“In the case of good books, the point is not to see how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.” Mortimer J. Adler
“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” Mark Twain
“. . . Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”Ecclesiastes 12:12b
“. . . Give attendance to reading. . . .” I Timothy 4:13a
Have you started to read a good Reformed book yet? If not, find one and get started! If you have, keep at it! As we pointed out in our initial article, we want to encourage our Standard Bearer readers to become greater readers, that is, to read more books and to read better books.
In this article encouraging you to read, we want to explore the “WHY” of good reading. That is, why should you as a Reformed Christian want to become a greater reader? Or, to put it another way, what are the reasons for reading solid Reformed/Christian books? We believe there are many reasons that may be given; we will highlight a few of them in this article.
First of all, we begin with the most important reason, the THEOLOGICAL reason (where all good Calvinists should begin!): We should read good books because GOD wants us to! Why do we say this, and how do we know this? We have several points in mind under this reason. First, God wants/expects/calls us to read as His people because He gave us the greatest book to read—His Holy Word, the Scriptures!
When God chose to communicate to us, His covenant friends, He chose to do so in WORDS. It is true that these words were initially given ORALLY (and in some cases VISUALLY—cf. the visions of Ezekiel and John), that is, out of God’s mouth through the mouths of His spokesmen (prophets, apostles, etc.). But in the end God committed these spoken words to writing and had them placed in His Book, the Bible (cf.Ex. 24:7; I Sam. 10:25; Neh. 8; Luke 3:4, 20:42; II Tim. 3:15, 16; II Pet. 1:20, 21; Rev. 1:11), or scripture (Mark 12:10, 24; Rom. 1:2, 15:4).
And therefore, this holy Book God charges His people to READ (cf. Neh. 8; Is. 34:16). That means that we must first and foremost be readers of this Book! Not just any book under the sun, but the Bible must be the first book we turn to! Every Christian must be devoted to reading the word of God, like the Bereans of old searching the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). This is chiefly what Paul meant when he instructed Timothy to “give attendance to reading” (I Tim. 4:13). And what was true for that young pastor is to be true of every member of God’s covenant. God wills that we be readers because He gave us this marvellous Book of His words!
Second, and closely related to this, is the truth that this chief and fundamental book God gave us to read centers in His Son, Jesus Christ. The most important Word God gave us to read was His Son, the living and abiding Word of God (John 1:1, 14; Heb. 1:1, 2; I Pet. 1:23). Everywhere we go in the Scriptures we must read “Jesus Christ” the “Word of God.” That is true not only in the New Testament portion of the Bible, but also in the Old Testament (cf. Ps. 40:7; Luke 24:27; John 5:39). This is why the Scriptures are able to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15). This is why they are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” so that we may be complete and mature Christians (II Tim. 3:16). But only if this word be read! So read, people of God! Read the Bible chiefly and diligently! Set yourself to do so faithfully in this new year! Let SOLA SCRIPTURA be the motto we live by in 2015! Indeed, God wants us and calls us to be readers, because He gave us this holy Book, centered in His Son, our Savior.
There are more reasons why we should be and become better readers. And we may confidently say that the other reasons we will now list are all rooted in that first one. The fact that God gave us His Book to read is the principle that governs all our other reasons for reading. This will become plain as we proceed.
So then, why should we read? In the second place, because reading is vital to the growth of our faith and walk in godliness. God in His sacred Book calls us to spiritual growth. II Peter 3:18, e.g., states, “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. also Eph. 4:15; I Pet. 2:2; Jude 20). Earlier in that same epistle Peter wrote that we should be “giving all diligence” to “add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness” (I Pet. 1:5, 6). And how are we going to do this? By reading! By reading (and hearing!) the Scriptures, of course (cf. I Pet. 2:2). But also by reading other sound Reformed/Christian books that teach us and encourage us to spiritual growth.
So then, are you tired of not being as strong in your faith as you should be and could be? Are you frustrated by the fact that your walk with God is not as close as it ought to be? Do you struggle with being spiritually mature and wise in handling trials and temptations in your life? Then READ. Yes, again, read the BIBLE, so that your faith becomes more grounded in Jesus Christ and your walk is brought closer to the Lord! But also read the books that your fellow believers have written to help you grow in faith and godliness! They stand with you and support you in this calling to grow. They have wisdom and experience to share with you as we walk the common path of the Christian in this world. Our fellow Reformed Christians have written books because of their own struggles and hardships. Let us read them to benefit from them; to enhance our own spiritual life; to become stronger in faith and more holy in life! This too is why we must read!
In the third place, we should read good Reformed/Christian books because it is important to defend our faith and abide in the truth of God’s word. We are talking about the area of APOLOGETICS, the defense of the Reformed-Christian faith and walk. In this present world there are always threats to our faith and life. The devil and his hosts walk about as a roaring lion seeking to devour us with lies and deception (I Pet. 5:8). The world of unbelief with its “lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” seeks to lead us astray from the Father (I John 2:16).
False prophets and teachers in the church “bring in damnable heresies” and “pernicious ways,” trying to overthrow “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3; I John 4:1ff.; II Pet. 2:1ff.). And, yes, our own sinful nature is still inclined to and tempted by all these lies and errors and ungodliness. We are Christian soldiers, called to be on the defensive against all these spiritual dangers (Eph. 6:10ff.). We are exhorted to resist doctrinal lies and remain steadfast in the faith (I Pet. 5:9). We are admonished to abide in godliness and stay obedient to our Savior, suffering accordingly (I Pet. 3, 4).
And how shall we be able to do this? By READING! Yes, again, by reading the Scriptures (Eph. 6:17). But also by reading good Reformed books that lead us and help us in the battle for the truth and for godliness! By reading we stay abreast of dangerous trends in the church and in the world. By reading we are informed of and warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing. By reading we are encouraged by the courageous stands of our fellow believers in other times and places. By reading we are urged to be faithful when the majority fall away into error and lawlessness. Yes, we must read for this reason too! Do you see the need for reading, especially now in these last days? Will you become a greater reader with this in mind too? We pray that you will, for the honor of Christ and His word, and for the safety of your own soul.
Finally, we have a very practical reason for reading good Reformed/Christian books. That is that by reading such books we set a good example for our children and young people. This too is so important, especially in the world in which we now find ourselves. As we mentioned in our opening article, we and our children are exposed to so many temptations and hindrances to good reading.
We are in constant competition with TV, video games, the Internet, iPods, etc. But when our children and young people see us as adults taking time to read, to read the Bible and to read books that make us grow in our faith and walk, we provide a great example and encouragement for them to do the same. Then we are better able to gain their respect when we tell them to read good books. And, of course, at the same time, when we have on our shelves and on our tables (and in our hands!) good Reformed/Christian books that we are reading, we provide them with the very materials we want them to read too! And THAT is a win-win situation!
There are basically only two religions in the world. One says, “IF YOU WILL do such and such, God will graciously bestow His blessing upon you.” The thousand and one varieties of this religion differ only on what the “such and such” is that you must be willing to do. One variety says bathe in a sacred river, another bids you kiss the sacred rock located in the holy city, still another says be baptized or some similar rite, and in distinctly evangelical circles this religion emphasizes, “IF YOU WILL OPEN YOUR HEART, THEN GOD . . .”
Notice carefully the three key words IF YOU WILL. (1) God’s forgiveness is possible IF ….. (2) God’s forgiveness is possible if YOU… (3) God’s forgiveness is possible if you WILL. . . .
The ultimate success or failure of this religion is determined solely by the will of man. Everything depends on an “if,” and on “you,” and on “your willingness” to do your part. Redemption is always CONDITIONAL since it depends on man’s cooperation for success. The great work of salvation is not actually accomplished until God can find someone who is willing to “cooperate with Him.” Our forefathers called this “if you will” system the “religion of works.” It was also called “Arminianism” and “semi-Pelagianism” since these were the men who originally caused division in the church by introducing this error of free will. Regardless of the name attached to it by friend or foe, the distinguishing marks are always the same — the IF, the YOU, and YOUR WILL are the decisive factors that make the plan of salvation work.
This religion offers a wonderful plan of salvation that is able to do mighty things if YOU WILL ONLY LET IT. The God of this free will religion can only desire and offer to save sinners. He is helpless to secure, by His own power, what He longs to do. The goal of redemption cannot be reached unless man, of his own free will, chooses to permit God to accomplish His purposes.
The false religion of free will, or works, is based upon several unbiblical doctrines. The most basic of these is THE UNIVERSAL AND INDISCRIMINATE REDEMPTIVE LOVE OF GOD. God is said to love all men in the same way and to the same degree. He loved Judas the same as Peter, Esau like Jacob, and the goats as much as the sheep. Since His love is universal then the greatest gift of His love, Jesus Christ His Son, must have been given to provide a universal atonement, meaning for every individual without exception, in His death. The objects of the Son’s atonement must be equal to the objects of the Father’s love, so both must include every man. If the Father loves all men equally, and the Son redeemed every man without exception, it follows that the Holy Spirit must convict every man or else the Trinity is not working together toward the same end in the task of redeeming lost men.
It should be amply clear that this religion of works, or free will, based on a universal love and universal atonement, makes God’s whole scheme of redemption depend on man for its success. God’s love will prevail IF MAN will let it. Christ’s atonement will actually redeem only IF MAN will let it. The Holy Spirit will apply redemption’s purchased benefits IF MAN will allow Him. No wonder C. H. Spurgeon, that great soul winner, called free will “utter nonsense,” and universal atonement a “monstrous doctrine akin to blasphemy.”
Now the second religion is the message of the Bible. It is the gospel of FREE GRACE. It does not look to God for the PROVISION and then turn to man for the POWER, but it boldly proclaims that the same sovereign grace that planned salvation for helpless sinners also furnishes them with the ability to desire and receive it. This second religion not only starts at a different place, it works on a different principle, and moves toward a different goal. In short, it is a totally different religion. The religion based on free will (Arminianism – If you will …), and that based of free grace (Calvinism — God makes us willing …) are two very distinct and opposite religions that differ on every theological point at which they meet.
Any individual who piously says, “It is really not important, it is merely a question of EMPHASIS,” is either deliberately dishonest or completely ignorant of Bible doctrine in church history. The Synod of Dort and the Council of Trent clarified forever the vital importance of the issue once and for all time. I challenge any man to read Dr. J. I. Packer’s introduction to the DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST by John Owen, and then talk about emphasis. Packer clearly shows that free will and free grace are totally different religions, and furthermore, that they are irreconcilable enemies.
WHO WEARS THE CROWN?
As you can see, the real battle ground is the nature of man, and the prize to be won is the Crown of Credit for making redemption’s plan actually work. Is free grace, given sovereignly by the Father, the decisive factor that causes the elect to believe in the first place, or is man’s will, exercised sovereignly by the individual, the decisive factor that causes God to choose these whom He “foresees” are willing to believe? Who wins the right to wear the crown of glory, God or man? And by what power was that right won — free will or free grace?
The basic difference between these two opposing religions can also be summed up by asking another question, a question vitally related to the first one. Instead of asking how any man can perish, and being told that, “the man would not do his part which was to simply believe,” we now ask, “Why are SOME men saved?” How is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’s work able to succeed in some cases but not in others? The religion of free will humbly (?) answers that “MAN MADE IT ALL POSSIBLE BY BEING WILLING TO OPEN HIS HEART AND GIVE GOD A CHANCE!” It does not matter if we are speaking of those who perish or those who are saved, we always come back to that IF YOU WILL.
Actually, the gospel based on free will can never be more than a gospel of mere POSSIBILITY. It is a plan of redemption that cannot truly redeem by its own power, but can only effect real salvation when it finds someone who make themselves willing to do “their part.” It is not a question of whether a man must, or does, become willing before he can be saved, we all believe that, but WHO AND WHAT POWER makes the sinner willing? Does man, of himself, choose to become willing, or does God, by His sovereign power, make His elect willing “in the day of His power” (Ps. 110:3)? It seems both logical and judicially necessary to crown with glory the individual who made the plan of salvation actually work, and the free willer does not hesitate to reach for the crown and place it on the head of the sovereign and free will of man.
Some folks may feel we are laboring this point to an extreme, but actually this is the heart of the matter. Who really deserves all the glory for man’s salvation? It cannot be both God and man, nor can it be, as many would imply, half and half. Either God saves sinners by “making them willing in the day of His power,” or they save themselves by making themselves willing in the “day of their free will decision.”
And Romans 9:16 settles the matter once and for all – “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy!”
10 THINGS I DID NOT UNDERSTAND BEFORE I WAS REFORMED
Les Lanphere
I, like so many others in my generation, was a Christian for a long time before being confronted with the doctrines of grace. Why does this matter? What difference do these doctrines make in the Christian life?
There is a solid Christianity that has been fought for, that people have died for. There have been Church councils and controversial men who stood up to revolt against corrupt practices and unbiblical doctrines. We aren’t left in the dark to figure Christianity out all over again. The truth has been opened and passed down to us by Saints past.Not only has reformed theology opened my eyes to new things, it’s cleared up so many things that I already believed but failed to understand.
MY SIN
I knew I was a sinner. I knew I needed to be forgiven. But just how much of a sinner, I had no idea. Sometimes I would say, “Wow, I didn’t sin much this week.”
Now I know that it’s quite possible that I have never, for a second, obeyed the command “Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength.”. I never took seriously Jesus’ words that looking at a woman with lust is to commit adultery, or that hating a man in your heart is murder. I ignored the fact that Jesus said “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” -Matthew 5:48
I finally understand that I sin every day, every hour… on some level I sin every moment of my life. This is how sinful I am. But God! Oh, how merciful He is to such a sinner.
GOD WORKS ALL THINGS FOR MY GOOD
This seemed like a nice idea – God works stuff out in the end. I don’t need to worry too much, because God can clean up the messes and put it back together.
But once I understood sovereignty, it all changed. God doesn’t just react to what people are doing or the messes that pop up in life. He is “working all things” for the good of His people. Because He orchestrates everything, my life isn’t left to chance for a split second. Nothing surprises Him, not because He knows it all but because He’s actually in control.
WHY WE PRAY FOR THE LOST
This is something everyone does. We pray for our family and friends to be saved. We say things like “soften their hearts” or “reveal yourself to them”. It’s not something I ever thought about as incosistent with my beliefs, but now I see how strange it really was.
If God couldn’t override people’s free will, how could He save them? How could He do anything different than the 100% He was already giving everyone, waiting fo them to make their decision. What does it mean to “soften a heart” other than “do more than You are doing to change their mind”?
Now I can pray fervently for God to override a family member’s sinful will, because I know that this is their only hope. If God can’t touch our wills, we all go to Hell. God, destroy their will, and MAKE them love You, so they can be saved from Hell!
THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION
I was always on the fence on the “can we lose our salvation?” question. I’d seen and heard of epic backsliding and people who walked completely away from faith. So it only seemed logical that there were certain sins that could push us too far away from God.
The Bible says nothing in all of creation can separate us from the love that is in Christ, let alone the very thing he died to forgive. The gospel teaches that everything past, present, and future is forgiven. So what could undo the work of Jesus and make us accused again?
Now I understand that sins aren’t counted against me anymore. God convicts me to cease from sinning, but the condemnation and marks against me have been paid for. I’m truly free.
JESUS TOOK MY PLACE
The idea that Jesus was in my place on the cross was another nice thought, and was truly my object of faith. But I believed He took everyone’s place on the cross, even people who would wind up in Hell. What kind of assurance can I find in a substitution that doesn’t help such a large number of people it took the place of? What does it mean to die in someone’s place, if not that they are pardoned?
I understand, now, that Jesus was laying His life down for His sheep… perfectly. Not one of the people who’s place He took on the cross will be in Hell. Those who do find themselves in Hell were never atoned for. Jesus truly, perfectly, and finally took my sins on Himself not because I applied His blood to myself, but because the Father placed my sins, specifically, on His Son.
THE NECESSITY OF PRAYER
I used to pray. I would pray especially hard when I messed up, or when something was completely out of my control. When I knew there was nothing I could do about a situation, then I’d give it over to God. Other than that I’d pray very generally that God would help me in my life.
Reformed theology has opened my eyes to the truth that I am completely helpless. I’m one-hundred percent at God’s mercy. God could, if He wanted, take the faith out of my heart tomorrow. I’d wake up, shake my head, and say, “Wow, that Christianity phase was weird.” and get right back to my sinful life. God promises to never do that, but that’s how much we are at His mercy.
I NEED God to live, I need him in every area because I’m powerless without Him. He’s the power that makes me flee from sin, help people, open His word, and even pray. Yes, we should pray that God would give us the desire to pray. God is truly our strength, so we must pray without ceasing. Anything less would be relying on our powerless flesh.
BEING BORN AGAIN
When I look back, I don’t even know how I would have defined being born again. I knew it was a change, maybe a feeling. I definitely knew that you needed to be born again to be saved, and I even knew the moment that it happened to me. What it was, though, I’d be hard pressed to answer.
Oh boy! I could tell you now. It is the supernatural change of a God-hater into a God-lover. It’s the work of God to change a man’s entire nature. We are set free from slavery to sin, and made slaves of righteousness. We are new creations. Without it man cannot believe the gospel or repent. Praise God for this free-will smashing new birth!
THE HOLY SPIRIT
What a mystery the Holy Spirit was. I believed in the Trinity. Father – The one who calls the shots. Son – The One who came to earth to die for sin. Holy Spirit – um… it’s like a mist, that like… is everywhere. Kinda like the wind, I guess. And it… helps us.
Praise God for His Holy Spirit! The third Person of the Trinity that works in God’s people. He’s IN me! It’s amazing! He’s the One that produces the fruit, the One that makes me understand the Bible, the One that makes me cry “Abba, Father!” The Holy Spirit confirms to my spirit that I’m in Christ. He perfects my broken prayers and praises. Without God’s Spirit inside us, we’d never know God.
THE NECESSITY OF THE GOSPEL
I would, from time to time, share my faith. I would talk about how Jesus died, but the most important thing I was seeking was a decision. Offensive parts of the gospel, about sin and wrath… those don’t make people want to accept, so I’d minimize them. I would let people know that Jesus wanted to make them happier and fulfill their lives – certainly not that He demands their submission and will take away their rights.
Now I know that apart from the clear and complete gospel, nobody can be saved. Anybody who has signed a decision card or said a prayer based solely on a promise of, “The Bible tells us that we can know where we go when we die. Come to Jesus and He’ll forgive you.”, is not going to heaven. They were deceived. People must hear about their sinfulness, the forgiveness on the cross, and the repentance God requires. This is how we are saved, through the gospel.
THE MEANING OF LIFE
God’s creation, I would have guessed, was an experiment in free will. How will people respond to God becoming a man and dying? God was trying His hardest to save as many people as possible, yet inevitably some would go to Hell since it was their decision. Jesus died to make salvation possible, and God was going to be eternally frustrated by all the people that He loved who would be in Hell for eternity. In the back of my mind, I always had a theory that God would forgive them all and bring them into Heaven in the end, and we’d all rejoice.
Oh, how glorious God’s plan truly is. God’s number one priority is to show off His majesty and be glorified. God is beautiful, and when we see His beauty and respond in worship, we are fulfilling our entire purpose. When we fail to love God, we are spitting in this glorious King’s face, and we will be punished.
The purpose of this creation is for God to demonstrate His power and mercy. The fall of Satan and Adam are all part of this amazing story. God’s righteous hatred toward sinners will display His awesome power for eternity. God became a man and redeemed mankind from His own wrath. All who He has mercy on will worship Him for eternity because of this amazing love displayed on the Cross. Heaven will be the most amazing pleasure imaginable, fulfilling the very purpose of creation. We will worship God forever because we’ll know what we have been saved from. He displayed love beyond our comprehension! Praise God!
We are people of “The Book”! We don’t look to the stars, to tea leaves, to palm-readers or to astrologers. We aren’t looking for additional revelations or manifestations. We aren’t followers of new apostles or prophets. God has provided His revelation in His time and His way. He gave prophets for a particular period and apostles as the front line to bear the message of Christ. That day has passed and we have “The Book”. The proper name Bible means book. It has sixty-six books but it is one Book. It has numerous writers but one Author, the Holy Spirit. It’s as relevant in the twenty-first century as it was in the first century.
Jesus was a man of “The Book” [its very subject and content]. Again and again He challenged His generation with these words “have you not read?” He spoke of Moses and David, of Isaiah and generally of the prophets. He referred to Jonah as a type of Himself. He said He came to establish righteousness by fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law. Where do we find that law? In “The Book”!
Peter was a man of “The Book”. On the day of Pentecost, he quoted the prophet Joel and the psalmist David (Acts 2:14). Philip was a man of “The Book”. How did he deal with the questioning Ethiopian? He “began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:35).
Timothy and Paul were men of “The Book”. Paul said to his younger counterpart: “from a child you have known the holy scripture, which are able to make you wise unto salvation…” (2 Timothy3:16). Paul instructed him: “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and doctrine” (I Timothy 4:13).
[Don’t quote philosophers, thinkers and geniuses of the world my friend . . . . quote THE BOOK . . . Thus saith the Lord! End of argument! – M.J.
ROMANS CHAPTER 9 – THE TIGER THAT DEVOURS ‘FREE-WILLERS’
“Romans 9 is like a tiger going about devouring free-willers like me. That was the end of my love affair with human autonomy and the ultimate self-determination of my will. My worldview simply could not stand against the scriptures, especially Romans 9. And it was the beginning of a lifelong passion to see and savor the supremacy of God in absolutely everything.” – John Piper
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is NOT of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but OF GOD that showeth mercy.” [Romans 9:15,16]
“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated!” [Romans 9:13]
“Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the _expression, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’ By many this has been explained, ‘Esau have I loved less.’ But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love … If God’s love to Jacob was real literal love, God’s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred. It might as well be said that the phrase, ‘Jacob have I loved,’ does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the _expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man’s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, ‘Jacob have I hated less,’ his judgment ought to be a security against the equally unwarrantable meaning, ‘Esau have I loved less’ … hardening [is] a proof of hatred” (Romans, pp. 456, 457).” – Robert Haldane
“‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, ‘Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’ (Ps. 5:5)! ‘God is angry with the wicked every day.’ ‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God’—not ‘shall abide,’ but even now—‘abideth on him’ (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Can God ‘love’ the one on whom His ‘wrath’ abides? Again; is it not evident that the words ‘The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? … Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is ‘without variableness or shadow of turning!’” (A.W. Pink – The Sovereignty of God, p. 248).
“Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth!” [Romans 9:18]
“Every person who has ever lived or will ever live must glorify God, either actively or passively, either willingly or unwillingly, either in heaven or in hell. You will glorify God. Either you will glorify him as the object of his mercy and glory, which will be seen in you. Or you will glorify him in your rebellion and unbelief by being made the object of his wrath and power at the final judgment”. – J.M. Boice
John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
This is perhaps the most oft-quoted, and least understood verse in the Bible.
This verse is used by many to teach that God loves all men the same, has provided salvation for all men the same, and it is up to man to do something with it.
THIS VERSE TEACHES NO SUCH THING!
The emphasis in this verse is not the QUANTITY of God’s love, but the QUALITY!
Whether the whosoever refers to one man, or one billion men, it has no bearing on the meaning.
If only one person was converted by this Gospel, it would not be any less glorious than if one billion people were converted by it.
The point of wonder is that “God SO loved the world ….. that He gave…..His only Begotten Son…..that whosoever ….. believeth in Him…..should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
DOES ‘PREDESTINATION’ MEAN THAT GOD IS A ‘RESPECTER OF PERSONS’
A “respecter of persons” is one who, acting as judge, does not treat those who come before him according to their character, but who withholds from some what is justly theirs and gives to others what is not justly theirs – one who is governed by prejudice and sinister motives, rather than by justice and law. The Scriptures deny that God is the respecter of persons in this sense; and if the doctrine of Predestination represented God as doing these things, we admit that it would charge Him with injustice.
In the Scriptures God is said to be no respecter of persons, for He does not choose one and reject another because of outward circumstances such as race, nationality, wealth, power, nobility, etc. When the Scriptures say that God is no respecter of persons THEY DO NOT MEAN that He treats ALL PEOPLE ALIKE, but that the reason for His saving one and rejecting another is not that one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, or that the one is rich and the other poor, etc.
GOD DOES NOT TREAT ALL PEOPLE ALIKE; HE GIVES TO SOME WHAT HE WITHHOLDS FROM OTHERS
It is a fact that in His providential government of the world God does not confer the same or equal favors upon all people. The inequality is too glaring to be denied. The Scriptures tell us, and the experiences of everyday life show us, that there is a greatest variety in the distribution of these,—and justly so, for all of these are of GRACE, and not of debt. The Calvinist here falls back upon the experienced reality of facts. It is true, and no argument can disprove it, that men in this world find themselves unequally favoured both in inward disposition and outward circumstances. One child is born to health, honor, wealth, of eminently good and wise parents who train him up from infancy in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and who afford him every opportunity of being taught the truth as it is in the Scriptures. Another is born to disease, shame, poverty, of dissipated and depraved parents who reject and ridicule and despise Christianity, and who take care to prevent their child from coming under the influence of the Gospel. Some are born with susceptible hearts and consciences, which makes lives of innocence and purity natural for them; others are born with violent passions, or even with distinct tendencies to evil, which seemingly are inherited and unconquerable. Some are happy, others are miserable. Some are born in Christian and in civilized lands where they are carefully educated and watched over; others are born in complete heathen darkness.
As a general rule the child that is surrounded with the proper Christian influences becomes a devout Christian and lives a life of great service, while the other whose character is formed under the influence of corrupt teaching and example lives in wickedness and dies impenitent. The one is saved and the other is lost. And will anyone deny that the influences favorable to salvation which are brought to bear upon some individuals are far more favorable than those brought to bear upon others? Will it not be admitted by every candid individual that if the persons had changed places, they probably would have changed characters also? – That if the son of the godly parents had been the son of the infidels, and had lived under the same corrupting influences, he would, in all probability, have died in his sins?
In His mysterious providence God has placed persons under widely different influences, and the results are widely different. He of course foresaw these different results before the persons were born. These are facts, which no one can DENY and EXPLAIN AWAY. And if we are to believe that the world is governed by a personal and intelligent Being, we must also believe that these inequalities have not risen by CHANCE or ACCIDENT, but through purpose and design, and that the lot of every individual has been determined by the Sovereign good pleasure of God. “Even Arminians,” says N. L. Rice, “are obliged to acknowledge that God does make great differences in the treatment of the human family, not only in the distribution of the temporal blessings, but of spiritual gifts also,—a difference which compels them, if they would be consistent, to hold the doctrine of election . . . . If the sending of the Gospel to a people, with the divine influence accompanying it, does not amount to a PERSONAL ELECTION, most assuredly the withholding of it from the people amounts generally to reprobation”.
In Matt 11:25 we read of a prayer in which Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” In those words He thanked the Father for doing that very thing which Arminians exclaim against as unjust and censure as partial. When the Arminian admits that Christ died not for fallen angels or demons, but only for fallen men, he admits limited atonement and in principle makes the same kind of a distinction as does the Calvinist who says that Christ died for the elect only.
GOD’S PARTIALITY IS PARTLY EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT HE IS SOVEREIGN AND THAT HIS GIFTS ARE OF GRACE
It cannot be said that God acts unjustly toward those who are not included in this plan of salvation. People who make this objection neglect to take into consideration the fact that God is dealing not merely with creatures but with SINFUL creatures who have forfeited every claim upon His mercy. Augustine well said: “Damnation is rendered to the wicked as a matter of debt, justice and desert, whereas grace given to those who are delivered is free and unmerited, so that the condemned sinner cannot allege that he is unworthy of his punishment, nor the saint vaunt or boast as if he were worthy of his reward. Thus in the whole course of this procedure, there is no respect of persons.
They who are condemned and they who are set at liberty constituted originally one and the same lump, equally infected with sin and liable to vengeance. Hence the justified may learn from the condemnation of the rest that that would have been their own punishment had not God’s grace stepped into their rescue.” And to the same effect Calvin says, “The Lord, therefore, may give grace to whom He will, because He is merciful, and yet not give it to all because He is a just Judge; may manifest His free grace by giving to some what they never deserve, while by not giving to all He declares the demerit of all.”
“Partiality,” in the sense that objectors commonly use the word, is IMPOSSIBLE in the SPHERE OF GRACE. It can EXIST only in the SPHERE OF JUSTICE, where the persons concerned have certain CLAIMS and RIGHTS. We may give to one beggar and not to another for we do not OWE anything to either. The parable of the talents was spoken by our Lord to illustrate the doctrine of Divine sovereignty in the bestowment of UNMERITED gifts; and the regeneration of the soul is one of the greatest of these gifts.
The central teaching in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard is that God is sovereign in the dispensation of His gifts. To the saved and the unsaved alike He can say, “Friend, I do thee NO WRONG . . . . Is it not lawful for Me to do what I WILL with mine own? Or is thine eye evil, because I am good?” Matt. 20:13-15. It was said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”; and Paul adds, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy . . . .So then He hath mercy on WHOM HE WILL and whom He will He hardeneth,” Rom. 9:15-18. He will extend mercy to some, and inflict justice on others, and will be glorified by all.
Just as a man may give alms to some and not to others, so God may give His grace, which is heavenly alms, to whom He pleases. Grace, from its own nature, must be FREE and the very INEQUALITY OF ITS DISTRIBUTION demonstrates that it is TRULY GRATUITOUS. If any one could justly demand it, it would cease to be grace and would become of debt. If God is robbed of His sovereignty in this respect, salvation then becomes a matter of debt to every person.
Hence, then, to the objection that the doctrine of Predestination represents God as “partial,” we answer it certainly does. But we insist that it does not represent Him as UNJUSTLY partial.
[Paraphrased and quoted from – Lorraine Boettner – ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’]
Easter has little to do with real Christianity. Does that surprise you? It should not. For example, Easter was not popular with the Puritans or the Pilgrim settlers in America. Neither Puritans or Pilgrims had use for ceremonies associated with religious festivals invented in either pagan history, or reinvented by Roman Catholicism. In actuality, here in the America’s only after the bloodshed Civil War did Easter “begin again” to be accepted. As Walsh states in his “Holy Time and Sacred Space in Puritan New England” (Walsh, American Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 79-95) “The New England [Pilgrims] like Reformed Protestants everywhere, rejected traditional Roman Catholic and Anglican beliefs and practices that organized time around consecrated churches, railed-off altars, holy shrines, miraculous wells, and that supposed the flow of time to be an irregular succession of holy days and sacred seasons. The Reformers argued, what was intended as a crutch for others had become a cast for Christians who willingly accepted the obligation of constant worship. They for whom all days are holy can have no holidays.” (See, for example, The Sermons of John Calvin Upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (London: H. Middleton, 1583).
The Post Reformation pastors and theologians of the day, following the Reformers, abolished Easter, among other things. In June 1647, England Parliament, headed by the Puritans at Westminster, passed legislation abolishing Christmas and other holidays: “Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise not withstanding.” (Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans (London, 1837; rpt. Minneapolis: Klock , p. 45).The Puritans “proposed a stricter observance of Sundays, the Lord’s Day, along with banning the immoral celebration of Christmas — as well as Easter, Whitsun and saints’ days.” (Patino, Marta, The Puritan Ban on Christmas). The reason the puritans denied the celebration of any holy days was a biblical foundation to deny the “dressing up” of any other day than what God had specifically prescribed in Lord’s Day worship. “Holy days’ have no such prescription — there is no Scriptural command, approved example, or good and necessary inference, which warrants tying specific acts of redemption to ‘holy’ days of our own choosing.” (Chris Coldwell, The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism) (I would encourage the reader to read the entire article that Coldwell has at that link which covers not only Easter, but other holidays.)In “The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements” by Walter E. a Van Beek, he states, “Because Easter invariably fell on a Sunday, this was a problem for Puritan preachers who were consistent with their repudiation of of the traditional calendar. The usual solution was to preach a sermon that had no direct connection with Easter.” (Page 77.) How would a congregation today take a non-Easter sermon on Easter Sunday? What would your reaction be, reader?
Rightly so, the Westminster Confession states in the appendix entitled, “An Appendix, Touching Days and Places for Public Worship,” the following, “The key clause of interest to this study is, “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.” Later Presbyterian theology followed suit. While people “say” they adhere to the Confession, they dip hardboiled eggs into food coloring, and buy Easter Baskets for their children. Robert Dabney states in abolishing Easter, “The objections are: first, that this countenances “will-worship,” or the intrusion of man’s inventions into God’s service; second, it is an implied insult to Paul’s inspiration, assuming that he made a practical blunder, which the church synods, wiser than his inspiration, had to mend by a human expedient; and third, we have here a practical confession that, after all, the average New Testament Christian does need a stated holy day, and therefore the ground of the Sabbath command is perpetual and moral.” (Robert Lewis Dabney “The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design and Proper Observance”, Discussions: Theological and Evangelical (Richmond: Whittet and Shepperson, 1890) 1. 524-525. See also, “The Sabbath of the State,” 2.600.)
What do we find when entering into Roman Catholicism’s “borrowing” of paganism? John Gill states, “Popish festivals were observed very early, long before the Pope of some arrived to the height of his ambition. The feast of Easter was kept in the second century, as the controversy between Anicetus and Polycarp, and between Victor and the Asiatic churches, shews.” (John Gill, Sermon 57: A Dissertation on the Rise and Progress of Popery, page 17; Ages Ultimate Library, 2004). We find their continued alliance with breaking the regulative principle, and the replacement of true worship, with worshipping that which is unholy. They institute unscriptural burdens such as Lent, fast days, sacred rites that control their kingdom with superstitions and false religion guised in the cloak of “authority” and hide the truth from people to damn them for all eternity. One such deception is their introduction of the “Christian festival of Easter.” Look around and you will see the world-wide acceptance of the chocolate bunny and hardboiled egg. It is harmless, right?
What does one find when looking at the celebration of Easter? The term “Easter” is certainly not Christian, and is of Chalcedonian origin. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people at Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use today. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar – the devil or Satan.[1]
Worship of the devil in this way was introduced to the English people through the Druids who worshipped the devil through nature.
Take a moment and note that Romanism or Druidism for that matter, would not openly say “they are worshipping the devil.” Of course they would deny it. However, the Scripture is exceedingly clear that any doctrine not brought to men through the Triune Godhead, and the Savior Jesus Christ, is a doctrine of demons and therefore, a worshipping of the devil. This certainly applies not only to the contemporary church when it introduces destructive heresies, or twists Paul’s words to their own destruction, as Peters states, but also applies to false religious ideas that pull people away from the one true Savior and only God Jesus Christ. One cannot introduce false religion without partaking of demonic influences and devil worship in that light.
As a result of Druidic worship, and influences that have penetrated into Romanism, contemporary Christendom of almost every flavor still has those influences lingering today in their worship, and their Sunday morning bulletins around the time of Easter. The Druids would worship in lighting a fire in the center circle and each worshipper putting in a “bit of oat-cake in a shepherd’s bonnet; they all sit down, and draw blindfold a piece from the bonnet. One piece has been previously blackened, and whoever gets that piece has to jump through the fire in the centre of the circle, and pay a forfeit. This is, in fact, a part of the ancient worship of Baal, and the person on whom the lot fell was previously burnt as a sacrifice.” Scripture deems this “walking through the fire” or “fire sacrifice.” God condemns the practice of making children walk through the fire in Leviticus 18:21, “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.”
Easter, then, traces back through Astarte was also worshipped in ancient times, and that from the name Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious workings during the month of March and April, as now practiced in most of Christendom, are called by the name of Easter. In ancient times the pagans called this time of the year Easter-monath.
Even Socrates, the ancient philosopher, describes the different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time during the fifth century. He states, “Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any Apostle.” (Hist. Ecclesiast.) Even Socrates, the philosopher of the 5th Century (not the pagan 5th century BC philosopher) knew Easter was not a Christian doctrine.
Socrates Scholasticus (aka Socrates of Constantinople) said, “Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed the ‘yoke of servitude’ on those who have embraced the truth; but have left Easter and every other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of grace. Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Saviour suffered in the days of ‘unleavened bread.’ The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the facts themselves indicate” (Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. II. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories. (130).)
Where did people begin worshipping “gods” on Easter? Hislop explains, “The forty days’ of fasting during the Romanist Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, “in the spring of the year,” is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. It was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observances: “Three days after the vernal equinox…began a solemn fast of forty days in honor of the sun.” Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt which was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. At the same time, the rape of Proserpine seems to have been commemorated, and in a similar manner; for Julius Firmicus informs us that, for “forty nights” the “wailing for Proserpine” continued; and from Arnobius we learn that the fast which the Pagans observed, called “Castus” or the “sacred” fast, was, by the Christians in his time, believed to have been primarily in imitation of the long fast of Ceres, when for many days she determinedly refused to eat on account of her “excess of sorrow,” that is, on account of the loss of her daughter Proserpine, when carried away by Pluto, the god of hell. As the stories of Bacchus, or Adonis and Proserpine, though originally distinct, were made to join on and fit in to one another, so that Bacchus was called Liber, and his wife Ariadne, Libera (which was one of the names of Proserpine), it is highly probable that the forty days’ fast of Lent was made in later times to have reference to both.
Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the “month of Tammuz”; in Egypt, about the middle of May, and in Britain, sometime in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity–now far sunk in idolatry–in this as in so many other things, to shake hands. The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot Dionysius the Little, to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time.
Whether this was done through ignorance or design may be matter of question; but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. Let anyone only read the atrocities that were commemorated during the “sacred fast” or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full knowledge of all these abominations, “went down to Egypt for help” to stir up the languid devotion of the degenerate Church, and who could find no more excellent way to “revive” it, than by borrowing from so polluted a source; the absurdities and abominations connected with which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn. That Christians should ever think of introducing the Pagan abstinence of Lent was a sign of evil; it showed how low they had sunk, and it was also a cause of evil; it inevitably led to deeper degradation. Originally, even in Rome, Lent, with the preceding revelries of the Carnival, was entirely unknown; and even when fasting before the Christian Pasch was held to be necessary, it was by slow steps that, in this respect, it came to conform with the ritual of Paganism. What may have been the period of fasting in the Roman Church before sitting of the Nicene Council does not very clearly appear, but for a considerable period after that Council, we have distinct evidence that it did not exceed three weeks.”
So we have the history of “Easter” and its popular observances today confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character, such as the hot-crossed buns that are so tasty.
The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The “buns” were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens–that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. Jeremiah 7:18 states, “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.” Jeremiah uses the word “bun” which is where the concept was derived. The Hebrew word was pronounced Khavan, which in Greek became sometimes Kapan-os. The Hebrew shows how Khvan, pronounced as one syllable, would pass into the Latin panis, “bread,” and the second how, in like manner, Khvon would become Bon or Bun. The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of Astarte; but this leaves no doubt as to where the original idea came from.
What about the Ishtar Eggs? Where do we get bunnies and eggs in baskets and egg hunts during a Christian holy-day? The origin of the Paschal eggs is just as pagan. The ancient Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order. Hislop says, “In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. The Hindo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden color. The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen. In China, at this hour, dyed or painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country. In ancient times eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples. From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians.” Hyginus, the poet states, “An egg of wondrous size is said to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank, where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came Venus, who afterwards was called the Syrian Goddess”–that is, Astarte, or Easter. So the Easter Egg became one of the symbols of Astarte, and its occult meaning had reference to the ark during the time of the flood, in which the whole human race were shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched.
The egg, then, became used as a symbol for the whole world as Noah and his family, after the destruction was the “whole world” floating on the waters of the flood. Hislop states, “The coming of the egg from heaven evidently refers to the preparation of the ark by express appointment of God; and the same thing seems clearly implied in the Egyptian story of the mundane egg which was said to have come out of the mouth of the great god. The doves resting on the egg need no explanation. This, then, was the meaning of the mystic egg in one aspect. As, however, everything that was good or beneficial to mankind was represented in the Chaldean mysteries, as in some way connected with the Babylonian goddess, so the greatest blessing to the human race, which the ark contained in its bosom, was held to be Astarte, who was the great civiliser and benefactor of the world. Though the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the flood, yet through the doctrine of metempsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived in the Antediluvian world, and passed in safety through the waters of the flood. Now the Romish Church adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ’s resurrection. A form of prayer was even appointed to be used in connection with it, Pope Paul V teaching his superstitious votaries thus to pray at Easter this specific prayer, “Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, this thy creature of eggs, that it may become a wholesome sustenance unto thy servants, eating it in remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Scottish Guardian, April, 1844).
That Semiramis, under the name of Astarte, was worshipped not only as an incarnation of the Spirit of God, but as the mother of mankind, we have very clear and satisfactory evidence. There is no doubt that “the Syrian goddess” was Astarte (LAYARD’S Nineveh and its Remains). Now, the Assyrian goddess, or Astarte, is akin to simply worshipping the devil. Astarte is not Jesus Christ, is not the Triune Godhead, is not biblical, but everything that God prohibits. The bunny with its fertility connotations and the ancient pagan festivals that used rabbits as symbols of fertility in Babylonian times or the use of eggs, or the use of candy (which derived from the use of pomegranates and oranges that were also used in ancient times of pagan rituals) is identified as devil worship by any thinking Christian. It is no wonder that the use of the symbol of the dove itself as a Christian symbol did not come from the idea of the Spirit resting as a dove upon Christ during His baptism, but as a representative of the Mother of the gods, in whom that Spirit was said to be incarnate, was celebrated as the originator of some of the useful arts and sciences. And we find very readily in Greek mythology that the character attributed to the Minerva, whose name Athena as a synonym for Beltis, the well known name of the Assyrian goddess. Athena, the Minerva of Athens, is universally known as the “goddess of wisdom,” the inventress of arts and sciences.
We have Rome borrowing pagan rituals to change the date of Christ’s entrance into the world by 4 years to compensate amalgamating the celebration of devil worship with Christianity; the adoption of Ishtar, or Astarte, Easter, as a Papist degradation of worship; the violation of the regulative principle in deeming a day to be worshipped as such, the entrance of eggs from Druidic worship, or pomegranates and oranges that turned into chocolate bunnies and Ishtar eggs for a candy basket to give on Easter Sunday, and the Babylonian influences of pagan rituals through every aspect of Easter and we find you, reader, going out this week to apply this all to little Johnny and little Debbie because everyone else is doing it at church.
If you want to be a Papist, then call yourself a Papist, or a Druid, or a Grecian worshipper of the devil. Don’t call yourself Christian by upholding a blatantly obvious demonic holy-day that God abhors. When you partake of such wicked schemes, God’s anger is aroused, and He states in Deuteronomy 32:17, “They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known.” When you give your child their Easter basket, recall God’s words, and heed the Psalmist in Psalm 106:37, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons.” Know that you serve the same blasphemies that Romanism has brought into Christendom, and that the Scriptures rightly warns the covenant people of God that they should abstain from such things and be separate.
1 Timothy 4:1 states, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” When you worship using the devil’s teachings, you give heed to demonic influences and introduce them to your children. You might say, “Hey, come on. It’s just a chocolate bunny, some jelly beans and a few hardboiled eggs right?” No. It is a giving of your mind, heart and family over to the trinkets of the devil and the worship of his holy-day that has been resurrected and founded on demonic influences and teachings – it is devil worship. If you celebrate Easter, you spit in the face of Jesus Christ who is to be worshipped not on one day in the year on “Resurrection Sunday”, but all the days of all your life – for He is the Redeemer of the Covenant people of God every day. One should not desire to carry parts of the package of Romanism following papist theological ideas with Lent, Good Friday, Palm Sunday, Easter, etc. The Romanist Holy Week is the culmination of events marking the final days of Jesus before Easter Sunday. These are the days:
Palm Sunday – The Sunday before Easter Sunday recalling Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem a week before dying on the cross.
Holy Monday – Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and turning over the tables of the money changers to purify the house of worship.
Holy Tuesday – Jesus’ talk with his disciples on the Mount of Olives about the soon to come destruction of Jerusalem.
Holy Wednesday – The day Judas decided to betray Jesus in exchange for 30 pieces of silver.
Maundy Thursday – The Last Supper of Jesus and his time in the garden with his disciples who would not stay awake before his arrest.
Good Friday – The day Jesus died on the cross.
Holy Saturday – The final day of Lent and the Holy Week.
Easter Sunday – The resurrection of Jesus.
However, we have been delivered through the Scriptures from following such man-made things.
There is a great difference between the works of the devil and the works of the Triune God. The devil deceives by subtle manipulation (Hey, Easter is not all bad; or – redeem it for God!), and the Triune Godhead commands nothing more than perfect obedience to His will and Word (Thou Shalt not worship any other gods, nor shall you worship God according to the commandments of men). The devil wants you to worship Jesus Christ in the manner that demonic teachings lay out Easter. God commands you to worship Him as His Word dictates. Deuteronomy 4:2 states, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” The devil is the father of lies and wants you to believe the lie that Easter is a Christian holiday, like Lent and Christmas. But our true Father is in heaven who commands us today, as Acts 17:30-31 states, “to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead,” who is Jesus Christ. You should talk about that day and wonder, Christian, if you will stand when He appears. There is safety in appearing in the righteousness of Christ on the Day of Judgment. But there is no safety in any degree of comprises for the sake of a few jelly beans.
POST SCRIPT
I do not want Christians to be leery of buying a bag of jelly beans or eating a Cadbury Egg. It is not that jelly beans or chocolate bunnies are evil in and of themselves. Buy some jelly beans during the 4th of July and have at them. Make some chocolate bunnies and eat them up during January or September. But do not associate yourself or your family with the Romanist amalgamation of pagan rituals during the March-April time of Lent, Good Friday, Palm Sunday and Easter. Those associations are in direct violation of God’s commands, and those associations overrule your plea to Christian Liberty because God is very clear about His worship. As Revelation 19:10 states, “Worship God.”
[1] See Alexander Hislop’s work, “The Two Babylons” which outlines the history behind these pagan origins in great depth.
If you are not familiar with Fullerism, or wonder how Calvinism + Arminianism = Fullerism, then this article will attempt to explain this little known doctrine which has wrought great havoc on the churches of God. For our purposes we will define Calvinism as believing in Particular Redemption and Arminianism as believing in the General Atonement.
If you are a believer in Particular Redemption you may ask yourself, “How is it possible to combine Particular Redemption with the General Atonement? Are they not mutually exclusive?” The answer is found with a man named Andrew Fuller.
Andrew Fuller was an 18th Century Particular Baptist preacher in England. The Particular Baptists he associated with are the same ones the Colonial American Baptists and later Primitive Baptists would trace their church ancestry through in the United States. Andrew Fuller was a very able preacher and was well known and widely regarded by the Baptists of his day. The origin of Missionary Societies among Baptists are traceable directly to Fuller and likewise the motivation for modern Sunday Schools. The reason why is found in his doctrine. Let us first consider Fuller in his own words.
Andrew Fuller quoted in “Particular Redemption” by William Rushton
“Concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it, referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered the question in a scriptural way in saying, It was for sinners as sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving His Son to die, and the design of Christ in laying down His life, I should answer, It was for His elect only.” “Particular Redemption”, Rushton pg 18 quoted from the third part of Fuller’s “Dialogues, Letters and Essays” on the Atonement
“In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fullness in Christ’s atonement, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him; or, in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe to such persons as have believed already.” [Emphasis mine – JT] “Particular Redemption”, Rushton pg 18 quoted from the third part of Fuller’s “Dialogues, Letters and Essays” on the Atonement
“If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and that which was paid was just of sufficient value to liquidate a given number of sins, and to redeem a given number of sinners, and no more, it should seem that it could not be the duty of any but the elect, to rely upon it; for wherefore should we set our eyes on that which is not? But if there be such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him; and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure of God to render it effectual to some rather that than other, no such consequence will follow,” etc. [Emphasis mine – JT] “Particular Redemption”, Rushton pg 18, quoted from the third part of Fuller’s “Dialogues, Letters and Essays” on the Atonement
I hope that every believer of Particular Redemption will sense something amiss in Fuller’s statements. To put it succinctly Fuller believed the death of Christ is efficient to save the elect and sufficient to save the whole world if they will only believe. In other words he did not deny election outright. Nor did he deny that Christ died to save the elect particularly. What Fuller is saying is not only will all the elect be definitely saved but the death of Christ is sufficient to save every one else if they will only believe. Therefore he makes the death of Christ both Particular and General at the same time. I think most Primitive Baptists will recognize this as nothing more than backdoor Arminianism because that’s exactly what it is.
Consider how seductive and appealing Fuller’s doctrine is. Fullerism, like Arminianism, makes faith and belief a condition to be met and therefore a good work instead of the fruit of the spirit and the fruit of the gracious state of salvation. It robs God of his glory by making man the decision maker of his salvation rather than God and puts man in control of his destiny rather than the Sovereign Almighty God who “doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:35
However, Fuller knows better than to give an outright rejection of election and Particular Redemption. To carnally minded believers of election and Particular Redemption, Fuller’s heresy is almost irresistible. To their minds he gives them the best of both worlds.
The Biblically minded person gives God the full glory for saving his elect and only his elect through the Particular Redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We give God all the glory because he hath “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,” Eph. 1:4-5.
We give the Lord all the glory further knowing that “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy,” Rom. 9:11-16.
Frankly, believers of Fullers doctrine are believers in heresy just as bad Arminianism. In some ways Arminianism is to be preferred because that system is more honest about its logical consequences than Fuller’s doctrine, which ultimately leads to a denial of election and Particular Redemption. In fact the ultimate denial of election and Particular Redemption is exactly what happened to those who followed Fuller’s teachings.
As we said before, Fuller introduced Missionary Societies to the Baptists. This also led to the drive for modern Sunday Schools. These unscriptural innovations had never been heard of among Baptists before Fuller’s doctrine. Why did Fuller introduce them? The answer is simple. If the death of Christ is sufficient to save the whole world if they will only believe, then the more efficiently we can convince people to believe in Christ then the more people we will have to populate heaven. The end justifies the means. (Justifies – The doctrine of Justification is also tied up in this but we won’t delve into that now.)
What was the final outcome of Fuller’s doctrine? It was rather devastating. His system arrived in the United States around 1800. All of the Baptists, including many which become known as Primitive Baptist, were strongly swayed by Fuller’s practice and by his doctrine. Finally, small groups of Baptists throughout the United States began to see through the error and began to reject as heretical the doctrine and practice that had been introduced by Andrew Fuller. They became known as the Primitive Baptists.
Sadly, the majority of Baptists, which had been sound in the faith regarding Particular Redemption, could not see through the error and did not repent. At the time the split took place between what was known as the Old School and New School Baptists most if not all the New School Baptist confessions of faith retained their Particular Redemption statements. But the damage was done. The combination of the error in practice and its attendant error in doctrine now known as Fullerism slowly but surely became the actual doctrine of those churches. Finally, all of the New School churches followed Fuller’s Doctrine to its logical conclusion and denied election and Particular Redemption altogether and simply became Arminians.
Are there any followers of Fullers doctrine today? Yes there are. They are mostly found in what are known as Sovereign Grace churches. Much of what they say is sound. Indeed if you were to read Andrew Fuller, much of what he said was sound. But it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. Some well-known examples of Sovereign Grace preachers who have followed Fuller’s teaching regarding the atonement are John MacArthur and John Piper. Both of them have a lot of very good teaching but it only takes a little leaven to leaven the whole lump.
[Editor’s note: Since first publishing this article it has come to my attention that MacArthur’s views regarding the atonement have changed substantially. Although MacArthur admits not wanting to be dogmatic about it, as of 1997 he has evidently come to a closer understanding, if not outright belief , of Particular Redemption. Five of his ‘Answers’ beginning with the one below and spanning 1978 to 1997 are given here. Although the Primitive Baptists would probably not be completely satisfied with all of his later answers, they are much more sound doctrinally. His statement from 1978 is left here for informational purposes only. However, every preacher should be accorded the opportunity for his views to change and mature as we hope is the case with MacArthur.] JT
John MacArthur states in “Questions and Answers” circa 1978,
“I find in my own mind and in my own study of Scripture a strong case for a “General Atonement,” for a “Universal Atonement,” for an “All Encompassing Provision.” For Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins–and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, tying it in particularly with John, chapter three, “God so loved. . . .” What? “The world”–not the elect. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was, was sufficient for the sins of all the world. So, I would say, that I believe, and I think this is maybe one way to understand it–I believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world, but is efficient for those that believe. I believe in, I guess what you could call a “Limited and Unlimited Atonement.” It is unlimited in the sense that it was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world–it is limited, in that it is applied only to those who believe. I don’t like to get pushed beyond that, but I don’t like to just take the title of believing in “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption,” that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that that has some exegetical problems. I think you would have problems explaining certain passages of Scripture, but I admit to you that it is a very difficult issue, because there are many passages that apply His redemptive work “only to the elect,” “only to those who believe.” But I believe, compared with other passages, His redemption encompasses, in its sufficiency–the world.”
John Piper states in “The Duty: Faith” December 18,1994
“Today we focus on the third “D”—the duty that we have to believe. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him might not perish.” Let me focus our attention on this act of believing from several different angles.”
“Believing is our link with the love of God. Notice how Jesus speaks of God’s love-rescue: God so loved the world so that believers will not perish. One of the ways to express this is that the Love of God is sufficient to save the world, but efficient to save those who believe. Efficient means his love actually saves believers. It is effective in saving them from perishing. The love of God does not have this effect in the lives of those who do not believe. They perish.” [Emphasis mine – JT]
In “The Reformed Faith and Racial Harmony” January 19, 2003 Piper states,
The main point of the doctrine of limited atonement is not to assert that Christ did not die for everyone in the sense that John 3:16 says he did: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” That is absolutely true: Christ died so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. Christ’s death is sufficient for all, and should be offered to all as gloriously sufficient to save them if they will believe. “Limited atonement” does not deny any of that. [Emphasis mine – JT]
Having looked at statements from Fuller, MacArthur and Piper let us now consider extracts from the 1646 and 1689 London Confessions of faith followed by the Aberdeen Primitive Baptist Church articles of faith which deal with Particular Redemption. Notice how precise the language is, clearly stating the truth of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
The First London Baptist Confession of Faith 1646 Edition
And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; [having foreordained and] leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice. All the elect being loved of God with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, nor their own works, lest any man should boast, but, only and wholly by God, of His own free grace and mercy, through Jesus Christ, who is made unto us by God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and all in all, that he that rejoiceth, might rejoice in the Lord. Jesus Christ by His death did purchase salvation for the elect that God gave unto Him: These only have interest in Him, and fellowship with Him, for whom He makes intercession to His Father in their behalf, and to them alone doth God by His Spirit apply this redemption; as also the free gift of eternal life is given to them, and none else.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith Chapter III: Of God’s Decree
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
Articles of Faith Aberdeen Primitive Baptist Church, Aberdeen, MS
That by God’s sovereign grace and mercy, elect sinners are predestined to eternal life and are redeemed and justified by the blood of Christ alone. That Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people alone and they shall all be regenerated in time by the Holy Spirit, enabled to hear the Gospel of their salvations and caused to have faith in Christ as their Savior.
The Lord had blessed us with the great truths of His sovereign saving love. Let us continue to hold forth the truth of God’s Word.
1. Are all men both saint and sinner free agents? If so, is not the sinner as free as the saint?
2. If a sinner cannot come to Christ of his own free will, is he a free agent?
3. If all sinners possess will and power to come to Christ, why did Christ say (John 6:44), “No man can come unto Me except the Father which hath sent Me draw him?”
4. Has any man the power to refuse to come to Christ when the Father draws him?
5. Are those characters free agents that shall do wickedly and none of them shall understand? (Dan. 12:10)
6. Were those free agents that Peter said (H Peter 2:12), were made to be taken and destroyed, and should utterly perish?
7. Were those free agents who were before of old ordained to this condemnation? (Jude 4.)
8. Are those free agents that Jesus says (John 5:25), shall hear, and they that hear shall live?
9. Are those free agents of whom God says (Heb. 8:10-11), “I will be to them a God and they shall be to Me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying know the Lord?”
10. Could not a free agent believe, notwithstanding Jesus said, (Acts 13:41), “I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you?”
11. Would not the doctrine of free agency make man the cause of his own salvation?
12. Can man be a free agent and God be a sovereign?
13. Is any one free that is a servant?
14. Are not all men the servants of sin until they are made free by the Son?
(John 8:34-36.)
15. Is the sinner free to wig, free to choose, free to love, free to become a Christian, or, free to let it all alone?
16. If we are saved by our free will, is it not a fact that the only difference between the saved and the lost is that the saved made a better use of their will?
17. Has one the power over his will to incline it to good or to evil?
18. How many different effects can arise from the same cause?
19. Are we made free from sin before we become servants of God, or do we have to serve Him in order to be made free from sin?
20. Do we have to obey God in order to become a child of God?
21. Does a child have to obey its parents in order to become a child of its parents?
22. If God only wills to save those that are willing to be saved, is not God’s will dependent upon man’s will?
23. Does God work all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephe- 1:1 1), or does He work some things after the will of the sinner?
24. Is the unchangeable God (Mal. 3:6), changed by the will of the sinner?
25. Does salvation or damnation depend upon the use that a man makes of his will?
26. Does a sinner have the will to do God’s will prior to being born again? If so, is his will changed in the spiritual birth?
27. Has man the power to resist God and the devil at the same time?
28. If man’s will is controlled by the influence of another, is it free?
29. Does God begin the work of grace in the sinner independently, or is the sinners
will first consulted?
30. Is the wig and act of the sinner changed before God works in him to will and to do of his good pleasure? (Phn. 2:13)
31. Does Christ have to get the consent of the sinner before He can save him?
HOW ARE SINNERS SAVED?
32. Does the sinner have to accept Christ in order to be saved, and reject Him to be lost? If so, is not Christ limited in the work of salvation to what the sinner sees fit to do?
33. Is belief a condition of salvation, or is it an evidence of salvation?
34. Do we have to believe in order to be saved or is the believer already in possession of eternal life?
35. Did Paul tell the truth when he said sinners are saved by grace and not of works (Ephe. 2:8-9)? If so, why do men preach otherwise?
36. If Christ saves sinners by grace (Ephe. 2:8), did He not know from eternity whom He would save by grace?
37. If sinners are saved by grace alone (Ephe. 2:8), why such ado about sending missionaries to save the heathens?
38. Does Christ save sinners or do sinners save themselves, or is salvation a partnership work?
39. If sinners are saved otherwise than by grace alone, Will some one please cite the chapter and verse which says so?
40. If God purposed to save all men and changes not, will not all be saved? If not, why not?
41. If God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephe. 1: I 1), was it His will to save those that will not be saved?
42. If Christ came to save sinners and did not do it (I Tim. 1:15), is not Christ a failure?
43. If Christ is a failure, upon what does the Christian’s hope depend?
44. If grace is favor bestowed upon an unworthy object, does not grace stop where worthiness begins?
45. If the salvation of sinners depends upon their acts, is it not their bad acts, as there are none that doeth good? (Rom. 3:12)
46. Can a sinner dead in sin act in a spiritual capacity previous to being quickened by the Spirit? (Ephe. 2:1)
47. When a sinner is quickened by the spirit, is he not in possession of eternal life?
48. Is there any intermediate space between life and death?
49. Do we have to act in order to live, or does life always precede action?
50. Did Christ come to seek and to save sinners (Luke 19:10), or to save those that seek Him?
51. If sinners have to seek God in order to be saved, and none seek Him (Rom. 3:1 1), will any be saved?
52. Does not the saving of sinners come before the calling, and does not God do both, and are we either saved or called according to our works? (II Tim. 1:9)
53. If God saves sinners according to His own purpose (H Tim. 1:9), is not the plan of salvation as old as God’s purpose?
54. If Christ came to save sinners (I Tim. 1:15), and finished the work (John 19:30), what is left for the preachers and sinners to do in the work of salvation?
55. Were the different gifts for the salvation of sinners, or for the edifying of the body of Christ? (Ephe. 4:11-12)
56. Could there be an effect without a cause?
57. Is the first cause of salvation the work of God (Phil. 1:6), or the work of the sinner?
58. Do good works produce the Spirit, or does the Spirit produce good works?
59. If Christ only made salvation possible and the sinner makes it sure by his acts, which deserves the more praise?
60. If belief a condition of salvation, is it not a cause of salvation?
61. Is belief a voluntary act of the creature, or do we believe according to the working of God’s mighty power? (Ephe. 1: 1 9)
62. Does not the word convert mean to change?
63. If you do not believe a thing, do you not have to be converted before you can believe it? If so, does not conversion come before belief?
64. Is the work of man in any sense the cause of the work of the Spirit in the heart?
65. If God is certain, can the destiny of any man be uncertain?
66. Is the proclamation of the gospel the means of salvation? If so, can sinners be saved unless the means are used?
67. Can we use the means without works? If not, is salvation by grace and not of works? (Ephe. 2:9)
68. If means must be used in order to salvation, are not the means the cause of salvation?
69. Can anything be the means of doing a thing it does not do?
70. Does a means of doing a thing always accomplish the end when used? If not, does it not cease to be a means?
71. If the preaching of the gospel is the means of salvation, why is it foolishness and a stumbling block to the unbeliever?
72. Does the preaching of the gospel save those that it is foolishness to , or those it is power and wisdom to?
73. Will a sinner accept a proposition while it is foolishness to him?
74. If it took Christ and what He did to save sinners, will a proclamation of that fact reach their case?
75. If sinners are sent to hell for rejecting the gospel, would it not have been better for sinners if the gospel had not been preached?
76. If Christ could not damn sinners without giving them a chance for heaven, is it not a pity that He ever gave them a chance?
77. Would not a chance system damn more souls than it would save?
78. If God gives every body a chance for heaven, does He not call every body?
79. Are not the called justified and glorified? (Rom. 8:30)
80. Are we not sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus before we are called? (Jude 1)
81. Can Christ be an equal Saviour of all the race of man and a special Saviour of part of the race? (I Tim. 4: 1 0)
82. Can we know Christ except by revelation? (Matt. 11:27)
83. Can flesh and blood reveal Christ to a sinner? (Matt. 16:17)
84. Is not the Spiritual birth called in the Bible a creation? (Ephe. 2:10)
85. Can man create or can he assist the Lord in the least in creation?
86. Does not God work as independently in salvation as in creation?
87. Is the reward reckoned of grace to him that worketh, or to him that worketh not? (Rom. 4:4)
88. Is it work or faith that is counted for righteousness? (Rom. 4:5)
89. Is it in man that walketh to direct his steps? (Jer. 10:23)
90. Will not a sinner go the way the strongest influence is brought to bear on his mind?
91. If the Lord desires the salvation of all men and the devil the damnation of all; will not the one get them that can bring the strongest influence to bear upon their mind?
92. Can we confess with the mouth before we believe with the heart? (Rom. 10:10)
93. Can we believe on Christ before the heart is changed? If so, and all believers are saved, what is the necessity of the change of heart?
94. Is belief the cause of salvation, or is salvation the cause of belief? (John 5:24)
95. If there was grace given us in Christ before the world began (11 Tim. 1:9), was not our salvation purposed of God before the world began?
96. If we work for a thing, is it a gift, or do we make it a debt? (Rom. 4:4)
97. Did God either purpose or try to save those that go to hell?
98. Did God ever try to do anything?
99. Is not our nature such that if we had the power, we would save all men?
100. Is not our nature such that if we had the power, we would deliver the millions of suffering humanity that are in the world; and has not God the power and does not do it?
101. Would parents see their children put to death in the cruel ways God’s children have been if they had the power to prevent it, and yet is not God’s love greater than ours?
102. Is not the plan of salvation perfect?
103. If God’s work is perfect (Deut- 32:14), can we add anything to it?
104. Is anything perfect that is performed by man?
105. If God works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephe. 1:11), and it is His will that all men be saved, will any be lost?
106. Do we obtain salvation by our obedience, or by the appointment of God?
(I Thes. 5:9)
107. If God chose His people unto salvation from the beginning (Thes. 2:13), what do they have to do with the choice?
108. Does a goat have to believe on Christ in order to become a sheep, or do they believe not because they are not sheep? (John 10:26)
109. Is not Christ under obligation to the Father to give eternal life to as many as the Father gave Him? (John 17:2)
110. Is Christ under obligation to sinners to save them?
111. Can sinners by their obedience bring Christ under obligation to save them?
112. Are the Scriptures the truth if they are not fulfilled?
113. Would the Scriptures have been fulfilled if the son of perdition had not been lost? (John 17:12)
114. Is it possible for all men to be saved and the Scriptures be the truth, if some had to be lost in order to the fulfillment of the Scriptures?
115. If God knows all things (I John 3:20), does He not know who will be saved and who lost?
116. Can anything be different from the way God knew it would be?
117. If Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not (John 6:64), did He not know from the beginning who they were that would believe?
118. If the Lord can do everything (Job 42:2), can He not save a sinner without help?
119. Is Christ our Saviour before He saves us?
120. Do we have to believe on Christ before He will save us? If so, do we have to believe He is our Saviour?
121. If we believe that Christ is our Saviour when He is not, do we not believe a lie?
122. Does not every one that denies eternal life being the gift of God make God a liar?
123. Is a person required to obey anything before being born in order to be born?
124. Is there not a begetting and a travail before we are born of God?
125. Does the thing begotten have anything to do with the begetting, the travail or the birth? If so, what?
126. Does a natural work produce a spiritual birth? If not, does the natural man have anything to perform in order to the spiritual birth?
127. Did Christ ever command a sinner to be born again?
128. Does it take an external work to change the heart from natural to spiritual?
129. Can a birth be conditional upon the part of the thing to be born?
130. Is obedience required before or after the birth?
131. If the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29). do we have to repent in order to receive them?
132. If Christ gives repentance (Acts 5:31). what do we have to do in order to receive the gift?
133. Was Christ exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sin to any but Israel? (Acts 5:31)
134. Is repentance the act of the creature or the gift of God? (Acts 5:31)
135. If whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). and we pray for the salvation of all men without faith to believe all will be saved, do we not commit sin?
136. Does godly sorrow ever fail to work repentance unto salvation? (1 Cor. 7:10)
137. Are the Arminians as confident as Paul was that when a good work is begun in you it will be performed until the day of Jesus Christ? (Phil. 1:6)
138. If the object in making Christ to be sin for us was to make us the righteousness of God in Him (II Cor. 5:21), are we not as certain to be made the righteousness of God as Christ was made to be sin for us?
139. Is faith the act of the creature, or the fruit of the spirit? (Gal. 5:22)
140. If faith is the fruit of the spirit, can it be a condition to be complied with in order to receive the spirit?
141. Is not Christ the author and finisher of our faith? (Heb. 12:2)
142. Have all men faith? (11 Thes. 3:2)
143. Can we please God without faith? (Heb. 11:6)
144. Does the preached word profit any except those that have faith? (Heb. 4:2)
145. If temperance is the fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), do those that have the spirit need temperance societies?
146. If belief comes by the will or choice of man, why does he ever believe that which he had rather not believe?
147. If belief is the cause of election, and all believers are in possession of eternal life (John 5:24),
what are we elected to?
148. Are we elected according to our works, or according to God’s foreknowledge?
149. If man by his works procure his own election, is it not of works instead of an election of grace? (Rom. 11:5)
150. If the choice before the foundation of the world (Ephe. 1:4), embraced only the twelve apostles, why did Paul include himself in the number chosen?
151. Did God ever purpose in time to do anything, or is all He does according to His eternal purpose? (Ephe. 3:1 1)
152. If God is in one mind (Job 23:13), did He not have a mind in eternity to do everything that He does in time?
APOSTASY
153. If what God doeth shall be forever (Eccle. 3:14), did He convert those who apostatize?
154. If it is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones should perish (Matt.18:14), will the Father’s will be done?
155. If the Lord Knew before He converted a sinner that he would fall from grace and go to hell, why did He convert him?
156. Does the dog turning to his vomit and the sow to her wallowing prove apostasy?
157. Were the children of God ever known by the appellation of dog or sow?
158. How can a child cease to be the child of its parents?
159. Can a child be born and then be unborn?
160. Will all Israel be saved (Rom. 11:26), if a part of Israel apostatize and are lost?
161. Can we fall away and be renewed again? (Heb. 6:4-6)
162. If God can cease to love a saint on earth, can He not do the same in heaven?
163. If one saint can apostatize and be lost, would not all be lost if heaven was not secured to them by their works.
164. If the Christian lives because Christ lives (John 14:19), will the life of the Christian cease while Christ lives?
165. Did Jesus tell the truth when He said, “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” (John 10:28)
166. If the preachers say that they can and do perish whom Jesus says shall never perish, which shall we believe? Jesus or the preachers?
167. If the Lord made all things for Himself (Prov. 16:4), will not all things answer the purpose for which He made them?
168. Did God ever do any thing in vain?
169. If God from the foundation of the world prepared a kingdom in heaven for all of the blessed of the Father (Matt. 25:34), and one falls to get there, who will inhabit it?
170. Will any enter in except those for whom the kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world? (Matt. 25; 34-46)
171. Why were the names of some persons written in the book of life from the foundation of the world and others were not? (Rev. 17:8)
172. Why was one of Abraham’s sons born after the flesh and another by promise? (Gal. 4:22-23)
173. If the Lord’s portion is His people (Deut. 32:9), will He get His portion and will He take any more?
174. Does not God bless, choose, and cause men to approach unto Him? (Psa. 65:4)
175. Does belief come by the will or choice of man, or through the force of evidence?
176. If divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3), does anything pertaining to Life and godliness depend upon man?
177. If salvation depends upon the volition of human will, how can the idiot be saved?
178. If man is excused or saved on account of ignorance, why send missionaries to enlighten the heathen?
179. Does the Son quicken whom He will (John 5:2 1), or,, who will let Him?
180. Does a sinner have to mourn in order to be blessed, or is the mourner already blessed? (Matt. 5:4)
181. If Jesus saves His people according to the testimony of the angel (Matt. 1:21), are they not His before He saves them?
182. Were they not given to Christ by the Father (John 10:29), before they were saved or redeemed?
183. If Jews and Gentiles are all under sin (Rom. 3:9), are not infants born under sin, or are they neither Jews nor Gentiles when they are born?
184. If the gospel was preached to every creature (Col. 1:23), to the extent of the command, why spend more than one hundred million dollars annually to accomplish that end?
185. Will not a true witness testify to the truth without money and without price?
186. When the gospel was preached to the poor (Matt. 11:5), was it not done without money?
187. If money is the motive for preaching, is not the preaching apt to be done in a way to please the most people?
188. If we seek to please men, are we the servants of Christ? (Gal. 1:10)
189. Does not the world believe what the Arminian preachers preach?
190. Did the world believe what the apostles preached?
191. If the Arminians preach the truth and the unconverted believe it, why do they want them converted?
192. If convert means to change and sinners believe the truth and you convert them, will they believe the truth then?
193. Cannot the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots just as easily as those can do good who are accustomed to do evil? (Jer. 13:23)
194. Is a work acceptable with God except it be “righteous work”?
195. Can any perform a righteous work except they be born of God? (I John 2:29)
196. Does a sinner have to accept spiritual life in order to live spiritually?
197. Did Adam have to accept natural life in order to live naturally?
198. Does a sinner have to bear good fruit in order to be made alive spiritually?
199. If a tree begins to bear fruit, is it an evidence that it will be alive or is it evident that it is already alive?
200. Do we have to hunger and thirst after righteousness in order to become righteous?
201. Does a person hunger and thirst after that which nourishes a life that he does not live, or that which nourishes the life that he does live?
202. Do we not have to live a spiritual life before we can hunger and thirst after spiritual things?
203. Does the seed sown prepare the ground, or does the seed have to fall into good ground in order to bring forth fruit? (Matt. 13:23)
204. Is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit a sovereign? If so, how can the sinner be a co- willer or coworker in the work of regeneration?
205. If the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom. 8:7), are not the works of the carnally minded the same?
206. Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matt. 7:18), or must the tree first be made good?
207. If a corrupt tree can bring forth both evil and good fruit without being changed, how can we know a tree by its fruit? (Matt. 7:16)
208. Is heaven assured to man in consequence of the work of man or the work of Christ?
209. If Christ has done all that He can do and sinners are not saved, is Christ the Saviour of sinners?
210. Does a sinner’s salvation depend upon his obedience to either law or gospel?
211. Will a sinner come to Christ while he is destitute of the love of God?
(John 5:40-42)
212. Is not every one that loveth born of God? (I John 4:7)
213. Is not God’s love everlasting (Jer. 31:3), and is not His power equal to His love?
214. If it is God’s will to save all men, is not His love and power equal to His will?
215. Did not God love us when we did not love Him? (I John 4:10)
216. Did not God love us when we were dead in sins, and did He not quicken us because of that love? (Ephe. 2:4-5)
217. Is not God’s love to us the cause of our love to Him (I John 4:19)? If so, will He not cause every one to love Him that He loves?
218. If we love God because He first loved us, will the effect cease as long as the cause exists?
219. If whosoever is born of God cannot sin (I John 3:9), how can they apostatize and be finally lost; or can one apostatize without sinning?
ELECTION AND THE ATONEMENT
220. Did not Jesus love us before He washed us from our sins in His own blood? (Rev.1:5)
221. Is not redemption the fruit of God’s love? (Isa. 63:9)
222. Does not the word atone mean “at one”?
223. Is not He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified all of one? (Heb. 2:11)
224. Will any be lost that are with Christ?
225. If God loved His people as He loved Christ, and He loved Christ before the foundation of the world (John 17:23-24), did He not love His people before the foundation of the world?
226. If God loved sinners when they were dead in sins, will His love ever cease toward those who refuse to repent and obey the gospel?
227. If the goodness of God leadeth to repentance (Rom. 2:4), will not His goodness lead all to repentance that are embraced in His eternal love?
228. If God changes not (Mal. 3:6), did He not love every object in eternity that He loves now or ever will love?
229. Are we by the blood of Christ redeemed to God (Rev- 5:9), or just part of the way?
230. If all men are redeemed to God, how can any of them get away from Him if they are kept by His power? (I Pet. 1:5)
231. If Christ died for all men and all men are not saved, did not Christ die in vain?
232. If Christ died for all men and rose for their justification, are not all justified?
233. If the justified are lost, who will be saved?
234. Will not all be saved that are justified? (Rom. 5:9)
235. Did Christ give Himself for the world or for the church? (Ephe. 5:25)
236. Did Christ give Himself for the church to give it a chance for heaven, or that it should be holy? (Ephe. 5:27)
237. Did not Christ love the church before He gave Himself for it? (Ephe. 5:25)
238. Are not some persons greater sinners than others? If so, is not the greater sinner forgiven the most (Luke 7:41-47)? If so, is not the atonement personal?
239. If Christ did not know every man and every act of man, how could He atone for the sins of those who lived a thousand years after His death?
240. Was the atonement made for man before he believed, or is it made for him after he believes?
241. Did Christ die for the godly, or for the ungodly? (Rom. 5:6)
242. Did not Christ redeem His people from all iniquity? (Titus 2:14)
243. If Christ has redeemed all men from all iniquity, for what does God send a man to hell?
244. Is a sinner sent to hell for the same sins for which Christ died?
245. Did Christ atone for all of the sins of all men and then say there were some sins which should not be forgiven unto men? (Matt. 12:31)
246. Do not all have forgiveness of sins who have redemption through the blood of Christ? (Ephe- 1:7)
247. Will God punish man after all his sins are forgiven?
248. Did Christ lay down His life for the goats, or the sheep? (John 10:15)
249. Did Christ die for those that were in hell at the time He died and give them a chance for heaven?
250. Why are not all Universalists who believe that Christ died alike for all men?
251. Does the Bible positively teach that all men will not be saved (Matt. 25:46)? If so, does it teach the possibility of all being saved?
252. If the Lord redeemed His people (Luke 1:68), were they not His before He redeemed them?
253. If we become righteous by obedience to a law, is there such a thing as imputed righteousness.
254. Does not God impute righteousness without works? (Rom. 4:6)
255. Can sinners satisfy justice by their obedience?
256. Are sinners made righteous by their obedience, or by the obedience of Christ? (Rom. 5:19)
257. If a man was redeemed and placed back as he was before he sinned, is he a sinner?
258. Was the world that God loved (John 3:16), and the world that wondered after the beast (Rev. 13:3), the same world?
259. Did not all wonder after the beast whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world? (Rev. 17:8)
260. Does the whole world that lieth in wickedness include those that are of God? (I John 5:19)?
261. Were those that Christ said should weep and lament included in the world which he said should rejoice? (John 16:20)
262. Did not Christ say, “I pray for them, I pray not for the world?” (John 17:9)
263. If Christ prayed for His people and did not pray for the world, were they included with the world under consideration?
264. Were not all of the component parts of man taken from the dust of the earth?
265. When man became a living soul, was he a mortal or an immortal soul?
266. When man transgressed the Law of God, did he die in whole or only in part?
267. If man only died in part in the transgression, would the Bible be the truth when it says there is no soundness in him? (Isa. 1:5-6)
268. Is man in possession of a divine principle prior to the new birth? If so, can he be a natural man?
269. Did not Paul say the first man was of the earth earthy? (I Cor. 15:47)
270. Is not the damnation of sinners just?
271. Are we damned for unbelief?
272. Is unbelief sin?
273. Is unbelief a violation of law? If so, what law?
274. Is unbelief an act, a condition, or the effect of a principle?
275. Is man damned for an act, or a principle?
276. Did not God put the principle in man which he had before the violation of the law?
277. Did the violation of the law put a new principle in man?
278. Does the act of man change his principle, or does he act from principle?
279. Is not predestination a Bible truth?
280. Is not predestination a purpose previous to the performance of an act?
281. Does not every sane person purpose previous to acting? If so, is not every sane person a predestinarian?
282. Is not God a predestinarian? (Gen. 1:26)
283. Does not God save sinners according to predestination? (II Tim. 1:9)
284. Is not the same man resurrected that sinned in Adam, that was redeemed by Christ, born of corruptible seed, born of incorruptible seed and dies corporally.
michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com 