Christians Do Not Celebrate Christmas!

Kirk Cameron can ignorantly attempt to defend his idolatry of Christmas by engaging in proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting, but biblical Christians know better.

Let those outside of true and spiritual Israel have their Winter Solstice and Saturnalia back, which still includes the date of its celebration, the evergreen tree, holly and ivy decorations, yule logs, wreaths, mistletoe, orb decorations, candles and lights, human-shaped cookies, singing from house to house, and gift giving.

Is it not funny how this passage sounds an awful lot like a description of the pagan celebration of Christmas?

"Thus says Yahweh, "Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens although the nations are terrified by them; for the customs of the peoples are delusion; because it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They decorate it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers so that it will not totter. Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, nor can they do any good."" Jeremiah 10:2-5

Jeremiah wrote in the 7th century B.C. Note that cutting down and setting up a tree is termed "the way of the nations [heathen, KJV]." Note also how Yahweh commanded that we are to "not learn the way of the nations." No matter how you attempt to dice it, this is idolatry, which violates the commandment against idolatry.

Not only was Jesus not born on December 25th, but the early Christians of the first three centuries never celebrated Jesus' birth; only His resurrection (which has nothing to do with the pagan celebration of Easter). After the false conversion of Emperor Constantine and his subsequent turning Christianity upon its head, many errors were introduced and pagan practices were adopted by the "Church" in an attempt to "Christianize" them. The idea to celebrate Jesus' birth was first birthed (no pun intended) during the 4th century by Pope Julius I, and was done in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of pagan festivals such as Saturnalia. Pagan elements were supposed to be renounced entirely when people came to Jesus, but the Catholics retained them, and their attempted defenses of this are illogical and weak.

In the Middle Ages, Christmas (Christ Mass) celebrations were rowdy and raucous, a drunken carnival-like atmosphere similar to today's Mardi Gras. In the 17th century, religious reform in Europe and America cancelled and outlawed Christmas. Are you aware that until the 19th century, Christmas was mostly observed by Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian congregations? Americans began to really embrace Christmas in the 19th century, Christmas first being declared a federal holiday on June 26, 1870. To fill the cultural needs of a growing nation, Americans re-invented Christmas by changing it from the raucous carnival holiday it had been and turning it into a family-centered day of peace and nostalgia. As Americans embraced Christmas, old customs were unearthed. Christmas is now widely celebrated by all denominations, and even by atheists and followers of other religions. Its modern popularity is due to its worldly seductions, pleasures of gifts, and entertaining symbols. Let me be clear: The adoption of this practice has nothing to do with the worship of King Jesus!

As someone who professes to be a follower of Christ Jesus, if you are celebrating Jesus, ask yourself why you are doing so by use of pagan elements. Why would you want to associate Jesus with pagan festivals and celebrations? Why would you want to participate in the same decorations that are clearly associated with these pagan festivals and celebrations? Is this how you learned Christ? Is this what you think of Jesus? You are engaging in idolatry and are not even aware of it. Ask yourself if fellowship, prayer, and instruction consume the majority of the holiday for families who celebrate this pagan holiday, or if presents and worldly conversations do.

If you claim to hold to "sola Scriptura," I challenge you to find the word "Christmas," or even the occasion of the celebration of Christmas, in the Scriptures. You will find no such thing! Professing Christians who pose ridiculous questions such as "What could possibly be wrong about celebrating Christ? Isn't it great to want to celebrate Him? Who wouldn't want to do that?" are clearly ignorant of Yahweh's Word and His Commands. They likely do not even know Him. Yahweh determines when and how we worship and celebrate Him. For you to associate Him with pagan festivals and celebrations and engage in the same decorations is to marry Him to pagan practices.

'Christmas' might begin with 'Christ,' but keep Christ out of Christmas as Jesus is not the reason for the season. He was never in Christmas to begin with and it has nothing to do with Him nor His birth!

Two Great Eras

Yahweh's holy Word, the Bible, does not distinguish seven "dispensations," as the cult of Dispensationalism teaches, but two great eras. This is seen in a number of ways:

First, the Bible is split into two great divisions: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Why did I say 'Covenant' and not 'Testament'? Because not only does the word "testament" never occur even once in the Old Covenant, but also because the correct interpretation for the Greek diatheke (διαθηκη) is "covenant." It should always be translated as "covenant."

Second, a period of 400 years separates these two great divisions, between the last book of the Old Covenant and the first events recorded in Luke 1.

Third, Yahweh's dealings with men in two great eras is clearly witnessed in a number of passages of Scripture. "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached" (Luke 16:16). "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2).

From the last passage, it is clear that there are two different eras: (1) "in time past," and (2) "in these last days." This is verified further from the writings of the New Covenant authors. Observe:

"'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;'" Acts 2:17

"Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." 1 Corinthians 10:11

"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." 2 Timothy 3:1

"Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!" James 5:3

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." 1 Peter 1:20

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts," 2 Peter 3:3

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18

We have been in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years. The next event to occur is the Second Coming of King Jesus. There will be no "Millennial Kingdom." Everything about this nonsensical belief, and Jewish myth, is illogical. Not to mention that 2 Peter 3:10 completely obliterates the possibility for this belief. When Jesus returns, everything is going to be burned up. So where does it leave this seventh "dispensation"? When Jesus returns to judge the world in sin and righteousness, eternity begins.

As if that was not clear enough, it is acknowledged in Hebrews 9:26 that the period of Jesus' First Coming and of His sacrifice belongs to "the end of the ages": "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation [end] of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Dispensationalists place in the "dispensation" of law so that they can separate His words (particularly His Teaching on the Mount) from us, Yahweh's children. Perhaps this is why they believe that the believer does not have to repent or be obedient, attempting to label them as "works" because, like most believers, they have no clue what Paul was addressing.

It is time believers started acting like the Bereans and searching the Scriptures, paying attention to what is actually said—in context, rather than blindly believing what some preacher behind a pulpit, or a "study" Bible, has to tell them. Stop outsourcing your intellect and faith and start proving yourself "a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

Jesus on Non-violence

From the very beginning, Christians had always renounced war, violence, and killing of every sort. However, from the fourth century onward, and especially within American "Christianity," men opposed the teachings of Jesus and attempted to use Scripture to justify their perverse and godless thinking and behaviour. One ignorant clown, Jeffrey Mann, attempts to argue that it is a "myth" that Jesus taught and practiced non-violence. Anyone who thinks this has never read the Scriptures and quite obviously refuses to submit to and be obedient to Jesus' commands.

Jesus said that Christians are to be peacemakers. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9) But He does not stop there. "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kings of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:10-12). How were the prophets persecuted? They were violently assaulted and/or put to death! Followers of Jesus are to be peacemakers, following the path of peace (Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14; cf. 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:22; James 3:17).

Jesus' position on non-violence was made abundantly clear in His Teaching on the Mount. "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42). This was not just about one's honour being assaulted. Paul explained this further when he said, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone" (Rom. 12:17), and then quoted from the Old Testament: "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head" (Rom. 12:20).

Jesus went even further: "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:43-48).

Why were you commanded to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? The answer is crystal clear: "So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Scripture reveals that Jesus did not just teach these things, but practiced them (Matthew 10:23; 26:51-53; Luke 4:28-30; John 8:49; 10:39). This operates on the principle found in Romans 13:10: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Jeffrey Mann ignorantly argues, "This sweet sentimental notion of love would surely denounce locking people in cells for decades. We could never imprison murderers. Should we all simply forgive them when they do awful things? This clearly cannot be what Jesus intended." This demonstrates his vast ignorance of reality, and of Scripture. He makes a great many assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. Yes, Christians are to forgive. See Matthew 18:21-22. The government, however, is to met out justice. That is their role. The government puts people in prison according to their laws. If someone murders a member of a Christian's family, the Christian is to forgive them while the law is to judge and condemn them. There is no opposition or contradiction here, save for the ignorant and unlearned.

Jesus also said, "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell" (Matt. 5:21-22). Jesus expanded the meaning of this command by revealing the spirit of the law against taking human life. He showed that it is not just the physical act of murder that breaks the command, but inner anger and hostility toward others also breaks it. The apostle John made clear this teaching: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15; cf. 1 John 2:9-11).

When Jesus was going to travel through Samaria on His way to Jerusalem, a route that would typically be avoided by Jews, the Samaritans refused to receive Him. "When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village." (Luke 9:54-56). Jesus rebuked His disciples because violence was to have no place in their practice or in their hearts.

On the night of His arrest, "Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus" (John 18:10). What was Jesus response? "Put the sword into the sheath" (v.11). "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). He then healed the man's ear.

Jesus taught how to prevent violence and cut it off at its origins by teaching His followers to love their enemies (Matt. 5:43-45). By refusing to see anyone as an enemy, the violence that begins in the heart is stopped before it can fester. If and when violence should break out, Jesus taught how to use practical transforming initiatives that intervene and stop the escalation of violence (Matt. 5:38-42). Jesus taught how to attack and overcome the causes of violence through civil resistance—non-violent direct action. Jesus taught and modeled the way to reconcile a community after it has been ravaged by violence and division in order to bring the community back together again (Matt. 18:15-17, 20; 18:21; Luke 23:14). Jesus demonstrated how to defend both the innocent and guilty with non-violent action instead of violence (John 8:4-10). Jesus taught how to build a community and culture of non-violence as an antithesis to regimes of domination through violence. He taught and modeled how to live a life of non-violence to the full, and to the end. If you love your neighbour and your enemy, you will do nothing but good to him. No matter what he might do to you, you are commanded to love him.

Out of his ignorance, Jeffrey Mann argues, "While the idea of Jesus as the paragon of niceness and non-violence sits well in our imaginations, it is not true to the historical individual; it is not fair to those who serve in our militaries; and it is not helpful in working through the complex ethical questions that we must struggle with in a violent world."

Jeffrey Mann knows nothing of the historical individual of Jesus. Yes, the teaching of non-violence is fair to those who serve in our militaries because those who profess to be Christian should not be doing so! At least not in a capacity where it involves taking the lives of others. The early Christians lived in a world that was more violent than our own and yet they obeyed the teachings of Jesus and did not seek violence against those who sought to violently assault them. Nowhere in the New Testament or the first three centuries of the early Christians will you find advocacy for "self-defense"! Jesus does not differentiate between "being persecuted for your faith" and "being violently assaulted," and neither did the early Christians. All violence was repudiated: "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone" (Rom. 12:17). Jeffrey would do well to educate himself on history instead of spewing his perverse anti-Christ nonsense.

Jeffrey would do well to not only read the Scriptures and pay attention to the teachings of Jesus, but also to pay attention to the first three centuries of Christian believers who took Jesus' teachings literally. Christians refused to serve in the military, and if they were already serving in the military when they got saved, they sought another position within it so that they did not have to violate their consciences. Until the heretic Augustine, biblical Christians who were obedient to the teachings of Jesus would rather suffer a harm than to harm another individual. "Self-defense" was not a legitimate argument! Ignorant people attempt to dismiss the legitimacy of non-violence by asking a person who believes in such ridiculous questions like, "What would you do if someone broke into your house and wanted to rape and murder your wife or daughter? To do nothing makes you worse than the perpetrator, does it not?" They erroneously assume that the only way to protect someone threatened with violence is with intervening violence. They neglect to explain Jesus' intervening for the woman caught in adultery and the multitude that wanted to stone her to death. Jesus did not respond with violence in order to protect her.

Augustine, the Roman Catholics, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the like are not the authority on this issue. If you desire to understand the biblical truth, you must pay attention to the teachings of Jesus and the actions of His disciples who were the recipients of those teachings. Out of his sheer ignorance, Jeffrey Mann (and those like him) references where Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple as his "proof" that Jesus engaged in violence. When Jesus did this, He alluded to Isaiah 56:3-8 to remind the leaders that the Temple was meant to be the city on the hill whose light would reach all nations, and added an allusion to Jeremiah 7:1-14 (itself delivered from the gate of the Temple) to warn against relying on ritual purity if accompanied by social injustice.

Maybe Jeffrey should learn how to read Scripture in context when it is addressing those who wield the sword and met out the justice of God. Paul is writing to Christian believers and telling them to submit to the secular authorities because God has instituted them. People like Jeffrey read into this text what is not there and impose their own godless ideas upon it.

Both the early Christians of the first three centuries and the Anabaptists taught and practiced non-violence, and their numbers grew as a result of the persecution they endured. If you are a Christian, American, America is not your home. You are a stranger and a sojourner here. Your citizenship is in Heaven, and as such you should be behaving in a manner that is reflective of being an ambassador thereof.

Let us review what the early Christians had to say on the issue, shall we:

"Christians … love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life.  They are poor, yet make many rich;  they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless;  they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life. They are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred." —Letter to Diognetus

"We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies" —Justin Martyr

"For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" [Is. 2:3]. And that this did come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem men went out into the world, twelve in number and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking; but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God. Now we who used to murder one another do not only refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn" [a justification for lying used in Justin's time], might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, parents, country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it would be truly ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things in order to obtain what we desire from him who is able to grant it." —Justin Martyr

"We who were filled with war, mutual slaughter, and every wickedness have each, through the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons—our swords into ploughshares and our spears into implements of tillage. In their place, we cultivate godliness, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father himself through the One who was crucified." —Justin Martyr

"We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also." —Athenagoras

"For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even watch, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?" —Athenagoras

"For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, since we follow peace." —Clement of Alexandria

"The Christian does no harm even to his enemy." —Tertullian

"God puts His prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: 'You shall not kill.' " —Tertullian

"They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those who are brought forward for instruction. If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall cease or shall be rejected. If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone teaches children (worldly knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other) trade, let him be permitted. A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. The prostitute, the wanton man, the one who castrates himself, or one who does that which may not be mentioned, are to be rejected, for they are impure. A magus shall not even be brought forward for consideration. An enchanter, or astrologer, or diviner, or interpreter of dreams, or a charlatan, or one who makes amulets, either they shall cease or they shall be rejected. If someone's concubine is a slave, as long as she has raised her children and has clung only to him, let her hear. Otherwise, she shall be rejected. The man who has a concubine must cease and take a wife according to the law. If he will not, he shall be rejected." —Hippolytus

"To those who inquire of us from where we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we have come agreeably to the counsels of Jesus. We have cut down our hostile, insolent, and wearisome swords into plowshares. We have converted into pruning hooks the spears that were formerly used in war. For we no longer take up 'sword against nation,' nor do we 'learn war anymore.' That is because we have become children of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Leader." —Origen

"Who among the believers does not know the words in Isaiah? "In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be revealed, and the house of the Lord on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills. All nations shall come to it. Many people shall go and say, 'Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his way, and we will walk in it." For out of Zion shall go forth a law, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people. They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more [Isa. 1:2-5]." —Origen
[The early Christians used Isaiah 1:2-5 so regularly that every Christian was familiar with it, believing this passage to be fulfilled by Jesus and His apostles who brought the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem to the entire world, creating a kingdom that lived in peace and refused warfare.]

"Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty." —Cyprian

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood, and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, yet is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." —Cyprian

Goal: Set

Come the new year, I plan on reading the New Testament from every copy of the Bible I have in my possession in one year (or sooner). That means that I will read through the entire New Testament 30 times in a single year (or sooner). Apparently it takes the average person 17 hours and 44 minutes to read the entire New Testament. Eighteen hours multiplied by 30 books gives you 540 hours. If it were possible to read them back-to-back without stop, it would take 22.5 days to read them all. If I read 3 hours a day, it till take between half a year and three quarters of a year to read through them all.

Breaking the 17 hours and 44 minutes down, if you wanted to read the New Testament in one week, you would need to read for 2 hours and 32 minutes per day. So potentially, if I did that, I could read all 30 versions in 30 weeks.

The following list is the translations I will be reading from:

1526 - TYN — Tyndale New Testament
1537 - MATTHEW — Matthew's Bible
1560 - GNV — Geneva Bible
1611 - KJV — King James Version
1961 - Kenneth Wuest's New Testament: An Expanded Translation
1862 - YLT — Young's Literal Translation
1965 - AMP — Amplified Bible
1971 - NASB — New American Standard Bible
1978 - NIV — New International Version
1982 - NKJV — New King James Version
1985 - George Lasma's Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text
1989 - NRSV — New Revised Standard Version
1995 - GW — GOD'S WORD Translation
1996 - NLT — New Living Translation
1998 - CJB — Complete Jewish Bible
2001 - ESV — English Standard Version
2002 - MSG — The Message
2004 - CSB — Christian Standard Bible
2005 - NET — New English Translation
2011 - CEB — Common English Bible
2011 - EXB — Expanded Bible
2011 - KNT — Kingdom New Testament
2012 - TV — The Voice Translation
2014 - MEV — Modern English Version
2014 - TLV — Tree of Life Version
2016 - BSB — Berean Standard Bible
2018 - MJLT — Messianic Jewish Literal Translation
2020 - LSV — Literal Standard Version
2021 - LSB — Legacy Standard Bible
2022 - UASV — Updated American Standard Version

John 6

Here are a Calvinist's favourite verses from John 6:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (v.37)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (v.44)

"And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."" (v.65)

The problem here is that the Calvinist is proof-texting, eisegeting, and twisting Scripture with these verses, forcing them to say and teach something they simply do not. If you have read some of my previous blog articles, you know that I used to use these verses out of context as well, having been seduced and convinced that Calvinism was "biblical."

So what is the context? Well, the audience to whom Jesus is speaking is a group of unbelieving Israelites looking for free food (vv.25-31), and the twelve apostles (v.70). Jesus provokes the Jewish religious leaders with extremely difficult teachings, telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood (vv.51-58), without so much as an explanation or any clarification. Verses 60 and 61 indicate clearly the difficulty of these teachings for His audience. Verse 66 even records for us that "many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore" because of these difficult teachings. Jesus does not attempt to persuade them to stay. Instead, He provokes them purposefully. All this contextual information aids the reader of John 6 in the correct interpretation.

Calvinists fail to consider the first-century context and meaning of Jesus' words, instead imposing upon His words their already preconceived idea of unconditional, effectual salvation of pre-selected individuals. They over-emphasize verse 37 as it relates to verses 39-40, arguing that God has pre-selected a particular number of people to draw irresistibly while leaving all others without any hope of responding to His appeals for reconciliation. They miss the vital contextual clue provided in verse 38: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." And what is the will of Him who sent Jesus? "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What was Jesus to do while He was "down from heaven"? What was God's will for Him to accomplish, other than to die for us? God's will was not for Him to be a great evangelist and win thousands to faith (as Peter would at Pentecost), but for Him to train a select group of Israelites in order to carry the Gospel to the rest of the world and establish His Congregation after He had risen from the dead. Jesus was teaching this group of men how to love one another, live in community with each other, and have unity in all things. He was teaching them to imitate Him.

God had selected the Jews to carry the Word of God to the nations (Is. 49:6; Rom. 3:2; 9:5). Jesus, in fulfilling God's will, had entrusted the truth to a select few from Israel while the rest were being hardened in their already-calloused, self-righteous, stubborn condition.

Nowhere is there mention of an inward, irresistible calling or work of regeneration to convince the apostles to remain faithful. In fact, after the other disciples walked away, Jesus turned to the twelve and asked them, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" (v.67). The twelve had been with Jesus every step of the way, witnessing the miracles, having the parables explained to them, etc. They were already well-convinced of who Jesus was, which is why Peter said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God" (vv.68-69).

If John 6:44 means what Calvinists claim it means, especially individuals like James White who argues that the "him" who is called is the same "him" who is raised, then how do they explain John 12:32, without trying to explain it away? "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Ephesians 1

Ephesians 1 is another favourite passage of the illiterate Calvinist where they focus too much attention on the first twelve verses. The very first verse tells us that Paul's audience was "the faithful in Christ Jesus." The "in Christ" theme introduced in the opening sentence continues through this entire section of the text, repeated ten times in thirteen verses. The Calvinist contends that pre-selected individuals were chosen before the foundations of the world and predestined to become believers. However, that is not what the text says.

Does Paul ever actually say that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ?

Does Paul ever actually state that God chose particular individuals to be effectually placed in Christ?

Does Paul ever actually state that Christ redeems individuals so they might irresistibly be placed in Him?

Of course not! So what does the text say? Paul speaks of what "the faithful in Christ" (v.1) have been predestined to become—not about God pre-selecting certain individuals before the foundations of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. Paul teaches that those "in Him" have been predestined to become "holy and blameless" (v.4) and "to be adopted as sons" (v.5). Paul is speaking of what the believer is chosen to become. "He predestined us ["the faithful in Christ" (v.1)] for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ" (v.5). In other words, whoever believes in Him is predestined to become "holy and blameless in His sight" (v.4), which parallels Paul's teaching in Romans 8:29, which states, "He also predestined ["those who love God" (v.28)] to become conformed to the image of His Son."

"Just as" (v.4) means "to an equal degree; in the same way; at the same time." To an equal degree, in the same way, and at the same time, what is said in verses 3, 4, and 5 are all true. They are conditioned upon being "in Christ." This is what was determined for those who are and remain "in Him."

According to Paul, believers "wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:23), because that is what believers have been predestined to become, provided we abide in Christ. If we continually remind ourselves that the "us" being referenced through this chapter are "the faithful in Christ" (v.1), then the apostle's intention, and the context, becomes quite clear. Before the foundations of the world, God has predestined us, the faithful in Christ, to become holy and to be adopted. That is all the text says! Anything else is being imposed upon it through eisegesis.

Believers are not fully adopted until they take up residence in the home of the one who has adopted them. This is where most professing Christians confuse the future with the present in their bankrupt theologies. Until such a point, believers look forward with great anticipation to their adoption (as seen from Romans 8:23).

When Paul speaks of "we" and "us" in the first 10 verses, he includes all Christian believers. Verses 11-12 apply to the people of Israel, whom Paul identifies himself with, being a Jew. This is in distinction from the "Gentile" believers ("you also") to whom he speaks of in verse 13. Calvinists should pay attention to this verse in particular: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation." Were individuals included in Christ before the foundation of the Earth? No! Paul said it was "after listening to the message of truth."

Paul continues, "having also believed, you were marked in Him." Were individuals marked in Him before the world began and without regard to their response to the Gospel? No! Paul states clearly that they were marked "in Him" when they believed the message of truth.

Ephesians chapter 1 is not about God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ; this passage is about God predetermining the spiritual blessings for those who are in Christ through believing the word of truth (vv.1-3). Romans 8:29 says that God "also predestined ["those who love God"] to become conformed to the image of His Son." It says nothing about predetermining who will believe! Calvinists need to learn how to read. If they did, they would not be embracing and teaching the heresy that was first taught by the Gnostics and rejected by the early Christians (A.D. 90-300).

Romans 8:28-9:33, Part 1

This is by far the Calvinist's favourite passage to use to shore up their theological beliefs. Context is important. Therefore, it is important that we examine the verses leading up to this passage as they reveal that Paul is reflecting on the problem of evil and suffering in our world since the beginning.

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." Romans 8:20-22

Paul is not talking primarily about salvation in this passage, as Calvinists have interpreted it. Rather, he is talking primarily about the way in which God is healing the whole creation. By approaching this passage the way the Calvinist has, they end up skipping over Romans 8:18-27, which is about the renewing of creation. Again, context is important. The Calvinist needs to learn this important lesson.

In Romans 8:28, the Greek verb οιδα ("we know") is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, which indicates a knowledge gained by observance or remembrance of the past. Paul is saying that believers know, from God's past dealings with those who love Him, that He has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. As Hebrews 12:1 tells us, "we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us." By observing the stories of the saints of old, we can rest in the knowledge that this is true. For example, consider Joseph. What his brothers meant for evil, God was able to take and redeem for good. God has been doing this for generations, so we can take comfort in this. We (believers) know what is true of God because we can observe it from the past for those who have loved Him.

Verses 28 and 29 shift the focus to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God's faithfulness to those who have loved God throughout history. This truth is not applicable to everyone, but an observation for "those who love God," those who are "in Christ."

According to heretic John Calvin, God is the author of evil deeds:

"...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission...It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them..."

God does not cause occurrences of evil for His purposes. "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). Rather, God redeems occurrences or moral evil for a good purpose, just as He did with Joseph. Calvinists should really learn how to read and pay attention to language. "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). This agrees with the proverb: "The mind of man plans his way, but Yahweh directs his steps" (Prov. 16:9). God redeemed their evil intentions and used them for a good purpose. God did not determine their evil intentions and then determine to clean up His previous determination. That is nonsensical and utterly ridiculous.

Observe this correct statement from Calvinistic preacher John MacArthur:

"But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things—including all the fruits of all the evil of all time—work together for a greater good."

The focus of Paul's observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God's plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. It simply means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history will also be true of anyone who follows and loves the God of Israel. By reflecting on God's past dealings, we can know what to expect in His future dealings.

"Those God foreknew" is not talking about knowing something ahead of time. This reveals Paul's focus on the saints of old: those saints God knew previously. Paul is seeking to provide evidence of what he has just said, and this focus continues for the next three chapters. Calvinistic preachers like John Piper are dishonest regarding the various options for the meaning of προγινώσκω:

Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe.

Option #2: God chose us—not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.

These preachers ignore and overlook the most basic meaning of this word, which means "to know previously." The same Greek word is used by Paul and Peter in the following passages:

"So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion." Acts 26:4-5

"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness." 2 Pet. 3:17

Clearly this word can be (and is) understood simply as knowing someone in the past, as in knowing those saints of old previously. God "foreknew them" or "knew them of old" or "knew them previously." Why do Calvinists insist on playing mental gynmastics and avoiding the simple context? Paul is telling the Christian believers he sent to Rome to plant a congregation that because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and obey Him now. Paul is simply referencing those saints from the past whom God had known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations.

"Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David.

The term 'foreknew' does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb προέγνω is the word for 'know' (in an intimate sense) with the preposition προ (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past... Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: 'For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf." —Tim Warner

Paul began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into the world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vv.20-22). He then comforts the lovers of God in his audience by reminding them of God's trustworthiness for those who have loved Him throughout the generations. Paul reminds his readers that God will redeem the suffering an evil for a good purpose in their lives just as He has done in the lives of those known previously. It is these people (Israelites who loved God in the past) who were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

N. T. Wright states:

"Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ."

In verse 30, Paul explicitly uses past tense verbs. When writing these words, Paul and his readers (including you and I) had not yet been glorified. Paul clearly does not have in mind the future glorification of all believers. The past tense suggests Paul is referring to former generations of those who loved God and were called to fulfill His redemptive purpose. Calvinists must explain away the use of past tense verbs: "Glorified is in the past tense because this final step is so certain in God's eyes it is as good as done."

This is known as reaching, because in Romans 8:17 Paul does not speak of glorification as a past and completed action in reference to the believers in his day. Contrary to what many Christians believe today, our glorification is qualified upon the conditioned of our perseverance until the end, which numerous passages express. If it was "as good as done" due to God's predetermination, then why would Paul (or Jesus, or the rest of the New Testament) make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Moreover, Paul speaks of our eager expectation of glorification in verses 22-25. Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere to speaking of it "as good as done" for those who have not yet been glorified?

If you, as a Calvinist, object to προγινώσκω referring to the saints of old who loved God, then you should consider Paul's use of the same word three chapters later:

"But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." Rom. 10:21-11:2a

Paul continues to make his case:

"Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."" Rom. 11:2b-4

Nothing in this or any other text supports the concept of God in eternity past pre-selecting certain individuals out of the mass of humanity for irresistible and effectual salvation. Since Romans is written to veteran "Gentile" Christian believers Paul had selected from the various congregations he had planted and sent to Rome in order to establish a congregation there, it would make sense for him to comfort them by referring to the faithfulness and trustworthiness of God with regard to the saints of old (i.e., men like Abraham and David).

Romans 8:28-9:33, Part 2

The reader of Paul might say, You have made an excellent argument regarding God's faithfulness to Hebrews of the past, but what about Hebrews today? Have God's promises for Israel failed? Why are Hebrews today rejecting their Messiah? Paul answers such questions in Romans 9 and beyond.

Contrary to the false interpretation imposed upon the text by Calvinists, Romans 9 has nothing to do with individual salvation! In his First Things, Origen addressed the random isolated verses ripped out of their immediate context used by the Gnostics of his day. The Calvinist uses the same random isolated verses to continue teaching what the early Christians correctly labeled as heresy.

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:1-5

In this opening passage, we see a glimpse of Paul's heart. Despite the Jews having become his enemies, Paul follows the example of Jesus by sincerely loving them with a sacrificial passion. Paul describes his "great sorrow and unceasing grief" that he feels for his fellow Jews (9:2), expressing such deep love for them that he would be willing to give up his own salvation if they could all be saved (9:3). Paul then lists eight specific blessing bestowed upon Israel by Yahweh, which makes Paul's sorrow over Israel's unbelief even more heart rending because of her unique privileges (9:4-5):

1. "to [the Israelites belong] the adoption as sons,"
2. "and the glory"
3. "and the covenants"
4. "and the giving of the Law"
5. "and the temple service" (the worship)
6. "and the promises"
7. "whose are the fathers" (to them belong the patriarchs)
8. "from [them] is the Christ" (the Messiah)

In Romans 2 and 3, Paul had asked, "What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?" (3:1). He then answers by saying, "Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (3:2). The eight blessings listed above demonstrate how great that advantage had been.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." Romans 9:6-13

In this passage, Paul points out that Yahweh's promise to Israel did not fail. The Jews did not miss the Messiah due to a failure of Yahweh's word (9:6a), but because of a hardening of their hearts (11:25). The Jews neglected the blessings of Yahweh through their unbelief due to their already-calloused hearts. Paul makes it clear that "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (9:6b). In Romans 2:28-29, Paul taught that there have always been two Israels—those who were physically descended from Jacob, and those who were his spiritual offspring. Paul quotes from Genesis 21:12 to emphasize the latter: "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (9:7). He continues by saying, "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants" (9:8). This is verified in Galatians where Paul writes, "be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (3:7) and "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (3:29).

As an illustration of this, Paul recalls Yahweh's choosing of Abraham's younger son Isaac, rather than his first-born son, Ishmael, as the beneficiary of  His promise (9:9). Yahweh overruled the cultural tradition of a father's inheritance flowing to the first-born son. Likewise, Yahweh chose Jacob over Esau (9:10-13). This has nothing to do with individual salvation. In fact, salvation is not even in view here. It must be imposed upon the text by the Calvinist via proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting. Paul refers to Yahweh's sovereign choosing of the patriarchs of the Hebrew faith and demonstrates how His promises did not fail.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. Romans 9:14-24

This passage continues on from where Paul left off in the previous passage. Individual salvation is not in view here! Again, it must be imposed dishonestly upon the text via proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting. Let us see how Origen addressed this passage, shall we?

"Let us observe how Paul, too, addresses us as having freedom of the will and as being our- selves the cause of ruin or salvation. He says, "You are treasuring up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God—who will render to everyone according to his works." . . . There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures that establish with exceeding clarity the existence of freedom of the will. But, since certain declarations of the Old Testament and of the New lead to the opposite conclusion-namely, that it does not depend on ourselves to keep the commandments and to be saved, or to transgress them and to be lost—let us examine them one by one and see the explanations. . . . The statements regarding Pharaoh have troubled many, respecting whom God declared several times, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." For if he is hardened by God and commits sin because of being hardened, he is not the cause of sin to himself. If so, then Pharaoh does not possess free will. . . . There is also the declaration in Ezekiel, "I will take away their stony hearts and will put in them hearts of flesh so that they may walk in My precepts and keep My commandments." This might lead someone to think that it was God who gave the power to walk in His commandments and to keep His commandments—by His withdrawing the hindrance (the stony heart) and implanting a better heart of flesh. And let us look also at the passage in the Gospel . . . "That seeing they might not see and hearing they may hear and not understand. Lest they would be converted and their sins be forgiven them."

There is also the passage in Paul: "It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy." Furthermore, there are declarations in other places that "both to will and to do are of God" and "that God has mercy upon whom He will have mercy; and whom He wishes, He hardens." . . . And also, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does the potter not have power over the clay—from the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonour?" Now, these passages are sufficient of themselves to trouble the multitude—as if man were not possessed of free will, but as if it were God who saves and destroys whom He wills. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God so that he would not send the people away. . . . Some of those who hold different opinions [i.e., the Gnostics] misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. . . . Let us now see what these passages mean. For we will ask them if Pharaoh was of a fleshly nature. And when they answer, we will say that he who is of a fleshly nature is altogether disobedient to God. And if he is disobedient, what need is there for his heart to be hardened—not only once, but frequently? Unless we are to think that . . . God needs him to be disobedient to a greater degree in order that He could manifest His mighty deeds for the salvation of the multitude. Therefore, God hardens his heart. This will be our answer to them in the first place.

Since we consider God to be both good and just, let us see how the good and just God could harden the heart of Pharaoh. Perhaps by an illustration used by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may be able to show that, by the same operation, God can show mercy on one man while he hardens another, although not intending to harden. . . . "The earth," he says, "drinks in the rain that often comes upon it and produces crops to those for whom it is farmed, receiving the blessing from God. But that which produces thorns and briers is worthless, and is in danger of being cursed. Its end is to be burned." . . . It may seem profane for the One who produces rain to say, "I produced both the fruit and the thorns that are in the earth." Yet, although seemingly profane, it is true. If the rain had not fallen, there would have been neither fruit nor thorns. . . . The blessing of the rain, therefore, fell even on the unproductive land. But since it was neglected and uncultivated, it yielded thorns and thistles. In the same way, the wonderful acts of God are like the rain. The differing purposes are like the cultivated and the neglected land. . . . If the sun had a voice, it might say, "I both liquefy and dry up." Although liquefying and drying are opposite things, the sun would not speak falsely on this point. For wax is melted and mud is dried up by the same heat. In the same way, the operation performed through the instrumentality of Moses, on the one hand, hardened Pharaoh (because of his own wickedness), and it softened the mixed Egyptian multitude, who departed with the Hebrews. . . . Now, suppose that the words the apostle addressed to sinners had been addressed to Pharaoh. Then, the announcements made to him will be understood to have been made with particular application. It is as to one who—according to his hardness and unrepentant heart—was treasuring up wrath for himself. For his hardness would not have been demonstrated nor made manifest unless miracles had been performed, particularly miracles of such magnitude and importance. . . .

If it is not we who do anything towards the production within ourselves of the heart of flesh—but if it is [all] God's doing—it would not be our own act to live agreeably to virtue. Rather, it would be altogether an act of divine grace. This would be the statements of one who from the mere words annihilates free will. But we will answer, saying that we should understand these passages in this way: It is like a man who happens to be ignorant and uneducated. On perceiving his own defects—either because of an exhortation from his teacher, or in some other way—he spontaneously gives himself up to an instructor whom he believes can educate him and teach him virtue. Now, on his yielding himself up, his instructor promises that he will take away the man's ignorance and implant instruction. Yet, it is not as if the student contributed nothing to his own training. . . . In the same way, the Word of God promises to take away wickedness (which it calls a stony heart) from those who come to Him. But not if they are unwilling to come. It is only if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick. . . .

After this, there is the passage from the Gospel where the Saviour said, . . . "Seeing, they may not see, and hearing, they may not understand. Lest they would be converted and their sins be forgiven them." Now, our opponent [the Gnostics] will say . . . it is not within the power of such ones to be saved. If that were so, we are not possessed of free will as regards salvation and destruction. . . . In the first place, then, we must notice the passage in its bearing on the heretics, who . . . daringly assert the cruelty of the Creator of the world. . . . They say that goodness does not exist in the Creator. . . . Come, then, and let us (to the best of our ability) furnish an answer to the question submitted to us. . . . The Saviour . . . had foreseen them as persons who were not likely to prove steady in their conversion, even if they heard the words that were spoken more clearly. For that reason, they were treated this way by the Saviour. . . . Otherwise, after a rapid conversion and healing through obtaining remission of sins, they would despise the wounds of their wickedness, as being slight and easy to heal. As a result, they would again quickly relapse into them. . . .

"Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" . . . Now we must ask the person who uses these passages whether it is possible to conceive that the apostle contradicts himself. I presume that no one will venture to say it is. If, then, the apostle does not utter contradictions, how can he, according to the person who so understands him, justly find fault with anyone? How could he condemn the individual at Corinth who had committed fornication, or those who had fallen away? . . . And how could he bless those whom he praises as having done well? . . . It is not consistent for the same apostle to blame the sinner as worthy of censure and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval—but yet, on the other hand, to say (as if nothing depended on ourselves that the cause was in the Creator for the one vessel to be formed to honour and the other to dishonour. . . . The power that is given us to enable us to conquer may be used—in accordance with our faculty of free will—either in a diligent manner (in which case, we prove victorious) or in a slothful manner (in which case, we are defeated). For if such a power were wholly given us in such a way that we would always prove victorious and never be defeated, what further reason would there be for a struggle—for such a one could not be overcome? Or what merit would there be in a victory, if the power of successful resistance is taken away? However, if the possibility of conquering is equally conferred on all of us—and if it is in our own power how to use this possibility (either diligently or slothfully)—then the defeated can be justly censured and the victor can be deservedly praised."

If Paul were teaching as Calvinists like to insist here, then Paul's other writings would be inconsistent and hypocritical as he praises some people for having done well and condemns others for having not done well. If they were only doing what Yahweh had determined for them to do, then this praise and condemnation is nonsensical. The Calvinist is too blind, stubborn, and proud to see this truth, and so they continue to malign and mar the eternal nature of Yahweh's love. The Calvinist's god is not the God of the Bible!

As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.' AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD." Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY." And just as Isaiah foretold, "UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH." Romans 9:25-29

In this passage, Paul points out how the Jewish Scriptures foretold Yahweh's plans for both Jews and Gentiles: "even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (9:24). In verses 25-26, Paul quotes two passages from the prophet Hosea to demonstrate Yahweh's pre-existent plan to include the Gentiles in His family. (I refer to this as Expansion Theology. See Romans 11:17-26.) In verses 27-29, Paul quotes two passages from the prophet Isaiah that inform us that Yahweh planned to reduce the number of Jews in His family to a remnant. Jesus had said, "the kingdom of God will be taken away from [the Jews] and given to a people, producing the fruit of it" (Matt. 21:43). This was further addressed when He said, "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness" (Matt. 8:11-12a).

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." Romans 9:30-33

In this passage, Paul summarizes the awkward state of affairs: "Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith" (9:30) and "Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law" (9:31). Paul then explains Israel's failure and attributes it to her carelessness: "they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works" (9:32). Paul then reveals Jesus as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (9:33) by applying the words of the prophet Isaiah. We see the same idea expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23.

As you can see, Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation, let alone individual salvation. Even the Lutheran understands this passage more correctly than the Calvinist. The Calvinist argues for the same heresy that was originally taught by the Gnostics and subsequently rejected by the early Christians of the first three centuries. If it was heresy back then, then it is still heresy today. It does not cease to be heresy simply because it has become common place or even popular.

The Grand Problem with Pangaea

The only way the Pangaea Theory of imaginary nonsense works is if every continent is a giant land mass floating on top of the water. Tectonic plates or not, they cannot move from the fairy tale image of Pangaea to their current location. Anyone with a functioning brain who looks at maps of the ocean floor can see such a concept is impossible.

They hate Yahweh God so much and want to eliminate Him that they make up imaginary fictional nonsense like this and call it "science" without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up, and teach it to children to brainwash them. If you are going to believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and Pangaea, you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

These clowns clearly do not understand how plates work. They can move up and down and side to side. They cannot overlap each other. That would create giant gaping holes in the surface! Imagine an egg with its shell cracked to match Earth's plates. Pick a piece and slide it into and over another piece. Uh oh! See the problem? People need to start using critical thinking. Just because they call something "science" does not make it science. Science follows the scientific method. If they cannot perform that process, it is not science!

Furthermore, did the plates magically change location between Pangaea and present day? Look at a map and note the plates. Now try to keep those plates exact as you mash it together to form Pangaea. Hmm... Problems, problems, problems.

Here you go! Maintain these tectonic plate sizes as you attempt to form Pangaea. This is as believable as the Earth once being a giant hot molten ball that somehow developed its own hydrologic cycle and then magically had single-celled organisms appear in the water to evolve into everything (animal, vegetable, and mineral) we see on the planet. It takes more faith to be an atheist and believe in evolution than it requires to believe in an Almighty Creator.

Use that God-given brain of yours and allow it to function the way it is intended. Look at the amount of the tectonic plate you would have to eliminate in order for South America and Africa to become one. If this matter did not exist with Pangaea, where did it come from for the current state? You cannot just add plate matter. It frustrates me how people can be so brain dead.

Dear Jews

There are three (3) ways by which a person is considered a "Jew":

1. If a person is a direct descendant of Judah, he/she is a Judaite (a "Jew").
2. If a person belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah, he/she was a "Jew."
3. If a person is an adherent of Judaism, he/she is considered a "Jew."

Modern-day professing "Jews" are extremely confused and misinformed. They mistakenly believe that Jewish identity is bestowed by the mother. This is false. By that reckoning, Jews do not exist. Why do I say that? Because Judah married Tamar, who was a heathen woman from the nations ("gentile"). According to modern-day Jewish thinking, that means that every descendant of theirs was "gentile" and not Jewish. Since one must be a descendant of Judah in order to be a Judaite (a "Jew"), that means, according to their reckoning, there is no such thing as a "Jew" and never was.

Sorry, I do not make the rules. If you cannot follow your own faulty logic, that is a you problem.

All throughout Yahweh's holy Scripture, we see that identity is bestowed by the father. If the father was a Hebrew (a descendant of Eber), then the children were Hebrews. If the father was an Israelite (a descendant of Israel [Jacob]), then the children were Israelites. If the father was a Judaite (a descendant of Judah), then the children were Judaites ("Jews"). All identity is determined and passed along by the father. The father provides the seed of life. The man's sperm determines whether that child will be a male or a female. There is a reason the wife takes the husband's name; she identifies with him.

Many of those who identify as "Jews" today based on their mother are, in fact, not Jews at all if their father is not Jewish! Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba were heathen women from the nations ("gentiles"), which means their children would be "gentiles" if it was determined by the mother. This would mean that there were never any Judaites ("Jews"). The shift from patrilineality to matrilineality is said to have occurred as early as A.D. 10-70 to modern times. I am willing to pinpoint A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem as the precise point of this change. There is a reason why this change was conspired in disregard to the Scriptures and reality. Every nation, every ethnicity, a child's identity is determined by the father.

The children of the other eleven (11) tribes are not, never were, and never will be "Jews"! Collectively, they are all Israelites (descendants of Israel) and Hebrews (descendants of Abraham the Hebrew). But individually, they are Reubenites, Simeonites, Levites, Danites, Naphtalites, Gadites, Asherites, Issacharites, Zebulunites, Josephites (Manassehites and Ephraimites), and Benjaminites. This should be obvious to a discerning individual. However, modern-day "Jews" who claim they are from one of these specific tribes clearly do not have a clue what a "Jew" actually is when they attempt to identify as one. If you can truly trace your lineage and genealogy to the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, or Joseph, then YOU ARE NOT JEW!!! If you can truly trace your lineage and genealogy to the tribe of Benjamin, then, with the exception of being a member of the southern kingdom of Judah (which has not existed for roughly 2500 years), YOU ARE NOT A JEW!!!

Sorry, but if you identify as a "Jew" but your father was not Jewish, then it does not matter what your mother was; YOU ARE NOT A JEW!!!

For the 'Torah Observant "Christian"'

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

After our Lord and Saviour says these words, what does He proceed to do? He spends the rest of the chapter explaining to His listeners what "to fulfill" means and looks like. He quotes from the Old Testament and then expands on it. For example, Jesus says:

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent." Matthew 5:21-26

Now, if the native speakers of the Greek language understood a verse differently than we do, then we have it wrong—not them! It does not matter if you can read, write, and speak Greek. Were you a part of their culture? Do you have their customs? Then your concepts and interpretations have little to no value. You cannot impose Western thinking upon Eastern mentality. We are 1,800 years removed from the apostles' teachings and their disciples' understandings thereof. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. Here is how Irenaeus, a native Greek-speaker from Smyrna circa A.D. 185, understood Matthew 5:17:

"The Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the Law, ... but ... he extended and fulfilled them." (Against Heresies IV:13:1)

He says further on that the words of Jesus are the words of one "fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope" to the Law of Moses. What does that mean? Well, here is an illustration: The Law of Moses, as it was given to the Jews, was like a flat balloon; Jesus inflated, expanded, and afforded greater scope to it. Grasp the picture now? Since we apparently do not understand the context of Matthew 5:17, or we choose not to out of our own willful ignorance, we will let Irenaeus introduce us to it:

"... that he extended and fulfilled [the natural precepts of the Law] is shown from his words: "For ... it has been said to them of old time, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who has looked upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."" (Ibid)

Once we understand the context, it becomes extremely obvious what Jesus meant by "fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope" to the Law of Moses. Jesus made it clear that we are not only to avoid murder, but anger, hate, and insults as well; that we should not merely follow the rules concerning divorce, but we should not divorce at all; that we should not only fulfill our oaths, but we should follow through on our every word; that we should not only love our neighbours, but our enemies as well.

How many Jews and Christians do not run around saying, "I have never murdered anyone," as if that is some sort of grand accomplishment? Jesus unpacked that command and expanded upon it. How many Jews and Christians can say, "I have never been unrighteously angry toward anyone and have never hated anyone"? All of a sudden the intent of the command was just expanded tenfold in order to look at the heart and reveal the spiritual side of it.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

Righteousness will not come from the Law of Moses. "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21). The Law is "holy and righteous and good," but we cannot keep it (see Romans 7), so it will not produce the righteousness of God. So what will produce the righteousness of God? Faith in Christ Jesus! "For in [the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH"" (Rom. 1:17). This righteousness is the same righteousness that the Law of Moses was supposed to produce, but did not have the power to overcome our flesh: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3-4). Only Christ Jesus could overcome the sin in our flesh by giving Himself as an offering for sin.

The apostle Paul states that the righteousness of Christ Jesus will be brought about in us if we walk by the Spirit: "walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). There is a reason Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Jesus intended us to live out the things He spoke in Matthew 5. The Jews (for the most part) did not murder; Christians do not hate. The Jews (for the most part) avoided adultery; Christians avoid lust. How serious was Jesus about this? He said that if our righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees, we will "certainly not" (ου μη, a double negative strengthening the denial; not at all) enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul also stated that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom. 13:10). If I love my neighbour, I will not do anything against him that is prohibited. "Torah Observant Christians" really should pay more attention to what the New Testament says and reveals.

Let us address the Sabbath argument, shall we?

God ordained the day of rest not at Mt. Sinai with Moses and the people of Israel, but at creation. "[God] rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made" (Gen. 2:2-3). This does not mean that Yahweh was tired and needed a rest. While the later books of the "Law," or Instruction, certainly filled out the concept of the day of rest in terms of its specifics and how it was to be observed in Israel (i.e., the Sabbath), nevertheless the day of rest existed long before the "Ten Commandments" and other laws were given. This indicates that as long as creation is in effect, the day of rest is in effect.

In the covenant Yahweh made with Israel, He says, "You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations ... So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant" (Ex. 31:13, 16). The fact that the day of rest is an ordinance of creation is strong evidence that there is still a day of rest observation requirement for Christians—in fact, not only for Christians, but for all human beings in all times because the day of rest was part of Yahweh's design for humanity from the beginning.

In the New Testament, we see the Congregation of the Lord meeting together on the first day of the week, under the supervision of the apostles and according to the command of Jesus (see Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2). Why do Christians rest on the first day of the week as opposed to the seventh? Because it is on the first day of the week that Jesus rose from the dead. As the seventh day of the week before the resurrection commemorates Yahweh’s work of creation, the first day of the week after the resurrection commemorates Yahweh’s work of new creation (2 Cor. 5:7).

What did the apostle Paul write to the Colossians? "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink [dietary laws] or in respect to a festival [yearly Sabbath] or a new moon [monthly Sabbath] or a Sabbath day [weekly Sabbath]—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (2:16). In other words, the Body casting this shadow is that of King Jesus! What did the Lord Jesus say concerning the Sabbath? "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). In other words, man is not beholden to the Sabbath. The day of rest is for us.

The apostle Paul said, "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God" (Rom. 14:5-6). He also said, "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to healthy teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted" (1 Tim. 1:8-11).

While one day in seven should be set apart as rest from unnecessary commerce and labour, nevertheless certain kinds of work are unavoidable on Sunday. If you work in a hospital or are a police officer, you may have to work on a Sunday. Jesus clearly stated that "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:12). These people generally are not engaging in commerce for the sake of merchandising.

As you can see, the "Torah Observant Christian" (and the follower of the Hebrew Roots Movement) is delusional and has been brainwashed, conditioned, indoctrinated, and programmed to believe lies that have no basis in Scripture and to become a Judaizer. "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:3). Galatians is written against the Law of Moses as a means to righteousness; it is not written against the righteousness prescribed by the fulfilled, expanded Law brought by Christ. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" leads us to fulfill "the righteousness of the Law."