Pelagianism

What is pelagianism, is it a heresy, is it something we should hold to? And what does this view lead to? Is there anything in the bible to back this view?

                Well to start it is a view that is to go agents the view of total depravity (original sin), what is this view? Well the view in short says that all mankind fell with Adam, “1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”  So, we see in1 Corinthians, that all died in Adam and so I have said that all does not men all all the time, but in fact here it does. So this brings sin to all that are born, and so with that bring the case then what is sin? Well I would point you to my post on sin   http://reformedcm.blogspot.com/2010/10/sin-what-is-it-that-sin-does-and-were.html

so then what is, the teaching of pelagianism then? Well

(Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.

The history of this teaching is as follows, Pelagius was opposed by Saint Augustine, one of the most influential early Church Fathers. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Saint Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The Pelagians charged Augustine on the grounds that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism: the Manichaeans taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and they denied that Jesus came in the flesh) – and this charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine himself had been a Manichaean layman before his conversion to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse.[1] Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis[2] and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage.[3] These condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The strict moral teachings of the Pelagians were influential in southern Italy and Sicily, where they were openly preached until the death of Julian of Eclanum in 455.[4] The man that was behind the teaching is this man Little or nothing is known about the life of Pelagius. Although he is frequently referred to as a British monk, it is by no means certain what his origins were. Augustine says that he lived in Rome "for a very long time" and referred to him as "Brito" to distinguish him from a different man called Pelagius of Tarentum. Bede refers to him as "Pelagius Bretto".[5] St. Jerome suggests he was of Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland. He was certainly well known in the Roman province, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life, as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. Until his more radical ideas saw daylight, even such pillars of the Church as Augustine referred to him as “saintly.” Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, through sacrifice and through instruction of the will. Jerome emerged as one of the chief critics of Pelagianism, because, according to him, sin was a part of human nature and we couldn't help but to sin.) <from wiki>   

What are his views well wiki gives us this for his views, Pelagius's views

In contrast, Pelagius taught:

Pelagius said, “Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never end upon the path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and compassion…any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice.”[16]

Pelagius said, "It was because God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the possibility of choosing either alternative...he could do either quite naturally and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself."[17]

Pelagius said, "Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead."[18]

Pelagius said, "And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature."[19]

Pelagius said, "Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either."[19]

Pelagius said, "Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing."[20]

Pelagius said, "Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer."[21]

Pelagius said, "Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body."[22]

An unknown Pelagian, "Is it possible then for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live unrighteous. Who will find it easy now to fulfil the demands of righteousness, when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?"[23]

An unknown Pelagian, "When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather than disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all."[24]

An unknown Pelagian, "Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning...Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible, and the man who does not try to be without sin must perforce sin all the time, and all the more boldly because he enjoys the false security of believing that it is impossible for him not to sin...But if he were to hear that he is able not to sin, then he would have exerted himself to fulfil what he now knows to be possible when he is striving to fulfil it, to achieve his purpose for the most part, even if not entirely."[25]

An unknown Pelagian, "Consider first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down to nature but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault… how can it be proper to call sin by that name if, like other natural things, it cannot be avoided, since all sin is to be attributed to the free choice of the will, not to the defects of nature?"[ 

The most known plagain we have now is a man by the name of Jessie Morrell. He is a plagin that is trying to not only say that the bible truth of Calvinism is false but that anyone that is holding to the doctrine of total depravity is a heretic and thus they are not saved. This comes in to problems with the bible and what it teaches, so we know that the bible teaches that we are all sinners and that no one is without sin but Christ himself and that is because he is God.  We see in the word that we are with sin.

“1Jn 1:7-9  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (Bold and italicized added) we see that in the parts that are highlighted that if we say we have no sin the we are ling to ourselves. So we need to look at what this heresy tells us and what the bible does. I want to in a way talk about one of the biggest  heretics in this heresy in the states and that was Charles finny. But I think that word would do any good so I will give a link to a YouTube video about him.  

I want to say that we all have sin and that we all sin. The reason that we don’t at times is because we have grace that keeps us from this.  

May the lord bless this to you and also help you get a better understanding of his word.

Soli Deo Gloria           

charles finny link  

Antinomianism

Antinomianism, what is it, were did it come from, and is it in the bible?  Well what is it, Antinomianism is the basically agents law this definition and brief history comes from wiki.

            (“Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law") is a belief or tendency in most religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves.[1] The term originated in the context of a minority Protestant view that since faith itself alone is sufficient to attain salvation, adherence to religious law is not necessary,[2] and religious laws themselves are set aside or "abrogated" as inessential. While the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ, it is taken to an extreme. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness. An antinomian theology does not necessarily imply the embrace of ethical permissiveness; rather it usually implies emphasis on the inner working of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of ethical guidance.[3]

While there is wide agreement within Christianity that "antinomianism" is heresy, what constitutes antinomianism is often in disagreement. The term "antinomian" emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.[3] For example, Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone, but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539). Few groups or sects, outside of Christian anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves "antinomian".

While the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine, and has its roots in debates over the Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline Epistles and the issue of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and the Biblical Greek terms anomia and anomos which are generally translated lawlessness and lawless respectively, it can be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition.[4]”)  

Were does it all come from? Well the breanen publishers have put this out about it

            (“Interesting enough, the Church is being plagued today with Antinomianism more than ever.  In fact, it has almost "leavened the whole lump".  This is not the first time that it's crept into the hearts of God's people unawares.  Historically, in Jeremiah's day when Israel was deeply backslidden and God's prophets were crying out against their wickedness, Antinomianism was the root cause.  It was also one of the first signs of decay to hit the early Church.  As the Bible teaches, the early Church fathers were well acquainted with what it was, and like Paul, found themselves in an ever present battle against its deadly effects.

By the 1700's, Antinomianism had established itself so deeply in most of the colleges that produced pastors, that almost anyone simply professing faith in God was considered a Christian.  This condition having spread to this country as well, found heart-motivated morality in the Church almost non-existent.  After much sincere prayer and true repentance, a real 'Revival' did come from God during that time through men such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and others.  This revival reversed the course of Antinomianism but for a short while.  By the start of the 19th. century, Antinomianism had made a strong comeback.  Charles Finney and other Godly persons, who lived during that time, again found themselves facing it's damning effects.  Although Finney and others succeeded in stamping out numerous strongholds, it didn't take long for it to make a comeback in this century.

This century has seen a huge rise of those who promise many 'would be Christians' liberty, while "they themselves are the servants of corruption" (2 Peter 2:19).  Never before have there been so many who profess Christianity with their mouth, but live like and love the world.  Why?  Because Antinomianism has been the accepted gospel almost universally since the 50's.”)

There was a theology or lack thereof, named Charles Finney he was a big part of this movement in the us, he was part of the second grate awaking, he was every aviated in saying that man was not born a sinner but in fact he was born without sin and with a will that was like the will of God in that it did not know worn. But in fact we see that this was not so, the roman church (rcc) picked this doctrine up and it is known as Pelagianism and this is the teaching that man is not born a sinner. Wiki says this about it.

            (“Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.”) 

What is it that we then need to hold to for the doctrine of sin? Well I would pray and also say that the right and most sound is the doctrine of total depravity. But what is this doctrine? We have not heared much about it in the modern day of the Christian church. But it is one of the key doctrines that lead the Christian in his faith, luther called it more or less in his book the bondage of the will, that are will is in bondage to sin. But the refmored faith has defined it to a exact point on what it is.  John piper and monergism.com say it as this,

            (“When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man. There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God. Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace. The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity. Man's depravity is total in at least four senses. (1) Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God. Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18). But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23). The totality of our rebellion is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes." It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God. Some do come to the light. But listen to what John 3:20-21 says about them. "Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God. “Yes there are those who come to the light -- namely those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked by God. Apart from this gracious work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come to him lest their evil be exposed -- this is total rebellion. "No one seeks for God...There is no fear of God before their eyes!" (2) In his total rebellion everything man does is sin. In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil. Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful. In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good. NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good. For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture. However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God (3) Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total. Picking up on the term "flesh" above (man apart from the grace of God) we find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion. Romans 8:7-8 says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." The "mind of the flesh" is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God ("You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you," Romans 8:9). So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself. Ephesians 2:1 says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins." The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God (Ephesians 4:18; Ezekiel 36:26). Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). We were totally unable to reform ourselves. (4) Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment. Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God. The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God. In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the next four points.”)  

So where these have to do with all this well this does is just a very true and biblical statement, that any Christian must make, that is not in any wrong teaching or heresy. But with that it is in the exact opposition of the Finney. And I would say that with Finney’s view it is wrong and in a big heresy. But how does Finney’s view tie in, well it does, when you say that you are born without sin then, how does the law in fact have any place in your life? The law is used to show a sinner that he is just that a sinner and hates God. But if we as Finney say are born without sin then we in fact are not born hating God but we are born without law.  So if we are to be without sin in the birth of are life then there is no way anyone can sin without the law of God in their life from the start and in this we get to the heresy of Antinomianism, but is this true at all no in fact it is ageist what we has the Christian faith teach. Anyone who does not agree with this that we are born a sinner, is in fact not saved. That might seem a bite harus but, what does it say in john?

(“1Jn 1:7-10  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”) 

So if we say we are born with sin we are deceiving are self. So in all this we see that if we don’t need the law then we say we are without sin and if we are without sin then we are ling to be self and in fact we would be a heretic!  

I hope that this shows you that if you think we are without sin then we must have are eyes opened to the truth.

Soli deo Gloria 

can a christian drink?

Was the wine that was talked about in the bible really wine or just a form of grape juice? Within all this we have some groups within the Christian faith that say that it was not wine but in fact juice, but could this be so with the facts that we have in the bible from old to New Testament.  The place I want to start with this is there any history in the bible that we see that there was use of a fermented grape drink? Do we see this at all in the bible? Well we must go to the New Testament to get a good look at this, note that the verse I am going to use is more or less not used for this type of Prof Texting if you will, but I want to use it as a history prof, and not a doctrinal one.

(“Mat 9:14-19 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.")

Now what is this showing us? Well if we know anything about the making of wine, then we would know that we need to the sinks for the wine to be new and ones that would let the wine as the gas from the grapes fermenting to expanded, but with the old sinks they would have no room to do this, and would just brake them and the wine would then be no good.  But what does this have to do with the bible talking about wine; does this mean anything for the debate of wine or juice? Well to a point it plays a small part in it, from the point of history it shows that we have win in the bible, but does it mean that Christ and his disciples take part in the wine that was being used then in that time?  Do we see at all were, there could be wine used in the new or old testament.

                We have seen that Noah got drunk on his own grapes, in the book of  Genesis, we see this in

                (“Gen 9:20-21  Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard.  He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.”)  

So in the old testament, we see that noah was getting drunk, but does that mean the wine in its self was a sin? Well, if this act was a sin the wine with in its own, I don’t think that Christ(God) would have

(“Joh 2:1-11  On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast." So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom  and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.”)

If this at the time was a sin would he in fact have turned this in to wine? Is this the thing that if it was a sin that God would not have done in the wedding?  This is not something that we see in the scripture; we do not see the Christ doing this in the bible at all but in fact he is coming to do the will of the father and the father is one that does not change. The God that we as Christian follow is one that does not change, so we can’t say that he would be agents’  drinking, because he himself had wine,  we see that he did this in the lords super

                (“1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.")

Now, we see that Christ is telling his follows to drink of the cup (wine) so he is not ageist the drinking but the drunkards’ as we see in proverbs

                (“Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.”)

So does this mean we can’t drink? Well let’s see are there verse to say to drink of the wine? Well in 1 timothy says this

                (“1Ti 5:23  (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)”)

So we see that we can drink of the wine but we can’t get wasted on it, but yet does this give use any room for those who are easy to get drunk, by the wine, what do we do in this do we drink in front of them?

                (“Rom 14:21  It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”)

So we shall not be drinking in the face of one who is to be easy to drink too much.  

So with all this I could go more in to this but I think that at this time we have a good view of what the word of God has told us about drinking, that it is not a sin to drink but to get drunk.

May God bless this work to you and to all who read it

Soli deo Gloria! 

the reformed view on Ezekiel 33:11

Eze 33:11 (We put are focused on verse 33:11 “Eze 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Eze 33:11) now this verse has a lot in it, let’s start by finding out with scripture who is the house of Israel, is the house a place on the earth or is it the people that make up the house? We need to look at the covenant that God made with the people of Israel, but wait there are a lot of them, so we need to go to the first one that was made with Adam.
What is a covenant? What does the word mean, why did God make them? How do we know that it is that God is saying about the covenant, and the meaning behind the covenant? A covenant is a deal or promise made by God for the elect of God. the word covenant comes from the root word is _berith_is always thus translated._Berith_ is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant. Now what is it that is being said in this, are all the covenants made with the people of God, are getting “Cut into two parts” but it is just this, a covenant made by God, for his elect, is just that a cut from the non-elect, we see this all over were God says I will do this for you and the others will not get it. So we see many convents that God has made, in the scripture, we have one as early as Adam, and as late as with the cross, but I want to go to the very first covalent made by God, and this is the one with none other than Adam, but many are asking where did God make a covalent with Adam, is there one he made with Adam?
Well yes there is and I will bring you to the expect place in where it is made I will show you the covalent and what happened when Adam broke this covalent made by God to him and eve, but first we must know that the covenant that was made was not one that is like the rest, this covenant is one that is very impotent for us to understand, and that is because if we don’t get this one, then it will head hard to get all the other ones that are to come, in the Scripture. So where does the covenant with Adam start? Well in genesis 3 we see the covenant, and it starts with this. “Now the serpent was craftier than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. Genesis 3:1-3 ESV” do what do we see here, we see that the serpent (nechushtan (נחש )), is the one that is the craftyest of all the beast of the field. But what does this have to do with the covenant made well a lot, what is the nechushtan (נחש ), what does it have to do with Adam? What is the whole point of God using this very beast to make his covenant with Adam and to use it for the fall man, yes I did say God used a nechushtan (נחש ) to make man fall, God has man fall for a reason. But that is a different topic, so the nechushtan (נחש )what is it that makes it the perfect thing for God to use to make man fall? Well, what is it that we know about the nechushtan (נחש ) already, we know that it is a lying, cheating, and very deceitful above all things. Now the nechushtan (נחש ) sound like what man is after the fall, I will show what I mean later on, but the nechushtan (נחש ), is as I have said it lies and we see that it tries to miss lead others in to its ways, we see the snake do this with eve, in “genesis 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.” so the snake told eve, you will not surely die, so what does this mean, well to get this me must get the very thing it is talking about, the covenant made by God, so what was it that God made with hem, well he told them they could eat of any fruit they wanted but of one tree that was in the mist of the garden, and if they did they shall die, what is it God meant by die? Did he mean die as in like we know it they are no longer alive in the flesh, or as a death that we don’t understand until we go to the word of God itself. It is just that a death that is not of the flesh but of the spirit of God, so Adam and eve were the only ones that had this right standing with God from the start until them came to the death of sin they had made known to all man after the nechushtan (נחש ) had temped eve in to eating of the fruit, but a lot of things have to be done with this to see that we are not at a right standing with God, I do not mean we have to twist the word of God to see this in fact I am saying we must not do that, the death that we see here is one that must be overcome by God himself to make man at the right standing with him that he had when he was in the garden, this is pointing us to Christ, the fact that man has come open a death of the spirit, and this kind of death that was on man after the fall, came from the help of a helper that God has made for Adam and it was the one and only nechushtan (נחש ).
So this death after the brake of the covenant with God has made all man that comes after Adam a sinner, not one of holy and righteous works. So what is it that Adam had did exactly to make this all like what we see as sin, well God gave his first law to man in the garden, and it is just this one law for man all they had to do was follow one law just one, “genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. ESV " so the one law was just this that man shall not eat of the fruit, this one law was not able to be kept just one law Adam had to follow that is it one. And he could not keep so he fell in to sin and not only him but Adam took all mankind with him, so the braking of the covenant, is that something that we need to know, yes it is something that in fact will drive are life with God, the fall is a doctrine that you have one or two things you can hold with it, one is a view of heresy, and that view is just this, that man is born perfect without any sin that there is a time in their life that when they know right from wrong and that is known as the age of accountability, and in this we have to look at it and say well, the bible says we are sinners from birth. So that the view that is held by the groups that say there is no “original sin” they are all heretics and are lost. The view that I hold to and every Christian holds to is one of man’s totally depraved state of mind, heart, and spirit and they can do nothing good outside of Christ. Now the state of man that is after the fall is this of a man that is totally and utterly depraved. As seen in the scriptures, so we know the covenant God mad was one law that Adam shall not eat of the fruit, and somewhat of what happened of the braking but I want to go in deep in what the braking of the covenant. did to man, and I want to do this because I will then come back and show that the law that was made that one law could not have been kept, based on what happened In the fall of man, and by doing this I will be able to show that the covenant was planned by God in order to be able to send his son. So what happened after the fall is just this state of man of sin and depraved spirit.
So what is this giving and braking of the covenant, well it is very basic, God told Adam that he shall not eat of the fruit that is in the middle of the garden, and if he did he would be vanished from the garden, and this state of perticon in a way is turned in to a state of sin, so with the state of man now not one that is right with God what is it that needs to be done for the ones that have been picked by God to be saved? Well that goes to other covenants that were given to the Jews, at that time. So let’s go to the ark, and what the ark means for us and for the, house of Israel, “Gen 7:5-7 And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him. Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.” (ESV). So what is it that we see in the 3 verses well what the covenant with Noah is? It is just this, I will save you and your family with the water. But this water killed the rest of the world, and it not only killed the people on the earth but the birds and cats and dogs that were there on the earth. So not only is this showing that God election of man, and that it is not of what Noah, did to get this saving water from the wrath of God on the world that has fallen, so with God not saving all the world by the water as he did with Noah, he is showing that there is a line or genealogy that we is going to use to bring about the line of men that his son will come from, the line that will be of David, “Isa 7:13-14 And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (esv) so we see in the book of Isaiah , that the son of man that will come to bring the sheep rest in the world and salvation of a tree, is of the line of David, and this line goes back to the line that came out of the flood of the world by the water the line and seed of Noah. So the house of Israel is one that we need to go to one covenant that is not able to be keep to the perfect way it was given to us, and that is the law of God that is given to us in the old testament, now we can’t and don’t have the time to go over the law as a whole, the law as a full looking at it is over 600 laws of God that were given to the Jews to keep. But I want to just look at ten of them 600 plus laws that God gave us. So it is the ten that, was given in the exile of the Jews. The ten given to mosses on mount sina, the ten comments, so how is a law? Well he gives us the law of life, this is the law, and so I will ask you, some questions, have you ever lied? If yes then that makes you what? A liar! Now have you ever stolen something? No I have not, well you just told me you have lied. So I ask you again have you ever stolen it does not matter how big or small it is, have you stolen? Yes. So what does that make you? A heath. Ok so have you ever used Gods name in vain as a swear word? Yes. Ok so what does that make you? A blasphemer. So if God you went before a judge with all this evidence against you when what would your verdict be? Guilty or inanest? A judge that is a good and rightness judge, would find you guilty. So if God is a right guess one, then he would have to find you guilty of your sin, and send you to hell the punishment for the sins of all. But now how are we saved? Well will be talked about in later verses. So then whom is this house, well it is the ones that will be saved! So how does this all tie in to the, atonement? Well there is a lot that has to be backed with the bible before the atonement can even be backed by any works of man or God. So the house of Israel is the people of the cross! But how do we know we can’t keep the law just by saying we can does not cut it what does the bible, say about keeping it, well in the book of psalms, “Psa 78:10 They did not keep God's covenant, but refused to walk according to his law.” and also in the book of Amos, “Amo 2:4 Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they have rejected the law of the LORD, and have not kept his statutes, but their lies have led them astray, those after which their fathers walked.” (ESV).)

election.

What are the two key views in this whole theological debate that we have of the way man comes to Christ. We have two views and two different theological hermeneutics to get to this point in the theology of one’s own mind, but what is that the bible says about this in the end is the final saying that we need to hold to, but with that we can just go by our own feelings that we have for this. We should look at this from both views, I will be using much different recourse to do this, the main one of course is going to be the bible, and I will be using books other than the bible for this paper alone with some online pages about the different topics. But before I get in to the two different views I think that it is key we define the two different views as in there tittle first before we use the word of God to find the answers.

                Let’s start out with predestination, what is this word mean? “[1] Predestination is a religious belief involving the relationship between God and His Creation. The general idea behind predestination is that God, before the Creation, predetermined the fate of the universe throughout all of space and time. There are many different views on what the Bible teaches and what this means for mankind and eternity.” So from the source that we pull this from we see that God is the one that is in control of all that will come to past. But the source all says that there are many different views, like the one of free will, but let’s see what the word means in its self “[2]1.             theology. the act of God foreordaining every event from eternity b. the doctrine or belief, esp associated with Calvin, that the final salvation of some of mankind is foreordained from eternity by God” but what is the other view that we have to look at and what is the definition of those word? Well it is the doctrine of free will, free will is as said here “[3]What freewill tries to account for is our introspective conviction that we are in control of many of our choices, and thus our destiny - that we are free to think and decide. We contrast this flexible, conscious control that we enjoy with the involuntary action of, say, our heartbeat or digestion, and with the instinctual imperative of a bird's nest-building or a dog's conditioned response. Our decisions are far more independent of nature and nurture than any animals; we are aware of our ability to think and of the consequences of our choices - we can claim responsibility for our actions. These are the meaningful differences that give rise to the concept of freewill.”

So after seeing that we have one view that holds to God being the one that has everything come to pass, and the other that says man has the control to be saved or not to be. But what is the one that we find to the in the bible? Do we see that one plays a key role in the bible, or does one play more of a role but the other is there, or does one show up and the other in no were to be found in the bible? That is the key to this, but we must go to the key text of both sides of all this. What is all this telling us what does this mean for man and for God? Does man having this will that is free take away from the glory to God, Does man having been predestinated make man a robot?

I would like to first give a brief back round on the key men who were the founders (bright it is to the light in a big way) of the two main views on election. The first is theologian john Calvin. “[4]John Calvin was born in 1509. He died in 1564. John Calvin was the son of a lawyer. He was born in Noyon, Picardy and was therefore a Frenchman. Calvin developed a love for scholarship and literature. In 1523 he went to the University of Paris where he studied theology. To maintain himself while a student, Calvin secured a small chaplaincy attached to Noyon Cathedral. In 1528 he went to Orleans to study Law, and one year later Calvin went to Bourges also to study Law. Calvin was pressurised by his father to study Law but in 1531 his father died giving Calvin the freedom to resume his religious studies. In the same year that his father died, Calvin went to the College de France in Paris to study Greek. This college was noted for its Humanistic approach to learning. In fact, all the colleges that Calvin attended had Humanistic leanings and it was only natural that this influenced Calvin. He became an admirer of Erasmus. At some point between 1528 and 1533 he experienced a "sudden conversion" and grasped Protestantism. "God subdued my soul to docility by a sudden conversion" was how Calvin described this experience.”  The next man is

“[5]Arminius, Jacobus (c.1559-1609), Dutch Remonstrant Reformer, was born Jacob Harmenszoon in Oudewater near Utrecht. His middle-class family was devastated when his father, a maker of kitchen utensils, died during Arminius' infancy and his mother, together with all his siblings, were slain during his adolescence in the Spanish massacre of Oudewater in 1575. Thereafter family friends raised him. Like most classically trained humanist scholars of his era, he eventually Latinized his name, recalling the "Arminius" who had been a 1st century Germanic leader noted for his resistance to the Romans. In 1574 he began his studies at Leiden, venue for a tradition reaching back into the pre-Reformation ferment of the North Netherlands. The atmosphere included a biblically-informed piety, a sacramentarianism that viewed medieval sacraments as largely superstitious, and a humanist perspective that identified Roman Catholic corruption of the church. It would be anachronistic to speak of this movement as (proto-) Lutheran or Zwinglian, as these latter descriptions entail a doctrinal specificity that was not operative in what had flowed from the 14th and 15th centuries. Studies followed at Geneva, Basel, and Geneva again, culminating, after years of leadership in city, church and university, in a doctorate from Leiden in 1603.Leiden accommodated the older reform as well as the precise Calvinism that Reformed refugees had brought with them. The ensuing conflict was less concerned with predestination (albeit never far from the surface) than with the relation of Calvinist consistory (an ecclesiastical court in Reformed churchmanship) and the city (reflecting the less doctrinally exact, humanist-informed piety indigenous to the Low Countries.) The consistory, for instance, in the spirit of Calvinist rigour, opposed observing Christian festivals (e.g., Christmas and Easter) that happened not to fall on Sundays.

So with these two men in the light, what are there doctrines that they held to and would fight over and would in the end, who would have them named after. I would like to take a look at the free will doctrine first, as I think it will be the easiest to show in the best why without going to a lot of links and quotes, and I say this because in this one we will not be hanging a lot of Greek and stuff in this view to go over as we will in the view that is held by the Calvinist the doctrine of predestination. In the view of free will, we have there key verse that the ones that hold to this view will run to first and we find it in the Old Testament. “[6]Jos 24:15  And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Now that this is not in the new testament, this is the key verse as I said they will run to, and they do this based on the words used in the verse, the word is (“choose “this day whom you will serve) there are some in the new testament that they will un to, and in fact they are some very well-known verse.  But before I go to the verse that they would use in the New Testament I want to just look at this one for a bit. I want to just look at some of the verse key part and that is “choose this day whom you will serve” is this talking about choosing  Christ, over something else? Well we would have to get the context but instated of going with verse after verse to get it I will just say it, the context is that Joshua, is tell pagans that they need to choose in that day will they serve God of the bible or there god. That is the context. Not that man has a free will. But let’s jump over to the New Testament for the next run to verse. “[7]Rev 3:20  Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” So this is a verse that is in the view of free will is talking about, but is it in fact is it what it is saying? I don’t think that it is, but I want to hold that to the end on what I think the view is on this verse. But the next verse, what is it in fact many will us the most used verse in the world to show free will, “[8]John 3:16  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The key word that they would use for this whole thing is the “whomever” but what is the word whomever means what? “[9]–pronoun; possessive whos·ev·er; objective whom·ev·er. 1whatever person; anyone that: Whoever did it should be proud. ask whoever is there. Tell it to whomever you like.” So we see that anyone that. But to understand that you need to read who will be the whomever (see john 10 also see john 3:3-8). So is there more to this then we think? Well yea this verse is one that hits many different doctrines not just the free will view, of how man can pick to be saved. “[10]John 7:17  If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” This verse is used but very well missed used in the way of free will. They will cut it very short, and stop it at “if anyone’s will is to do God’s will” is all they want to deal with, but we go one in the same verse we see this “he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” if they read on they see that the “will” is not on that is a free will to pick God but one that is a will like Gods and will know if what is being talked about is of God and not of mans, own will. 
 

                I want to know give you what the Westminster Confession of faith says about predestination.

“[11]I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither is any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.”

                 The use of the confection is not to say that the bible is not need but to go to the conftion for the answrs no, but it is a great help to one that is wanting to know more about the verse or doctrine that you are dealing with. Let’s  now look at the verse that would back the doctrine that we have come to know and love in the reformed faith the doctrine of predestination. What are the key verses that we use in this? What is it that we say that will be of the grate doctrine that is truth of the word of God, what it that we see in this doctrine is. I want to start with romans and take some time with the book and the chapter that deals with this doctrine.  What is the first part of all this? Well we start this in romans 8

“[12] romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” So what is it that this one is talking about? Is there a contradiction in the first part of the two verses? We see the word foreknew and we see the word predestined, is this say thing that it is based on something God say in us and then he predestined us?  No I would say that is just the oppose of what is being said in this. I will show you this, what is the word foreknew in the Greek?  The word and its uses in the Greek is as follows “[13]προγινώσκω,v  \{prog-in-oce'-ko} 1) to have knowledge beforehand  2) to foreknow  2a) of those whom God elected to salvation  3) to predestinate”. So we see that in 2 as of those whom God elected to salvation, as this is the one being used, it is talking in the personal since. But what does that have to do with the election of man? Well if it being a personal type of talk, then it is a one on one type of election and by this I mean, he had elected some and not others. But is this far that God world give salvation unto some and not others? Well I ask you are it far for him to send everyone to hell, and not elect anyone? I would then have you rethink the past question that you put forth. But how does all this tie in with God electing some. When did this election take place, it took place before the formation of the world. “[14]Eph 1:4  even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love” so we see that in the book of Ephesians that even before the world was formed the elect were blameless before him. but who is the us and who is the ones that get this? The us are the church, the body of the flock. How are we elect, we are elect based on Gods pedestation. We are not elect because of what we have done. In all this what how do we know who  is elect, well we don’t, theologian Charles h. spurgeon put it this way, [15]"If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I'd go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I'd give them the gospel. But God didn't do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that 'whosoever will may come.'" Jesus says, "and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." So what does this mean? I mean well we don’t know who the elect is and that is a miss notion on the part of the free will poison on the doctrine of predestination, is that we think we don’t need to give the gospel that if they will be saved then God will do it no need for man to do anything in that way to make the move to give the gospel. But in fact it is because we don’t know who they are we need to, and the predestination is what shows who the elect are not use giving the gospel but the owns that have ears will hear the call from the holy spirit, and there for come forth in repenting of their sins. No view that is put out as the reformed view by the remonstrate, is that God will save them we don’t need to give the gospel, and that it is pointless to even give it. But in this we need to see that the fact is we don’t know either way, so we must give it, but what does that even mean for us in that if we as reformed hold to the doctrine of predestination? Well what it means is we after giving it have seen if they are elect, but this does not mean that they are not elect if they reject it, they still could but we must remember that God will work out for the good of the sheep and the ones who love the lord. [16]“Rom 8:27-28  And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”  So with this we see that it is up to God no matter what it is all based off his will, in the end it is not love that will win but God that will win. I would like think of it this way, with man totally depraved in their hearts, would they want to go away from a life of sex, pot, lawless acts, to something that holds you to a standard  that no man could keep but one the Christ?

                I want to take some time now to go back to the verse I used in the start from Joshua,

[17]“Jos 24:15  And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

What is this verse saying? Is it in fact the verse that we need to use for free will? No we need to go on to the next to see who the context was about. [18]”Jos 24:16  Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods,” so they were severing other gods, and this was not a call to faith but a call to repent from braking [19]”Exo 20:3  "You shall have no other gods before me.” So it is not a backing verse for freewillism.

                In all this, I don’t see this fight is you will have it be going way anytime soon. But I would like to see the ones that do not think it is biblical to find out what it is they are fighting. Is it the men of faith that hold to it or is it the father that made them?

---

[1] http://www.predestination.com/

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predestination

[3] http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm

[4] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

[5] http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Other%20Writings/jacobus_arminius.htm

[6] English Standard version (esv) the holy bible

[7] Esv , the holy bible

[8] Esv, the holy bible

[9] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whomever

[10] Esv the holy bible

[11] The Westminster confession of faith, Chapter III Of God's Eternal Decree.

[12] Esv , the holy bible

[13] http://www.greekbible.com/l.php?proginw/skw_v-3aai-s--_p

[14] Esv, the holy bible

[15] http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2008/12/yellow-stripes-quote-spurgeon-never.html (author denies that spurgeon actually said that)

[16] Esv the holy bible

[17] Esv the holy bible

[18] Esv the holy bible

[19] Esv the holy bible 

rob bell and a interview on new book. part four

what are some of rob's problems? well they are all over the place but the big ones are his history, use of the Hebrew and Greek, alone with his exegesis of the scripture are like grossly in big fault, we need to see that he is not only in the wrong but in fact that he is a heretic that needs to be cut from the church. in no way shall we sit here and just let him go on with his gross and very abusive use of the word of God. we must as a church stand up get him out of the covering(Christian) that he has called his theology and then went and try to pass it off as biblical teaching from the days of Paul and so on. in fact i think and would like to think that Paul himself would have rebuked him and kicked him out of the church, for his heresy and his miss use of the word in this manner, he is so far off that it is like, a cook making a burger and trying to sell it as a whole roasted chicken, would anyone buy that so called roasted chicken? no they would look at it and say this is a burger not a roosted chicken. but yet for some reason we see people saying that is a roasted chicken and i will buy it from rob bell, but in fact it is nothing more then a burger. what is rob's gospel? it is nothing but what the book says on the cover love wins. and that is not the gospel. i would ask that you, if you like bell, to go in to this theology and prov to me and the rest of the Christian world that he is not a heretic and should not be kicked out of the church! but if you cant prove this then i would ask you to leave his teaching of heresy and come to the truth of the gospel, and the gospel that was given to me and the rest of the sound Christians. but yet many will not see it, because it is him in fact that leads them off the road that is narrow, to one that is wide and full of heresy and lost men. i think that after reading the posts and getting in to the book some you will come to the same things i have that he is lost and needs to repent and come to the true gospel. does theology matter to rob? i dont know, but from what i see it does not, or latest having sound theology as we are called to have in

"2Ti 4:3-4  For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. "
         do we get anything from heresy, no we dont so why do we let it get to this point? in all that rob has done we sit by and let the sheep get lost in this mess and dont do anything to help them. i would pray that we all send a letter to rob asking him to repent and come to sound teaching.but will he even be able to know what that is, he has it in his head that he has it. but may the lord bless all of you in this work of rcm, to expose rob bell for what he is a wolf. he is not in the doctrine of the church but in a doctrine that makes the church look like a drive throw, come to my church and you dont have to worry about being wrong because we have a menu bored that you can pick from because in the end love wins.  but rob does love win in the end? or is it God who wins?

rob bell and a interview on new book. part three (what is sin, and were does it put us)

what is sin, were did it come from, what is the punishment for it? Well before I answer the question at hand I need to say this. The evangelic church today has let sin leave the church and the poet, this is a thing that beings worry and concerned to me. Why might you ask well because the sheep still need to hear about sin and what God does to these who sin. With the state of the church on sin as it is many sheep have not worried about there sin, and what it could do to them. Many pastes today don't want to heart someones felling for make them fell like there a bad person, when in fact that is what they are. The bible says that there is no not one that is good, we see in Rom 3:10 it says “as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;” so sin is on all man, 1Co 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” so what did Adam do to have all die? What is the word die meaning ? Well this is answered In the first book of the bible, Genesis. Gen 3:1-7 “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” we see the first sin of man here the fall, and this is were all man died In Adam, when Adam ate of the tree, he had broken the law of God and he had bright sin in to the world. So now ever man after this is born of sin not born in sin. When someone is born in sin that is saying that they are born in to a world that has sin but they are not a sinner, but we see this is not true. In fact that view of being born in to sin is called Pelagianisam, were they believe that we are without sin until we have sinned for the first time, but we know it is not true. When Adam ate of the fruit, he had fallen from the grace and purer state he was in, before he fell from the fruit he had ate. Well this has answered part of one and most of two, but lets keep with what is sin. (http://dictionary.reference.com/ transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.) so this is from a dictionary, what does the wcf or the lbc or 1689? the lbc says this “ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.” so we see that sin is not something that we chosse to do but something that we are bron of. a.w. Pink has this to say about sin "Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a man’s make-up." the prince of preachers had this to say “Sin is a deliberate treason against the majesty of God, an assault upon His crown, an insult offered to His throne. Charles h. spurgeon” pink also had this to say about sin “What is sin? Sin is a species of rebellion against God. It is self-pleasing: it is the utter ignoring of God’s claims: being completely indifferent whether my conduct pleases or displeases Him.” Augustine had this to say “Sin comes when we take a perfectly natural desire or longing or ambition and try desperately to fulfill it without God. Not only is it sin, it is a perverse distortion of the image of the Creator in us. All these good things, and all our security, are rightly found only and completely in Him.” so we see throw out the church age sin was in the popet and not cased out. So that is what sin is, but were does man get it well like we saw in genisens “Gen 3:1-3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" so adam now has taken the heart that we had, wich was peur and not sinful, to a state of sin that was not a state of God but a state that no matter what it was going to sin. This is called total depravity by the reformed Christians, now I must say that not all think that we are totally depraved in are state with God before regeneration form God. What is total depravity? We total depravity is this that man in the state that they are In are utterly and totally sinful. They have no good in them. Some will say that we are not as bad as we could be, but I find this to be against what is in the word of God. Man has been sinful from the start of time we see in the fall (genesis chapter 3, the fall of man) with this fall we have now be put in to a world of sin, and amity with God, that has no right standing with him. We see with the fall that we have now become dead in are sins and trespassers, that man can not get out of with out the help of God, so the big thing is how is sin going to affect us with God and what has to be done to change it.

So what is sin going to do to us with God? Well the fall is the starting point of this whole thing, ( Gen 3:1-24 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.) what do we see here, we see how and not only how but why we are like what we are now (a life of sin) but is there a point were we have to say that sin is not something we are born with but that we must do? Well I say this to that what does the word say? Does it say that we are born sinless ( without any sin what so ever) or does it say we are born of sin (the word of that I use there is one that is used because when many say in sin they would be saying that we are born with out sin but in a sinful world) we see in (Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.) so are not born in a sinful mother that was of the same nature was in Adam after the fall? Well what else can we find to back the thinking that we are born with sin in are heart, well lets stay in the old testament for now ( Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?) now this is showing us that we wont know are heart is like this, we see it asks us who can understand it, God does but what about man can man know there own heart? Well if God can and we are all siners with out the help of christ, then what are we? Well the bible say that we are a fool (Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.) so if we say there is no God and we are a fool then can we know what are hearts are? Well I would hold to say no. the man out of regeneration can not know that his heart is wicked. But that is the old testament what does the new testament say about are hearts, and the sin that we have? (Mat 15:18-20 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." ) so what is Christ saying well just look at it, he is saying that what every comes from the mouth is from the heart. When someone says I hate you that is not just them saying it but there heart. There heart is were the sin lies it comes from the heart. The heart is with out a doubt the thing that leads us in to sin. But I think there is yet more to being seen here, what does the sinful act do were is it in the relationship to the cross? Well that can be answered with the verse as well lets look first at were does it come from the sinful act that is. It all goes back to the fall. So then what has happened? Well man is bead in there sins. (Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ) but with that does it come to all are dead in there sins well yes (1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.) now we are just going to look at the first part, the part that has to do with Adam, as we see that the fall after all is the key to sin, so in Adam all die, meaning what well meaning this, after the fall Adam was now a sinner, but wait I thought we were a sinner from birth, well we are but with Adam he was in the right standing with God with out a atonement for sin because there was no sin to atone for. But after the fall there was. So we all died in Adams fall or sin of eating the fruit. So how can one be in sin because of one man, well that is something that is called when he had kids they were of the same heart and so on and so forth. Now does sin do to us is there a punishment for it? Well again I will go to the bible and see what it says, lets go to the heart of the problem what is the punishment of sin? Well what does the bible say, it says that the punishment for sin is hell, we see this all over the place, the bible gives us a clear pitcher of what will happen if we do not repent of the sins, so the sin that we hold is what kills us? For is it the way of life that we have death? Well lets go to the bible, first I want to say that when we see the word dead in the bible when it is in context to sin like in (1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive) this is in the right standing we have with God not that we are dead in the flesh, now we have a dead spirit of God that makes the flesh sin. The heart is what will bring on to hell the state of the heart with God is what kills, not the dissection that man makes “the chose for God is one that cant be made with out regeneration” that is free will and with that we have the chose to sin or do good but I have showed you that we don't have a say if we sin your not. With sin we are in total bondage to the sin we live in. so what I have showed here to day? Well I have showed that we are in sin all the time and that we have no way out but through Christ and his death on the cross. Now before I end this I would like to say this.

What I have said here in this writing is not one that has come from my own accord but from the heart of the word of God, I put the writings here for you all to get to know the heart of the man before he has the grace of God in him and I wish that we take this as a, reminder of what we are in Christ and what others are on the outside of Christ, I did not bring the writings to you for any other means then to help you know and understand what the sin that he hold is and what it cant do to us. I pray that all have the writings I put out there in this that they do not think I am putting them to shame but only, to bring the light of what man is in everyday of his life to light for all of us the unsaved and the saved. May the gory go to God and God only with the writings I have done.

Soli deo Gloria