What is the True Canon of Scripture?

The Ethiopian Orthodox have an 81-book Bible—54 OT, 27 NT.
The Greek and Russian Orthodox have a 79-book Bible—52 OT, 27 NT.
The Roman Catholics have a 73-book Bible—46 OT, 27 NT.
The Protestants have a 66-book Bible—39 OT, 27 NT.

Their New Testaments are exactly identical. So who is correct regarding the Old Testament?

Alex Jurado of the YouTube channel @VoiceOfReason_ is absolutely 100% wrong when he claims, "The Catholic Church is the Church [Jesus] founded." If Alex bothered to read the writings of the Christians of the first 300 years, he would notice that much of Roman Catholic beliefs, practices, and traditions were condemned by them. The Catholic church did not exist until it evolved during the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. It then divided into two in the 11th century because of the further superstitions and idolatries that Rome kept adopting from pagan religions and trying to "Christianize."

Alex Jurado is also absolutely 100% wrong when he says, "How come your canon cannot be found anywhere in the first 1500 years? Because the 66 book canon of Scripture that Protestants use today is not found anywhere. ... In the early church there was almost no dispute over the Old Testament, which is what Catholics and Protestants dispute now. But in the early church there was a lot of dispute over the New Testament." Alex is historically ignorant and illiterate as well as Scripturally ignorant and illiterate. Let us look at the actual facts that expose Alex's ignorance of reality and truth.

Good Roman Catholic scholarship concedes to the truth:

"In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we not St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." —Catholic Encyclopedia

"An official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent." —Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 38.

The unequivocal and irrefutable fact is, the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture was not settled or established until the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent (now in northern Italy), while the Protestant canon of Scripture has been established for 2,000 years! Observe:

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

"Since you have often, in your seal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and has also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavoured to perform the task. ... I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras." —Mileto of Sardis, as presented by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13

"When expounding the first Psalm, he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: 'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.'" —Origen, as presented by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 6.25.1

"The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis...
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun....
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job....
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators." —Jerome, Prologue Galeatus

"And some of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for the confirming of the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.." —Jerome, Prologue to the Books of Solomon

Your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) like to try and claim that Jerome submitted to "the judgment of the churches." What does this mean and where does this come from? Well, let us take a look. Observe:

"It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Quila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because i was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book." —Jerome, Against Rufinus, 2.33

Jerome was referencing two different Greek translations of the book of Daniel. Both contained additions that were not in the original Hebrew. He is asking the question, 'Which version is the better of the two?' Since the churches preferred the Theodotion version, he submitted to their judgment on the matter. This has nothing to do with a Catholic versus Protestant canon of Scripture! Only an ignorant and illiterate fool would make such assertions. The Theodotion version had a greater fidelity to the Hebrew, which is why the title of Jerome's next section in this letter is titled, 'A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.'

"The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew." —Jerome, Against Rufinus, 2.34

"The churches of the Lord Saviour do not read the Prophet Daniel according to the Seventy interpreters, using (instead) the edition of Theodotion, and I don't know why this happened. For whether because the language is Chaldean and differs in certain properties from our speech, (or) the Seventy interpreters were not willing to keep the same lines in the translation, or the book was edited under their name by some unknown other who did not sufficiently know the Chaldean language, or not knowing anything else which was the cause, I can affirm this one thing, that it often differs from the truth and with proper judgment is repudiated." —Jerome, Prologue to Daniel

After the 4th century councils, here is a letter that demonstrates the Jerome never changed his opinion on the matter of canonical Scripture.

"Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy Scriptures; and in these let her think less of gilding, and Babylonian parchment, and arabesque patterns, than of correctness and accurate punctuation. Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the Gospels, never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch [the first 7 books of the Hebrew Bible], the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs, but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt." —Jerome, Letter 107.12

An earlier letter, which is not as comprehensive as this one, also lists books considered canon:

"Genesis, we shall be told, needs no explanation; its topics are too simple - the birth of the world, the origin of the human race, the division of the earth, the confusion of tongues, and the descent of the Hebrews into Egypt! Exodus, no doubt, is equally plain...." —Jerome, Letter 53.8

Again, your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) will attempt to claim that in his earlier life Jerome held to the apocrypha and then narrowed his view, but this is completely false. Nobody is attempting to argue that he had a narrower view and then later in life widened it to include the apocrypha.

"The available evidence indicates that Jerome consistently excluded the deuterocanonical books from the Christian canon of Scripture. There seems, then, to be no reason to think that Jerome ever adhered to an OT canon different from the one he endorsed in the Prol. Gal. Moreover, there are reasons to think that Jerome came to approve the narrower canon very early in his career. Jerome's theory regard the deuterocanonicals did not substantially develop. All of our evidence indicates that he always considered them outside the canon." —Edmon L. Gallagher, "The Old Testament 'Apocrypha' in Jerome's Canonical Theory," Journal of Early Christian Studies, 20.2, 214, 222, 233

Jerome was considered authoritative on this matter for 1,100 years until the Council of Trent. Thomas de Vio acknowledged that Jerome considered Judith, Tobit, the books of the Maccabees, the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, etc., to be outside the canonical books and among the apocrypha. This opinion was uncontested for 1,100 years. All the way up to the Council of Trent, and even beyond by good Catholic scholars, the apocryphal books were contested. They were never accepted as canonical books. Observe:

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament." —Rufinus, Exposition of the Creed 37

"But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not 'canonical but 'ecclesiastical' by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees." —Rufinus, Exposition of the Creed 38

"The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: that books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles makes ten, the words of the days of Esra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, ten Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome." —Hilary, Expositions of the Psalms 15

Yet again, your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) will reference where a so-called "church father" quotes from deuterocanonical books and refers to them as "Scripture," and then they will strut around as if they have won the argument. If these men were saying that these works were canonical Scripture by their quoting it, then why did they deliberately exclude them from their lists of canonical books? Jerome was very clear on this: "Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures..."

"Of (the divine Scripture) read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.
For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one books; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." —Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.35

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament." —Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, 4

"There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." —Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, 7

"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and Second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch..." —John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.12

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The first surviving list of canonical texts dates to approximately 170AD in what is now known as the “Muratorian Fragment”, a partial copy of an ancient text discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan in the 18th century. This document affirmed and acknowledged Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Jude, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation as reliable, apostolic Scripture. The author of the Muratorian Fragment was also careful to warn his readers about Paul’s alleged letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians, and a document known as the “Apocalypse of Peter” (identifying these as forgeries). Even this early in history, in regions spanning Europe and the Mediterranean, Christians already possessed and guarded the New Testament texts:

IN FRANCE: Irenaeus (185AD) Affirmed as Many as 24 New Testament Books
Irenaeus grew up in Smyrna while Polycarp (the disciple of the apostle John) was the Bishop there. Irenaeus eventually became the Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now called Lyons) and wrote an expansive volume called “Against Heresies” in 185AD. Throughout the many chapters of this text, he quoted the New Testament (over one thousand times) to make his case against a variety of heresies appearing on the scene. In quoting the New Testament documents, he referred to at least twenty-one of the books we presently possess in our Bible (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). But, in addition to this, scholars believe Irenaeus alluded to a number of additional texts, including Hebrews, James and perhaps even 2 Peter. Irenaeus is silent with regard to Philemon, 3 John and Jude, although this does not necessarily mean he was unaware of the books or rejected them as inspired. Irenaeus also referred to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of John, but no other 2nd Century book related to Jesus was recognized as authentic.

IN ITALY: Hippolytus (220AD) Affirmed as Many as 24 New Testament Books
Hippolytus was born in Rome and became a disciple of Irenaeus. He was a prolific writer, and one of his most important works was a text known as “Refutation of All Heresies”. Over the course of his many writings, Hippolytus acknowledged and affirmed most of the New Testament documents (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). It also appears, however, he was aware of 2 Peter and James, but he does not list them openly. In addition, Hippolytus quotes from Hebrews directly (and also the Shepherd of Hermas), but not as though they are Scripture.

IN EGYPT: Origen (225AD) Affirmed as Many as 27 New Testament Books
Origen of Alexandria was a brilliant Church leader who travelled broadly and was fully aware of the catalogue of differing views related to Jesus. He was also fully aware of the teachings within the Church from region to region. Perhaps for this reason, Origen’s use and affirmation of the eyewitness books and letters is significant. Even though late emerging texts were known to Origen, his many letters and writings fail to affirm heretical non-canonical works. Instead, Origen categorized the existing texts of the ancient world into three classes: the universally accepted eyewitness writings of the apostles, those books whose apostolic authorship was doubted, and those books clearly not the product of the original eyewitnesses. He acknowledged Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation as Scripture. He also acknowledged believers within the church had their doubts about Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (a version of the Gospel of Matthew). While Origen believed the books in this second group were also reliable Scripture, he recognized and tolerated other views.

IN PALESTINE: Eusebius (324AD) Affirmed 26 New Testament Books
Eusebius was the Bishop of Cæsarea. Like Origen, Eusebius acknowledged a list of trustworthy apostolic writings, and he also divided his list into three categories. Eusebius’ first group included the universally accepted eyewitness accounts and letters of the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation). His second group included contested books. He divided the contested texts into a superior and inferior group. The superior group included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Eusebius maintained that these books should be considered Scripture, but he conceded not everyone agreed on this issue. His second group of contested books included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter. All other ancient texts related to Jesus were placed in the third category which Eusebius considered fraudulent.

Writings like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas were passed among the congregations, and even quoted from, but they were never listed as canonical in any list.

CONCLUSION

A lot of ignorant and unlearned individuals will claim that Protestants "removed" books from the Bible. This extends all the way into the absurd, attempting to include things like the Gnostic writings (e.g., The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas). Neither the apocryphal books, the deuterocanonical books, nor the Gnostic books were ever considered as canonical Scripture. They have always been largely contested and repudiated by the majority.

Yes, the 66-book Bible may be new, but all 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture were affirmed to be canonical. Why do I say "the 66-book Bible may be new"? Have you not been paying attention? First and second Kings (now known as First and Second Samuel) were one book. Third and Fourth Kings (now known as First and Second Kings) were one book. First and Second Chronicles were one book. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book. Jeremiah and Lamentations were one book. Even Luke and Acts are believed to have been one book at one point. So if there were originally 22 books in the Hebrew Bible (corresponding to their alphabet), and 26 in the New Testament, that makes for a 48-book Bible.

Arguing over the number of books in the Bible only exposes the number of fools out there who are historically and Scripturally ignorant. If you are a Roman Catholic or some sort of Orthodox and you are arguing for a 73-to-81-book Bible, you are absolutely wrong because the apocryphal writings have always been contested and repudiated as canonical Scripture; you have no support for your canonicity of Scripture. If you are a Protestant and you are arguing for a 66-book Bible, you are also wrong. The only point at which you are correct is with regard to the titles of the separated books. But the reckoning of an actual number of books from the early Christians would result in a 48-book Bible. A 66-book Bible never existed until they split the original books because of their size. In Hebrew, First and Second Samuel used to fit on a single scroll. In translation, its size practically doubled. That is how we end up with First and Second Samuel.

If any believers are going to attempt to argue this subject matter, make sure you know what you are talking about by doing your homework. Do not rely on the ignorance of others and the ignorant claims they have made. There is far too much of that in the Lord's Congregation and in the world. Some so-called "expert" or "authority" says something and people automatically start regurgitating it as if it is the least bit true. Then you have millions of people believing something that is absolutely false. I could list off two dozen examples just off the top of my head, let alone all the others that exist.

None of the books claimed to be "removed" from the Bible were ever removed from the Bible because they had never occupied such a position. Such books have always been contested and repudiated throughout Christian history. These are the facts that Alex Jurado needs to come to terms with.

Is the Doctrine of Predestination Biblical?

Predestination is not a biblical doctrine!

Read that again.

That is right, you heard me correctly. Predestination is not a biblical doctrine. The Greek word occurs six (6) times in the New Covenant. But what is each of these passages teaching? Good question! Let us take a look, shall we.

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called, and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

In these two verses, Paul is talking about those believers (the Old Testament saints) whom God knew before and how they were predestined "to become conformed to the image of His Son." There is nothing about salvation in this passage! Take notice of the past tense Paul uses in verse 30. If he intended to speak about the future salvation of every believer, he would not have used the past tense. Again, he is speaking of the saints of old.

"He predestined us to adoption as sons through Christ Jesus to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will ... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." (Ephesians 1:5, 11)

In these two verses, Paul is describing 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"—that is, in Christ Jesus—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. "[Yahweh God] 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."

"Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him."" (1 Corinthians 2:6-9)

In this passage, Paul is speaking of the hidden wisdom of Yahweh God that has now been revealed.

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts 4:28)

In this verse, it is speaking of Yahweh God's purpose as to what would happen to His Son, Jesus.

In not one of these six verses does it teach about Yahweh God's pre-selection of certain individuals to be irresistibly transformed into believers! Again, predestination is not a biblical doctrine! These teachings of Calvinism were first taught by the Gnostics  and rejected by the early Christians of the first three centuries! Origen specifically refutes their heresy by quoting their use of verses from Romans 9 (the same verses that Calvinists use in the same way to defend their bankrupt theology) and then exposing the nonsensical lack of logic in such a belief. Augustine revived this heresy and John Calvin made it popular. But the wording of the New Testament everywhere is an open invitation to anyone and everyone who will confess Christ Jesus, rest in His finished work, and stop trying to finish their own.

What is Religion?

RE-LI-GION /rĭ-lĭj′ən/ (noun)
A return to bondage. The word religion is traced to the Latin re meaning “again” and ligare meaning “to bind.”

True freedom and joy in Christ Jesus has none of the trappings found in organized religious institutions with their weekly pagan-originating rituals! "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free . . . if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:32, 36). The Christian believer has been set free from the Law (Rom. 7:4), from sin (Rom. 6:11), and from condemnation (Rom. 8:1).

My Experience with Measles

If you watch this video, then you'll understand what I'm about to share with you:
https://rumble.com/v6pwpn8-del-dispels-misinformation-about-measles.html

On Thursday, February 27, my 4-year-old began having a mild fever. I administered R1 and some Tylenol for the next four days. Late Sunday evening on March 2, my 1.5-year-old started to have a fever. I administered the same. Early Monday morning on March 3, as I was administering their medicine, I noticed some small red spots on my 4-year-old son's neck. I went to some of my medical books and did a quick check. I came back and checked inside his mouth. Sure enough, he had the measles. I gave him 20,000iu of Vitamin A, some R62, and Apis to start with. By the end of the day, he had a full red rash on his entire torso with the dots creeping down parts of his leg, his arms, his neck and face. I lathered Nature's Aid on his skin, which helps with itching. It contains Aloe Vera, Tea Tree, Witch Hazel, Vitamin E, and Rosemary. I also switched from Apis to Belladonna. The next morning, March 4, my son's skin was remarkable better. However, my 1.5-year-old son now had the red spots. Since he can't swallow a Vitamin A capsule, I bought some Caster Oil with Vitamin A and D3 and gave it to him with the same stuff I gave my other son, lathering Nature's Aid on their bodies whenever they began to feel an itch. Again, the next day his skin was visibly better. They were extremely tired for three days, but I continued my regimen and kept a close eye on their fevers, which were beginning to wane. By Thursday, March 6, both children had bounced back completely and were their usual active selves.

On Thursday, March 6, South Western Public Health wanted a throat swab to see if they really had measles. They swabbed my 6-year-old daughter, too. They called back today, Monday, March 10, to inform us that all our children had measles. Even my daughter who had received her first "vaccine" dose at age 2 or 3. The nurse was perplexed as to how she could have measles and yet have absolutely no symptoms whatsoever. The answer to that is found in the above video. My daughter had all her shots up to age three and my oldest son had half of that when we decided to stop giving them shots. The CONvid SCAMdemic helped wake me up and start doing my own research and reading those scientific medical studies that doctors and nurses apparently fail to read. My youngest son hasn't received a single jab, not even the Vitamin K jabs they give in the hospital. He bounced back faster than his brother!

Since there is NO SUCH THING as a "measles virus," and measles is a natural developmental process of the body that helps children prime, develop, and mature a healthy, robust, adult immune system, what exactly are they injecting our children with? Whatever it is, it is shutting something in the body off so that it "reduces the symptoms." This is how the Disney World measles outbreak occurred several years ago. It was NOT because of the "unvaxxed," who stay home when they see symptoms; no, it was the cause of so-called "vaccinated" individuals who had the illness, did not show any symptoms, and spread it around willy-nilly. ALL "vaccines" do this!

We saw the same thing with the so-called CONvid SCAMdemic "vaccine," which they told us would "reduce the symptoms." In other words, it would make you asymptomatic so that you were unaware you were even sick and could spread it everywhere you went. We have multiple records of events where jabbed people ONLY were in attendance (like a cruise liner) and EVERYBODY got sick. It was the so-called "vaxxed" who were spreading it and putting everybody else at risk. After receiving the jabs, the problem became compounded as people either died or received any number of injuries listed on 8 PAGES of side effects!!! "Safe and effective"??!?!?? The "vaxxed" were, and still are, ticking time bombs! So-called "vaccines" don't actually protect you. They merely mask your symptoms. If you write in to any health agency around the world and request all data showing that a "virus" has been isolated for the various "vaccines," you will receive letters back telling you they could find no such information. Why? Because NO "viruses" have ever been isolated and purified. Not a single postulate has been met!

Measles is a serious illness (specifically because of the high fever and the potential for deafness in the right ear, pneumonia, and encephalitis), but there's nothing "dangerous" about it if you stay on top of it. Public Health today LIES to us, telling us that 1 in 10 children die from it. Funny, in the 50s and 60s, before any so-called "vaccine" was invented, it was like 1 in 500,000. How do we have better technology and medicine today, and supposedly have higher death counts? The episode of the Brady Bunch dealing with measles is pretty much how it looked in my house. If measles is so "dangerous," how was I able to deal with it better than any doctor could? How was I able to vanquish it in LESS THAN one week?!? All you brainless critics of natural homeopathic medicine who lack the ability to critically think for yourself and mindlessly worship the pseudo-medicine so-called doctors peddle you, please explain my results. You mindlessly support anything a so-called doctor tells you because you haven't brains enough to think things through yourself and do basic research.

When God created the world, He gave us EVERYTHING we need to look after our health and our bodies. EVERY culture used natural medicine until the early 1900s when Rockefeller sold his oil-based "medicine" to doctors and hospitals, which resulted in cancer. The roll out of the "vaccine" schedule resulted in even more cancer. The so-called "vaccine" for the rebranded flu, "Covid", resulted in an EXPLOSION of cancer! Cancer is the leading cause of death in children under 14 years old in the USA, and that age group also receives the most jabs; more than any other country. Chinese, Indians, and Native Americans have been using nature to heal for THOUSANDS of years, but we claim these medicines are "in the realm of fantasy"? No, your synthetic medicines with their multiple side effects are what's relegated to the realm of fantasy. You don't want to conduct studies on natural medicine because you're AFRAID of the results. You KNOW what you'll find, and that will cost these companies MILLIONS, no, BILLIONS, of dollars! Doctors have no interest in curing you because a patient cured is a customer lost. They need money to run their business. They poison you with "vaccines" and then poison you some more with their synthetic "medicine"!

The FACTS Regarding Measles

German biologist Stefan Lanka offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could prove the existence of the Measles virus. A young doctor named David Bardens decided to try and take up the challenge, providing six studies as “proof” that the virus did indeed exist. The studies, however, failed to meet the scientific evidence required in order to claim the prize. Bardens decided to take Lanka to court.

In the first court to hear the proceedings, the judge concluded that proof of the virus did indeed exist and awarded the prize to Bardens. However, the German Supreme Court, with its more stringent rules of evidence and the appointment of a science master to oversee the case, ruled that Bardens did not actually prove the existence of the virus. Decades of consensus-building processes created a model of a Measles virus that does not actually exist. Lanka did not have to pay the prize.

This ruling was important because it raised a dire question: What was actually injected into millions of people around the world over the past several decades? It certainly was not a Measles vaccine!

Several experiments have been done with Measles, trying to prove viral causation and contagion, but every single experiment failed. Here are just a few of them:

• In 1799, Dr. Green reported that he successfully infected three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles scabs, however there are no reliable records on this.[1]
• In 1809, Willan tried to infect three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles lesions from sick people. None of the children became sick.[1]
• In 1810, Waschel claimed to have experimentally infected an 18-year-old man with measles, however these claims were disputed by others at the time. The man became sick 22 days after inoculation and it is said the man actually contracted measles naturally and not from the inoculation.[1]
• In 1817, Themmen undertook five experiments where he exposed incisions on the arms of healthy children with the blood, tears and perspiration of infected children. None of the children contracted measles.
• In 1822, Dr. Frigori tried to infect 6 children with measles. Whilst the children developed mild non-specific symptoms, they did not develop measles. Not happy with his results, Frigori attempted to infect himself but without success.[1]
• In 1822, Dr. Negri tried to infect two children with measles, however he had the same negative results as Dr. Frigori.[1]
• In 1822, Speranza attempted to infect 4 children using similar methods, but without success.[1]
• In 1834, Albers tried to infect four children with measles, however none fell ill.[1]
• Between 1845–1851 Mayr is said to have successfully infected 6 children with measles, however it seems to be a modified form of the disease (in other words, not measles).[1]
• In 1890, Hugh Thompson tried to infect children with measles in two separate instances, however both attempts failed.[1]
• In 1905, Ludvig Hektoen reports that he was able to successfully infect two healthy people with the blood of infected measles patients.[1] It should be noted that the blood was mixed with other substances, such as ascites fluid before it was injected. This experiment is considered to be the best evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the measles virus causes disease.[2] There are few specific details about the signs and symptoms that these patients actually exhibited, so there is some doubt as to whether they really had measles.[3]
• In 1915, Charles Herman swabbed the nasal mucosa of 40 infants with cotton buds covered in the nasal secretions of infected measles patients. The majority of the infants had no reaction, 15 infants had a slight rise in body temperature and a “few” were said to develop some red spots on their skin. At 1 year of age, 4 of these infants had intimate contact with infected people. None of the infants became sick and this is said to be due to the infants having “immunity.”[4]
• In 1919, Sellards tried to inoculate 8 healthy men (with no previous exposure to measles) with the blood of measles patients, using the same methods as Hektoen. None of the men became sick.[3,5] A few weeks later, the volunteers were exposed to an infected measles case, yet none of them became sick. Nasal secretions were then taken from measles patients and syringed up in to the nasal passages of the healthy participants. None became sick.[3,5]
• Sellards also conducted another experiment to try and infect another 2 healthy human volunteers with measles by injecting them subcutaneously and intramuscularly with the blood of two infected patients. Neither man became sick.[3,5]
• In 1919, Alfred Hess makes a comment about Sellards results. He states “It is remarkable that Sellards was unable to produce this highly infectious disease by means of the blood or nasal secretions of infected individuals, not long ago I was confronted with a similar experience with chicken pox, thus we are confronted with two diseases, the two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world, which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man.”[6]
• In 1924, Harry Bauguess wrote a paper and stated “A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles.”[7]

Sources:
[1] Hektoen L. Experimental Measles. J Infect Dis. 1905;2(2):238–255. doi:10.1093/infdis/2.2.238
[2] Degkwitz R. The Etiology of Measles. J Infect Dis. 1927;41(4):304–316. doi:10.1093/infdis/41.4.304
[3] SELLARDS AW. A REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE ETIOLOGY OF MEASLES. Medicine (Baltimore). 1924;3(2):99–136. doi:10.1097/00005792–192403020–00001
[4] Herman C. Immunization against measles. Arch Pediat. 1915;32(503).
[5] Sellards A. Insusceptibility of man to inoculation with blood from measles patients. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1919;257.
[6] Hess AF. NEED OF FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE TRANSMISSIBILITY OF MEASLES AND VARICELLA. J Am Med Assoc. 1919;73(16):1232. doi:10.1001/jama.1919.0261042006002
[7] BAUGUESS H. MEASLES TRANSMITTED BY BLOOD TRANSFUSION. Am J Dis Child. 1924;27(3):256. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1924.019200900610

Measles exist, but it is not the result of an outside “virus” invading your body and trying to injure or kill you. Measles is a natural developmental process of the body that helps children prime, develop, and mature a healthy, robust, adult immune system. Consider it an upgrade.

A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be a result from an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or it could be the MMR vaccine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

Here are more historical facts concerning Measles:

In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organization after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. —Dr. H. Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, 1990

In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. —The People's Doctor Dr. Robert Mendelsohn

“Protection” via “vaccination” is an ugly superstition that must be discarded!

Cheap Grace?

Don't you just hate when preachers don't have a clue what in the world they are talking about? John MacArthur describes the message of absolute grace as "a no-strings-attached, open-ended package of amnesty, beneficence, indulgence, forbearance, charity, leniency, immunity, approval, tolerance, and self-awarded privilege divorced from any moral standards." He claims that "[Paul] was careful to state, however, that grace does not nullify the moral demands of God's law." Did the apostle Paul state such a thing? Not on your life!

MacArthur has failed to pay careful attention to the Scriptures. I understand that those who worship the ground MacArthur walks on will find issue with what I'm about to say because they have made an idol out of him. It's why they run to his defense even when he's 100% wrong. That is a cult with a cult mentality.

Which "law" is John MacArthur referring to here? The 613 commands of the Law of Moses? The Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses? Or the two greatest commands of the Law of Moses? These have no place in the life of the believer and cannot produce morality! In Romans 7, Paul describes one of the commandments from the Ten Commandments: coveting. He found that it only produced in him covetousness of every kind. In other words, the commandment caused him to covet more — not less! So when MacArthur speaks of "God's law," has has no clue what in the world he is talking about.

In 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul speaks of "letters engraved on stone," what is he talking about? The Ten Commandments. What does Paul say of the Ten Commandments? He calls them a "ministry of condemnation" and a "ministry of death." In Romans 7, what does the commandment against coveting belong to? The Ten Commandments. Did this "moral law" help Paul to stop coveting? No! It aroused in him all sorts of coveting!

The power of sin is what? The Law! (1 Cor. 15:56) What did the Law do? It increased the trespass (Rom. 5:20), aroused (not stifled!) sinful passions (Rom. 7:5), and afforded sin to seize an opportunity (Rom. 7:8). The Law could not impart life or righteousness (Gal. 3:21b), and it certainly cannot impart morality!

Did God find fault with the Law? Of course not! "The Law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12). God found fault with the people (Heb. 8:8a). The Law was so holy and perfect that the people could not attain it. So God provided another way (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12). God swore by Himself to accomplish all that man could not. He promised to provide the way. All of this was done in, by, and through Jesus.

With everything Paul has said about the Law, about the Ten Commandments, do we honestly believe that when God speaks of writing His laws upon our hearts and minds that He is speaking of any part of the Law of Moses? Do we honestly believe God wrote the 613 commandments of the Law on our hearts and minds? The Ten Commandments? The two greatest commandments? No! If you want to keep any part of the Law, you are obligated and required to keep all of it (Gal. 3:10; 5:3). If you break even one, you are guilty of breaking it all (Jam. 2:10). The whole Law, including the Ten Commandments, was fulfilled by Jesus and then set aside. It is obsolete (Heb. 8:13) because it was "weak and useless" (Heb. 7:18). How is MacArthur ignorant of this?

So what "laws" are written on the believer's heart and mind? In John 13:34, Jesus gives us a new commandment. The apostle John picks up this same idea in 1 John 3:23: "And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Christ Jesus, and to love one another as He commanded us." To believe and to love are the laws written on the Christian's heart. These are certainly not burdensome (1 John 5:3)! Love is the true fulfillment of the Law (Rom. 13:10) and covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8). The Spirit is inspiring us to bear the fruit (singular) of the Spirit because "against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:23).

Paul's letters point out the impossibility of the Law, or any rules and regulations, or "Christian" principles, being able to aid you in morality. By trying to follow any such things you will only be met with failure, grief, confusion, and more sin. what is the only thing that gives us victory over sin? God's grace. God has given us everything we need, up front and beforehand, in order to live upright and godly lives, and it has nothing to do with "God's law." Not only has He done everything in order to bring us into right standing with Himself, but He has also provided everything we need. Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant is not based on a "If you... then God..." proposition. All of Paul's letters start out informing us of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus, and then end by encouraging us to live a certain way because of Christ's finished work.

John MacArthur preaches a cheap grace. He preaches a false interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, which ignores and denies everything taught in the New Covenant Scriptures. He preaches a defeatist mentality, giving power to his words that believers are nothing but sinners with wicked hearts who can do nothing but sin. This is not the message of the New Covenant or the Gospel! Nowhere in the entire New Covenant Scriptures are believers called "sinners." The moment you believe in Jesus and place your trust in Him, God gives you a new heart. Is this new heart wicked? If so, does Jesus reside in filthy, wicked places? No! He cleans house and then moves in. Do believers do nothing but sin? That's not the message of the New Covenant Scriptures. Paul says we are dead to sin and encourages the saint not to yield their members as instruments of sin since it no longer masters us. We now have the power to say "No" to sin, stopping it in its tracks. The fact is, MacArthur doesn't know the Gospel. He preaches the atonement as "the Gospel," failing to understand that "atonement" is merely a covering, whereas Jesus took our sins away. Permanently! We are totally, completely, utterly forgiven and He does not remember our sins any more because they have been removed. He has made us spotless and blameless.

Stop believing ignorant preachers who preach contradictory messages. Such men are double-minded and unstable. They will tell you out one side of your mouth that you are completely forgiven, but then out the other side are telling you that you need to ask for forgiveness every time you sin. They will tell you that you died with Christ, but that you also have to die to yourself daily. These people don't know what they believe.

Cheap grace denies the very things the Scriptures say are true because of grace!

P.S.: If a preacher claims that the message of grace is negating God's justice and wrath, he is once against demonstrating his colossal ignorance of Scripture and truth. God's justice was accomplished at the cross and His wrath was assuaged for the believer. The Christian does not have to fear His justice and wrath. For us, God is a God of love and grace. It is the unbeliever that needs to worry about His justice and wrath. If the God of all grace sounds too good to be true, that is because you have been preached fear and legalism by ignorant preachers. God is first and foremost a God of love, because He loved the world so much that He sent His only Son in order to reconcile us to Himself. If we refuse to receive Him, then His anger and wrath still abide on us. But if we have believed, His anger and wrath have been assuaged and we are in right standing with Him. He loves us unconditionally and is always seeking our good. If your preacher tells you that God is punishing you in any way, shape, or form, he is saying that the punishment of Jesus was not enough and God has to exact more from you. This is a lie! This is a preacher who knows nothing of the Scriptures, the New Covenant, the Gospel, or grace. Run far and fast from such false teachers!

Is the Trinity Biblical?

Please do not assume I am asserting anything here; I am merely probing.

Scripture repeatedly says there is only one God. Jews, Muslims, atheists and others find the "trinity" confusing. Even Christians find it confusing. Maybe it sounds confusing because it is confusing. After all, "God is not the author of confusion."

Jesus says, "I and the Father are one. ...the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:30-38). Where is the Holy Spirit in that equation? Nothing is ever said about the Holy Spirit being in Them and They in the Holy Spirit. How does a Spirit (John 4:24) have a spirit? Romans 8:9 speaks of "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ." Philippians 1:19 speaks of "the Spirit of Christ Jesus." Which is it? The Father's spirit? The Son's spirit? Or a separate entity altogether? Are there 3 Spirits? What about where Scripture refers to the 7 Spirits of God (Is. 11:2; Rev. 1:4-5; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6)? Is God 1-in-10 and 10-in-1?

Just because something is "established," "long-standing," and/or "tradition" does not mean it is correct. Dogma can be wrong. Perhaps the "church" has failed to understand Scripture correctly and has imposed their faulty interpretation and understanding upon the Scriptures (like they often do). Maybe the "trinity" developed because it sounds like there are three people, but maybe there are actually only two: Father and Son. Maybe the Spirit is just some aspect of themselves. After all, how can the Holy Spirit be a third person, and yet be referred to as the Father's (ownership) spirit and/or the Son's (ownership) spirit?

I am not saying this is the case. The Trinity is probably the best explanation that man has come up with to explain Yahweh God, but it may also be wrong. We should be aware of and open to that. Whether someone believes in a dichotomy or a trichotomy, I can accept that. But if they reject Jesus as divine, when Scripture says "the fullness of deity" dwelled in Him (and other such statements), then they are engaging in heresy and I reject it.

Something to think about.

We should always have an open mind, willing to consider possible alternatives, but our minds should never be so open that our brains fall out. We need to rightly discern things. Remember, there are over 40,000 Christian denominations, groups, and sects. They cannot all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong. None of them hold a monopoly on the truth. Scripture should always be our ultimate authority, and any teachings from these 40,000 groups should be weighed against Scripture, discerning the difference between the Old and New Covenants, the Gospel, and grace. Regardless of how they were raised, what they were taught, or what they might presently believe, every professing Christian should be willing to change their beliefs in accordance with Scripture if they are found to be wrong, and to grow in maturity and their understanding. If you refuse to do so, you remain stagnant, ignorant and immature.

Where Should Our Eyes Be?

Theologians have a philosophy to justify the reason all pews face the pulpit! Can you believe that? (They have a philosophy for everything they do to us. The more unscriptural, the more profound the philosophy.) This particular philosophy is transparently erroneous, and, in general, is odorous. But you need to hear it. Theologians will state this indefensible idea with such spiritual profundity, it may very well intimidate you:

"We all face toward the Word of God to show our reverence for Scripture and our agreement with it."

All right, fellas, here is a philosophical reply to your philosophy about pews:

"If we all face toward the pulpit, we acknowledge that the clergy and the sermon are everything, that the clergy functions and we do not, and that the clergy tells us what to do, controls our worship, our fellowship and our very lives! We are only fringe accessories, spare parts of a meeting. We are an audience called in, making it possible for the clergy to perform!!
We should not all face forward. From a philosophical view—if your philosophy demands a philosophical response—then we should face one another. We are, after all, the Body of Christ. In so doing, we show our care and our love for one another and acknowledge the centrality of the Christ who dwells within us. We also function and participate in all meetings. Wen we do, we are fulfilling our role of functioning while facing each other, not the clergy. By facing one another we can function. In no other direction can we do this. While facing all the saints, we declare that the congregation belongs to God and to the redeemed, not to anyone else. Especially is the ownership of the congregation not the clergy's. Our central focus is not where it has been for 500 years, on the clergy. Our focus is Christ and one another; our eyes are on one another.
By looking at one another we demonstrate that any message we might hear is only part of congregation life. The clergy's sermon is not the all nor the center, nor is anything else we do. Only Christ is. And when we gather, our worship of Him is not under the absolute control of one man, or any ritual.
We face one another because we are all one body."

Pews do not allow for any functioning!

Ministers may not understand how this could be so monumentally important . . . but just look where the minister is sitting. Now he has one very spectacular view! The minister is in front, up on a raised platform, looking down. (Down on you.) What does he see? He sees a thousand well-scrubbed faces, and beautifully dressed bodies. But more! He sees 2,000 eyes glued on him. Sure! Why not pews!? All of them facing me! An actor would kill for a role like that!

The average minister will never concede to this revolution. He is too central to the production . . . all floodlights shine on him. And, generally speaking, he is bereft of all understanding of congregation life.

Now, let's step down off the platform, go into the audience (because that is what it is), and get a look at what you are seeing. Just exactly what are you seeing anyway? You sit in that pew for an our, with nothing to do but look at the back of someone's neck. That is all you see! For one hour! You sit. You are silent. You stare at the back of a head!! That is Christianity? This is why Christ died for you? When Scripture says, "Christ loved the ekklesia and died for her," is this what God had in mind as the ultimate for the redeemed!? Examining the back of someone's head, sitting through a boring ritual, listening to a lecture? Is this to be the consummation of your participation in the gathering of the Body of Christ?

Read 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. (You can continue from 12:27 through 13:13 for a fuller picture.) Does the apostle Paul's description of the Body of Christ reflect what you experience every Sunday in these godless, worthless, useless organized religious institutions called churches? NO! Your experience is limited to one tongue and many ears!! That is not the Body of Christ! That is not how a body—the Body—functions! When everyone gets to participate, when everyone gets to express the Lord Jesus, the whole Body is edified and built up, encouraged and strengthened. We need to get back to the organic meetings of the ekklesia as found in Scripture and the first three centuries!

Is His Burden Light?

“Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is comfortable, and My burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28-30)

When you read the teachings of Jesus throughout the synoptic gospels, does it sound like Jesus' yoke is comfortable and His burden light? Not in the least! Why is that? Well, for starters, Jesus was “born under the Law to redeem those under the Law” (Gal. 4:4-5). His teachings were difficult precisely due to the fact that He was increasing the weight of the Law upon the people in order to demonstrate the impossibility of being able to keep it perfectly so that they would become distressed and look for something better: grace. The "Sermon on the Mount," as it has come to be known as, is basically Moses 2.0 on steroids. No one survives it, and that is the point.

In speaking of a New Covenant, Yahweh God said, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts" (Hebrews 8:10b). Laws, plural; not Law, singular. This is not the 613 commands of the Law; this is not the “moral” Ten Commandments (of which only the last 6 have anything to do with morality, while ignoring commands against incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.), and this is not the two greatest commandments of the Law (as identified by Jesus). In John 13:34, Jesus gave us a new commandment (which was actually against the Law to do). The apostle John picks up this same idea in 1 John 3:23: “And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Christ Jesus, and to love one another as He commanded us." To believe and to love are the laws written on the Christian’s heart. Love is the true fulfillment of the Law (Rom. 13:10) because love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8). Love is the Royal Law of the New Covenant in the Kingdom of God. The indwelling Holy Spirit is inspiring us to bear the fruit (singular) of the Spirit because "against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:23).

Truly, “His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Therefore, Jesus' yoke is comfortable and His burden is light. He will give us rest if we rest in His finished work and stop trying to finish our own.

You Are Clean, But Not All of You

"You are clean, but not all of you." (John 13:10)

How is it that there are Christian believers who can read this passage, not have a clue what it is talking about, and then falsely teach that "we need a daily foot-washing like Jesus did for Peter because 'we are clean, but not all of us'"? How can these false teachers claim that we need daily foot-washings in order to be forgiven and cleansed?

You would have to be completely illiterate to read this passage and not understand the context, what is being said, and who is being talked about.

First of all, this passage is about Jesus displaying an extreme example of servitude. The epistles talk about how we ought to be serving one another, put one another ahead of ourselves, and looking out for one another.

Verse 11 tells you exactly who Jesus is talking about when He says "but not all of you." He was talking about Judas. Christian "leaders" who mangle and twist verses like this need to be forced to step down. Is no one in their congregation wise and discerning? Do none of them hold ignorant clowns like this accountable for what is being said and taught? It is no wonder so many believers are so confused and delusional with their various man-made theologies.

There is a reason why Scripture says that not many should be teachers—because you do not have a clue what in the world you are talking about!

So many people worship the ground John MacArthur walks on, and are ignorant to the plethora of false teachings that he teaches. Many of his teachings are self-contradictory, while others contradict other teachings he has done. His own beliefs contradict each other. How can you live being a double-minded man? I could write an entire series of blog articles on the various false teachings that MacArthur and his lackey, Phil Johnson, espouse. But that would be pointless. My only goal (unless it is absolutely necessary) is to expose Scripture to people and let them see with their own eyes what it has to say. Verse-by-verse exposition does not take into account the big picture. Quite often, you will see preachers who use this method contradicting themselves when they come to a similar or parallel passage found in the synoptic gospels or other parts of Scripture.

If your church "leaders" are giving you false information concerning this passage in John, I suggest you run, and run quickly before they get their barbs in you and you start believing their theological lies.

You Are Not Under Law

When Christians talk about not being under the Law, do we truly understand precisely what that means?

Have you ever bothered to pay attention when you are reading Romans 7? Romans 7 is all about Paul's encounter with the Law—before he was a Christian. If you pay attention to the context of verses 7 through 12, then verses 15 and 19 make complete sense. When you attempt to live by the Law, you can expect more sinning—not less.

"The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." (Romans 5:20)

Did you catch that? The Law demands human effort to spring into action, and the inevitable result is failure. If you put yourself under the Law, or any set of rules, you will fail every single time. That is because being under the Law arouses (not stifles) sinful passions.

"For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death." (Romans 7:5)

Yes, you read that correctly: Sinful passions are aroused by the Law. When you are invited to a life of Law, you are invited to a life of sin. As I said earlier, if you attempt to live by the Law you can expect more sinning, not less.

"But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead." (Romans 7:8)

I hope you caught that. Sin seizes an opportunity through the commandment. The Law affords sin an opportunity to thrive. If you place yourself under the Law, then sin will master you every time.

"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." (1 Corinthians 15:56)

I hope you were paying attention. The power of sin is increased under the Law. Sin is excited under the Law. The Law breeds defeat if you are honest, and hypocrisy if you are not.

In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul refers to the Ten Commandments as a "ministry of condemnation" and a "ministry of death." It could never make anyone perfect or righteous because it was "weak" and "useless" (Hebrews 7:18-19).

"For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." (Galatians 3:21b)

Torah observance is anti-Christ! If you are flirting with Moses, then you are cheating on Jesus. You cannot attempt to date the Law. We broke up!

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." (Romans 7:4)

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6)

Did you catch that? We have been released from the Law! Any groups that attempt to keep any part of the Law are delusional and ignorant of Scripture, especially the New Covenant and the Gospel. Tweaking the Law to make it manageable does not work. If you break even one, you are guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10). That is why Jesus freed us from it.

For the Reformed believers who parrot the Ten Commandments every Sunday, you would do well to read Galatians.

"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." (Galatians 5:3)

The Law is not divided into three parts. Man has attempted to do this, but to Yahweh God the entire Law is one complete whole. Those who refer to the Ten Commandments as the "moral law" are ignorant of Scripture. Only the last six are moral. Commands against incest, homosexuality, and bestiality are also moral. In arguing for the Ten Commandments, these people actually only mean Nine, since they ignore and disobey the 4th commandment, which means no late-night e-mails on Friday and no Saturday yard work. In their ignorance, these people attempt to argue for Sunday as the "Christian Sabbath." There is no such thing! If you want to attempt to keep the Ten Commandments, you are obligated to keep the entire thing! There is no cherry picking.

If the Reformed believers bother to pay attention, according to 2 Corinthians 3 and Romans 7, we can conclude the following:

1. The Ten Commandments showed Paul what sin was.
2. Sin seizes an opportunity through the Ten Commandments.
3. Apart from the Ten Commandments, sin is dead.

We are not to live under the Ten Commandments. The Law, any part of it, has no place in the Christian's life! If we choose to live by the Ten Commandments, then we choose to experience the "ministry of death" and the "ministry of condemnation" as sin seizes an opportunity within us. Romans 7:9-11 is the true effect of the Ten Commandments in a person's life. Only apart from the Ten Commandments can we live free from sin.

Would a police officer ever write a speeding ticket for a dead man? Of course not! The man has died to the law and is no longer under its jurisdiction. The same is true of Christians. When Jesus was crucified, we were crucified with Him. We have died to the Law. The Law has no jurisdiction over us (Romans 7:1, 4). The Law has no place in the Christian's life! The Bible informs us that Jesus is the end of the Law for the believer.

When the New Covenant Scriptures tell us that we are not under the Law, it means we are NOT under the Law! You cannot put new wine into old wine skins. You cannot marry parts of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The New Covenant is radically new, and the Old Covenant has been made completely obsolete.

Here is your relationship to the Law, Christian:

• You are dead to the Law (Romans 7:4, 5; Galatians 2:19).
• You are not under the Law (Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:18).
• You are free from the Law (Romans 7:2, 4).
• You are not supervised by the Law (Galatians 3:25).
• The requirements of the Law have been fully met in you (Romans 8:3-4).
• The Law is set aside (Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 7:18).
• Jesus is the end of the Law for you who believe (Romans 10:4).
• You do not serve in the old way of the law (Romans 7:6).
• You serve in the newness and freedom of the Spirit (Romans 7:6; Galatians 5:13).

There are many ignorant people out there who think that if you preach the fullness of the grace of God, it will lead to more sinning. They think that by preaching the grace of God you are giving people a license to sin. They have not been paying attention. They are projecting what is in their own hearts upon other people while feigning that they are concerned about "other" believers and what they will do. I have just shown you that by attempting to keep the Law or any part of the Law, or any rules or principles in general, you will meet with nothing but failure, guilt, and more sinning. Every. Single. Time. Grace, on the other hand, leads to less sinning. People need more grace of the Lord in their lives, not less.

Do you want to see what following any list of dos and don'ts amounts to?

"Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." (Colossians 2:20-23)

Rules will not keep you on the right road with God. If you think otherwise, I suggest you return to the top of this article are re-read the verses shared. The reason you believe the way you do is because you were taught poorly by individuals ignorant of the Scriptures, the New Covenant, and the Gospel. The Law is not based on faith (Galatians 3:12). What does God's Word say in Habakkuk 2:4, Galatians 3:11, Romans 1:17, and Hebrews 10:38? "The righteous shall live BY FAITH!"

"I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts." (Hebrews 8:10b)

What does this mean? Take notice of the plurality: laws, not Law. This is not the 613 commands of the Law; this is not the Ten Commandments; and this is not the two greatest commandments of the Law! So what is this? In John 13:34, Jesus gives us a new commandment (which was against the Law to do). The apostle John picks up this same idea in 1 John 3:23: "And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Christ Jesus, and to love one another as He commanded us." To believe and to love are the laws written on the Christian's heart. Love is the true fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10) and love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). The Spirit is inspiring us to bear the fruit (singular) of the Spirit because "against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:23).

When the Bible says that we are not under the Law, it literally means that we are NOT under the Law! So stop trying to live as if you are. Live free. Learn your true identity in Christ Jesus and rest in His finished work.

The New Covenant

It is a fearful thing to enter the presence of Yahweh God. No one is good enough, and no one has that right. If even an animal sets foot on that mountain when Yahweh is there, run it through with a spear—it has no right to be so close. When the Ark of the Covenant was returned to Israel, some of the men of Beth Shemesh just had to look inside, so Yahweh killed them and struck the people with a plague. The lesson was clear: "Who can stand in the presence of Yahweh, this holy God?" (1 Sam. 6:20). No man has that right. Uzzah failed to learn from history and put out his hand to steady the ark as it was being transported to Jerusalem. When he touched it, he died. He had no right to come so close. Even Levite priests had no right—they too must stay back. Of that priestly clan, only those of the family of Aaron could go beyond the curtain, only the high priest. But even he could dare approach only once a year, and that only after careful preparations were made and prescriptions followed. If he violated those prescriptions he would be struck dead. No man has the right to enter beyond the veil into the presence of Yahweh.

Now do we understand exactly what it was that Jesus accomplished for us? Jesus accomplished everything so that we can come into the presence of Yahweh God.

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:19-22

Under the Old Covenant, your conscience was never free of your sin. Because you had to offer sacrifices for your sins every year, you were always reminded of them. They were never forgiven, only covered, like putting a bandaid on. Your sin always loomed over your head. When God talked about the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12), He said that it would be "not like the covenant which I made with their fathers," which is the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant is radically new. He said "I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." Where was your sin dealt with? At the cross. When Jesus was crucified, all your sins were future. The idea that you could have future sins that have not been forgiven is nonsensical. When you come to Christ Jesus in faith, all your sins are forgiven and forgotten. Forever! Because Jesus lives, His sacrifice is an eternal one and therefore your sins can be completely forgiven for all time.

Jesus was "born under the Law to redeem those under the Law" (Gal. 4:4-5). He lived under the Old Covenant. He had a two-fold ministry. First, much of what He said, His difficult teachings, was intended to increase the weight of the Law upon the people to demonstrate the impossibility of keeping it so that they would become distressed and look for something better. Second, He was preparing the way for grace. Under the New Covenant, God, through Jesus, accomplishes everything on our behalf and in our place. This is why Jesus said, "It is finished!" He accomplished everything. There is nothing left for us to do except to say, "Thank you!"

Now do we understand the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? Now do we understand the biblical Gospel? Now do we understand grace? More grace will not lead to more sinning. In fact, it leads to the opposite in those who have been truly touched by the grace of God and who correctly understand it.

The Believer's Heart

Here is why it is so completely important that a preacher actually understands the Bible and conveys it properly.

Your heart is not "wicked," Christian! As a reminder, when the Bible speaks of your "heart," it actually means your mind. The heart organ is only capable of pumping blood throughout your body; everything else we attribute to the "heart" are actually properties of the mind. Yes, Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful," but that is before Yahweh God's transformation in your life. The genuine Christian believer, upon placing their trust in the person and work of Jesus, has been given a new nature, a new heart, a new spirit, and new desires. Because of this, the believer's heart is righteous and obedient (Ezek. 36:26-27; Rom. 6:17).

Yahweh does not live in dirty places. He cleaned house and moved in. Your heart is not a "fixer-upper"; it is a pristine palace where Jesus resides (Eph. 3:17). Why do you mistrust the very place He chose as His dwelling?

The goal of our instruction is to "love from a pure heart" (1 Tim. 1:5). That is not wishful thinking, it is your reality. Yahweh gave you a heart that is pure—now live from it, whether in marriage, work, or life itself! Living from the heart is not some sentimental fluff. Stop overthinking, over-analyzing, and second-guessing. Trust the new desires Yahweh gave you (2 Pet. 1:3-4).

Sin is not the heart language of the Christian believer. Those rogue thoughts you experience? That is sin operating in you (Rom. 7:17). That is not personal sin, that is the entity of sin that God warned Cain about (Gen. 4:7). You will still be tempted by such thoughts, but you have the power to say "No!" to them (Rom. 6) because you have died  to sin. James describes what takes place when we give in to those temptations (James 1:13-15). Your new heart that Yahweh gave you is fluent in righteousness and eager to say "Yes!" to Yahweh.

Christians do not need "behaviour management" as if we are training some wild, savage beast. We have new hearts infused with Yahweh God's Spirit. The goal is not merely to "sin less," but to know Him and live from the heart He gave you! You are not "faking it 'til you make it"; you have already made it. You have been "made complete in Him" (Col. 2:10) and have been "perfected for all time" (Heb. 10:14). Yahweh ripped out your old heart of stone and replaced it with a new heart of flesh that is alive and fully His. The idea that you can "lose" or forfeit your salvation is nonsensical when you actually understand the New Covenant, the Gospel, and Yahweh's grace. When Yahweh spiritually transforms you and changes all these things (regenerating you, making you spiritually alive, giving you a new heart, etc.), unless you are somehow more powerful than God Himself, you cannot change any of that back to its former ways. It would be like a diamond trying to change itself back into a piece of coal.

"The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19), so Christians need to stop placing themselves as Judge over others (especially those of differing denominations). Yahweh knows people's hearts. We do not. There are people around you who regularly attend service, read the Bible, pray, speak Christianese, etc., who will not make it into the Kingdom of God, and there are those who have seemingly left the faith (Do you know their struggles?) who we will see in the Kingdom of God because Yahweh "began a good work" in them and He is faithful "to bring it to completion" (Phil. 1:6), even if that is on our death bed. Maybe some of these believers encountered issues with the theology they were lead to believe and they mistakenly attributed that aberrant theology to Yahweh, and because they had no good Christians in their lives to help them with such things and get them back on track, the way Scripture tells us to (Gal. 6:1), it appears "they were never saved to begin with." It could very well be true, but we are not God. They may have fled from God, but if He began a work in them, He still has hold of them and will complete that work. Bank on it!

Stop striving and start living—from your new heart, where Jesus lives!

Origen Refutes Calvinism

So you believe that Calvinism is "biblical" and interprets the Bible "correctly"? Read Origen's apologetic against the Gnostics of his day and take note of the verses they used and what they taught. Notice the parallel with Calvinism. Origen refutes their interpretation and obliterates their beliefs.

"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."

Calvinists use these exact same verses from Romans 9 to teach the exact same teachings the Gnostics believed. The early Congregation of the Lord condemned these beliefs as heresy and Origen refuted them beautifully. If you have been taught to believe Calvinism is "biblical," then reading Origen's apologetic should give you pause to reconsider your beliefs. If you are not willing to confront your own errors and correct them, then you are part of a cult and have a cult mindset.