Thursday, November 30, 2023

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.

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

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.

Saturday, November 4, 2023

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!!!

Friday, November 3, 2023

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 wrongnot 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."