On This Day, 31 October 1517

Martin Luther nailed his 95 points of disputation with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. His concerns predominately had to do with Purgatory and the selling of indulgences which was raging through the area. John Tetzel championed this effort, by request of Pope Leo X, in order to bring much needed funds into the church for the construction of St. Peter's.

According to the RCC, indulgences have always been

the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

At the Council of Trent, during the final session on 4 December 1563 (session xxv), the RCC declared

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

**Where do you happen to fall? I not only say they are useless, but also that the RCC has any power at all to use them. Guess I am anathema.**

Now, there is a distinction between a plenary and a partial indulgence. Plenary indulgence is "the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory." On the other hand, partial indulgence only cancels out a certain amount of time from one's punishment in Purgatory. God alone knows exactly how many years someone is to spend in Purgatory, and even the severity of the punishment during that time.

That is why Purgatory remains one of the most damning teachings in the RCC. People for so many years have been deceived, and have not understood the grace of God and the substitutionary atonement of His Son, Jesus.

Without the actions of Martin Luther, I believe a Reformation still would have continued. God, however, sovereignly used Luther at that time and the foundations of Wycliffe and Hus were not in vain. We today are the product, without question, of what happened in the sixteenth century. I choose to agree with the soteriology of Calvin (of which Luther's was extremely similar) and many of the ideals and practices of the Anabaptists. Not that I hold them as my foundation, but because I agree with their views of Scripture on the respective issues.

I thank God for the Reformation. Soli Deo Gloria!

Reformation Day

omorrow we remember the moment in our Church's great history most significant to Protestants: Martin Luther nailing his 95 points of contention with the Roman Catholic Church. He desired a dialogue with the leaders of the church, not to look at the the flames of Reformation already raging and add to it a pyre of logs the size of which was used to burn Jan Hus. Like or dislike his style and personality, even (and especially) some of his beliefs, he was the man chosen by God to continue the great work of Reform. He, like Vos and van den Esschen less than four years after he nailed the list to Wittenberg's door, was willing to die for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you have not seen Luther with Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther, please do so.

John Howard Yoder

Just a link for all the J. H. Yoder fans, in case you were not aware of the blog on this man. Check out John Howard Yoder for some articles on Yoder and Yoderianism.

The Reformation's Unknown Shining Stars

ot long after the Diet of Worms and the subsequent Edict in 1521, Augustinian monks Johann van den Esschen (Johannes Esch) and Hendrik Vos (Heinrich Voes), sympathetic to Luther and his teachings, were taken captive and branded for execution. On 1 July 1523, van den Esschen and Vos were burned at the stake. They are now touted as the first martyrs of the Reformation, or "purified Christian truth."

Despite the acclaim, their names and stories are very seldom, if ever, told in the scheme of the Reformation. Even less is mentioned of the third man who endured prison and torture along with Vos and van den Esschen, Lampertus Thorn, who at his trial asked for four more days to mull over whether he should recant or not. Going forth in the strength God had granted them at their appointed time, van den Esschen and Vos went not merely defiantly to the stake, but with courage and readiness, knowing they would soon be baptized into a new life.

What were these men charged with and sent to their deaths for? They believed and taught the following (though this list does not contain all they charges brought against them):

• no on should be deterred from reading the works of Martin Luther
• worldly authorities had no power over conscience
• all Christians are priests
• Christ is not sacrificed again during Mass (or Communion)
• Scripture must be the foundation doctrine and practice (sola scriptura)
• Baptism, Communion and Confession are the only sacraments instuted by Christ (rejecting the other four)
• Jesus Christ Himself works good deeds through men; men do not contribute except for allowing Christ to use them
• appointing successors to Peter as Pope, or Bishop over all churches, was not the act of Christ
• if the sinner believes he has been absolved, his sins have been forgiven

For these and other charges, the Roman Catholics turned the two men over to the civic courts to handle the official execution orders. Interestingly, these charges were not read to the crowd at the execution site prior to their burning, as was the typical procedure. Eyewitness reports talk about the men singing a hymn, praying and admonishing the crowd. Yet another picture of beauty in such a horrific and horrendous act.

These are unsung, generally unknown heroes of the Reformation. For the most part, their story is limited to being told in Ludwig Rabus's The History of God's Chosen Witnesses, Confessors, and Martyrs. The problem is that so few even know such a sixteenth century martyrology exists. Due to the limited amount of martyrs, and relatively little persecution, in the Germanic land at the time (there is no comparison between Rabus's country and John Foxe's country in the 1550's), interest in the martyr book fell away quickly. I pray their story can live on, and encourage us Christians today to be strong in our faith. We may not all be called to the fire as these brothers were, but we will endure our own struggles from the world because we bear Christ's name.

Do bear His name proudly. He will give you the strength you need, when you need it.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark ix.30-50, part ii

Let's deviate a little from looking at martyrdom to talk about tonight's Bible Study. Well, I did not mention the happenings at last week's study, but things went well. We did not get through the whole passage--the rest of chapter ix--but we were able to have some good discussions on the Good News, and the failure of the disciples to understand what Christ meant when He spoke about His coming death. This week we will complete chapter ix. We will. Really. No, really!

The image above shows a depiction of Mk. ix.37, when Christ takes a child in His arms and begins to rebuke the disciples for their arrogance, using a child as a metaphorical object lesson. But, is that a smile on Jesus' face, as well as the disciple to His right (our left)? Smiling when Jesus is about to rebuke and correct the disciples...again?

We will go through the disciples's arrogance, Christ's correction using children as an example, and His expounding on how bad it will be to mess with one of Christ's own. This should be a good night, Lord willing.

Soli Deo Gloria

Martyr Tale of the Day

s recorded in van Braght's The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians, the famous story of Dirk Willems:

Concerning his apprehension, it is stated by trustworthy persons, that when he fled he was hotly pursued by a thief-catcher, and as there had been some frost, said Dirk Willems ran before over the ice, getting across with considerable peril. The thief-catcher following him broke through, when Dirk Willems, perceiving that the former was in danger of his life, quickly returned and aided him in getting out, and thus saved his life. The thiefcatcher wanted to let him go, but the burgomaster, very sternly called to him to consider his oath, and thus he was again seized by the thief-catcher, and, at said place, after severe imprisonment and great trials proceeding from the deceitful papists, put to death at a lingering fire by these bloodthirsty, ravening wolves, enduring it with great steadfastness, and confirming the genuine faith of the truth with his death and blood, as an instructive example to all pious Christians of this time, and to the everlasting disgrace of the tyrannous papists.

The following is the execution order as recorded in Martyrs Mirror:

Whereas, Dirk Willems, born at Asperen, at present a prisoner, has,. without torture and iron bonds (or otherwise) before the bailiff and us judges, confessed, that at,the age of fifteen, eighteen or twenty years, he was rebaptized in Rotterdam, at the house of one Pieter Willems, and that he, further, in Asperen, at his house, at divers hours, harbored and admitted secret conventicles and prohibited doctrines, and that he also has permitted several persons to be rebaptized in his aforesaid house; all of which is contrary to our holy Christian faith, and to the decrees of his royal majesty, and ought not to be tolerated, but severely punished, for an example to others; therefore, we the aforesaid judges, having, with mature deliberation of council, examined and considered all that was to be considered in this matter, have condemned and do condemn by these presents in the name; and in the behalf, of his royal majesty, as Count of Holland, the aforesaid Dirk Willems, prisoner, persisting obstinately in his opinion, that he shall be executed with fire, until death ensues; and declare all his property confiscated, for the benefit of his royal majesty. So done this 16th of May, in presence of the judges, -Cornelis Goverts, Jan van Stege Jans, Adriaen Gerritts, Adriaen Jans, Lucas Rutgers, Jan Jans, and Jan Roefelofs, A. D., 1569.

May this blessed martyr's story be an encouragement to you, not only in suffering but also in your daily living. Remember that even when he was being chased to his death, he stopped to give his life saving hand to the one who would help take him to the stake.

Thomas More, the Christian Martyr?

hat do we do with Sir Thomas More? Beheaded on 6 July 1535 for defying King Henry VIII, he died a staunch Roman Catholic, rejecting all cries for separation from the holy mother church. Before his execution, he wrote several treatises, like The Sadness of Christ and A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, discussing his own impending martyrdom for his beloved church. Primarily concerning More in his writings while imprisoned was the same concept that separated the RCC from the rapidly germinating protest movement in England and other regions of Europe: right doctrine.

Doctrine has always divided people, especially groups who call themselves Christian. Personally, that gives me all the more reason to study and learn the doctrines taught in Scripture. I seek to unify, but without compromise. Martyrdom is no exception. Doctrine divides claims to martyrdom. In the first few centuries of the Church, if you held to Gnostic teachings and were killed for not confessing the name of the Emperor instead of Christ, the Church (which held to orthodoxy) would reject your death outright. You would not be recognized as a martyr on the basis of your doctrines.

Today we face quite the same dilemma. There are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics worldwide. There is great controversy over whether or not Protestants can or should consider Roman Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I would be in the camp of those who say Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel, where grace is no longer grace. The legalism and drastically heretical dogma and doctrines (e.g. their teachings of Mary, the mother of Jesus; purgatory; Papal infallibility; the sacraments) diverge from the true evangel, the true Good News. Thomas More did not hold back from calling anyone a heretic who did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements.

If salvation is not found in the RCC, if the Catholic is not my brother, can I consider a Catholic martyr a Christian martyr? When someone like Thomas More, who vehemently opposed Protestantism and sent quite a few of them to the stake, even considered them false martyrs on the basis of their doctrine, is beheaded or burned for what he declares are his Christian convictions, how do we non-Catholics respond? In his work, A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, he wrote "The devil hath also some so obstinate heretics, that endure willingly painful death for vainglory."¹ Historically, Roman Catholicism has rejected Protestantism, and other divergent groups, and declared their claims to salvation as invalid. Contrary to relatively recent sentiments, the RCC has stated that there is no salvation outside of the RCC. They take as their very own Cyprian's dictum, "He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church."²

So I ask again: what are we to do with Sir Thomas More? More, who had Christians killed, and who was himself killed, as he would have deemed, for Christ's sake. Would you list his name among the great martyrs of the faith? Does doctrine matter?

___________________

¹ Thomas More, A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation [1534-1535], as cited in Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 1999), 316.
² Cyprian, Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, xiv; found in ANF, vol. v. See a fascinating engraving and short commentary on this dictum (esse martyr non potest qui in Ecclesia non est) in Gregory, Salvation, 316.

Martyrology: a simple perspective

ndoubtedly, if one hears the word martyrology or the phrase martyr book, initially he will think of the most popularized work by John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Next to come to mind may be the more extensive work by Thieleman J. Van Braght, The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians (commonly known as The Martyr's Mirror). Yet these were only two of a handful of major martyr books to come out of the Reformation era (sixteenth thru seventeenth centuries). Foxe's Actes and Monuments was not even the first martyrology of the Reformation, contrary to general thought; Ludwig Rabus's The History of God's Chosen Witnesses, Confessors, and Martyrs holds that distinguished title.¹ But, outside of these martyr books--and we can include the work of Jean Crespin and Adriaen van Haemstede--do any others come to mind? What about Eusebius or Bede? Did they write any martyrologies?

The study of martyrdom is inextricably linked to an intimate study of Christian Church History. While martyrologies may be in the forefront of everyone's mind as the sources of martyr tales, they are only a fragment of the sources used to understand the history of "the cup of salvation."² If we go back in time, centuries before Rabus and Foxe came to prominence, martyrs were not separated from their historical context. The histories written to tell of the developement and proliferation of the Christian faith never told of the lives and deaths of men, women and children who God chose and enabled to confess the truth in such a special way. The martyrs were a central part of the history of the Church.

The main reason this happened, of course, is that the first three centuries of our Church's history is filled with persecution and execution. History was martyrdom, and martyrdom was history. Care must be taken, when studying martyrdom and specific martyrs, not to have martyrologies and histories as two distinct categories. Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History, for example, is filled almost to the brim with martyr tales; not only the stories, but also commentary on the idea of martyrdom as the years and persecutions went on. As I was reading Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (tr. Ecclesiastical History of the English People) I found many parallel ideas between Bede and Eusebius in telling an early history of the Church in a land, and martyrdoms tied directly into the historical developements. The Martyrdom of Polycarp does not exist as the sole martyrology of the early Church. All early histories, in the sense I am discussing, are martyrologies. They can all supply information and ideas toward a thorough and intimate study of martyrdom. My own studies would be incomplete if I looked only for specific works on martyrs.

None of that, however, even touches the importance of works like An Exhortation to Martyrdom by the third century theologian Origen, or more than a few of Cyprian's letters, including the excellent On the Glory of Martyrdom. Works like these were more like sermons, exhortations and teachings. They served a purpose within the greater context and help greatly in understanding Christian martyrdom.

_____________________
¹ Titled translated from the German Historien Der Heylugen Auβerwolten Gottes Zeugen, Bekennern und Martyrern. I consider this "distinguised" because, as I will mention in a later article, the first martyrs of the reformation were two German, Augustinian monks.
² Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, xxviii.

The Bible, Bible Study, and Application

I noticed that James White went batty over Thomas Nelson publishing Align, N(ew) C(entury) V(ersion): the Complete New Testament for Men. Here's the blurb they give in promotion:

Ever wish your Bible was as easy to pick up as your favorite magazine? Now there’s a new BibleZine™ created with today’s modern guy in mind. With an edgy, techo-savvy style and content that makes Biblical truth fresh and relevant, it might just make Bible reading the best part of your day. By putting one of the most readable versions of the Bible, the New Century Version^®, together with articles about the topics you face everyday, we’ve created a ‘zine that will help you get deeper in the Bible, find out what God has to say for your life, and grow in your faith.

In this case, I would agree with James White. This is just silly. I remember seeing a similar version for women a year or so ago. Sad how people do not (and are not instructed and encouraged to) just pick up the Bible and study. Will it be difficult? Sure, at times. But is that not one of the reasons we have been given the Holy Spirit as our paraclete, our helper?

You say you cannot apply the Scriptures to your life because you cannot understand the Scriptures? Why are you jumping to application before you understand? Take the time to understand what the Scripture actually says about the Christian life. Do not bother with application if you do not know what the text says or what it means. That is a major problem with many "Bible Studies." Please do not call it a Bible Study if the Biblical text is not the focus or concern. So many people find the reading and interpretation boring and hard work; they want to get right into "what does it mean to me." Well, the text is not going to mean a thing unless you know what it says.

Whew...thus ends the ravings of another Calvinist.

Soli Deo Gloria

Phil Johnson has moved on

It appears Phil Johnson has moved on from defending his take on "strict pacifism" and is now discussing another controversial topic, spiritual warfare (an important subject to C.H. Spurgeon).

Aslan, the coming ruler

y wife and I have been reading C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in preparation for the upcoming movie. We all understand the parallel that Lewis made between Aslan and Jesus. But, yesterday was the first time I saw this particular parallel between the expectation the people had of Aslan, and what the Jews, especially Christ's disciples, expected from the coming Messiah.

"Aslan?" said Mr. Beaver. "Why, don't you know? He's the King. He's the Lord of the whole wood, but not often here, you understand. Never in my time or my father's time. but the word has reached us that he has come back. He is in Narnia at this moment. He'll settle the White Queen all right. It is he, not you, that will save Mr. Tumnus."

"She won't turn him into stone too?" said Edmund.

"Lord love you, Son of Adam, what a simple thing to say!" answered Mr. Beaver with a great laugh. "Turn him into stone? If she can stand on her two feet and look him in the face it'll be the most she can do and more than I expect from her."

The expectation was that this coming King would get rid of the present powers with his own power. But, as we know the story, Aslan came and willingly died on the table. Jesus came and the people expected him to be rid of the Romans and sit in Jerusalem as King. Yet, he rode in on a donkey and died on the cross. Not only did he present powers look him in the face, but they were able to do what they willed with him. And he went willingly.

It's a beautiful depiction of who the people thought Christ would be and who he truly was . . . and is.

Mark ix.30-50 tonight . . . maybe

ark ix.30-50 reads

They went out from there and passed through Galilee. But Jesus did not want anyone to know, for he was teaching his disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand this statement and were afraid to ask him.

Then they came to Capernaum. After Jesus was inside the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they were silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. After he sat down, he called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. For whoever is not against us is for us. For I tell you the truth, whoever gives you a cup of water because you bear Christ's name will never lose his reward.

"If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, to the unquenchable fire. If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better to enter life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. If your eye causes you to sin, tear it out! It is better to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched. Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This is the section of Mark we will be going over at tonight's Bible Study. However, I can only say I hope we get into this section. We will see how the Lord leads tonight. Last week I posed a question to the group that has been running circles in my mind since I started reading John Piper's God is the Gospel. I wanted to take what we were reading in the Bible Study (i.e. Mark) and ask the question, "Why is the Good News good?"

Back in Mk. i.1, Mark wrote "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." I explained how we have been going through this account or history by Mark, learning about what Christ did during His time here, and understanding more and more about Him. But, Mark calls all that he wrote "the gospel of Jesus Christ." The first thing I cleared up is the popular, modern concept of the word gospel. Whenever people hear or read that word today they tend to automatically think of the New Testament or the whole Bible. That is not what Mark intended when he penned the word ευαγγελιου (euangeliou). The gospel was the Good News (a literal translation of ευαγγελιου): the history, the events, the teachings, and so forth. What Mark wrote he considered the Good News. So as we read the different events in the life of Jesus, are we thinking, "Remember, this is the Good News?"

Back to the question I asked the group: Why is the Good News good? Why is this not just news? What makes it so good? I keep remembering Mk. vi.5-6:

He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed because of their unbelief. Then he went around among the villages and taught.

How is that good? Sure we can talk about the many miracles He did, and the authority He held among the people (especially in the faces of the Scribes and Pharisees). We can even bring up later events like the resurrection or the second coming. But what about instances like vi.5-6? Or when the disciples would not understand Him or who He was? Where is the good in that?

I did not want to discuss the question last week. I wanted folks to mull it over for a week, consider the text of Mark we have gone through so far, and ask themselves questions about the Good News. I am anticipating a lot of discussion and questioning about what the Good News is, not so much (per my question) why the Good News is good. I am not sure if my question was clear enough, or if I should have re-emphasized the question at the end of last week's study as people left. But, I have a feeling we may not touch on Mark ix tonight. We will see how the Lord leads. He may want us all to have a discussion on what the Good News is and why it's good. We shall see.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Letter to Polycarp, Preface (1)

will begin to translate Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to Polycarp, using the Greek text provided in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael Holmes (1999). The first section I will go through is the preface to his letter, aka the introduction.

Ιγνατιος, ο και Θεοφορος, Πολυκαρπω επισκοπω εκκλησιας Σμυρναιων, μαλλον επισκοπημενω υπο θεου πατρος και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου, πλειστα χαιρειν.

My translation turns out as follows:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus; deepest greetings to Polycarp, overseer of the church of the Smyrnaeans; rather, who is overseen by God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trying to translate Koine Greek into American English so the meaning is understood is a difficult task.

(Continued. To read more, click here.)

BBB on chiasmus

Wayne Leman has written an excellent discussion on translating chiasmus. Chiasmus is a structure you find some times in Greek, and the interpretation of the text depends on how you translate the construction. The example of Philemon 5 is simple and clear. Thank you Wayne for the excellent information you have been passing along regarding translation.

New additions to The Old Book Shoppe

Here's a look at some of the items I've added to the inventory.

Comment Quorum

Another edition of Comment Quorum coming your way.

On 5 October, an anonymous commenter thought Phil Johnson's use of "the phrase 'bovine product' while explaining his comment about Bin Laden" was priceless. I think Phil was definitely venting while writing, and not thinking clearly about the implications of beating another man to death with meat products.

In regards to the same post on Phil Johnson's anti-pacifism articles, another anonymous commenter asked for my "of Brother Johnson's main arguments (e.g., that Jesus didn't change the moral law found in the Old Testament) and claims (e.g., pacifism is an "immoral" and "unbiblical" doctrine)." Pacifism is not immoral; nor is the practice unbiblical. The way of Jesus, especially his example, was not to insist his followers be ready with canes and cow thighs for when Pilate or Herod might come along. I am thinking about posting on the issue of pacifism, and some points Phil made. I am not ready at the moment to get into a long article. In due time I will come out with something.

Mikey, in regards to my post The New Monasticism: Homeschooling, seems to hold a dissenting opinion. He expressed I should "[b]e careful with the homeschooling. It's a practice almost totally dominated by christian wingnuts. This is not a balanced or healthy way to educate a child." Well, to all you wingnuts out there homeschooling for the right reasons, I'm on your side. I guess the "balanced and healthy way to educate" my sons would be to let them be one of forty other students in an education system geared towards not teaching them but getting them to pass the graduation requirements, thereby bringing in the extra thousands to millions of dollars the state gives successful schools. I guess spending three hours after school correcting the bad stuff they learned that day is better than teaching them correctly the first time, and moving on in their education.

On 5 October, thefollowingextracts braved the depths of election. I believe his take on this brings up many good issues and would be best read as a whole.

I'd like to chime in on the election issue brought up in a previous blog entry
and referred to here in the "Comment Quorum" blog entry.[Disclaimer: I will not
pretend that I have done a thorough scholarly study on the following topic. My
layman's approach will probably be evident in the terminology I use. Hopefully,
my lack of experience with the terms of this much discussed topic will not
obscure my point. Thanks for your patience.]

It seems to me that both an unconditional election (see the cited sheep passages in John) and a radically choice-based salvation (see the calls to believe for salvation in Acts)are represented in the canonized Scriptures. These are both representative of larger cosmologies that might be described as determinism and free will (or a plethora of other terms). But are the cosmological statements of the Bible meant to
establish absolute cosmologies? Are we supposed to synthesize disparate strands
into a unified cosmology?

To me, the value of the cosmological statements of the Bible is practical. I'm not saying that these cosmological statements are not true or real, but I would say that the intention of these cosmologies--such as when Paul cites the election of the saints to encourage them in their faith in and love for the Lord, or when Peter motivates believers to growth/good works that will "make your calling and election sure"--is to exhort believers toward certain ways of thinking or behaving. Thus, it is not necessary to form a systematized Biblical cosmology out of the various cosmological strands of Scripture. It is necessary to use these cosmological strands appropriately to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.

I realize that the above approach may result in some inconsistent/hypocritical thinking about theology and the Scriptures. But, when we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy. I guess I'd rather have my readings be more consistent to the intent of the authors of the Text than be entirely consistent within themselves (if I have to pick one or the other). As is now apparent, our
theologies on this issue are determined in large part by our assumptions about
the Text itself, assumptions which are born out of complex mixtures of
experience, community, brain chemistry, and etc.

Humans think precariously in a precarious universe. God gives grace in His Sovereignty.

Here are my thoughts on his thoughts. I do not believe the calls for salvation, as in Luke's Acts of the Apostles, represent the idea of a "radically choice-based salvation." The call goes out to everyone, the gospel is shared with the world, but not everyone can listen and understand the good news. Our “free-will” is not as free as we would like to think, and we would all really want to be. Our will is limited by our nature, with which God created us. The foremost limitation we have as unregenerates (prior to regeneration, or being “born again” as Christ said in John iii.3) is our being spiritually dead. Unless you are made alive by God Himself, you will stay spiritually dead (Eph. ii.1-4).

It was said, “[W]hen we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy.” True enough, if you have shut off your mind to listening to others--including and especially the Spirit—who can give you guidance and correction where needed. Because I chose not to close myself off from studying the writings of Calvinists, I was able to gain a significant amount of knowledge I believe God used to take me to where I am now. As I understand Paul, he wrote with more than just a desire “to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.” And I agree with the statement that I would rather have my reading be consistent with the intention of the author. I cannot get away from the intense importance Paul placed on knowing the truth and understanding the doctrines he taught. Those doctrines point to God, and help us understand our Sovereign.

In the case of God's sovereign election, I do not begin with the declaration that we have God's election and also man's free-will and ability to believe in Christ or not by their own volition. I will be writing more about election and free-will in due time.

Addendum: I just got one that I thought was of interest. An anonymous commentor wrote in about the Evangelical Outreach site I gave a resounding "Wow!" The commenter said, "Yikes, that cartoon was graphic. So he is opposed to eternal security? Does that mean he believes you can lose your salvation or am I not getting it?" Yes, the author of the site does not believe in eternal security. Also, they openly teach a conditional security, where your continued salvation depends on what you do.

The Old Book Shoppe

I have opened up a shop with Cafepress.com.



The image will be just to the right of the blog entries. Anytime you want to have a look at the items I've put together, click into The Old Book Shoppe and browse around. This is not a big-money endeavor for me; but it would be nice to get some extra bit of cash while supporting and promoting Church History and theology.

I enjoy playing around with Graphic Design, so if you would like to see a custom item designed, let me know. So far I have an Athanasius and Theosis Mug, as well as a "My God box" T-shirt.

|

"BibleHelp.org" on Calvinism

on't ask me how I got there, but I bounced into Michael and Janet Bronson's biblehelp.org web ministry. I was on a page entitled "What is Selective Salvation?" They have apparently created sixty-six chapters discussing selective salvation, aka. election or predestination. This first one gave a summary of the doctrine and actually started fairly well.

In summary, selective salvation is the belief God has chosen to send certain people to Heaven and the remainder to Hell. This selection (which was made long before the universe was created) was not based on any qualities of the person being selected. It was not based on the person’s heart or their future love for God. It was not based on God’s foreknowledge of who will eventually choose to accept Him as their Savior. It was not based on their future humility and repentance.

All of that is better stated than someone like Dave Hunt would care to attempt. I would not say God sent "the remainder to Hell," like "I'll save you and you. The rest, blah, whatever." God made the choice both ways; that's double predestination or reprobation. That may not sound good and nice, as if all doctrines are supposed to fit into the little box most people create for God; then they hung a little sign on the outside that reads, "My God box." Notice the qualities being denied to have any relationship to God's choosing: the person's heart, their future love for God, accepting the Savior, humility and repentance. That is correct. God does not choose someone based on that person's personal characteristics or choices in life. You have to remember where election begins: man is incapable of coming to God by their own will. As Christ put it: "No man is able to come (δυναται ελθειν, dunatai elthein) to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jo. vi.44, personal translation).

I said the article started well. The unspoken being at some point things began to go downhill. Here is where gravity starts to take over.

This selection was purely random and arbitrary. The people selected to go to Hell (such as Hitler) could just as easily have been selected to go to Heaven.

This is a popular idea, but I have no clue why it permeates so intensely the minds of the non-Reformed. Article seven in the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt states the following:

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which had fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and perdition, He has, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a definite number of persons, neither better nor more worthy than others, but with them involved in a common misery.

God did not randomly choose anyone.¹ His choice is perfect and purposeful. The case of Paul is one of the greatest Biblical examples of God's election and sovereignty over man's free will. Paul, by his own will, sought to destroy Christ's Church. God stopped him at His appointed time and turned his heart to the gospel of Christ. Was Paul going to convert his heart and ways while on the road to Damascus had Christ not intervened upon Paul's will? Choosing Christ was not Paul's idea, but Christ's. God's choice is by His good pleasure and grace.

Nobody has a say in the matter. The person selected to go to Hell literally has no hope.

No one wants a say. They want to live their lives for themselves. Unless God saves an individual, that individual has no hope. It seems Michael Bronson has forgotten about sin and the depravity of man. These two sentences are designed to pull at the emotion; it does not matter what Calvinists would say about this, only the opinion-based conclusion that most people will not bother to verify. Also of concern is that it appears he has not studied or read the writings (or heard the sermons/teachings) of actual Calvinists. This could be another case like with Jack Graham and his sermon on grace and Calvinism a few weeks ago; he obviously did not read about Calvinism from Calvinists, only from Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, and the like. If people would take the time to listen to us, not having to necessarily agree with us, they would at least not fall on their faces and present false, misleading information about Calvinists.

Although he may desire to go to Heaven and is seeking deliverance, he has no chance of salvation.

Once again, here is a statement (I can only assume) made out of ignorance to the actual teachings of Calvinists. Who will desire to go to Heaven? Who seeks deliverance? If someone is coming to God, Christ will never cast them out. Let's look at John vi.35-44 once again:

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty. But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe. Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. Now this is the will of the one who sent me--that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father--for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven," and they said, "Isn't this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus replied, "Do not complain about me to one another. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus did not indicate that men could come to God, or believe, unless God takes action. Who desires to go to Heaven? Who seeks deliverance? Jesus answers, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." And if someone actually desires entrance into Heaven and redemption? Jesus said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away." That is the message of Calvinism in a nutshell. In those few verses you have the doctrines of grace pragmatically explained (as a side note, see also Rom. iii.9-18 for an excellent proclamation of man's total depravity before God). Keep in mind the words of C. H. Spurgeon: "If you will have Jesus, He has you already."² Those who are actually seeking the Father will not fail to find Him because God will not allow His declaration to come back void. He said those He draws will come, and those who come will not be cast out. Those He does not draw will not come. They will not desire redemption, just as they do not desire redemption now.

Even the person selected to go to Heaven has no say in the matter, he is forced to "love" God.

How foolish a statement, to be honest. Again, written to pull at the emotions, this is entirely misleading. When the heart of man is turned, man will follow and love his Lord. When the dead in spirit is given life, that new life looks and sees the kingdom of God (Jo. iii.3). Only after regeneration can we love God at all. He does not force that action on you. That is entirely yours to do. He saved you; why would you not love Him?

Does the Bible teach this belief system? I don’t believe it does, but you need to search the Bible yourself and come to your own conclusion. Although you can use these 64 chapters to help you in your studies, make sure you use the Bible as your final authority. Don’t assume that what I’m saying is correct.

These are the sorts of statements I appreciate. Sadly, many times anti-Calvinists will simply tell you the (false) teachings we hold to, how they are unbiblical, and even how we cannot be saved if we believe these doctrines.³ I wish they include a statement like, "You can see in their own words what they teach here..." or something to that nature. Why not direct readers to Calvinist writings or sources? That way you can check real Calvinism against the Bible. What does R. C. Sproul say? Or James White? What about others: Spurgeon, Pink, Piper, Owen, Edwards, Ryle, Warfield, Boettner, Hendryx? What do Calvinists teach as Calvinism? Let's try and get away from the strawmen, and get to the truth regardless of that may be. I am willing to be rid of any false doctrines I hold to if I can be shown they are false.

Here is Michael's final statement regarding the summary of "selective salvation":

Think about it; if you really believed everyone who is supposed to go to Heaven will make it there, would you give and live sacrificially to help reach the world for Christ?

Yes, I would. One of the biggest fallacies anti-Calvinists may commit, but not all of them, is lumping all of Calvinism into the abhorent Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is basically fatalism. Do nothing because God will do everything. We do not know who the elect are. God has chosen the presentation of the gospel as the means by which men may listen, learn and believe. We Christians have been given the commission to go and tell all men about this gospel. Do you know of any Calvinists who do not share the gospel of Jesus Christ or believe they must not share because God will save those who He will save no matter what he or she does? If so, please send them my way. I will be more than happy to show Hyper-Calvinists the horrendous errors in their ways. Just do not try to present their heretical practices and teachings as Calvinist in general.

_____________________
¹ One of the other chapters at the site contains a most offensive comparison's to God's election I have ever seen. If you really want to read it, click here.

² Charles Haddon Spurgeon, All of Grace; The complete text can be found at the Spurgeon Archive.

³ In the September edition of The Berean Call Newsletter, Dave Hunt responded to a question about Calvinists and made this conclusion: "Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they 'shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life' (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so."

LDS and Romans iv (Part I)

omans 4 in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST; the inspired version of the Bible created by Joseph Smith, which corrects and clarifies the Bible as needed) is quite a different animal than Romans iv in the Bible. The stark difference here is not on par with the problematic rendition the JST has of John i.1. In that verse, Joseph Smith recreated the text almost entirely so you have an absolutely different meaning. The intention of Smith, as admitted by the LDS church, was to clarify the passage. John was actually not trying to create this picture of Jesus as being with God and also being that God. How foolish of us to think so for so many centuries!

But here in Romans, I cannot accept the idea that Smith was clarifying a teaching. Here first is Romans iv.1-6, 16 as found in the Bible:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works . . . Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all. (KJV)

And here are the same verses from the JST:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by the law of works, he hath to glory in himself; but not of God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works . . . Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to them only who are of the law, but to them also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all. (JST, using the KJV as the foundational English translation)

Verse 1 is the same, but verse two begins the avalanche. Watch the change in the language. Smith inserted "the law of" in verse 2 as a set up for what comes in verse 4. He also changed the idea of Abraham boasting to his having glory in himself. Not much of a concern, really. It does spring to mind his famous statement:

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, vol. 6; the whole text of the section can be reached at CARM.)

In verse 4, Smith changed a bit of the language. "Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt." Let's understand what he is trying to convey here. Despite the objection made by Gerald Lund in a 1981 article in the LDS publication, Ensign,¹ LDS apologists (mostly the amateur apologists) declare the law of works is neccessarily a different concept than the works you find in James ii. The law of works (as in the JST) or works by itself (as in the Bible) refers to the Law of Moses. In contrast, the works in James refers to the ordinances and commandments as dictated by the LDS church.

...to be continued...look for a discussion on works, salvation and Abraham in Romans iv...

¹ Gerald N. Lund, “Salvation: By Grace or by Works?” Ensign, Apr. 1981, 17. Lund argued "There are two different ways in which Church members typically seek to synthesize Paul’s teachings with Latter-day Saint theology. The first suggests that by “the law” Paul means only the law of Moses. Without a doubt, there is merit in this. There was a tendency among some Jewish Christians to insist that Christianity still required obedience to Mosaic principles such as circumcision, the dietary laws, and the observance of certain festivals . . . However, to limit Paul’s meaning to the law of Moses alone would not be quite accurate. Paul rejects the adequacy of the Mosaic code in and of itself for salvation, but he makes it broader than that too. For example, in warning the Ephesians about concluding that a man is saved by works, he makes no reference to the law: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourself: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8–9.) So while this explanation is somewhat correct, it does not go far enough."

New Look...yet again

ell, I decided to try another look for the blog. I kept the three columns, but moved both of the smaller columns to the right side. I will be adding images for headers in those columns, so that should enhance the look. Please, if you have any thoughts on the look I would love to read them. And yes I am still working on enhancing the actual posting.

ADDENDUM! I noticed most folks using Internet Explorer (IE) will only see a sliced up version of the site; the columns on the right are cut off. Sorry. This site looks best by using Firefox instead. You should be using Firefox for your web surfing and enjoyment anyway; but just in case, here is the link where you can download the small yet powerful, simple to use but free, program.


UPDATED: I was able to get IE looking better. Not perfect; Firefox is still superior. But, it will take some time to get it just right.

Translation using "propitiation"

here is an excellent post and counter post on the subject of properly translating into English the noun ιλασμος (hilasmos), as found in 1 Jo. ii.2. The first post is found at ESV Blog (that's the English Standard Version Bible Blog). The counter comes from Wayne Leman at the Better Bibles Blog. In this case, I believe Wayne has the better card played as far as the best English rendering of the term. "Propitiation" is very technical and difficult for the average reader to understand. Not only will they need to find a dictionary (don't always trust the study notes in the margins; they can be quite skewed and limited), but then try and understand what the dictionary is saying, then bring that back to the Bible verse to attempt apprehension. And you know what happens when you use 21st century meanings to interpret 1st century terminology.

That places a lot of responsibility on the translator. You need to understand the audience; in this case 20-21st century Americans. Here is a note from the NET Bible:

A suitable English translation for this word (ιλασμος) is a difficult and even controversial problem. "Expiation," "propitiation," and "atonement" have all been suggested. L. Morris, in a study that has become central to discussions of this topic (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the ιλασκομαι (hilaskomai) group) the idea of turning away the divine wrath, suggesting that "propitiation" is the closest English equivalent. It is certainly possible to see an averting of divine wrath in this context, where the sins of believers are in view and Jesus is said to be acting as Advocate on behalf of believers. R. E. Brown's point (Epistles of John [AB], 220-21), that it is essentially cleansing from sin which is in view here and in the other use of the word in 4:10, is well taken, but the two connotations (averting wrath and cleansing) are not mutually exclusive and it is unlikely that the propitiatory aspect of Jesus' work should be ruled out entirely in the usage in 2:2. Nevertheless, the English word "propitiation" is too technical to communicate to many modern readers, and a term like "atoning sacrifice" (given by Webster's New International Dictionary as a definition of "propitiation") is more appropriate here. Another term, "satisfaction," might also convey the idea, but "satisfaction" in Roman Catholic theology is a technical term for the performance of the penance imposed by the priest on a penitent.

This supports the position I lean towards on how we should translate the ιλασμος. I do not necessarily like "atoning sacrifice," but that is far better than "propitiation." While I will not absolutely disregard the ESV's point and the general use of "propitiation," there are alternatives that we can arrive at.

Phil Johnson on Pacifism

The Pyromaniac has three blogs running (click here for 1, 2, and 3) on pacifism, and his personal views on this issue. Talk about sparked a wild fire! At last count he had 141 comments on his three posts! Check them out. Not only is he not a pacifist; but, my oh my, look at what he says about Osama bin Laden.

The New Monasticism: Homeschooling

his spawned from several posts I read from others on this subject weeks ago. Those articles talked about the trend of American Christians turning to homeschooling, and that attitude of separation from the world being the same as that of the monastics and desert believers. The belief is that we as Christians should be a great influence in our society, being in it but not of it, and affecting the society in a way that brings glory to God and helps people. Of course few tend to give us any substantive, practical ways of doing that without falling into compromise or corruption. Homeschooling is considered another way that Christianity seperates itself from society, not dealing with the harsh ways of the world, and also choosing not to influence the culture in a good, ethical way.

My wife and I will homeschool our children (we have two so far). We plan on joining in with other homeschoolers so that certain educational subjects can be shared. I for one cannot do high school level math. I can do geometry and trig because they are logical. Forget the rest. My kids will be exposed to Latin, Koine Greek, Spanish and hopefully French, German and Arabic (a few languages I hope to start and pick up soon). Our reasons for homeschooling lie in our distaste for the public school system, and the fact that the private schools are too expensive and just as bad as public schools. The education in the public school system, in general, is poor.

I just saw a report that 100,000 California high school seniors failed the new graduation requirement exam; basically, a test implemented to see if the seniors were truly ready to graduate. All of them are in danger of not graduating unless they can pass the exam soon. And what do legislators want to do in light of that? Lower the standards even more and gear the education in the classrooms specifically towards passing that one test. Hence, a true education, one like you found in the 17-1800's, is all but forgotten. In today's schools, teachers have a difficult time giving a quality education to 30-40 kids each class period.

I have seen arguments against homeschooling that cover the spectrum. One argument states that by enrolling their kids in public school, those kids will evangelize their fellow students. I'm sorry, but an 11-year-old boy has other girls...I mean things on his mind ("Here's a gospel tract. I'd write my number on it but I lost it. Can I have yours?"). Another snag to that argument is that an 11-year-old is not going to necessarily understand the evangel--the gospel message--he is supposed to be teaching. A false gospel is not a good thing to minister, nor is it effective. Another argument is that we are being disobedient to God's commission for His people to give charity to their neighbors. The problem with this idea is that it assumes a total seperation from society for the children. Nothing could be further from the truth. The children still have access to their neighbors. In a good program they can socialize and develop relationships with believers and non-believers anywhere.

What happens if you take out all Christian influence from the public school system? That I think is the enigma perceived by those who criticize Christian homeschooling. That will never happen, but I would love to see Christian homeschoolers come together and develop the schools of learning that can become something greater.

For my family, our children's education is vital. I want them to learn well, and be able to take that knowledge and, Lord willing, wisdom, go out into the world on their own and make a great impact. We are not withdrawing from the world around us, but doing what is right for our family and for the Church. We will train our kids up in the way of the Lord, He will take them as far as He wants them. If critics only bring up homeschooling as part of the attack against Christians withdrawing from societal influence (which includes politics and business), then I say move along to another subject. Christians should not seperate from society en toto. We still need to give that charity and show that love for our neighbors. I just don't know what that has to do with homeschooling. I absolutely agree that homeschooling is a new form of monasticism. I have no problem with that, as long as you recognize it is a new form. It sure isn't the way true monasticism used to be, or is today.

If you can think of a practical way of being engaged in the culture, here in America, without compromise and corruption, please let me know. Do not just give the rhetoric. Come with solutions and ideas.

This site get's a wow

Check out Evangelical Outreach if you have a minute. Especially the Calvinism Refuted section. This guy has got quite the site on his hands there. Click on "An Eternal Security Teacher With A New Convert" and watch the amazing little cartoon to the left of the screen (if you have a flash player installed). I did not know John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon and James White were in the same ranks as Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, Pat Robertson and even Hank Hanegraaff.

This site gets a "Wow" from me. That's not really a good thing, but I doubt Evangelical Outreach will take much concern with me. I'm not on the list of wolves in sheep's clothing...yet.

Comment Quorum

From time to time, maybe once every two weeks, I will blog responses to comments folks leave me. And I do appreciate the comments.

On my post "Pelikan on Tradition and Scripture," wwyd asked, "How should the two points you make in the final paragraph affect the way we (in 2005) understand the "inspiration" or relevance of the scriptures?" The inspiration of the Scriptures is subject to a wide variety of interpretations itself. The fact that oral tradition came before written Scripture may or may not affect one's personal understanding of inspiration. In my view, there is no affect at all as God has always directed His revelation and been in control of His gospel. As far as relevance goes, the ideas proposed by Pelikan should help us consider the Scriptures just as relevant to us as it was to the mid to late first century Church; just as relevant to the Reformation; just as relevant to the Anabaptists. The oral tradition has always had a place in the Church; we must not confuse the idea of oral tradition with tradition as taught in the Roman Catholic Church. Oral tradition is passing along the good news, the gospel of Christ, and teaching others, especially the next generation. While in the mid first century, while the oral New Testament was going around, the OT was there with the people. As we pass along the oral tradition today--the message of the gospel, our interpretations and commentaries--we have the NT with us. Ultimately, the NT comes out as the objective reference; but how poor would it be to simply give someone a Bible and tell them to read it and "you'll know the truth." If they don't have guidance, someone to help them understand, their not going to know the truth. Likely they'll be more confused than anything.

On my "Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement," wwyd asked me to "please explain the significance of the following comment so I'm sure I'm tracking with your logic: 'But see how Christ never said He would bring in those who will be the sheep.'" The most popular non-Reformed teaching includes the idea that Christ died for all people of all time, giving everyone the opportunity to believe and receive salvation; the condition being that the individual takes action and comes to Christ. Tied into Election, this same teaching goes on with the idea that God saw beforehand who would believe; based on that information, He chose them. I took the analogy of the sheep and extended it to make a point. Christ talked about His sheep in a definite sense, not in the sense of "Once someone believes in Me they become My sheep." As He told the Jews in Jo. x, they did not believe because they were not His sheep; not, they were not His sheep because they did not believe.

I noted in being Blogspotted by Phil Johnson (which is actually the second time; I searched back through and rediscovered I have been blogspotted before) that Phil misspelled my last name. Always bad to do to an Calvinist Latino. You just know they'll point it out. Craziest thing is he commented "Fixed the spelling. Sorry. I should learn to cut and paste rather than trying to spell." See; that's a good man.