Chosen By God By: Brian Schwertley

This is a very long post. But well worth the time you will spend reading it. Enjoy Rev. Charles J. Paul

One of the fundamental doctrines that underlie the biblical teaching that men are saved by the grace of God alone is the doctrine of election. The doctrine of election refers to God’s choice of a certain number of people out of fallen humanity who in history would receive all the merits of Christ’s redemptive work and thus be truly, actually and eternally saved. God’s choice takes place before creation; has absolutely nothing to do with any foreseen merit in man including a foreseen faith or repentance; and, is based solely upon God’s own sovereign good pleasure. An excellent definition of this doctrine is set forth in the Canons of Dordt:Now election is the immutable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he has, according to the most free goodpleasure of his own will, of mere grace, chosen out of the whole human race, fallen by its own fault from its primeval integrity into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons, neither better nor more deserving than others but with them involved in a common misery, unto salvation in Christ; whom even from eternity he had appointed Mediator and Head of all the elect and the foundation of salvation; and therefore he has decreed to give them unto him to be saved…”In order to emphasize the fact that God’s election or choice of certain sinners to be saved is not based upon anything that the sinner himself does, Reformed theologians refer to election to eternal life as unconditional election. Because the doctrine of election has been redefined and essentially turned upside down by professing Christians since the days of the Reformation, our study will interact with and refute the popular Arminian interpretation of this doctrine. First, however, we will briefly examine the clearest most succinct and detailed passage on election in the Bible, Ephesians 1:3ff.The Apostle’s Definition of Election The teaching that God from eternity, before the world was even created, chose a definite number of people to be saved comes from the pen of the Apostle Paul. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:3-5). This statement is amazing and merits our close analysis. We are told that God the Father has blessed us, that is, Christians or believers, with every spiritual blessing. These blessings are designated spiritual because they are derived from the Holy Spirit who applies Christ’s perfect work of redemption to our souls. When Paul says “every spiritual blessing...in Christ” he means that every aspect of redemption that Jesus accomplished for His people (justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification) is ours (i.e. true believers).In verse four we come to the section of Paul’s statement that is controversial. Paul says that all the blessings of salvation that believers have, have their source in the electing love of God the Father. Divine election is the source or origin of every Christian’s salvation. The word chose (Greek, exelexato) means to elect. God elected us in Christ. This word is frequently avoided or redefined in evangelical churches because if God elected some (i.e. everyone in Christ) then by logical implication others are not elected. That is, they are left by God to perish in their sins. Because many professing Christians don’t think such a view is democratic or fair, they turn this passage upside down and teach that God only chooses men who first choose Him. This view will be considered in a moment.Note that election is in Christ. The elect are chosen to be in Jesus. Everyone chosen by God will be united to the Savior (their federal head and representative) and thus will receive everything merited for them by the Mediator (regeneration, the gift of the Holy Spirit, justification, definitive sanctification, perseverance, glorification). Thus, we see that the ultimate ground of our federal union with Christ is not our faith in Jesus, but rather, our faith in the Savior is ultimately rooted in our federal union with Christ. Although we are not actually justified until we lay hold of Christ by faith in space and time, the gifts of regeneration (Jn. 3:8; Ac. 11:18) and faith (Eph. 2:8) would not be bestowed by Christ without first the divine election of particular sinners.Paul then gives us the time when election took place. “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (v. 4). Before time began, before the universe even existed, in eternity God chose those who He wanted to save in Christ. This statement tells some very important things regarding God’s plan of salvation. We see that everything relating to the salvation of sinners is worked out in exhaustive detail in God’s mind before the world even exists. There are no areas or pockets of chance in God’s universe. He works everything according to the counsel of His own will. Nothing that happens can or will take God by surprise. What this all means is that in the salvation of particular sinners, the elect ones, there cannot be failure. Their salvation is certain. Thus, salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Christians are not saved by anything they have done. They are not ultimately saved because they made a choice; but, because God chose them. In other words, according to His great love and mercy He saved us. What a blessed gospel! God reaches out and saves those who cannot save themselves.This teaching is supported by verse 5 which says that God “predestined us to adoption as sons [i.e. to be part of His own family] by Jesus Christ…according to the good pleasure of His will.” The word predestined (Greek, proorisas) means to predetermine or to determine beforehand. In context the word beforehand can only mean before the foundation of the world. The word predestined repeats the same idea as contained in verse four: “He chose us…before the foundation of the world.” God decided before creation began exactly who would be a part of His saved people. Therefore, the number of the elect was set in granite before any humans even existed. To argue otherwise is to say that either God is not sovereign or that Paul writing by divine inspiration made a mistake. Such ideas are obviously unchristian and demonic.God’s choosing, election or predestination of those people who are to be saved is said to be “according to the good pleasure of His will” (v. 5). This means that God’s choice of the elect has absolutely nothing to do with anything outside Himself. It is not based on the foreseen faith of those who would choose Christ as Wesley proclaimed. Indeed, it cannot be based on what man does because: (a) man is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14), hostile to God (Rom. 8:6-8) and completely unable to choose spiritual good (Rom. 8:6-8; Jn. 15:5; Ps. 14:3). Therefore, God must take the initiative in saving a people for Himself and that is exactly what He does when He chooses a people in Christ. Because election has everything to do with what God does and is not at all based on man’s initiative, theologians refer to it as unconditional election. The ground of election is God’s sovereign will, not the will or choice of men who are spiritually dead and unable to believe in Christ.The purpose or goal of divine election is “that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (v. 4). Commentators are divided over whether or not the word holiness in verse 4 is subjective and designates sanctification or is objective and refers to justification (i.e. Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to believers). If one believes it refers to sanctification the word “blameless” would refer to a person’s sinless perfection at the final resurrection. Whatever interpretation one follows, one thing is crystal clear. Election does not open the possibility of salvation, but guarantees its actual accomplishment. Election does not make salvation possible nor does it take men part of the way to heaven; rather, it takes sinners all the way to paradise to behold the face of God. “It does not merely bring him to conversion; it brings him to perfection. It purposes to make him holy—that is cleansed from all sin and separated entirely to God and to his service—and faultless—that is, without any blemish whatever (Phil. 2:15), like a perfect sacrifice.” Election is a God glorifying doctrine that ought to be precious to every Bible-believing Christian.The Common “Evangelical” Redefinition of ElectionThe doctrine of election discussed above where God sovereignly chooses who will be saved, an election not conditional upon anything in man, is rejected and hated by many professing Christians in our day. Thus, they argue that election is not based upon God’s choice which is founded upon His own good pleasure (as we have just seen); but, upon God’s foreknowledge of man’s exercise of faith. In other words, before the world was created God looked down the corridors of history and took note of every single human being who believed in Jesus and then chose them. This popular, yet strange view, essentially teaches that God does not completely control His creation; that God’s “good pleasure” has no role whatsoever in choosing the elect; that God is not really sovereign over His rational creatures; that God does not really save sinners but that sinners save themselves (with some help from God) and then God simply acknowledges what man has done. The reason that “evangelicals” have turned the doctrine of election upside down to where God does not elect men but men elect God is their doctrine of “free will.” The idea that man is sovereign over his own salvation must be protected at almost any cost.How do “evangelicals” justify their upside down version of election? They do so with a peculiar interpretation of Romans 8:29: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” The word “foreknew” in this passage is said to simply mean that God knew something in advance. He knew before the foundation of the world who would believe and repent and on the basis of their actions God chose them. There are a number of reasons why the common “evangelical” (i.e. Arminian) understanding of Romans 8:29 is unscriptural and impossible.(1) The first reason is that the word “foreknow” (pregno, aorist active indicative of proginosko) does not simply mean to have an intellectual knowledge of something before it happens. Note the following considerations:a) In Romans 8:29 foreknowledge is placed before predestination, while in Acts 2:23, God’s predetermined plan (“predetermined,” from horizo; “plan,” boulomai—will, design or purpose) is placed before foreknowledge. “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.” This fact of course does not mean that Scripture contradicts Scripture but that God’s omniscience and omnipotence are not separated, disjointed attributes. In other words, God’s decree of what comes to pass and His foreknowledge of what will occur in the future are intimately connected. Because God is all powerful, determines and controls all things, His foreknowledge is a consequence (i.e. logically, for God’s foreknowledge and decree occur simultaneously) of His eternal, fixed, counsel. God knows what will occur because He planned and ordained it.The Ariminian idea that God looked down through time to see who would choose Him and then elected such persons implicitly denies the omnipotence and providence of God. If a human (a finite mortal) could look down the corridors of time he would have the ability to choose people on the basis of their faith or something they did. But God who controls and sustains every aspect of creation (even subatomic particles, bacteria, viruses and insects) is not an impartial observer. He both knows and controls. If He sees a man believe, He gave that man the gift of faith and preordained his salvation. Calvin writes: “Peter doth teach that God did not only foresee that which befell Christ, but it was decreed by him. And hence must be gathered a general doctrine; because God doth no less show his providence in governing the whole world, than in appointing the death of Christ. Therefore, it belongeth to God not only to know before things to come, but of his own will to determine what he will have done.”b) Further, the word “foreknow” when used of God’s elect does not refer to a simple intellectual foresight or a knowing something cognitively before it happens, but rather refers to a selective knowledge which regards a person with favor and makes that person an object of love. In other words, in Romans 8:29 Paul uses “foreknow” in the Old Testament/Hebraistic sense of to love beforehand. John Murray writes:Although the term “foreknow” is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word “know” in the usage of Scripture; “foreknow” merely adds the thought of “beforehand” to the word “know.” Many times in Scripture “know” has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with “love,” to set regard upon, to know with particular interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 john 3:1)….It means “whom he set regard upon” or “whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight” and is virtually equivalent to “whom he foreloved.”God’s electing love originates from Himself and not out of foreseen faith or repentance. Therefore, when the Bible discusses individual election, it always grounds it in God and not sinful, depraved humanity. Election is “according to His good pleasure” (Eph. 1:9). It is “after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).This interpretation of “foreknow” in Romans 8:29 is supported by the simple fact that if we accept the Arminian interpretation that God predestinated men whose future history He foreknew, then the term would prove something totally unbiblical. Why? Because God foreknows the history of every man, woman and child who ever did or will ever live. Thus, the text would teach universalism. No Arminian believes that everyone including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin will go to heaven. It is obvious that Pol Pot, Al Capone and Heinrich Himler have not been predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.The Arminian will object to the observation above by stating, “You are misrepresenting my position. I believe that only those people that God foreknew would choose Jesus are the ones He predestined to life.” To this objection we ask one simple question. Where in the text of Scripture does it say this? One can read the Bible very carefully, cover to cover, and this statement or any like it cannot be found. “Where are the words you have added, ‘Whom he did foreknow to repent, to believe, and to persevere in grace’? I do not find them either in the English version or in the Greek original.” Sadly, Arminian theologians and interpreters are guilty of reading their own prejudices, presuppositions and humanistic traditions into the text of Scripture. While the Arminian interpretation is very popular and appeals to our fleshly egos and our human autonomy, we must reject it because it has no exegetical basis in Scripture. We must “bow to holy Scripture…not to glosses which theologians may choose to put upon it.” Since the Arminian interpretation contradicts Scripture, is not found in the text at all and is absurd we will choose the biblical and logical alternative: that the word “know” in this passage refers to God’s saving love and favor.c) The Arminian interpretation that the word “know” is purely intellectual is decisively refuted by the immediate context of Romans 8:29. The context of Romans 8:29 does not teach that God chooses on the basis of what man will do in the future. Paul does not say that man is ultimately sovereign in salvation. He says the exact opposite. In Romans 8:30ff the apostle teaches that God’s love is not a passive, helpless love, that sits by and waits to see what sinful, lost, hopeless men will do; but rather the passage sets forth a sovereign active love, a love that nothing can impede, stop or override. Paul writes:Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:30-39).The interpretation that foreknowledge is merely the recognition that certain people will exercise faith some time in the future—a faith that is solely dependent on man and that can fail at any time—simply contradicts Paul’s emphasis on God’s determinative action in salvation. Paul presents a chain of events, all of which are dependent solely upon God. Paul is teaching a monergistic doctrine of salvation. That salvation depends solely upon divine choice and action. Paul emphasizes that God is the one who predestinates, calls, justifies, and then glorifies. Furthermore, it is Christ who achieved an objective, perfect redemption; who intercedes at the right hand of God for His people (v. 34). The three actions (called, justified, and glorified) which inevitably flow from God’s eternal counsel cannot be separated. “The future glorification of the believer is designated by the aorist, as his justification, calling, predestination, and election have been; because all these divine acts are eternal, and therefore simultaneous for the divine mind. All are equally certain.” Paul emphasizes that salvation is certain for the elect because “God is for us” (v. 31).Salvation is guaranteed by God’s electing love and predestinating power. Such a doctrine is totally incompatible with the idea that everything boils down to the “free” choice of people who are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), who could lose their faith and salvation at any moment. Since it is God alone who saves, Paul can affirm that nothing created can separate the elect from God’s love (v. 39). Nothing created—not even man’s will—has veto power over the elect’s final salvation. “He has shown how the present pilgrimage of the people of God falls into its place in that determinate and undefeatable plan of God that is bounded by two foci, the sovereign love of God in his eternal counsel and glorification with Christ in the age to come.” Girardeau writes: “Whatsoever, then, may be, according to the Arminian view, the love of God towards his saints, it is a love which does not secure their salvation: it is not a saving love. It is not equal to the love which a mother cherishes for her child. She would save him if she could. This reputed divine love may be called a special love, but it is not the love for his saints which the Scriptures assign to God. The idea of it was not born of inspiration: God never claimed such love as his own.” “What God is assuring his children in Romans 8:29 is not that He has foreseen our favourable response to his call when the time comes and has therefore decided that we shall duly be conformed to the image of his Son. It is rather that he loved us in anticipation and determined, for reasons entirely hidden from us, that we should be conformed to the image of his Son by an act of his sovereign grace.” Therefore, Christians can be “confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).(2) The Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 contradicts the biblical teaching that salvation is by the pure grace of God. If (as modern evangelicals assert) God’s predestination of the elect is based on something that men do such as faith and repentance, then ultimately conversion is not entirely a work of God’s grace. Faith and repentance are no longer gifts of God’s grace but are autonomous, self-generated acts of the human will. Men are no longer saved by or through faith (Rom. 3:22, 25, 28, 30; 5:1; Eph. 2:8) but rather because of faith. According to the Arminian interpretation “it is not God and God alone who works salvation…the actual enjoyment of salvation hangs at a decisive point upon something in man, or something done by man.”Martin Luther repudiates the idea that God cannot save man unless man allows Him to dispense His grace. In his exposition of 1 Peter 1:2 he writes:V. 2a. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Peter says, they are elected. How? Not by themselves, but according to the order or purpose of God. For we will not be able to raise ourselves to heaven nor create faith in ourselves. God will not permit all persons to enter heaven; he will very definitely identify his own. Here the human doctrine of free will and or our own ability avails nothing any longer. It does not depend upon our will but upon the will and election of God.This means that you are chosen, you have not obtained it through your own strength, work or merit, for the treasure is too great, and all the holiness and righteousness of mankind far too worthless to obtain it; moreover you were heathen, knew nothing of God, had no hope and served dumb idols. Therefore, without any assistance on your part, out of pure grace you have come to such inexpressible glory, namely, only in the way that God the Father appointed you to it from eternity. Thus he presents the foreknowledge of God in a very beautiful and comfortable light, as it he should have said: You are chosen and you will indeed remain so, for God who foreknew you is sufficiently strong and certain that his foreknowledge cannot fail him, nevertheless so far as you believe his promise and esteem him as the true God.From this we can in brief draw the teaching that this foreknowledge does not rest upon our worthiness and merit, as the sophists hold, for then Satan could every moment make it doubtful and overthrow it; but it rests in the hand of God, and is founded upon his mercy, which is unchangeable and eternal; consequently it is called the foreknowledge of God, and therefore it is certain and cannot fail.Further, Romans 9:11-18 makes it abundantly clear that election has nothing to do with what we do and everything to do with God’s calling. As Paul concludes, “So then it is not of him who wills [i.e., election is not a result of men exercising their free will or choosing God], nor of him who runs [i.e. it has nothing to do with human exertion or works], but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:16). As Augustine so beautifully states in his Confessions: “By your gift I had come totally not to will what I had willed but to will what you willed” (9:1). Interestingly, one of Paul’s proofs that the gospel is the power of God is that “the world through wisdom did not know God” (1 Cor. 1:21). “[T]he weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called….God has chosen, the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence….as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the LORD’” (1 Cor. 1:25, 28, 29, 31).Reformer Martin Luther understood that attributing our salvation to a human choice (i.e. “free will’) ultimately destroys the grace of God. He writes:Granted that your friends assign to “free will as little as possible”, nonetheless they teach us that by that little we can attain righteousness and grace; and they solve the problem as to why God justifies one and abandons another simply by presupposing “free-will”, and saying: “the one endeavoured and the other did not; and God regards the one for his endeavour and despises the other; and He would be unjust were He to do anything else!...They [the guardians of “free will”] do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and “grace” (as is here said) “for grace”. And as they believe, so it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so; for they abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavors of “free-will”!The apostle Paul says that the biblical doctrine of salvation completely excludes human boasting (Rom. 3:27). Yet, if Arminianism is true and some people have the wisdom and moral perception to choose Christ while others do not, then do they not have a reason to boast? If some men on the basis of their own intrinsic power and faith have caused God to choose them over others (who were unwilling), then do they not have a reason to brag? Of course they do! Therefore, Arminianism cannot be true for it repeatedly contradicts Paul’s teaching. But, if men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable by their own will or power to respond to Christ until He raises them from the dead through regeneration, then there is no reason to boast. The biblical gospel preserves the doctrines of grace of which divine election is so integral a part.(3) The Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 explicitly contradicts the doctrine of original sin or man’s state after the fall (e.g. total depravity and spiritual inability). If God’s choice is contingent on fallen man’s prior choice, then no one would be elect for Paul says, “There is none who understands…who seeks God…who does good, no not one” (Rom. 3:11, 12). The Bible teaches that unsaved, unregenerate men hate both Christ and the truth (Jn. 3:19-21). Unregenerate fallen man: dwells in darkness (Jn. 1:4-5); is dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-5); has a heart of stone which is unable to respond to divine truth (Ezek. 11:19); is helpless (Ezek. 16:4-6); is unable to repent (Jer. 13:23); is enslaved to Satan (Ac. 26:17-18); and is unable to see or comprehend divine truth (1 Cor. 2:14). Unconditional election is the logical corollary to total depravity. Thus Jesus Christ taught: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.... No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father” (Jn.. 6:44, 65). An unregenerate man can no more choose Christ as Savior than can a rotting corpse raise itself.Since the Bible teaches that the fall has rendered man incapable of believing in Christ and repenting, the idea that God looked through time and chose those who first chose him is absurd and impossible. That is why the Bible teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God (cf. Jn. 3:3-8; 6:44-45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2, 3). “For unless God by sovereign, operative grace had turned our enmity to love and our disbelief to faith we would never yield the response of faith and love.”[18] Furthermore, the biblical passages which teach unconditional election are clear and abundant.(4) The Arminian doctrine of a conditional election is an implicit denial of the sovereignty of God. “Evangelicals” who emphatically reject the doctrine of unconditional election, foreknowledge (biblically defined) and predestination do so because they believe that God’s prior sovereign choice and predestination infringes on human freedom. Consequently the Arminian’s concept of free will or human freedom becomes the presuppositional axis of their whole theological system. It completely alters their concept of God and their doctrine of salvation.For example, the Arminian is well aware that the Bible teaches that God is sovereign (read 1 Chron, 29:11-14; 2 Chron. 20:6; Job 12:10-23; 36:32; 42:2; Gen. 45:7; 50:20; Ex. 2:1-10; 4:11, 21; 7:3, 13; 8:15; 9:12, 35; Deut. 2:30; Prov. 21:1, 30; 19:21; 20:24; Isa. 40:15-23; 14:24, 27; 46:10, 11; 45:7; Am. 3:6; Dan. 4:31-32; Jn. 6:44, 45, 67; 17:2, 6, 9, 12; 12:37-40; 15:16; Ac. 2:23; 4:28; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Rom. 9; Eph. 1:1ff, Ja. 1:17-18; etc).[19] But in order to preserve his philosophical concept of human freedom he proposes the idea of a self-limiting God. In other words, God voluntarily limited His absolute sovereign power so that He would not intrude upon man’s free will. This humanistic presupposition is foundational to the idea that man allows God to elect him. (In other words, in the sphere of salvation man is sovereign over God). But this self-limiting concept raises a few pertinent questions. Is it possible for God to suppress, negate or alter one of His essential attributes? Can God somehow voluntarily cease to be absolutely sovereign over certain aspects of His creation? The biblical answer to this question is absolutely not. God, the Bible tells us, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He can no more cease to be sovereign than could He lie, for to do so would be to deny Himself. The idea that God can create an area of pure contingency outside of His control is just as unbiblical and absurd as teaching that God could create some part of creation that could exist without God’s sustaining power. It is simply impossible. In his zeal to protect his humanistic concept of human freedom, the Arminian must posit a God who can cease to be God.Further, if man is to be truly free from all outside influences and forces as Arminian theology requires, then man would have to be a self-created, truly autonomous, self-sustaining being. But, that is obviously not the case. Robert L. Reymond writes:There simply is no such thing as a will which is detached from and totally independent of the person making the choice—suspended, so to speak, in midair and enjoying some “extra-personal vantage point” from which to determine itself. The will is the “mind choosing” (Edwards). Men choose the things they do because of the complex, finite persons that they are. They cannot will to walk on water or to flap their arms and fly. Their choices in such matters are restricted by their physical capabilities. Similarly, their moral choices are also determined by the total complexion of who they are. And the Bible informs us that men are not only finite but are now also sinners, who by nature cannot bring forth good fruit (Matt. 7:18), by nature cannot hear Christ’s word that they might have life (John 8:43), by nature cannot be subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7), by nature cannot discern truths of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), by nature cannot confess from the heart Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3), by nature cannot control the tongue (James 3:8), and by nature cannot come to Christ (John 6:44, 65). In order to do any of these things, they must receive powerful aid coming to them ab extra. So there simply is no such thing as a free will which can always choose the right.[20]Additional Biblical Evidence for Unconditional ElectionAlthough the evidence for unconditional election presented thus far is strong and irrefutable, there are other passages that clearly affirm this doctrine.[21](1) In Acts 13:48 Luke says that only those men who were appointed by God to eternal life believed. “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” The Greek word tetagmenoi, which is translated as ordained (KJV, ASV, RSV), appointed (NKJV, NASB, Berkeley, Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) and destined (JB) is the passive form of the verb tasso which (as might be expected) means to ordain, or to appoint. The fact that the verb is passive indicates that these people did not ordain themselves but were chosen by an outside agent—God the Father. “In the Greek, the form were ordained is a passive participle in the perfect tense. The perfect denotes action that took place in the past but is relevant for the present.” God predestined the salvation of particular persons even among the Gentiles. Thus, Luke, writing under divine inspiration, explicitly endorses the doctrine of unconditional election. These people believed in Christ because God first appointed them to eternal life. Therefore, this passage explicitly contradicts the idea that election is God’s response to man’s faith. God’s choice of a person to be saved is the cause, not the effect, of that person’ faith in Christ. Therefore, God receives all the glory for our salvation and we have no reason to boast.Why then, do some people believe and others disbelieve? According to Luke, the difference is not that some people are smarter, wiser or more holy than others, but that God has chosen or ordained some to life and passed by the rest. If you believe in Christ it is because God chose you and gave you the ability to believe by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit. God drew you to Christ and turned your stony heart into a heart of flesh. He turned your enmity toward the Savior into love and delight. God makes the unwilling, willing. Calvin writes,[T]his ordaining must be understood of the eternal counsel of God alone….And this place teacheth that faith dependeth upon God’s election. And assuredly, seeing that the whole race of mankind is blind and stubborn, those diseases stick fast in our nature until they are redressed by the grace of the Spirit, and that redressing floweth from the fountain of election alone. For in that of two which hear the same doctrine together, the one showeth himself apt to be taught, the other continueth in his obstinancy. It is not, therefore, because God doth lighten [illumine] the former, and doth not vouchsafe the other the like grace….though our heavenly Father invited all men into the faith by the external voice of man, yet doth he not call effectually by his Spirit any save those whom He hath determined to save.Those who reject predestination and unconditional election have attempted to circumvent the clear meaning of this passage in two different ways. First, there are people who simply ignore the meaning of the Greek and twist the passage so that it means what they would like it to mean. Thus, the Arminian translator of the Living Bible translates Acts 13:48b as follows: “…and as many as wanted eternal life believed.” Not only does this translation completely pervert the meaning of the original Greek but it also assumes something quite ridiculous. Apparently, those who did not believe did so because they did not want eternal life. In other words, they didn’t believe because they preferred the eternal tortures hell over paradise. They must have been sadomasochists! Another arbitrary translation comes from the pen of the old heretic Socinius who invented his own Greek grammar to have the passage say, “…as many as believed, were ordained to eternal life.” Socinius held to the view that if the Bible doesn’t say what one thinks it should, then one should switch the words around until it does.Second, a more sophisticated method for avoiding the doctrine of foreordination is to argue that the verb is not passive but middle: “…as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.” (In the Greek language passive and middle verbs have the same ending.) Such a translation must be rejected for the following reasons: a) Such a translation ignores the analogy of Scripture and the entire New Testament which teaches that God ordains or predestinates and not man (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; 9:11; Eph. 1:4; 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:26-29; 1Pet. 1:2, etc). b) It ignores the context of the book of Acts which teaches that no man is able to put himself in God’s debt by his own powers or works (Ac. 8:19ff; 13:39; 16:14). “[W]henever this verb occurs elsewhere, it invariably expresses the exertion of power or authority, divine or human, and being in the passive voice, cannot denote mere disposition, much less self-determination, any more than the form used in 2, 40 above…” c) The concept of being disposed to eternal life as a cause of believing is odd and foreign to Scripture. If we define dispose as having a natural inclination towards something, then would not everyone believe? How many people are there who would say that they do not want to go to heaven but instead have a preference for the flames of hell? The issue in Scripture is never a preference for heaven or hell but rather one’s attitude toward Jesus Christ. On this issue the Bible is crystal clear. No one has a natural disposition towards the Savior unless they were appointed to life by God and their hearts are changed by a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.Therefore, one should not be surprised to discover that all the ancient translations (including the Latin Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic as well as virtually all modern translations (Living Bible excepted) translate tetamenoi as the passive: “were ordained, or appointed.” Given the biblical evidence we must heed the wisdom of C. H. Spurgeon on this passage. He writes:Attempts have been made to prove that these words do not teach predestination, but these attempts so clearly do violence to language that I shall not waste time in answering them. I read, ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ and I shall not twist the text but shall glorify the grace of God by ascribing to that grace the faith of every man. Is it not God who gives the disposition to believe? If men are disposed to have eternal life, does not He—in every case—dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give grace? If it be right for Him to give it—is it wrong for Him to purpose to give it? Would you have Him give it by accident? If it is right for Him to purpose to give grace to-day, it was right for Him to purpose it before today—and, since He changes not—from eternity.(2) In Romans chapter 9 Paul gives a very detailed explanation of divine election. He writes: “[F]or the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.... As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’ So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (vs.11, 13-16). If one has ever wondered why some people become Christians and others continue in darkness, he need only read Romans 9:6-24. Paul argues that the reason some are saved and others are damned is that God so willed it. Paul says that God ultimately decides who receives mercy. Election reflects God’s will and purpose: “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:16).In order to emphasize God’s sovereignty over salvation (out of the whole Old Testament), Paul chooses the twin brothers Jacob and Esau as a case study in divine election. Paul sets out to prove that election to salvation flows solely from God’s will and purpose; that one’s blood line, parentage, upbringing, actions, or human choice have nothing to do with election. Note that Jacob and Esau were twins. They were conceived at the same moment and born only minutes apart. Unlike the case of Isaac and Ishmael who had different mothers, one being an Egyptian slave (Hagar), Jacob and Esau had the same mother, Rebekah. Both were covenant children born of the patriarch Isaac. Their conception was a miraculous answer to prayer (Gen. 25:21). From a human standpoint, if anyone had the advantage it was Esau who was the first born (Gen. 25:25) and favored by Isaac his father (Gen. 25:28). Furthermore, in order to make it absolutely clear that election has nothing to do with human merit or choice, Paul says that God chose one to salvation (Jacob) and one to reprobation (Esau) before they were even born; before either had done good or evil. Why is it that some people believe in Christ and others do not? Because God has mercy on some and others He hardens (Rom. 9:18). Ultimately God makes the difference. Paul reasons as “plainly as language can express the idea, the ground of the choice is not in those chosen, but in God who chooses.”There are a number of objections that have been raised against the doctrine of unconditional election as taught by Paul in Romans 9. First, it is said that when the passage says God hated Esau, it really means that God loved him less than He loved Jacob. Although the word hate can sometimes be used in Scripture to mean to love less (e.g., Lk. 14:26), the context of the passage quoted by Paul (Mal. 1:2-3) and Romans 9 itself indicate that in this instance hate does not mean to love less. “The context of Mal. 1:2-3 is one of judgment, punishment, indignation: ‘...Esau have I hated, and made his mountains a desolation.... They will build, but I will throw down.’” If Paul meant to love less, then why compare Esau to Pharaoh, whom God destroyed? God killed Pharaoh’s firstborn son and then drowned Pharaoh in the Red Sea. If a person slit the throat of your firstborn son and then drowned you in the backyard swimming pool, would you regard that person as loving you less? Also, why would Paul explain what he meant by saying that those hated beforehand are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (v. 22). They are lumps formed by God for dishonor (v. 21). It is obvious that hate in Rom. 9:13 does not mean and cannot mean to love less.Another objection is that Paul is not really referring to individual election, but the election of nations. Were not Jacob and Esau both the father of nations? Indeed they were. But the context of the passage indicates that here Paul is not at all concerned with collective or national election, but is explaining why “they are not all Israel, who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Paul is explaining the distinction between Israel and true Israel. He wants his reader to understand why so many within the elect nation do not believe. This brings Paul to a lengthy discussion of individual election so that all may understand: they are not all elect (individually), who are of elect Israel (nationally). Furthermore, according to the Arminian conception of justice and fairness “is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation, but the election of so many units, of so many people?—and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if—which we do not for a moment believe—there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in choosing one nation and not another. No! The difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word.”The most common objection is: “That’s not fair!” Paul himself anticipates such a response in verse 14: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?” Many people think that the doctrine of predestination, where God foreordains some to salvation and others to destruction before they are even born, is unjust. Although such a response may be natural for the unregenerate and those ignorant of theology, it should never be the response of a Christian. Paul, after posing the question, says, “Certainly not!” (v.14) Furthermore: “It is not for their being passed by that they are punished, but for their sins. Their being passed by is a sovereign act: their condemnation is a judicial act of God in His capacity as a Judge. ‘Salvation is all of grace; damnation all of sin. Salvation [is] of God from first to last—the Alpha and the Omega; but damnation [is] of men not of God: and if you perish at your own hands must your blood be required’ (C. H. Spurgeon).”Why does Paul have such an emphatic, negative reaction to the objection that divine election is unfair and unjust? Perhaps the apostle is outraged at the thought of finite sinful beings assuming they are competent to sit in judgment over the secret, eternal determinations of the triune God. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and our children forever” (Dt. 29:29). Perhaps Paul thinks that sinners who are selfish, narrow-minded, have an ax to grind against God, subjective and understand so little about God’s justice and plan ought to keep quiet. Such people “assume that we are competent to sit in judgment on God’s government of the universe; that we can ascertain the end He has in view, and estimate aright the wisdom and justice of the means adopted for its accomplishment. This is clearly a preposterous assumption, not only because of our utter incapacity to comprehend the ways of God, but also because we must of necessity judge before the consummation of his plan, and must also from appearances.”Further, a fatal problem with the objection that predestination or unconditional election makes God unjust is the simple fact that all human beings because of the sin of Adam and their own sins deserve eternal damnation. “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10-13). God could justly send every human being to hell. He is not obligated to save anyone. If God had not (because of His love) elected some to life and sent His only begotten Son to die, no one would go to heaven. “Shall we not fix it once for all in our minds that salvation is the right of no man; that a ‘chance’ to save himself is no ‘chance’ of salvation for any; and that, if any of the sinful race of man is saved, it must be by a miracle of almighty grace, on which he has no claim, and, contemplating which as a fact, he can only be filled with wondering adoration of the marvels of the inexplicable love of God? To demand that all criminals shall be given a ‘chance’ of escaping their penalties, and that all shall be given an ‘equal chance,’ is simply to mock at the very idea of justice, and no less, at the very idea of love.” This explains why election is always presented in Scripture as according to God’s will and purpose and not man’s merit. Paul goes on to quote Exodus 33:19 in response. The key to understanding election for Paul is God’s mercy. “For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (Rom. 9:15). What is mercy? Mercy is the unmerited or undeserved favor of God. “Compassion has to do with recognizing the poor or helpless state of a person and stooping to help that person. Mercy does the same, but its unique quality is that it is shown to people not only who do not deserve it, but who in fact deserve the opposite. In this case, mercy describes the giving of salvation to people who actually deserve to perish.”The Arminian thinks he is avoiding the common objection of unfairness by making the ultimate cause of election man’s choice of Christ. However, this supposed solution to the question of fairness does not really address the “problem.” The Bible clearly teaches that no one can be saved apart from Christ (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; 15:5; 1 Jn. 5:12; Rom. 10:13). Yet throughout the history of mankind, very few people have had the opportunity to hear the gospel. If God was trying to meet this human, unscriptural standard of justice that under girds Arminianism, would He not give every person in history an opportunity to hear the gospel? Yet, the biblical account shows that God in the Old Covenant era focused His attention on a tiny nation in Palestine while the rest of the world was left in complete ignorance and darkness. And even in the New Covenant era, when God is gathering His elect from every nation, the vast majority of people have not heard the gospel. Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in Asia, but rather was directed in a vision to go to Europe (Macedonia; cf. Ac. 16:6). God excluded some and focused on others. “It was the sovereign choice of God which brought the Gospel to the people of Europe and later to America, while the people of the east, and north, and south were left in darkness.”Also consider that God is in total control of when and where each person is born, yet some individuals are born into households where they are taught false religions and philosophies while others are born into Christian households where they hear the gospel throughout childhood. One child is born in poverty to wicked parents who worship idols, and another is born into a middle-class Christian family where Christ is taught, honored, and worshipped daily. The Bible teaches that God has the power to open and close the womb (cf. Gen. 30:2-3). God could (if He wanted to meet the Arminian standard of fairness) only allow children to be born into godly Christian households. Furthermore, some are born more intelligent, trusting, kind, etc., than others. If God’s elective choice is dependent upon the foreseen faith of man, as the Arminian asserts, then election is unjust, because all men are not born into equal circumstances and all are not born with equal intellectual capabilities.The doctrine of unconditional election is the only view of election which is just. The whole human race is dead in trespasses and sins, and under the just sentence of eternal damnation. But God, who is merciful, chooses “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5) to save some. None are deserving. None are spiritually able. None have a spiritual advantage. They all are at the same point. Then apart from anything in them God saves some and passes by others. This is exactly what Paul is saying when sinful, guilty humanity is compared to the “same lump.” “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Rom. 9:21) “This scripture evidences that there is ‘no difference,’ in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they are all clay of ‘the same lump,’ which agrees with Eph. 2:3, where we are told, that all are by nature children of wrath.” “The main idea Paul is putting across is this: if even a potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then certainly God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness.”Another fatal problem for the Arminian view of election as taught in Romans 9 is that if Paul is teaching that election is based not on God’s will, but human choice, the hypothetical objections that Paul raises to the doctrine don’t make any sense. If Esau was not elected because he did not exercise faith, why would anyone accuse God of injustice? The Arminian teaches that ultimately God had nothing to do with it. The objection raised in verse 19 (“You say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’”) is obviously made against predestination. If (as Arminians erroneously assert) God cannot violate man’s free will, and salvation is merely a possibility which man sovereignly appropriates, why an objection against God’s absolute control of salvation and reprobation? Furthermore, the illustration developed above regarding the potter fashioning the clay solely as he pleases is also totally out of place. Unconditional election is a hated doctrine by most professing Christians today. Yet, the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, championed the doctrine and taught it with such clarity that one can only wonder how those who profess belief in the Bible can deny it.It is truly sad that so many who profess the name of Christ hate the doctrine of unconditional election, for it is the heart of biblical religion and God-glorifying doctrine. What is more fundamental to biblical truth than the fact that salvation is a gift from God? “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10). Those who hate the doctrine in reality hate God’s sovereign grace. They would ignore the doctrine if they could, but since it is taught so clearly and often in the New Testament, they have no choice but to attempt to explain it away. Their main attempt—the idea that election is based on a foreseen faith—turns election into its very opposite: God does not elect man, but rather man elects God. Furthermore, predestination in such a scheme is really a postdestination. The Arminian viewpoint is unbiblical and illogical for it makes the eternal counsel and choice of God contingent upon the choice of men who are spiritually dead and unable to choose Christ (apart from regeneration) and who do not even exist yet! The Arminian scheme has temporal events controlling and conditioning the eternal, unchanging will of God. In other words, the clay has control over the potter. The Arminian, by taking election out of God’s hands and placing it in the hands of depraved man, has destroyed salvation by grace alone and replaced it with a humanistic synergism. Christ testified against such Scripture twisting when He said to His disciples: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (Jn. 15:16). Arminianism is unscriptural, irrational, and takes the glory due to God alone and bestows it upon sinful man.(3) In John chapter 17 which contains Christ’s solemn prayer to the Father after His farewell address, we find some very profound statements on the topic of election. After Jesus prays for Himself, He prays for those chosen by the Father. “You [the Father] have given eternal life to as many as You have given Him” (v. 2). “I pray for them, I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (v. 9). There are some important theological statements in our Lord’s words.a) Note that Jesus receives authority over the whole human race as a result of His redemptive obedience. “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18). He is the “head of every man” (1 Cor. 11:3); the “head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:10). “Christ…is gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Pet. 3:22). The reason the Mediator receives this authority is so that He can give eternal life to those given to Him by the Father. The ascended Savior sits at the right hand of God and gives the Holy Spirit to everyone who is to be saved. “‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Christ is sovereign over salvation and gives it only to the elect.b) Jesus only gives eternal life to those persons given to Him by the Father. Why are the people who are to be saved described as a possession of the Father’s that is given to the Son? Because in the economy of salvation it is the Father who chooses the elect. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:3-4).The Father takes what is His (the elect) and gives it as a love gift to the Son. “Beside the power given unto Christ over all creatures, there are a certain number of men given by the Father unto Christ in the covenant of redemption, that he may redeem, take charge of, and be forthcoming for them….”[36]All men without exception are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus. But, only those men chosen by God from all eternity who belong to the Father and are given to the Son will repent, believe and obtain eternal life. “This giving of men to the Son to be redeemed and saved is the same thing with election and predestination….All the elect are given from eternity to the Son, to be redeemed by His blood; and all the redeemed are in due time drawn by the Father to the Son [Jn. 6:44], to be kept to eternal life.” Now we can understand the certainty of Christ’s glorious promise in John 10:27-29, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”c) Note that Jesus does not pray for all men without exception, but only for the elect—those who are chosen and thus belong to the Father. The Savior prays and intercedes only for the elect and not for others because the elect are the possession of the Father. They have been given to the Son and are Christ’s also. Further, Jesus is glorified in them (v. 10). If (as Arminians assert) God is trying to save all men without exception, then why doesn’t the Savior pray for all men? The answer is simple. Christ only came to save His people, the elect, His sheep. Hendricksen writes:It is with reference to (peri) the elect that Jesus is making request, in order that the full merits of his redemption may be applied to them, namely to the given ones (see on 6:37, 39, 44; 17:6). It is for these given ones that he lays down his life (see on 10:11, 14); hence, it is also for them—for them alone—that he makes (is constantly making) this request. See also Rom. 8:34 (“he makes intercession for us”); Heb. 7:25 (“he ever lives to make intercession for those who draw near to God through him”) 9:24 (“Christ entered into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us”); and 1 John 2:1 (“We have a Helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous”).All this is particular, not universal. Nevertheless, the prayer of the Highpriest looks beyond the men who were in the Upper Room that night, as is clear from verses 20 and 21. It is wrong, moreover, to say (as is sometimes done) that Jesus prayed only for believers. Rather, he prayed for all his people, also for those who as yet did not believe in him, but were going to accept him by true faith later on (again, see verses 20, 21), as the result of sovereign grace.[38]The topic of election is one that is hated and avoided by most professing Christians today. Yet our Lord’s most detailed and longest prayer for His saints is incomprehensible without it. The typical “evangelical” objections to this doctrine are irrational, weak and based on human concepts of fairness, not biblical exegesis.(4) In 2 Thessalonians, Paul gives thanks to God for his brothers who have been loved by the Lord “because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2:13). When Paul wants to comfort and reassure the Thessalonians regarding their own participation in the coming deliverance on the day of the Lord he points them to divine election. They have been elected or chosen (heilato) by God from the beginning. “‘From the beginning’…dates this act of God’s, but not at the beginning when time began; apo, ‘from the beginning,’ dates from that extreme point of time (the Greek always thinks forward from the farthest point) because beyond that no point of time exists. The sense is thus the same as ‘before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4), in eternity.”[39] God chose His own unto salvation which is achieved in time through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Only those who are elected by God have the Holy Spirit given to them by Christ. The Spirit of God sets them apart, regenerates their dead hearts and enables them to savingly embrace Jesus Christ. “Here, therefore, is the true port of safety, that God, who elected us from the beginning, will deliver us from all the evils that threaten us. For we are elected to salvation; we shall, therefore be safe from destruction. But as it is not for us to penetrate into God’s secret counsel, to seek there assurance of our salvation, he specifies signs or tokens of election, which should suffice us for the assurance of it.” If (as the Arminians teach men elect themselves by an act of the unencumbered will (i.e., the divine decree is not based on God’s good pleasure but sinful fallen man’s choice of Jesus in history), then Paul’s appeal to divine election as a reassuring doctrine falls to the ground. Such appeals would really amount to no more than pep talks on man’s own power. “Don’t worry about your severe persecution. Your free will, which allowed God to save you, will pull you through this trial also.” We must reject such humanistic nonsense and thank God for His election of us; for His sovereign decision to save us even though we deserved to go to hell for our sins and were completely unable to make any move toward God. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father” (Jn. 6:65).ConclusionThe doctrine of unconditional election is foundational to biblical Christianity for it places the salvation of men squarely in the hands of God. “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jon. 2:9). Men are saved solely by God’s grace. Calvin writes: “We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast; that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others. How much the ignorance of this principle detracts from God’s glory, how much it takes away from true humility, is well known…. If—to make it clear that our salvation comes about solely from God’s mere generosity—we must be called back to the course of election.…

Words to think about. Rev C.J. Paul

• Silence is support.

• If you don’t stand for something…you’ll fall for anything.

• There are hills in which to die on

Imagine That..... Praise the Lord

Best Life When? by Daniel Nuckols

The Wrong Kind of Unity By Phil Johnson

The unity Christ prayed for in the church is not, to begin with, an organizational unity.
When Jesus prayed that we all might be one, He was describing a spiritual unity. In John 17:11, He prayed “that they may be one, even as We are.” Verse 21 continues: “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (emphasis added).
That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is certainly not something as mundane and superficial as the homogenization of all churches under one earthly hierarchy of bishops in Rome or Constantinople.
Organizational unity cannot guarantee true spiritual unity, and the proof is seen in the Church of Rome herself. Despite all the Catholic finger-wagging about the lack of unity reflected in Protestant denominationalism, there may well be more disharmony within the Roman Catholic Church than there is in the typical Protestant denomination.
Take, for example, Catholic Answers, the apologetics organization headed by Karl Keating. Although Keating and Catholic Answers did not invent the argument that Protestant denominationalism disproves sola fide, they certainly have perfected and popularized it. Staff apologists from Catholic Answers are the chief ones who brought this issue to the forefront of the Catholic-Protestant debate.
Catholic Answers published the tract cited in the first post in this series. And Keating himself personally trained a number of pro-Catholic debaters to employ this argument in their dialogues with Protestants.
Catholic Answers has hammered this same theme for years. According to them, an infallible, magisterial interpretation of Scripture is the only thing that can assure true unity, and the continuing proliferation and fragmentation of Protestant denominations is living proof that there can be no unity under the principle of sola scriptura.
Suppose for the sake of argument we grant their premises and measure the Catholic apologists themselves by their own standard? Keating is arguably the most prominent of dozens of Catholic apologists on the Internet. All of them claim they have an infallible interpretation of Scripture, given to them through the magisterium of Rome. So how has the principle of “unity” fared in the Roman Catholic apologetics community?
Not very well, it turns out. To cite one well-known example, Keating has disavowed and waged war on the Internet for several years against one of his best-known former lieutenants, Gerry Matatics, a convert from Protestantism who now heads an organization of his own. The trouble began, it seems, when Matatics declared his preference for traditional Catholicism with a Latin Mass, while Keating is staunchly in favor of the innovations instituted by the Vatican II Council—including the new Mass in the vernacular.
In 1995, Keating said he considered Matatics “a sad example of how schism leads very quickly to heresy.” [The Wanderer, February 16, 1995 p. 7.] Keating has published a number of articles over the years in This Rock magazine warning other Catholics against his former associate’s influence. [e.g., Karl Keating, “Habemus Papam?” This Rock (July/August 1995).] Both sides took their case to the World Wide Web, posting articles and open letters, debating whether Keating or Matatics best represents the “Catholic” position. [See, for example, “An Open Letter to Mr. Gerry Wells in Defense of Gerry Matatics“]
The battle raged for several years while Matatics remained in full communion with Rome. Then in early 2005, Matatics embraced a view known as sedevacantism, which is the opinion that no legitimate pope has occupied the Holy See since the death of Pius XII. Ostensibly, this involves a kind of auto-excommunication. According to Dave Armstrong (himself a lay Catholic apologist), when Matatics renounced the current pope,
he incurred latae sententiae (automatic excommunication), based on cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. The first states: the aforesaid canons defines schism as “refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. The second states that the penalty for is automatic excommunication.
Matatics, of course, still considers himself a Roman Catholic—a truer Catholic than those who accept Vatican II. The ironic thing is that virtually every pope for the 450 years before Vatican II would have much more in common with Matatics than with Keating in their respective opinions about the Mass. (So much for semper eadem.)
And Matatics is not the only Roman Catholic apologist to wage a public feud with Keating. Robert A. Sungenis is still at it.
Such feuds are symptomatic of several larger conflicts within the Catholic Church. Keating is a “conservative Catholic,” whereas Sungenis is a “traditionalist.” The Roman Catholic Church is home to vast differences of opinion about the Marian doctrines, confusion about supposed Marian prophecies, disputes over canon law, and other deep-seated disagreements about important doctrines. Various factions and sects operate within the walls of the Catholic Church, waging polemic battles as lively and intense as any that ever took place between Protestant denominations.
Add into that mix the scores of radical or liberal priests who blend their peculiar doctrinal and political preferences into the Catholic system, and you have a chaos of varying opinions that is at least equal to that of even the most variegated Protestant denomination.
The simple fact is that there is really no more unity of agreement among Roman Catholics than there is among Protestants. Even with an “infallible interpretation” of Scripture, it seems, the Roman Catholic track record on true spiritual unity is as bad as, or worse than, that of the Protestants.
How much “unity” can there be, for example, between, say, Father Andrew Greely and Mother Angelica (to name two of America’s best-known Catholics)? Greely is a liberal priest and novelist, who once said on “Larry King Live” that he believes the Catholic Church eventually will not only ordain women as priests, but also elect a woman as pope. Mother Angelica is a traditionalist Franciscan nun who has used her televised talk show to criticize other Catholic leaders, including Cardinal Richard Mahoney, for their non-traditionalist stance on liturgical matters.
Do Catholic critics of Protestant denominationalism seriously imagine that their Church embodies a pure, visible, organizational, and spiritual unity comparable in any way to the unity within the Trinity?
In fact, with so many who profess loyalty to Peter’s chair waging battle among themselves over church politics and key points of truth, it should be painfully obvious to all that Roman Catholics are really no better able to agree on their own Church’s “infallible interpretation” than Protestants have been able to agree in exhaustive detail on the meaning of Scripture itself.
Clearly, an external, organizational unity cannot guarantee the kind spiritual unity Christ was praying for. It would be a serious mistake, and a serious blow to real unity, to imagine that the answer to our denominational division is the abandonment of denominations altogether, and the union of all who profess Christ into one massive worldwide organization where we affirm only what we all agree on. No real agreement whatsoever would be achieved through such means, and thus we would have no more true unity than we already enjoy. Meanwhile, the cause of truth would suffer a severe blow, and that would ultimately prove fatal to all genuine unity.
But the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).
That is precisely the kind of unity Christ was praying for. There is nothing superficial about it. It is a unity of spirit. It is a unity in truth. And that is why, in the context of his prayer for unity, Christ also prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Musical, Aesthetic, and Ceremonial Devices

Quoting Charles Spurgeon . . .
Our Savior did not use any means which might enlist man's lower nature on his side. When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven.
I find no rubric in Scripture commanding Paul to clothe himself in robes of blue, scarlet, or violet; neither do I find Peter commanded to wear a surplice, an alb, or a chasuble. The Holy Spirit has not cared even to hint at a surpliced choir, or at banners, processions, and processional hymns. Now, if our Lord had arranged a religion of fine shows, and pompous ceremonies, and gorgeous architecture, and enchanting, music, and bewitching incense, and the like, we could have comprehended its growth; but he is "a root out of a dry ground", for he owes nothing to any of these.
Christianity has been infinitely hindered by the musical, the aesthetic, and the ceremonial devices of men, but it has never been advantaged by them, no, not a jot. The sensuous delights of sound and sight have always been enlisted on the side of error, but Christ has employed nobler and more spiritual agencies. Things which fascinate the senses are left to be the chosen instruments of Antichrist, but the gospel, disdaining Saul's armor, goes forth in the natural simplicity of its own might, like David, with sling and stone. Our holy religion owes nothing whatever to any carnal means; so far as they are concerned, it is "a root out of a dry ground".

Church For People Who Don't Like Church

Ok, Here is a test for everyone who is truly seeking after the Truth to be brought back to God's church. I will let you write in and tell me what is wrong with this concept of the new ACTION CHURCH. Rev. Charles J. Paul

By MELISSA NANN BURKEYork Daily Record
YORK, Pa. -- No pews. No organ. No problem.
For an hour on a recent Sunday morning, Fat Daddy's Night Club became Actionchurch, billed as "church for people who don't like church."
In its second week, Actionchurch drew about 50 people for loud Christian rock, a biblical message, free doughnuts and coffee at 11 a.m.
Dressed in jeans and sweats, they sat in front of the band or on stools at the bar (which was closed).
They listened to the Lancaster band Unsettled play under purple and red stage lights, and, to muffle the bass, some visitors stuffed their ears with the foam plugs provided at the door.
In the upstairs bar, the go-go platforms were covered up for Sunday school. The 15 children heard a lesson titled, "God is Love."
After the band's set, Don Record, pastor, preached using the structure of VH1's popular "Behind the Music" series (flashback, rehab and comeback) to explain the ups and downs of the early Christian church.
While doing so, Record, 39, explained the mission of Actionchurch: "To put the teachings of Jesus into action."
Indeed, people's perception of Jesus depends on what they see his followers do, Record said.
That's why Actionchurch meets in a bar.
Record wants to connect with people who don't normally go to church and to do so, you go where churches usually don't.
Jesus would do it were he here, Record said.
He sees Actionchurch within the spirit of a large and diverse movement called the "emerging church," whose followers share a desire to make Christianity relevant -- especially for people who've been turned off by conventional congregations or frustrated with traditional church structures.
Many emerging churches put strong emphasis in community outreach and eschew denominational squabbling and divisive church politics.
To draw in youth and stay interesting, they embrace pop culture.
Record introduced his sermon with a clip from "American Idol" and mentioned Nascar, Aerosmith, the Acts of the Apostles, Elvis, diarrhea, Forrest Gump and John the Baptist in his message.
"Just because we're doing things kind of different here, that doesn't mean that everyone else is somehow doing it wrong," he explained.
"God didn't make a church. He made all different types of churches."
For five years, Record served on staff at York Christian Church, where he was ordained. He was fired last year in part because of leadership differences, said Record and boss Dennis Ray, senior pastor.
In the meantime, Record, his wife and 4-year-old daughter attended Lancaster County Bible Church, a megachurch in Manheim.
Record, a painting contractor by day, promoted Actionchurch at Susquehanna Speedway, where a car races painted with the Actionchurch logo. He handed out free coffee at the York Fair and has plans to hang out at the next Bike Week.
He planned the Actionchurch kickoff for the Sunday between the Super Bowl and the Daytona 500 because he wanted to make it easy for both men and women to come, he said.
After the service, 31-year-old mom Meryn Branch of Spring Garden Township said she doesn't feel judged by the Actionchurch crowd -- unlike experiences she's had in other congregations.
"I was tired of the stuffiness," she said.
Actionchurch is "180-degrees different" than churches Lori Yost has known. She came back after her first visit because of the down-to-earth feel and Record's urging to practice random acts of kindness.
She said, "This was an incredibly freeing experience -- to go into an unconventional setting and touch the hearts of people."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is what the Bible says is wrong with the action church........................

The Church Versus the World By John MacArthur

Why do evangelicals try so desperately to court the world's favor? Churches plan their worship services to cater to the "unchurched." Christian performers ape every worldly fad in music and entertainment. Preachers are terrified that the offense of the gospel might turn someone against them, so they deliberately omit the parts of the message the world might not approve of.
Evangelicalism seems to have been hijacked by legions of carnal spin-doctors, who are trying their best to convince the world that the church can be just as inclusive, pluralistic, and broad-minded as the most politically-correct worldling.
The quest for the world's approval is nothing less than spiritual harlotry. In fact, that is precisely the imagery the apostle James used to describe it. He wrote: "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4).
There is and always has been a fundamental, irreconcilable incompatibility between the church and the world. Christian thought is out of harmony with all the world's philosophies. Genuine faith in Christ entails a denial of every worldly value. Biblical truth contradicts all the world's religions. Christianity itself is therefore antithetical to virtually everything this world admires.
Jesus told His disciples, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:18-19).
Notice that our Lord considered it a given that the world would despise the church. Far from teaching His disciples to try to win the world's favor by reinventing the gospel to suit worldly preferences, Jesus expressly warned that the quest for worldly accolades is a characteristic of false prophets: "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26).
He further explained: "The world . . . hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). In other words, the world's contempt for Christianity stems from moral, not intellectual, motives: "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (John 3:19-20). That is why no matter how dramatically worldly opinion might vary, Christian truth will never be popular with the world.
Yet in virtually every era of church history there have been people in the church who are convinced that the best way to win the world is by catering to worldly tastes. Such an approach has always been to the detriment of the gospel message. The only times the church has made any significant impact on the world are when the people of God have stood firm, refused to compromise, and boldly proclaimed the truth despite the world's hostility. When Christians have shrunk away from the task of confronting popular worldly delusions with unpopular biblical truths, the church has invariably lost influence and impotently blended into the world. Both Scripture and history attest to that fact.
And the Christian message simply cannot be twisted to conform to the vicissitudes of worldly opinion. Biblical truth is fixed and constant, not subject to change or adaptation. Worldly opinion, on the other hand, is in constant flux. The various fads and philosophies that dominate the world change radically and regularly from generation to generation. The only thing that remains constant is the world's hatred of Christ and His gospel.
In all likelihood, the world will not long embrace whatever ideology is in vogue this year. If the pattern of history is any indicator, by the time our great grandchildren become adults, worldly opinion will be dominated by a completely new system of belief and a whole different set of values. Tomorrow's generation will renounce all of today's fads and philosophies. But one thing will remain unchanged: until the Lord Himself returns and establishes His kingdom on earth, whatever ideology gains popularity in the world will be as hostile to biblical truth as all its predecessors have been.

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 8

Q24: How are these articles divided?

A24: Into three parts: the first is of God the Father and our creation; the second, of God the Son and our redemption; the third, of God the Holy Ghost and our sanctification.[1]

1. I Peter 1:2; I John 5:7

Q25: Since there is but one Divine Being,[1] why do you speak of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

A25: Because God has so revealed Himself in His Word,[2] that these three distinct Persons are the one, true, eternal God.
1. Deut. 6:4
2. Isa. 61:1; Psa. 110:1; Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; I John 5:7; II Cor. 13:14

The Directory for Family Worship, 1647

Introduction
It is easy for each generation to think that its own times are more stressful than any other period in the past, and that it is just not possible to walk in the old paths any more. However, apart [perhaps] from a few periods of heightened revival, it has never been easy to live a consistent Christ honouring life in any age. Satan sees to that, and Christ's own intercessory prayer of John 17 [vv 6-19] is proof of that. With Christ's continued intercession for us, and the guarantee of His preservation, we simply cannot use the excuse that times are tough. Whenever we are tempted to do so, we must draw strength from the example of past generations who won freedoms at the cost of their own blood, and the blood of their children.
The practice of Family Worship has long been one of the key evidences of the revival of true godliness and piety throughout history. While it is dangerous to measure ourselves by past practice alone, it is true that if there are themes which continually re-appear, then these are good indicators of how the Spirit of Christ has been pleased to stir up practical action in the life of the Church.
It is quite clear from the Bible, that the real engine room of a united worshipping Church is the united worshipping family. The whole stress on God's covenant promises and man's covenant responsibility is evidence of that. It is equally clear, that this is something which must continually be pressed on each successive generation by patient and loving example and instruction.
In 1647 on the 24th August, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approved guidelines for Family Worship. A few days later on the 27th, the same Assembly adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith.
It is hoped that this republication of the Directory in a modernised form, will be one small practical means that the Spirit of God will use to motivate and encourage families today to deepen their love for and practice of Family Worship.

Rev. Graham NicholsonPresbyterian Church of Australia


APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, FOR PIETY AND UNIFORMITY IN SECRET AND PRIVATE WORSHIP, AND MUTUAL EDIFICATION, WITH AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1647 FOR OBSERVING THE SAME
DIRECTIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, CONCERNING SECRET AND PRIVATE WORSHIP, AND MUTUAL EDIFICATION; FOR CHERISHING PIETY, FOR MAINTAINING UNITY, AND AVOIDING SCHISM AND DIVISION
By God's mercy, public worship has been established in this land in great purity. Besides this however, it is both expedient and necessary for each person to be involved in "secret worship", and for families to worship together privately as a family. By this, along with our national reformation, the profession and power of godliness, both personal and domestic, shall be advanced.

And first, for secret worship, it is most necessary, that everyone take part in private prayer and meditation. This practice brings benefits that are impossible to describe, and which are only fully appreciated by those who are most careful to put it into practice. This is the means whereby, in a special way, one communes with God, and is properly prepared for the Christian life. Therefore it is necessary that pastors encourage everybody to this practice, morning and evening, and at other times as well. But it is also the duty of the head of every family, to take good care that both they themselves, and those in their care are diligent in this practice every day.

The ordinary duties which should be part of a godly family met for family worship are these: Firstly, prayer and praise touching the life and present needs of the church at large, the nation, and of every member of the family. Secondly the reading of the Scriptures, with a plain explanation of the text so that all [children especially] may be better able to benefit from attendance at public worship, and profit from their own private reading. As well, there should be some discussion with application to all members of the family, with appropriate rebukes and corrections explained by those in authority in the home.


Just as the duty and office of interpreting the Scriptures is a ministerial office, and no-one regardless of their qualifications should usurp that without being properly called and set apart for that office, so too it is the specially called duty of the head of the family, to read the scriptures plainly to the family. After this, it is commendable that there be some discussion and application of what has been read. For example, if in the reading there is some sin rebuked, then the whole family should be warned against it and urged to be watchful. If there is a Divine judgement threatened, or described, then all should be cautioned lest through their complacency and lack of watchfulness, the same judgement, or even something worse, should come upon them. Finally, if there is some duty commanded, or some comfort promised, this can be used to stir up each one to seek Christ's strength to perform that duty, or to seek His gracious provision of that comfort. In all of this the head of the family is to give the lead, and family members should seek answers to their questions and doubts from him.


The head of the family is to take care that no-one in the family withdraws from family worship. Further, since the responsibility for family worship belongs to the head of the home, the minister is to stir up those who are lazy, and train those who are weak, so that all will be equipped properly. It is also quite proper for a man to engage anyone else approved by the Presbytery to train him and his family. Then too if the head of the family is unfit to lead family worship, another member of the family approved by the minister and session may be given that task. The minister and session are accountable to the presbytery for those whom they recommend in this way. If through the providence of God the minister should be present and convene family worship, he should do so with the whole family present, unless there are special reasons [eg something that should be discussed privately] for meeting only with some.


No-one who is lazy, whose Christian faith is unknown, or who is unsettled in their faith should be allowed to lead family worship even if they volunteer themselves. This is the way error subtly and deceitfully enters homes, causes division, and leads the gullible and unthinking astray.


Family worship should be kept a private matter, and not the opportunity for wider invitations to others, unless they are visitors in the home, or guests for meals, etc. when they should most definitely be invited to be a part.


Even though God has clearly used and blessed the gathering together of different families for worship in times of great difficulty and trouble [when the usual order of things can be often overturned] yet in times of peace and stability and gospel purity, we believe that multiple gatherings of families should not be encouraged. It tends to limit the fuller participation of each family and family member; and in time can prejudice against the need for public ministry, cause divisions between families in congregations, and even split the Church. All this can be the entry point for further error, cause the ungodly to harden their hearts further, and bring great grief to the godly.


On the Lord's Day, after every member of the family separately, and the whole family together have sought the Lord to prepare their hearts and fit them for worship and make that time a blessing to them, the head of the home is to take care that all under his care then attend public worship and be part of the local congregation. Then, after public worship is concluded, and a time of prayer, he is to go over what they have heard with them. The rest of the day ought to be set apart for catechising and discussing some aspect of the Word of God together. Alternatively, family members should give themselves to private reading, contemplation and prayer, so that their own fellowship with God is increased. All of this is so that the blessing and benefits of publicly gathering together will be increased and appreciated properly, and each person given a greater appreciation of Eternal Life.


All those who can pray should do so remembering that prayer is a gift from God to be used, and those who are young in the faith can well begin by using set outlines for prayer. However they should not be content with that, or use it as an excuse for spiritual sluggishness. Rather, in their own private devotions they should frequently and earnestly ask God to enable them to pray, by moving their hearts to think of and their mouths to express, those things that are necessary for their family. A sample set form is outlined below:

Prayer should include:
Confession as to their unworthiness to come before God in prayer and worship, and an earnest desire that He would grant a truly prayerful spirit.
Confession of sin, both individual and family, and in such a way as to bring about true humiliation.
The earnest, Spirit-led, pouring out of the soul's cry to God for forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ,
Thanksgiving to God for His many mercies to His people, to themselves particularly, and especially for his love in Christ, and for the light of the gospel.
Prayer for such particular spiritual and temporal blessings as are needed at the time [whether morning or evening] whether in health, sickness, prosperity or adversity.
Intercessory prayer for the church of Christ in general, for all churches where reformed doctrine and practice are evident, and for their local church in particular; for all who suffer for the sake of Christ; for all in positions of authority and government, the royal household, those in the administration of justice, ministers, the whole body of the local congregation, as well as for their neighbours.
Closing with an earnest desire that God would be glorified in the coming of the kingdom of His Son, and in the doing of His will; with confidence that their prayers have been heard, and that what they have asked according to His will shall be done.


The exercise of family worship should be sincere, and without delay, avoiding all worldly distractions, and hindrances, and in spite of any scorn from atheists and worldly men. And to better bring this about, the leading men and all the elders of the Church, should stir up themselves and their own families to this practice. Not only that, but they should also agree to try and introduce family worship into all the families they have under their spiritual care.


Besides the ordinary duties in family worship as mentioned above [2], there are special duties of humiliation, repentance and thanksgiving which should be carefully attended to within families when [either in public or in private] the Lord calls them forth by His providential workings.


Because the word of God requires that we should consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, every member of the Church should always be diligent to stir up themselves and others in the duty of mutual edification. This is especially necessary in these days when profanity abounds, and when mockers are amazed that we will not follow them in their lusts and excesses. This common encouragement comes by instruction, admonition, and rebuke, as each exhorts the other to show the grace of God by denying ungodliness and worldly lusts; in living godly, soberly and righteously in the world; and by comforting the faint hearted and praying with and for one another. These things will be especially necessary when others seek advice and comfort in times of calamity, or when an offender is to be reclaimed through private rebuke by one or more as set down in the Bible.


Not everyone is always able to give the right counsel to one who is wearied or distressed in conscience. If in such cases, after pursuing all private and public means, there is still no peace, they should then seek out their own Pastor, or some other experienced Christian. However, if the circumstances are such that discretion, modesty, or fear of scandal require a second person present as a witness, [eg because of the sex or state of the person in trouble] this should be done.


In the providence of God members of different families are often brought together away from home through employment, or other reasons. As they would want the Lord's presence with them wherever they are, so also they should want to obey God and not neglect the duties of prayer and thanksgiving. They should therefore arrange for the one best equipped among them to lead them in "family" worship. They should also take care that no corrupting speech come forth from their mouths, but only that which is good and edifying, which brings grace to their hearers.


The purpose and scope of all these directions is twofold. Firstly that the power and practice of godliness amongst all ministers and members of the Church whatever their calling, may be cherished and advanced, and that all irreligiousness and mocking of the Christian life will be stopped. And secondly, that no meetings or practices be allowed which are likely to breed error, scandal, schism, contempt or disregard for public worship and the ministry, the neglect of one's Christian duty, or any other evils which are the works, not of the Spirit of God, but of the flesh, and contrary to truth and peace.