Friday, September 4, 2015
Properly understood and defined, TULIP is an acrostic summary of the mechanics of eternal salvation by grace. However, it is incredibly important that we not lose sight of the the distinction between being saved by this grace and having an understanding of this grace. These are two separate matters entirely. The fact that TULIP designs the eternally-saving, monergistic motions of God completely eliminates any requirement that the recipient of such grace must possess or acquire an understanding of the workings thereof as a matter of logical consequence. When one comes to understand that all of the requirements of eternal salvation have been met by the Lord Jesus Christ, then one sees that anything ever observed in the life of one saved by grace is never anything more than an ex post facto evidence of grace already imparted.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
How often have you heard these statements? “I affirm the Fulton Confession of 1900, just as all sound PB brethren did over a century ago.” Or maybe, “I stand by the Second London Confession of Faith (1689), as our Baptist forefathers did.” Such unprofitable intramural squabbles have existed for some time among the Old Baptists, even as some of our forefathers short-sightedly declared, “I am of Paul” and “I am of Apollos.”
Posted by theearstohear at 9:36 AM
Friday, August 21, 2015
I often encounter Christians on the internet who believe in particular redemption while also insisting that the gospel is a well-meant (sincere) offer of salvation to all of humanity (WMO). This is the most popular belief found among most professing Calvinists today, though it is an extraordinarly irrational position. To demonstrate this irrationalism, I usually ask them: How can you sincerely offer eternal life to a man for whom Jesus Christ did not die? The most common response I receive is the question - How do you know who Christ didn't die for? The implication of this question is that if one denies the WMO, then they are likewise saying that we should only preach the gospel to the elect, and since we have no way of knowing who are elect among the unconverted, then this is an irrelevant observation. But this is an unwarranted and unnecessary conclusion to draw from a denial of the WMO. The observation that the gospel is not a WMO has no bearing on the broadcast audience, but rather has bearing on the nature of the broadcast message. Consider the following...
Saturday, June 13, 2015
"But the truth is you don’t have to try to use your behavior to earn God’s love. He loves you despite your behavior." (Tyler Speegle)
I completely agree with this statement. The love of God for his chosen people is not based on anything found in them, neither is it based upon any actions they have ever taken, but is rather, in spite of the fact that they, in their natural state (Ephesians 2:3), are completely lacking either of those things (Romans 3:10-18). Had Speegle stopped there he would have done well. Instead he goes on to say...
"God’s love for you isn’t based on what you do or don’t do, it's based on His Son Jesus AND YOUR DECISION TO ACCEPT HIM" (Speegle)
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Christians often make the statement that "God is omnipotent" and insist that this means that "God can do absolutely anything." In turn this coarse and unscriptural definition becomes philosophical fodder for scoffers who intend to confound and undermine the Lord's people with questions like, "Can God make a rock so large that he cannot pick it up?" When most evangelicals are confronted with this objection (and a host of others like it), it has been my observation that they often seek refuge in the cave of irrationalism in order to justify their belief, opting for a sad mixture of hopelessly quixotic arguments to defend a fundamentally indefensible position. It's not pretty, to say the least. But this approach is proven both unprofitable and unnecessary provided we allow the bible to define our terminology.
Posted by theearstohear at 2:09 PM