Actually, the Christian who pursues "fruitless discussions" (1 Timothy 1:3-7) stands under the disciplining hand of God since, unlike the soldier who serves during peace-time, our war is not over, but continues to rage on until Christ returns (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Peter 5:8-9).

[b]VI. Recognize That You Can Learn From Those Who Are Outside of the Reformed Camp.[/b]

A number of years ago, a young Calvinist fellow told me, "I only read Reformed authors!" My immediate response was, "Why limit yourself?" Apparently, he thought that God only teaches those who are Reformed or that they are the only ones who have anything worthy to say. The truth is, God can use the lowliest or most uneducated saint to teach us His truth – including our Arminian brethren. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to agree with everyone we converse. It does mean, however, that we must be willing to listen to those outside of our theological tradition and to accept that which agrees with Scripture and reject that which doesn’t. Don’t limit the avenues which are available for your instruction and sanctification.

[b]VII. Seek to Be A Man/Woman of the Text of Scripture.[/b]

That which separates the men from the boys, theologically speaking, is the ability to define and defend one’s theology from the biblical text. Some Christians argue their case from philosophy or general theological assumptions, but the Christian who is able to articulate his views from Scripture itself will stand head over everyone else because, not only does he have a proper starting-point, but his arguments will carry greater weight because they come from God’s Word. Instead of speaking in vague generalities about spiritual or theological matters, they are able to precisely and exegetically support their opinions because they are daily studying the contents of Scripture. To his own students, Spurgeon wisely advised:

There is one book which you all have, and that is your Bible; and a minister with his Bible is like David with his sling and stone, fully equipped for the fray. No man may say that he has no well to draw from while the Scriptures are within reach. In the Bible we have a perfect library, and he who studies it thoroughly will be a better scholar than if he had devoured the Alexandrian Library entire. To understand the Bible should be our ambition; we should be familiar with it, as familiar as the housewife with her needle, the merchant with his ledger, the mariner with his ship. We ought to know its general run, the contents of each book, the details of its histories, its doctrines, its precepts, and everything about it . . . A man who has his Bible at his fingers’ ends and in his heart’s core is a champion in our Israel; you cannot compete with him: you may have an armory of weapons, but his Scriptural knowledge will overcome you; for it is a sword like that of Goliath, of which David said, "There is none like it" (Lectures to My Students [Vol.1], pp.195-196).

[b]VIII. In Purchasing Books, Be Selective and Purchase Only the Best.[/b]

A man’s library is a good indicator of his thinking and theology. The wise believer, therefore, should not waste his money or time on the sensational and shallow. Although the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 12:12 are true ("the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body"), this does not undermine the value of securing profitable books which help to inform our minds and clarify the meaning of Scripture (2 Timothy 4:13).

[b]IX. The Calvinist, Above All Others, Should Seek to Be Productive in His Walk For Christ.[/b]

1. Knowledge brings accountability. The more knowledge that one has of the Word of God, the more accountable they are to live in obedience to it and to manifest the fruits which spring from that knowledge. Thus, there is no excuse for an unproductive and lazy Calvinist. Don’t be a spiritual fat cow!

2. Don’t settle for low levels of grace within your life. Seek to excel in your Christian walk – as Paul urges us in Romans 12:11, "not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord" (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:58; 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10; Hebrews 6:10-12).

3. Practice disciple-making. It amazes me how many people grow in the Doctrines of Grace and who excel in their grasp of God’s revelation, but who never make any effort to disciple others. Think of the many experienced and older Christian men who never impart their wisdom and knowledge to younger men. In my opinion, this is a waste of the rich spiritual and intellectual resources which God has given to each one of us, as well as disservice to the body of Christ. For more on mentoring and disciple-making, see Paul D. Stanley & J. Robert Clinton, Connecting (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1992); Bill Hull, The Disciple Making Church (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1990).

4. Be optimistic about your future and service unto Christ – as was William Carey, the founder of modern missions, who said: "Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God."

5. The Calvinist should seek to be the model of hospitality and charity (Romans 12:13; 1 Peter 4:9).

6. Be generous and liberal in your giving to others (Deuteronomy 15:10; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4; 9:7). William S. Plumer, "He who is not liberal with what he has, does but deceive himself when he thinks he would be more liberal if he had more." Henry Ward Beecher, "In this world it is not what we take up but what we give up that makes us rich."

[b]X. Develop A Theology of Listening.[/b]

1. So often, when we converse with other believers, we tend to talk past each other because we have not learned the value and discipline of listening. James 1:19 tell us, "But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger."

2. I am persuaded that most of our doctrinal controversies throughout church history could have been solved or perhaps eased had Christians been more willing to listen carefully to one another.

3. Learn to be patient with the verbal blunders of others – "For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well" (James 3:2).

4. As hard as it may seem, learn to value the criticism that you receive from others. Spurgeon wisely advised his own students at the Pastor’s College in London to not view criticism as necessarily a bad thing:

You must be able to bear criticism, or you are not fit to be at the head of a congregation; and you must let the critic go without reckoning him among your deadly foes, or you will prove yourself a mere weakling. It is wisest always to show double kindness where you have been severely handled by one who thought it his duty to do so, for he is probably an honest man and worth winning . . . The best of people are sometimes out at elbows and say unkind things; we should be glad if our friends could quite forget what we said when we were peevish and irritable, and it will be Christ-like to act towards others in this matter as we would wish them to do towards us . . . A sensible friend who will unsparingly criticize you from week to week will be a far greater blessing to you than a thousand undiscriminating admirers if you have sense enough to bear his treatment, and grace enough to be thankful for it. When I was preaching at the Surrey Gardens, an unknown censor of great ability used to send me a weekly list of my mispronunciations and other slips of speech. He never signed his name, and that was my only cause of complaint against him, for he left me in a debt which I could not acknowledge. I take this opportunity of confessing my obligations to him, for with genial temper, and an evident desire to benefit me, he marked down most relentlessly everything which he supposed me to have said incorrectly. Concerning some of these corrections he was in error himself, but for the most part he was right, and his remarks enabled me to perceive and avoid many mistakes. I looked for his weekly memoranda with much interest, and I trust I am all the better for them (Lectures to My Students [Vol.2], pp.169-170,175).

5. Criticism Will:

A. Keep you humble. Criticism helps to deflate swollen-egos.

B. Inform and educate you.

C. Keep you dependent upon your heavenly Father.

D. Help to confirm that you are not a man-pleaser – as Jesus warned His own disciples: "Woe to you when all men speak well of you" (Luke 6:26).

[b]XI. Don’t Allow Your Past Failures to Hinder Your Service to God.[/b]

1. It’s important to remember that the greatest of men within redemptive history have had their short-comings and failures, yet we still used by God. Therefore, "Let us press on to maturity" (Hebrews 6:1; cf. Philippians 3:12,14).

2. Don’t allow yourself to fixate on the failures and sins of your Christian life, but look to the greater work of sanctification that God is doing in your life. Soldiers don’t quit! John Owen, "Think of the guilt of sin, that you may be humbled. Think of the power of sin, that you may seek strength against it. Think not of the matter of sin . . . . lest you be more and more entangled."

3. While it is granted that a Christian may act hypocritical at times, a genuine believer will not continuously live a life of hypocrisy (1 John 3:9-10). Henry Scudder, in his classic work, The Christian’s Daily Walk, writes:

Uprightness being part of sanctification, is not fully perfect in this life; but is mixed with some hypocrisy, conflicting one against the other. It has degrees, sometimes more, sometimes less . . . A man is not to be called an upright man, or a hypocrite, because of some few actions wherein he may show uprightness or hypocrisy: for a hypocrite may do some upright actions, in which he does not dissemble, though he cannot be said to do them in uprightness; as Jehu destroyed the wicked house of Ahab, and the idolatrous priests of Baal, with all his heart (2 Kings 10). And the best man may do some hypocritical and guileful actions, as in the matter of Uriah, David did (1 Kings 15:5). It is not the having of hypocrisy that denotes a hypocrite, but the reigning of it, which is, when it is not seen, confessed, bewailed, and opposed. A man should judge of his uprightness rather by his will, bent, and the inclination of his soul, and good desires, and true endeavors to well doing in the whole course of his life, than by this or that particular act, or by his power to do. David was thus esteemed a man according to God’s own heart, no otherwise; rather by the goodness of the general course of his life, than by particular actions: for in many things he offended God, and polluted his soul, and blemished his reputation (pp.159-160).

[b]XII. Recognize That Your Greatest Power is Found in Prayer.[/b]

E.M. Bounds once said, "To give prayer the secondary place is to make God secondary in life’s affairs." In his book, The Weapon of Prayer (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Reprint, 1991), he further stated:

The men to whom Jesus Christ committed the fortunes and destiny of His church were men of prayer. To no other kind of men has God ever committed Himself in this world. The apostles were preeminently men of prayer. They gave themselves to prayer. They made praying their chief business. It was first in point of importance and first in results. God never has, and He never will, commit the weighty interests of His kingdom to prayerless men, who do not make prayer a conspicuous and controlling factor in their lives. Men who do not pray never rise to any eminence of piety. Men of piety are always men of prayer. Men who are not preeminently men of prayer are never noted for the simplicity and strength of their faith. Piety flourishes nowhere so rapidly and so rankly as in the closet. The closet is the garden of faith (p.33).

Written by Darryl M. Erkel (1998)

To all my "calvi" friends.......

Who invented the doctrine of "once saved always saved"? or if you are unwilling to answer that one maybe this one....

Who made popular the doctrine of "once saved always saved"?

Am i incorrect in stating that it is a new addition to the calvinist line of preaching? And those words where never spoken by good ol calvin?

Just a querie......

funny that Leonard Ravenhill says in one of his sermons "Im not to sure if Calvin will be there, (heaven) but thats a different story." LOL

ciao

You might try perusing here [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=8093&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Once Saved Always Saved[/url]

Sound advice and pleasant to read. I would humbly recommend this to all the brethren.

Some sound advice from a wise man.

God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "Oh Lord Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints. -A.W. Tozer

Brother Mike,
You have touched upon a fountainhead of things with this. Truly, we the Body must be united in Christ alone. I think it is a bit ironic, how we are Christians, but that is not good enough. Then we have to throw on other brands such as pre-trib, post-trib, ammillenial, post millenial on into infinity. Then we search for those who agree with us on our "pet doctrines", and further divide the Body thinking that our approved viewpoint is somehow more "spiritual" than that of the others who are thinking the same thing about us :-D .
It is very interesting to see how Paul adressed this when he spoke to the Corinthians, and said, "some say I am of Apollos, some I am of Cephas, some I am of Paul..." We really are no different today by the way. But his diagnosis of the situation should cause each of us to examine ourselves- "1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men."
Let us labour brethren to simply be concerned for the essentials, but not to be dogmatic about what GOD has been quiet about. If ever there was a time that the world needed to see a true demonstration of Christ and His Church it would be right about now. Didn't Jesus say " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Notice He didn't say it would be by our wonderfull viewpoints on eschatology, or election, or arminianism, but love one to another.
Thank you Mike for this wonderful piece.

Who made popular the doctrine of "once saved always saved"?

I would say it was first the Lord Jesus:

"My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me and I give eternal Life to them and they shall never perish and no one is able to snatch them out of My Hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand"

Following the Lord, the Epistles give us a clear view of our secure salvation in Christ based on the nature of salvation being not in our faithfulness but first in God's selection, then in Christ's finished work on the Cross and finally in His all victorious overcomming Life which indwells each regenerated believer.

And also based on the nature of regeneration which brings the Life of God into our redeemed, regenerated spirit making us children of God with His Life and nature. This is our garentee of eternal Salvation. God has given us Eternal Life. This Life is in His Son. He who has the Son (present tense) has the Life (present tense).

The basis, the nature, and the end of salvatin are all based in Christ. The only way for a regenerated child of God to lose his salvation is for Christ to perish. As those who have been baptised into Christ, who are joined to the lord as one spirit with Christ (1 Cor 6:17) and to whom Christ has been made unto them wisdom rightousness, sanctification, and redemption, we can perish only if Christ perishes becasue we are in HIm.

"AS in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

This is not some 16th century invention, it is the testimony of the Word of God and held by saints throughout the ages in one degree or another. It is the faith once for all delivered to the saints and the apostle's teaching.

Romans 8:29,30,33 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of HIs Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified... Who shall bring a charge against God's chosen ones?". (note, this is Paul's words, not Calvin's).

Graftedbranch

Grafted branch wrote:

"I would say it was first the Lord Jesus:"

Yes, time after time. Truth by the Word of God.

Amen, not to end a prayer but to agree with man and God, or man enlightened in agreement with God.

In Christ: Phillip

Graftedbranc wrote:

[b]John 10:27-29[/b] My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me
[b]:28[/b] and I give eternal Life to them and they shall never perish and no one is able to snatch them out of My Hand.
[b]:29[/b] My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand

We can wlk out of his hand.
If we can't, what love is that?

If you lock you wife in the house so she won't leave, wouldn't you wrather give her, her own choice to leave and trust that she loves you enough not to leave?

It is our love for God(for He first loved us) that keeps us in his hand.

Did you know that Aleister Crowley was saved?
He grew up in a staunch Plymouth Brethren household. His father, after retiring from his daily duties as a brewer, took up the practice of preaching at a fanatical pace. Daily Bible studies and private tutoring were mainstays in Aleister childhood;
But, Crowley gained much notoriety during his lifetime, and was famously dubbed "The Wickedest Man In the World."
He was OSAS.

Logic,

I do not necessarily believe in eternal security at this point in time... But I must assert it sounds to me like Aleister Crowley was a "false convert". Just because his father was Christian did not make Aleister a Christian worth a hill of beans. Often preachers kids are notorious for being false converts.

I'm reminded of the time the pharisees mentioned they had Abraham as their father... Whoop-dee-doo! ;-) (MAtt.3)

Overall, to base doctrine on the testimony of one single historical figure is silly.

Adam

i'd have to agree, just like a lot of people who have Christian parents etc and say they were a Christian it doesn't mean they are, eg the guy that Ray Comfort had the Atheist debate with said he was a Christian for 20 years and went to Church etc then realised it was all false. Its obvious he was never a Christian. The list of people could go on.

heya guys concerning the following verse, who is it that turn the grace of God into lasciviousness?

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

God bless u all!

And also to anyone else i would like to ask the following question, if we deny God will He deny us?

ciao

We can wlk out of his hand.

If we come into His hand by being born of the Spirit, how do we walk out of His hand? How do we choose to be "unborn of the Spirit?

What love would it be for a FAther to say, Yes, my child must love me and stay in my hand of his own accord therefore if my little child lets go of my hand and runs into the fire I will not prevent it?

This is ludicras.

God's love is not seen in His allowing us to perish. His love is seen in His keeping us. "They shall never perish and no one is able to snatch them out of My Hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are One."

Eternal Life is not a destination we are headed to if we keep on the right road. Eternal Life is the Life of God which is in the Son and which enters into us when we believe into the Lord Jesus. Eternal Life is the Life of God of which we are born when we believe and it is not something that we can lose as we have become "one spirit' with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17).

A believer has been regenerated and has been born of the Spirit of God, has the Life of God and the nature of God within him and will never perish.

"For God demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us'. Here is God's Love demonstrated. Where is our choice in this? WE did not say, "Lord, send Christ to die for us". WE did not say, "Lord redeem me".

Rather God sent His Son into the world to save sinners. And He died on the Cross to redeem us. And God sought us by the Spirit to woo us, to convict us, and to reveal Christ to us and to draw us to Him. And God enabled us to believe into Him and regenerated us and made us children of God with His Life and His Nature.

As Children of God with the Life of God, God as a loving Father keeps us, diciplines us, nourishes us, cherishes us, and will not let us go, nor will He alow us to perish. And all believers will finally be saved though many will suffer loss and dicipline at the Lord's judgement seat.

God initiated our salvation and God will complete our salvation body, soul, and spirit.

Graftedbranch

Did you know that Aleister Crowley was saved?

On what do you base your conclusion this man was saved? If you consider being "saved" as some act of commitment you perform and maintaining salvatin is based on maintaining this "commitment" then yes, one could lose it.

But salvation is not something we do, it is something God does. It is God convicting us of our lost condition apart from Christ. It is God revealing Christ to us by the Spririt through the gospel, It is God drawing us to Himself and making Christ desirable to us and drawing us to turn to Him in repentance, and it is God who gives us faith to believe into Him.

And as a result of this faith, God applies the Blood of Christ and enters into ur dead spirit regenerating us as flame ignites a lifeless wick.

And God takes up His abode in our regenerated spirit forever, we are made members of Christ, members of His body, and we are joined to Him organically forever.

To be "saved" is not some thing we did way back when by praying a prayer or making some commitment or taking up bible reading or church attendance. To be saved is to be born of God. It is to partake of Christ, to be regenerated with His Life and to be made a child of God, "the Spirit Himself witnessing with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also..."

Graftedbranch

2. Be very careful about accepting entire systems of theology (e.g., Covenant theology, Dispensationalism). Most often, the truth is found somewhere in the middle – and usually, a system of theology contains a part of the truth, but not the whole of it. It appears that God has spread His truth throughout various theological traditions (Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) so that we might not put our trust in men or institutions, but in the testimony of God’s Word.

([i]Edit- Best to make a distinction between the quote above and what follows, was trailing off the implication of 'systems of thought' or "theology" as to the remainder here[/i])

Problem with phraseology of this sort (OSAS) is it's intrinsic round hole\\square peg abilities. It is a poor way of expressing a truth and the mindlessness of a catch phrase like OSAS is the way it is codified right along side the now popular evangelical magic formula of [i]saying[/i], 'repeating' a "sinners prayer", completing the transaction and rubber stamping it with "OSAS" go on one's happy way, nothing to be concerned about, '[i]Don't let anyone tell you otherwise[/i]'.

The only salvation there is, is not by transaction, but by birth. New birth. Have made mention of this before but to tell a regenerated, re-born soul 'once saved, always saved' is the height of stupidity and absurdity, it is on the level of telling a starving man that he is hungry.

Would posit it in the opposite or perhaps the negative; If one must be so concerned whether he or she is mindful about their 'eternal security' then perhaps it would be good to meditate long and hard on;

[i]Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; [u]prove your own selves[/u]. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?[/i] 2Co 13:5

This 'doctrine' is reeking all kinds of havoc in this day by putting the cart before the horse. The amount and level of presumption being promoted, accepted and taught today is staggering. Who would dare to be so audacious as to [i]pronounce[/i] unequivocally to another human spirit 'You are saved' using these modern methods?

The old timers had it correct when they spoke of those [i]being saved[/i] as in [i]process[/i]. It is ultimately the exact opposite; Those who have been saved will know and will be [u]telling us[/u] what incredible change has taken place. If one hasn't been arrested with the fact that everything has become new, different and beyond even ones articulation, the whole inner disposition radically altered, a sorrow for sin and want of repentance, a love of God and seeking after Him with all the heart ... We don't need [i]fruit inspectors[/i], fruit is evident, change is evident, either one is changed or not changed, there is no muddy middle of half-born souls.

Surely there is a caveat for a new believer grappling with the dying of the natural and the growth of the spiritual, for their assurance and misplaced fears and the bombardment of the world, the flesh and the devil. Is it not to these that the verses of the Lord are for, those mentioned earlier? And are they not those that speak to the heart that already has begun to gasp and pant after Gods heart, to point them to, not for us to use Willy-nilly as a balm for every conceivable mis-construct crafted out of human empathy and emotion.

It is a wretched and diabolical lie to assuage the guilty and unregenerate soul with a crafty catch all-catch phrase the way it is used predominantly in this hour and why it ought to just be done away with wholesale.

Graftedbranc wrote:

On what do you base your conclusion this man was saved? If you consider being "saved" as some act of commitment you perform and maintaining salvatin is based on maintaining this "commitment" then yes, one could lose it.

But But salvation is not something we do, it is something God does.

Think of our salvation not thing but as a Person, and arelationship.

[b]John 17:3[/b] [color=990000]Now this is eternal life: that they shall be knowing You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent.[/color]
Eternal life means to know Jesus.
To know Him is to love Him.
Don't get me wrong, Salvation is [b]VERY[/b] dificult to loose, never the less, people have divorced God, left him because of suffering comes, or persecution because of the word.
Eternal life means to know Jesus.
To know Him is to love Him.
Don't get me wrong, Salvation is VERY dificult to loose, never the less, people have divorced God, left him because of suffering comes, or persecution because of the word.

But if it is something God does,
The action is saving us from HIS wrath.

Dear brother, we are saved from sin, don't doubt it. I give to you the very words of God "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

And now beside all that, if we make our focus JESUS CHRIST, and keep our eyes fixed on Him alone, we will not have to worry about sinning but becoming more like Him.

And it's no longer I doing the work but Christ that lives in me. If I have presented my body as a living sacrifice and like David pray "...bind the sacrifice with cords, even to the horns of the altar." Psalm 118:27 and I give myself wholly to the Lord so that I am not in any way my own, I will not sin because IT IS CHRIST THAT LIVES IN AND THROUGH ME AND CHRIST WILL NOT SIN. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9 In the verse previous to that one it states that the work of Christ is to destroy the work of the devil which is sin. So if sin is still a part of your life, the work of Christ has not been done in you.

There is such freedom in that: the grace of God IS sufficient, He Is able to keep me from falling (Jude 24), He alone must do the work for I can not, I am dead.

All praise to Christ alone. God bless you all my brethern.

Victor

vico wrote:

Dear brother, we are saved from sin, don't doubt it. I give to you the very words of God "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

Jesus is Greek for Joshua or Yehoshúa.
Hebrew(יְהוֹשֻׁעַ "Yeho/YHVH is help/delivers

The word "saves" is a bad translation.

W_D_J_D wrote:
funny that Leonard Ravenhill says in one of his sermons "Im not to sure if Calvin will be there, (heaven) but thats a different story." LOL

I don't know for a fact, but I would assume he was saying that because of what happened with Michael Servetus, not because he believed in perseverance of the saints.

I don't care if you want to translate it save or deliver or what, I'm too stupid to study greek and hebrew. But I know this that I am free from sin, and alive unto righteousness. I have been commanded by Christ like the woman caught in the act of adultry "GO, AND SIN NO MORE". I cannot fulfill that myself and that is why I am abiding in Christ.

Praise Him, Praise God, Glory!

Victor

Vico,

I absolutely refuse to let you call yourself stupid when you are not !! :)

In the past, I tried to learn Dispensationalism and Calvinism, they both helped me a great deal in many areas of interpretation, and they both confused me a lot as well. I now see them only as humanistic tools for textual comprehension, rather than spiritual assistance in learning Christ through the inspired Text.

Francis Schaeffer, a theologian himself, once said that there are no games more gratifying to a man's ego than theological games. He also mentioned that we are living in a world of hyper-intelligensia. We have degreed preachers and teachers throwing Greek and Hebrew at us, some of them actually cause us to doubt our ability in learning Scriptures due to a lack of language skills.

Some seminarians also try to give us the [i]impression[/i] that they can fully understand, as well as to fully interpret Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek after taking only 4 semesters'of Greek or Hebrew studies in seminary!! That's unbelievable ! With Chinese as my mother-tongue, after speaking it for over 50 years, I still have trouble grasping 100% of it.

Truly The Holy Spirit alone can teach us whenever we are sincerely wanting to learn, despite the lack of linguistics skills, educational or theological training. I heard one seminary graduate once telling the bible study group, " God, without theology is dead" !!!

Mike was correct when he warned us earlier on that there's no perfect theological system.

As a Calvinist would say, Sola Scriptura,Sola Gratia,Solo Cristo, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria, isn't this impressive? It's Latin?? Ha ha!

May God bless you all,
mml

Francis Schaeffer, a theologian himself, once said that there's no games more gratifying to a man's ego than theological games. He also mentioned that we are living in a world of hyper-intelligensia,as we have degreed preachers and teachers throwing Greek and Hebrew at us, some of them actually cause us to doubt our ability in learning Scriptures due to a lack of language skills.

Some great thought here brother*
*Edit ~ [i]Correction-[/i] Sister

I am just atempting to show the path that this doctrin will lead some people.

According to Paul, the misuse of the Doctrine of Justification by faith will lead some to conclude. "Let us continue in sin that Grace may abound" and "Let us do evil that good may come".

But His answer to this was not to go back and restate his doctrine or to lessen it's meaning to keep some from "banking on grace to do evil". But rather the Apostle's answer to this seeming delimna was to take it to the next level. To say, "may it never be, for how shall we who died to sin live any longer therein? Or do you not know...

What is missing in the conserns of those who dare not preach free grace or eternal security of believers is on the one hand, a lack of a genuine realization of the true nature of salvation, regeneration and the new birth, and on the other, a failure to believe in Christ's own ability to work in those who are His. Rather they must keep their congegration in fear of damnation to keep them in line. As though Love of Christ is not produced in our hearts by the Holy Spirit and His work is not sufficient to transform us and to form Christ in us.

That is, Paul's answer is to show not only have we been freed from sin's condemnation and wrath through the death of His Son, but we also have been united to Him in an organic union, partake of His death to sin and His resurrection Life and are now "one spirit with the Lord".

This union brings the Life of God into us, makes us new creatures, and as a result, both judicially and organically, we are now free from sin, from wrath, and from the power of sin and have a new LIfe, a new Law of the Spirit of Life working within us and this Law is effective. It works. The Spirit within us does not leave us to ourselves but works the rightousness and holiness of Christ into us.

It is a lack of this view which keeps preachers in fear that if they actually expound the scriptures as written, people will behave improperly. They will consider redemption as liscence to sin with no regard to the organic and vital nature of regeneratin and the New Birth.

It never dawns on them that one in whom the Living Christ dwells, has a love for Christ and a desire to know HIm, be filled with Him and thereby be fruitful and pleasing to God.

To them, the goal of preaching is to produce well behaved "boy scout" Christians who do the right thing. But they are void of the vision of God's goal which is to form Christ in them and to bring "many sons to Glory".

NO doubt some will misues the truth as they did in Paul's day. Some will bank on grace to do evil. But keeping them under law and fear of wrath will not produce what God is after. But when the Truth, when Christ is unveiled and preached in the power of the Spirit, He translates and regenerates and transfomrs. And God gets what He is after, many sons with His Life, growing up in all things into Christ who is the head and manifesting Him and expressing Him as their Life.

Graftedbranch

deleted by poster!

Will we ever return to the days of living with Scripture alone? Christ alone? and God's glory alone? Will we ever stop writing to magnify ourselves?

I think the sentiment here is good, but it is practically a little impractical. It is not right to suggest that those who write, preach, or teach are "magnifying themselves". God did not just give us a book to read as an "instruction book" but rather gave us the Spirit to indwell us, to lead us into an understanding of the truth of the bible and to minister Christ into us and through us to others.

God has chosen us, His redeemed believers to be the base and piller of the truth according to 1 Timothy and has given to the church the gifted ones to minister Christ to us and into us to equip us for the work of the ministry.

God is not interested in just having an expression on printed pages but rather a living testimony of Christ, His body, manifesting His life on the earth.

I would also have to say that the reason we have ministers such as Luther, Calvin, Darby, Nee, and Lee and all their multifarious books and messages are because of the degraded condition in the church and the need to bring the church back to the revelation in the Bible. IN the dark days of the church, God has always raised up a man or men to sound the trumpet, to expound the truth, the recover the truth and bring the believers back to the revealtion of the New Testament. This is the history of the church for 2000 years.

And one might add that Paul wrote most of the New Testament, but do we say, "why so many epistles?" Why must Paul write so much?

And again, without translations which are accurate and up to date, the "bible alone" is not accessable. We need them. God has ordered it and God has given us these for our benifit.

I would suggest that the reason so many books are necessary is not because the Bible is inadequite, But rather it is neglected, set aside, replaced by tradition, and it's revelation not understood by the intellegencia and so there must be a fresh infusion of Life, a fresh unveiling not of anything new, but of that truth which is buried and hidden in the swamp of Christiandom.

Graftedbranch

deleted by poster

[b]The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace[/b]
[i]By John Wesley[/i]

1. To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those on whom it is fixed know not what to do: Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell what defence to make, or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it, than that it is "something very bad," if not "all that is bad!"

3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be of use to many: To those who so freely pin this name upon others, that they may not say what they do not understand; to those that hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying they know not what; and to those upon whom the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.

4. It may be necessary to observe, First, that many confound Arminians with Arians. But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ; we scarce need say, the supreme, eternal Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great God and a little one. Now, none have ever more firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the Godhead of Christ, than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.

5. The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS, in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the truth, till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State.

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.

With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold, (1.) God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these, and none else. The Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity, touching all that have the written word, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not, shall be condemned:" And in order to this, "Christ died for all, all that were dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for every child of Adam, since "in Adam all died."

8. The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it, than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that although there may be some moments wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet, in general, any man may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of God he should have been eternally saved.

9. The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. The Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever.

10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows, both that they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they might miss of salvation,) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one, "Is predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.

11. Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

12. One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

From the Thomas Jackson edition of [i]The Works of John Wesley[/i], 1872.

[url=http://new.gbgm-umc.org/index.cfm]http://new.gbgm-umc.org/index.cfm[/url]

Crsschk,

Did the Lord tell you to write this to me? If not, He told me to read this ! :)

I went to sleep last night (this is not a co-incident) puzzling over all that 'stuff' I learned in Calvinism. For years, I held so dear to it, with this article, my eyes' been opened with a better understanding.

Indeed, Armenianism has been a derogatory word in my mind, because one gets 'brainwashed' after following a specific doctrine for so long.

Holding on to this doctrine for the past years, has led me to a very strange spiritual state of mind,although I knew there's something not quite right, praise God, I couldn't pinpoint it. I noticed my Calvinist friends carry a certain amount of pride over their election, and seem to be quite unconcern over sins, as if all sins too are predetermined in their lives. Very weird.

Thank you Mike, God clarifies my mind with this article.
I think I can let go of this 'ism' now, and you know, as I wrote in my previous deleted posts, I am not ever going to "follow" any man's doctrines, never again, no matter how bright and brilliant they are, should they be 99% sound, it will always be that 1% error that cause me to stumble.

No perfect man, no perfect 'ism'/ system.
Thanks a million!!

Praise Thee, LORD !!
mamaluk

Hi sister.

:-)

Quite awhile back I sat down in the middle of these two constructs and ... never got up. :-D

We have degreed preachers and teachers throwing Greek and Hebrew at us, some of them actually cause us to doubt our ability in learning Scriptures due to a lack of language skills.

And the thing we see Mamaluk, is that even the so called Greek/Hebrew Scholars can't agree on what certain passages mean. What does that mean for the average lay person who is not educated in the languages? What you said below is the simple answer:

Truly The Holy Spirit alone can teach us whenever we are sincerely wanting to learn, despite the lack of linguistics skills, educational or theological training.

Amen!

I went to sleep last night (this is not a co-incident) puzzling over all that 'stuff' I learned in Calvinism.

Hi Mamaluk,

I certainly can relate to your sighs here! How wearisome that some teachers would give Christians a mechanical heart filled with wheels and gears instead of faith! (edit:to be sure there is a call for rational study of the Gospel, but our knowledge must be mixed with obedience.)In the end, unless they preach that we must, and can indeed be marvelously born again with a new heart, it's all just 'stuff'.

To paraphrase...

For in Christ Jesus neither Arminianism availeth any thing, nor Calvinism, but a new creature.

And these promises...

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Blessings,

MC

For in Christ Jesus neither Arminianism availeth any thing, nor Calvinism, but a new creature.

Amen and Amen.

Neither Calvin nor Jacob Arminias died for us. Neither one was crucified for our sins nor was raised from the dead.

And not one apostle quoted Calvin nor Arminias.

But rather the Spirit spoke from within the Apostles to give us the Divne Revelation of the Bible, the revelation of Christ and the church which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all and all.

Graftedbranch

Mamaluk wrote:

Quote:

"Truly The Holy Spirit alone can teach us whenever we are sincerely wanting to learn, despite the lack of linguistics skills, educational or theological training."

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Philippians 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Amen.

In Christ: Phillip

Mike,

I really like your quote regarding "Arminianism".

The reason the church is in the state she is in is because Christians draw a false line in the sand and condemn other's on the other side of the line. They "beat their fellow slaves" as the Lord says in Matt. 24. They tear assunder the body of Christ on the basis of this view or that understanding of doctrine which is not essential to faith and regeneration.

There is a line. It is between Adam and Christ. It is between the old creation and the new creation. IT is between those outside of Christ and those who are "in Christ". IT is between the unregenerated and the regenerated. Between those who call on the Name of the Lord and those who deny the Lord. This is the proper line.

The Arminian says, I am saved because I have believed in the Lord Jesus. The Calvinist says, "I have believed in the Lord Jesus because God has elected me. Both are right.

"No one can come to Me except the Father draws him. Whosoever comes to Me I will in no wise cast out."

Graftedbranch

[b]2Peter 2:18-22[/b] [color=990000]For, while they pour out their frivolous and arrogant talk, they use earthly cravings--every kind of immorality--as a bait to entrap men who are just escaping from the influence of those who live in error.
[b]:19[/b] And they promise them freedom, although they are themselves the slaves of what is corrupt. For a man is the slave of any one by whom he has been worsted in fight.
[b]:20[/b] For if, after escaping from the pollutions of the world through a full knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, people are once more entangled in these pollutions and are overcome, their last state has become worse than their first.
[b]:21[/b] For it would have been better for them not to have fully known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandments in which they were instructed.
[b]:22[/b] Their case is that described in the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO WHAT HE HAS VOMITED," and also in the other proverb, "The sow has washed itself and now goes back to roll in its filth."[/color]

What would a calvinist take this verse to mean?

lol Logic......whats about the following verses?

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

hmmmmm. I wonder how to answer these verses from a strictly Calvinist logic......

1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

The first thing to note here is that the Apostle does not say or imply that those who have made shipwreck of their faith have lost their eternal salvation.

Rather He says as example Hymenaeus and Alexander whom he has delivered to Satan "that they may learn not to blaspheme". He does not say, "That they may perish or be "resaved" but rather that they may learn something.

Compare with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians conserning one who had his Father's wife, "I have determined to deliver such a one to Satan for the distruction of his flesh that his spirit may be saved in that day..." Here the Apostle specifically speaks of his final salvation.

In both cases there is no loss of eternal salvation, but rather God's discipline.

Graftedbranch

Graftedbranc wrote:

Apostle does not say or imply that those who have made shipwreck of their faith have lost their eternal salvation.

What is the faith but substantial evidence of our hope, and a right response to God and [b]The[/b] faith is our common faith that we all have wich isour salvation(see above verse).

having put away means: To reject

Shipwreck is a [b]Completely, absolutely, entirely[/b] failure or to ruin to the point of disrepair and an irretrievable loss,

So Paul said, Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having to rejected concerning faith[our common faith] having made it an irretrievable loss: 1Timothy 1:19

He does not say, "That they may perish or be "resaved" but rather that they may learn something.

What is eternal salvation but a relationship with Jesus. This is life eternal, that they might be knowing You the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you hast sent. John 17:3

Eternal salvation is a relationship with Jesus. It is being born again and regenerated with His Life. "John tells us in 1 John, "This is the record, God has givin us eternal Life. This Life is in His Son, He who has the Son has the Life. He who does not have the Son of God does not have the Life.

When we repent and believe into the Lord Jesus we are redeemed and regenerated by His Life. We have (not hope for, not hope to obtain, but have eterna Life or rather "life which is eternal": We have the Life of God. We are born of God and have His Life. The Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God and if Children, heirs of God...

Yet as to being "joint heirs with Christ' in the coming Kingdom, "and joint heirs with Christ if so be that you suffer with Him that you also might be glorified with Him.

Eternal Salvation is related to Life. That is having the Life of God. We are born of God. It is not a matter of our living, our performance, our running the race, or our avoidance of "making ship wreck of our faith". Rather it is a matter of redemption and regeneration. As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

But obtaining the reward of the Kingdom in the comming age, reigning with Christ, being a good and faithfull servant, being a virgin with oil (the Spirit) not only in the lamp but also extra oil in the vessel, and so forth is related to the Kingdom, not to eternal salvation and avoidence of perishing eternally.

There is a distinction very plain in the New Testament and in the gospels between eternal Life and the reward of the Kingdom. Many parables are given to this effect. And Paul's words, in 1 Corinthians (they who practice such things shall not enter the Kingdom of God) is offset by his own words in the same epistle regarding one who "had his father's wife, "That his spirit might be saved in that day".

You cannot take these words out of Paul's epistle just to conform it to your theological concept.

We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves but it is the gift of God. But we are rewarded in the comming Kingdom on the basis of our living, our faithfullness, our obtaining the extra oil daily, our being faithful Slaves of Jesus Christ givine his houshold food and the proper time and all the rest.

We will obtain entrance into the Lord's Weddeing feast on the basis of our having extra oil and our watchfulness and preparation. But in the end, all who have been born of God, who have been redeemed and have His life will be perfected and matured in the comming age and will enjoy eternal Life in the New Jerusalem in the New Earth in the Eternal age.

IN the parable of the ten Virgins, all were virgins, all were believers, all had oil (the Spirit) in their spirit. all had vessels. But only the five paid the price to obtain the extra oil in there vessel (their soul).

All ten fell asleep (died) and at the midnight hour ( the beginning of the Great tribulation at the Lord's comming) they were all awakened and resurrected. But the five did not have sufficent oil to meet the Lord but were told to go and buy extra oil. And they did. But they were too late to enter into the Wedding feast. This does not mean they perished, but rather were excluded from the wedding feast and must wait and suffer through the great tribulation. This is our Lord's words and in keeping with every other parable conserning the Kingdom.

This parable is realted to Life and the Bride and Bride Groom. The slothful slaves is related to commission and service. And they had talants. They were servants of the Lord, but they were unfaithful and were not rewarded.

We have a very superficial religious view and read "heaven and hell" into every word of the bible. But this is not the gospel of the Bible nor the gospel of the Kingdom nor what the New testament teaches.

Thers is a heaven and a hell and those outside of Christ will perish eternally in the lake of fire. But most of the New Testament is not related to this but to the Kingdom and our living and our redemption to God and our union with Christ and our experience of Him and our transformation. It is related to growth in Life for God's purpose and not just about heaven and hell.

Graftedbranch

1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Cr 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2 Corinthians 2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

By Albert Barns, notes on the Bible, form Sword Searcher Bible Software:

1Co 5:5
Verse 5. To deliver. This is the sentence which is to be executed. You are to deliver him to Satan, etc.
Unto Satan. Beza, and the Latin Fathers, suppose that this is only an expression of excommunication. They say, that in the Scriptures there are but two kingdoms recognised--the kingdom of God, or the church, and the kingdom of the world, which is regarded as under the control of Satan; and that to exclude a man from one, is to subject him to the dominion of the other. There is some foundation for this opinion; and there can be no doubt that excommunication is here intended; and that, by excommunication, the offender was in some sense placed under the control of Satan. It is further evident, that it is here supposed that by being thus placed under him the offender would be subject to corporal inflictions by the agency of Satan, which are here called the "destruction of the flesh." Satan is elsewhere referred to as the author of bodily diseases. Thus in the case of Job, Job 2:7. A similar instance is mentioned in 1Ti 1:20, where Paul says he had delivered Hymeneus and Alexander "to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." It may be observed here, that though this was to be done by the concurrence of the church, as having a right to administer discipline, yet it was directed by apostolic authority; and there is no evidence that this was the usual form of excommunication, nor ought it now to be used. There was evidently miraculous power evinced in this case, and that power has long since ceased in the church.

For the destruction of the flesh. We may observe here,

(1.) that this does not mean that the man was to die under the infliction of the censure, for the object was to recover him; and it is evident that, whatever he suffered as the consequence of this, he survived it, and Paul again instructed the Corinthians to admit him to their fellowship, 2Co 2:7.

(2.) It was designed to punish him for licentiousness of life---often called in the Scriptures one of the sins or works of the flesh, Ga 5:19 and the design was, that the punishment should follow in the line of the offence, or be a just retribution, as punishment often does. Many have supposed that, by the "destruction of the flesh," Paul meant only the destruction of his fleshly appetites or carnal affections; and that he supposed that this would be effected by the act of excommunication. But it is very evident from the Scriptures that the apostles were imbued with the power of inflicting diseases or bodily calamities for crimes. See Ac 13:11; 1Co 11:30. What this bodily malady was, we have no means of knowing. It is evident that it was not of very long duration, since when the apostle exhorts them 2Co 2:7 again to receive him, there is no mention made of his suffering then under it. This was an extraordinary and miraculous power. It was designed for the government of the church in its infancy, when everything was fitted to show the direct agency of God; and it ceased, doubtless, with the apostles. The church now has no such power. It cannot now work miracles; and all its discipline now is to be moral discipline, designed not to inflict bodily pain and penalties, but to work a moral reformation in the offender.

That the spirit may be saved. That his soul might be saved; that he might be corrected, humbled, and reformed by these sufferings, and recalled to the paths of piety and virtue. This expresses the true design of the discipline of the church; and it ought never to be inflicted but with a direct intention to benefit the offender, and to save the soul. Even when he is cut off and disowned, the design should not be vengeance, or punishment merely, but it should be to recover him and save him from ruin.

In the day of the Lord Jesus. The day of judgment, when the Lord Jesus shall come, and shall collect his people to himself.

In Christ: Phillip

1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Col 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Listed above are 3 passages which all speak of blasphemy. My question would in regards to (1Tim 1:20) be can one who is born of the Spirit blaspheme God and still be in a right standing with God?

Ciao. God bless ya all!

As for Alexander, wasn't he the silversmith who made idols for a living, and who wanted to hinder Paul's work? I'm not so sure if he were one in/of the Holy Spirit.

For a true believer, according to Galatians 5:17
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would", a true Christian can blaspheme and sin against God but remains positionally a child of God, but as to be in a "right standing" with God ,I doubted, I'd think that he needs to confess and repent from such blasphemy.

mamaluk :)

Listed above are 3 passages which all speak of blasphemy. My question would in regards to (1Tim 1:20) be can one who is born of the Spirit blaspheme God and still be in a right standing with God?

Any Christian is capable of commiting any sin. Having the Life of God in your spirit does not clense the flesh, nor remove the sinful nature from it.

Rather in Christ it's power is broken and we are no longer slaves to sin. Yet if we neglect our daily fellowship with Christ, neglect contacting Him, and enjoying Him as our daily portion, the flesh will assert itself and we will not express Christ but rather our fallen natural life whether it be natural goodness or sinfulness.

Our sins do not effect our standing with God. If we are in Christ we are redeemed, justified and Christ has become our rightousness. But our fellowship with God is affected by our failure to live by Him, to exercise our spirit and to walk by the Spirit.

The Christian is a new creature, his spirit has been regenerated and the Spirit of God dwells in him. He cannot sin without compunction nor continue and remain at peace inwardly. God does not save and regenerate and leave the new born soul to himnself. Rather He works within him and has predestinated him to become conformed to the Image of His Son (Romans 8:29). It is God who has redeemed him and God who will finally conform him (those whome He justified, these he also glorified). If we cooperate this will be sooner. If not, later. But in the end God will have His mature, sons and Christ will have His perfected Bride.

Paul's word concering those whom,"he has delivered to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" just like the man "who had his father's wife," are brought into God's dicipline. Not God's eternal wrath. There is a difference. They are taught. They are diciplined. But they are not perishing.

Compare with the Lord's word to Peter, "Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail". Peter denied the Lord with swearing and blasphemies. But did he perish? No.

Some believers to be sure, who do not take the cross, do not deny the soul life today, will lose the enjoyment of the Kingdom in the comming age. If they save their soul life today, they will lose it in the comming age. Some will not be reigning with Christ. Some will suffer dicipline and "many stripes. There will be weeping and knashing of teeth.

But this does not mean perishing in the lake of fire.

As the Lord said regarding those who have lost their saltiness, They are fit neither for the land (the church as God's farm issueing in the Kingdom) nor for the mannuar pile (the lake of fire) but are cast out. Cast out of what? Cast out of the Kingdom in the commng age. They will not gain the reward of those who "suffer with Him that they also might be glorified with Him".

They are neither fit for the Kingdom nor for Hell. They are salt. But they have diluted their saltiness by loving the world like Lot's wife. They have escaped the condemnation of Sodom, but have not gone to the place of safety with Lot. Rather they have become a pillar of tastless salt to be thrown out of the Kingdom. They will be saved yet so as through fire.

And they will be diciplined and perfected and matured in that age when the Lord will give to each according to what he has done. And in the Eternal Age in the New Earth under the New Heavens, they will have been diciplined, perfected and matured. They will be part of the New Jerusalem, the Wife of the Lamb, the dwellng place of God, the tabernacle of God, the City of God and the expression of God for all eternity.

For the believer hell is not an issue: "they shall never perish and no one is able to snatch them out of My hand". "We have not recieved a spirit of bondage to fear again, but we have recieved the Spirit of sonship, in which we cry "abba Father". The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children, heirs also, heirs of God...". "That whosoever believes into Him might not perish but have eternal Life". "God has given us eternal Life, this life is in His Son. He who has the Son, has the Life".

But for the Christian there remains great matters at stake. There is a race to run and a prize to be gained or lost. Not everyone who competes wins the prize. There is the prize Paul aspired to. Was he saved? Yes, but he ran for the prize. Was he running for "heaven" to escape "hell"? No. Not at all.

There is being "joint heirs with Christ (in the kingdom) if so be that we suffer with Him that we also might rein with Him". Reign over what or whom and when? In the Kingdom. There is the Judgement seat of Christ. There is reward and dicipline. There are crowns to gain for those 'who love His appearing". There are many issues at stake which depend on our faithfulness, our paying the price daily to gain the exta oil in our vessels. There is reward for faithfulness to our commission. There is dicipline for those who mistreat and do not forgive their fellow slaves ("truly I say to you, they shall not come out of there till they have paid the last farthing"). There is much at stake.

"Those who practice such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God".

"That his spirit might be saved in that day".

Graftedbranch