Whatsoever things were written aforetime WERE written for our learning...

Paul declares in Romans 15.4:

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (my emphasis).

Therefore, we cannot say that some parts are too difficult or too obscure. Calvin was adamant on this point; in his commentary on Romans he writes; "Paul is speaking of the Old Testament...This notable passage shows us that the oracles of God contain nothing vain or unprofitable...it would be an insult to the Holy Spirit to imagine He had taught us anything which is of no advantage to know."

We often read of "The Poetic Books of the Bible", as I commented recently; we invariably know that this is a prelude to allegorising what ought not be allegorised. Often, I fear, certain portions of Scripture are dismissed as a poet's imagination because we feel that we have no line to fathom them. Examples are aplenty in the Old Testament, but for brevity's sake  I will cite two;

1.  He shall cover thee with His feathers, And under His wings shalt thou trust: His truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Psalm 91.4.

2. The LORD hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet. Nahum 1.3 (b).

The first OT Scripture under consideration reveals that God will protect those who would put their trust in Him. However, to a biblical ignoramus, one might think the Almighty to be but a big bird!
When we become more familiar with what is written through a regular reading of God's Book, we realise that God uses similitudes; I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. Hosea 12.10. (my emphasis).
When trying to fathom out what we are reading, I can do no better than quote Stephen Toms (SGAT);

"The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony has always insisted that God means what He says, and says what He means. Also, that where the plain sense is good sense, it is the right sense. That does not mean that the Lord has never used dreams, visions, types, shadows, parables etc., but the explanations given, and all plainly worded statements, are to be taken as meaning precisely what they say.
Page. 4; REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY Does God Mean What He Says? (my emphasis).

The second Scripture under consideration reveals not only that God controls the weather, but that the clouds are the dust of His feet. The first part we can take literally, but, what exactly is dust? Is not dust dead matter, such as skin that has decayed and falls off our mortal bodies? Clearly we could not apply this similitude literally to God! For God is a Spirit. John 4.24, and besides, He wouldn't have dead particles falling off him as we do! Nevertheless Nahum conveys to us the fact that all the observable clouds that are high above the entire earth are but dust to Him!

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1899-1981 Misunderstood and Misquoted by the Pentecostals?

I hadn't previously read any of Dr Lloyd-Jones work until very recently, and that but a small (40 page), but excellent booklet entitled CONVERSIONS PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL. I came across this book by 'chance' in a charity shop. I had hitherto been wary of this reformed and Protestant teacher, for the Pentecostals seemed to claim him as one of their own, much due to his teaching on the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, for in later life he taught it as a separate experience from conversion. But it isn't quite as clear cut as the charismatics, would have us think; don't they ever "muddy the waters"! Read this quote from the good doctor (he was a medical doctor);

"I think it quite without scriptural warrant to say all these gifts ended with the apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say "tongues" are impossible at the present time."

(Emphasis's mine).  

Letter to Dr. Gerald Golden. Sept. 1969.

Puts an entirely different slant on things, doesn't it? It is the sine qua non of Pentecostal charismatic theology; talking, praying, and singing in tongues! In fact, I go would go further; many within Pentecostalism believe and teach that talking in tongues is a confirmation that you have been baptised in the Holy Spirit.  And I speak from experience, for I used to fellowship in two charismatic outfits.  It soon became obvious to me that the "tongues" I heard breached all known Scriptural parameters. What is more, you are made to feel a second class Christian if you don't participate! At no point did I ever feel urged to try to talk in tongues, although one lady in particular tried to encourage my wife to do so. Let us also qualify the doctor's statement "I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then." I would go further; I consider it a "miracle" that a single blade of grass can grow from a 'dead' seed!

Most certainly, we cannot limit God, for He is upholding all things by the word of His power; Heb. 1.3. Not some things! (my emphasis).

Dr. Lloyd-Jones claimed that those who held to a single baptism in the Spirit were 'quenching the Spirit', and toward the end of his life he urged his listeners to actively seek an experience of the Holy Spirit. On his exposition of Eph. 6.10-13 (1976), he says;

"Do you know anything of this fire? If you do not, confess it to God and acknowledge it. Repent, and ask Him to send the Spirit and His love into you until you are melted and moved, until you are filled with His love divine, and know His love to you,and rejoice in it as His child, and look forward to the hope of the coming glory. 'Quench not the Spirit', but rather 'be filled with the Spirit' and 'rejoice in Christ Jesus'. Lloyd-Jones 1976 p 275.

Lloyd-Jones retired 'early' from his position at Westminster Chapel in 1968, following a major operation. He spoke of his belief that God had stopped him from preaching, because he didn't personally know enough about "joy in the Holy Spirit", (before this set-back, he was preaching through Romans, and his next sermon was to be based on Romans 14.17; "...and joy in the Holy Ghost."! 

(A condensed summary from his Wikipedia page:-well worth reading).

Indeed, one can imagine, if all this be true (and I see no reason why not), how such an experience could shake such an one to re-evaluate his theology! But, notwithstanding we should remain anchored to What is written, Luke 10.26. Lloyd-Jones, one would assume, been previously what is commonly known as a "Calvinist cessationist", and his 'experience', no doubt had a profound effect on him. Certainly, there is not one Scripture that says "and from this point on the miraculous gifts have now ceased", but it is very clear to me, and the great majority of reformed believers/theologians that the these gifts did indeed cease. It is beyond the scope of this present article to expound thereon, all I will say on this is, why did Paul say; Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. 2 Tim. 4.20? What happened?
All of the images I have personally seen of the good doctor, portray him (to me at least) as a dour, stern, severe, cold and hard nosed Calvinist! Yet, this was very far from the truth as his daughter and son in law (Sir Fred and Lady Catherwood) testify in MARTYN LLOYD-JONES The Man and His Books (1982).

As for myself.

I remember my conversion from being a nominal believer to really believing. I was listening to a sermon by an Anglican Bishop in 2001 by the name of Mike Hill in a summer camp in late August 2001 in Gorsley, Gloucestershire. It was only what some may describe as a standard sermon on the Lord Jesus dying on the cross to save people, along with a metaphorical teaching of a certain woman who forgave a man for killing her only son and took him in for her own. Something happened! I was completely overcome with tears, my hair (I have a full head of hair!) became soaking wet, and my shirt needed wringing out, and this was taking place about half way through his sermon! I remember looking around, and I became aware that I appeared to be the only one in this state, also it was nigh on impossible to remain composed, but I managed somehow to do so. After Bishop Hill's talk was over, I approached him to ask him about all of this, but remember him being aloof and cold, he just uttered a few short words, which I cannot recollect and turned away abruptly and carried on talking to the pastor of the chapel, who also seemed very distant and unconcerned. I just felt I had to talk to someone knowledgeable about what was going on. I really did feel that I had been ran over by a bus, and there was no-one to help! I was confused why these two 'men of God' were so dismissive toward me. The evening went on, and afterwards my wife and I went to pick up our daughter from the children's camp, then we went to our tent. I couldn't sleep the whole evening and just wouldn't stop sweating, (it wasn't that warm!) I couldn't explain what had happened, and was starting to worry if there was something wrong with me. We were at the camp another two evenings, and I started to get back to 'normal', for life goes on, as they say. But, I was a changed man, nothing dramatic happened, but slowly and surely I started to develop a hunger for reading and studying the Bible, for I had the clear revelation; if this is true, nothing else really matters (Phil. 3.8).

Even though, it would appear that I was a believer before I had the above mentioned experience, I would only say that until that evening I hadn't been born of the Spirit, John 3.8, I wasn't born again, John 3.3, the Spirit that quickeneth, John 6.63, had not yet convicted me, John 16.8. When a man preaches God's word verbatim quoting from Scripture, be he a true saint, or a false professor, the Lord Jesus said; My sheep hear My voice, John 10.27. This is why I believe the Lord told His disciples to let those casting out devils...and who would do a miracle in My name, to continue in their efforts; Mark 9.38-39, & Luke 9.49-50, though His disciples said of such; he followeth not us.
Regarding conversions, without the Holy Spirit converting a person, it is impossible for anyone to truly believe; 1 Cor. 2.14, John 3.5-8, Eph. 2.1, Col. 2.13 etc. Nevertheless, we ought always to pray to God for the help and guidance of His Holy Spirit, Eph. 5.18, as we navigate our way through this world.

Now back to the good doctor. I was having an on-line conversation about Arthur W. Pink regarding one of my recent book reviews. The gentleman said "Pink was cold, unloving and other such attributes which come out in his writings-you really ought to read Dr. Lloyd- Jones instead, as warmth flows from his pen." To which I replied; "That's funny, I don't know what Lloyd-Jones would think about that, for he said of A.W. Pink; talking to one young minister, "Don't waste your time reading Barth and Brunner. You will get nothing from them to aid you with preaching, read Pink."!

Pink, Arthur Walkington, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, Timothy Larson (ed). p 166.

The writings of A.W. Pink have been a great blessing to me.

Are we saved because we believe, or because God CHOSE us?

This debate has raged on down through the centuries, with increasing intensity since the Reformation started in earnest; delivering the masses from pagan Roman Catholic deception, superstition, and idolatry.
Lets make sure that I have put the cart after the horse and not before it. It is true that all so-called Calvinistic believers are born Arminians; who say "It was my will that made the difference-for I chose God to save me!" Most certainly, I was an Arminian, because I believed that it was me who made a really sensible decision for Christ; why perish in hell for eternity when I can live in bliss for eternity? I mean you would have to be stark raving mad not to believe! wouldn't you?! I almost flattered myself for being so shrewd as it were in this 'decision'! But, alas I had no assurance of my salvation, in fact absolutely less than zero assurance! I had to know more; am I really saved? I was never once assured by anything a church pastor or fellow Christian said on this most important matter, I had to dig deep into God's written word to find out what He had to say about it. I kept coming across the words elect, election, foreknowledge, predestination, etc, and the fact that God has a book of life with names written in it; this being the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13.8. We are informed in Ephesians 1.4 that the foundation in the aforementioned Scripture has in fact a far deeper meaning, for we are told that God hath chosen us in Him from before the foundation of the world. (my emphasis). It is from Scriptures such as these that I started to understand the truth of the doctrine of election, yet at the same time became bewildered that so many seemed to deny it! I then started to look for writings on this 'mysterious' subject, which really ought not to be, for to me at any rate, it seemed to be plastered all over God's Book!

It is written of Satan and his demons that the devils also believe, and tremble. James 2.19! Scant assurance then only for believing! But, of course, believing is also a necessary requirement, God forbid that I should deny it! Nevertheless, there is something more to faith and salvation than simply uttering a few words as many do these days. Peter's exhortation; give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if you do these things, ye shall never fall. 2 Peter 1.10; this makes it very clear that there is an election, and that it is God that does the calling (John 10.16, 27); for in verse 3 we read, According as His Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue. (my emphasis). It is God in Christ that does the calling, election, choosing, call it what you will. How can any enter into glory on our own terms? Quite why God would choose a miserable wretch like me, is beyond me, but I believe it! God has a book of life, and let us not be presumptuous because we are chosen, and therefore lets walk worthy of this calling 2 Thess. 1.11. There have been, and no doubt will continue to be Calvinists who would presume on election to the extent that they may even lead a profligate lifestyle and assume that all will be well on the last Day, ignoring the many admonishments to lead a life of holiness; Heb. 12.14, 1 Thess.4.7, Eph. 5.5, John 14.15 etc.

I hate Arminian 'free-will' theology with every bent of my body for it thoroughly strips God of His glory and right to choose His own, nevertheless, I must concede that there have been, and no doubt still are, some very godly men and women who reject what is known as Calvinistic doctrine, yet live a lifestyle that would put many Calvinists to shame!

Quite where the sovereignty of God and the 'free-will' of man meet, none can say, and I am no fatalist as some who reject my theology errantly think, for we are responsible creatures.

The Prayers Of The Apostles; 6 Romans 15.33. By A.W. Pink.

 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. The God of peace: contrary to the general run of the commentators, we regard this Divine title as expressing, first of all, what God is in Himself, that is, as abstracted from relationship with His creatures and apart from His operations and bestowments.
He is Himself the Fountain of peace. Perfect tranquility reigns in His whole Being. He is never ruffled in the smallest measure, never perturbed by anything, either from within or without Himself. How could He be? Nothing can possibly take Him by surprise, for Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15.18). Nothing can ever disappoint Him, for of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things (Rom. 11.36). Nothing can to the slightest degree disturb His perfect equanimity, for He is the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (James 1.17). Consequently perfect serenity ever fills Him: that is one component element of His essential glory. Ineffable peace is one of the jewels in the diadem of Deity.

Mr Pink goes on to say....

Numerous sermons have been preached upon the God of love and the God of all grace, but where shall we find any on the God of peace, except it be as the reconciled God? Yet only once in all the Scriptures is He specifically designated the God of love, and only once the God of all grace, yet five times over He is addressed or referred to as the God of peace. As such, a perpetual calm characterises His whole Being: He is infinitely blessed in Himself.

Pages 122-123 Arthur W. Pink's STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES (June 1944)


We are told by the Saviour in His Sermon on the Mount Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5.48. A lofty goal?! but how few seem to strive for it! It seems to me, at any rate, that the internet is now awash with Christians slagging off one another because they don't agree with each other on points of doctrine.
Certainly we should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jude 3, I am all for this.

I write against the pre-tribulation rapture because I don't see it taught anywhere in God's Book, it is an invention of man. Often I leave comments on other blogs and sites, and have got involved in lengthy debates, but as far as I can recollect, I have never once got involved in vitriolic exchanges, slagging others off with insults! I also write about pre-destination/election and other doctrines, and do so with as much grace as God provides. When in these 'conflicts' (for that is what they can become!) it generally happens that when one with an opposing belief cannot successfully argue their position from Scripture, that they will turn to name calling or just ignore you. I was recently involved in a debate with a fellow blogger who would call himself a Biblicist, that is neither a Calvinist or Arminian; not that such a position exists! And when I said that I see the 5 points of the doctrines of grace (aka Calvinism) clearly taught in God's word, I was accused of being "blasphemous"!

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. Acts 24.14.

The dragon's tail. An exposition of Revelation 12.4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour the child as soon as it was born. Rev. 12.4

[And his tail drew ] The great serpent crawls along the vault of the sky, and the wrigglings of his tail remove the stars from their places. "Drew" is literally draweth. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).

Expositors are not agreed whether the stars in this verse refer to men or angels.
I believe this verse reveals how the demons came to be. Scripture teaches demonic activity was most prevalent and intense at the time the incarnate Deity walked the earth, and the Revelation reveals it will be so at the Second Coming. Satan was allowed by God to draw the non-elect angels down to the earth. The two-thirds that could not fall are the elect angels (1 Tim. 5.21). Satan and the angelic realm (fallen and unfallen) are not confined to time, they are immortal beings, and with this in mind, when his tail drew the third part down to earth; this event happened in eternity, but nevertheless it coalesced with time to bring about the demonic activity that took place in the NT Apostolic Scriptures. But, if all the fallen angels were felled by the dragon in Rev.12.4, and this happened before the Lord's incarnation, from whence did they come in order to fight against Michael and his angels in Rev. 12.7, which is taking place during the future three and one half years period of the great tribulation (a thousand two hundred and three score days)? this being the time of Jacob's trouble, Jer. 30.7. Dan. 12.1, Matt. 24.21, Rev.16.18 etc. Needless to say, this scene is some two thousand years hence from what took place in Rev. 12.4!

The interpretation of the Cambridge Bible gave me food for thought. Satan is seen crawling and wriggling (he is the master of this art!), now could it be that only a portion leftover of the third (whatever number that may be) of the fallen angels that fell prior to the incarnation will be left to assist Satan in his 'future' efforts against Michael and his angels? In other words they were not all cast to the earth at the same 'time'. Satan was not cast down before the incarnation, he will yet be, for Rev. 12.8-9 (RV) tells us of Satan and his angels that neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world: he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.
The Saviour saw this future event with His own eyes, for it is described in Luke 10.18; I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. It is at this point in time when the devil knoweth that he hath but a short time (Rev.12.12), that his persecutions will be at their most intense, for he is about to be incarcerated in the bottomless pit for the duration of the millennial reign; the thousand years in Rev. 20.2-3.

The demons that the Lord Jesus and His disciples cast out were incarcerated in hell (Tartarus; Greek.) to be reserved unto judgment 2 Pet.2.4, Jude 6. Would they have been cast out of people only to be given free-rein to re-enter someone else? I believe this is why legion asked the Lord to be sent into the swine (knowing the Jewish disgust of them!), only for the Lord to send them further on down deep under the sea into the abyss (Matt.8.28-32, Mark.5.2-13, Luke. 8.27-36.
Some think that the demons could come and go at their own pleasure after being cast out because of Luke 11.24-26. But, this thinking can be demolished at a stroke. Note that Luke says When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man (my emphasis), it doesn't say cast out. When Satan caused his angels to fall prior to the incarnation, they would have had free rein to enter in and out at will of all whom they desired, excepting of-course God's set apart ones. In the context of Luke 11.24-26, we read that some of them said, He casteth out demons through Beelzebub the chief of the demons. Luke 11.15. The Saviour was accused of being energized by Satan-what total and utter blasphemy! It is clear that Satan (Beelzebub) doesn't cast out his own, no rather, if he could, he would destroy anything of God in Christ on this earth, and the agencies by which he would do this is through all that is anti-Christ. The demons can only move in the direction that God has ordained for them. Their 'free-will' is overruled by God to His glory, they cannot go beyond His decrees. The demons that be gone out of a man in Luke 11.24 have only one ultimate destiny, and their 'free-will' to come and go at their bidding as it were, will come to a sure end, for we read that He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth. Luke 11.23.

The demons as previously said, were rife in the NT era, and I believe that most, if not all that fell in Rev. 12.4, are currently incarcerated in the abyss. In a soon coming Day demonic activity will be unleashed once again on this earth, with even greater fury, if that were possible! For Scripture says none is like it, Jer. 30.7, Dan 12. 1, Matt. 24.21.

Many believers (and unbelievers!) blame demons for all that goes wrong in their lives, and often say "I don't know what possessed me!" The inference being that it was one of Satan's demons. And, certainly our Pentecostal brethren would do well to dwell awhile on James 1.14; every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. (my emphasis).

Needless to say, this is a very deep subject, and is very hard to be dogmatic, it is a work in progress.

Charles Spurgeon on Limited Atonement

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question - Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if" - and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody."

Here Spurgeon highlights the key issue for any consideration of the atonement - its nature, its design.
This crystallizes the debate between the Arminian and the Calvinist. Did Christ die in order to make it possible for men to be saved, or did He die in order to save?

The Arminian, given his defective view of the natural man's ability, teaches that God intended, in sending Christ, to give every man a chance to be saved. The Calvinist, given his scriptural views of man's natural inability, believes that if a chance is all that is offered, none will be saved whatsoever. No, if any are to be saved, they are saved by a work wrought of Divine power (cf. Romans 1.16). The Calvinistic doctrine teaches an atonement that really atones.

P. 173-174, The Gospel According To Dispensationalism by R.C. Kimbro, available from the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony (SGAT) London.

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) on Arminianism.

Arminianism, the name derived from its leading exponent James Arminius, exalts human nature and human reason at the expense of the glorious Being and attributes of God, and describes man as a free uncontrolled agent, independent of the plans, operations and mind of his Creator. "These sects," says Rutherford, preaching before the House of Commons in 1644, "are advocates of nature, and pleaders against the grace of God; thus constituting a King without a subject, and a Saviour without a ransomed people."

References to Arminianism will be found in nearly all of Rutherford's works, so dangerous and subtle was the heresy.

Briefly, Arminians believe and teach that Christ gave His life for all without exception (including those already perishing in hell before His incarnation), but that He cannot save all; that God is not able to save a man unless the man helps Him to, i.e. human works are needed in salvation; and that Christ may give saving grace to a sinner today, and withdraw it tomorrow, (or the sinner may 'lose' saving grace, and thus himself, tomorrow)- therefore there is no certainty that just because you are saved, you will be saved.

1. To begin with, "God (as Augustine saith) hath a greater dominion over our wills than we have over them ourselves;....otherwise He hath made a creature free-will, which is without the sphere of His own power; whereas the freest will of a king, the most sovereign and independent on earth must run in His channel, Prov. 21.1." (CHRIST DYING, page 365.)

Arminianism is "repugnant to His will, which is irresistible and cannot miss its end. 2. To His immutability, which cannot be compelled to take a second part, whereas He cannot fail the first. 3. To His omnipotency, who cannot be resisted. 4. To His happiness, who cannot come short of what His soul desires. 5. To His wisdom, who cannot aim at an end and desire it with its soul, and go about it by such means as He sees shall be utterly ineffectual, and never produce His end; and not use these means which He knoweth may, and infallibly doth, produce the same end in others." (CHRIST DYING. pg 513).

"It is safest to say, the only wise God decreed that sin should be. That the glory of His justice should appear in taking away sin, not in our way, but in the way of God." (COVENANT OF LIFE, pg 34).

"Absolute sovereignty shines in Adam's fall. So if a sparrow cannot stir its wings without God Matt. 10.29, nor a hair fall from our head, vs 30, far less could Adam fall without a single providence." ( COVENANT OF LIFE. pg 36).

It is clear from Scripture that Christ did not die with the intention of saving all of mankind. "The Scripture saith Christ died to gather His scattered children. John 17.9, to bring to God, 1 Pet. 3.18, these for whom He died, that they might have life, John 10.11, live to God, 2 Cor. 5.15, die to sin, 1 Peter 1.18, be delivered from this present evil world, Gal. 1.4. Here is our effectual intention; where is there a place for His dying with no effectual intention to bring any to God? And yet 'He died for all, good and evil, to make salvation possible', say they (Arminians)." (COVENANT OF LIFE, pg 237.)

In opposition to the Arminian (universalist) interpretation of John 1.29, Rutherford comments, "The word 'world' is the nations and Gentiles, and believers are elect of both Jews and Gentiles; John 3.16, God so loved the world. Rom. 11.12; if the the fall of them be the riches of the world, vs 15, If the casting away of them be the reconcilement  of the world....." (CHRIST DYING. pg 450).

Arminianism has invented a work of Christ which He did not do, and a gospel which Christ never proclaimed. It is "another gospel".

"I stand upon His merit,
I know no other stand,
Not ev'n where glory dwelleth,
In Immanuel's Land."

Quotes from;
CHRIST DYING AND DRAWING SINNERS (1647)
COVENANT OF LIFE OPENED (1655)

In this day, there are many self-styled Biblicists who deny that they are either Calvinists or Arminian, they would prefix a number to their liking, according to the petals of TULIP that they agree or disagree upon, sometimes even adding more! As C.H. Spurgeon said "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." (my emphasis).
There is no 'halfway house' or any other point, in-between pre-destination/election and 'free-will', the 5-points stand or fall together. If one says he disagrees with Calvinistic (biblical) soteriology, and denies he is an Arminian free-willer, what he doesn't quite grasp is that he is Arminian by default.

But, for all this a man is saved entirely by God's sovereign grace alone.
Salvation "is the gift of God" Eph. 2.8 (my emphasis).
The elect were chosen "before the foundation of the world." Eph. 1.4 (my emphasis).
Nevertheless, Christ, and those moved by God's Holy Spirit to write in His written word preached one gospel, and that certainly wasn't the Arminian 'gospel'!

Antarctica, does it end?

The ice wall that surrounds our earth; known as the continent of Antarctica extends the entire 'circumference' of our known land mass called earth. God describes this vast continent in Job 38.22-23;

"Hast thou entered the treasuries of the snow, or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, Against the day of battle and war?"

The coming "Day of battle and war" is described in Revelation 16.21;

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great."

The weight of a single talent is generally reckoned to be around 30 kg!

Job lived in "the land of Uz" Job 1.1. This land is to the east of Israel, and the book of Job is considered by scholars to be the oldest book in the Bible. The  setting is a semi desert region which is certainly not well known for snow and ice, especially in the quantities recorded in the aforementioned Scriptures!  There are more references to snow and ice in Job than any other in God's Book.

It is my belief that God gave Job an end times prophecy, one that the biblical geocentric position shines much needed light upon.This end-times hail storm is described as "exceeding great", and given the context of these words, will be world wide in scope.
*I believe that after much of the snow and ice has been dumped on the inhabited earth as prophesied in Rev. 16.21 we will see an increased land mass fit for human inhabitation. The coming millennial reign of Christ on earth will see an exponentially increased population-explosion  on earth, for men will live up to a 1000 years old as they did in the first 1000 years, and we will see the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham; "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore." Genesis 22.17.

Because I believe that the continent known as Antarctica is a land mass which encircles the earth, and is generally agreed by all to be a rather inhospitable region, then if  the above promise to Abraham is to come true (as it surely will!) then the millennial earth as described in Isaiah 11 & 65, will need to increase in size. Is it not true that the world's ungodly green movements support birth control (abortion)? for they are worried that the earth's land mass will not support the increasing population explosion.

*There is however, water "above the firmament", Genesis 1.7,and according to  Ezekiel 1.22; there is "the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." (over the heads of the "living creatures"). This "terrible crystal" in the RV margin is rendered ice, which would be above the firmament. The azure sky we see on a cloudless day, may well be this ice! So God is not short of ice when the prophecy of Rev.16.21 takes place!

Does God love everyone?

When well meaning, but gullible Christians go around saying that God loves everyone (generally quoted with perhaps the best known and most misappropriated Bible verse ever; John 3.16!). The well worn out reply is something akin to; "If your God loves everyone, why all the murders, disasters, and violence in the world?"

An astute answer, if you go around telling people that "God loves everyone"!!!

Of course, I realize that many will say that all the aforementioned problems are the fault of fallen man, and this is true, but nevertheless to tell the sinner that "God loves you"without first telling him that he must repent of his sins and believe in His Son's precious atoning blood unto salvation, is altogether...wrong! But, how does such an one know that he is a sinner, without first believing that he has offended his Maker? Obviously these Christians first need to tell the sinner the Commandments that he has broken! Romans 1.20 elucidates the fact that a man can know that God indeed does exist! they are not stupid! For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.  Could it be clearer? Paraphrasing A.W. Pink; "To tell an unbeliever that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin, is to cauterize his conscience and afford him a sense of security in his sins." He then goes on to say "that this is a meaningless distinction, for what is in a sinner, but sin?"
Surely, the correct way of going about it, would be to say "if you repent of your sins and believe on Christ's atoning blood unto salvation, then God will love you!" The Saviour said "If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 14.23.

If God did love every single man, woman, and child that has been brought into this world since Adam and Eve, then what was ever the point of creating the abode of the damned, commonly known as hell? Why did the Saviour spend so much time warning of the place "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9.44? This fire is "the everlasting fire" of Matt.25.41. Of course, there are liberal theologians and universalists who would teach us that the Lord didn't mean what He said, that "everlasting" has a terminus! Then what of "everlasting life", does that also not mean what it says?

In more biblically literate days, from the Reformation down to the mid 19th century when Darwinism was starting to do its worst, you couldn't imagine the puritans telling sinners "God loves you!" No, they first warned of "the wrath to come". But, such are the days we are in.

Gordon H. Clark said it right in 1969;

There are too few people who wish to understand even the simplest biblical teaching. This is not a theological age. Some writers say-that it is a post-Christian age. What is needed today is an exhortation to study the Bible.

Page 2. BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION

ISBN: 0-87552-137-1.

Is God to blame?

Because of our many failed attempts of trying to save my late father in law who died last July (he was also a third generation free mason), my dear wife somehow tried to 'blame' God as it were, because he didn't yield to our witnessing. I have subsequently learnt that there is a notion among certain believers, that because the non-elect were not "chosen", that somehow it cannot be their fault that they couldn't be saved, for God never chose them in eternity past! They were not "predestinated" Rom. 8.29-30, Ep. 1.5, & 1.11. In other words they never had a 'chance' to believe and repent, that is they were reprobated to damnation. The correct approach to this dilemma is surely to look at it from the vantage point that none deserve to be saved in the first place, for as that old time preacher C.H. Spurgeon said; "are we not all criminals?" Divine wrath is surely the just desert of every child of Adam, for we inherited his fallen and sinful nature: Psalm 51.5; "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
If it were not for God taking out of this world, or age, "a people for His name." Acts 15.14, we might well exclaim with the disciples; "Who then can be saved?" Matt.19.25, Mark 10.26, Luke 18.26. It is by God's sovereign electing grace alone that any man can be saved, for all "were dead in trespasses and sins" Ep. 2.1.

It is only incumbent on believers to witness (as pathetic as our best attempts most surely are!) to friends, relatives, and whoever else. The parable of the sower in Matt.13 teaches that it is not in ourselves to have the power to coerce, or convert a man to believe (as some think!). There is a Power from above, as taught by the incarnate Deity Himself in John 3.8; "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou heareth the sound thereof, but canst not tell, whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." The external convicting force as it were, is from above; it is not of man! Ever remember that God's word is a "hammer", Jer. 23.29! As C.H. Spurgeon so rightly said; "If by a man's charm one can become a convert, then another can come along with more charm and unconvert him. But when God the Holy Spirit does the converting, absolutely NONE can undo the conversion!"

I try not to become emotional about these deep things recorded in God's word, but rather only to believe, and write about "what is written".

Can we come to God of our own volition?

No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW him. John 6.44.

No  man can come unto Me, except it were GIVEN unto him of My Father. John 6.65.

You would think that these two God breathed verses would settle the matter once and for all, but apparently not! Did Jesus mean what He said when He uttered these words, or are they to be interpreted in a different way?

And WHOSOEVER will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22.17.

Does this verse contradict the aforementioned verses?

There are no contradictions in God's Book, if there is something that doesn't "square-up" it is only because of our inability to understand what is being taught in the Scripture of Truth.

The Gospel call is universal, for the Scripture says, God "commandeth All men everywhere to repent." Acts 17.30. But why don't "all men everywhere repent"?

The great commission in Matthew 28.18-20 enjoins the disciples to "teach ALL the nations", as indeed Jesus confirmed to them in Acts 1.8; "ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (RV).

So, how does the "whosoever will" in Rev. 22.17 come to Jesus? This is the crux of the matter!
clearly, as John 6.44 affirms, it is the Father that DRAWS him!

Is this so difficult to understand?