It’s All Grace Unless You Run Out of Will Power

(Note: This is an old post from my stint at Reformed Mafia. JCT was a frequent visitor there.)

The condemnations of Arminianism from Dort:

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Who teach that in spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man’s will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it – or else not to will or choose it.

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

JCT said:

Once again you display your raving ignorance of Christian doctrine, Twitchell. You demonstrate quite succinctly what I pointed out before: you have no clue as to what the word ‘Pelagian’ even means; you toss the term around heedlessly, using it as a tar-brush to spuriously incriminate Christians who dare to disagree with you.

Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were not condemned for being synergistic, they were condemned as heresy because they denied the necessity of grace (The Canons of the Council of Orange, Canon 5); the very same canons affirmed that men are saved by aid from and cooperation with Christ.

I never mentioned Orange. To disabuse any who think JCT’s claims are true:

From the Council of Orange:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, “For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21); and “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else “even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which “has been poured into our hearts” not by freedom of will from our own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

What is evident is that Orange did indeed condemn synergism. So did Dort. The Arminian position is always in some facet of explanation heresy, whether the dishonesty resides in a well respected SBC hero, or in the rantings of bitter internet preachers. And while the Canons of Orange did soften the notions of imputation and exclusivity of God working monergistically in all ways in sanctification, it can plainly be seen that the initiation, source and completion of all things is finally God’s work alone:

Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which “has been poured into our hearts” not by freedom of will from our own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us

My position has always been that it is exclusively a monergistic work of God, but agree, that man is not merely passive. I describe it as passive/active, acknowledging what Paul taught, that he worked harder than all, yet not he, but Christ who was in him. As the White Horse Inn selection explains, the Pelagian error is more than just the particulars of Pelagius’ original sin rejection. It goes to the usurpation of God’s work of grace as monergistic. In both the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian systems grace is only that assistance to the natural ability of self-attainment, turning grace into works. Pelagius even went so far as to say that man did not need grace at all. And, as I have contended, as RC Sproul and John Hendryx conclude, as the men of WHI conclude, when it comes to Arminianism, the result of their view of grace and man’s cooperation with it simply results in Pelagius’ Island, that little area, where man does not depend upon the grace of God as sufficient for all things, but is finally on his own to make the choice.

I hope this is enough to convince the readers of this blog just who JCT is. Both Orange and Dort condemned the semi-Pelagian notions of grace. Again, I refer the reader to Canon 5 that JCT referenced to see that what JCT claimed about it was false:

For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers

And also later in Cannon 6:

if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Notice, that JCT does not make faith itself the grace which is given. And notice that the Canon clearly states that it is a supernatural faith not common to man. In effect, the grace of faith is the “conduit” or that which receives and rests in Christ, and not the will of man. It is also clear that it is grace that bends the will towards God and not man, contrary to the assertion of JCT. It is not left to man to will from neutrality, but it is the very gift of grace that kills the resistance and moves the will irresisably to trust in Christ.

Our final authority is not the councils, it is Scripture. We do, however, look to them as an appeal. What we find is that men before us saw in the Scripture undeniable evidence of the monergistic work of God in all facets of our salvation. It was the impetus of the Reformation. To exalt the humanistic free-will and the power of contrary choice is to embrace Erasmus and to return to Rome and condemn Luther. Our separation from Rome hinges upon the denunciation of the free-will doctrine; that is, justification by grace alone through faith alone. Paraphrasing Luther: as justification by grace is the hinge, if by reenshrining free-will, we remove the hinge pin upon which the whole of the protestation hangs, the Wittenburg door falls.

Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will

John Owen helps us to understand that the Holy Spirit goes before the Word to regenerate:

This work of regeneration is not preached to the will and so it not resisted by the will, but it works effectively on the will, wonderfully renewing it.

 

The Holy Spirit is the sole efficacious agent in regeneration so that it can never be said that the man according to his own will chooses to be saved, nor can it be said that man by his own will has rejected that which he could have had if he had chosen. Monergistic regeneration (salvation) is not without the Word as Owen also makes clear, voiding the heretical teaching of the likes of Billy Graham. But, it precedes it and accomplishes what the Word declares, prior to the hearing of the Word.

Russel Moore tried to state what the Gospel is as a leader of a major Seminary. Unfortunately the SBC in launching the Great Commission Resurgence has not first established the true Gospel that goes along with it even among its leaders, as this video makes clear. How sad.

Though recorded in 2007, nothing has changed in the SBC in the past two years. Indeed, not much has changed in the SBC for over a century. Finneyesque revivalism is still preached in most SBC churches. This Methodistic approach, is not the Gospel. Listen as Russell Moore struggles to explain but fails miserably to establish what the Gospel is for his audience:

How different the Gospel is from what Moore represents:

Jesus tells us that it is the Father who draws men to the Word. That regeneration must come before the Word is without doubt as we witness in the ministry of John the Baptist. Even in the incarnation we see that the Spirit generates the new life of the Word and then the thing conceived is birthed. Jesus is arguing with the teachers of the Law who believed that the Word must precede or go together with the regeneration of man. But Jesus’ complaint against them was that they thought the in the Scripture salvation was found. The answer was that unless the Spirit makes alive and brings forth from the tomb alive he who was once dead he cannot see the Word. This is the lesson of John with Nicodemus, this is the lesson of John with Lazarus and this is the lesson of Jesus who said that no man can come to the Word except that the Father draws him. Paul tells us in Titus that it is the Word that makes manifest what has happened. It does not cause if. Unless regeneration precedes the Word, no one comes to know the One who the Father says, “This is my Son, listen to him.” Regeneration is the drawing which is spoken of in John. Without it, there is no life for the Son to call forth from the grave.

This work of regeneration is not preached to the will and so it not resisted by the will, but it works effectively on the will, wonderfully renewing it.

Who’s Calling? A Response To Element’s Jeff Maness

Jeff Maness’s take on the call to ministry leaves a whole hole to be filled. This is a response to part of what he has posted at Element Insider.

Here’s the thing about calling: it is irrevocable. Of salvation, it is those who were called who were those who were predestined to that calling and those called were sanctified and were glorified. There is no standing in the way, as Maness previously said. No one can stop Jesus’ work, that work that the Father gave Him to do. He saves all those who were given to Him without fail. That is the lesson of Peter. Everyone called is prayed for by Jesus, John 17. And each one does make it. Everyone to whom little is given and everyone to whom much is given, all that God has called will hear and follow. That is the prayer we are instructed to pray. All that, by the way, done in eternity passed, the works which God has given us such that we will walk in them (Ephesians 2:10). God’s will, will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven, he working in us both the willingness and the power to do His good pleasure.

So the question is since it is irrevocable, Romans 11:29, can the call ever be denied?

According to the Evangelical Church’s teaching it can, according to Jeff Maness it can, according to Wesley and Arminius, it could, but according to Scripture, the only ones who can deny the call are those who were never called in the first place.

Mormons answer the call and are dead wrong. Emotional drive and ego attachment can accomplish much- ask Hitler who was convinced of his heavenly calling- but they are no test of the validity of the call. Judas, who had great zeal for the poor, was one who was never called. Peter was one who was called, who remembered the poor but not as a priority. Jesus makes clear that all those he was given in eternity will come to him because it is the Father’s work, not theirs. He also tells the apostles that they have been granted thrones which they will fill, but not according to their desires, but the Father’s. And not according to their choices or works, but according to the call. And if Judas was the son of perdition who fulfilled Scripture, that is, he could not have done otherwise no matter how he “loved” the poor, and his seat really belonged to another, Acts 1:15-26, what sense is there in saying (as Maness implies) that a man can deny what God has foreordained, if God is for him? What sense would the story of Jonah make, if he could?

Maness says:

2 Corinthians 6:8 We serve God whether people honor us or despise us, whether they slander us or praise us.

Manesss puts himself among the apostles? If he claims this about hisself where the context is apostolic credentials and not ministers’ credibility in general, does he also claim:

as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

Really? This has been his testimony? Without a doubt there are ministers who have undergone extreme temptation since the apostles but it did not make them such. Some how I doubt it has ever been the case with Maness. And beside, as I said, the context here is not general coverage of ministers’ derrières, but of apostolic authority.

Does Maness mean to make such a bold claim? Perhaps he had better think about a more humble approach, then?

Again Maness claims:

“I could care less about how I might be evaluated by any human, GOD will examine me and decide.”

So Paul’s examination of others didn’t matter? When he claimed the authority of the Word to examine and judge others, it meant nothing? When he said he would be coming to judge what others were doing in ministry, it didn’t matter? When he taught Timothy to silence false teachers, it didn’t matter? See, what I think Maness is doing is what many prosperity teacher do, excusing the call, not defending it, excusing ignorance, not amending it.

The ministry is open to examination by those within and those without. So a minister must brace up, get a backbone and defend the faith faithfully as Paul taught Timothy, and not by the emotional appeal that the ministers are some how above judgement and escape evaluation, because they got the burning in the bosom or some other anointing they appeal to. Our only appeal for credibility is to the authority of the Word of God, now, not in the future. That is what Paul was teaching, not that we would stand to be judged in the future state, but that if we judged ourselves rightly, now, we would not be judged, then, at all. In fact, at that point it won’t matter. What matters is the right testimony, now. As Paul said, we must learn to not go beyond what is written, now. And, we know that by the measure with which we judge we will be judged. And that must be done, now. So the obvious question, if a minister is not willing to be judged, now, of what value is his judgement about the call? And to what is it that he has been called which will be assayed, then? That is what Paul was talking about. What materials the ministry is built with, matters:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Carelessness, clearly, is not a sign of the call, is it? Paul grants no freedom to build with what will be burned up. The opposite is true. The day he was speaking of was not necessarily the eschaton, but most likely was that day when he himself would come and judge the Corinthians:

For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

As he was doing in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians he is warning them at the end of 2 Corinthians. The reason for the priority of getting it right now is the fact that the teachers will stand to make an accounting before God as Peter said. So, it is imperative that those called as elders also submit to criticism and not think themselves above it.

Last Will And Testament: Hebrews And The Intent, Extent And Efficaciousness Of The Atonement (Pt. 9)

The writer of Hebrew makes his next transition with a leap into the necessary gracing of faith. Faith he says has substance so let’s read what Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield means when he says that faith is given only to those who are chosen by God to receive it. Along with that contemplate: since without faith it is impossible to please God, (Hebrews 11:6), that what the author has had in mind is this benefit of the atonement as the purchased inheritance of the saints which has now been granted on the behalf of Christ to those who will believe.

Summary Statement Faith by Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield

III. THE BIBLICAL CONCEPTION OF FAITH

By means of the providentially mediated diversity of emphasis of the New Testament writers on the several aspects of faith, the outlines of the biblical conception of faith are thrown into very high relief.

Of its subjective nature we have what is almost a formal definition in the description of it as an ‘assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen’ (Heb. xi. 1). It obviously contains in it, therefore, an element of knowledge (Heb. xi. 6), and it as obviously issues in conduct (Heb. xi. 8, cf. v. 9, I Pet. i. 22). But it consists neither in assent nor in obedience, but in a reliant trust in the invisible Author of all good (Heb. xi. 27), in which the mind is set upon the things that are above and not on the things that are upon the earth (Col. iii. 2, cf. II Cor. iv. 16-18, Mt. vi. 25. The examples cited in Heb. xi are themselves enough to show that the faith there commended is not a mere belief in God’s existence and justice and goodness, or crediting of His word and promises, but a practical counting of Him faithful (xi. 11), with a trust so profound that no trial can shake it (xi. 35), and so absolute that it survives the loss of even its own pledge (xi. 17). So little is faith in its biblical conception merely a conviction of the understanding, that, when that is called faith, the true idea of faith needs to be built up above this word (Jas. ii. 14 ff.). It is a movement of the whole inner man (Rom. x. 9, 10), and is set in contrast with an unbelief that is akin, not to ignorance but to disobedience (Heb. iii. 18, 19, Jn. iii. 36, Rom. xi. 20, 30, xv. 31, I Thess. i. 8, Heb. iv. 2, 6, I Pet. i. 7, 8, iii. 1, 20, iv. 18, Acts xiv. 2, xix. 9), and that grows out of, not lack of information, but that aversion of the heart from God (Heb. iii. 12) which takes pleasure in unrighteousness (II Thess. ii. 12), and is so unsparingly exposed by our Lord (Jn. iii. 19, v. 44, viii. 47, x. 26). In the breadth of its idea, it is thus the going out of the heart from itself and its resting on God in confident trust for all good. But the scriptural revelation has to do with, and is directed to the needs of, not man in the abstract, but sinful man; and for sinful man this hearty reliance on God necessarily becomes humble trust in Him for the fundamental need of the sinner – forgiveness of sins and reception into favour. In response to the revelations of His grace and the provisions of His mercy, it commits itself without reserve and with abnegation of all self-dependence, to Him as its sole and sufficient Saviour, and thus, in one act, empties itself of all claim on God and casts itself upon His grace alone for salvation.

It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace, whether conceived of broadly as the source of all life, light, and blessing, on whom man in his creaturely weakness is entirely dependent, or, whenever sin and the eternal welfare of the soul are in view, as the Author of salvation in whom alone the hope of unworthy man can be placed. This one object of saving faith never varies from the beginning to the end of the scriptural revelation; though, naturally, there is an immense difference between its earlier and later stages in fulness of knowledge as to the nature of the redemptive work by which the salvation intrusted to God shall be accomplished; and as naturally there occurs a very great variety of forms of statement in which trust in the God of salvation receives expression. Already, however, at the gate of Eden, the God in whom the trust of our first parents is reposed is the God of the gracious promise of the retrieval of the injury inflicted by the serpent; and from that beginning of knowledge the progress is steady, until, what is implied in the primal promise having become express in the accomplished work of redemption, the trust of sinners is explicitly placed in the God who was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (II Cor. v. 19). Such a faith, again, could not fail to embrace with humble confidence all the gracious promises of the God of salvation, from which indeed it draws its life and strength; nor could it fail to lay hold with strong conviction on all those revealed truths concerning Him which constitute, indeed, in the varied circumstances in which it has been called upon to persist throughout the ages, the very grounds in view of which it has been able to rest upon Him with steadfast trust. These truths, in which the ‘Gospel’ or glad-tidings to God’s people has been from time to time embodied, run all the way from such simple facts as that it was the very God of their fathers that had appeared unto Moses for their deliverance (Ex. iv. 5), to such stupendous facts, lying at the root of the very work of salvation itself, as that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God sent of God to save the world (Jn. vi. 69, viii. 24, xi. 42, xiii. 19, xvi. 27, 30, xvii. 8, 21, xx. 31, I Jn. v. 15), that God has raised Him from the dead (Rom. x. 9, I Thess. iv. 14), and that as His children we shall live with Him (Rom. vi. 8). But in believing this variously presented Gospel, faith has ever terminated with trustful reliance, not on the promise but on the Promiser, – not on the propositions which declare God’s grace and willingness to save, or Christ’s divine nature and power, or the reality and perfection of His saving work, but on the Saviour upon whom, because of these great facts, it could securely rest as on One able to save to the uttermost. Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith, presented to its embrace at first implicitly and in promise, and ever more and more openly until at last it is entirely explicit and we read that ‘a man is not justified save through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Gal. ii. 16). If, with even greater explicitness still, faith is sometimes said to rest upon some element in the saving work of Christ, as, for example, upon His blood or His righteousness (Rom. iii. 25, II Pet. i. 1), obviously such a singling out of the very thing in His work on which faith takes hold, in no way derogates from its repose upon Him, and Him only, as the sole and sufficient Saviour.

The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests. It is never on account of its formal nature as a psychic act that faith is conceived in Scripture to be saving, – as if this frame of mind or attitude of heart were itself a virtue with claims on God for reward, or at least especially pleasing to Him (either in its nature or as an act of obedience) and thus predisposing Him to favour, or as if it brought the soul into an attitude of receptivity or of sympathy with God, or opened a channel of communication from Him. It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ: faith in any other saviour, or in this or that philosophy or human conceit (Col. ii. 16, 18, I Tim. iv. 1), or in any other gospel than that of Jesus Christ and Him as crucified (Gal. i. 8, 9), brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith; and in this the whole biblical representation centres, so that we could not more radically misconceive it than by transferring to faith even the smallest fraction of that saving energy which is attributed in the Scriptures solely to Christ Himself. This purely mediatory function of faith is very clearly indicated in the regimens in which it stands, which ordinarily express simple instrumentality. It is most frequently joined to its verb as the dative of means or instrument (Acts xv. 9, xxvi. 18, Rom. iii. 28, iv. 20, v. 2, xi. 20, II Cor. i. 24, Heb. xi. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 || 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) ; and the relationship intended is further explained by the use to express it of the prepositions evk (Rom. i. 17, 17, iii. 26, 30, iv. 16, 16, v. 1, ix. 30, 32, x. 6, xiv. 23, 23, Gal. ii. 16, iii. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 27, 28, v. 5, I Tim. i. 5, Heb. x. 38, Jas. ii. 24) and dia, (with the genitive, never with the accusative, Rom. iii. 22, 25, 30, II Cor. v. 7, Gal. ii. 16, iii. 14, 26, II Tim. iii. 15, Heb. vi. 12, xi. 33, 39, I Pet. i. 5), – the fundamental idea of the former construction being that of source or origin, and of the latter that of mediation or instrumentality, though they are used together in the same context, apparently with no distinction of meaning (Rom. iii. 25, 26, 30, Gal. ii. 16). It is not necessary to discover an essentially different implication in the exceptional usage of the prepositions evpi, (Acts iii. 16, Phil. iii. 9) and kata, (Heb. xi. 7, 13, cf. Mt. ix. 29) in this connexion: evpi, is apparently to be taken in a quasi-temporal sense, ‘on faith,’ giving the occasion of the divine act, and kata, very similarly in the sense of conformability, ‘in conformity with faith.’ Not infrequently we meet also with a construction with the preposition evn which properly designates the sphere, but which in passages like Gal. ii. 20, Col. ii. 7, II Thess. ii. 13 appears to pass over into the conception of instrumentality.

So little indeed is faith conceived as containing in itself the energy or ground of salvation, that it is consistently represented as, in its origin, itself a gratuity from God in the prosecution of His saving work. It comes, not of one’s own strength or virtue, but only to those who are chosen of God for its reception (II Thess. ii. 13), and hence is His gift (Eph. vi. 23, cf. ii. 8, 9, Phil. i. 29), through Christ (Acts iii. 16, Phil. i. 29, I Pet. i. 21, cf. Heb. xii. 2), by the Spirit (II Cor. iv. 13, Gal. v. 5), by means of the preached word (Rom. x. 17, Gal. iii. 2, 5) ; and as it is thus obtained from God (II Pet. i. 1, Jude 3, I Pet. i. 21), thanks are to be returned to God for it (Col. i. 4, II Thess. i. 3). Thus, even here all boasting is excluded, and salvation is conceived in all its elements as the pure product of unalloyed grace, issuing not from, but in, good works (Eph. ii. 8-12). The place of faith in the process of salvation, as biblically conceived, could scarcely, therefore, be better described than by the use of the scholastic term ‘instrumental cause.’ Not in one portion of the Scriptures alone, but throughout their whole extent, it is conceived as a boon from above which comes to men, no doubt through the channels of their own activities, but not as if it were an effect of their energies, but rather, as it has been finely phrased, as a gift which God lays in the lap of the soul. ‘With the heart,’ indeed, ‘man believeth unto righteousness’; but this believing does not arise of itself out of any heart indifferently, nor is it grounded in the heart’s own potencies; it is grounded rather in the freely-giving goodness of God, and comes to man as a benefaction out of heaven.

The effects of faith, not being the immediate product of faith itself but of that energy of God which was exhibited in raising Jesus from the dead and on which dependence is now placed for raising us with Him into newness of life (Col. ii. 12), would seem to depend directly only on the fact of faith, leaving questions of its strength, quality, and the like more or less to one side. We find a proportion, indeed, suggested between faith and its effects (Mt. ix. 29, viii. 13, cf. viii. 10, xv. 28, xvii. 20, Lk. vii. 9, xvii. 6). Certainly there is a fatal doubt, which vitiates with its double-mindedness every approach to God (Jas. i. 6-8, cf. iv. 8, Mt. xxi. 21, Mk. xi. 23, Rom. iv. 20, xiv. 23, Jude 22). But Jesus deals with notable tenderness with those of ‘little faith,’ and His apostles imitated Him in this (Mt. vi. 30 f., 20, xiv. 31, xvi. 8, xvii. 20, Lk. xii. 28, Mk. ix. 24, Lk, xvii. 5, cf. Rom. xiv. 1, 2, I Cor. viii. 7, and see DOUBT). The effects of faith may possibly vary also with the end for which the trust is exercised (cf. Mk. x. 51 i[na avnable,yw with Gal. ii. 16 evpisteu,samen i[na dikaiwqw/men). But he who humbly but confidently casts himself on the God of salvation has the assurance that he shall not be put to shame (Rom. xi. 11, ix. 33), but shall receive the end of his faith, even the salvation of his soul (I Pet. i. 9). This salvation is no doubt, in its idea, received all at once (Jn. iii. 36, I Jn. v. 12); but it is in its very nature a process, and its stages come, each in its order. First of all, the believer, renouncing by the very act of faith his own righteousness which is out of the law, receives that ‘righteousness which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God on faith’ (Phil. iii. 9, cf. Rom. iii. 22, iv. 11, ix. 30, x. 3, 10, II Cor. v. 21, Gal. v. 5, Heb. xi. 7, II Pet. i. 1). On the ground of this righteousness, which in its origin is the ‘righteous act’ of Christ, constituted by His ‘obedience’ (Rom. v. 18, 19), and comes to the believer as a ‘gift’ (Rom. v. 17), being reckoned to him apart from works (Rom. iv. 6), he that believes in Christ is justified in God’s sight, received into His favour, and made the recipient of the Holy Spirit (Jn. vii. 39, cf. Acts v. 32), by whose indwelling men are constituted the sons of God (Rom. viii. 13). And if children, then are they heirs (Rom. viii. 17), assured of an incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading inheritance, reserved in heaven for them; and meanwhile they are guarded by the power of God through faith unto this gloriously complete salvation (I Pet. i. 4, 5). Thus, though the immediate effect of faith is only to make the believer possessor before the judgment-seat of God of the alien righteousness wrought out by Christ, through this one effect it draws in its train the whole series of saving acts of God, and of saving effects on the soul. Being justified by faith, the enmity which has existed between the sinner and God has been abolished, and he has been introduced into the very family of God, and made sharer in all the blessings of His house (Eph. ii. 13 f.). Being justified by faith, he has peace with God, and rejoices in the hope of the glory of God, and is enabled to meet the trials of life, not merely with patience but with joy (Rom. v. 1 f.). Being justified by faith, he has already working within him the life which the Son has brought into the world, and by which, through the operations of the Spirit which those who believe in Him receive (Jn. vii. 39), he is enabled to overcome the world lying in the evil one, and, kept by God from the evil one, to sin not (I Jn. v. 19). In a word, because we are justified by faith, we are, through faith, endowed with all the privileges and supplied with all the graces of the children of God.

Did Adam Blame Eve?

I have quoted Calvin often at length and here again is a quote from his commentary on Genesis 3:12:

12. The woman whom thou gavest to be with me. The boldness of Adam now more clearly betrays itself; for, so far from being subdued, he breaks forth into coarser blasphemy. He had before been tacitly expostulating with God; now he begins openly to contend with him, and triumphs as one who has broken through all barriers. Whence we perceive what a refractory and indomitable creature man began to be when he became alienated from God; for a lively picture of corrupt nature is presented to us in Adam from the moment of his revolt.

‘Every one,’ says James, ‘is tempted by his own concupiscence,’ (James 1:14;)

and even Adam, not otherwise than knowingly and willingly, had set himself, as a rebel, against God. Yet, just as if conscious of no evil, he puts his wife as the guilty party in his place. ‘Therefore I have eaten,’ he says, ‘because she gave.’ And not content with this, he brings, at the same time, an accusation against God; objecting that the wife, who had brought ruin upon him, had been given by God. We also, trained in the same school of original sin, are too ready to resort to subterfuges of the same kind; but to no purpose; for howsoever incitements and instigations from other quarters may impel us, yet the unbelief which seduces us from obedience to God is within us; the pride is within which brings forth contempt.

Please go to Chrisitan Classics Ethereal Libraray and read the rest of Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 3. What you will notice about the pronouncements and condemnations of Adam by God is that He does not say a single thing concerning any shifting of blame or of blasphemy. Calvin who was obviously quite a student of Hebrew makes no attempt at justifying his conclusions. Nor have I found any commentary anywhere that takes Calvin’s approach which does so either.

I would be interested in a Hebrew scholar’s view or any commentary references which might shed some light upon this verse. Until I find other compelling evidence, though, I must conclude that Calvin’s comments on Genesis 3:12 are tradition rather than statements of knowledge.

The pattern that is revealed in Adam’s response is not one of challenging God, but one of confession. To wit, God does not condemn his response. No, the sequence is confession and God’s judgement upon the sin’s committed and God’s provision for covering them. And the one thing that is missing in Adam’s curse which is made clear in Eve’s is that God doesn’t condemn Adam for setting the facts before God. But He does in the case of Eve, condemn her actions for having taught and given to her husband just as Adam had said.

Your thoughts?

I really would like to find the justification for Calvin’s commentary about this, including how it is that he comes to find “concupiscence” in Adam. It after all could not have been in him from the creation. So just how did it get there except through Eve? And that being the case, Adam was fully justified in what he said and it was not blaming God, nor was it blaming Eve as in some attempt at avoiding the truth. Adam does what a repentant heart does: he confesses to having listened, taken, and eaten. After all, The Truth who knows what is in the hearts of men stood before him. And, just as it was in the case of Isaiah- his sin exposed to the bright white radiance of the righeousness of God- I am convinced Adam was a man whose heart was laid bare before his maker and he simply, humbly, spoke the truth.

Last Will And Testament: Hebrews And The Intent, Extent And Efficaciousness Of The Atonement (Pt. 8)

This is THE MAIN POINT

As we finished up last time the author is laboring as I am doing to express to his reader that this thing, this one thing, this not-the-penultimate-thing, but the last one thing, The Last, is what this book has been about. Redundant, yes. The author says in chapter one:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Yes! That is it! This covenant which the author again points us to tells us about this unique relationship that we have with the One who this covenant is all about. He now tells us more about that covenant and of its perfection. Because of that perfection that which was has passed away. The indication is that when God spoke about the old and promises the new, that the old was soon to depart. And so it has now in the One who was sent such that old things have passed away, all things have become new and the one thing that matters, THE MAIN POINT, the One New Man, remains. Meaning- that which was promised to Israel has now been made complete.

For those of you who are progressive dispensationalists, you might not like this aspect of the Atonement. You can white-out these kinds of verses if you like. But, regardless of the consummative passages that speak of certain things yet to take place, the effective date of the covenant of grace toward Israel as a whole, meaning the church, was the day of darkness when Christ died. Once and for all, this Hebrew of Hebrews offered up the One perfect sacrifice which sanctified the One Temple which matters, the one which remains forever, renting the veil, reconciling the world, making the two one, His body, The Bride both Jew and gentile.

Christ’s was not just another common sacrifice in a long string of sacrifices pointing to the last one. No. His was the last one because he is Ho Eschatos. It was an uncommon sacrifice, unique, discrete, the final one which purchases a people for Himself out of every tribe and tongue. So it is no wonder that the author goes on to warn that anyone denying this One to be the One come in the flesh not to seek repentance elsewhere. For this One come in a Temple not made by human hands, is the One, and that if anyone thinks that Christ does not save completely by his blood, he should not think that some other sacrifice could. For there is no other One who will come. So he warns the reader not to think of this sacrifice as a common thing, to be trodden under foot like the blood of goats and bulls.

The priests walked in the blood of the common sacrifices. Tracked everywhere they went, those sacrifices were by that shown to be worthless. But the blood of the Perfect Sacrifice, was spilled not. No, it was carried into the Holy of Hollies, completely, not a drop dripped. There was nothing wasted. Every drop of the blood of Christ was perfect, precious, meant for the purchase of the one love of his Life, the Bride taken from his side, flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone.

Such a beautiful picture, as it was in the beginning so it is in the end. But so strange that the flood released from the side of the Savior by the spear of the enemy should bring forth the fulfillment of the prophet’s vision of a flood upon the face of the earth, a deepening sea- first to the ankles. then the knees, then the waist, and speading life in a manner which would eventually save the whole of the kosmos, all of mankind and the world which was created for His desires. The blood, at the same time holds accountable the salt marhes. No common flood that which floods the who world and sets aside some for life and others for condemnation.

John said:

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.

And also:

This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

And in another place Paul tells us:

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

And therefore I want you to understanda that this author of Hebrews has now told us the same thing. For our comfort these things he has repeatedly said. The perfection of this sacrifice secured forever the gift for the Son.

I know you thought I was going to say the gift for us. But no, this is not about us first, it is about the One who makes this all possible. And as the Scripture tells us, we are His reward: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” As the author said in the second chapter of the book of Hebrews, this One is being given a kingdom with a faithful people. Each and everyone who had been promised as is spoken of in John 17, is accounted in the sacrifice with which the High Priest sanctified himself. The author also warns that this is no common sacrifice that can be thwarted, and Jesus is clear, that not one of these has he lost. No, his blood was perfect and he carried it into the Holiest Place, because it was in him from the beginning. Each and every child of his is his blood, the we who are considered that life which he has poured out as a covenant for us, one body given.

To say that his blood has not accomplished that which it was intended to, to say that for some it might be spilt and hit the ground to be trodden underfoot is to do what Paul has said; it is to deny what John has presented as our comfort. It is to say that the covenant has failed and to make God a liar just as that serpent of old did in the Garden. It is to claim share in the curse and as fit only for those salt marshes.

We have this blood by which we have entered the Holiest Place in us. It is a perfect sacrifice by which we can draw near to God. It is not without us such that it might washed off. But, if we say in our heart that is not true, WOE! If a we begin to sin, to deny the efficacy of the sacrifice’s blood, the author tells us, we prove our selves to not be one for whom Christ died, to not have received the love of God, His son. We prove that the love of God has not entered our hearts, has not cleansed our consciences. We prove ourselves not to be born of him and not to have been in that covenant made from before the beginning of time which the author of Hebrews has gone to lengths to examine. Like Judases we will in the end go out and sell Christ as if he were some cheap sacrifice. We will not love, for the love of God is not in us. But if it is, the author tells us, it cannot fail, for he who has promised is faithful to complete this work until the coming of the One, our Great Hope and Eternal Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Obama Is God?

Others still think so, and he does have a messiah complex. So what is a country to do with a psychopathological President and the psychopathological people who fawn over him?

This is so dangerous, folks.

Just for Randy I have added this expanded sound munch:

Jeff Maness Of Element Church Cheyenne Turns Matthew Into Sign Seeking Sewage

Jeff Maness of Element Church in Cheyenne, WY begins day two of his One Prayer by teaching out of Matthew. But what a sausage job. Instead of just teaching the text, Maness jumps into the piranha infested waters of Charismania’s Loon Lagoon, offering up his readers as a large helping of
chum(ps).

He says:

How does God reveal Himself through Jesus in chapter 2?

Remember the song by Tesla in 1990 called signs? (Random fact: It was originally sang by “Five Man Electrical Band” in the 70’s) The lyrics said “Signs, signs everywhere there’s signs” When I read chapter 2, that song goes through my head. In Matthew 2 I think we see God is a REVEALER. He gives us ALL the signs that we need to point us to Christ.

Daniel 2:47 says “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and the revealer of mysteries”. He is just that. A revealer.

Here in chapter 2 ALL the signs were given to point the Jewish leaders to THE MESSIAH, but they missed it and some “wise men” found Him instead.

In Matthew 2:3-6 King Herod asks the Jewish leaders where Jesus was to be born and they said “In Bethlehem of Judea”. Sign #1 MISSED.

Matthew 2:11 says that the Magi give Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. A direct prophecy from Psalm 72:10 Sign #2 MISSED.

Matthew 2:18 after Herod ordered all boys 2 years old and younger in Bethlehem to be killed another prophecy is fulfilled. Sign #3 MISSED.

One chapter, 3 signs, ALL missed by those God was trying to reach. The Jewish people. Now you might say “Well, we have the gift of hindsight and Scripture.” I truly believe, God had given them EVERYTHING they needed to KNOW that this was the Messiah. Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs!

God is a REVEALER. He won’t let us go on in the dark. He is faithful to give us the signs we need to point us in the right direction. It is up to us to be diligent in seeking out the TRUTH in those signs. What signs is God giving you that you’re failing to see? What signs do you KNOW He is using to point you in the right direction and you refuse to take them?

Watching for signs,

Jeff

I responded:

First off, they didn’t miss the signs given the wise men. The Jewish leaders were never shown the star or any other signs. Second, when they read the Book, as you should do, they did see what it said about Messiah. But even at that, much like you, they didn’t comprehend it clearly. For had they known what the Word really meant, they would not have fulfilled what they did. It was in fact their blindness that God uses for his purposes, a blindness that he instituted and maintains, even to the point of blinding some of them so that they would crucify his Son.

Psalm 72:10? You’re kidding right?

Interesting since Sheba and Seba constitute the lands of Ham to the southwest of Jerusalem, and Tarshish and the coastlands to the west, northwest. The wise men came from the east.

And since when does God try to give “signs” and those he intends to receive them don’t?

“It is up to us to be diligent in seeking out the TRUTH in those signs.”

False. It is up to us to seek the truth in the Word, where Jesus has prayed for us that we will without doubt find it. You yourself have taught out of John 17. Don’t you believe Jesus’ prayer was answered? Do you reject the gift of the Holy Spirit who has come to the believer and does lead him into all truth?

“I truly believe, God had given them EVERYTHING they needed to KNOW that this was the Messiah.”

Jesus didn’t say that. He in fact said that they were not given it. He also said that only some are. So who are you lying to? Jesus said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” This in the same book that you are falsely teaching says the opposite.

“What signs do you KNOW He is using to point you in the right direction and you refuse to take them?”

Even the Prophets could not refuse to take the sign’s direction for them, or have you not read of Jonah, Moses, Elijah?

If you have eaten anything that Jeff has served up, stick your finger down your throat and emit it post haste. It is deadly.

See the previous post for more on Element Church Cheyenne.

Element Church And The Twisting Of John 17:21

I have spoken about issues surrounding the Element Church in Cheyenne, a Perfectionist Wesleyan Holiness church. And I also questioned why they hide who they are under the guise of an emergent style church. Recently they have started a new series called One Prayer where they bastardize John 17 so as to use it, I suppose, in the spreading of their syrupticious “can’t we all just get along” methods.

Element is a grand-daughter church of The Evangelical Church. The Evangelical Church is not liberal and in many ways moved away from the more liberal elements of one time partners in crime, the United Methodist Church. Still, Element Church is pursuing the same social gospel as the liberal UMC. Hmmm… Makes one wonder. Many organizations that sport emergent trappings pursue their deception through the social gospel. As you can see here at the Mother Church’s site, Element in no way is like Mom.

Element looks contemporary, pop cultural, even grungly Driscollish. But unlike Mark Driscoll who is a Calvinist, or other conservative evangelical post-modernistic churches, this church’s Wesleyan Holiness connections make it part of one of the most legalistic of spurious Christian movements. And Element Church is definitely listed as an operative of the EC. Enter Cheyenne in the search and see for yourself.

But Mother’s a liar too, as is witnessed by this statement:

the evangelical church exists for the purpose of:
proclaiming assurance of personal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ

Compare that to their statement on assurance of security in salvation:

The Holy Scriptures declare that the believer is secure in Christ as long as he walks in obedience and faith. The Scriptures also declare that it is possible after the experience of regeneration and/or the experience of entire sanctification to depart from grace and fall into sin, and if one remains in this state to be eternally lost. However, by the grace of God, a man may through repentance and faith rise again from a backslidden state and be restored to righteousness and true holiness.

Yeah, that’s comforting. Leave it up to the individual to secure his own salvation. Very Roman Catholic, very scary.

The reality about Wesleyanism is that it is anything but a movement that pursues unity, as anyone familiar with Wesley’s screeds against the orthodoxy of Calvinism can attest. If there ever was anyone in the 1700’s that caused wholesale division, it was Wesley. When Wesley turned away from the Protestation and reinserted himself into the semi-Pelagianism of Rome, he became a bitter and divisive man. Again, why the lies, why the deception? It is not the intention of Element’s mother church to foster unity at all, really. You’re invited to check out and read the doctrines, the true doctrines, of Element Church Cheyenne, at the link above.

John Calvin captures the true reality of the eschatological nature of this prayer of Jesus. He notes that this unity is not in the sense of being agreeable to one another, or getting along, but is instead a statement of the current reality of what Christ has done and is doing: “as you Father have sent me.” His prayer, like all his prayers, is not one that might be answered if his disciples just do what is right. It is an accomplished thing, “having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do,” it is in the “For their sakes I sanctify Myself” sense. The tense of the passage is forward looking but in the perfected tense of that which has been accomplished from the beginning of the world- tetelestemenoi. Or, as Jesus said from the cross, “It is finished.” That is, what Jesus is praying is not what might be if, but what is, what will be and has always been.

The parallel he draws is between he and the Father as to the kind of unity he is praying for. That is an eternal unity, a perfected unity and it is a unity for only those given him by the Father. In fact, the past tense shows up frequently in this prayer. So then, this prayer is the declarative case. Meaning, the reason that Christ is going to Calvary is to proclaim the promise of the Father as accomplished and as is the fulfillment of John 3:16-19 where there appears a strict separation between those who Christ came to redeem and those he did not. In John 17 we find, (not as Wesley who perverted these passages to fit his strict Arminianism and to continue his hate-filled rage against Calvinism), but the declaration that by the fulfillment of the covenant arrangement between the Father and the Son the world would be convicted of sin, the vessels of mercy saved, and the vessel determined before hand for destruction sentenced. Rather than being an evangel, it is as John has done throughout, contrasted the duel role of Christ, as Mediator to and for the elect of the promises of the covenant, and the pronouncement of judgement as the Judge of all the reprobate of all the world from its foundations until the parousia.

Enjoy Calvin’s Commentary and by all means if you’re ever in Cheyenne, avoid like a plague, Element Church.

John 17:20-23

20. And I ask not for these only, but for those also who shall believe on me through their word; 21. That all may be one; as thou, rather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22. And I have given to them the glory which thou gavest to me; that they may be one, as we are one: 23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, “and that thou lovest them,” as thou hast loved me.

20. And I ask not for these only. He now gives a wider range to his prayer, which hitherto had included the apostles alone; for he extends it to all the disciples of the Gospel, so long as there shall be any of them to the end of the world. This is assuredly a remarkable ground of confidence; for if we believe in Christ through the doctrine of the Gospel, we ought to entertain no doubt that we are already gathered with the apostles into his faithful protection, so that not one of us shall perish. This prayer of Christ is a safe harbour, and whoever retreats into it is safe from all danger of shipwreck; for it is as if Christ had solemnly sworn that he will devote his care and diligence to our salvation.

He began with his apostles, that their salvation, which we know to be certain, might make us more certain of our own salvation; and, therefore, whenever Satan attacks us, let us learn to meet him with this shield, that it is not to no purpose that the Son of God united us with the apostles, so that the salvation of all was bound up, as it were, in the same bundle. There is nothing, therefore that ought more powerfully to excite us to embrace the Gospel; for as it is an inestimable blessing that we are presented to God by the hand of Chrisb to be preserved from destruction, so we ought justly to love it, and to care for it above all things else. In this respect the madness of the world is monstrous. All desire salvation; Christ instructs us in a way of obtaining it, from which if any one turn aside, there remains for him no good hope; and yet scarcely one person in a hundred deigns to receive what was so graciously offered.

For those who shall believe on me, We must attend to this form of expression. Christ prays for all who shall believe in him. By these words he reminds us of what we have sometimes said already, that our faith ought to be directed to him. The clause which immediately follows, through their word, expresses admirably the power and nature of faith, and at the same time is a familiar confirmation to us who know that our faith is founded on the Gospel taught by the apostles. Let the world then condemn us a thousand times, this alone ought to satisfy us, that Christ acknowledges us to be his heritage and pleads with the Father for us.

But woe to the Papists, whose faith is so far removed from this rule, that they are not ashamed to vomit out this horrid blasphemy, that there is nothing in Scripture but what is ambiguous, and may be turned in a variety of ways. The tradition of the Church is therefore their only authoritative guide to what they shall believe. But let us remember that the Son of God, who alone is competent to judge, does not approve of any other faith than that which is drawn from the doctrine of the apostles, and sure information of that doctrine will be found no where else than in their writings.

We must also observe that form of expression, to believe through the word, which means that faith springs from hearing, because the outward preaching of men is the instrument by which God draws us to faith. It follows, that God is, strictly speaking, the Author of faith, and men are the ministers by whom we believe, as Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 3:5.)

21. That all may be one. He again lays down the end of our happiness as consisting in unity, and justly; for the ruin of the human race is, that, having been alienated from God, it is also broken and scattered in itself. The restoration of it, therefore, on the contrary, consists in its being properly united in one body, as Paul declares the perfection of the Church to consist in believers being joined together in one spirit and says that apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, were given, that they might edify and restore the body of Christ, till it came to the unity of faith; and therefore he exhorts believers to grow into Christ, who is the Head, from whom the whole body joined together, and connected by every bond of supply, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of it to edifcation, (Ephesians 4:3, 11-16.)

Wherefore, whenever Christ speaks about unity, let us remember how basely and shockingly, when separated from him, the world is scattered; and, next, let us learn that the commencement of a blessed life is, that we be all governed, and that we all live, by the Spirit of Christ alone.

Again, it ought to be understood, that, in every instance in which Christ declares, in this chapter, that he is one with the Father, he does not speak simply of his Divine essence, but that he is called one as regards his mediatorial office, and in so far as he is our Head. Many of the fathers, no doubt, interpreted these words as meaning, absolutely, that Christ is one with the Father, because he is the eternal God. But their dispute with the Arians led them to seize on detached passages, and to torture them out of their natural meaning, in order to employ them against their antagonists. Now, Christ’s design was widely different from that of raising our minds to a mere speculation about his hidden Divinity; for he reasons from the end, by showing that we ought to be one, otherwise the unity which he has with the Father would be fruitless and unavailing. To comprehend aright what was intended by saying, that Christ and the Father are one, we must take care not to deprive Christ of his office as Mediator, but must rather view him as he is the Head of the Church, and unite him with his members. Thus will the chain of thought be preserved, that, in order to prevent the unity of the Son with the Father from being fruitless and unavailing, the power of that unity must be diffused through the whole body of believers. Hence, too, we infer that we are one with the Son of God; not because he conveys his substance to us, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he imparts to us his life and all the blessings which he has received from the Father.

That the world may believe. Some explain the word world to mean the elect, who, at that time, were still dispersed; but since the word world, throughout the whole of this chapter, denotes the reprobate, I am more inclined to adopt a different opinion. It happens that, immediately afterwards, he draws a distinction between all his people and the same world which he now mentions.

The verb, to believe, has been inaccurately used by the Evangelist for the verb, to know; that is, when unbelievers, convinced by their own experienc, perceive the heavenly and Divine glory of Christ. The consequence is, that, believing, they do not believe, because this conviction does not penetrate into the inward feeling of the heart. And it is a just vengeance of God, that the splendor of Divine glory dazzles the eyes of the reprobate because they do not deserve to have a clear and pure view of it. He afterwards uses the verb, to know in the same sense.

22. And I have given to them the glory which thou gavest to me. Let it be observed here, that, while a pattern of perfect happiness was exhibited in Christ, he had nothing that belonged peculiarly to himself, but rather was rich, in order to enrich those who believed in him. Our happiness lies in having the image of God restored and formed anew in us, which was defaced by sin. Christ is not only the lively image of God, in so far as he is the eternal Word of God. but even on his human nature, which he has in common with us, the likeness of the glory of the Father has been engraved, so as to form his members to the resemblance of it. Paul also teaches us this, that we all, with unveiled face, by beholding THE GLORY OF GOD, are changed into the same image, (2 Corinthians 3:18.)

Hence it follows, that no one ought to be reckoned among the disciples of Christ, unless we perceive the glory of God impressed on him, as with a seal, by the likeness of Christ. To the same purpose are the words which immediately follow:

23. I in them, and thou in me; for he intends to teach that in him dwells all fullness of blessings, and that what was concealed in God is now manifested in him, that he may impart it to his people, as the water, flowing from the fountain by various channels, waters the fields on all sides.

And hast loved them— “And that thou lovest them.” He means that it is a very striking exhibition, and a very excellent pledge, of the love of God towards believers, which the world is compelled to feel, whether it will or not, when the Holy Spirit dwelling in them sends forth the rays of righteousness and holiness. There are innumerable other ways, indeed, in which God daily testifies his fatherly love towards us, but the mark of adoption is justly preferred to them all. He likewise adds, and hast loved them, As Thou Hast Loved Me. By these words he intended to point out the cause and origin of the love; for the particle as, means because, and the words, AS thou hast loved me, mean, Because thou hast loved me; for to Christ alone belongs the title of Well-beloved, (Matthew 3:17; 17:5.) Besides, that love which the heavenly Father bears towards the Head is extended to all the members, so that he loves none but in Christ.

Yet this gives rise to some appearance of contradiction; for Christ, as we have seen elsewhere, declares that the unspeakable love of God towards the world was the reason why he gave his only-begotten Son, (John 3:16.) If the cause must go before the effect, we infer that God the Father loved men apart from Christ; that is, before he was appointed to be the Redeemer. I reply, in that, and similar passages, love denotes the mercy with which God was moved towards unworthy persons, and even towards his enemies, before he reconciled them to himselfi It is, indeed, a wonderful goodness of God, and inconceivable by the human mind, that, exercising benevolence towards men whom he could not but hate, he removed the cause of the hatred, that there might be no obstruction to his love. And, indeed, Paul informs us that there are two ways in which we are loved in Christ; first, because the Father chose us in him before the creation of the world, (Ephesians 1:4;) and, secondly, because in Christ God hath reconciled us to himself, and hath showed that he is gracious to us, (Romans 5:10.) Thus we are at the same time the enemies and the friends of God, until, atonement having been made for our sins, we are restored to favor with God. But when we are justified by faith, it is then, properly, that we begin to be loved by God, as children by a father. That love by which Christ was appointed to be the person, in whom we should be fiercly chosen before we were born, and while we were still ruined in Adam, is hidden in the breast of God, and far exceeds the capacity of the human mind. True, no man will ever feel that God is gracious to him, unless he perceives that God is pacified in Christ. But as all relish for the love of God vanishes when Christ is taken away, so we may safely conclude that, since by faith we are ingrafted into his body, there is no danger of our falling from the love of God; for this foundation cannot be overturned, that we are loved, because the Father hath loved his Son.

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor’s La Raza As Fascistic As Obama’s Black Liberation Theology?

The liberal media, the Obamanista administration, and La Raza would like us to believe that Obama’s nominee belongs to a benign organization.

Why? Who cares?

Like Ruth “Baby Mulcher” Ginsberg, who is a member of the anti-USA ACLU, and another Democrat appointee, Sotomayor’s radical connections don’t surprise anyone in this day and age. The fact that an anti-constitutionalist like Ginsberg who belongs to an organization founded by an affirmed fascist for the express purpose of destroying the USA, would even remotely be considered for the Supreme Court should inform us how rotten the core principles of republicanism had become over a decade ago in the USA and explain why it is nealy passe’ to consider it odd that an enemy of the USA would find herself being vetted as acceptable in the public service arena. To see the most radically leftist President ever elected offer a blood for the Supreme Court, is only keeping his Chicagoan gangland mob-politics character intact. After all, fasci have a mob-like ideology. That is why it has simply become, “Wutevah”, that a goose-stepper would present another goose-stepper for high office.

I mean, when Obama who was trained by fascist racists is outed and it only gets him elected to the White House and not publicly shamed out of existence, should we expect anything less? When the Coneist history of Obama’s pastor is known and Obama brags about having been mentored by him, when his association with known terrorists in unveiled or those associations with Muslim radicals who bought and paid for his ascent to the pinnacle of power, when his endorsement by good friend and neighbor, the wacko radical NOI cult leader Farrakhan is demonstrated as no mistake, when his father’s fascist national socialist Islamic legacy is exposed and the book Obama authored, exalting his father’s hatred of whites and of the United States, is widely acclaimed, when Obama’s history is such a sausage job produced by his handlers, when we cannot get the facts about his birth, when no documents of his past life seem to exist anymore except his phony ghost authored books, when no papers he ever had to write himself as part of his law degree can be found, or really any other substantives that demonstrates the veracity of his claims of innocence, or intelligence, it is only another ding a long line of ringing obfuscations of which his regime is guilty, to hide with the complicity of the liberal media, his nominatee’s past.

La Raza recently released a statement about the coiner of their beloved name. But again, history tends to haunt the leftists who want to pretend to be kinder-gentler radicals, terrorists and exterminators.

José Vasconcelos , 1882-1959, Mexican educator and writer. He headed (1920-24) the National Univ. of Mexico and, as minister of education under Álvaro Obregón , worked vigorously and with considerable success to establish schools, to persuade the Mexican people of the importance of education, and to raise the literacy rate. For this task he enlisted the aid of prominent figures, notably the poet Gabriela Mistral . In 1929 he was defeated in the presidential race and was forced into exile by Plutarco Elías Calles. As teacher, propagandist, and writer, he attracted a large youthful following, and his fierce localism and belief in Latin American culture as the response of a unique mixture of peoples to a unique physical environment had an effect abroad as well as in Mexico. In later years he became an ardent Roman Catholic and a zealous apologist for the Spanish tradition. He denounced democracy and tended to glorify force and racism. Among his well-known works are La raza cósmica (1925) and Indología (1927). The first volume of his four-volume autobiography (1935-39) is Ulises criollo— also the general title for the whole work, which includes La tormenta, El desastre, and El proconsulado.

Bibliography: See biographies by G. de Beer (1966) and J. H. Haddox (1967).

“José Vasconcelos.” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 31 May. 2009.

Yeah that is right. La Raza’s name was conceived by a radical father. The time frame is telling. He was a child of revolution, a people’s liberator and fits nicely the mold of the fasci rise to power as a world political force. Many fasci arose in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries turning nearly the entire world into one large killing field. Mexico’s near allegiance to Nazi Germany should not go unconnected to this travesty called the Obama administration, nor its pick for the Supreme Court.

Brownish fascism is slightly different that the Nationalist Socialist African Fascism of Obama. Brownish fascism is ethnic based, requiring that only some brown blood be mingled with indigo (native) blood. (Unfortunately for Obama, should they ever come to power, African Nationalism is purist.) What it interesting, just as it is interesting among many black fascists, is the fact that there is so much white blood to deal with seeing that to be Latina, or Chicano, a member of La Raza, is that nagging little detail that being Hispanic means being white-European. It is mainland European -mostly- with plenty enough Celtic to be considered anglo. Yeppers. That is right. The Latina woman, this fascista, who would out think whites, is indeed the descendant of the white men she certainly seems to hate. What is it about bigots like Obama and Sotomayor who hate the very heritage from which they are derived?

Remember, Obama is white too, but we never heard that during the campaign, did we? So it is an interesting thing, but not surprising, that what is neglected in this whole mix, or perhaps it is an intended slight, is the fact that Sotomayor, if she is indeed of mixed blood, which is the ideal of La Raza, it being La Nueva Raza (familiar Hitlerian concept, eh?) in Vasconcelos world view, is indigo. Why isn’t the fact that she is indigo not the race card being played? One has to wonder why Obama and the media haven’t capitalized on the native American connection rather than the Hispanic Nationalist one. Perhaps AIM just doesn’t have the clout that La Nueva Raza has. Perhaps Obama doesn’t like native peoples unless he can use them.

Can we conclude she is just another stupid liberal willing to be pimped by the Democrat machine? Yeah, I think we could. I think it is also possible that she is self-aggrandizing, working the streets, purposely selling herself for political gain, for that is what fascistas do. In either case, she is what we have come to expect from the Democrat Party central committee’s Klingon mentality.

Beside the fact that it is demonstratively true that Sotomayor is a confessed racist, World Net Daily follows up on some other interesting things swirling around this formerly Bush appointed lefty.

As an aside: Obama implemented his final solution in nationalizing the auto industry. Der Wolksbamavagon, though hard to say, has been suggested the new name of the first of its kind marriage of state and industry, in the United States. This fundamental change in the structure of what constitutes government and industry may seem a throwhback to Nazi Germany, but hey, we can trust that it will be a new, sweeter and non-toxic, halocaust avoiding, Nationalist Socialist State.

Identity Politics Returns