Looking At The Mitt

It's as illogical to think that you can live a fulfilled life in Christ plagued with rensentments from the past; whether it be offenses from yesterday or yester-year; as it is illogical for a batter to think that he can make a homerun while staring at the catcher behind himself.
You see, Satan is throwing everything that he's got to retire you and the game...
it's bottom of the ninth and you're behind by three with bases loaded and two outs. Here comes the pitch. Faster than the blink of an eye you see the ball seem to just appear in the catchers mit. Another pitch... you stand overwhelmed staring at the catchers mit. "Strike two!" rings as a loud gong in your ears and you cringe.
Suddenly, a voice from the crowd cries out, "...you must forget what is behind and reach forward to what is ahead!"
You turn to see Satan as he begins his wind-up. To your amazement, he has been pitching underhanded; you couldn't have known while staring back!
At that moment, just as the ball leaves Satan's hand, you are reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 6:14-15, "Unless you forgive others God will not forgive you."
You make a heartfelt decision to forgive those who have offended you as you draw back for your swing. You swing forward with all your might...
There is a "crack" of the bat and the ball goes sailing, going... going... GONE! It's a grand slam -the game is over; Satan has been defeated once again.

"... But this one thing I do: forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead, I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God's heavenly call in Christ Jesus." -Philippians 3:13-14

The Barrel: A Thanksgiving Devotional

How many are finding themselves "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to get by? How many can honestly say that the barrel started out empty? Oftentimes as we absorb the bountiful blessings our heavenly Father bestows upon us, we focus continually on the gift while neglecting the Giver- we reach in the barrel time and time again until suddenly we find ourselves at the bottom. Sometimes when we have neglected God to the point that we find ourselves in want, He will allow us to fall into the empty barrel so that we have no choice but to look upward for deliverance. Instead of waiting till you hit bottom, receive EVERYTHING with thanksgiving{Ephesians 4:20}; while looking up you just may be surprized to find the barrel filled again upon looking back down. The disciples found themselves "scraping the bottom of the barrel" when confronted with a lack of food. They managed to "scrape-up" one tiny morsel of food to feed multiple thousands. As they presented the food to Jesus they asked, "What is this in comparison to so many?" Jesus received the food with thanksgiving and blessed God for it- no one in that crowd went hungry that day and there were twelve baskets of left-overs gathered{John 6:1-13}.

Can One Lose Salvation? No, BUT...

Many answers to questions cannot be addressed with a simple "yes" or "no;" oftentimes we find it necessary to insert a qualifying "but" in our answer -as in "Yes, but..." or "No, but..."
The question pertaining to whether one can lose salvation is no exception. The answer to whether someone can lose their salvation is "No;" BUT the reason is because no one can lose something that they have not yet been given. Allow me to explain...
Nowhere in Scripture will you find that one is permanently "saved" the moment of conversion. The wording [or surrounding contexts] when addressing salvation is always future tense as in "...will be saved" or "...shall be saved."
At conversion, one is born-again. Being born-again does not guarantee salvation; it is, however, a required prerequisite for receiving salvation and entrance into God's kingdom{John 3:3,5}.
[see also my Blog (entry): "Born Again or Saved: Is There A Difference?" -- http://forjesusministry.blogspot.com/2011/08/born-again-or-saved-is-there-difference.html ]
According to Scripture, salvation is rewarded to all **who persevere till the end** in: love, hope, trust, and obedience to Jesus... summed singularly by the word: "faith." Jesus makes this point clear Himself:
-- Matthew 10:22b "...but he that endures till the end SHALL BE saved."

Furthermore, in Hebrews 3:14 we again are admonished to "...hold firmly UNTIL THE END{HCSB}" our faith in Christ. In Hebrews 3 we are reminded that daily we must decide to follow Jesus and be diligent in encouraging one another in this:
-- Hebrews 3:13-15
13 But encourage each other daily, while it is still called today, so that none of you is hardened by sin's deception. 14 For we have become companions of the Messiah IF WE HOLD FIRMLY UNTIL THE END the reality that we had at the start. 15 As it is said: Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion. -HCSB
[*Note: Although God's mercies are new every day{Lam3:22-23}; notice the warning in Hebrews 3:13 of the potential for being hardened by sin. Do not think to yourself that you can sin "this one time" and then repent; for you do not know if that "one little sin" will be the one that hardens you forever{see Eze3:20-21/Eze33:12-13Heb6:4-6/Heb10:26-31}]

In closing, please also consider the words of Peter in 1Pet1:5
-- 5 You are being protected BY God's power THROUGH faith for a salvation that is ready TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME. -HCSB

Until we meet the end; whether that end we face is "breathing our last" or seeing Christ's second-coming; persevere daily in love for Jesus and others, hope and trust in His promises, and obedience to His word... "keep the faith" {cf. Rev14:12}.

Paul vs James... [not really]

Martin Luther contended that James should not be considered part of the NT Canon partly because, in his impression, James contradicts Paul's teaching that we are not saved by works. Specifically, Luther could not correlate Ephesians 2:8-9 with James 2:14-26.
--> Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. -ESV
--> James 2:14-26
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God.24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. -ESV

Now,  by some it is suggested that Paul wrote Hebrews. Not even a careful study of Hebrews and James is necessary to discover that Paul{assuming that he wrote Hebrews} and James are in complete agreement. In Hebrews chapter 11 Paul addresses faith. Hebrews 11:1 begins:
--> 1 Now faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen. -KJV

The Greek for *substance* is ὑπόστασις [hupostasis/G5287] and is indicative of a foundation upon which something rest secure. The Greek for *evidence* is ἔλεγχος [elegchos/G1650] and means "proof." So a faithful rendering of Hebrews 11:1 would also be:
--> "Faith is the foundation for which all that we believe rests upon; it is the proof of our conviction which cannot otherwise be seen."

Paul continues by giving examples of rewards from faith and fruit/works from faith:
--> 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain... [an example of motivation from faith]
--> 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated [an example of reward from faith]
--> 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house [an example of motivation{"moved with fear"(that is, reverent fear)} working with hope for reward{"saving of [Noah's] house"} producing obedience{ [Noah] "prepared an ark"}]
--> 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [an example of hope for reward{"receive[ing]... an inheritance"} working with obedience{"obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went"} producing perseverance despite hardships{cf vs.9}].

From the examples Paul gives we can conclude that "faith" is much more than belief/trust/hope. Faith also consists of the "evidences"; the visible good works as proof of faith. Perhaps part of James' epistle was in response to schisms that surfaced teaching that one is saved on the merits of belief alone despite, or irrespective of, the existance/non-existance of good works. This assumption would seem to be supported by James' statement in 2:19
--> 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

As well, perhaps James in chapter 2 was drawing upon Paul's letter to the Hebrews to show that what he was saying was in total agreeance with Paul when James reiterated the examples of Abraham and Rahab{cf. Hebrews 11:8/James 2:21 and Hebrews 11:31/James 2:25}.

In conclusion, we can well see that Paul's intent was never to teach that works have nothing to do with being saved. In context, we must understand Ephesians 2:8-9 to teach that salvation is purely a gift from God... nothing we can do can ever merit deserving being saved- it is solely a work of God's grace. This grace is received{note: a gift must be received or rejected} through faith. Although good works do not save, our works manifest that we have faith; which is otherwise invisible to the world around us.

Funny{actually, NOT!}; that many who contest this doctrine of "works evidences faith=grace unto salvation" based upon Ephesians 2:8-9 seem to totally neglect Eph2:10
--> 10 For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them. -HCSB

Enemy vs Spouse

I was thinking back upon a few opportunities in which I had counseled others concerning their relationship struggles. I found myself pondering how it is that a Christian could show love for an enemy in obediance to Christ command and yet neglect to minister selflessly to their spouse. The common denominator for these mens' woes was personal "EXPECTATIONS." It seems that it is easier for some to minister to an enemy in which they have absolutely no expectation of returned gratitude than to their own spouse. Without going into a long sermonette on the topic; I just want to throw out this profound mind-set that will remedy most relationship woes... I heard this in a sermon 15+ years ago and it has stuck with me: "Kick a dead man; he won't kick back." You see, a dead man ceases to have retaliatory reflexes. As well, dead men have no expectations of others. If you are dead... then you're dead...{cf. Rom6:7} Yet; as a Christian, the Holy Spirit quickens the flesh{Rom6:4} and enables us to will and do according to God's pleasure{Philippians 2:13}. All that we need to do is submit to God and resist the devil{James 4:7}. It has been well said that the problem with living sacrifices{Rom12:1} is that they tend to want to crawl off of the alter. So, when tensions are rising between you and your spouse remember that dead men don't retaliate... crucify your personal expectations{Gal2:20} and allow God to love through you. Yes, Jesus said to love your enemy{Luke 6:27}; this is somewhat easy because we typically expect nothing in return. But Jesus also said that the distinguishing mark of a genuine follower of His is that we love one another as He loves us{John 13:34-35}; this is complicated when we expect any show of gratitude in return. The remedy: Daily remind yourself of this mind-set: "Dead men don't retaliate."
--> ...I die every day! 1Corinthians 15:31d

Do You Know A "Christian" Male-Chauvinist?

Please do not hesitate to share this if any of you know a "Christian" male-chauvinist:
Gen2:18 describes woman as "help meet for man." The Hebrew here indicates two separate ideas: 1) helper["עזר" {‛êzer/H5828}] -and- 2) meet for man. "Meet for man" is the single Hebrew word "נגד" [neged/H5048] and indicates something parallel/side-by-side; in this case, implied EQUALITY. God created woman to be a companion of man's equal. The fall never diminished women's equality with men. In the NT, Paul addresses certain "roles" assigned to men which result in greater responsibly; not greater "rank." Bear in mind, that Scripture reveals that the woman was "deceived"... Adam was *NOT* deceived when he sinned against God{1Tim2:14} -e.g. Adam knew he was disobeying God... Now is that something to lord over women?
To see a one-on-one dialogue I had with a "male chauvinist" I invite the reader to read my previous blog:
--> www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=492538548853

Excuses... Excuses...

In the coming Judgment, excuses like "God knows I'm only human..," etc., will suffice no more than that excuse would grant pardon in a court of law. God will not look over any sin{*1} that is committed with premeditation and without remorse{*2,3}. Yet remorse by itself; if lacking the works that evidence its genuineness; is merely feeling of guilt. Godly sorrow{*4,5} leads one to; in diligence; recommit to abiding in Jesus{*6,7}.

[*1] --> Acts 17: 30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, -HCSB
[*2] --> Hebrews 6:4-6 NKJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, (5) and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, (6) if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
[*3] --> Hebrews 10:26-31 NKJV
(26) For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, (27) but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. (28) If anyone disregards Moses' law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (29) How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (30) For we know the One who has said, Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge His people. (31) It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
[*4] --> Acts 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. –NKJV
[*5] --> 2Corinthians 7:10-11 HCSB
10 For godly grief produces a repentance not to be regretted and leading to salvation, but worldly grief produces death. 11 For consider how much diligence this very thing-this grieving as God wills-has produced in you: what a desire to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what deep longing, what zeal, what justice! In every way you showed yourselves to be pure in this matter.
[*6] --> John 15: 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. -ESV
[*7] --> 1John 2:3-6 NKJV
(3) Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. (4) He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (5) But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected tin him. By this we know that we are in Him. (6) He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

[... remember, we have no excuse since we are given the Holy Spirit; which both produces the will and ability to do what pleases God{Philippians 2:13}]

2Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves...
--> do you make excuses for your sin or do you, in reverent fear, repent and abandon the sin for which the Spirit convicts you?
Proverbs 16:6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for,
and by the fear of the Lord one turns away from evil.

Above The Law?

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. -ESV
Romans 6:14

Some wrongly believe that the Bible teaches that we are no longer bound to keep God's Law. This is a complete misconception. Shall we assert that we are free to kill... steal... curse our maker... have sex with next of kin, etc? Or shall we say that we should keep this Law but not that? Do we not then make ourselves a judge over God's Law by such mentality.

If carefully read and understood, Scripture teaches that believers are free from the CONSEQUENCES of the Law because by faith we naturally do from the heart those things which are written in the Law.
--> Romans 2:14-16
14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. -NLT

If one compares the contexts of Paul's speeches concerning the Law, one will discover that the admonitions were aimed at correcting the pharisaical way of thinking that keeping the Law made one righteous. Paul's intended purpose in addressing the topic of the Law was for his hearers to comprehend that righteousness is by faith in Jesus and not by the works of the Law.
--> Galatians 2:16
16 know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified. -HCSB

Paul never intended to imply that a believer is free from obeying the Law.
--> Romans 6:15-16
15 Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law, does that mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! 16 Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. -NLT

I think the NLT version of Romans 6:14 captures the essence of what Paul intended for us to understand:
--> 14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

...this speaks quite clearly that because we are under grace; we are above the Law- because grace is greater. Not in the sense that we free from the Law; but by faith, the Law has been inscribed upon our hearts- the Law has become part of our being so that we naturally obey it.

Born Again or Saved: Is there a difference?

There is a biblical distinction between "born-again" and "saved."

According to 1Pet1:5 and Matt24:13 we WILL BE saved by God's grace at the last day through faith; if we endure to the end:
--> 1Peter 1:5
"who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
--> Matthew 24:13 ESV
But the one who endures to the end WILL BE saved.

The Greek word used here for "endure" [ὑπομένω {(G5278)hupomenō}] could be more accurately translated as "persevere" which indicates a striving forward and not a passive tolerance. It doesn't mean that we won't fail; but that we will not lay and wallow in the mire when we fall. An appropriate cross-reference would be:
-->Proverbs 24:16 for the righteous falls seven times and rises again,..

One is born-again at the moment they are filled with the Spirit {3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." -John 3
[*Note: In John 3:3-6 Jesus does not indicate that being born-again guarantees entrance into heaven; only that it is a requirement.]
God gives His Spirit to those who obey Him in order to empower the believer to live in a way that pleases God. We must submit to God and resist the devil and in the power of the Spirit refusing to give in to our lust.
--> Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
--> Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
--> James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
--> James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
--> Galatians 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Bottom line... no one who is still breathing is permanently saved nor irreconcilably condemned to hell. TODAY!!! if one hears His voice; believes the Gospel and repents- acknowledges Jesus as Lord and perseveres in following Him in loving obedience through faith... this one will be saved by God's grace in the last days.
--> Hebrews 3:15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
--> Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
--> Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
--> John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
--> 1John 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
--> Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
--> 1Peter 1:5 "who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
--> Matthew 24:13 But the one who endures to the end WILL BE saved.

God is not willing that any should perish... He invites all to confess and repent of their sins and be forgiven:
--> 2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
--> 1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Cf. also-->  http://forjesusministry.blogspot.com/2011/09/can-one-lose-salvation-no-but.html

North South East West

I have often encountered people asking for advice; seeking God's direction for their life. Key to discovering God's will is to first have your bearings right. Proverbs 11:3 says-
"3 The integrity of the upright will guide them,
But the perversity of the unfaithful will destroy them."

First I will address the need for having an accurate "compass." Integrity in the Hebrew is תּמּה{tûmmâh/H8538}. More than moral character, which is subject to varying opinion depending upon cultures; this word implies an innocense- not just in actions but conscience as well. It is possible to commit an act that many may view as acceptable; but the conscience having been illuminated by the Holy Spirit may be unsettled. Several Scriptures come to mind that may clarify decision making in moments of uncertainty:
1) just because "the many" may agree does not make an act right- Proverbs 11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.
2) if you are unsettled in spirit about an action then wait until you are certain before making a decision to do it. Scripture teaches that beyond being "right or wrong"; whatsoever is not done in faith is sin- Romans 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Just like metal interferes with the accuracy of a compass; in seeking God's will we must be sure that our heart is clear of sin. Scripture teaches that if we are conscientious of unconfessed sin then God will not hear even our earnest pleas for guidance-
Psalm 66:18 If I had not confessed the sin in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened.
When seeking God's guidance we have to be confident that He will give it-
-->James 1:5-7
5 Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without criticizing, and it will be given to him.6 But let him ask in faith without doubting. For the doubter is like the surging sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
-and-
-->Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Now, once we have made sure that there are no problems potentially affecting our "compass," we need to get a bearing- that is to say a direction. Hebrews 11:3 indicates that the innocent conscience{integrity} will guide the upright. "Upright" is the founding block of the verse. "Upright" in the Hebrew is ישׁר{yâshâr/H3477} and means:
1) straight, upright, correct, right
1a) straight, level
1b) right, pleasing, correct
1c) straightforward, just, upright, fitting, proper
1d) uprightness, righteous, upright
1e) that which is upright
In Orienteering it is necessary to orient a map before charting a course. This is done by placing the arrow on the top/front of a compass upon the arrow on a map designating North and turning the map together with the compass until the compass needle aligns with the arrow on the map both pointing North. The symbolism is this: Unless our bearing is straight and has been first oriented by that which is right and pleasing to God{upright}, then any direction we travel will only lead us away from God's will.

In closing, let us take pains that whether we are lead North, South, East, or West; we will stay straight on the narrow way and follow what's upright- then we'll be assured of never being left.

Let's Get Strait

(49) I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
(50) But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
-Luke 12:49-50 KJV

Some commentaries and certain translations suggest, in short, that this verse indicates distress felt by Jesus over the suffering that He must face. The verb that raises the question is in verse 50; the verb translated as "straitened."
The Greek word is συνεχω{sunecho/G4912}. While sunecho can be interpreted to indicate distress/pressing; this translation does not fit the context. Jesus had just indicated in verse 49 that part of His mission was to bring fire{purification} upon the earth. It makes no sense for Jesus to follow-up saying that He is distressed over His impending suffering{"baptism" (vs 50a)}.
Sunecho can also be interpreted to indicate maintaining an unswervable direction; as a ship caught in a strait being driven into a narrow channel. Sunecho is also the same verb translated "stopped their ears" in Acts 7:57.
The message of Luke 12:49-50 is that Jesus has come to teach the judgement of God and admonish all to repent{which will also bring division(vs.51)}; He knows what his mission entails and will accomplish, therefore He will be not be swayed or delayed from performing God's purpose for Himself. He has stopped His ears, so to speak, from all distraction; and as a ship being directed by a strait- nothing would alter His course toward the cross.
The lesson we should take from Luke 12:49-50 is that no matter the hardship and suffering we may face; we need to face our responsibilities as though we were on a one-way course and have an earnest zeal to complete them.

Hypothetically Yours

Dear Mr. Calvin,
In view of your position on the "perseverance of the saints"- could you please give your exegesis on Romans 11:21-23. According to your point of view, a believer cannot fall away and perish in hell. As I read in the afore mention Scripture reference; disobedient Israel, the chosen nation, had been disowned by God and gentiles adopted as a result. In verse 22 the gentiles are, in no ambiguous terms, warned to remain in God's kindness lest His severity be directed towards them and they be cut off{AFTER having been grafted in(verse 24)}. How can you reconcile your philosophy of the perseverance of the saints{once-saved-always-saved} in light of this Scripture reference?
--> Romans 11:21-23[&24]
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
-Hypothetically and in TRUTH, Jesus Follower

Justice For All

Ezekiel chapter 3 and chapter 33 give a vivid picture of God's justice. Transitioning from Old Covenant to New Covenant, God's justice NEVER changes{Hebrews 13:8}; only the means of satisfying that justice changed.
First, a distinction should be made; Old Covenant and Old Testament are not synonymous- the Old Covenant is found written within the Old Testament. The Old Covenant has been replaced with a new and better Covenant{Hebrews 12:24} revealed in the New Testament; but the revelations of God's character and His will revealed in the Old Testament are unchanging from Genesis to Revelation.
Under the Old Covenant, the Law was written upon stone. When someone transgressed that Law, a trespass offering; preceded by a confession{Lev 5:5}; was required anytime an individual came to realize that he/she had sinned{Leviticus 5:1-19/6:1-7}.
Under the New Covenant, Jesus satisfied God's justice with His ONE sacrifice on the cross; ending the sacrifices required under the Old Covenant{cf. Romans 3:24-26}. God gives the Holy Spirit to all who will obey Him{Acts 5:32} and writes the Law upon the heart of the believer so that the believer by [new] nature is inclined to keep the Law{Romans 2:13-15}. Throughout the life of the believer, the Holy Spirit convicts the believer of any sins and prompts the believer to confess that sin and turn from it- and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of those sins once confessed and abandoned{cf. Philippians 2:13/1John 1:9/Acts 17:30}.
[**Disclaimer: please do not assume that I am suggesting that one is saved by works. Scripture teaches that it is purely an act of God by the gift of grace that we are saved- no amount of works can put us in a position of "deserving" salvation. This gift of grace is received through faith{Ephesians 2:8-9}. What is spelled out in this blog in regards to any works is that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the believer's good works{Philippians 2:13}]

IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS!!!

--> Matthew 12:40 for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

How does one reconcile the 3 days and 3 nights of Scripture with "Good Friday" and "Easter?" Has anyone even noticed that Passover -which Jesus was crucified, died, and buried just before Passover began at sunset- was Monday? It was discrepancies like these that sent us searching for answers as to the real origin of the traditions surrounding Easter. Many may not even know that the word [mis]translated as Easter in Acts 12:4 of the KJV is actual "paschal"; which means Passover. "Paschal" is correctly translated throughout the NT; only being mistranslated here in Acts 12:4.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the original Geneva Bible-1560; which pre-dates the KJV-1611 by more than 50 years; correctly translates "paschal" as passover.

If you are doing something with the intention of honoring God; shouldn't you be concerned with whether or not God feels honored by it?

--> Deut 12:31-32
31 You must not worship the Lord your God the way the other nations worship their gods,..
32 “So be careful to obey all the commands I give you. You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them. -NLT

Here are a few links to get anyone started who genuinely wants to discover where Easter traditions originate from and determine for themselves whether God would condone adopting the similitude of these practices as a form of honoring Him.

--> www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/easterbiblicaltruth.asp

--> www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/resurrectionconnection.asp

--> www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/fertilitysymbols.asp


*****IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS:
--> Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

Love One Another As I Have Loved You- John 15:12

In the Gospels we read of many examples of Jesus's love for others. We read of Jesus feeding the hungry, healing the lame, washing the feet of others; ultimately dying for other's sins.
But we read of at least one instance of Jesus' love for another that may seem a peculiar display of affection to some. I invite you to read Mark 10:21 which I will paraphrase here:
"Jesus LOVED him and said, 'Despite all the areas that you do obey in, there is still this one area in your life that you continue to commit sin. To inherit eternal life you must forsake this sin and follow me.'"
Now ask yourselves, do you love others enough to speak up and warn them; with love; that God's Word teaches that unrepented and unforsaken sin will keep them from inheriting eternal life? Or, are you worried that you will be accused of judging? Remember, when you speak God's Word; it is His judgment- not yours.
In general, your love and concern will usually be construed as condemnation; do not let this discourage you. The man Jesus rebuked went away sad{Mark 10:22}. Perhaps the Words of Jesus eventually penetrated the man's heart and effected change; just as His Words may when spoken through you. We have this promise from God's Word- that His Word will always accomplish it's intended purpose {Isaiah 55:11}.
So, speak the Truth and trust God for the outcome. Remember this also; any response, positive or negative, to the Truth spoken in genuine love; evidences that God's Word is at work molding the heart.

I Forgot What I Was Going To Ask For!

Standing before a Holy, Righteous, and Glorious God; what would we have the gall to ask for- this is the attitude behind answered prayer!

When this thought came to me I was struck about what we often pray for- sometimes we can be quite "self" focused in our prayers. Standing before God in all His glory; I am sure the focus would quickly drift from "self." As we stand there in awe; what would we honestly pray for? This prayer would be answered![read John 15:16 and ask yourself: what would you ask God for in His Son's name?]

This is not to say that it is wrong to have a desire for "things" [so long as the "things" are not ungodly]; just a thought to provoke consideration upon our prayers.

If our "walk," including prayer life, displays that we genuinely delight in the Lord; then God will grant the desires of our heart:

--> Psalm 37:4

4 Delight yourself also in the Lord,

And He shall give you the desires of your heart.

5 Commit your way to the Lord,

Trust also in Him,

And He shall bring it to pass. -NKJV

Would You Like A Glimpse Of What God Sees?

In 3John 1:2, John prayed for believers to prosper and be in health in proportion to the prosperity of their soul. What is the condition of each of our souls? Perhaps Luke 11:34-36 gives us a glimpse of an idea as to what God sees when He looks into our soul. Jesus tells us that the eye is the light-source for the soul. What do you put in front of your eyes... what is filling your soul? A "little" bad mixed with the good? Jesus taught that the light entering our soul must be single(good)- not mixed! Yes, that seems like a tough order to fill- but if our truest desire is to please God void of self-gratification; would it REALLY be that difficult? James admonishes us in James 4:8 to draw near to God and purify our hearts of mixed thoughts(double-mindedness). One way to accomplish this is; as much as lies within our power to do so; to allow only was is "good, acceptable, and perfect"{Roman 12:2} to enter our soul through our eyes- Psalm 101:3 teaches this very admonition:
(3) I will refuse to look at anything vile and vulgar. -NLT

--> 3John 1:2 Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. -NKJV

--> Luke 11:34-36
(34) The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. (35) Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. (36) If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

Strike "ONE" Calvin

If Calvin can get it SOOO wrong with Infant Baptism; perhaps his work deserves more scrutiny. I plan to make this a three part project with a "strike one, two, three you're out" theme.

Calvin's irrespect of Scripture is on display by his comment:{paragraph 8}
"Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptized by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptized family (Act_16:15, Act_16:32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptized?"
{paraphrase- Scripture does not say that infants were excluded from baptism so we must insist that infants were baptized.}

It is not man who argues against Calvin but the Scriptures; upon hearing the gospel and seeing ample of water near by, the eunuch petitioned Philip, "Look, here is water so what prevents me from being baptized?" Philip responded, "If you believe with all your heart then you may." -This is what disqualifies infants from baptism as presented within Scripture: an infant cannot profess: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God!" -Acts 8:35-37
SORRY CALVIN... STRIKE ONE!



**here is the full text of Calvin's argument attempting to support padeobaptism:

Calvin's Institute of the Christian Religion

Book 4. Chapter 16 Part A [sections 16-32 {Part B} are omitted due to irrelevance to case in point]

Chapter 16. Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign.

Divisions of this chapter,

I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of paedobaptism, sec. 1-9.

II. Refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against paedobaptism, sec. 10-30.

III. Special objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32.

Sections

1. Paedobaptism. The consideration of the question necessary and useful. Paedobaptism of divine origin.

2. This demonstrated from a consideration of the promises. These explain the nature and validity of paedobaptism.

3. Promises annexed to the symbol of water cannot be better seen than in the institution of circumcision.

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same. The only difference in the external ceremony.

5. Hence the baptism of the children of Christian parents as competent as the circumcision of Jewish children. An objection founded on a stated day for circumcision refuted.

6. An argument for paedobaptism founded on the covenant which God made with Abraham. An objection disposed of. The grace of God not diminished by the advent of Christ.

7. Argument founded on Christ’s invitation to children. Objection answered.

8. Objection, that no infants were baptised by the apostles. Answer. Objection, that paedobaptism is a novelty. Answer.

9. Twofold use and benefit of paedobaptism in respect, 1. Of parents. 2. Of children baptised.

10. Second part of the chapter, stating the arguments of Anabaptists. Alleged dissimilitude between baptism and circumcision. First answer.

11. Second answer. The covenant in baptism and circumcision not different.

12. Third answer.

13. Infants, both Jewish and Christian, comprehended in the covenant.

14. Objection considered.

15. The Jews being comprehended in the covenant, no substantial difference between baptism and circumcision.

16. Another argument of the Anabaptists considered.

17. Argument that children are not fit to understand baptism, and, therefore, should not be baptised.

18. Answer continued.

19. Answer continued.

20. Answer continued.

21. Answer continued.

22. Argument, that baptism being appointed for the remission of sins, infants, not having sinned, ought not to be baptised. Answer.

23. Argument against paedobaptism, founded on the practice of the apostles. Answer.

24. Answer continued.

25. Argument founded on a saying of our Lord to Nicodemus. Answer.

26. Error of those who adjudge all who die unbaptised to eternal destruction.

27. Argument against paedobaptism, founded on the precept and example of our Saviour, in requiring instruction to precede baptism. Answer.

28. Answer continued.

29. Answer continued.

30. Argument, that there is no stronger reason for giving baptism to children than for giving them the Lord’s Supper. Answer.

31. Last part of the chapter; refuting the arguments of Servetus.

32. Why Satan so violently assails paedobaptism.

1. But since in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of paedobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is worthy let him reflect that in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. The argument by which paedobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious, viz., that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.

2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.

3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen_17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: “God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mat_22:32). Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph_2:12), all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both, viz., the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same, viz., regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that every thing applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith (Rom_12:3, Rom_12:6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants why should we deny them the signs which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming (Mat_19:13), because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says, “Suffer little children to come,” they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists brefe4 kai paidia, terms which denote infants still at their mothers’ breasts. The term “come” is used simply for “approach.” See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, “of such,” not “of themselves.” If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” But if infants must necessarily be comprehended the expression, “of such,” clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

**8. Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. **Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family (Act_16:15, Act_16:32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.

9. It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child (Gen_17:15), such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.

10. Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation was overloaded for a time with divine kindness (just as swine are gorged in their stye), that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.

11. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in Christ we “are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are “buried with him in baptism.” What do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs, and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings; though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he, in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan. In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the hew dispensations, I now only glance at it.

12. Under the appellation of “children” the difference they observe is this that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther and compare many things together; they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now and then deluded, because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal_4:28; Rom_4:12). For we are called his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be a God both to him and his seed. All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham.

13. Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that, according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Mat_8:11), still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy. And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar purchased people (Exo_19:5). In attestation of this kindness, he appointed circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children of Abraham, speaks in this way: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcisions or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised” (Rom_4:9-12). Do we not see that both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere writes (Eph_2:14), the wall of partition, which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their fathers and that without the sign of circumcisions, its place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the feather of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.

14. But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed (Rom_9:7). For he seems to insinuate, that carnal relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing. But we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau. These being rejected, just as if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This proves what he afterwards affirms, viz., that salvation depends on the mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases, but that the Jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word. On the other hand, after casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave their nations utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason, though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy (such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with his sacred covenant), while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous, or abortive children of Abraham and that not by nature, but by adoption, just as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, And, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; And, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Rom_11:29).

15. Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham - such the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, we, at the same time, perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents. Hence it is inferred that those who are chargeable with impurity are justly separated from others. Now who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averments viz., that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of God? When the apostle says, that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom_15:8), he does not philosophise subtilely, as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed, Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: “The promise is unto you and to your children” (Act_2:39); and in the next chapters he calls them the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with Christ. And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the merest nibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil, inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.

16. The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day, mortification being already accomplished they immediately forget the distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh, and baptism as the burial, which is given to none but those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of God. We hold, therefore, that their former distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make the allegory of the eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth. How much more rational is the declaration of Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism (Rom_6:4); since it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die, and thenceforth aim at that mortification? Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the rite could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect.

The Bible vs Calvin

According to Calvin's doctrine of "Perseverance of the saints" :

"Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (The word "saints" is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return." {-Wikipedia}

Calvin: "God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else,.."

Bible: It is important that we distinguish between God's Sovereign will and His desire. Examples of God's Sovereign will are the numerous fulfilled prophesies throughout Scripture. God's Sovereignty is also on display in the life of Joseph; God used the sins of others to bring about His Sovereign will revealed to Joseph in Joseph's dreams. Basically, Sovereignty describes God's ultimate control over His creation. By His Sovereignty, God has given mankind the freedom and capacity to choose to obey or disobey. The "free-will" of mankind is as obvious throughout Scripture as God's Sovereignty. [To insist that acts of sin are also predetermined of God {as the First Cause according to the Principle of Causality- Determinism}, in my deepest conviction, is blaspheming of the Holy Ghost.] Since mankind is given decisiveness by God's Sovereign will- God also has implemented rewards and consequences. [Reward and consequence also would make no sense if all our acts, whether obedience or disobedience, where predetermined by God.] Now, it is by God's Sovereign will that we have the ability to choose; it is His desire that we choose to obey. This desire is unquestionably revealed in 2Peter 3:9-

9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.

Peter, by inspiration, is clearly teaching that God does not force us to turn to Him but is being patient; not desiring that any should perish. Because God is Sovereign, He could "make" anyone obey Him; but He gives us the freedom to choose thus validating our love for Him-

John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commands."

Calvin: "those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end."

Bible: Calvin's doctrine of Perseverance{or preservation} cannot be reconciled with Matthew 7:21-23/Hebrews 6:4-6/Hebrews 10:26-31.

1) -->Matthew 7:21-23

The "many," being turned away by Jesus, protested that they had performed miracles, prophesied, and cast out demons in Jesus' name. Especially note the fact that the"many" where able to cast out demons in Jesus' name; however, in Acts 19:14-16 the Jewish exorcists where unable to cast a demon out because they invoked the name of Jesus not having their invocation mingled with faith. Therefore, we can legitimately draw the conclusion that the "many" that were now being rejected/disinherited by Jesus had once had faith. Jesus indicated that the reason for their disinheritance was that the "many" had deliberately practiced lawlessness. Below is part of a comment I made recently on another post concerning Matthew 7:21-23:

"...Take, for instance, where Jesus says, "Depart from me for I never knew you" {Matt 7:23} ...

This statement {ουδεποτε εγνων υμας (translated “I never knew you”} was commonly used as a legal action to officially indicate a disinheritance/disownership of an heir/servant. Jesus’ proceeding statement, “because you practice lawlessness,” was also required in an action of disinheritance to officially give the reason for the disinheritance. Those within Jesus’ audience would have clearly understood what He was teaching. So you see, Matthew 7:23 is more than just a casual rejection; it is a disinheritance of an heir... We can, and will, be disinherited if we die having hardened our neck{Proverbs 29:1} to God’s correction and rebelled against the Holy Spirit’s leading to turn from known sin{Ezekiel 3:20/Ezekiel 33:12-16}."

Another example in Scripture is the servant mentioned in Luke 12:45-46 that was severely punished and disowned because when he saw that the master had not arrived at the expected time he began to act wickedly.

2) --> Hebrews 6:4-6

The latter text of vs 4 clearly says that [they] "were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,.." and (vs 6) "If they shall fall away,[it is impossible] to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

3) --> Hebrews 10:26-31

26 For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. 28 If anyone disregards Moses' law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know the One who has said, Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge His people. 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God! -HCSB

[vs 29 clearly sets the context that these verses indicate that they are speaking of one who had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant but had now insulted the Spirit of grace by deliberately continuing to sin(vs 26); "How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God {after being sanctified by His blood}.]

Calvin: "Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return."

Bible: There is absolutely no Scriptural support for this view. Oftentimes some will recite 1John 2:19 as support-

19 "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us."

This verse does not even address faith. Verse 19 is a continuation of verse 18 which addresses the presence of many antichrist. Verses 20-23 distinguishes Christians from antichrist because Christians acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

The suggestion that those who fall away will return if they have(that is, had) genuine faith is absolutely unsupported by Scripture.