Saturday, February 4, 2017

God's Love is NOT Unconditional?

One of the most fundamental truths of salvation by sovereign grace is that God’s love for his chosen people is utterly unconditional so far as any actions on their part are concerned. This is an unavoidable consequence of the well-founded doctrine of total human depravity in the scriptures. The moment one affirms the abject depravity of the human race as a result of the fall, they have likewise affirmed man’s total inability to meet any spiritual conditions whatsoever (Galatians 3:21). It is this observation that forms the basis for why eternal salvation must be totally by grace and not according to our works rather than by works through some conditional scheme. Salvation by sovereign grace insists that ALL of the conditions required for the salvation of God’s people were met by God himself, not by man (Romans 8:33). So I’ll pause here to state this as bluntly as I possibly can so that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding on the matter: Any man who does not believe that eternal salvation is unconditional so far as man’s actions are concerned, does not believe in salvation by sovereign grace, irrespective of how audaciously wrapped in sovereign grace language he may present himself. Those who insists that God’s love for his people is not unconditional while also insisting that this theological position should be called “salvation by sovereign grace” are evident Christian Irrationalist of the most egregious sort.

In this short video we find so-called “sovereign grace” ministers RC Sproul, John MacArthur, and Steve Lawson, objecting to and even mocking the notion that God’s love is “unconditional.” Again, it is incredibly important to note that if God’s love for his people is in any sense “conditioned” upon anything they do, then it is not salvation by the monergistic sovereign grace of God. Indeed, apart from affirming God’s immutable and unconditional love for his people, then there is no basis up on which to affirm God’s unconditional election of a people. That biblical fact is established in no uncertain terms by the bible’s statement, “We love him because he first loved us.” (I John 4:19) I believe that when we biblically and rationally assess the statements made by these men, who are commonly regarded as the “heavy-weights of sovereign grace theology” in our time, we find that this is yet another good example of the ridiculously self-contradictory notions promoted as “sovereign-grace, gospel truth” by modern Calvinists.  Let’s listen….

How Would You Respond to - God Loves Me Just As I Am?

"When everyone is talking about the love of God and “God loves me just as I am” how would you respond?" (Moderator)
I believe that a proper response to this question is to point out that “We love him because he first loved us.” (I John 4:19) This observation establishes that God loved us while we were in a state of fallen, abject, evil, depravity wherein we were totally incapable of meeting any conditions. It establishes that God loved his people IN SPITE OF what they were. That is the proper understanding of the grace of God and it is utterly, utterly unconditional love. Let’s see how Sproul addresses the question…
"The kingdom of God is not Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. <audience laughs> I think there are few things out there more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everybody unconditionally." (RC Sproul)
Sproul’s statement has two components that we must examine. The first is the notion that God loves “everybody.” All three of these men teach that God loves everybody, at least in some sense, as Sproul will go on to explain by insisting that God has more than one kind of love. While they do not describe it this way, I have often described their position as “God has two kinds of love – the saving kind and the burning kind.” This unstable notion cannot survive the bible’s statements regarding God’s immutability, eternal purposes, and the absolute efficacy of the blood of Christ (Romans 8:31-39), but I’m getting ahead of myself... Stated plainly, God most certainly does NOT love everybody and the bible explicitly states this incredibly unpopular truth many times over (Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:13, Psalm 5:5, 11:5). Indeed the reality of an eternal hell with human occupancy should make this a matter of no controversy whatsoever.

With respect to Sproul’s rejection of God’s love as “unconditional” – he seems totally oblivious to the fact that the moment he admits that God’s love for his people is conditioned upon something that man does that he has likewise departed from salvation by sovereign grace.  I’ll state this again – if God loved us before we loved him (I John 4:19) then it is certain that his love was unconditional, because man in his fallen condition is devoid of any capacity to meet any righteous conditions whatsoever (Romans 3:10-12) and is totally devoid of any capacity to procure God’s favor. Frankly, it is pretty well incredible that this nonsense can be pawned off as “salvation by sovereign grace” when it so evidently contradicts the simple fundamentals of grace.  That so many “grace believing” evangelicals fall for this nonsense is a strong indication that they are not nearly so rooted in a firm understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints as their “grace” moniker would lead one to believe. It is no overstatement to say that “sovereign grace” Christianity is a far more rare commodity than the popularity of the “sovereign grace” moniker would indicate.
Because the message that is heard by the people who hear that is: there are no conditions, I can continue to live just as I am living in full rebellion against God and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet, God loves me unconditionally and I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin, no conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am. He’s glad that I turned out so nicely and so on. (Sproul)
I do not doubt that there will be some who will take the notion of unconditional love and respond in this way. But the fact that some people bring forth an improper response to the truth is no reason to suggest that God’s love is not unconditional. God’s love for his chosen people is undeniably unconditional as this is an unavoidable corollary of total depravity.

Paul Anticipated Illogical Responses - But Affirmed Unconditional Love Nonetheless

More to the point, it seems completely lost on Sproul that the apostle Paul fully anticipated that the preaching of God’s unconditional love and saving grace for his people would be met with this very objection. As a result he developed a response to this reaction in the Roman epistle. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” (Romans 6:1-7)

It is important to note that Paul’s response does not back away from the notion of God’s unconditional love for his people, not one bit, because to deny God’s unconditional love would completely undermine the notion of salvation by grace. Instead, Paul seeks to establish that continuing to live in sin is an improper, presumptuous, and illogical response to the gospel truth of God’s unconditional love. Paul addresses the error of that reaction to gospel truth. He does NOT seek to correct the problem by suggesting that God’s love is conditional, as this would clearly decimate the premise of sovereign grace from which his entire argument proceeds. Later in the Roman epistle Paul refers to our response in obedient discipleship as our “reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1) But he does not back away from the unconditional nature of God’s love for his people one bit, and neither should we, for indeed if we do then we will have abandoned the grace of Christ in salvation (Galatians 1:6) to enter the religion of works, irrespective of the so-called “sovereign grace” banners we may waive.

Sproul's Three Loves of God Theology

But, there is a sense, I’ve written a book on the love of God where I talk about the three ways in which theologians speak about the love of God: (Sproul)
Here we go. MacArthur’s got his “Two loves of God” and Sproul, never to be out done in ponderous egg-head-ery, must go one better with his “Three loves of God” which he defines as benevolence, beneficence, and complacence. We’ll let him explain what he means before we add our commentary…
God’s love of Benevolence – where God has a good will towards everybody, believers and non-believers. Beneficent love of God – God gives benefits to people whether they’re believers or not believers, the rain falls on the just as well as on the unjust. But the most important consideration is the love of complacency, not the love of smugness. But what is meant by the love of complacency is the filial love that God has for the redeemed. And that love is directed first to Christ and then to all who are in Christ, our elder brother. (Sproul)

Sprouls Conditional Love of God Doctrine

But then Sproul makes this absolutely incredible, grace destroying statement regarding the saving love of God for his chosen people.
And that salvific love is not something that God has for everybody unconditionally. (Sproul)
While it is possible to interpret this statement in a way that is consistent with the unconditional covenant love of God, Sproul's book Loved by God plainly settles the question of where he stands on the matter beyond any dispute. Sproul's wacky "conditional salvation by sovereign grace" is on full display in quotes like this one:
Where in scripture do we find this notion of the unconditional love of God? If God's love is absolutely unconditional, why do we tell people that they have to repent and have faith in order to be saved? God sets forth clear conditions for a person to be saved. (Loved by God, RC Sproul, page 112)

Loved by God, RC Sproul, page 112. 

Sproul and other modern Calvinists fail to understand that a man cannot repent in sincerity without faith (Hebrews 11:6) and that by the time a man has faith he is already born again and in possession of eternal life (I John 5:1). This critical observation makes it absolutely certain that men do not repent and believe in order to meet the conditions of salvation. They repent and believe as evidence that they have ALREADY passed from death unto life. Stated another way, repentance and faith are not conditions of the covenant; they are provisions of the covenant. They do not make salvation effectual; they make it manifest. Sproul continues on.
And sometimes we close our eyes to what the bible says frequently about God’s posture towards the impenitent. God, the bible tells us, abhors the wicked. That’s strong language. God abhors, detests the wicked, who are impenitent. (Sproul)
But RC, you just explained that God loves everybody, at least in some sense. Now you say he hates them if they are impenitent? Moreover, if God’s hates us until we repent then it is evident that he did not have “saving love” for us before we ever loved him, rather his love was predicated upon us choosing to love him first whereby we subsequently qualify for God’s conditional love of salvation. Sproul is spinning up a colossal mess of logical contradictions that are completely ignorant of the fact that God’s love for his chosen people is everlasting and unconditional so far as man’s actions are concerned. It is the result of a covenant that is ordered in all things and sure, not conditions to be met by the creature.
And then people say, “Well, God loves the sinner he just hates the sin.” But he doesn’t send the sin to hell he sends the sinner there. And so this is very dangerous stuff when we tell people that God loves you unconditionally. (Sproul)
Well it’s certainly unstable to walk up to any random person and proclaim that God’ loves them unconditionally, no argument there. But it is a matter of ironclad, sovereign grace certainty that God’s love for his chosen people is absolutely unconditional so far as man’s actions are concerned, because man in his fallen state is utterly incapable of meeting any righteous conditions. It is God who met all the conditions whereby his people are eternally saved. Men do not met salvific conditions at all. Period.

Sproul's "Grace" is Conditioned on Repentance

So, we have to do it from a biblical perspective rather than trying to change the biblical character of God. (Sproul)
Stated another way – What RC Sproul means when he refers to “salvation by sovereign grace” is that “God’s eternally saving love is conditioned upon your repentance.” One wonders where a natural man, whose mind is enmity against God (Romans 8:7), could find this parcel of righteous and good repentance in order to meet God’s condition for being loved by Him? The idea that the eternally saving love of God is conditioned upon man’s repentance is so utterly opposed to the concepts of total depravity and salvation by sovereign grace that it boggles the mind that Sproul would make such a statement. It honestly makes me sick to my stomach that so many people regard this as an accurate representation of the grace of God in saving his people. Sproul is not within 1000 miles of gospel truth on the matter.
God is angry every day against the wicked and justly so. And every impenitent sinner is exposed every second to the rage the fury of God’s wrath as Paul tells us in Romans 1:18 and following. (Sproul)
One wonders how a “totally depraved” sinner could possibility extricate himself from this state of being under the anger, rage, and fury of God? The simple fact of the matter is this: If he is totally depraved, and he undeniably is (Romans 3:10-18, 8:7), then he is totally unable to extricate himself from his condemnation by his own actions (Ephesians 2:1). He cannot believe God (Galatians 5:22, Romans 8:9), love God (Romans 8:7), receive truth (I Corinthians 2:14), do good (Psalm 14:1, Romans 3:12), or seek God (Psalm 10:4, Romans 3:11) – all of which are required for a man to sincerely repent of his sins. With this observation we once again establish a truth that is fundamental to the faith once delivered to the saints – We love him because he first loved us (I John 4:19) Stated another way, God’s love for his people preceded their love for him and superseded his just wrath for them through the intercession of Christ, established in a covenant that preceded their very existence. God’s banner over his people has ever and always been love (Song of Solomon 2:4, Jeremiah 31:3) and his purpose for them has ever and always been a loving purpose (Jeremiah 31:31-33) and that loving purpose chose to save them when they were without strength and ungodly (Romans 5:6), not when they rose to the occasion of meeting the condition of repentance, for their state of abject depravity makes it absolutely certain that they could never meet that condition (Romans 3:10-18). That is a gospel fact and Sproul’s eternally-saving-conditional-love-of-God doctrine is diametrically opposed to it, irrespective of his contradictory attempts to affirm TULIP. God loved us BEFORE we ever loved him (I John 4:19) and it is this biblical fact whereby we have eternal salvation, not some act of repentance that met a condition laid upon us. Indeed God’s loving purpose for us is immutable and it is for this reason that we have eternal salvation – “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)

Those who promote Sproul’s  doctrine of Calvinistic contradictions and confusion (and they are many in this age of rampant biblical ignorance) are guilty of thinking far too much of what man does in the vapor of his temporal existence, and thinking far too little of what the creator God of the universe (Hebrews 1:2) has done in purposeful fulfillment (II Corinthians 5:21) of a covenant promise (Jeremiah 31:31-33) that he established before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5) to save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), to perfect them before the throne of divine justice (Hebrews 10:14), to obtain their eternal redemption for them (Hebrews 9:12), to by himself purge their sins (Hebrews 1:3), and to make them righteous by His one obedience (Romans 5:19) though they were without strength and ungodly (Romans 5:6) based on a love that was totally and utterly unconditional.  That is the gospel truth and those who fail to affirm it with clarity do a great disservice to the understanding of God’s people everywhere.  This is an hard saying – who can hear it?

Good News / Bad News Theology

But again, like you said earlier, there’s no understanding of the good news apart from the bad news. (Sproul)
This is a VERY popular notion among Calvinists today, the idea that there is no “good news” without the “bad news.”  This notion is inherently tied to Sproul’s previous assertion – namely that a man is under the abiding, eternally damning wrath of God until he repents of his sins, upon which God’s disposition toward him changes to that of eternally saving love. As we have previously pointed out, this line of reasoning is contrary to the concept of God’s “everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3), contrary to God’s eternal purpose in saving his chosen people from their sins (Ephesians 1:4-5, Matthew 1:21), contrary to the immutability of God (Malachi 3:6), contrary to the notion that God’s love for his people preceded and cause their love for him (I John 4:19), and contrary to well-founded doctrine of total depravity (Romans 3:10-18).

The Well-Meant Offerism of Modern Calvinism

I believe the reason for this common error stems from an improper view of the nature and purpose of the gospel message – namely the belief that the gospel is a Well-Meant offer of salvation to all of humanity, rather than the proclamation of the finished work of Christ on behalf of his chosen people, identified in this world as those who have the faith to believe this testimony. But I’m getting ahead of myself. I believe that error becomes more apparent as Sproul continues…
Christ came into the world that was already under the universal indictment for rejecting God the father, for living in a sense where the clear revelation of God, as you’ve pointed out Steve, was so made manifest to every human being but our nature is so fallen that we don’t want God in our thinking we don’t want God in our minds and we want so much to win people to Christ that we’ll do everything we can to hide from them the reality of the wrath of God. (Sproul)
While it is true that all of humanity fell as a result of Adam’s transgression (Romans 5:12), it is most certainly NOT true that this is the full picture of the circumstances and purposes for which Christ was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). I would want to point out God’s purposes in saving his people PRECEDED the fall of humanity in time. It follows that God’s banner over his people has ever and always been one of purposeful love that covenanted to save them (Jeremiah 31:31-33, Ephesians 1:4-5). It follows that the gospel is not that which materially and vitally delivers eternal salvation to God’s people, indeed the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught that a man must already be born again in order to have the ability to receive the spiritual truths of the kingdom of God heralded in the gospel (John 3:3); no, the gospel is that which affirms the love of God toward his chosen people. It instructs them in the light of truth so that they may understand what Christ has done on their behalf, not because they repented, but so that they may have the grace to repent and live in obedient discipleship as their reasonable service to God in thanksgiving for what the Lord has done for them in an act of unconditional love. (Romans 12:1)

Scare the Sheep With the Wrath of God That Christ Took For Them

We don’t’ tell them that every moment that they refuse to repent that they are heaping up wrath, Steve, <laughs> against the day of wrath. (Sproul)
A couple of observations here. First, if we accept the preceding reality and unalterable efficacy of the everlasting covenant, which all sovereign grace bible-believing Christians must, then it is certain that it is absolutely impossible for God’s covenant people to heap up eternally damning wrath against themselves. Indeed the gospel proclaims liberty to the captives, not the conditional heaping of the eternally damning wrath of God toward his covenant people. Moreover, those who are not among God’s covenant people most certainly can do precisely nothing other than store up wrath for themselves given their abject depravity and lack of covenantal intercession required to extricate them from this condition.  Secondly, it makes me uncomfortable how easily these ministers chuckle at the notion of the eternally damning wrath of God.  I realize that the strange context of public speaking often leads to unusual reactions from people, but when the damning wrath of God is in view, such reactions are at a bare minimum incredibly awkward and unbefitting.
But people aren’t afraid of the wrath of God and it’s because we’re out there telling them, “You don’t have to be afraid of God because God is so nice and it’s Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.” (Sproul)
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) and that knowledge is NOT imparted through the instruction of men, but rather implanted via the life giving fiat of regeneration (Ephesians 2:1), because a characteristic of the unregenerate man is that “there is no fear of God before his eyes.” (Romans 3:18) One can be sure of this, if God has not given you the faith to believe in the fear of the Lord, then no amount of gospel preaching can ever impart it to you, because man in his natural state is incapable of receiving spiritual truth, because he regards it as utter foolishness. (I Corinthians 2:14) This is another example of where Sproul’s theology assigns to the gospel preacher that which can only be accomplished by a direct act of God himself.  Plainly put, if a man does not ALREADY have the fear of God, he will not be taught any such fear by a gospel minister, neither will he believe the gospel’s testimony.  Let’s see how MacArthur responds to this…

What Manner of Man is Capable of Spiritual Persuasion?

It takes the terror out of it. Knowing the terror of the Lord, Paul says, we persuade men. (John MacArthur)
But what manner of man is capable of such spiritual persuasion? A natural man who is dead in trespasses and in sins? No. The natural man has no fear of God before his eyes (Romans 3:18) and regards all such revelation as foolishness. (I Corinthians 2:14) So while Paul was interested in persuading men, it is evident that the only men who can be thus persuaded are those who already possess the fear of God and the ears to hear spiritual truth, else they would remain unmoved by the things of the spirit of God. Simply put, neither fear of God nor fear of eternal damnation can motivate one who is dead in trespasses and in sins unto the eternal salvation of his soul, because the unregenerate have NO FEAR OF GOD (Romans 3:18) and any man who fears God is already in possession of eternal life. It follows that no matter what one might say of the purpose of his fear, it is NOT for the purpose of helping him obtain the eternal salvation he already possesses.
It’s a fearful thing, a terrifying thing, to fall into the hands of a living God. (MacArthur)
This verse gets quoted quite a bit by modern Calvinists – the implication being that “falling into the hands of a living God” designs the eternally damning wrath that will fall upon the unregenerate and impenitent. I must admit that this is ALWAYS the context in which I hear this verse invoked in modern preaching. But a closer look at that passage in its full context is helpful in dispelling the myth of how this sound bite is so frequently and carelessly employed by modern evangelicals. Consider the following….

Rightly Dividing Hebrews 10 - The Lord Shall Judge HIS PEOPLE

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Hebrews 10:19-20) Here we see that these remarks are made to “brethren” whose salvation has been “consecrated” for them by Christ.  Can this possibly design the unregenerate who will end up in hell?

And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:21-22) Those addressed by these remarks have “an high priest,” have “faith,” and have “sprinkled hearts,” and have been “washed with pure water.” All these allusions design aspects of our eternal salvation. Can such people be devoid of the grace of God? Can those who meet this description ever fall under the eternal condemnation of God? Let’s listen on…

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25) These “brethren” have “faith” and “love” and are exhorted to use that unto “good works” which a natural man is incapable of producing (Romans 3:12).

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29) These remarks design the willful practice of sin by “brethren” who are none other than God’s regenerate people who fear God and have faith. Given that such people are in possession of eternal life and shall never perish (John 10:28), it is evident that the judgment described in this passage is not eternal damnation but rather God’s severe rod of temporal chastisement which falls upon the disobedient in this lifetime (Hebrews 12:5-8) and which is so evident in the lives of the saints of God in numerous biblical examples. (Genesis 19:30, II Samuel 12:10, Deuteronomy 34:4) But if any doubt remains, let us hear the conclusion of the matter so that we may establish this beyond any reasonable dispute…

For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:30-31) So there it is, “The Lord shall judge HIS PEOPLE.” When the bible speaks of falling into the hands of the living God, it is not talking about the eternal punishment of hell, because “HIS PEOPLE” have been eternally delivered from all such eternal consequences by the intercession of Christ. This passage is speaking of the paternal chastisement of God, that may come upon his chosen people if they persist in disobedience to the precepts they are taught in discipleship.
Preaching that “God loves you unconditionally” is the wrong message. (MacArthur)
If spoken indiscriminately to a random audience, that is certainly true. Nevertheless God’s love for his chosen people is most certainly unconditional. It follows that to insist that God’s love for them is conditional is not the teaching of salvation by sovereign grace, it is not the teaching of scripture, and it is NOT THE GOSPEL.
The sinner needs to be terrified about his condition. He doesn’t need to feel comfortable in the fact that he’s turned out so well, as RC put it. (MacArthur)
And this is precisely how the modern Calvinist presses his “You gotta know the bad news before you can learn the good news” philosophy of ministry upon the sheep. What stark contrast this is to the Lord’s sermon on the mount, which declares the regenerate, beatified sheep of God as already in a blessed state.

Scaring the Hell Out of the Sheep

You know, just in the last year, John, I’ve had two guys come into membership in our church as adults, baptized as adults, by the way, <laughs> who in their testimony, their testimony is that what drove them to the gospel was they realized they were on their way to hell. And that scared them, literally scared the hell out of them. <laughs> Right? (Sproul)
That notion, while popular, is actually totally contrary to the gospel message. The gospel informs one who has the ears to hear that Christ has accomplished their salvation, that the battle for their redemption is over, that the warfare of eternal salvation is complete. Now if that person says, "I heard that and I realized that I was going to hell," then it is certainly evident that they have not heard it aright! The gospel declares that while God’s people were certainly deserving of hell, that God’s love for them is unconditional and that it purposed their salvation long before they ever even existed. They were never bound for hell (though their sin certainly made that their just punishment) because God’s loving covenant of salvation has EVER PURPOSED to make them holy and without blame before him in love. (Psalm 32:2)
Yeah, and rightly so. (Steve Lawson)
Yeah. (Sproul)
You know that’s part of what Steve was saying, excuse me Chris, that’s part of what Steve was saying, if we’re gonna ever call a nation into righteousness the preaching has to dramatically change. It has to dramatically change. <applause> (MacArthur)
MacArthur seems to be saying, "Steve and RC, if we don’t get out there and scare the hell outta some folks they’re going to end up in the lake of fire. Now let’s go scare some sheep!"

THE TRUTH: Sovereign Grace Means that God Met ALL of the Conditions

This analysis is pretty painful to have to make but I hope that it serves to reveal some of the absolutely ridiculous notions that are being pawned off as “salvation by sovereign grace” by some of the biggest names in so-called “sovereign grace” in Christendom today. It honestly pains me to see the confusion that these men visit upon the flock of God. It is disturbing to see how little they understand of the “grace” they claim to promote. It’s disturbing that virtually none of their followers are capable of seeing through the bevy of grace-destroying contradictions they promote. I don’t question the sincerity or the profession of faith of these men, but I must point out that their teaching on the matter of God’s love does a great disservice to the cause of truth and visits a great deal of pharisaical vexation of spirit upon the flock of God.

The bottom line is this – God’s love is most certainly unconditional where man’s actions are concerned. Sovereign grace teaches that it is God that met all of the conditions for the eternal salvation of his people. It is my sincere prayer that more of the Lord’s people would come to lay hold of this truth in the coming year and that they would depart from the unscriptural, pseudo-grace confusion that is served up by these men.


  1. TETH I love the work God is doing through you. You ably showed in this post that one error just leads to more errors.

    I started a blog recently too.

    Like you, I decided to be anonymous on my website, and used a favorite Bible verse as my moniker. And like your website, mine prominently features the sovereign grace of God!

    Thanks for the inspiration.

    God bless your efforts,

    The Form of the Fourth

    1. Thank you for your kind remarks. May God bless your efforts to share what you believe with others.