Blog | Reproach of Men

Adam and the Fall – Part 4

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:23-25)

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? (Isaiah 29:16)

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20)

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)

If now thou hast understanding, hear this: hearken to the voice of my words. Shall even he that hateth right govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly? How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands. (Job 34:16-19)

Knowledge. It’s supposed to be a wonderful thing. But there is some knowledge that we simply don’t need, like that of chemical weapons, biological weapons, getting hit in the head, overdosing on heroin, etc., etc. In short, knowledge, simply for the sake of knowledge is not a good thing in and of itself. Moreover, the knowledge we receive has to be accurate to the reality that truly exists. Some knowledge would simply be better left unknown.

So it is with the knowledge of good and evil. Due to the very nature of knowing what constitutes or makes something good, and what constitutes or makes something evil, and because Adam was created the way he was created, he cannot help but judge everything he observes, and thus determine whether it is good or evil. But before continuing, we must fully understand that Adam was indeed created with the ability to judge, and did so, as this also is critical to our understanding of how the knowledge of good and evil is instantly destructive to us. We know that Adam was created with the ability to judge by the first recorded task the LORD gave Adam:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:19-20)

Here we see that Adam is fully able to distinguish the different characteristics of the animals, and judge the name most fitting for that animal, and where it fits into the environment they live in. Now, this does not tell us the extent or capacity of Adam’s ability to judge, saving we are expressly told that he does not know good and evil. However, we can see that immediately upon partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he immediately judges certain things that are of a different quality than simply naming animals.

Thus, though we are not told of the extent, we still see plainly that man was created with the inherent ability to judge, even as his Creator judges, but not to the same level of authority or power. Within Adam’s limited existence, the judgement he possesses is commensurate with his ability to discern. Adam cannot see into the future, and has no mechanism by which he can determine the outworking or end of thoughts and events. Adam is also confined by the limits of his physical perception, and cannot accurately determine if an action performed at one place, can never or may never affect events at another place with any certainty. Or, if it does affect events, to what extent the effect is felt at the other, or any other place. We, living today, ought to be very familiar with these limitations. However, this limitation becomes immeasurably more severe when we consider the ramifications within the realm of the spiritual.

If we remember, it is the spiritual that existed before the physical, and is greater and more powerful than the physical. If we also remember, sin is first and foremost, spiritual and begins in the heart and soul of the individual long before it is ever manifested physically:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

And again:

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (Matthew 15:16-20)

And so it is that Adam’s ability to comprehend what might be spiritually, is also severely limited, as he has no means by which he can determine the effect of the thoughts of his heart upon the entirety of the spiritual world. Thus, Adam’s ability to make moral judgements concerning the things he perceives, observes and considers, was rightly and properly withheld as it would bring about a situation where Adam would judge something, and not seeing all the ramifications of it, would judge it to be one way and to have one outcome, and in reality it actually is a different way and a considerably different outcome will result. What the end of this situation is, is what the Scripture calls iniquity (which is the cause of sin), as the judgement made would “miss the mark” and be unequal to the reality that exists.

For us to truly understand what “iniquity” and “sin” are, and why they are so egregious and destructive, we must examine righteousness, sin, and iniquity and how they are defined. In Scripture, iniquity and sin are clearly defined, and in so doing, righteousness is defined as well. The clearest passages that define iniquity and sin, and thus righteousness, are found in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel:

Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. (Ezekiel 18:29-30)

Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. (Ezekiel 33:17-20)

In both the above passages, it is very clear by the use of the phrases “my ways equal” and “your ways unequal” and then the LORD God stating “turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity . . .” and again stating “When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity,” the LORD is clearly setting righteousness in direct opposition to iniquity, and saying that “iniquity” is being “not equal” in one’s doings. Therefore sin, which is a result of iniquity, is the result of being unequal in one’s way of being. This is to say that if the very way we think is unequal, that when we do not treat everything equally, we are in sin, and are not righteous. This is confirmed in the New Testament in James, Chapter 2:

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (James 2:8-9)

Beyond this, it is inherent in being equal or righteous, that one must, to be equal, see all things that are, as they are, not as we think or want them to be. Moreover, one must be able to see infinitely to know that all things that can be seen, are seen, and perceived accurately or as they are.

To simplify somewhat, it is like examining a sheet of copier, or printer paper, letter size. For us, we specify that it is 8.5 x 11.0 inches, and is .012 inch thick, an weighs “X” amount. However, all that is described by us, is approximate, and not actual. In fact, we cannot actually know exactly how wide, long and thick the sheet of paper is. Nor can we know exactly how much it weighs.

Why?

Because we do not have instruments that can measure the absolute size and weight of the sheet of paper. We are strictly limited by our capabilities and will never know exactly the physical aspects of the sheet of paper, we can only approximate. This makes us inherently unrighteous when we attempt to describe a single sheet of letter size printer or copier paper.

Now, as briefly touched on concerning Adam, once he has received the knowledge of good and evil, the problem goes further when making an attempt to determine the outcome of some physical action, or decision. To be righteous he must insure that all consequences of any action he decides upon and executes must fit perfectly in the creation in which the LORD God placed him. Any and all outcomes, no matter how remote, no matter how seemingly insignificant, must match perfectly with the ordained order of the LORD’s creation. Otherwise, Adam is unrighteous and not equal in his dealings and thus in iniquity, and as a result, sin.

Hence, looking at righteousness in this way demonstrates to us just how incapable Adam was of being righteous once he obtained the knowledge of good and evil. Moreover, it illustrates his (and our) inability to truly understand the extent of the LORD God’s righteousness, which is intrinsic to His being.

Perhaps then, a description of the LORD God’s righteousness can be understood by the following illustration:

It is as if there existed an infinitely large mathematical equation that extended in every dimension, both physical and spiritual, with an equal sign right in the midst. In all that would be done in this infinite, multi-dimensional equation, it is never not an equation. Meaning it is never, not even for the slightest of an instant, unequal as it is worked. Moreover, in every thought and action that occurs in this equation and the outworking or ramifications thereof, everything balances perfectly and remains equal at all times, from infinity to infinity in every and all possible dimensions.

Now then, if we begin to grasp that concept, we begin to understand how that in all that is done, the LORD God is ever and always righteous in all that He does, from infinity to infinity, and how incapable Adam was of being righteous should he gain the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, it is plain that in withholding the knowledge of good and evil, the LORD God was preserving Adam from making judgements against, and contrary to his Creator, and thus placing himself in opposition to the LORD God, the very one who made him.

Now then, let us return to the verses above, and what they declare:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20)

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)

In light of all that is spoken of before, it is now plain that Adam judged the actions of his Creator and deemed them lacking. When Adam received the knowledge of good and evil, as the Scripture shows, he went from being naked and unashamed, to instantly judging that he was naked, and should not be so, for he was ashamed of his state of undress. By this action, Adam has brought a judgement contrary to the order the LORD God set up when he did not cloth Adam immediately after his creation. This then, is the visible manifestation of the judgement that has occurred in Adam’s heart concerning how he should have been adorned when he was made. The reality of Adam’s judgement is to call God wicked for not clothing him when He made him, and thus giving Adam cause for shame. Moreover, now Adam also knows plainly that he should not have partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and also knows that he has set himself against the LORD God. As a result of this, Adam’s reaction upon the appearance of the LORD God in the garden can be well understood by us today:

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8)

To be continued . . .

Adam and the Fall – Part 3

NOTE: This is a reposting of Part 3 of Adam and the Fall due to significant revision and extension of the original article. I do apologize for its length. — Paul

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, . . .(Luke 24:44-45)

Even as the disciples could not understand the Old Testament Scriptures because they were blinded by the hardness of their hearts, Adam, not by any hardness of his heart, but through ignorance, simply cannot understand that choosing to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is evil. What is meant in the passage from Luke, Chapter 24 is that the disciples could not grasp the significance of passages of Old Testament Scripture, and that those passages pertained to Christ. In the same way, to Adam, who does not know and cannot conceive good and evil, what is put before him is simply a choice of one thing over another. Though we see that Adam cannot be held guilty due to his innocence, he is indeed guilty by virtue of the fact he was given an express command. However, he does not, as we would, recognize that rejecting the command is an act of rebellion. He simply cannot understand anything good or evil about the command and his transgression of it. It is impossible for Adam to understand how failing to keep the command is wrong. This is a state of pure innocence. It is very much like the innocence of a child, which is described to us in Deuteronomy, Chapter 1:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Now, unlike little children and like the disciples, Adam’s state is one of being intelligent yet undiscerning of what it means to be disobedient. He cannot comprehend that disobeying the commandment is an act of evil, any more than he can discern that both he and the creation he inhabits are “very good.” In the same way, but looking from the other side, we have almost as much difficulty comprehending Adam’s state of existence as he does comprehending that good and evil exist. The difference is that he can’t, and if we honestly try, we can. After all, all we have to do is raise a child, and we gain firsthand knowledge of what it is like to deal with someone who cannot comprehend that what they are about to do, or what they just did is wrong.

Thus, there is a parallel that exists between the child reaching the age where they perceive the fact that the law of God exists, and Adam partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This “awareness” of the child is explained by the apostle Paul in Romans, Chapter 7:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:7-9)

The parallels do not match completely, as Adam’s state cannot ever be duplicated again. However, it is close enough that we can see what is meant by the statements “I had not known sin, but by the law” and “For without the law sin was dead.” We may also add the following, as it to confirms the picture presented by the child that becomes cognizant of the law of God, and due to his sin nature, promptly rebels:

The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. (I Corinthians 15:56)

Hence, immediately after the entrance of the law, sin revives in the heart of the child, deceives the child, the child rebels against the law and is promptly cut off from God. Nonetheless, we are also instructed in the passage from Romans, Chapter 7 cited above, that the apostle Paul was “alive without the law once:” meaning that as a child that could not distinguish between good and evil (yet the sin nature lay dormant in his heart) he lived, and had yet to run afoul of the law no matter what he did, as he was not capable of distinguishing between good and evil. Thus, we have confirmation of what Moses stated in the passage quoted above:

“ . . .and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil,. . .” (Deuteronomy 1:39b)

Here then is the parallel between Adam and the little child prior to the fall, and a parallel between what happened to Adam when he fell and death ensued, and the child that reaches the age of cognizance of the law of God and death ensues. In both cases, the parties are innocent, innocence is destroyed, and death comes about as direct result of the loss of innocence. Thus, we should have the ability to understand that Adam, as intelligent as he obviously was, could not make a moral judgement about the rightness or wrongness of his action, or of the actions of anyone or anything else. In this regard Adam is like a child (I should say here that to the LORD God, we are all like little children.), but in sheer intelligence, Adam has immense capability. He is, like the disciples, held back from understanding, yet is fully capable of understanding. The problem is not with Adam’s intellect, but lies in the fact that the knowledge of what constitutes good and evil itself will kill him.

This calls to mind the time when I spoke with a couple of Mormon missionaries. During the discussion, one of them held up The Book of Mormon and declared “But we have more knowledge!” as a way of supporting their reliance on The Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible. Instantly, (and it was instant) my mind was brought to the fall of man and the very fact that it was the appeal to knowledge, and subsequent “wisdom” that snared Eve, then Adam — and killed them, resulting in misery for us all. Of course, the reply which I gave them was, “Yeah, Adam and Eve got more knowledge, and it killed them.” The point here is that more knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. If we cannot handle the knowledge we receive, then it is ultimately detrimental, and likely to be fatal to us. Even so, the ability to distinguish between good and evil (which is the ability to make moral judgments) destroys us. Unfortunately, we can no more divest ourselves of that knowledge than any of us could jump to the planet Saturn. The “why” of this is critical, and requires examination as well.

It is notable that the tree was expressly named the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” and not the tree of “good and evil.” I have previously pointed out that there are those who fail to make this distinction. This failure flaws their understanding of what happened, and the why of it. The LORD God had, as He does in everything, a very significant point to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is up to us to inquire of it and seek the LORD for an answer to why this is so.

With the creation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the subsequent instruction that the fruit of it should not be eaten lest death ensue, the LORD places a barrier to a portion of knowledge He determined is destructive to man. Moreover, by telling Adam that “death” would be the direct, immediate result, even if death is not explained, the whole tenor of the command and warning would cause one to shy away from violating it. The clear perception is that death and dying is not a good result, and irrevocable. Hence, there is a knowledge here that will change things permanently and not in a desirable way. Thus Adam weighed in the balance whether the supposed gain of knowledge was worth the consequent price to be paid. Since we all live the result, we know both the decision and the result of it, neither of which were and are good.

That stated, this tree of the knowledge of good and evil is like a latch, that once tripped, cannot be reset, and we cannot return to the former state of innocence. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of righteousness and in the creation of Adam. The Scripture is plain that Adam was created in righteousness, and had his own righteousness, although finite, by virtue of his creation. Moreover, since Adam cannot differentiate between good and evil, he cannot effect a moral judgment. This makes Adam dwell in a state of innocency where, no matter what he does, it cannot be wrong. He has no ability to determine whether his own actions are good or evil, which is to say, right and wrong. The principle of that is given to us in Romans, Chapter 4:

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:14-15)

Here the principle is plainly stated, that if there is no law, there can be no transgression. In short, it is impossible to transgress that which does not exist. However, Adam has a law, and only one law:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17)

The law is plain: don’t eat of the fruit of one specific tree. Now, if it happened to be that all the command encompassed was simply ‘don’t eat the fruit of this tree,’ without the fruit thereof imparting knowledge, we would find a somewhat difficult situation in that Adam, having partaken, yet having no knowledge imparted to him, would still be uncomprehending of what he did wrong. Moreover, since he blundered in his innocency and naivete, and remained so, how was he to be dealt with? Righteously and within the law there is nothing specified and not really a way to deal with this situation. To outright destroy Adam is to treat Adam as we are commanded to treat animals that transgress:

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. (Exodus 21:28)

Thus we would find an immediate end to the race of man. Moreover, Adam was not formed as the animals were formed, but was made in the image of God and is a living soul. Scripture clearly testifies that animals were not formed in the image of God, and do not have a soul. Hence, this is not a tenable option in light of righteousness and the law, as the Scripture also demonstrates:

Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. (Exodus 23:7)

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:10)

“ . . .and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil,. . .” (Deuteronomy 1:39b)

It is not simply that they are children that causes the Father to look upon the little ones among us, but that they are innocent, and live in innocency until they become cognizant of the law. This is a point of law that the LORD God cannot transgress, as it would violate His own nature. Even though Adam would have unrighteously eaten of the fruit, had he remained in innocency, the law of God and God’s righteousness would have placed Adam in an irresolvable, irreconcilable situation. Therefore, we must look for the resolution of this through righteousness.

If we then look to righteousness, we can see that righteousness is an absolute quality where one is either righteous wholly and completely, or one is not righteous at all:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

But then, without the impartation of knowledge that would bring Adam out of his state of innocency, he would be guilty without understanding why, and would exist in a place that the law does not address, and indeed cannot address. However, if we look at the effect of Adam’s action, but not his intention, we can also see that Adam judged the command of God and found it to be lacking, but with no understanding that this was the actual effect of what he did. In accordance with the testimony of Scripture, we find that the knowledge of good and evil is the cognizant ability to make judgements and determine whether something is either good or evil under the law. Thus, once Adam partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, knowledge of the law was imparted and he became as a god, with the ability to knowingly judge. Since Adam had broken the law, the impartation of the knowledge of the law seals him to always knowing the law, and he cannot escape the fact that everything he sees he will automatically judge as to whether it is good or evil, right or wrong. Instantly, upon partaking of the fruit, we are told:

. . .the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;. . . (Genesis 3:7a)

Therefore, we do plainly see that the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil imparts a certain knowledge, a certain ability, which is the ability to make moral judgments on an instinctual level. Moreover, it is an event that cannot be undone. This is why, though they knew not before that they were naked, they instantly recognized the moral aspects and implications to their nakedness, and knew instantly they should be clothed. Worse yet, having judged the command of the LORD God, and, in their eyes found it wanting, yet without understanding, they now go further and seeing themselves, knowingly judge that the LORD God should have clothed them. By this, without fully realizing it, Adam brought judgment against the LORD God and set himself at variance with the LORD.

With the above, we should now be able to understand the function of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Quite plainly we see that the instruction to not partake of it, was not simply a prohibition for the sake of giving Adam a law to see if he would obey. Rather, there is a larger issue here, one of being able to determine what constitutes righteousness, and conversely wickedness. By the knowledge given in the fruit of this tree, man will be able to knowingly determine whether a thought, type of behavior, action, etc. is ultimately beneficial or detrimental, and why. If man is able to resist the temptation to misuse such knowledge, and operate in perfect harmony with his Creator, then all is well. If not, man “unbalances the equation” in that he is no longer operating according to his design. However, since man was given an express command, the mere fact of partaking, means that man would no longer be operating in harmony with his Creator, thus unbalanced in his thoughts, actions, and behavior and in sin.

Thus, there is a further representation given by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This representation then is a physical manifestation of a realm of spiritual knowledge, that, had Adam entered into solely in the spiritual (in the thoughts of his heart only) we could never tell the difference, saving that Adam suddenly found it necessary to be clothed. Moreover, if it were only in the spiritual that this occurred, then Eve would not have been, and could not have been guilty, and would have been unrighteously subject to death and destruction. Why? It is plain from both Scripture and from our own experience that a person’s thoughts are strictly that person’s private thoughts, and are not shared unless and until they are revealed by that individual. Hence, had Adam, who is the head of the race, and to whom was given dominion, transgressed in his heart, and been brought to the knowledge of good and evil, he would have brought death upon all in his dominion. However, Eve, who had not transgressed, and who has a soul and is made in the image of God, would have also been subject to death as well, and thus been unjustly condemned. Moreover, had Eve only transgressed in her heart, then Adam, who had not partaken, would have not fallen, and no death would have entered into Adam’s dominion, yet sin would be found in the realm of Adam’s existence, confined to Eve. Here we find a situation where sinless Adam could have known sinful Eve, resulting in a situation where the children would have had an irresolvable conflict in their nature.

Hence, by making a physical manifestation (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) of a spiritual realm of knowledge (knowing good and evil), and commanding man to not partake of it, the LORD insures that if transgression occurs, that the race of man is brought wholly and completely into transgression and the transition is visible to all. Moreover, that if it occurred, the event would be undeniable to all involved, and to all who would come to have knowledge of the event in the future.

To be continued . . .

Adam and the Fall – Part 2

Now we have arrived at the point before the fall of man, where Adam is given a help that is proper for him. In understanding this situation, we also need to understand Eve’s relationship to Adam as far as authority and dominion are concerned, as it bears significantly on the fall. This relationship is clearly established in Scripture by the following:

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:20:23)

This is confirmed also by the following passage:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (I Timothy 2:12-13)

This “order of creation” reinforces the intent of the LORD God when he gave man dominion, but commanded Adam only concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

Thus, Adam is the individual that will be held accountable if error is made and the dominion is lost, which we also see confirmed in Scripture:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

And again:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:22) ((Yes, I know. Those who believe in Universal Salvation like to cite this verse as one of the “proofs” of their doctrine. However, the Scripture is plain there is no “universal salvation,” but that salvation is universally available.))

Therefore we can plainly see that Eve was under Adam’s dominion, and that Adam, as the “governor” of the race, and of all the earth, is solely responsible for all that happens. As an additional note, we do see that Eve was “in Adam” before she was created, even as we were all in Adam. Thus, all that Eve is and we are, comes from Adam by inheritance. By this, we can understand that no fall will occur unless and until Adam himself disobeys the express instruction of God.

There is an additional point to address before continuing: there are those who would argue the point that Satan entering earth prior to the fall, and Eve partaking of the tree, somehow corrupted the environment and introduced sin. However, as Romans, chapter 5 is express:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; . . . (Romans 5:12a)

To argue the point is to say, by way of parallel logic, that heaven is corrupted, and the throne of God is corrupted by sin when Satan stands before the LORD and disputes about events and persons. This is manifestly not so, and the LORD God retains His righteousness and His dominion, and cannot be corrupted by the presence of the Devil. We must remember that it is only those portions the LORD God has given to others, i.e. Adam, that can be corrupted, if the individual having dominion over that portion falls.

So then, what is it that is offered unto Adam, by way of Eve? It is the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is made to be attractive by the appeal that one could be wise, if one only partook. Moreover, like all things the LORD God creates, it too, is beautiful and desirable:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:1-6)

Now, in answering the question put at the first by our Calvinist friend, we must first look at what he asks:

In order for Adam to voluntarily chose to sin against God, he would need to have the desire to do so. If Adam was born without the desire to sin (sin nature), where did this desire to sin come from?

And again in his comments, he asks later:

To be created in God’s image meant, among other things, that we were to mirror and reflect God’s character. Adam was created with this character and does not have a sin nature. So how can Adam make a choice to do evil without having the desire for evil?

And yet again:

Yea, Adam was born perfect spiritually and physically without sin. I see what your trying to say, but rebellion is sin. It is evil. For Adam to sin against God, he would need the desire to do evil. That desire to do so, only comes from a sin nature, which Adam does not have.

It is impossible for a human being to make a choice without having a desire for that choice. Can’t happen. That is like making a choice for no reason. No desire, No choice.

In all these comments and questions there is a failure to understand the most critical point of all, which I mentioned earlier:

One of the things that is often overlooked in the above passage, that we must be careful about, is the naming of the tree. It is not, as is often referred to, the tree of good and evil, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Hence, to eat the fruit of it, does not bring about evil, other than the direct disobedience to God, but brings about an understanding of what constitutes good, and what constitutes evil. Moreover, it is not an analytical kind of understanding. Rather, it is knowing, in which we instinctively recognize when something is good, and some other thing is evil. It is the ability to instantly distinguish the difference between the two.

This ability to distinguish between what is good, and constitutes good, and what is evil and constitutes evil, is completely missing in Adam and Eve. It simply is not there. Adam cannot recognize and distinguish the difference between good and evil. This is strongly testified to by witnesses that are in opposition: The LORD God, and Satan.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: . . . (Genesis 3:22)

And:

. . .For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:5)

In each case, the clear testimony is that, prior to the fall, Adam could not distinguish the difference between good and evil. Now, we say that hindsight is 20/20 and that we can see clearly after the fact. However, in this case, our hindsight is hindered by the fact that we know good and evil and cannot divorce ourselves from that instinctual knowledge. Hence, everything we view, we view through that lens and cannot see any other way. To us then, our Calvinist friend’s view is the norm, and not at all unusual. Nevertheless, we are not left without recourse in the word of God, and we must look at this strictly from the Scripture, since we have no understanding at all of what it is like to be truly “innocent.”

What we are told is strictly this, that the tree is a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam has yet to partake of it. Hence, to Adam, there is no cognizance of any choice he makes being anything other than a choice with consequences that are unknown, except what he has been told. He does not know what death is, as he has never seen death, and has nothing to compare it to. We cannot, as some suppose, assume that the LORD God explained death to him, as the Scripture does not tell us that. Even if “death” were explained to Adam, we could easily ascertain that he still had no real understanding of it, having never seen any such thing as there is no death in the world. Adam has likewise never experienced what we would know as “wisdom” in the sense of knowing that thinking and making decisions in certain ways would be “wisdom” and in other ways would be “foolishness.”

Moreover, we must understand that the “knowledge of good and evil,” to “know good and evil,” and “knowing good and evil” all speak of a lack of discernment concerning the distinction between the two. We, the descendants of Adam, instinctively know good and evil as the Scripture plainly testifies:

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (Romans 2:13-15)

The parenthetical statement above sets forth the fact and principle that it was not instruction in the law, and subsequent failure to keep it, that condemned the Jews and everyone else. Rather, it is the fact that when Adam fell, the law was written into his heart and became an instinctive knowledge in all his descendants, of which we all are. And, since it is instinctive, we view everything through the law, automatically assigning values of good and evil to every thought and every action of both ourselves and others. Thus, to understand Adam’s failure, we have to know that “the knowledge of” is what he lacks.

This lack of “the knowledge of good and evil” means that Adam could not assign any relevance to what he chose to do. He could not see it in the light of being “against” God, as that was not known to him as being “evil” or wrong. All Adam knew was that he was instructed not to partake of the fruit of this tree. Moreover, when Eve approaches him, having already eaten of the fruit, he sees no change in her, as he has yet to succumb and thus lose dominion and the righteousness that is his. The Scripture illustrates this in the following passage:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

Here we see that Eve partook first of all, and yet there was no effect on her. However, it is when she “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” that the fall occurred as it described in the following verse:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)

We can now see that when the ruler of the dominion is conquered, that all the dominion is affected, as we are reminded in the passage from Romans, chapter 5 referenced above:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; . . . (Romans 5:12a)

However, it wasn’t the “sin” that specifically killed Adam, insomuch as it was the opening of the eyes to the knowledge of good and evil — the law. Though the act of disobedience is sufficient, the act of disobedience comes from simply choosing one thing over another, and was done in innocency. Adam doesn’t know that choosing to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is wrong and sin, he just knows that he has been instructed that “death” will occur if he does. Yet, he has another evidence telling him there is no consequence, as he has seen Eve partake, and nothing happened to her. In short, Adam is blind, and does not know the law. Adam saw Eve partake at the suggestion of the serpent, and in opposition to the LORD the serpent told Eve that knowing good and evil brought wisdom, and such wisdom was a thing to be desired. Here then we have a situation where Adam cannot understand or comprehend that disbelieving the LORD is sin, as he does not know and cannot recognize and distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil. Thus, when it states:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; . . .(Genesis 3:7a)

By this act they became cognizant, or aware, of the ramifications of the expressed will of God, as the Scripture also tells us:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Thus, it was not as when we set about to sin, wherein we know what we are about to do is wrong. Rather, it is much like a little child that cannot comprehend things they do are dangerous or wrong. All the child knows is that it wants to do this or that thing, and cannot comprehend any moral ramification to their thinking and actions. The understanding and perception of good and evil came after Adam partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In this the Scripture is express when it states “and” and then continues with “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew. . .” It then necessarily follows that they did not know prior to Adam eating of the fruit, but only after.

This leads us to examine what we mean by the words “knowing” and “to know” concerning good and evil. We ought to examine this, as it is critical to understanding how Adam could be bereft of what we live with daily, and indeed take for granted. Now, the “knowing” we speak of here is not simply ‘having knowledge of, or information about,’ but is to be instinctively certain of something. It is to understand without question what something is, and what it means. When the Scripture speaks of “knowing good and evil” there are three basic points that we can express about it:

To “know” is to understand on an instinctual level.
This “knowing” precludes thinking.
The “understanding” involved is the ability to comprehend the significance of information, actions and events.

Therefore, Scripturally, to “know,” in the sense spoken of in Genesis, Chapters 2 and 3, is to instinctively understand information, actions and events and their significance. We do not have to think about a thought or action being good or evil, we know without question whether it is or isn’t, as Romans, Chapter 2 reveals. Neither do we have to consider the significance of such thought or action. We do know that the end of evil thought and action is destruction, and the end of good thought and action is peace. The Lord Jesus Christ verified this during His earthly ministry with the following statement, when he testified that, although we are evil, without question we know what beneficial or good gifts are, and how to bestow them upon our children. Why? Because we have the knowledge of good and evil.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13)

It is this “knowing” that Adam lacked. Adam could not assign any significance to what he was about to do beyond the consequences he was instructed about (“death” which was unspecified as to its effect). He could not see how his actions would affect him, or Eve, or the creation over which he had dominion. He was incapable of understanding the law of God, and could not understand that the creation he inhabited was “very good” and that he was righteous. All Adam knew was that he lived in a place that was as it is, meaning he had nothing to compare it to, and no means whereby he could understand that it was good, and that he was good. That is why the statement is made “And the eyes of them both were opened, . . .” which in principle, is very much like the opening of the eyes of the disciples after the resurrection:

To be continued . . .

Adam and the Fall – Part 1

Note: This is included in the discussion of Westboro and Calvinist doctrine, as it directly impacts Calvinist/Refomed theology and understanding of the fall of man and the sovereignty of God.

Note – Update: In this article, the tenses shift between past and present as there are some parts that are written as if we are third party observers watching the events of creation; other elements are present tense as they continue unto this day. Where it is possible to shift to the more commonly used (and understood) past tense, I have.

I was asked by a Calvinist about a point in my Statement of Faith that is as follows:

VII. Of the Fall of Man

I believe that man was created in innocence under the law of his Maker. That the LORD God created man in a righteous state. That Adam’s righteousness was finite, and thus required the LORD’s guidance. However, Adam voluntarily chose to transgress the command of God, and in so doing, fell from his sinless and happy state.

And then the questions were asked:

1) Where in scripture does it say Adam’s righteousness was finite?

2) What do you mean by finite righteousness?

3) In order for Adam to voluntarily chose to sin against God, he would need to have the desire to do so. If Adam was born without the desire to sin (sin nature), where did this desire to sin come from?

Now, I thought that it was obvious what I stated, but there again, I stated it and to me it had better be obvious. However, I am not someone coming along and reading it, perhaps for the first time, and having some difficulty grasping the reasons behind it. Thus, the burden is mine to explain what I mean, and answer the questions as they are put. The good thing about this is that it does give a good opportunity to address the fall of man and the nature of the LORD God. It does also bear quite heavily on the sovereignty of God, and what that sovereignty actually consists of.

In beginning, we must look at two verses from Genesis, chapter one, and what they expressly state:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28)

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

One of the first things to note is the fact that God made man in His image, and that man was given dominion over the earth. Hence, man is made a prince and the pinnacle of God’s creation.

The second thing of note is verse 31, and what it states about man. Man is part of “every thing that he had made” and thus “behold, it was very good.” Plainly this means that man was righteous in his creation — in every aspect of his existence. Upon this, we can categorically state that Adam possessed a “finite righteousness.” To break it down, we can give the following reasons for stating Adam possessed a “finite righteousness.”

Adam is finite for the following reasons:

Adam was created within an environment that is manifestly finite.
In the physical, Adam’s limitations are defined by the physical creation within which he exists.
In the spiritual, because Adam was created a living soul, and that by another, the LORD God.
Adam is limited by his knowledge. Adam does not know the difference between good and evil, and does not know evil.
Adam is limited in his ability to act. Adam can only act to the extent of his physical ability.

Adam is righteous for the following reasons:

Adam was created “very good,” meaning that the condition of Adam before God, as the LORD testifies, is “very good” or righteous.
Adam can only become unrighteous under one specific condition: disobedience to the single command of God.
Adam names all the animals, and the LORD God does not disagree, nor chide in any way. In fact, Adam, being given dominion, was given the choice of what he would name all the animals, and did so.
The LORD actively fellowships with Adam.

By all the above, we can state that Adam is both finite, and righteous. Moreover, we can see that Adam’s righteousness extends to the limit of his knowledge, which knowledge does not extend to knowing the difference between good and evil. This we find clear evidence for in the following passage:

One of the things that is often overlooked in the above passage, that we must be careful about, is the naming of the tree. It is not, as is often referred to, the tree of good and evil, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Hence, to eat the fruit of it, does not bring about evil, other than the direct disobedience to God, but brings about an understanding of what constitutes good, and what constitutes evil. Moreover, it is not an analytical kind of understanding. Rather, it is knowing, in which we instinctively recognize when something is good, and some other thing is evil. It is the ability to instantly distinguish the difference between the two.

In returning to the thought at hand, we can see that Adam was created in the image of God, and was given dominion over a realm of existence. This realm of existence was finite, and Adam had full control to operate in the realm as he saw fit, saving he was restricted from one activity only, and that only by instruction or commandment. We find evidence of this authority in the passage that follows:

Here now we intersect the sovereignty of God, and what that sovereignty means in relation to Adam and his authority.

If we remember, Adam is made in the image of God. What this means are there are certain attributes that Adam has, which are ((There are those who will dispute the verb tenses here. However, they need to understand that the rules of English, (and most other languages) are not adequate to explain things that are timeless and continue until this day. Much of Adam’s attributes that are attributes the LORD has, continue until this day, both in Adam in eternity, and in all his children here on earth. Hence, I am going to “break the rules” in explaining this. After all, even though Adam “was” made in the image of God, Adam still “is” made in the image of God, as Adam still exists. Kindly examine it from the LORD’s perspective, before you jump to conclusions.)) very much in keeping with the attributes of God. This is not to say that Adam is a god. Rather, it is to say that some things intrinsic to Adam as he is created, are attributes the LORD God Himself has. One of those attributes is the fact that Adam is a living soul:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

This attribute also belongs to the LORD:

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. (Isaiah 1:11-14)

And again:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. (Isaiah 42:1-3)

And yet again:

Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? (Jeremiah 5:9)

These all plainly show that the LORD God has a soul, and that in making man, he chose to make man with a soul. In making man in His image, the LORD also gave man the ability to choose. We can see this plainly in the command given to Adam:

Here, as we examine this passage again, we see that Adam must have had the ability to choose, and this ability to choose was freely given him by the LORD God. In placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the garden, and then instructing Adam in what his relationship to the tree ought to be, and the consequences of not heeding the instruction to avoid the tree, the LORD God clearly gave Adam the choice, and expressed His will toward Adam and Adam’s conduct regarding the gaining of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, the decisions regarding Adam’s future were left entirely up to Adam.

Now, it is essential to understand some other points concerning Adam’s existence and how he is ((Again, I make the point: the word “is” is entirely appropriate here as Adam, whithersoever he is, is still governed by the sovereignty of God, even if he is in Hell. No one ever leaves the LORD God’s dominion. Hence, “was” can never be used in relation to the sovereignty of God. To do so is every bit as egregious an error as saying “Jesus Christ was,” in relation to Christ’s existence. Jesus Christ is, as He is the I AM.)) governed by the sovereignty of God. It is held by those who believe Calvinist/Reformed theology that the LORD God willed that Adam should fall. ((For what purpose they never say, nor can they say what Adam’s fall accomplishes for the LORD God. In fact, Calvin in his Commentary on Genesis completely skips over this question and avoids it. Neither does Calvin adequately explain the reason for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.)) However, that flies in the face of the plain testimony of the LORD God Himself, who commanded and instructed that this tree was off-limits, and to touch it is to die. To believe that God previously willed that Adam should fall, albeit for some unknown reason (a mystery of God), and then plainly instruct him that he should not transgress and fall, is to believe a contradiction that is incomprehensible, verging on insanity.

Hence, to understand the relationship of Adam’s ability to choose to the sovereignty of God, we must understand the context of Adam’s existence and the meaning of “free will.” As has been described, Adam’s existence is within a finite creation, and Adam’s understanding is itself finite (necessarily so, since Adam could not yet distinguish between good and evil) we may say that Adam exists within a set of bounds, or parameters which, if we are so inclined, we can readily describe as a “box.” This “box” has a Creator, who is the LORD God, and he placed Adam within it, and gave Adam dominion of a significant portion of it (the earth and all creatures therein). Within this “box” it is plainly apparent that Adam could do whatsoever he pleased, so long as he did nothing to violate the condition of the “box,” which was to not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The rule here, then, was that violation of the single rule brought about a condition known as “death,” which at this point was yet unspecified as to what that consisted of.

So then, Adam before the fall did have a free will that was consistent with Adam’s existence. Adam could act in whatsoever fashion he desired, could think whatsoever he wished to think, and was entirely free to do so. In fact, Adam could even partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so long as he was willing to bear the consequence, which was death, a yet unspecified condition.

This, in principle, is no different that the free will the LORD God exercises. How so, one may ask? It is indeed legitimate to ask, but easily understandable of we understand that all things act in accordance with their nature. It is undisputable in Scripture that the LORD God is holy and righteous in and of Himself. This is so plain that for the sake of space, I will only cite two examples:

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Psalm 45:6-7)

. . . In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; . . . (Titus 1:2)

Thus, the LORD God acts in accordance with His nature — He can only do that which is righteous and holy. Therefore, free will is defined by either the nature, or the environment of the individual exercising that will. We cannot, nor are we free to define free will in absolute terms. To do so creates several problems, not the least of which is a major impact on doctrine. In explaining, allow me to borrow from a letter I wrote to a brother in Christ some time ago. In this letter, I discussed why there exists no such thing as absolute free will, but that all actions of the will are conditional, based upon the nature and/or environment of the individual.

Why? Because there is no such thing as absolute free will. Absolute free will is defined as being able to do anything at all. Thus for God to have free will, He could do both righteously and wickedly and continuously pick and choose whichever He wanted to do. This cannot be as God is bound by His nature to do only righteously. Moreover, since righteousness is an absolute quality, as soon as God did unrighteously, He would no longer be righteous. Free will then, can only be defined in the context of the existence of the being.

Therefore, we find that before the fall, Adam had a free will which was granted him by the LORD God to do whatsoever he pleased, even to partake of that which is forbidden, only he (Adam) must bear the full consequences of his actions. At no time in the exercise of his free will can Adam ever leave the confines of his existence (the “box”). Adam cannot go beyond the parameters of his existence, as it is not granted to him to do that, and he has no inherent ability to do so. Moreover, since the LORD God created the confines of Adam’s existence (the “box”), the LORD retains sovereignty over the “box,” and holds all within the “box” accountable. As the LORD plainly told Adam he was free to act and think within his existence, at no time do we find that the LORD loses control of the “box” or of events in the “box.”

Now, it is not reasonable for the LORD God to then predetermine for Adam to make the choice to fall, as all the LORD has to do is hold Adam accountable for the violation of the instruction given. This the LORD God has stated in His word repeatedly:

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (Revelation 20:12-13)

According to the above two passages, the sovereignty of God is not affected at all by the free will of Adam, nor could it be, as that free will was granted by the LORD God Himself. So then, upon these things we stand at this point:

1. Adam was formed in the image of God, with certain attributes and characteristics that reflect the glory of God.

2. Adam is given dominion over all the earth, and all things on the earth.

3. Adam is righteous within the parameters of his existence (the “box”).

To be continued . . .

The Westboro “Baptist” Church Lie – Calvinism’s True Face: Pt. 5

By the very nature of what must be done, the following will be somewhat tedious. However, it is utterly necessary to establish certain facts concerning the Calvinist idea of “election” and whether that idea and concept is Scripturally correct.

Here now, we are called to the word “election” and its usage in verse 11 of Romans, chapter 9. The word “election” is a frequently misused and misunderstood word that is a favorite of those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine. This word is used as supposed “proof” that the LORD God predetermined who would be saved, and who would be passed by and thus consigned to an eternity in Hell. However, for it to be proof, it must be proved by Scripture. In sum, this means that we must find other Scriptures that solidly support the contention that “election,” as it is used in verse 11 does indeed mean, or lends support to meaning, that a predetermination was made as to who would be saved, and who would not. Hence, a criterion, a standard for the LORD God choosing who would, and would not be saved.

The word “election” does not get much usage in Scripture. There are only about six instances of the word, and the underlying Greek word is found seven times as it is translated as “chosen” once. Thus, to be certain of the meaning of “election” as used in Romans, chapter 9, verse 11, we will have to examine the usage of the word “chosen.”

The word “election” appears in the following verses:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (Romans 9:11)

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Romans 11:5)

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:7)

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. (I Thessalonians 1:4)

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (II Peter 1:10)

And, where the underlying Greek word is translated “chosen” is in Acts:

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: (Acts 9:15)

Since Romans 9:11, I Thessalonians 1:4, and II Peter 1:10 plainly do not provide any sort of criteria or explanation of “election” and why certain persons were “elected” to salvation, we must concentrate on Romans, chapter 11 as verse five plainly states that the election is “of grace” and then proceeds to explain in verse six that grace and works are mutually exclusive, and cannot be mixed in any way, shape, form or fashion. We then arrive at verse seven with the question:

“What then?”

This plainly indicates that a conclusion is drawn concerning Israel and who in Israel was saved, and who was not. To get an actual understanding of the conclusion drawn, it is essential to quote verse eight as well:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (Romans 11:7-8)

Now we must ascertain why certain ones were given to be blinded, and others not, and how this fits with the election of grace. To go forward we must resolve how it is that some found grace in the eyes of the LORD, and others did not. For that we must go to Isaiah, chapter 29 to the passage that states:

For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isaiah 29:10)

and again in Isaiah, chapter 6:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10)

However, in neither of these cases does the specific quoted verses tell us anything about why this was done. We must look at the passage in Isaiah, chapter 29 to see a reason as the rest of Isaiah, chapter 6 only tells us the extent of the LORD’s judgement on Israel.

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? (Isaiah 29:9-16)

In the above passage many things are declared, but among the things stated, the following is given as the reason all these things have come upon Israel:

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

And again in the same passage:

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? (Isaiah 29:15)

By the above two verses, we now have a reason for the LORD God withholding grace from the Israelites. Clearly they chose to be dishonest with the LORD and attempted to hide their wickedness from Him. This is something that the LORD God does not tolerate at all, and has made it plain in His word from the very beginning.

The fact that grace was withheld from certain Israelites due to their deceitfulness gives us the express criteria for the “election of grace” described in Romans, chapter 11, verse five. This is a far cry from the Calvinist contention that God chose some in eternity past without any express standard or criteria, and without regard to what any particular individual does. Plainly and clearly, if one is deceitful and dishonest with the LORD, grace cannot be expected to be bestowed. One must be honest about who and what they are, both to themselves and to the LORD God. This does lead to the question of whether man is capable of being honest with himself and with the LORD, but that will be dealt with later. For now, we must return to Romans, chapter 11 and examine the last verse that uses the word “election” and see what it states:

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Again, we can see that this passage states nothing about why some are elected and others are not. Thus, we pass it by and examine the word “chosen” as used in Acts, chapter 9:

Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:13-18)

Now, before some go and proclaim that receiving the Holy Ghost constituted the salvation of Saul, it is necessary to examine what happens immediately upon Ananias’ statement to Saul. It is expressly stated that he “received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” which is consistent with the empowerment of the Holy Ghost to perform a work for the LORD. Hence, Saul’s receiving the Holy Ghost has everything to do with his baptism, and little to nothing to do with his salvation. One can be saved, and yet not be “filled with the Holy Ghost” (ref. Acts 2:1-4, Acts 4:5-10, Acts 4:31, Acts 13:6-12).

In returning to the examination of the usage of the word “chosen” in the passage, we find the context here to be one of chosen for a specific work. The statement is made:

Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. (Acts 9:15b-16)

Again, we find that this has nothing to do with being chosen, or elected to salvation, rather it is about being elected for a specific work, with no criteria being given as pertaining to Saul’s salvation. In other words, we are not told that Saul was preselected, or predetermined for salvation. What we are told is that Saul was chosen for a specific work after salvation. Please note, it does not necessarily follow that someone who is chosen for a specific work after salvation, was predestined to be saved in the first place. There is a vast difference between foreknowledge, and predestination. The LORD God can and does predestinate certain individuals to perform a certain work after salvation, because He knew beforehand that they would repent and believe the gospel. This does not mean He predestined that individual, or any other individual for salvation.

To be continued . . .

The Westboro “Baptist” Church Lie – Calvinism’s True Face: Pt. 4

Now in looking at the passage of Romans, chapter 9 and determining whether it states what the Calvinist believes it states, we need to further examine three things:

1. Whether the context has anything to do with determining whom the LORD wills for salvation, and who He does not.

2. The actual meaning of “election” as it is used in verse 11.

3. Whether Esau was hated simply because the LORD God chose to hate him, or whether Esau actually provoked the LORD God to anger by his own actions and behavior.

Let us then begin to examine Romans 9, and what it actually states, and whether the contention of the Calvinists is correct when they claim:

“Esau was cut off because that was God’s will, not anything Esau did.(Romans 9:11-18).”

As previously stated, Romans, chapter 9 begins with a plead for Israel, and ends with the declaration that Israel was condemned because they sought after righteousness, but not by faith. These things are very plain and without dispute. It is what is brought up between the beginning and end of the chapter that creates all the dissension. One of the first things we should note, are the verses immediately preceding the passage so often referenced by the Calvinists:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (Romans 9:6-10)

One of the first things to note here is the clear reference to the promise of God to Abraham, and though Abraham had other children, only Isaac was the child of promise, and that Isaac, as opposed to Ishmael who was of the work of the flesh, was the child of faith. Hence, there is a criterion already established here of looking at everything from the point of view of faith versus the works of the flesh. What the LORD goes on to tell us, is that only that which is of faith is counted as the seed. In explaining this, the apostle Paul, by the Holy Ghost, adds the explanation of Jacob and Esau, and continues the example as follows:

Here now we have the open statement that the LORD God hated Esau and loved Jacob, even before they were born. Plainly, this is the foreknowledge of God. However, it does not tell us by what criteria the LORD God loved Jacob and hated Esau, other than the context that we have already encountered, which is faith versus works. To answer this question, we must, of necessity go back to the account in Genesis which reveals what happened before the birth of Jacob and Esau:

And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begat Isaac: And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian. And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. (Genesis 25:19-23)

What we find here in Genesis is that the LORD knew about the conflict that would exist between Jacob and Esau, and that conflict began even before the children were born. What it does not tell us, is whether the LORD God chose it to be that way. This leaves us to reference three other places in Scripture and examine what the LORD states about Esau, as a person:

And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac. And I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau: and I gave unto Esau mount Seir, to possess it; but Jacob and his children went down into Egypt. (Joshua 24:3-4)

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. (Malachi 1:1-3)

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. (Hebrews 12:14-16)

Now, unless we believe that the LORD God is entirely arbitrary, there is little here to go on as to why the LORD God would hate Esau and love Jacob, even before they were born. The only indication we get is from Hebrews, chapter 12 quoted above, where Esau is described expressly as a “profane person.” Plainly, those holding Calvinist doctrine discount this as they go back to Romans, chapter 9 and look at the statement “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)” and then declare that Esau didn’t have to do anything, it was God’s will that He hated Esau, and hence, Esau could not be saved.

The problem with that interpretation is its inconsistency with the rest of Romans, chapter 9, and the rest of Scripture. In examining, the balance of Romans, chapter 9 we find the following:

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. (Romans 9:14-16)

Here all the LORD God has relayed to us, is all he relayed to Moses, that no one dictates to the LORD God who He should have mercy and compassion on, and who He should not. Again, we are also brought back to the fact that it is the mercy of God that is the overriding element at work here, for He states plainly:

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Since all going before this in Romans, chapter 9 leads up to this point, and culminates in the conclusion “So then . . .” And, since the beginning and the ending of the entire chapter addresses works versus faith, it calls to mind another passage:

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13)

Which is as much to say “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,” which speaks of our works, and our efforts, but it is to say “of God that sheweth mercy.” This clearly means that salvation is wholly of God, and not of any man’s working or desire. In short, one cannot be born a Christian, bought into Christ, nor prayed into salvation by those who love him or her. Rather, the salvation of one’s soul is entirely the mercy and grace of God, and none other. And so the chapter continues with further examples:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:14-24)

If we take note of the examples, we find there is no criterion listed for why some are shown mercy, and others destroyed, other than the mercy of God itself. Of course, man being who he is, does not like facing up to the reality of who he is, and so the questions are asked “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” and “Why hast thou made me thus?” The reply to that is first: we have no business challenging God, and second: that vessels are brought forth, some to one purpose, and others, another. Yet, in all this, there is given no criterion for “why” this is the case, other than the “mercy” of God, and that His power will be manifested in the work He performs in the lives of both those who are destroyed, and those who are saved. Upon this, the chapter continues with the condition of Israel, and what the LORD God had to say about Israel versus the Gentiles:

As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. (Romans 9:25-29)

What this now demonstrates is that all the examples given before were to illustrate to Israel and to everyone else, that they were not special, and were not chosen because of who or what they were. Rather, they were chosen because of some other criteria the LORD God had set. The criterion that was set was indeed made known to Israel; only they forgot it and believed that they somehow merited the favor of the LORD above all others. Nonetheless, the reason the LORD God chose them is made clear in the following two passages:

Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt; To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day. (Deuteronomy 4:35-38)

Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people. (Deuteronomy 9:4-6)

Here now we have criteria for the LORD God choosing Israel, despite the fact that the Israelites were a difficult people. That criterion was “And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, . . .” However, we still have no set standard by which we can say the LORD God particularly chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and passed all others by. However, the chapter summarizes and ends with the following, which sheds significant light on everything given as examples in the chapter:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Romans 9:30-33)

We can see by breaking down the chapter that there is a progression and a purpose in the examples given in the chapter as we arrive in verse 30 to the question:

What shall we say then? (Romans 9:30a)

Without question, this construction states that an argument has been presented, with examples to illustrate the argument and prove the point, and that we are now ready to present the conclusion. The conclusion arrived at though, does not address how individuals are chosen, but rather contrasts the outcomes of faith versus works. In the conclusion, it is shown by all aforementioned examples that the works of man are not the determining factor in the plan of God. Rather, the works of man are actually a stumbling block to man when it comes to satisfying the LORD God’s requirements for righteousness.

Thus, despite what the Calvinists claim, there is no conclusive proof of any criteria of how the LORD God would will that one person is saved, and another is passed by and thus destroyed in Hell. What we are given is that we are not to seek after righteousness by any means other than faith. Hence, in examining the claim of the Calvinist that “Esau was cut off because that was God’s will, not anything Esau did.(Romans 9:11-18).” we are left far short of any proof of anything concerning how that in eternity past, long before Jacob and Esau were born, the LORD God determined that He hated Esau, and loved Jacob. This then leaves us with the unsubstantiated claim of Calvinist/Reformed theology that the LORD God simply chose to hate Esau, and not because of anything Esau did. Thus, we must turn to “election” as mentioned in verse 11 of the chapter, and see what we can find.

To be continued . . .

The Westboro “Baptist” Church Lie – Calvinism’s True Face: Pt. 3

If we will remember, Acts 13:48, which is used by Westboro Baptist Church and most every other Calvinist out there to prove their contention of the “elect” being preselected, states:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

However, as has been firmly established in Scripture, a single verse is not sufficient to establish doctrine. Especially when it sits next to verses that state:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:46)

And:

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. (Acts 13:47)

Of course, here the Calvinist inserts “for the elect” at the end of the sentence of verse 47. How do we know this? Because of what was done in the extended quote from Westboro:

“It seems that if you’re going to base an entire lying theology on one part of a verse, you would at least know what the verse means. But so-called Christians today are far too simple-minded and lazy to look into the matter. So we’ll do it for you: the word translated “world” in John 3:16 is the Greek word “kosmos.” The word never means “every individual of mankind who ever lived.” In fact, the word has at least seven different meanings in the scripture, depending on the context in which it’s used. It can mean Gentiles (as opposed to Jews); it can mean the world of believers; it can mean the world of unbelievers; it can mean the physical creation; etc. If you would actually read what the verse says, and read the context around the verse, you would find that the answer is right before your lying eyes – you just don’t want to see it, because it conflicts with how your evil, dark hearts think God ought to be! The context is “the world of believers” (whether they are Jews or Gentiles). Those are the people God loves. Those are the people for whom Jesus died. Jesus didn’t come to condemn those people – He came to save them. But everyone else is already condemned, because they don’t believe.” ((The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare))

The problem with their explanation is two-fold:

First, if we read the passage in question, which consists of John 3:1-21, and more specifically verses 14 through 21, we find that the context Westboro claims to exist, does not exist at all:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:14-21)

No, the context they claim to be established, would have to be established by verses 18 through 21. But, those verse do not establish that Christ died only for the “world of believers.” Rather, all those verses do is establish that all men are already condemned, and that to avoid destruction, one must be born again. Hence, the Calvinists at Westboro (and they are not the only ones) inserted the phrase “world of believers” into the passage to establish a context that did not, and does not exist. We can know this by the fact that the doctrine that all men are already condemned is strongly supported in Genesis 8:21, Psalms 14:2-3, Psalms 53:2-3 and Romans 3:9-19 and Isaiah 59:1-16. Thus, all that the Lord Jesus Christ is stating here is no more than has already been stated in His word: that all men are condemned and must be born again. It states nothing about Christ dying “only” for the “elect,” or that God loves “only” the “elect,” or any other such thing.

But, in the eyes of men, this is not the thing that indicts Westboro and the Calvinists who misuse and misconstrue this passage (although it should be). Rather, that is left up to the plain evidence of the meaning of the word “kosmos.” According to the folks at Westboro, when referring to the underlying Greek word kosmos:

“The word never means “every individual of mankind who ever lived.”

Which is all well and fine, except I have included the definitions given to the word “kosmos” below. Kindly notice sense 5, and what it states. When you are done, take note of sense 8a:

2889 kosmos { kos’-mos}
probably from the base of 2865; TDNT – 3:868,459; n m
AV – world 186, adorning 1; 187
GK – 3180 {κóσμος}
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
8a) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19 ((Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)) ((We should note here that James Strong’s doctrine was not correct either. Despite his cataloging of every word in the King James Bible, he thought it was not entirely correct and contained “errors,” particularly in the translation of words, and the selection of source texts. Hence, his verse references in support of definitions are to be taken with a grain of salt. It is the Scripture itself that will define what it means in using words that have multiple senses.))

Now, when determining the meaning of words used in a passage, context is quite important for those words that have multiple senses. To determine meaning, it is common practice to attempt to use the most common sense first, and then the lesser known and utilized senses if the most common sense does not fit the context or creates a contradiction in the passage (unless the writer clearly intended a contradiction). Clearly, editors of dictionaries always list senses of a word in order from the most, to the least common sense. Hence, sense 5 of the Greek word “kosmos” is of more common usage than sense 8a (the last, least used sense of the word).

The problem here is not that Westboro argued for sense 8a over sense 5. It is that they claimed that sense 5 doesn’t exist at all. You know, they would have been better off if they had tried to argue it on a contextual basis alone. But they didn’t and chose to deliberately state something that they knew, or had to know, was not true. The reason I can state this is the pastor, Fred Phelps, is a Southern Baptist seminary graduate and has access to all the resources that I have (and probably more). ((Brief Bio of Pastor Fred Phelps)) In short, he studied New Testament Greek in seminary (a required course) and would have had this word clearly defined while taking that course. Moreover, it is plainly claimed that they “looked it up” for us so they could let everyone know that the word “kosmos” “never means “every individual of mankind who ever lived.”“

What a bald-faced lie. Well, not “actually” a lie. You see, the words in sense 5 do not state “every individual of mankind who ever lived.” What is “actually” stated is “the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race” which is not “exactly” the same as “every individual of mankind who ever lived.” Never mind the two phrases mean virtually the same thing, and are almost completely interchangeable. The only difference is that sense 5 is more inclusive (including past, present, future) than “every individual of mankind who ever lived” which is past tense only ((Construct of the statement demands it is past tense only, despite the use of the word “ever,” which is inclusive of all time.)).

Since we now know that outright distortion of the meaning of passages and verses is not beyond them, it gives cause to more diligently examine the other claims they make concerning predestination, foreknowledge, election, and such like. This is not so much to prove them wrong, as it is to understand what the correct doctrine really is, and how Scripture establishes it. Hence, it is a learning experience that we ought to engage in, knowing that the LORD God will prove His word. With that, let us continue.

In Acts, chapter 13, we found contradiction between the Calvinist explanation of verse 38 as compared to verse 37. To rectify the two, we can either go other places in Scripture to begin to determine what is meant by verse 38, or we can (as many do) read into verse 37 the Calvinist interpretation, which would make it read in this way:

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth for the elect.

Which plainly they mean ‘for the elect only’ and none other.

Since we are clearly told not to add to Scripture, adding any phrase to the verse really isn’t the brightest thing we could do. Hence, we must go looking. Therefore we will, as a favor to the Calvinist, begin in another passage they love to use to support their doctrine, Romans 9, verses 11-18, which states:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, 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. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (Romans 9:11-18)

Now, does appear to state what the Calvinists say it states? The question must be answered by determining whether or not proper context is established by the passage quoted. It is obvious that it cannot be as the passage given (Romans 9:11-18) begins in the middle of a sentence. Now, I did not select the passage, but was directed to it in an e-mail from a Calvinist who used it to justify his view of foreknowledge/predestination in which he stated:

“Esau was cut off because that was God’s will, not anything Esau did. (Romans 9:11-18).”

Thus, it is not mine to lift the passage, and begin in the middle of the sentence, but the decision of the person arguing for the Calvinistic interpretation of the passage, which is a standard Calvinist verse reference. ((About Park Church | Doctrine | Article 5: The Plan of God, verse references)) Thus, no context is established by the lifted verses for the simple fact that it begins in the middle of the sentence. To establish context, we must, due to the construct of the chapter, look at how the chapter begins and ends.

Plainly Romans, chapter 9 is about Israel, as it begins in the following manner:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)

And ends in this manner:

Here now we have a context established, and that context is Israel and their rejection of salvation. We find quite clearly in verses 30 through 33 that the vast majority of Israel sought to justify themselves before God by the works of the law, and not by faith, and were thus condemned. Hence, the context is that faith, and faith alone justifies, apart from the works of the law. Additionally, throughout the chapter it is expressly admonished that our willing something to be (i.e. salvation by whatever means we desire, be it works or other some such thing) is not sufficient to bring it to pass as we did not establish the criteria by which one is justified. That prerogative belongs to the LORD God only, and it is His working, regardless of what man does, or does not do that establishes what salvation consists of.

To be continued . . .

The Westboro “Baptist” Church Lie – Calvinism’s True Face: Pt. 2

One of the things we should note about the Westboro articles, is the use of “pet” verses to “prove” their point without bothering to consult the entirety of Scripture. This is not a new tactic, and I have observed to many times. The supporters of false doctrines do this because of one of two reasons:

A. They are truly ignorant of what the rest of Scripture does declare, and consequently do not include verses that set aside the doctrine they are attempting to support.

B. They actually do know that verses contradicting their doctrine exist, and they refuse to include them and explain them as they know the explanation cannot stand the light of scrutiny.

Hence, we observe their use of the verse from Acts 13:48, where the Gentiles believed the gospel when the apostle Paul preached it at Antioch in Pisidia:

Furthermore, the only people who can believe are the ones whom God has ordained to eternal life. “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48. ((The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare))

However, that verse sits in a passage that states the following:

And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:42-48)

If we note, just prior to the statement about Gentiles being ordained to eternal life, another statement is made by Paul and Barnabas, to wit:

Now, it must be asked (because surely the Atheist will ask it): Isn’t it contradictory to say that the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, but God ordained the Gentiles to eternal life, particularly when II Peter 3:9 states that the LORD would have all men come to repentance? Moreover, that I Timothy 2:4 seems to agree with II Peter 3:9, but disagrees with Acts 13:48, and appears to be entirely contradictory in that regard — why then should we believe the Bible?

They have a point, and it must be answered. However, answering it cannot be with the trite phrase “It’s a mystery.” and let it go at that. Nor can it be answered by inserting words into the passages of I Timothy 2:4 and II Peter 3:9 and ignoring Acts 13:46 as if it will go away of its own accord. No, the instant you state the long rigamarole that the general epistles of Peter were to believers, and the epistle to Timothy was to a preacher, and thus the context is believers only . . . it is revealed that the true answer is being obscured and the Atheist will cease to listen. Why? Because that answer ignores the fact that a letter to anyone can contain several contexts, some or all of which would be familiar to the reader.

For instance, if I have a friend who is a believer (and I have several) and he happens to own a piece of property in which I desire legal permission to access, and my letter addresses that issue, then irrespective of the fact that my friend is a believer, the context of the letter is the property and my desire for legal access to it. For someone to come along 200 hundred years later and examine the letter, and then declare that the request for legal access was predicated upon the fact that my friend was a believer and thus that is the frame of the letter, is to read into the letter a context that is not there. Irrespective of the fact that my friend happens to be a believer, I desire legal access to a piece of property that he happens to own — and that is all. I could write the very same letter to a different friend who happened to be agnostic, asking the very same favor of legal access to property he happens to own. Hence, the context is defined by the subject(s) addressed in the letter, not by the beliefs of the person to whom I send it.

What I have described above (determining the context of an epistle by looking at the addressee) is one of the most misused methods of “interpretation” of Scripture by those who routinely distort Scripture to support their own perverse doctrines that cannot be reconciled to the rest of Scripture. Now, to be certain, the addressee of a letter does have bearing on the contents of the letter. However, the contents of the letter have a context all their own, irrespective of the addressee, and are only affected by the level of knowledge and understanding of the addressee. Thus, we must look to the various subjects addressed in the Epistles, the knowledge and understanding of the recipients of the Epistles, and how the writers of those several letters approached the various subjects broached to determine the true context of any passage we wish to study and use for doctrinal support. In short, we have to be careful and rightly divide the word of God, ever understanding that no passage in and of itself creates or establishes a doctrine. Rather, in Scripture all doctrines that are proper and correct are supported multiple times throughout Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments.

Now, there is also one additional point to consider when comparing Scripture with Scripture to determine whether a doctrine is actually correct. That is: the context of the passages compared must be the same. This would seem to be a common sense rule, but it is frequently ignored and/or misused. If the context of one passage is spiritual, and another passage physical, even if they say the very same thing, one cannot be used to support the other. If we violate this rule, we will, sooner rather than later, come up with a doctrine that is in no way Scriptural, and runs contrary to the whole tone and thrust of the Scripture itself. This is not to say that we will not find that there exists a certain continuity between the physical and the spiritual, it is only to make expressly clear the principle contained in what the Lord Jesus Christ told Nicodemus:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Hence, that which applies to the spiritual, does not apply to the physical, and vice-versa. We must understand that the physical, which came out of the spiritual, is only a limited type and shadow of the real world, which is the spiritual.

All that being stated, let us go back now and begin to address the passage of Acts 13:48 in which it is recorded:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

Now, on its face, this seems to support the contention of the folks at Westboro Baptist Church and is commonly used by Calvinists also in supporting their argument of predestination. However, we are expressly told that no scripture is of any private interpretation in II Peter 1:20, and that is a hard and fast rule. After all, as an aside (but still germane to the discussion) I could quote Daniel 12:2 which states:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

and turn around and claim that the Scripture supports the doctrine of “soul sleep” which is a Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. Of course, they do use this very passage to support their contention, all the while ignoring numerous other passages in Scripture that flatly contradict the idea of “soul sleep.”

What am I saying here? Simply this: If we are going to lean upon “pet” passages and private interpretations of Scripture to support doctrine, then we have to allow that everyone else who does so must be correct as well in their doctrines — even if it flatly contradicts ours. Why? To be succinct: what’s good for the goose — is good for the gander. Otherwise, we are nothing more than elitist hypocrites.

Now then, let us go back and begin to examine the passage of Acts 13:48, but we will do so by including Romans 9:11-13, which seems to contain the same idea.

To be continued . . .

The Westboro “Baptist” Church Lie – Calvinism’s True Face: Pt. 1

As a fundamentalist, I encounter quite a lot of rolled eyes, sideways looks and the general attitude of disdain from folks. A lot of this is due to the misconceptions about fundamentalism that are promoted by the opponents of fundamentalism in their attempt to discredit holding fast the Scripture. The reason they do this is to justify their departure from the word of God. However, some of the attitudes people hold toward fundamentalism are due to those who, for whatever reason, decide to attach that label to themselves, and then engage in the most hateful and ungodly attitudes and actions one might imagine — all the while claiming they are “serving God.”

One of those individuals is Fred Phelps, along with him is the church he pastors, Westboro Baptist Church. ((About Westboro Baptist Church)) This gentleman and his congregation are well-known for their pickets and websites that preach that God hates this and that other thing (I would list them all, but it is wearying). Their message is supposed to be summed up in their 92-page publication “God Loves Everyone — The Greatest Lie Ever Told.” ((God Loves Everyone — The Greatest Lie Ever Told)) They also back this up with a much shorter document titled “The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare.” ((The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare))

In both these documents, they lay out the “Biblical” basis and logic for their belief that God hates everyone. The logic for this belief is not as evident in the longer document, even though it is predominately scripture and should be there. Strangely enough, the logic and basis for their belief is more plainly and clearly brought forth in the shorter of the two documents “The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare.” What we find in the longer document is simply a listing of verses with a very brief synopsis of what the verses are supposed to say. Due to the fact that demonstrating the misconstruction of 701 verses would be a very long document indeed, and since the logic of it all is contained in the shorter document, the focus here will be on “The John 3:16 Arminian Lie Laid Bare.” ((I want to make clear here that both Calvinist doctrine and belief (whether it is know as Calvinism, “Sovereign Grace,” or “Primitive Baptist,” Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) and Arminian doctrine and belief, are both egregiously wrong, and lies of the Devil to cause people to stumble at the Word and not come to salvation because of believing the wrong thing.))

In the article, they state the following:

“John 3:16 says “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.” That says God loves everyone, right? Wrong. Every so-called Christian in the world will cite John 3:16 as proof that God loves everyone. They don’t have a clue what the verse means, and, under the guidance of the lying false prophets who make up the “Christian” landscape, twist it to mean what they want it to mean.”

“It seems that if you’re going to base an entire lying theology on one part of a verse, you would at least know what the verse means. But so-called Christians today are far too simple-minded and lazy to look into the matter. So we’ll do it for you: the word translated “world” in John 3:16 is the Greek word “kosmos.” The word never means “every individual of mankind who ever lived.” In fact, the word has at least seven different meanings in the scripture, depending on the context in which it’s used. It can mean Gentiles (as opposed to Jews); it can mean the world of believers; it can mean the world of unbelievers; it can mean the physical creation; etc. If you would actually read what the verse says, and read the context around the verse, you would find that the answer is right before your lying eyes – you just don’t want to see it, because it conflicts with how your evil, dark hearts think God ought to be! The context is “the world of believers” (whether they are Jews or Gentiles). Those are the people God loves. Those are the people for whom Jesus died. Jesus didn’t come to condemn those people – He came to save them. But everyone else is already condemned, because they don’t believe.

You’ll say “but doesn’t ‘whosoever believes’ mean that everybody has the chance to believe?” Nope. Turn a few pages to John 10 (you may be surprised to find that there is actually more to the Bible than John 3:16, but believe me, there is). You will find in John 10:11 that Jesus says “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” Later on in verse 26, Jesus says to some unbelievers: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” Uh oh – you John 3:16 heretics have a few problems on your hands. Jesus says He came to die for the sheep, and then proceeds to say that only His sheep can believe. In other words, only the people for whom Jesus died will believe. Note that the reason that unbelievers don’t believe is BECAUSE they are not His sheep. This passage explains who the world is in John 3:16, and it’s clearly not everyone. Furthermore, the only people who can believe are the ones whom God has ordained to eternal life. “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48. So, if you have been ordained to eternal life, that means that you will believe, you are one of God’s sheep, God loves you, and He sent His Son to die for you so you wouldn’t be condemned. If you have not been ordained to eternal life, that means you are not one of His sheep, you NEVER will believe and are already condemned.”

Now, despite the fact that the quotes are long, it is essential for the understanding of what Calvinism is, and why the logical conclusion of it is exactly what Fred Phelps and his congregation do.

To begin with, their argument is that John 3:16 is mistranslated, or misconstrued by those holding Arminian doctrine ((it is ever the method of the devil to set up two opposing camps, both of which are wrong, and accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with one, of being part and parcel of the other — nevermind that the truth doesn’t reside in either place. In this way, the devil can fool people into taking sides instead of actually studying the Scripture for themselves. The truth of salvation lies between the extremes of Calvinism and Arminism, and has always been maligned by both sides.)) to say that God loves all the people of the world, when he doesn’t. However, Phelps argument doesn’t stand on firm ground here because John 3:16 is not the only passage that states that the LORD God desires the salvation of all. It is notable that they chose to focus on this verse and the supposed meanings of the word “world” and then “explain” their interpretation with a couple of convenient passages that are open to interpretation. This flies in the face of many passages throughout the Scripture that declare plainly that the LORD God wants everyone to be reconciled to Him through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. We can begin anywhere, but we will begin in I Timothy:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (I Timothy 2:1-6)

If we consider the underlined passages in the above Scripture and take particular note of what they plainly state, we see that, despite Calvinist claims, there is no restrictive context here that would limit the application. What those who hold Calvinist doctrine do here is exactly what I have found of many who hold Arminian doctrine — they insert a restrictive context to make it apply to only those who are chosen to be saved — the “elect.” However, like I have previously stated, this is only one of many passages of Scripture that declare that Christ died for all men everywhere, at any time in earth’s history.

Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:20-22)

Now, it should be plain what the scope and meaning of the LORD’s statement “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:” is. There should be no doubt that the LORD God is calling to, not only Israel, but to all men everywhere — just like the preaching of the apostle Paul stated:

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: . . . (Acts 17:24-30)

Strange. God hath commanded all men everywhere to repent, but He doesn’t want to save all men everywhere, and hates all but the elect? Excuse me, but that would border on insanity wouldn’t it?

This is, unfortunately for those holding Calvinist (aka. Sovereign Grace, Primitive Baptist, Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) doctrine, a clear implication of their doctrine. The sad part of this, is their failure to examine all the Scripture and really consider all the LORD God has stated on a subject that is precious to His heart and soul. Like many, they obviously never hear the open invitation of the Scripture. Thus, if you’ve never heard the open invitation, hear it now:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:1-7)

And again:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

Here it is necessary to understand that “everyone” and “whosoever” are plural, and that “every one that thirsteth,” “let him that is athirst come,” and “whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” make the decision for salvation utterly dependent on the individual. Therefore I ask: To whom does this apply? The invitation is open-ended and without qualification — it applies to everyone that is living today, applied to everyone who has ever lived, and will apply to all to come — until the end of the world. The above passages speak plainly to the fact that salvation has always been the same, and that salvation is open and available to all men everywhere, without regard to color of skin, place of birth, financial or social status. The only barrier to salvation for any individual is a barrier they themselves erect.

There is yet something else in the passages quoted immediately above that ought to be touched on before going on. It bears heavily upon what the Lord Jesus Christ told Nicodemus, and provides the explanation of what the Lord said when he stated:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

And again, what did the Lord tell the woman at the well in Sychar?

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (John 4:10)

The water spoken of is strictly spiritual, ((This ought to lay bare the lie of ‘water baptism for salvation’ that is promoted by some.)) and whether someone can get it, depends upon whether that person will avail themselves of it. As the old saying goes:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

In like manner, it’s there, but the LORD God is not going to make anyone drink — that is strictly up to the individual.

Now we’ve only scratched the surface. . .

To be continued . . .

Appealing to Authorities

Perhaps there is no greater dispute among those who name themselves (or who are called) Baptists than the issue of Calvinism. I have seen and heard many arguments over this issue that range from intelligent treatises to nothing more than eloquent name-calling and name-dropping. The really sad part of this is that some believe that appealing to authorities other than the Scripture nets them some sort of superior argument. I have to wonder, who do they think they need to please: God or man? Appealing to authorities other than the Scripture to prove one’s argument may look good and persuade men, but it doesn’t mean spit in the eyes of God. No, there is one, and only one text that has the respect of the LORD God: His own Holy Word. In this He is very express:

I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:1-2)

Hence, I have to wonder just who those who are arguing about this doctrine think they are pleasing? Moreover, I wonder if they argue about this based upon the call of God in their lives, or is it simply a desire of the flesh to be seen and heard, and in some way justify what they believe? In any case, this constant citation of what men have said proves nothing. Men, no matter how good they think they are, are not God, and they do not say or write what equates to the word of God. We have a complete Bible, and it is fully authoritative and needs no help from man.

However, it is not usually the case in the writings I see on the issue of Calvinism (also known as “Sovereign Grace”). Rather, what I see is a preponderance of quotes from other men who have held the same doctrinal position. Moreover, in some cases there is a total absence of Scripture. Thus, I have to ask: Just what does this prove? Aren’t we told in the Scripture that we are to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thessalonians 5:21)? And, isn’t the standard of proof Scripture?

Thus, if we cannot prove the doctrine by rightly dividing the Scripture, what good are the words of other like-minded men? No matter how much they may agree, it still doesn’t prove the doctrine. Everyone on earth could suddenly agree that God has no authority over us; would that agreement make it true? Certainly not. If everyone on earth, and all the angels along with them decided that God didn’t exist, would that make it true? No, for the Scripture is express:

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (II Timothy 2:11-13)

END OF STORY

It doesn’t matter what you or I believe and who agrees with us. What matters is “What does the LORD God say in His word?” if we do not agree with what God states, then we are wrong. End of story.

Now, pertaining to the false doctrine of Calvinism, perhaps those holding the doctrine could explain the wording and construction of the following passage, particularly the use of personal pronouns? Oh, and don’t shortcut and divert and say that I do not understand the sovereignty of God. I certainly do, and you can find the evidence in the article “God’s Box.”

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

You know, for Calvinism to be true, the pronoun “his” would have to be changed and the wording of the passage changed significantly, would it not?