Who has God elected or chosen to save?

This is a link to the second part of a series examining the foundational doctrines of Calvinism from an Arminian point of view.
Its author, William Birch, is a former Calvinist.


AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "U" FOR UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

An excerpt from the article.

Who has God elected or chosen to save? It is explicitly and overwhelmingly clear from Scripture that God has chosen to save anyone who will believe in His Son Jesus Christ (Mk. 1:15; John 1:7, 12; 4:42; 6:29; 11:27; 12:42; 14:1; 16:30-31; 17:20; Acts 8:37; 15:11; 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 4:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:19; 1 Tim. 4:10) -- the most explicit passage being, "God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21 NASB).

This being the truth of Scripture then election must be viewed as conditional: it is conditioned upon faith in Christ. Thus Arminians believe in the doctrine of Conditional Election; but only in the sense that sinners become elect upon faith in and union with Christ Jesus, and not beforehand. We believe it is erroneous to say that God has unconditionally elected to save or unconditionally saves anyone, since faith is the condition to being justified, regenerated and thus saved.


-----

The first part of the series can be found here:
Examination of tulip

Relativism. On denying God and gravity.

There is an attitude I’ve experienced that I’m having trouble understanding. I think it exposes the depths of human pride and arrogance and is a clear example of the relativism pervading human thought (especially WESTERN thought).

How do I describe it?

Well - it’s the kind of thinking that assumes our own beliefs are what is important and those beliefs make our own reality.

The particular example I have in mind was a discussion with a person who assumed that his non-belief in God excused him from any possible consequences for that non-belief.

There was no recognition of a firm concrete truth that remains firm and concrete regardless of human belief.

Every human on earth could deny God’s existence and that would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.

Likewise, every human could believe strongly in God and that belief would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.

Either he REALLY exists or He doesn't - and it would be foolish to think our own beliefs make a difference to that truth.

I could deny the reality of gravity, but my non-belief would not protect me from the consequences of jumping from a plane without a parachute. Therefore if I intended to jump from a plane I would be wise to check out the validity of my belief before it became too late.

Sharks & Jellyfish. Two types of deception

I have participated in a lot of forum discussion about Todd Bentley et al, since the start of the so called Lakeland revival. Despite the very clear warning given through his hurried divorce and remarriage (that started during that so-called revival) thousands will still blindly follow him and the ministries that support him.
Such a situation must surely be seen a clear line in the sand, and only the most immature new believer could have any excuse for getting caught up in the Bentley circus. A clearer indication could not be given – those “ministers” who support and promote Bentley are exposing their own falsehood and those who willing cling to an allegiance to those men and women are wilfully ignoring the blatantly obvious, choosing a lie instead of the truth.

Apart from those who willingly ignore the apostasy of Bentley and his supporters, I see another danger arising from this situation. By concentrating on exposing Bentley and his false gospel other more subtle errors will be overlooked.

In Australia there we have some very real dangers in the ocean. We have the sharks – large predatory fish that mostly, with the right precautions, can be detected and avoided before they present a real threat (my sister is an observer on an aerial shark patrol). We also have some very tiny jellyfish with an extremely toxic sting. They are not as easily noticeable and protection from the danger they present will only come through awareness of their territory.

I see Bentley and his supporters as being like the sharks. They are blatantly obvious to those who are both willing to look for the signs and to listen to the warnings of those in a position to detect the danger. Other false theologies are not so easily recognised. They are well camouflaged and slip through the defences. Like the toxic jelly fish they may have an appearance of being the same as their surroundings and their dangerous presence is not acknowledged or observed.

Ironically many of those who recognise the clear dangers of the likes of Bentley are not so discerning when it comes to more (apparently) subtle theological errors.

I have often read about the lack of discernment among those who follow Bentley. I don’t think that is the problem. It takes NO discernment to recognise the falsehood of his “ministry” and those who promote him.
What is lacking is an understanding of the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ – and even worse than that, a lack of relationship with the TRUE Jesus Christ. These people promote a false gospel and a false saviour.

If we can’t recognise the blatantly false – what hope have we got of recognising genuinely deceptive (more subtle) false teachings and practices?

AUGUSTINE. An article by William Birch

Here is an link to a recommended article AUGUSTINE: THE INTRODUCTION OF AUGUSTINIANISM (AND LATER CALVINISM) INTO THE CHURCH
By William Birch (excerpt below).

When one considers the amount of false, and at times heretical, views to which he held, it is truly a wonder how he became such an authority or cherished figure in the Protestant Church. In some circles, to quote Augustine is tantamount to quoting Scripture.

But for the purpose of this post, one thing stands out above his other errors. It is more than merely interesting that Augustine was the first one to introduce the idea that God had unconditionally elected some unto faith and salvation by decree and not others. And this he did not attribute to God's foreknowledge of forseen faith or rejection of Christ, as did his predecessors, but to God's sole prior decision and delight.

Even more shocking, however, in light of his novelty of unconditional election, was his statement, that, "It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children ~ whom He has regenerated in Christ ~ to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also." One seldom hears the Calvinist quoting this statement from Augustine.

.

David Pawson sermon links

David Pawson’s ministry has helped me in many ways. In particular his insistence that people should search the scriptures for themselves.
He has preached in some very unlikely places without compromising his message. At times his audience has been less than receptive and at times he has experienced violent vocal objection from his hearers.

Here are a few links that currently give free access to some of his teaching.

http://www.davidpawson.com/anchor/anchor.nsf/MP3-ListFree?openform


http://davidpawsondownloads.com/catalog.php?action=EditorsChoice


http://www.newchristian.org.uk/churchresources.html
(scroll down a little way until you find the heading: “***FREE BIBLE TEACHING BY REV DAVID PAWSON***

http://www.skyebiblechurch.net/Sermons.html
(scroll to last two sermons on the list)



.

HE’s BA-ACK (the attempted return of Bentley’s revival and related abominations)

What is REALLY being brought into the church?

The practices and “Christian” groups mentioned here are the ones to which I was refering in my earlier article: “Thoughts on gifts of snakes and fish”.


KUNDALINI WARNING – Urgent
by Andrew Strom.

I just saw the video of Rick Joyner announcing that Todd Bentley is back ministering every night at Morningstar in North Carolina and now they have so-called “revival” manifestations eerily similar to Lakeland. They also announced that they are streaming these big meetings every night on their new TV channel – and they are
greatly promoting the whole thing.

Now I am a tongues-speaking Pentecostal myself – but can I ask a simple question here please? What kind of “spirit” was it operating in the Lakeland revival – when the leader and main focal-point of the meetings (Todd Bentley) was having an adulterous
affair behind the scenes? Was it truly the “Holy” Spirit that was anointing something so sensual and unholy? And now that Todd divorced his wife and married his mistress – are we supposed to welcome him back and this “anointing” with him? What is going on here? Rick Joyner has been warned very specifically by high-level ministries not to do what he is doing now – bringing Todd Bentley back into the limelight. And yet it seems he does not care. Apparently the “manifestations” are all that matter.

So what exactly are these ‘manifestations’ if they are seemingly at home in such an unholy environment? Are they from God at all? (I am talking here about the violent “jerking”, uncontrollable laughter, bodily contortions, drunkenness, ‘portals’, strange “angel” encounters, etc.) Why do we not see such an ‘anointing’ in the Bible? Why aren’t Jesus or the apostles promoting these manifestations if they really are true Revival? Why instead do we see these things all the way through the New Age and Hinduism, etc?
Do we not realize that many false religions have their own version of “laying on of hands” that results in these very types of manifestations? This ’spirit’ is not in the Bible – but it is all the way through Kundalini-type Hinduism! Don’t you think this should alarm us?

WHAT is KUNDALINI?
If you search for Kundalini and Shakti on the Internet, you will findthat multitudes of people in the New Age and Eastern religions still experience these powerful manifestations. Often this is with the help of a Guru, who touches them on the forehead so that they can experience a “Kundalini Awakening”.

As researcher Robert Walker wrote in 1995:
“The meetings which mystic Hindu gurus hold are called ‘Darshan’. At these meetings devotees go forward to receive spiritual experience from a touch by the open palm of the hand, often to the forehead, by the guru in what is known as the Shakti Pat or divine touch. The raising of the spiritual experience is called raising Kundalini…
After a period when the devotee has reached a certain spiritual elevation they begin to shake, jerk, or hop or squirm uncontrollably, sometimes breaking into uncontrolled animal noises or laughter as they reach an ecstatic high. These manifestations are called ‘Kriyas’. Devotees sometimes roar like lions and show all kinds of physical signs during this period. Often devotees move on to higher states of spiritual consciousness and become inert physically and appear to slip into an unconsciousness…”
And as the guru Shri Yogãnandji Mahãrãja wrote:
“When Your body begins trembling, hair stands on roots, you laugh
or begin to weep without your wishing, your tongue begins to utter deformed sounds, you are filled with fear or see frightening visions… the Kundalini Shakti has become active.”

In China there is a popular Kundalini-type movement called ‘Qigong’.
When a Chinese Qigong spiritual master spoke in the USA in 1991, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that many in the crowd began to experience “spontaneous movements”. The master told his audience, “Those who are sensitive might start having some strong physical sensations – or start laughing or crying. Don’t worry. This is quite normal.”
When you see videos of these “kriyas” or other Kundalini-type manifestations, you would often swear that you are watching a modern “Impartation”-type church meeting. (And I say this as someone who believes strongly in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t believe in “alien” anointings infiltrating the Body of Christ! There is a big difference between Kundalini and the real Holy Spirit).
Since 1993-4, I believe a foreign spirit has been allowed to invade the church – first through Rodney Howard-Browne’s ministry – then Toronto, then the Prophetic movement (which I was part of at the time) and on into Lakeland and many other ministries and movements. I urge people now to “test the spirits” just as we are commanded to in Scripture. Do not let just anyone lay hands on you. This is a powerful spirit and it has the backing of a lot of big-name ministries. In fact, these men and women are the very ones responsible for allowing it to spread right through the body of Christ. And one day they will be answerable to God for doing so.

We are specifically warned in the Bible that the Last Days will be a time of “seducing spirits,” false prophets, ‘lying signs and wonders,’ and that we always need to watch for “angels of light” masquerading as the real thing. Why does the modern church not take these warnings seriously? Aren’t we living in the very days that the Bible warns about?
Right now I need to do something that I have never done in such a way before. I have never before published a list of ministries or movements to watch out for. But this time I have to. This sickness has gone on long enough. I urge you to cut yourself off from the following ministries and their tainted “anointings” my friends.
Even though some of these people say “good things” at times, it is simply not worth having any involvement with them due to the tainted anointing that they endorse or minister in themselves. Here is the list-
(
1) Todd Bentley.
(2) Rodney Howard Browne – the so-called “Holy Ghost Bartender.”
(2) Rick Joyner or anyone connected with Morningstar Ministries.
(3) John Arnott & any connected with TACF (The “Toronto Blessing”).
(4) Peter Wagner of the ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ who claims to be head of a worldwide network of ‘apostles’ – who publicly endorsed Lakeland and will soon preach at Toronto TACF alongside other “false anointing” advocates.
(5) Mike Bickle and IHOP Kansas City (-I lived nearby for over two years – and know how much they are into all this stuff. Mike Bickle promotes it in his book).
(6) Bob Jones – the Kansas City prophet whose ministry is utterly tainted by it all.
(7) Patricia King and anyone else from ‘Extreme Prophetic.’
(8) John Crowder & anyone connected with “Sloshfest.”
(9) Bill Johnson of Bethel church, Redding – who says some good things but publicly endorsed Lakeland and promotes the “false anointing” very strongly behind the scenes.
(10) Heidi & Rolland Baker of IRIS Ministries – who do good work amongst the poor in Mozambique – but who have also carried and promoted this tainted anointing for years.
(11) Randy Clark, Wes & Stacey Campbell, and other key figures from the “Toronto blessing.”
(12) The Elijah List – and almost anyone featured on it. Of course there are a huge number of lesser-known preachers and ministries who carry or endorse this Kundalini-type “anointing” around the world. But I have concentrated here on the most influential that I know of. It really is an enormous issue in the church. I urge anyone who is a supporter of any of the above ministries to really check them out thoroughly. If you find (as I have) that they carry or endorse this false Kundalini spirit in the church, then please stop supporting them in any way – and whatever you do, don’t let them “lay hands” on you!
I am putting everything on the line to be “naming names” like this.
But I believe it is that serious. How on earth did we get to the point where “kriyas” just like Hinduism are spreading through the church?

Andrew Strom is a student of “Revivals” and has a website revivalschool.com

New Atheist Crusaders by Becky Garrison

Here's a link to a review I've written on a book I recently read.

New Atheist Crusaders, by Becky Garrison


.

OSAS & the New Birth

Many have developed an understanding of regeneration/ the new birth in which they believe that the experience makes the regenerated individual immune to the possibility of falling away. They believe that those who are truly born again are new creatures who, according to that new nature, cannot turn from Christ.

This belief will then move further down the path to claim that any who do fall away were never saved anyway but were mistaken in their belief that their relationship with Jesus was ever real.
This is a common excuse used by those supporting ideas of “Once Saved Always Saved”.

It’s not surprising that those who hold to that view also have no hesitation in believing that they themselves ARE truly saved and would never have their faith exposed as being false by some future abandonment of it. But, apart from pride, can any of them be TRULY sure that their faith is genuine enough to last the distance?

"if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!"
1 Cor 10:12

"Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." Romans 11

ONCE SAVE ALWAYS SAVED? – Not according to scripture!

Just as God does not compel anyone to be saved, neither does He compel anyone to remain in His saving grace.
Just as He has given mankind the responsibility of responding to His grace through faith, likewise mankind is given the responsibility of remaining faithful.

Col 1:21-23 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— IF you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.

Note that little word with the big meaning: “IF”.
Reconciliation with God through Christ, being presented to Him as holy, without blemish and free from accusation is CONDITIONAL upon our continuing in our faith, being established and firm, not moving from the hope held out in the gospel. If those conditions aren’t met then the promises associated with those conditions are not applicable.

2Ti 2:11-13 Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Again, there are a lot of “IFs” pointing out conditions.
Be aware that these statements are made to a believer and are inclusive of the writer, Paul. He writes “If WE disown Him He will disown US”.
The reference to God’s faithfulness at the end of this excerpt is NOT saying that He will remain faithful to us no matter how unfaithful we may be to Him.
That statement is to warn us that God remains faithful to HIMSELF, (i.e. He will not go back on His word regarding the disowning of those who disown Him).

1Co 10:11-12 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

This is the first of three New Testament warnings that use Israel’s wilderness experience as a warning to believers. God freed Hundreds of thousands from bondage in Egypt, but due to their unfaithfulness, all but two of the freed adults failed to enter the Promised Land. The rest fell away through disobedience and perished in the wilderness.
Warnings using the same example of Israel’s wilderness experience can be found in Hebrews and Jude.
Paul gives a very strong admonition here to those who may be a little too smug about their assumed security: “if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!”

This is very similar to a warning Paul gives in Romans. Again it relates to the experience of Israel, warning believers that disobedience among believers will lead to the same result as that experienced by the disobedient in Israel.

Ro 11:18-22 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.”
Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

This also cautions about the arrogance of assuming our security if certain conditions are not being met. Again Israel’s unbelief is referenced. We need to remember that even though they were God’s elect nation they were not secure from the consequences of continued disobedience and unbelief.
With that example, how can anyone have the arrogance to presume that God will keep THEM secure, guaranteeing the salvation of professing believers, if that profession is not accompanied by active and obedient faithfulness?

1Ti 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers

Here Paul points to the importance of both our doctrine and also the way our life is lived in practice, linking them to our own salvation and also that of those who are influenced by us. The example Jesus gave of a millstone around the neck comes to mind here* – as does James’ warning about desiring to be a teacher**. Not only is our own salvation a concern, but also the salvation of those who are influenced by our life and our doctrine.

Heb 6:4-8 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

I don’t know whether anything could be made clearer. This excerpt is explicitly clear about the possibility of falling away and it also describes the very serious consequences of doing so. What stronger reason could we have for ensuring that we remain faithful to Him?
The wording here is quite interesting when it says someone who has fallen away can not “be brought back to repentance” – to my understanding this suggests that the person themselves will no longer respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and therefore can not be brought back to a required repentant state. They have so hardened their heart and seared their conscience that they have become resistant to conviction.

Heb 10:26-31 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who have treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Again, this is clearly referring to those who HAVE been believers. There is no way of getting around the description of those who “have received the knowledge of the truth” and again, like Paul, the writer to the Hebrews includes himself in the warning. “If WE deliberately keep on sinning after WE have received”… this makes it undeniable that he is writing about those (like himself) who are believers. It should also be undeniable, considering this excerpt, that those who have at one time been believers can fall from the position of grace they once enjoyed.

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble

Another admonition for believers to act and live in such a way that their election is made sure – why the need for such a statement (or indeed any of the others I’ve quoted) if a persons election could never be in doubt, that it was totally and permanently secure?

2Pe 2:20-22 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

Here it could not be stated more clearly. Those who “have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” could be none other than Christians. The rest of the sentence is equally clear when it speaks about those who were Christians becoming re-entangled in and overcome by the corruption of the world. How could they be any worse than someone who had never believed and followed Jesus unless they faced a worse eternal outcome than someone who had never followed Jesus?

I can’t see how anyone can see these many clear references and still deny the possibility of a believer forfeiting their salvation. However, scripture goes further than spelling out the possibility and states that it is a certainty that some WILL depart from their faith.

Jesus Himself said:

Mt 24:10-13 At that time many WILL turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but whoever stands firm to the end will be saved.***

And note the latter part of that quote that says those who stand firm to the end will be saved. It does not say that those who are “saved” will stand firm to the end, which is the view promoted in the term “Once Saved Always Saved”.


---------
Footnotes:
*

Lk 17:1-2 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around your neck than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble

**

Jas 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

*** The turning away from the faith predicted by Jesus finds additional confirmation form Paul’s correspondence with the Thessalonians in which a falling away (apostasy) is foretold as preceding the revealing of the man of lawlessness (usually known as Antichrist). This falling away and the subsequent events described by Paul match very closely to those predicted by Jesus so Paul is clearly referring to the same time and the same things.


All bible quotes from Today's New International Version. 1099. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 2001, 2005.

Through His Word by His Spirit (100th post!)

This is officially the 100th post to this blog since I created it in August 2005. In the years since the first entry I’ve gone through a lot of changes and have learned a lot. I have shared that journey in the previous 99 contributions.

If there is an overall lesson I have learned it relates to the extent that understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been affected by tradition and by the application of men’s wisdom. And if there is one thing I have great difficulty understanding, it is the inability of so many to accept clear and simple revelation given through scripture.

Many have scoffed and accused me of arrogance, and of thinking I know it all when I have questioned their views. But I’m merely expressing the desire that people would treat the written account of scripture with the same respect that they would (hopefully) treat any other writing and assume it is saying what its clearest and simplest meaning seems to be saying. Don’t go looking for complex meanings until the obvious meaning has been applied.

The approach some people take with scripture often leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. The way they force their doctrine INTO their interpretation of scripture is farcical and it would be easy to laugh if the consequences weren’t so serious. For example, recently I read someone claiming that Romans 11:20-21 (“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either”) could not be suggesting that believers could possibly lose their salvation because believers can’t lose their salvation. This was a clear case of doctrine coming first and scripture being interpreted according to that doctrine instead of vice versa.

I have also heard well know minister preaching on John 15 using a similar approach. Here Jesus was telling His disciples that He is the vine and they need to remain in the vine (Him) in order to bear fruit. The preacher’s view was that believers ARE in the vine and can do nothing BUT remain in the vine and bear fruit. This man, in attempting to protect his views on Christian security effectively contradicted and undermined the serious point of Jesus’ admonition to His disciples.

Elsewhere on this blog I have addressed other ways in which scripture has been selectively applied so that its application ignores its clearly intended meaning. Ezekiel 36 is a classic case where its relevance to the future of Israel is totally ignored and only a verse or two are taken and applied to the church, as if the church has inherited all of the promises specifically made to Israel (note the PROMISES are adopted, but there’s less eagerness to inherit the curses that come with the package).
In the case of Ezekiel 36 the explicit references to the land and returning to the land of their forefathers makes it totally clear that it is the people of Israel who are being spoken of; that it is the people of Israel who will one day be brought back to the Lord and become the people they were called to be.

But a lot of this is merely recapping what I’ve written in more depth in recent blog entries.

This blog has not only recorded a personal journey it has also been an active part of that journey, helping me along the way, giving me a place to give clarity to some ideas and also providing a means of having those ideas challenged. It has been a journey that has helped me to observe and it has also made me open to be observed. Like any imperfect man I get carried away at times and don’t always respond to others as graciously as I should and I thank Jesus, my God, my Lord and my saviour for His forgiveness, patience and love. I am also grateful for His gift of the Holy Spirit, who teaches and empowers me to move onwards in my new life in Christ.

This blog has covered a period during which some of my basic understanding of the Christian faith has been shaken and tested. So much of what I once took for granted was shown to be built on a false foundation: on the foundation of man’s teachings instead of the revelation given by God through His word and by His Spirit. I thank the Lord for the rebuilding He has been doing in my life over recent years.

I could write a list of the many false doctrines that I have come across during most of the last decade, but I don’t think that is necessary because most of them have received some mention in earlier blog entries. Many of those doctrines seem to have little in common with each other. The extreme charismania demonstrated in the so-called “Toronto Blessing” and the starchy traditionalism of many followers of “Reformed” theology seem to be polar opposites. While the external manifestations of these vastly different traditions are totally at odds – the root cause that led to them is identical: the exaltation of man’s teaching and theology at the expense of the truth revealed through scripture, by the Holy Spirit.

But of course, adherents of both sides will protest loudly and present their favoured proof texts to show how their beliefs are “scriptural” – but it is clear when other parts of scripture are not so favourable that those other parts are either ignored or “interpreted” in a way that the contradiction is negated.
Any belief that needs to take such a creative, integrity-free approach to biblical “interpretation” is definitely on very shaky ground.

May we all be honest and humble enough to evaluate ourselves and our doctrines according to the light God has given in His word by His Spirit.

Thoughts on Gifts of Snakes and Fish

“He would not give me a snake when I’ve asked for a fish…”

How many times have I heard that phrase used to excuse a complacent and careless approach to the Christian life? And yet there is never acknowledgement that God has made us accountable and expects us to heed the many warnings He has given about the need to beware of the dangers of deception.

When I myself think of that statement I now always recall Israel in the wilderness. Among the many complaints they directed towards God was a mention of the lack of fish. And what was God’s response? To send poisonous snakes among the ungrateful nation!
Even when they finally repented and sought deliverance God did not remove the snakes. Instead He provided a “cure” for snake bite. Anyone bitten was required to look upon a metal snake lifted up on a pole, and in doing so the effects of the poison was nullified.

In the context of that most famous verse, John 3:16, a comparison is made between the provision of the snake on a pole with the lifting up of Jesus on the cross. While the poison of sin has not been removed from the world, God in His love provided a way to nullify the effects of its poison, through looking to Jesus and having faith in Him. Those who refuse to look to Jesus and try to overcome sin’s poison in their own strength will fall victim to their own pride and suffer the inevitable death that results from sin.

So now, what about the snake and the fish? Can we sit back and assume that God will bless laziness and complacency? Will He bless a careless attitude that ignores the very means He has undertaken to draw us and keep us close to Himself?

“I HEARD IT TAUGHT” and “IT MAKES SENSE TO ME”.

Reading back over some of the comments on my blog, I came across a question that I directed towards someone who had left a comment

“where did you get [these] beliefs from?
Can you HONESTLY and sincerely say that they came from scripture alone PRIOR to receiving any teaching along those lines from any outside source?”

Unfortunately at the time I missed the significance of his reply:

“As far as your comments regarding why I believe [this] to be true, it is because I heard it taught directly from scripture and it makes sense to me”.

“I HEARD IT TAUGHT” and “IT MAKES SENSE TO ME”.

Which is exactly as I suspected. The person came to his beliefs through someone’s teaching (allegedly directly from scripture) – and his judgement of the validity of the teaching was “it makes sense”.

As I have written so many times before, ANYTHING can be taught and supported from scripture. It is easy to pick out select verses to support a teaching – EVERY false religious group claiming to be Christian does it. That is why it is necessary to emulate the Bereans and search the scriptures for ourselves to assess the teaching. We should NOT rely on a teaching making sense. MOST teachings will “make sense” if presented by talented and persuasive teacher.

We cannot afford to put our trust entirely in what a teacher tells us. We have a serious responsibility, and we hold the ultimate accountability, for the things we believe. We also have a degree of accountability for the things that others come to believe through our influence.

This matter is far too serious for us to be complacent.

But how do we “search the scriptures”?

May I offer a few suggestions?

1) Become familiar with the overall content and themes throughout the whole of scripture. The Bereans mentioned in Acts were members of a Jewish synagogue and would therefore already have a good general grounding in the scriptures as all Jews of the time would have. Unfortunately most of us (especially as young Christians) start our search with the disadvantage of not having that kind of background knowledge.

2) Do not limit the search to the verses quoted by the teacher. Make sure that the surrounding verses are also considered to ensure that the teacher used his chosen texts IN THE CORRECT CONTEXT.

3) Seek out other places in scripture that address the same or similar issues being taught. If the teaching is on God’s mercy, find as many references to God’s mercy that you can track down. The same goes with any other matter. And again make sure that context is taken into account when you look through those references.

4) Realise that each biblical book was written for a particular reason and to address a particular readership. This is most evident with the letters in the New Testament. The letter writers were addressing real life situations and real people. They were not writing a mere theological text. They wrote to address particular issues being faced by everyday believers of their time.

5) Scripture comes to us in a variety of different literary forms that were written in their particular way for a particular purpose. For example, the book of Proverbs is a book of Wisdom literature – it is not a book of collected promises. It helps to recognise those different types of literature and understand their application according to their literary type. Something written in poetic form may use exaggeration to express an idea, or it might use symbolism that may cause misunderstanding if taken literally.

Well, I’ve given enough of my own thoughts on searching the scriptures. The most important thing is that we all treat God’s word with respect and integrity and have a desire to receive GOD’S revelation rather than the ideas of man.
As a final note I’ll add that it is good to maintain a healthy scepticism – meaning, don’t be afraid to doubt the things you are taught until you are completely satisfied that it is consistent with the nature and purposes of God. Don’t be too eager or impatient to adopt new “truths”, whether they are taught by others* or whether you discover them for yourself through your own reading of scripture. No matter how right they may seem at first, seek God for confirmation from another (preferably unrelated) source.

The most trustworthy teacher of God’s truth is the Holy Spirit. If you sincerely seek His aid He will not disappoint or mislead. Learn to recognise His voice.


-----


* Additionally do NOT allow yourself to be bullied into accepting anything. Many teachers claim to have a special “anointing” that places them and their teaching above reasonable criticism. If your teacher displays that kind of attitude then do NOT submit yourself to him/her and their teaching under any circumstances.

2010: A Race Idiocy

Some thoughts about the last decade and the "millennial" year that started it.

2010.
I recall a film of that title, the sequel to 2001 A Space Odyssey. I think it was made in the mid 1980s and it gave a very “optimistic” outlook for man’s progress as a space travelling species. But then again, in the world Arthur C Clarke created for that series of novels and films, mankind was being helped along by a mysterious alien race represented by a large matte black monolith.

Is it mere irony that a similar featureless block is the focal point of the prayer room in the United Nations building? As members pray to their various gods they kneel or sit facing the block and are able to use it as a representation of the god to whom they are praying. A featureless block intended to be inoffensive to the variety of religions followed by the diverse membership of the UN. In other words it was a compromise solution which showed no favouritism to any of the millions of gods worshipped by man.

2010. A year that was given little if any thought for most of my life. It lacks the mystique of the year 2000, that false millennial year (A C Clarke got the timing right with 2001).
2000 was a year I dreamt of as a child. A year so far away I couldn’t imagine reaching it. After all I would be 42 if the world (and I) survived that long. Be aware that my childhood saw the Vietnam War, the threat of nuclear annihilation, the first seeds of terrorism, with both Islamic groups and the IRA starting their campaigns…
The world didn’t seem such a friendly place and the future seemed… well, unlikely.

But that most anticipated “millennial” year did arrive and I was here to see it. A year celebrated with the Olympic Games literally on my doorstep, the Stadium visible from the street outside my home. People stood in the streets to watch one of the firework displays that have become part of Sydney’s identity. It was the cities second major celebration for that year.
The first was to openly welcome the "millennium".

A whole decade has now passed. 10 years more than my childhood imagination could reach and what has the world learned?

Well, it has learned to change fiction into fact, taking the example of Clarke’s fictional world the leaders of the “real” world also turn to a featureless block for enlightenment. And while their representaives pray to that idol, visitors to the building containing it can see another monument at its entrance. One that speaks of beating swords into ploughshares and about man learning war no more… surely an admirable goal to work towards.

Except: that monument promoting peace has taken its motto from scripture, and it omits the most important part of the scriptural statement. It ignores the ONE responsible for that promised peace and that ONE is NOT an impersonal man-made block.

The One who will bring peace is revealed in the full text that SHOULD have been included on that monument at the UN building. And that peace will only occur when the TRUE “millennium” is established. The only one who will bring peace to this world is Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace and He will do it when His earthly reign of 1000 years is established from His throne in Jerusalem.

Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore

Now THAT is a millennium to get excited about – but the best news is that it will be only a foretaste of even better things to come.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Solution to ALL Doctrinal Error: last post for 2009

I will be away from my computer until after the New Year holiday, so for my last post of 2009 I will provide the solution to all doctrinal error.

1) Stick with what scripture says.

2) Do not add to (or take away from) what scripture says.

3) Admit personal ignorance or lack of understanding where applicable.

4) Do not try to cover up ignorance or lack of understanding by parroting a pre-digested theological viewpoint.

5) Do not adopt or promote man's words and teachings as if they were equal to scripture in authority.

6) Do not under any circumstances put your trust in an isolated, out of context proof-text.

And finally and most importantly, not ignoring any of the above…

7) Seek and ask for the Holy Spirit’s revelation.


[I first wrote these points to specifically address the matter of “election” but recognised that a wider application is also appropriate.]

Holocaust Past & Future

There’s a very interesting story here: The man who smuggled himself into Auschwitz

Thanks to the Arminian Today blog for making me aware of it.

This week I’ve been watching a BBC TV interpretation of “The Diary of Anne Frank”. There’s a 50 minute documentary on the DVD that I still have to watch – not about the Frank family, but about another girl of a very similar age who met the same fate.

I have also ordered a copy of a Martin Gilbert book, a history of the holocaust. Today’s comfortable westerners have no way of comprehending the experiences so many millions of people had at the hands of Hitler.

Many of those people were perhaps little different from ourselves, enjoying comfortable and successful lives until the world around them changed and they were thrown into an unimaginably miserable situation that millions didn’t survive.

We can look back on those events with justifiable horror and wonder how they could have happened. We can feel thankful that such atrocities could never happen again on such a scale. But it would be a misplaced sentiment. Not only will those evils be committed again, they will be surpassed.

Jesus warned of a time to come when: “there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equalled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”

Can we afford to live in complacency? Note Jesus said that the time of distress would be unequalled both before and after. It will be the most horrific time in the history of mankind.

Around one third of the Jewish people were murdered through Hitler’s actions. What does that indicate about the future? Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 indicates terrible times for both Christians and Jews. It clearly doesn’t seem very bright and it would be easy to sink into a state of pessimism. But this time of unequalled distress is not the end. We need to remain aware that God has the last word, and no matter what evils man may commit, God will bring a glorious end to them with the return of His Son, the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

That return, that will end the "time of distress", is the great hope that will sustain followers of Jesus throughout that time of suffering. A motivating hope that will encourage believers to remain faithful despite the intense hardship they experience throughout the persecution they face.

Other Than an Occasional Problem With Pride, I Believe I've Reached Sinless Perfection

An article by David Servant

If God is in you, He is working, and you are thus obligated to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). Only those in heaven have salvation "in the bag." The rest of us are running a race for the finish line.
Paul was certainly running that race at one time. He was obviously living far above the sins he listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that mark one as being unrighteous and disqualified from inheriting God's kingdom. But did he think he had attained sinless perfection? No, it was something he was still pursuing even after he had been a believer for at least twenty-five years.

Full article found here:

Sinless Perfection




.

Juggling with Sovereignty: A word picture.

How do you view the sovereignty of God? How does your God exercise that sovereignty?

The Calvinist view requires that God controls every detail, even to the point that mankind’s every action and thought is the result of God’s determination. To ensure His sovereignty, God had to deny man the privilege of free will.

The non-Calvinist view agrees that God’s sovereignty cannot be undermined by man’s choices, but it also recognises that man is ABLE to express freedom of will. In other words, God’s sovereignty is not so fragile that a man made decision would undermine it.

Calvinism effectively denies God the right to endow His creation (man) with the freedom of choice. Thereby Calvinism itself is denying God a sovereign right to act as HE may desire. Calvinism, through its inability to trust God’s abilities, restricts God’s actions to the narrowness of its own theological imagination. It can not imagine a God who can maintain His sovereignty over a creation to which He has given the privilege of free will so they deny Him the right to equip His creation in that way.

Depicting these views of sovereignty metaphorically, I would you like to offer the following comparisons of two very different jugglers demonstrating the two very different views of God’s sovereignty


Taking the scriptural revelation of God I would see his ability to juggle an infinite quantity of balls, tossing them into the air and never losing track of any. He can let them out of his hand but he remains in control even though each ball follows a unique path through the air.

Contrast this to the Calvinist picture of God. To maintain control he “juggles” with one ball which he never lets out of his hand otherwise he would not be able to keep control of the situation and his “sovereignty” over that ball would be compromised.

SIN: Christian Responsibilities

All sin is serious and if left unchecked will separate us from God. Consider that it took one bite of a piece of fruit to separate Adam from his creator and the paradise that was his home.
Likewise look at Israel and their example in the wilderness and note this is used several times in the NT as a warning to Christians to remind us what will happen to anyone who continues in rebellion against God.

It is my understanding that continued sin will eventually harden our heart against God causing us to “hide” from Him instead of relying on Him. While our heart is open to God and His ways we will find ourselves being convicted of sin in our lives. If we resist that conviction we harden ourselves against the Holy Spirit’s prompting and our conscience will become seared and impenetrable. We will start to accept our sin and experience no feelings of remorse.

Many make the mistake of thinking any effort on our part is an attempt to earn our salvation; but when scripture emphasises a need for repentance it is calling for an action. Repentance is not merely regret or remorse, true repentance results in action and obedience. When Jesus gave His great commission to His followers he told them to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY everything I have commanded you.” Too often Christians forget about the OBEY part and look at attempted obedience as being legalistic.

In dealing with sin within my own life, the most powerful things I’ve encountered are:
1) The awareness of how serious sin is, and that if unchecked it could eventually disqualify me from salvation; is that moment of pleasure worth the price of forfeiting an eternity with God?
Maintaining a “God’s-eye” view of sin, recognising its offensiveness to God and determining to cleanse ourselves of it and its effects through genuine, contrite confession will keep us in fellowship with God and we will remain responsive to His discipline.

2) I am what I eat. This not only applies to the food and drink I put into my body, but also to the kinds of things that are fed into my mind. When I feed my mind with spiritual things I find I am less troubled by temptation and therefore less prone to sin. If I feed my mind with things that are likely to lead to temptation, then I am more prone to sin. Paul wrote that we should be transformed by the renewing of our mind. The way we exercise and feed our minds will have an effect on the kind of person we are transformed into.

3) When we DO sin there is no need for despair because if we confess our sin He is faithful and just and will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

That third point is something we need to apply in faith. That is, we need to believe what GOD has said instead of what our feelings are telling us. If God’s word says we are forgiven and cleansed we need to stand on the truth of THAT and not on the impression given by our feelings of guilt. We also need to understand that forgiven sin is forgotten sin – at least in God’s eyes. Unfortunately we are not able to forget in the way that God is able to forget and the memory of our sin remains with us. Again this is where we need to exercise faith. No matter how we feel. No matter what our circumstances (eg. feelings of guilt) may indicate, we need to trust the integrity of God’s word instead of our own impressions.


1 John

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.




Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

Sovereignty: True and False

Which of the following is most consistent with a biblical view of God’s sovereignty?

1) God is sovereign; therefore everything that happens within His creation has been predetermined and controlled by God. If anything happened that was contrary to God’s specific will (including anything that man does), then God’s sovereignty would be compromised. To maintain the integrity of His sovereignty, God and God alone chooses which individuals will be saved and will ensure that they are saved no matter what their individual attitudes towards God may have been. Man has no part to play (and no responsibility at all) regarding his own salvation or damnation because that would undermine God’s sovereignty.


Or


2) God is sovereign; therefore He alone has the sovereign right to determine the purpose for which His creation exists and He alone has the right to determine the laws and conditions by which His creation exists and continues to exist. By His sovereign choice He has given a degree of free will to mankind. God does not control man’s choices and actions but He has made mankind responsible for the choices he makes within that freedom given to him by God. God and God alone has determined the consequences for man’s obedience or disobedience. Man is able to make choices that are contrary to God’s will but as a result of that disobedience will suffer the penalty that God has ordained and that God will enforce. God expresses His sovereignty in a way of His own choosing to obtain an outcome of His own choosing. That outcome includes the adoption of men and women who willingly respond to the gift He has given to all – His Son Jesus


-----------------------
I wrote the two alternatives above because of the following (deleted) comment left earlier on this blog, submitted by the multi-pseudonymed Calvinist who may be familiar from other threads.

the evangelical has left a new comment on your post "Frustration and Cranial Bruising":

"These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology"--excepting of course the revelation of His absolute sovereignty.
Really, Tim, which is it--monergism or synergism? The truth is humbling. All pagan systems are synergistic. ALL. What does that say about your synergistic system? Oh, but of course you alone hold all knowledge, and wisdom will die with you. Academics; head knowledge--or new birth...

In addition to the above alternative types of “sovereignty” I would ask which is the TRULY sovereign God:

1) One who can not maintain sovereignty unless he personally controls everything and everyone; who has to personally control every thought and action otherwise he can not be sure that his sovereign will can come to fruition. A god who needs to control man’s thought and action to ensure he has followers (even though they are followers against their will).
2) One who is secure enough in His sovereignty that He can allow man a degree of free will to enable man to become willing followers.

The issue of the definition of sovereignty depends upon what kind of God and gospel we believe; and how secure He and His sovereignty really are.

I’ve used the illustration before – what kind of God do you worship?
1) One who creates a Stepford wife for His son? A wife who “loves” because she is programmed to do so and has no real feeling for her husband?
Or

2) One who seeks a willing bride, a bride who can willingly respond with genuine love and affection for the bridegroom?

And note the common accusation at the end of “the evangelical’s” comment. It is an accusation many make in an attempt to discredit a person and his point of view without actually addressing the issue. They accuse a person of thinking they know it all because that person dares to oppose their own beliefs.
No I do not know it all – but I know enough to approach the whole of scripture with integrity so I can understand what God is revealing, and not merely use parts of scripture to support what I have already determined to believe.

Also, the claim about all pagan systems being ‘synergistic” is very ironic, considering that Calvinism shares the fatalistic viewpoint of both paganism and Islam.

"When Doctrine Matters" by Fred London

The admonishment of "rightly dividing" or "handling accurately the word of truth" has not as its focus the end result, but rather, the process which leads to a clear apprehension of God's thought to man. For if the process is sound, it is more than likely that the end result will also be sound. Conversely, if the process is faulty, we can expect a result which will be equally as faulty. Statements such as, "I don't get into doctrine" or "Doctrine doesn't matter," has the sound of spirituality to it, but it is a pseudo-spirituality. In fact, this rather "nice" sounding attitude flies in the face of Scripture. This is not the sort of peace and unity of which the Scripture speaks. "For there must also be factions among you so that those who are approved of God may become manifest."


Frankly, it smacks of ecumenicalism, which produces a false peace and a false unity because it is not held together by the Spirit of truth. We are exhorted to "speak the truth in love," meaning, you can't have one without the other. Nowhere does the Scripture teach the notion of unity at any cost. As one man has said, "It is better to be divided by truth than united in error." Scripture clearly forewarns that one of the major signs of then "last days" will be that so many will no longer adhere to sound doctrine. It cannot be stressed enough simply because God stresses this imperative from cover to cover throughout the Scriptures, that the authenticity of ministry is in direct proportion of the authenticity of the oral or written words with which the vessel represents the Mind of the Lord.


These days, in particular, there is a strong and irreverant tendency for those who would presume to speak for God to be far too glib and take license with "the holy things of God." Consequently, it would serve us well, having a healthy fear and trembling, to avoid at all cost, the presumptuous sin of "speaking that which the Lord has not spoken." Therefore, sound doctrine does matter, not from a legalistic standpoint where "the letter kills," but as it relates to a clear and accurate understanding of God's character, ways, and purposes. It matters as to how Christ is represented, in Heart, in Mind, and how that directly correlates into how His Body functions, and the type of witness she portrays to the world.


It matters because "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." It matters because, "For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he." It matters because of the great influence it has upon our world view. It matters because how we think about the Church's place and purposes for the "last days" and her relationship and obligation as it pertains to Israel (the Jewish people) will ultimately determine as to whether the "limb" we represent will be "put out of joint" or be a "vessel fit for the Master's use." With our being able "to discern the times" we therefore will know what needs to be done at the most critical time of church and world history.


Furthermore, though reading others' thoughts on a particular subject can be profitable, there comes a time where we reach a point of diminishing returns. Case in point: Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am? Some say that you are Jeremiah, or Elijah, or John the Baptist raised from the dead. Then Jesus asked, "But, who do you say that I am?" In other words, there comes a point where referring people to other sources loses its effectiveness by no longer serving a useful purpose. Not unlike most, I have read many books and heard many teachings over the years, and it is important to always maintain a teachable spirit in order to continue to benefit from the spiritual deposits in others. But, there comes a point where it is time to be able to give an account for what we believe and why we believe it.


As it says in Ecclesiastes, "Be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body." Today, we can just as easily apply that principle to websites. But, regardless of the means through which we receive the seeming never ending glut of teachings, it is high time for many of us grow up and not be so easily "driven by waves, and by every wind of doctrine." Why? Because doctrine does matter!

Frustration and Cranial Bruising

I have been very discouraged in recent months, after seeing scripture so often being twisted and distorted to support beliefs that are clearly contrary to God’s revelation. Seeing this happening on every side makes me wonder why I should consider myself to be right and so many others wrong.

I do NOT consider myself immune to error – especially knowing that I’ve been VERY wrong in the past. The main difference now is that I’m learning to recognise the clarity and simplicity of scripture when it is taken in context. Those people who have concerned me have ALL taken parts of scripture and used them in ways that don’t fit clear context. An obvious example relates to Ezekiel 36 (see previous post) which has come up recently on different and unrelated blogs. In all cases the majority of Ezekiel’s prophecy is ignored and attention is given to two or three verses at the most – because to consider the WHOLE text as written would require an overhaul of attitudes to Israel.

I have also seen the same proof texting going on regarding other theologies. Most theological understanding seems to depend on chosen portions of scripture at the expense of others (i.e. those parts of scripture that cast questions upon a favoured doctrine are ignored or creatively re-interpreted).

There seems to be very few people who genuinely recognise the importance of scriptural context. It is far easier, more convenient, and less challenging to rely on pre-digested theology that requires little more than knowledge of a handful of proof texts.

How can anyone claim to have a desire for truth when they go to such lengths to ignore what scripture is plainly saying? How can they ignore so much as they look for verses here and there to support what they want to believe?
Not only is there a manipulation of scripture, there is the blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. When justification of their own beliefs starts to get difficult, they distort the beliefs of others and then refute the distortion they have created.

The meaning of the term “banging one’s head against a wall” is totally clear when trying to discuss an issue with people who are so blinded by their own theological conditioning that they refuse to consider what others are actually saying – but instead project their own presuppositions into what has been said.
For example, in a discussion here, addressing Israel and replacement theology there is a refusal to recognise that NO ONE has been saying that Israel can be saved apart from the New Covenant. What HAS been said is that Israel WILL ONE DAY be saved by entering into the New Covenant. It is not a matter of present day reality, but a matter of prophetic certainty.

Returning to the earlier question of why I can consider myself to be right and so many others wrong…
It’s because I have come across enough people from diverse backgrounds who have NOT bowed their knee to theological systems that resort to distorting scripture to maintain a semblance of credibility. These people respect God’s revelation more than man’s theology and have been willing to change their direction, sometimes at great sacrifice, when their beliefs and practices have been exposed as false by the light of God’s word. These people encourage and challenge me. None would claim to have reached perfect understanding – but at least they are following the right path and are open to the Spirit’s direction if ever they start to deviate from that path.

Ezekiel 36: Context or Creative Theology

I believe that Scripture should be understood according to its simplest and most straight forward meaning unless the context determines that the meaning is not literal. Who am I to determine which parts of scripture don’t really mean what they seem to be clearly saying?
We cannot legitimately take a couple of verses out of their intended context and apply them in whatever way WE see fit. Unfortunately it has become a common practice to support a favoured theology by applying PARTS of scripture to an argument while ignoring the intended context of those parts of scripture.

I have recently seen a case of this in action where two verses of Ezekiel 36 were used to support a particular view of “regeneration”. However, those verses were part of a prophecy directed specifically at the people of Israel. The argument being made ignored that and concentrated on the chosen verses, projecting into them an argument about the nature and timing of “regeneration”.

That case showed that the same out of context portion of scripture can be used to support totally opposite beliefs - depending on what a person wants it to say, and depending on which surrounding parts of scripture are omitted

Such a misuse of scripture – using it to promote predetermined ends – will NEVER lead to knowledge of the truth. It will merely keep us entrenched in our chosen theology, blind to the revelation that God has given to His children.

In the Ezekiel 36 example, the proof-texting practice was defended with the assertion that New Testament writers also approached Old Testament writings in this way. Apart from the fact that WE are not among the writers of the NT scriptures and do not share their revelatory authority; what happens when two different theological viewpoints are using the same set of verses to support their opposite conclusions? Who determines which viewpoint (if any) is correct? Both use the same approach to biblical understanding but their conclusions differ according to which PARTS of the scripture are referenced

It is CONTEXT that determines the correct viewpoint.

Ezekiel 36 is NOT a general discourse on how and when regeneration occurs – it is a prophecy about Israel’s restoration as a physical nation (when they do not deserve it) and their ultimate restoration to fellowship with the God of Israel (AFTER they have been restored to the land, AFTER they have been taken from the nations, AFTER they have been gathered from all the countries).

All of this is NOT for Israel’s benefit but to show the holiness of God’s great name.
“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken and I WILL do it.”

That rebuilding and replanting that will be recognised by the surrounding nations has not yet taken place. Will the Lord do it as He said? Or do we “spiritualise” those promises and make them mean what WE want them to mean?
Proof texting is the lifeblood of human theology. Consider scripture according to its intended context and theology will be less prone to error.

Read and consider the WHOLE of the prophecy given in Ezekiel 36 – not just the verse or two that can be manipulated to suit a theological argument.


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

The example I refer to above can be found here:
ezekiel-36:26-27-regeneration-

Gospel of the Kingdom: What about Israel?

"Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven".

“…they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority”


The teaching of “replacement theology” is not new. It was stirring in the very early years of the church and it is possible that the book of Romans was written to address this issue with the climax of Paul’s argument coming in chapters 9-11 and particularly in chapter 11.

“Did God reject His people? NEVER!!!”

Romans was written to a church that had for a time been made up totally of gentile believers after all Jews had been forced out of Rome by the emperor Claudius. When Nero came to power he allowed the Jews to return, and Jewish believers had difficulty being accepted back into a church that considered their exile had been evidence that God had forsaken the Jews.

The idea that the church has replaced Israel as God’s people because of Jewish disobedience is categorically refuted by Paul in Romans. When he wrote NEVER in Romans 11, the word used was the strongest possible negative exclamation available to him in the Greek language (meganoita!).
Paul also clearly attacks the smugness of those who considered themselves as being those people who had allegedly replaced Israel in God’s affections. (“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either”).

While Romans addresses a very early incarnation of “replacement theology” there can be no doubt that it is a belief system that refuses to go away, and it is widely held today; despite the historically unprecedented “resurrection” of a long dead nation (Israel) and its language (Hebrew) only 50 years ago.

Why should there be such contention over Israel and its continuing role in God’s purposes? Why are so many determined to dismiss Israel’s relevance despite the events of recent history in which a nation, totally dead and gone as a political entity, returned against the odds to become one of the world’s most powerful military forces; and to become a nation constantly at the centre of world attention. Has there ever been a time since 1948 when Israel, a tiny nation, has not been in the news? Would there be such a continuing obsession with a mere political entity, no matter how unlikely the renewed existence of that entity after 2000 years may seem?

In a previous post I addressed the matter of the “millennium” in Old Testament prophecies. Almost every Old Testament prophet foretold of a time when the nations would be ruled by a King from the throne of David in Zion. The issues of Israel’s continuing importance and the rule of this King are very much linked. It is therefore not surprising that “replacement theology” often goes hand in hand with “amillennialism” - a theology that denies the literal earthly reign of Christ after His return.

Israel is very much tied up with end time events and Satan knows that. He thought he could prevent fulfilment of Gods purposes by leading men to crucify Jesus – but his “victory” was short lived. Satan knows that Gods plans for THIS creation are heading towards an earthly kingdom ruled by God’s Son from the throne of David. Satan knows that the establishment of that earthly kingdom begins with him (satan) being imprisoned and stripped of his deceptive power, and will end with him being thrown into the lake of fire. It’s not surprising that he would try to prevent the establishment of that kingdom by removing Israel. And its not surprising that he would cause so much confusion about the events that mark his final destruction.

I tend to think that Satan’s attempt to destroy Jesus was to prevent the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel under the rule of the Messiah. By killing the Messiah, Satan thought he could stop the kingdom. But God’s plan involved an unexpected twist. The Messiah would come twice, first as a sacrifice then secondly as King to rule over the nations from His throne in Zion.

Satan’s misunderstanding played right into God’s hands. Instead of destroying God’s plans, the death of Jesus FULFILLED them. Satan knows he can no longer prevent God’s Kingdom by destroying the King, so his attention becomes focused on the nation from which the King will rule over the earth.
By turning the church against Israel Satan is trying to kill two birds with one stone. It turns the church away from God’s purposes while trying to rid the world of Israel. The final part of that attempt will come when the beast launches a massive “final solution” to rid the world of both church and Israel.

Paul made it clear that Israel has not been replaced by anyone. There are many statements in Romans 11 that should dismiss any doubt about Israel’s continued importance to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the God of Israel.
But true to form, one of the clearest promises made specifically to Israel about its ongoing part in God’s purposes is most often quoted and applied to the church in a most inappropriate way.

“…for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable”. Instead of applying this to Israel, it is usually applied to disobedient “Christians” who still SEEM to be displaying Spiritual gifts. Implying that disobedient Christians can’t lose what they have been given – while Israel is portrayed as having lost their inheritance because of their disobedience. What a complete twisting of the context and the intended application of that promise regarding God’s relationship with Israel.

So what are we to do with Israel? Should Christians throw unconditional support behind the current political incarnation that goes by that name? Is that what God would have us do? Or does God require that we expect the same standard of righteousness that HE demands from His Israel?

It is clearly the latter - and the only way they can attain that standard of righteousness is through faith in His Son, their Messiah.

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

Rom 11:25-27

A Question for My Beloved Calvinists

Another recommended article written by David Servant.

A Question for My Beloved Calvinists
by David Servant

Those who have been reading with me through the New Testament chronologically---by means of our daily emailed devotional that we call HeavenWord Daily---know that I am not a Calvinist. In fact, practically every time we happen upon one of the many passages of Scripture that contradict the doctrines of Calvinism, I point it out. Consequently, I've pointed out scores of scriptures that illustrate where Calvinism deviates from biblical truth.
For readers who may not know what Calvinism is, let me briefly explain. Calvinists believe that, in eternity past, God sovereignly selected some people to be saved, and thus He also sovereignly selected everyone else to be damned. At a pre-determined point during the lifetimes of those who are allegedly pre-selected for salvation, God draws them irresistibly, and they are born again. Calvinists also believe, and understandably so, that Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone. Rather, He only died for those whom He allegedly predestined for salvation. Finally, because Calvinists believe that salvation does not depend on any person's free will and only upon the sovereign decree and action of God, they also believe that no genuinely-saved person could possibly ever become unsaved. Once genuinely saved, people are guaranteed to be saved in the end, which is probably the most attractive element of Calvinism, and which may explain why some people readily embrace it. Once a person is convinced that he has been sovereignly pre-selected for salvation, he knows he has salvation "in the bag."
I would like to offer some food for thought for Calvinists, ending with a challenge, and at the same time fortify non-Calvinists from being persuaded by some common Calvinist arguments.



Full article is here:

Question for Calvinists

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: my unpolished personal view.

Leaving aside “Catholic” and “Orthodox” believers, there seems to be a tendency to try to divide the rest of the Christian world into two neat camps: Arminian and Calvinist.

Despite being A Christian since the mid 70s I didn’t become aware of Calvinism until about 4 years ago when I read the contributions of a Calvinist writer on a Christian forum. I was appalled by the beliefs he was promoting. However I had no personal contact with Calvinists until two years ago. At that time I started to do some research and I found it hard to believe that any professing Christian could hold to such an aberrant view God.

My introduction to Arminianism came through my being accused of being an Arminian. While I find Arminian doctrine to be much closer to the truth than that of Calvinism, there is still the fact that its adherents are devoted to, and prize, the theology of a man. It is my view that there would be NO Arminianism/Calvinism debate if importance was genuinely placed on Scripture alone – something that both sides ironically claim is the basis of their doctrine. I would more easily believe that was the case if the devotion to Arminius and Calvin (and the associated religious systems) were repented of and the labels dropped.

I’ve been frequenting “Arminian” blogs for a few months now and have appreciated the interaction I’ve had with several people on those blogs. But one thing I have repeatedly noticed is that so much of the disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists is often demonstrated through multi-syllabic theological terminology and theological ideas instead of through plain and simple application of scriptural revelation. The result of this is disagreement over differing ideas of man-made philosophical concepts rather than God’s revelation of Himself through His word.

Infralapsarian, Supralapsarian, supraduperlapsarian… all meaningless and worthless twaddle just like so much of the vain concepts that take centre stage in man’s theology. Most of them are merely intellectual sounding alternatives to that age old question of how many angels fit on a pin head.

Get back to the gospel people. Turn to God’s Word and not mans’.

Because there is too much reliance on human theology and wanting to identify with a label rather than with a lifestyle, “Faith” to many has become a matter of assent to a series of tenets Why not DEMONSTRATE the truths we believe rather than try to give a short cut by identifying with a theological system?

Surely this IS what Paul was writing about when he criticised some for saying “I am of Apollos or I am of Paul” Was Arminius or Calvin crucified for you?

I am definitely NOT a Calvinist (as if anyone would mistake me for one) and neither am I associated with any of the theological labels that others have tried to pin on me. In all my weakness, with all of my faults and despite stumbling many times – it is my desire to be nothing more or less than a disciple of Jesus.

All of the rest: the theological posturing and labelling, are dangerous distractions.

"Why I am Not a Calvinist" by Dr Tim Pierce

The first three parts of a series being written by Dr Tim Pierce (a former Calvinist) on his blog.
I look forward to reading the next installments.

Why I am not calvinist part 1

Why I am not calvinist part 2

Why I am not calvinist part 3

God's Sacrifice

An article and a sermon from two different sources but addressing the same theme: the cross and the sacrificial crucifixion of Jesus.

Article from Judahslion blog
Behold the Lamb

Recorded Sermon from Art Katz
And they Crucified Him

What should be our response?

Moving on from a Theological Rut

This blog was never intended to be a place where anyone and everyone could try to promote their questionable doctrines. Many other blogs allow (and some even encourage) the ongoing “Arminian/Calvinism debate” and the same old ground is trodden and the theological rut deepens.

I have made no secret that I detest the doctrines of Calvinism. They portray a god far different from the one true God revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit. But constantly going over that same old ground, refuting the same old arguments and facing a barrage of the same old proof texts is clearly a waste of time and it distracts from things that are genuinely important. I will no longer give time to answering the same misrepresentations of the gospel presented by the same people over and over again. Therefore I will make more active use of the moderation options and will delete those comments that try to perpetuate the theological rut-digging.
That process has already begun – and if the writers of the comments I have deleted feel snubbed by not having their views addressed, I suggest they go back to the replies I gave to their earlier comments and see what I said about the very same views the first time they were expressed.

Before I move on from the matter of deleting comments; the following statement comes from a comment I rejected for the reasons stated above.

Paul G said: “Because you don’t believe or understand the doctrine of election, it ultimately forces you to trust and believe in your own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary.”

Firstly I have quite a good understanding of “election” as depicted in scripture. I also have a good understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” – a doctrine that clearly contradicts God’s revelation given in scripture. But that is not the main part of the statement that I want to address.

Note the confusion in the latter part of the statement: the part that accuses me of trusting and believing in my “own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary”. Does Paul G trust in the finished work of Calvary? Is he not then trusting in his own trust in the finished work of Calvary? What makes his situation and his “trust” different to mine?

The difference is that the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” effectively bypasses Calvary all together. It makes salvation the result of a pre-creation decree that determined which individuals were lucky enough to be saved. Therefore salvation has nothing to do with Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice and everything to do with having one’s name drawn out in god’s salvation lottery.

Paul closes his comment with the statement “Salvation is of the Lord” – and I totally agree. The disagreement is not with the source of salvation (the Lord), it is with the MEANS by which salvation is made available. Does that means reflect the character of God as revealed throughout scripture: does that means reflect His justice, His righteousness, His love and His mercy?

Debating Calvinists has never been my intention. My only interest in this matter has been to expose the evils of Calvinism’s doctrines. Those who choose to remain adherents to those false doctrines do so according to their own free will (ironically a free will many of them would deny having).

One of the most difficult experiences of the past few months has not been due to the response I've had from Calvinists. It has come from the reactions of some who deny being Calvinists who for some reason took offense when I drew attention to what Calvinism really promotes. To me this reveals a false sense of loyalty, an almost ecumenical approach that is willing to “agree to disagree” over important truths in order to maintain an appearance of peace.
Despite those difficult experiences, there have been indications that some have taken note and have realised for themselves how sinister the doctrines of Calvinism really are.

Millennial Questions

Here are a selection of questions “amillennialists” have asked me in their attempt to discredit belief in a literal millennial rule of Christ.

---

“Will immortal humans (the saved) live among mortal humans?”

Since the saved are changed at Jesus’ return and since the scriptures states clearly that the saints will rule with Him during the millennium it certainly seems that immortal humans will live among those unbelievers who are still alive after Jesus’ return
——-
“While the redeemed live for the whole 1000 years will those not saved die?”

Yes there will be death during the millennium. Isaiah speaks of lives being extended at that time, but that sinner’s lives will be shortened. So there will also be sin in the earth during the millennium.
———
“I mean can someone explain to me what exactly is going on during this future 1000 year reign of Christ on earth?”

Christ is ruling over the earth in justice. Life is going on in a world that is totally just. There are many descriptions of this period scattered throughout scripture, in particular throughout the OT prophets.
——–
“What is the purpose?”

Speculation alert: maybe it’s merely to show humanity what life can be like when true justice is applied and also that it’s NOT the devil making us do it – that mankind has ultimate responsibility to for his own actions. With the devil out of the way he can’t be blamed for man’s sin.

Also see:
Millennium: Failed Prophecies and Lost Faith

————
“Why does God continue the conflict between Himself and the devil for another 1000 years?”

He doesn’t. The devil is out of the way for those 1000 years. There is no conflict with the devil. The devil is released at the end of that time for a brief period. Again there is no conflict – when God determines that enough is enough, the devil is thrown into the Lake of fire.
The idea of conflict gives the impression of God struggling with the devil. There is no struggle. Satan is dealt with when and how God determines. Note that Satan’s imprisonment at the beginning of the 1000 years is carried out by an angel. God doesn’t even need to do that Himself. He sends a servant to do it.
————-
“And seeing Jesus return according to prophecy, how can those still alive on earth not bow and put their faith in Him?”

1) Because mankind is rebellious and sinful.
2) Who says that the majority still alive on earth don’t immediately do that but later when complacency takes over they slip back to their old ways.
3) Those generations born during the Millennium have no prior knowledge of what the world was like prior to the rule of Jesus and will be ruled by the same passions that have affected mankind throughout history.
————–
“How can MOST of the world be deceived after the 1000 years when they have had the wonderful loving most kind and gentle King Jesus leading humanity?”

Because mankind is sinful and selfish and doesn’t like being told what to do, even when it is in their best interests.
Judas lived with Jesus for three years. He saw the miracles and heard the teaching, yet he remained a thief and later betrayed Jesus.
——–
“Do the wicked get raised before the millennium or wait till after the 1000 years?”

That is a question that is specifically and clearly answered in scripture. Read the sequence of events from Rev 19 onwards, and for the sake of this exercise assume that the millennium is exactly where scripture places it – in between the return of Jesus and the great white throne judgment.
———-
“When the mortals see the righteous have been raised, won’t that bring conversion?”

Not necessarily. Some saw Lazarus raised from the dead and planned to kill him again! While resurrection has a much more glorious and permanent outcome than a mere raising from the dead, the heart of unrepentant man remains the same.
———–
“If there are unbelieving mortals living on the earth during His reign do they have a chance to be saved and become immortal?”

I’m not aware that scripture makes this clear – but that does not nullify the reality of a literal 1000 year reign.
———–
“Does Jesus return and then rule over this world as it is or does He make it perfect first?”

He starts ruling it as it is – I suppose that is why swords have to be beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks (which scripture describes as happening when the Lord rules in Zion – as He does in the Millennium!)
———–
“It seems the nations still exist during the 1000 years so do we go about and clean up the pollution and mess or do we wait until Jesus creates a new heaven and new earth after the 1000 years?”

People still have to live here for that 1000 years so it is likely that the earth’s mess is progressively cleaned up.
———-

When His Glory is Revealed.

I have often been accused of having a man-centred gospel; a gospel through which I thought I could save myself – all because I insist that faith and repentance were required conditions of man’s salvation. Many of those accusations have appeared in the comments on this blog and were made by those who insisted that God alone chose those individuals who would be saved.
Those same people follow a tradition that tells us billions of people will be thrown in hell with no chance of salvation entirely because God has not chosen them for salvation.
Somehow this “predestination” for damnation is all for God’s glory.
I know God’s ways are not our ways – but a God who needs to burn billions of people for eternity in order to bring glory to himself is less worthy of glory than a school yard bully who beats up kids half his size and half his age.

I wrote the article “God’s Glorious Gospel” when I was trying to find words to describe the incredible nature of the salvation God has provided. I realised how incapable I was of understanding the glorious nature and means of salvation sufficiently to put it into words.
However, one day the whole extent of what God has done (and is doing) will be completely revealed to those He has saved.
How much glory will He receive when the fullness of salvation is made known?

Two Creations

The current creation started with the heavens and the earth and climaxed with the creation of man.
God's new creation started with man and culminates with a new heaven and a new earth.

The first creation started with an environment suitable for man.
The new creation starts by making men suitable for an environment where he will live with God.