We have now arrived at the countdown of the top ten most popular posts of all time with readers of this blog. No. 10 appeared on July 19, 2007, and of all the posts I have written, this one is probably my own personal favorite. It is a rallying call to a kind of Christianity that is not ashamed to embrace the best from many different backgrounds.

The last four words of the above title are not new to me, but they are certainly resonating with me at the moment — "I Want It All!" Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?

I know what some of you are thinking as you've been reading my posts on the Together On a Mission conference. You're wondering why it is that someone who is so enthusiastic about what was obviously a very charismatic conference can also be deeply committed to defending and understanding biblical doctrine. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but it really is the same me who wrote all those posts on the atonement who also was so deeply touched by this latest conference. For those of you who have never met one, I am indeed that rare breed — a Reformed Charismatic.

Too often, however, the temptation for me is to downplay one side of that equation or the other in order to appear "balanced." When I am with the charismatics, my reformed doctrine often appears alien to them, although in the UK, Newfrontiers offers a major exception to that with over 200 churches that are broadly reformed and charismatic. When I'm with the reformed, I'm tempted to soften my charismatic viewpoint and not speak too much of the things I have seen and experienced. Why is it that on this issue, as on so many others, the Church seems to be split in half? Why can't we be both radically reformed and radically charismatic? Why do we see a conflict and therefore try to play down both in order to be "balanced?" I don't want to be balanced, I want it all!

On the one hand there are those who care about theology enough to study God's Word in detail, weigh scripture against scripture, study great theological minds, and preach intellectually stimulating messages that would stretch even a PhD in Theology — which, incidentally, I am certainly not! Why is it that for the majority of us, if we want such a feast for our minds, we must sacrifice certain other things? Why are some leaders in the Church committed to theology almost exclusively? Is even great theology so captivating that it is the only need of the Church? I don't believe it can be, or God would have given us a Bible that was a systematic theology and not the one we have, which is essentially a collection of lots of stories with a few doctrinal portions.

Read more . . . I Don't Want Balance! I Want It All!

Before going on a summer break, I ended with a post which expresses clearly the driving passion behind my life—I DON'T WANT BALANCE, I WANT IT ALL!

Other than that, and the posts on the atonement I listed in yesterday's review, July was totally dominated (and rightly so) by Together On a Mission. This conference is a phenomena that you really ought to experience at least once in your life. The fact that next year we will have Mark Driscoll here in the UK as the main speaker is just one reason to come. There are many, many more! Here are all my posts from this amazing conference and the events surrounding it:

• TOAM07 - Quotable Quotes


• TOAM07 - Pedro Reflects


• TOAM07 - Many More MP3s Now Available FREE


• TOAM07 - Session 1: Stephen Van Rhyn on Exodus 32


• Andrew Fountain Interviews Adrian Warnock


• TOAM07 - Conference Video


• TOAM07 - Final Thoughts Around the Blogosphere


• TOAM07 - FREE Audio Available and a Video Introduction


• TOAM07 - Interview with Rob Rufus


• TOAM07 - Session 9: Terry Virgo on the Sin of Achan


• TOAM07 - Seminar: Sam Poe and Guy Miller - Prophecy: The Battle for Team


• TOAM07 - Video of Prayer Giving and Worship


• TOAM07 - Prophecy From Smith Wigglesworth


• TOAM07 - Interview with John Lanferman


• TOAM07 - Session 8: Rob Rufus on the Glory of God


• TOAM07 - Session 7: David Stroud on the Identity Markers of Newfrontiers


• TOAM07 - Seminar: Guy Miller and Julian Adams On Prophesying in Power


• TOAM07 - Interview With Tom Shaw: Leader of Mobilise


• TOAM07 - Session 2: Rob Rufus


• TOAM07 - Session 6: Dave Devenish on World Mission


• TOAM07 - Session 5: Rob Rufus on Faith and Healing


• TOAM07 - Session 4: P-J Smyth


• TOAM07 - Updates From the Blogosphere


• TOAM07 - Live-Blogging From Andrew Fountain


• Partying For Jesus


• George Whitefield's Final Resting Place and the Lewis Revival


• TOAM07- Introducing Pedro Anosike


• Newfrontiers - A Family Of Churches Together On A Mission


• Terry Virgo On Apostles Today

In August I also did a mini-series of quotes on the Calvinistic doctrines, otherwise known as TULIP—just in case people thought I was just some kind of wacky charismaniac. The posts were:

• Will I Make It Until the End? The Perseverance of the Saints


• The Unstoppable Saviour - Irresistible Grace


• Limited/Unlimited Atonement - Just Who Did Jesus Die For?


• Credit God, Blame Man, Or Why Double Predestination is Error - Charles Simeon


• How Total Depravity Helps Your Marriage

Another really interesting thing happened during the "silly season" of August. All the big guns got involved with a big debate with each other about baptism. It was a historic first and of great interest to the rest of us who did not dare to express an opinion! I provided excerpts of all the key posts as follows:

• Why Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Church Membership Differences Exist


• Massive Collection of MP3 Messages Made Free


• Lig Duncan On the Great Baptism, Church Membership, and Lord's Supper Debate


• "Lig Duncan Baptized as a Believer," Reveals Justin Taylor


• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord's Supper


• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord's Supper


• Sam Storms, John Piper, and John Bunyan vs. Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever


• Baptist and PCA Agreements About Baptism


• Lig Duncan Speaks Up for Paedobaptists


• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate


• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever vs Piper Baptism Debate


• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem vs Piper Baptism Debate


• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper On Baptism


• John Piper Disagrees With Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously


• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism

Last Sunday, my dear friend and leader, Tope preached the following sermon at Jubilee Church, London. This was the begining of a series whereby we intend to preach through the letter.

Many people say that Romans and Galatians prompted the Reformation. I think it is true to say that it is the book of Ephesians that prompted what some people are calling the "second reformation." Certainly it is foundational to what I believe as a reformed charismatic.

In this sermon, Tope focused on predestination. He did not cover the subject of being sealed with the Spirit as he did that midweek with the church instead. If you do want to read more about that crucial part of chapter one, I have written extensively about it in posts tagged "The Baptism with The Holy Spirit."

If you want to listen along to the whole series, you can subscribe using iTunes. You can also download the audio, or listen to it right here:

As regular readers will already know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the end of our short series with the doctrine of the persevernace of the saints, which teaches that God will insure that genuine believers in Christ remain faithful to the end. I give the last words to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

". . . the eternal God knows us and is interested in us and has a plan for us. If that is not enough for you, then I despair! The astounding thing I find here is that the eternal and absolute God knows me, that he thought of me before the foundation of the world, not only before I was born, but before he even made the world; that this eternal, absolute Being is interested in me, even me, as an individual and as a person, and that I was in his mind when he conceived this amazing plan that includes the incarnation and the cross, and the resurrection and the ascension, and the reign of his Son at his side that is going on now. What a staggering, yes, but what a glorious thought!

. . . there is therefore nothing uncertain about my acceptance with God, nor about my forgiveness, nor about my sonship. When I realize that I have been brought into God’s plan I know that nothing can frustrate this . . . plan of God which cannot be broken and which cannot fail. It is as absolute as God, himself; he knows the end as well as the beginning. ‘Neither shall any man,’ said Christ, ‘pluck them out of my hand.’ It is unthinkable.

. . . Let me put it like this: God, who is sufficiently concerned about me to send his Son to die on the cross of Calvary for me, is not going to let me down when any difficulty or temptation faces me. My dear friends, there is nothing for you to fear! You belong to One of whom we are told that all power has been given to him over all flesh. You are in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ if you but knew and realised it, and he controls everything. He controls every human being, all the affairs of nature, he is even controlling the devil himself. All power is given unto him, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers are subject unto him, so you need never fear! You and I have but to realize that we are in those mighty hands, that that strong arm is engaged on our behalf, that all flesh under his power, and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him."

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Assurance of Our Salvation: Exploring the Depth of Jesus' Prayer for His Own: Studies in John 17. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 2000, S. 65.

As regular readers will realize, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach irresistible grace.

Today's first quote comes once more from Charles Simeon:

"A river flowing with a rapid and majestic current to the sea would defy the efforts of the whole world to turn it back again to its source; yet by the returning tide it is not only arrested in its course, but driven up again with equal rapidity towards the fountain-head. It is thus that a sinner, when rushing with the whole current of his affections towards this present world, is stopped in his career of sin, and turned back with an irresistible impulse towards high and heavenly things. Let men, yea, let all the angels in heaven, attempt to effect this change, and their united efforts would be in vain. Who then that witnesses this change, and beholds the believer’s victories over sin and Satan, and his progressive advancement in the ways of holiness, must not adore that power by which so great a miracle is wrought? In this Christ is indeed magnified: “the exceeding greatness of his power is made known;” and the sufficiency of his grace is incontrovertibly established."

Simeon, Charles: Horae Homileticae Vol. 18: Philippians to 1 Timothy, London, 1832-63, S. 25.

The second is from the Doctor, Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

". . . it is the internal operation of the Holy Spirit upon the soul and the heart of men and women that brings them into a condition in which the call can become effectual. And when the Spirit does it, of course, it is absolutely certain, and because of that some people have used the term—which I do not like myself—irresistible grace. I do not like the term because it seems to give the impression that something has happened which has been hammering at a person’s will and has knocked him down and bludgeoned him. But it is not that. It is that the Holy Spirit implants a principle within me which enables me, for the first time in my life, to discern and to apprehend something of this glorious, wondrous truth. He works upon my will. ‘It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do.’ He does not strike me; He does not beat me; He does not coerce me. No, thank God, what He does is operate upon my will so that I desire these things and rejoice in them and love them. He leads, He persuades, He acts upon my will in such a way that when He does, the call of the gospel is effectual, and it is certain, and it is sure. God’s work never fails, and when God works in a man or woman, the work is effective."

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn: God the Holy Spirit, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 1997, S. 73.

As regular readers will know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the Limited Atonement item which is, in my opinion, the most misunderstood, and the item with possibly the most nuances needed in our understanding of it. As such, it will get the largest number of quotes so far.

I found a couple of interesting quotes in a post and comment section that asked, What does Mark Driscoll mean by limited/unlimited atonement?. The first came from D. A. Carson in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000, pp. 73-79).

"I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ's death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God's special selecting love for the elect . . . "

—D. A. Carson

The second can be found in a pdf about Limited Atonement by Bruce Ware in which he outlines an alternative to what is usually seen as classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism on this point:

"God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex, not simple; multiple, not single:

1. Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect.
   
   
2. Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people, making it possible for all who believe to be saved.
   
   
3. Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere.
   
   
4. Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them.
   
   
5. Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father."

I thought I would finish this post by linking to a page on Mars Hill Church's website where Mark Driscoll and others can be heard explaining their take on limited/unlimited atonement, which is either what all true Calvinists basically believed all along or an Arminian heresy, dependent on your perspective!

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation I was, not surprisingly, taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God's free grace.

This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism. We began the series with a quote that claims the doctrine of total depravity helps your marriage.

To some degree the doctrines of grace, or rather one aspect of them, Unconditional Election, came up in my sermon last week (although I didn't use the words). One quote I have been meaning to share with you, but the baptism debate got in the way, has been the following from Simeon, whose works are now available from Logos Bible Software.

Like Spurgeon and myself, Simeon is adamant that there is no such thing as what some call "double-predestination." Thus, people are wholly to blame for their own damnation, while God is wholly credited with saving us. God does not foreordain that some go to hell in the same way he foreordains that some will be saved. This might sound illogical, but it is, I believe, biblical and a great mystery we cannot fully fathom.

Charles Simeon puts it like this in a quote that should whet your appetite for the rest of his works, which are proving to me to be as useful as Spurgeon's:

"If, as the Apostle says, 'there is a remnant according to the election of grace,' we are ready to suppose that those who are not of that number are not accountable for their sins, and that their final ruin is to be imputed rather to God’s decrees than to their own fault. But this is a perversion of the doctrine. It is a consequence which our proud reason is prone to draw from the decrees of God: but it is a consequence which the inspired volume totally disavows. There is not in the whole sacred writings one single word that fairly admits of such a construction. The glory of man’s salvation is invariably ascribed to the free, the sovereign, the efficacious grace of God: but the condemnation of men is invariably charged upon their own wilful sins and obstinate impenitence. If, because we know not how to reconcile these things, men will controvert and deny them, we shall content ourselves with the answer which St. Paul himself made to all such cavillers and objectors; 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' And if neither the truth nor the authority of God will awe them into submission, we can only say with the fore-mentioned apostle, 'If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' As for those, if such are to be found, who acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and take occasion from it to live in sin, we would warn them with all possible earnestness to cease from their fatal delusions. In comparison of such characters, the people who deny the sovereignty of God are innocent. We believe there are many persons in other respects excellent, who, from not being able to separate the idea of absolute reprobation from the doctrine of unconditional election, are led to reject both together: but what excellence can he have, who 'turns the very grace of God into licentiousness,' and 'continues in sin that grace may abound?' A man that can justify such a procedure, is beyond the reach of argument: we must leave him, as St. Paul does, with that awful warning, 'His damnation is just.'"

Simeon, Charles: Horae Homileticae Vol. 1: Genesis to Leviticus. London, 1832-63, S. 210

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation, not surprisingly, I was taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God's free grace. This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism.

We begin the series with a quote from Jollyblogger that claims the doctrine of total depravity will help your marriage. Here is what David Wayne had to say:

These 20 years have gone by way too fast and I wouldn't trade them for anything. I won't try to wax eloquent on keys to a happy marriage except to say that sound theology is the foundation for a sound marriage. I truly believe that if a married couple can grasp total depravity and grace then they are on a sound footing—they won't need much extra advice. If we don't grasp total depravity and grace, then all the marriage books and seminars in the world won't mean a thing.

Total depravity is key because it reminds me that my wife is married to a sinnner, so I need to go easy on her—she's got a tough life being married to me. It also reminds me that she is a sinner, so I don't have to burden her with a load of expectations she can never meet. Grace reminds me that her performance is not the basis of my acceptance of her any more than my performance is the basis of God's acceptance of me.

I won't say that those two things are operative every day in our lives, as there are plenty of times when we act in un-graceful ways. But God is good and always brings us back and keeps us centered on grace.

As to how I feel about Mrs. Jolly, let me quote someone else. We have this wonderful older couple in our church named Martin and Peggy Smith who have been married for somewhere north of umpteen years. Martin says this of Peggy—"even when I'm mad at her, I'd still rather be with her than anyone else." That's how I feel about Mrs. Jolly; she is my wife, my lover, my confidant, my best friend, and there is no one I'd rather be with.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 10th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 11th most-read post was The Atonement—Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate.

Of all the posts I have written, this one is probably my own personal favorite. It is a rallying call to a kind of Christianity that is not ashamed to embrace the best from many different backgrounds.

***************

The last four words of the above title are not new to me, but they are certainly resonating with me at the moment — "I Want It All!" Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?

I know what some of you are thinking as you've been reading my posts on the Together On a Mission conference. You're wondering why it is that someone who is so enthusiastic about what was obviously a very charismatic conference can also be deeply committed to defending and understanding biblical doctrine. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but it really is the same me who wrote all those posts on the atonement who also was so deeply touched by this latest conference. For those of you who have never met one, I am indeed that rare breed — a Reformed Charismatic.

Too often, however, the temptation for me is to downplay one side of that equation or the other in order to appear "balanced." When I am with the charismatics, my reformed doctrine often appears alien to them, although in the UK, Newfrontiers offers a major exception to that with over 200 churches that are broadly reformed and charismatic. When I'm with the reformed, I'm tempted to soften my charismatic viewpoint and not speak too much of the things I have seen and experienced. Why is it that on this issue, as on so many others, the Church seems to be split in half? Why can't we be both radically reformed and radically charismatic? Why do we see a conflict and therefore try to play down both in order to be "balanced?" I don't want to be balanced, I want it all!

On the one hand there are those who care about theology enough to study God's Word in detail, weigh scripture against scripture, study great theological minds, and preach intellectually stimulating messages that would stretch even a PhD in Theology — which, incidentally, I am certainly not! Why is it that for the majority of us, if we want such a feast for our minds, we must sacrifice certain other things? Why are some leaders in the Church committed to theology almost exclusively? Is even great theology so captivating that it is the only need of the Church? I don't believe it can be, or God would have given us a Bible that was a systematic theology and not the one we have, which is essentially a collection of lots of stories with a few doctrinal portions.

Also, why is it that those who are most committed to following the Bible in everything also seem most committed to relegating a book like Acts to mere descriptive stories to tell our children? It's not even just the book of Acts; there are swathes of the New Testament that in some theologies become almost entirely irrelevant to us. That was for then, we are told. When I read passages like those found in the book of Acts, I find myself yearning for something more than I am experiencing currently, yearning for a dynamic sense of the supernatural presence of God, longing for God himself to surprise and astonish me by his dynamic actions. Why is it that so often I am left with the impression that we are being encouraged to merely learn about God rather than get to know him? Would I be satisfied if I had read hundreds of e-mails from my wife, but had never actually met her or seen her do anything?

On the other hand, I could find many so-called men of faith who have stories to tell of miraculous healings or of prophecies that have had a life-changing impact. Listening to them, especially if I suspend my natural British cynicism and reserve, I hear tales of powerful encounters with God. Sadly, however, theological truths don't seem to be emphasized at all by most of those committed to experiencing the supernatural presence of God. It is often even implied that it is all right for people to make glaring errors in their teaching or show little interest in what the Bible actually says.

Why is it that so many men who seem on first appearances to have such intimacy with God, such access to his power, such supernatural giftings, and such powerful prophecies, also have much less interest in the words that the Person they often describe as their best friend, the Holy Spirit, wrote 2000 years ago? Why is it that when listening to some of these men, the greatest miracle is no longer what happens in someone's life when they are saved, but rather the latest supernatural healing or encounter with God? Why do we put up with so much flakiness and even blatant deception from figures claiming to have an anointing of the Spirit? How has it got to the point that even hearing the word "faith" seems to raise antibodies in me and make me feel uncomfortable? Why, though, do I feel in honest moments that some of those people with whose theology I most disagree seem to have something that I haven't got, and that I want? Is it so wrong to want to learn more about faith and experience the supernatural acts of God without becoming flaky or doctrinally suspect? Is it not possible for me to both want and get it all?

This desire to "want it all" and have it all in extreme form rather than just a little of everything so as to become "balanced" is not confined to the issue of the truth of God's Word and the experience of the supernatural. There are so many other stalls in the modern marketplace that is the global Church of Jesus. I can see them all before me selling their wares, each of them sure they have the answer to the ills of the Church. How do I choose which one to follow? Can't I have it all? Can't I learn from each of them? Must I choose only one? Where is the person who will overturn all these market stalls and say, “You need a bit of everything — no, change that — you need A LOT of everything — you need it all!”

Let's consider those in the Church who understand the reason we are here on earth. They understand that we are here to enjoy God and bring glory to him by evangelizing the world and producing more worshippers. These guys have such enthusiasm that it is inspiring. Many are also so creative. They split into different tribes, however, sitting as it were at different stalls in the marketplace. There are those who believe in old-style tent crusades, those who want to fill stadiums again, those who knock on doors, those who tell strangers they are sinners, those who befriend sinners in order to evangelize them, those who run seeker sensitive services, those who speak of being missional and incarnating the Gospel, those who run Alpha, and those who preach a certain kind of evangelical "gospel" message every Sunday morning that has to include penal substitution. The different brands may disagree about the methods, but yet they all thrill me with their determination and commitment to see more people becoming Christians. Isn't there room for us to use some methods from almost all of these brands of evangelism?

What troubles me most about so many of these devoted evangelists and missionaries is that so few of them are also deeply devoted to and thrilled with the Church. Why does there seem to be a dichotomy between being "out there" reaching the world and building the community of God such that we love each other so much the world knows we are Jesus' disciples? Also, why does the message of the evangelist sometimes ring hollow in my ears and fail to inspire me like it should? Is there something wrong with me? Dare I even admit that there have been times in the past when I have felt I don't want to hear another "simple Gospel presentation" ever again? Why do the sermons I read in Acts sound so different to the vast majority of evangelistic messages I have ever heard? For that matter, if the Gospel is a handful of reductionistic propositions that we must preach on every occasion, and those few ideas are all that matters, why does so much of the Bible even exist? Much as I believe in penal substitution, it is not to be found in every verse of the Bible. Why are some evangelicals frightened to preach the whole counsel of God? Is it wrong to want to preach the message of the whole Bible?

Why is it, for that matter, that so many of us feel we lack practical wisdom of how to live our lives? I know I have felt like this many times in my life. How can it be that I can work through the Gospel from A to Z, listen to theologically-sound sermons, read the Bible, pray even, and do all the "right" things they tell me to, but somehow not know how to live? Why is it that the breed of practical living teachers are so rare in the Church that many feel they have to learn by watching programs like Nanny 911 because no Christian leader ever taught them how to raise their children? Why are there so few places in the Church to send someone who is struggling with a breaking marriage or with mounting debt? Why, when we find someone in the Church who is valiantly teaching us practical living tips that we should have learned from our parents do they so often sound no different to someone in the world? Where is the teaching that is biblically rooted, yet shows me how to run my life in the 21st century? Isn't the Bible supposed to teach me how to have a good marriage, hold down a job, be a parent, have friends? It's easy to condemn those preaching "self help" in the name of Jesus, but where are those teaching me how God wants to help me live wisely?

Again, why is it that as churches we are not all stirred to activism to help the poor? Adopting a village in Africa, helping HIV victims, befriending single mothers, housing drug addicts — the list goes on and on. Christians who really care, frankly, put me to shame. Why do I so shamefully neglect this? I know that I do give some money that is channeled to such projects by my church, but why do I feel I should be doing much more? Surely we should be demonstrating God's kingdom on earth for the world to see. And yet, why do some of the people who give themselves to this kind of work which is meant to demonstrate God's kingdom seem more like social workers than Christ's ambassadors? Why do we seem to allow the Gospel to be squeezed out of our attempts to help the poor?

I can go on — what of the worshippers? There are many people who love God, feel his presence, and "waste time" with him. Why do I find it so hard to squeeze contemplation into my busy life? Why should worship become an option that excludes other options? Why is meditation considered to be something for Buddhists when the Bible invented it? What about prayer — shouldn't it be more than merely reciting a shopping list of requests to some heavenly slot machine? Shouldn't it be something other than worrying out loud?

And what about a sense of belonging? Of a Church that loves each other and builds a community in this loveless world? Why are there some small churches that really are a family, and yet find it hard to grow? How can large churches retain the feeling that people are there for me and know me? How can we avoid merely having hundreds of superficial acquaintances and yet still feeling totally alone? How can we learn how to do things well for God without becoming just a commercial entity led only by the world's management techniques?

I guess this all leads to a feeling that there is something wrong with the Church. I suspect many of us feel that way as Christians. But what is it that is wrong? Is it, as some would say, "Well, the danger is an overemphasis on feelings, so here we preach the truth of the Bible — that is what we need most." That sounds so good until you hear someone else say something like, "What the Church really needs to do is to learn to care more — we have to love each other and then learn to love the world — that's the problem with the Church," or someone else says, "Your problem is that you know the Bible, but you don't know God — you people just have a form of godliness, but deny its power."

I don't just want balance, however, and certainly not if it means we end up missing EVERYTHING. I thank God that there are those who are attempting to be balanced and have a bit of all of these things. Yet, I am concerned that in an anxiety to be balanced, we end up being mediocre at all of these things. I suppose as individuals we will always be better at some of them than others, but as a healthy local church can't we have it all?

Social action needn't be the enemy of building a nice community, nor should singing be a chore to get through until the preaching starts. Do we really have to wince every time someone begins to prophesy for fear of what our visitors may think? We shouldn't have to be anxious, when preaching, that our people are being bored or that we are offending visitors. These things are not enemies of each other.

Why shouldn't we have churches that are every bit as concerned about doctrinal accuracy and knowledge as John MacArthur, that love relational intimacy with Jesus as much as John Arnott, see miraculous healings that are every bit as dynamic as the ones the tele-evangelists claim to have seen, are as full of vision and purpose as Rick Warren, as skilled in leadership as Bill Hybels, as humble and committed to spiritual maturity as C. J. Mahaney, as relevant to practical life as the author of any self-help book you can think of, that impact social needs in the model of Shaftsbury, tackle political issues like Wilberforce, preach with both the passion for souls of Spurgeon and the passion for God's glory of John Piper, that hear from God as clearly as any modern prophet, are as aggressively missional as Mark Driscoll, have the apostolic drive of Terry Virgo, and yet somehow still feel as comforting as my wife's homemade apple crumble with custard?

Am I being greedy to say "I want it all, and I wish I could become an extremist for all of these things at once?"

In the introduction to the 1859 volume of Spurgeon's sermons we find the following provocative few paragraphs:

In the history of the Church, with but few exceptions, you could not find a revival at all that was not produced by the orthodox faith. What was that great work which was done by Augustine, when the Church suddenly woke up from the pestiferous and deadly sleep into which Pelagian doctrine had cast it? What was the Reformation itself but the awaking up of men's minds to those old truths?

However, far modern Lutherans may have turned aside from their ancient doctrines . . . yet, at any rate, Luther and Calvin had no dispute about predestination. Their views were identical, and Luther's Bondage of the Will is as strong a book upon the free grace of God as Calvin himself could have written . . . . Need I mention to you better names than Huss, Jerome of Prague, Ferel, John Knox, Wickliffe, Wishart, and Bradford?

Need I do more than say that these held the same views, and that in their day anything like an Arminian revival was utterly unheard of and undreamed of? And then, to come to more modern times, there is the great exception, that wondrous revival under Mr. Wesley, in which the Wesleyan Methodists had so large a share; but permit me to say, that the strength of the doctrine of Wesleyan Methodism lay in its Calvinism.

The great body of the Methodists disclaimed Pelagianism, in whole and in part. They contended for man's entire depravity, the necessity for the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, and that the first step in the change proceeds not from the sinner, but from God. They denied at that time that they were Pelagians. Does not the Methodist hold, as firmly as ever we do, that man is saved by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost only? And are not many of Wesley's sermons full of that great truth, that the Holy Ghost is necessary to regeneration?

. . . And then, let me say, if you turn to the continent of America, how gross the falsehood that Calvinistic doctrine is unfavorable to revivals. Look at that wondrous shaking under Jonathan Edwards, and others which we might quote. Or turn to Scotland—what shall we say of M'Cheyne? What shall we say of those renowned Calvinists, Dr. Chalmers, Wardlaw, and before them, Livingstone, Haldane, Erskine, and the like?

What shall we say of the men of their school, but that, while they held and preached unflinchingly the great truths which we would propound today, yet God owned their word, and multitudes were saved. And if it were not perhaps too much like boasting of one's own work under God, I might say, personally I have never found the preaching of these doctrines lull this church to sleep, but ever while they have loved to maintain these truths, they have agonized for the souls of men, and the 1,600 or more whom I have myself baptized, upon profession of their faith, are living testimonies that these old truths in Publishers "Introduction,"modern times have not lost their power to promote a revival of religion.

---

Publisher's "Introduction", Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Revival Year Sermons: Preached at the Surrey Gardens Music Hall during 1859 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust). Cited at The Resurgence.

Today I want to bring you quotes from a talk given by John Piper about Charles Simeon. We begin with a description of Simeon's recollection of a conversation he had with the Arminian, John Wesley, when he was a young man. The conversation is instructive about how we should deal with people we disagree with and about how sometimes moderates from both sides of a theological debate are closer than we realise.

"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree." (Moule, 79f)

But don't take this to mean that Simeon pulled any punches when expounding Biblical texts. He is very forthright in teaching what the Bible teaches and calling error by its real name. But he is jealous of not getting things out of balance.

He said that his invariable rule was "to endeavor to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme it favours, or whose system it is likely to advance" (Moule, 79).

"My endeavor is to bring out of Scripture what is there, and not to thrust in what I think might be there. I have a great jealousy on this head; never to speak more or less than I believe to be the mind of the Spirit in the passage I am expounding" (Moule, 77).

He makes an observation that is true enough to sting every person who has ever been tempted to adjust Scripture to fit a system.

"Of this he [speaking of himself in the third person] is sure, that there is not a decided Calvinist or Arminian in the world who equally approves of the whole of Scripture . . . who, if he had been in the company of St. Paul whilst he was writing his Epistles, would not have recommended him to alter one or other of his expressions.

But the author would not wish one of them altered; he finds as much satisfaction in one class of passages as another; and employs the one, he believes, as freely as the other. Where the inspired Writers speak in unqualified terms, he thinks himself at liberty to do the same; judging that they needed no instruction from him how to propagate the truth. He is content to sit as a learner at the feet of the holy Apostles and has no ambition to teach them how they ought to have spoken." (Moule, 79)

With that remarkable devotion to Scripture, Simeon preached in the same pulpit for fifty-four years. What drew me to him was his endurance – not just because of the length of time, and not just because it was in the same place for all that time, but also because it was through extraordinary opposition and trials . . . .

In 1807, after twenty-five years of ministry, his health failed suddenly. His voice gave way so that preaching was very difficult and at times he could only speak in a whisper. After a sermon he would feel "more like one dead than alive." This broken condition lasted for thirteen years, till he was sixty years old. In all this time Simeon pressed on in his work.

The way this weakness came to an end is remarkable and shows the amazing hand of God on this man's life. He tells the story that in 1819 he was on his last visit to Scotland. As he crossed the border he says he was "almost as perceptibly revived in strength as the woman was after she had touched the hem of our Lord's garment." His interpretation of God's providence in this begins back before his weakness. Up till then he had promised himself a very active life up to age sixty, and then a Sabbath evening. Now he seemed to hear his Master saying:

I laid you aside, because you entertained with satisfaction the thought of resting from your labour; but that now you have arrived at the very period when you had promised yourself that satisfaction, and have determined instead to spend your strength for me to the latest hour of your life, I have doubled, trebled, quadrupled your strength, that you may execute your desire on a more extended plan. (Moule, 127)

So at sixty years of age, Simeon renewed his commitment to his pulpit and the mission of the church and preached vigorously for seventeen more years, until two months before his death . . . .

Simeon was utterly unlike most of us today who think that we should get rid once and for all of feelings of vileness and unworthiness as soon as we can. For him, adoration only grew in the freshly plowed soil of humiliation for sin. So he actually labored to know his true sinfulness and his remaining corruption as a Christian.

I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost. And at the same time I had such a sense of my acceptance through Christ as would overset my little bark, if I had not ballast at the bottom sufficient to sink a vessel of no ordinary size. (Moule 134f.)

He never lost sight of the need for the heavy ballast of his own humiliation. After he had been a Christian forty years he wrote,

With this sweet hope of ultimate acceptance with God, I have always enjoyed much cheerfulness before men; but I have at the same time laboured incessantly to cultivate the deepest humiliation before God. I have never thought that the circumstance of God's having forgiven me was any reason why I should forgive myself; on the contrary, I have always judged it better to loathe myself the more, in proportion as I was assured that God was pacified towards me (Ezekiel 16:63) . . . There are but two objects that I have ever desired for these forty years to behold; the one is my own vileness; and the other is, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ: and I have always thought that they should be viewed together; just as Aaron confessed all the sins of all Israel whilst he put them on the head of the scapegoat. The disease did not keep him from applying to the remedy, nor did the remedy keep him from feeling the disease. By this I seek to be, not only humbled and thankful, but humbled in thankfulness, before my God and Saviour continually. (Carus, 518f.)

If Simeon is right, vast portions of contemporary Christianity are wrong. And I can't help wondering whether one of the reasons we are emotionally capsized so easily today – so vulnerable to winds of criticism or opposition – is that in the name of forgiveness and grace, we have thrown the ballast overboard.

Simeon's boat drew a lot of water. But it was steady and on course and the mastheads were higher and the sails bigger and more full of the Spirit than most people's today who talk continuously about self-esteem.

Simeon's missionary friend, Thomason, writes about a time in 1794 when a friend of Simeon's named Marsden entered his room and found Simeon "so absorbed in the contemplation of the Son of God, and so overpowered with a display of His mercy to his soul, that he was incapable of pronouncing a single word," till at length, he exclaimed, "Glory, glory." But a few days later Thomason himself found Simeon at the hour of the private lecture on Sunday scarcely able to speak "from a deep humiliation and contrition."

Moule comments that these two experiences are not the alternating excesses of an ill-balanced mind. Rather they are "the two poles of a sphere of profound experience" (Moule, 135). For Simeon, adoration of God grew best in the plowed soil of his own contrition.

Simeon had no fear of turning up every sin in his life and looking upon with great grief and hatred, because he had such a vision of Christ's sufficiency that this would always result in deeper cleansing and adoration.

Humiliation and adoration were inseparable. He wrote to Mary Elliott, the sister of the writer of the hymn, "Just as I Am,"

I would have the whole of my experience one continued sense - first, of my nothingness, and dependence on God; second, of my guiltiness and desert before Him; third, of my obligations to redeeming love, as utterly overwhelming me with its incomprehensible extent and grandeur. Now I do not see why any one of these should swallow up another. (Moule, 160f.)

As an old man he said, "I have had deep and abundant cause for humiliation, [but] I have never ceased to wash in that fountain that was opened for sin and uncleanness, or to cast myself upon the tender mercy of my reconciled God" (Carus, 518f).

The whole talk is well worth a read or listen.

For more information on Charles Simeon visit the following:

Online biography of Charles Simeon

Biography of Charles Simeon used by John Piper

Simeon's Writings
Piper mentions the massive 21-volume set of Simeon's sermons that form a commentary on the Bible. Having read what I did above, I was eager to get ahold of these. Sadly they are not in print. So I have started a personal campaign to persuade the good folks at Logos to produce a version of them. If you, too, would be interested in purchasing an electronic, searchable edition of his writings, then let me know via email or in the comments section here.

Spurgeon seemed to love the work and said the following about it in his book reviewing commentaries:

SIMEON (CHARLES, M. A. 1759-1836). Horae Homileticae; or, discourses digested into one continued series, and forming a commentary upon every book of the Old and New Testament; 21 vols. Seventh edition. London, H. G. Bohn, 1845. S.f2 10s. [Being the entire works of Charles Simeon, with copious indexes, prepared by T. Hartwell Horne.] Not commentaries, but we could not exclude them. They have been called 'a valley of dry bones': be a prophet and they will live.

I am praying that they may live again!

By John Piper © Desiring God
Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/
Email: mail@desiringGod.org
Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700

links for 2006-04-25

• Calvin on Offering the Gospel to All
  �As the ministers of the Gospel, and those who are called to the office of teaching, cannot distinguish between the children of God and swine, it is their duty to present the doctrine of salvation indiscriminately to all.�
  (tags: calvinism gospel preaching)
• Righting (and writing) Wright's Wrongs: Reflections as the Dust Settles
  "If belief in the bodily resurrection of our Lord is optional, can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional? Well, CAN there? And if so, what IS the Christian faith anyway?"

Over at Together for the Gospel Lig Duncan has a great post that will enrage the hearts of any Arminian readers I have left. He lists multiple reasons why he feels Reformed preachers are better evangelists!

My friend Dave Routlege shows his calvinistic training in his commentary about the history of his blog (which I helped him set up) arose. Astute readers will notice the correspondence to the five points of calvinism which cannot have been accidental (for more on the five points of calvinism follow the links at my post on Calvinism and worship. Anyway here is what Dave said:

1.I was totally incapable of setting it up myself. (Total depravity)

2.I did nothing to deserve it. (Unconditional Election)

3. No one else in the house has got one. (Limited atonement or in this case limited assistance!)

4. Once you suggested the idea, I was powerless to resist. (Irresistable grace)

5. Now that I have it; it will be there forever. (Perseverence of the blogs I mean saints - sadly like many apparent professions of Christian faith, blogs often die young. I predict Dave will make it past the crucial three-post hurdle at least!)

I am working on a list of Reformed Charismatic bloggers- if you are one and would like to be included in such a list please let me know. If you arent one and I have included you as one by acccident, please also let me know! I will post more about this probably later on to day, for now its off to work I go!

UPDATE

This seems to be an idea of the moment. God is clearly doing something in gathering us reformed and charismatic bloggers together. I am so excited that requests to join are positively flooding in!

It is a good time for this to happen especially with the Charismatic /cessationist debate continuing to mushroom. (The link takes you to the Google Blog search feed which is probably the best way to keep up to date with it)

To those of you who have asked to join, I will ask one of my helpers Scott or Diane to help in a basic check of the blogs and to add you.

Please can you also promote this on your blogs. A link and/or a blog post would be fantastic right about now. I am sure there are more out there who would love to be in.

As far as definitions, I dont plan on giving people a theology exam (or for that matter ask them to speak in tongues over google talk!) to decide whether to admit someone or not - essentially we will have to rely on folks to be honest about whether they shoud be described as both reformed and charismatic. A good rough guide on the reformed side might be the entry requirements for the league of reformed bloggers, which incidently I would encourage you to join as well!

If you would like to include the complete list of Reformed and Charismatic blogs on your own site please simply include the following code in your template:

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=3ca91c144e1c15ae28510e69140149f8"></script>

A reader sent me an email and asked the following:

Hi there, I stumbled upon your blog by accident (or was it predestined...?), by doing a search on Calvinism, and I've enjoyed reading it. I do have a question, though, and it goes like this:How can a person believe in the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved", when in I Cor. 6:9-11 the Bible says,"Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God."Paul was writing to the SAVED CHRISTIANS in Corinth. Why else would he warn them of losing their salvation if that weren't a real possiblity?

Interestingly Paul nowhere in this passage speaks of someone loosing their salvation. What he is instead speaking of is the fact that people should not feel assured that the will inherit the kingdom of God if they remain in their sin. There is an "easy believism" which would claim that people are saved without any fruit of repentance in their lives. The bible knows nothing of that. Jesus came not to save us in our sin but rather to save us from our sin. Of course nothing I am saying in this post should be taken as in any way contradicting what I said about legalism earlier this week.

Also, nowhere in the passage or in the Corinthian literature is there an assumption that Paul is only writing to the "saved". Rather, Paul is writing to the gathered body of the church. Some attenders of the churches then and now might indeed demonstrate by their actions that they are not true members of the body.

I addressed this issue previously in a post on Perseverance which was part of a series of posts on the five points of calvinism. I made the point that "if by salvation you mean walking forward at a crusade LOADS of people seem to loose that. But, by now, you should realise that Calvinists do not believe that a superficial "decision for Christ" is what constitutes a Christian. If being born again is something done to you, how can you be unborn? Really this doctrine was always taken to mean that true Christians will persevere in their faith till the end. "

I then spoke about those who appear to have lost their faith and argued that they are in one of three positions which I would argue that we cannot always easily distinguish-

1. They may never have been saved at all
2. They may be currently away from God but will return before the end
3. They may still have vestiges of faith and might be in the category mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:15 who's "work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The one thing they are not is someone who was once a Christian and now is not.

I hope that begins to answer my correspondents question. Perhaps some of my readers would like to take the question up further.

R.C Sprouls book "What is Reformed Theology is the best available simple explanation of Reformed Theology I have seen. You may have never heard of Reformed theology or you
may have rejected out of court what you believe Calvinism stands for. The truth is that despite its current neglect the theology Sproul so clearly explains in this book has been immensely influential in the centuries since the reformation. Sproul explains what the so-called "solas" mean, and outlines each of the so-called "five points" that make up the acronym TULIP. It is an important book to read since even if you find yourself disagreeing with Sproul, you will at least have a clearer understanding by the end of the book of what is meant by reformed theology

The core question of this book is the same as that of books like Galatians in the bible and it is this- how and why are we saved?

Is salvation that is entirely about what God has done for us? Is any of it about what we have done for him? Do we contribute anything to our salvation except our sin? Is even our faith a gift from God sovereignly dispensed by him with no consideration of any form of merit in us?

I am sure that regular readers of this blog can guess what my answers to these questions are and will not be at all surprised to hear that when I read Sprouls book I found answers that were remakably similar to the answers I would give. Sproul has done a masterful job of expressing those answers in a way that is accessible and easily understandable.

Some quotes that stuck out to me were as follows-

Luther described the state of the believer "simul iustus et peccator", at the same time (simultaneously) just and sinner"

On judgement and mercy "No one receives punishment at the hands of God that they do not deserve. Some receivce grace at his hands that they do not deserve. Because he is pleased to grant mercy to one does not mean the rest "deseve" the same. If mercy is deserved it is not really mercy, but justice. "

Sproul quotes J.I.Packer who describes the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology as follows "One proclaims a God who saves, the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself"

Sproul also quoted the Westminster Confession on assurance of salvation which discusses the availability to a believer of "an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidences of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." This made me think of my post on 1 John

There is no better book that I have come accross to introduce reformed theology to the modern reader. It will not convince every reader of the truth of calvinism, but will leave its readers in absolutely no doubt about what it is. There are a lot of books which distort the views of their opponents, so you may be surprised to discover what calvinists ACTUALLY believe. This book is so good and covers such a crucial subject that I have added it to my list of books every believer should read.

This review is part of a group book review organise by Diet of Bookworms where you can read other bloggers reviews.

Other Books every Christian should read

I tremble to contradict the pyromaniac, but I am afraid that I feel that his handling of 1 John 2:2 is almost certainly an example of trying to squeeze the bible into a doctrinal mould. In fact such exegetical gymnastics are only required for a view of the so-called "limited atonement" that I find totally alien even though I would describe myself as a five-point calvinist.

It seems to me that it is not what you say you believe that matters most, but rather your whole approach to the bible. I struggle to accept any interpretation of a verse that doesnt seem to take it at face value.

I think that there is a danger in what I call "over-systematising" the bible. I love systematic theology, but we have to accept that God did not give us a ready-made systematic theology. Thus, our efforts are always going to be less than perfect and therefore slightly raw and unfinished. We have to interact with the bible on its own terms, and personally I would rather allow the scripture to speak even if it means I become slightly less confident of my so-called "system".

So how do I see 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."?

Well, I believe there is a simple explanation of this scripture when seen together with a selection of texts I rarely see placed together. These are as follows-

1 Tim 4:10 which says "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.". The second is Romans 1:23 which says that Jesus death was necessary for God to be just because "in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins". The final verse, 2 Peter 3:9, says that the reason for the delay of the end of the world is that God "is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

It strikes me that if a judge should delay punishment then we would rightly feel that justice had not been done. Thus, the overall message of these verses seems to me to be that what thelogians call "common grace" was in fact purchased by Jesus' blood. In other words the only reason God can lavish goodness on the righteous and unrighteous alike on earth is that Jesus death is in some way applied to EVERYONE in the world. God is described as patiently delaying the end eager for all to turn in repentance to him. Believers and unbelievers alike whilst on earth thus benefit from this grace because it was purchased for them by Jesus.

My brand of Calvinism allows me to say with all honesty that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, whilst still believing that he died specifically for his elect.

I honestly believe that there is a genuine gospel offer made to EVERYONE to believe. In fact, everyone everywhere are COMMANDED to believe. (Acts 17:30) No one will ever be able to say I trusted in Jesus to save me and he let me down.

It is sadly true that although we are all freely offered an opportunity to respond to this gospel message, left to our own devices we all feely choose to reject it. The wonder of wonders is that despite this opposition to him, God makes the dead unbeliver alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-9)

Thus, as the old saying says "God should get all the credit for salvation, man should get all the blame for condemnation"

In John 6:37, Jesus makes two statements which our systematic theology must allow to both be true "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out"

Spurgeon was a preacher I respect greatly- he refused to fall into the trap of bending the bible to suit his theology- take this example which I quoted in a post where I argued against the idea of double-predestination.

"There are two things, then, this morning I shall have to talk about. The first is, that the work of salvation rests upon the will of God, and not upon the will of man; and secondly, the equally sure doctrine, that the will of man has its proper position in the work of salvation, and is not to be ignored.......

Are there not some of you here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. You are seeking out every new pleasure, and every new sin,and though often warned to turn from your course of evil are there not some of you who are rushing headlong to destruction? Are not many of you by a course of sin and folly, ripening yourselves for the great harvest of the Lord? Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of his wrath? This is not to be laid to the charge of God, but at your own door the guilt must he. If you perish any one of you, on your own head shall be your blood. The eternal God is not guilty of the murder of men�s souls, they that die and sink in hell are suicides; they have rejected mercy, they have despised the Savior, they have chosen sin and hated holiness. As was their choice, such is their portion; as was their rebellious will on earth, such must be their tormented destiny for ever......."

Three lectures given by D. A. Carson at Reformed Theological Seminary on the "New Perspectives on Paul" can be found in an iTunes store RTS has set up in which many different lectures and talks can be downloaded for free. Carson's lectures are available in the RTS store under "Seminar Series." The RTS iTunes store can be reached here. (HT: Chris Roberts)

David of jollyblogger is preaching on Hebrews 6, the famous passage that is so controversial in the debate about eternal security. You simply have to go over and read his well thought out blog post on the matter. Just to whet your appetite.....

.....the typical reformed exegesis which effectively neuters the passage's intended effect as a warning. What I mean is that reformed exegetes and others who believe in eternal security spend so much time jumping through hoops to prove what it doesn't say, that they never get around to saying what it does say. In other words, these folks go to great lengths to show that this doesn't teach you can lose your salvation and I think the effect is to cause their hearers or readers to wipe the sweat from their brows and think "whew, glad to know this passage doesn't apply to me." It seems clear to me that, when we read Hebrews 6, we aren't to walk away relieved that this doesn't apply to us, but we should have a sense of fear and awe as we read it. In that respect, though I disagree with their paradigm and conclusions I think the Arminian interpreters do a better job of respecting the force of this text as a warning passage.

One of the great things about the blogosphere is that you can to use David Wayne's phrase "call out" people. Well, right now I call out all my Arminian readers out there and ask them to respond to this quote from Spurgeon. In his sermon NO. 52 "FREE-WILL � A SLAVE" he claimed that the following was one of the strongest arguments for the veracity of Calvinism. I would love to hear the response of an honest Arminian to this rather interesting quote. Does it really settle the issue once and for all? Has anyone ever heard an Arminian prayer- I know I havent!

"....you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer-for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

�Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a change, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them.�

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah, when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out, they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, �I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?� If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, �My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit; and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.� Do I hear one Christian man saying, �I sought Jesus before he sought me. I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me?� No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts, and say

�Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes o�erflow;
�Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go.�

Is there one here-a solitary one-man or woman, young or old, who can say, "I sought God before he sought me?" No; even you who are a little Arminian, will sing-
"O yes! I do love Jesus-
Because he first loved me"

Ales Rarus has now made himself really clear. I can understand what he is saying, but struggle to recognise it as Biblical. You see, Ales seems to have understood instinctively what many an Arminian has tried to deny- if we accept that man really has a totally free will, that gives man some of the credit for his salvation and also makes it insecure. I am not happy with that concept.

His points are logical, but I beg to disagree with what he goes onto say:-

"# God gave man free will so that we might choose freely to love Him.
# Faith is a product of grace, which is given by God. We must be open to receiving that grace. If grace is irresistible, then we have imperfect free will.
# We must accept Jesus Christ by our own free will and live by His commandments.
# By opening ourselves to grace through faith, we become members of the elect who shall receive eternal life.
# That membership is not permanent. If it were, then grace is irresistible and we consequently have imperfect free will.
# Therefore, there are choices we can make (i.e sins we can commit) that separate us from God and remove us from the company of the elect.
# Like Paul, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and strive to finish the good race.
# God gives us sustaining grace, spiritual sustenance if you will, if we ask for it and through sacraments."

Well, this Christmas the carnival of the reformation has asked us to post about the centrality of Christ the "sola christus". This is a request I am only too happy to comply with and helps bring a number of threads together that I have been posting on lately.

The last thing I posted was a link to our series on the book of acts Any good bible student knows of course that this book should really be called the acts of Jesus as Luke introduces it in such a way as to make clear he believes that Jesus was still around at the time "doing stuff"

I do believe that he is still around today doing stuff also. In fact, it is Christ that is central to the other issue I have been discussing lately- assurance of our faith.

I asked "How can I know if I am saved?" and my answer which I will unpack in the next little while in later posts I am sure is simply this- You can know you are saved because of Christ, what he has done and your current relationship with him.

There is much that can be said about that but really too many people fail to realise that the essense of calvinism is quite simply a high view of Christ, and a high view of just what his death and resurrection accomplished. All too often alternative views of sovereignty such as Arminians and alternative views of the cross such as that postulated by Steve Chalke have one thing in common- they minimise the centrality of the role of Christ.

I recently blogged through the TULIP acronym, and a year ago preached a sermon in church which highlighted these so called five points of calvinism. It is vital for us to realise that actually these concepts are supposed to lead us to the doctrine of the centrality of Christ.

This is knowhere more clearly seen than in the doctrine of Total Depravity. We needed Christ to do something for us because we could do nothing for ourselves. I know that left to myself I would have rejected Christ by my own choice. I delight in knowing that Christ chose me before the foundation of the world and that choice was totally unconditional. It really was because of all that Jesus did for me that I can be confident that I am saved.

I believe that the so-called "limited atonement" is applied to be in a very special way that guarentees it will work- in a real sense Christ died PERSONALLY for me. I am sure that grace must be irrisistable because that demonstrates that Christ and not I are in the driving seat in our relationship, because of that I can be confident that I will persevere in my faith not because of my own will power and determination but instead because I have trusted myself into the hands of Christ and he will never let me go.

These truths comfort us because we suddenly realise salvation is not about us, not about what we offer and contribute (except our sin!). We realise that not even our faith comes from us and could be seen as somehow making us more deserving. We come again to Christ and say "thank you for what you did for me". Thank you for choosing me, thank you for dying for me, thank you for taking my punishment, thank you for helping me to see the truth, thank you for granting me faith and wooing me to you, thank you for giving me new life, and thank you that I will spend eternity with you.

So it really is "all about you jesus"

It's all about you, Jesus
And all this is for you
For your glory and your fame
It's not about me,
As if you should do things my way
You alone are God
And I surrender, to your ways

One thing is for sure Calvinists don't have the exclusive on doubt about their salvation. An Arminian might well believe he could loose his salvation and therefore worry about how to be sure he didn't. A Calvinist might worry that he never had it in the first place!

In this next series of posts I intend to look at reasons for assurance of salvation- What makes someone a Christian? How can I know I am saved? Can I know I am saved? There are several aspects to this, and I will post on a different one each time.

Today, I intend to simply discuss what things DON'T guarentee you are a Christian and what you SHOULD NOT rely on as proof you are on your way to heaven.

Firstly, being a "good person". The bible is very clear that none of us can be good enough to deseverve heaven. It is amazing how many people seem to go along with this- even in our churches. "Old Mrs Smith was such a kind lady I am sure she went to heaven when she died". Amazingly though, even people who declare a faith in Christ often seem to depend on their own goodness as a proof of their salvation. This is of course the receipe for legalism and explains why in many churches the pharisees would almost not be considered strict enough. "Markers" of holiness have at various times and in various places included not going to the cinema, not drinking any alcohol, not dancing, not watching TV, not playing any "frivilous games", not associating with unbelievers, wearing unfashinable clothes and generally denying oneself various pleasures. It is my belief that such "sacrifices" count for absolutely nothing.

Being baptised as a baby clearly does nothing for you either in terms of going to heaven. There are still far too many adults who genuinely believe that because they were "done" as a baby they are on their way to heaven. To me that is argument enough not to christen babies without all the other great reasons.

Being born in a christian country or even going to church doesnt help either. Nor does prayer or reading your bible as many pagans do that. Nor dare I say it does appearing to have powerful abilities to do things "in God's name". There have been too many charlatons for that to be the case. Nor does simply having gone forward at a crusade together with many others because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

So how can I know I am a Christian then? You might feel close to despair at this point- I hope not, and I will try not to leave you in suspense for too long. (If you really can't wait and are in concern about your spiritual state, do drop me an email.... I wouldn't want you to be desperate.....)

Dont ask me why I feel like laying down this gauntlet, but I would love to here significant dissent out there. You know who you are pssing through thinking "thats not right". You see I want to move onto answering the question "so what" about all this doctrine and I will soon, but it bothers me that in all my arminian readers not one of them has really taken direct issue with any of my defininitions of the TULIP. Is that because I have been called close to both hypercalvinistic and arminian and as such I just seem acceptable to everyone? Surely not!

Lets here it first of all for the problems with these doctrines. For a start, I have hit on one, the tendency in some for the doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints to lead to a lack of assurance, and I intend to use that as a whole springboard into a series on assurance, which may itself become a series on why Calvinism matters.

So to you my readers (if you haven't deserted me by now) why doesn't this matter? What are the negative outcomes we might see in the lives of those who believe this stuff? How goofy are calvinists? Are we sad, deluded and missing out on the truth? Does any of this, perhaps most especially Steve Chalkes outburst really matter? Is their anyone out there spoiling for a conversation. This is what blogging is for now we seemed to have lost it almost everywhere else. Ironic isnt it, antisocially sitting in front of our screens is about the only way for some of us to meet who have very different ideas.

So where are you? Where is the online equivalent of my rabidly anti-semitic, rabidly anti-christian, facist that I debated with in the flesh at school? The debates tallied at a draw in our debating society but I praise God that several of the listeners subsequently turned to God, including my facist protagonist.

So roll up, roll up and join the debate. If you are someone who actually knows me IRL as the saying goes, why not let me know you read my blog and what u think of it- for the sake of others that know us both use a psuedonmyn if its too rude and drop me a mail to tell me it was you!!

Many people represent this point of Calvinism as "once saved always saved", or that you cannot loose your salvation. Now of course, if by salvation you mean walking forward at a crusade LOADS of people seem to loose that. But, by now, you should realise that Calvinists do not believe that a superficial "decision for Christ" is what constitutes a Christian. If being born again is something done to you, how can you be unborn? Really this doctrine was always taken to mean that true Christians will persevere in their faith till the end. This is well expressed in the following scripture-

Hebrews 3:14 "For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."

The "we share" here is past tense and so we can see that the best way to be sure of salvation is to persist in faith. What of those who appear backslidden however? It is my belief that it may not be possible to tell which of the following positions they are in-

1. They may never have been saved at all
2. They may be currently away from God but will return before the end
3. They may still have vestiges of faith and might be in the category mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:15 who's "work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The one thing they are not is someone who was once a Christian and now is not.

Of course, historically this doctrine has had the effect of destroying many people's assurance with them not being willing to dare that they are saved because they have not yet persevered to the end. I believe however there are grounds for assurance and plan to answer the question "how can I know I am part of the elect" in my next theological post series, although I really ought to do some non-theological posts first- this is fast becoming a theoblog which is not something I intended!

So- what shall I blog about next, any thoughts?

Here we are coming almost to the coup de grace of these five points. I g you have understood all of the others and can accept them then this will be as sweet to you as reaching the very sight of the top of the mountain you are climbing. It is not quite the peak for the believer, as that comes in the last point.

Of course, if you find that the system makes you angry at the thought that your will may not be entirely free then this point may make your blood boil. But perhaps more than any of the other points the strongest explanation of this comes from the lips of Jesus in the scriptures. Argue with me all you like, but argue with Him at your peril.

In John 6, Jesus begins by saying "All that the Father gives me will come to me" and this in itself surely makes it clear that not only is God's choice in saving us is an effective one, and therefore even if we are initially unwilling, if our will clashes with Gods will, then his will wins.

If you are one of those who the father has given to his son, then you WILL come to him. But, notice the assymetry. For Jesus does not say "and those who are not given to me by my father I will cast out" but instead he goes onto say " and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." Thus the call is going out "whoever comes" may come. But, even if they dont want to come whoever the Father gives to the son will come. If someone doesnt come because they chose not to does that make God responsible for that choice? If God drags some almost against their will to be saved then what does he owe those he passes over and leaves to their own freely expressed will not to come. No one should ever say, but what if I come to Jesus and he says "but you aren't one of the elect" for he clearly says here "whoever comes" will always be accepted. Jesus goes on as follows.

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.�

He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Thus the will of God is that none of those given by the Father to the son will be lost, and thus the enabling that God must give for any to be saved must indeed be irresitable grace.

It is grace that will not take no for an answer. It is probably whay many Calvinists considering whether someone is saved are slightly less concerned about a publically expressed "decision" for God and more interested in evidence that this irresistable grace has been at work in a life in an ongoing manner.

Irresistable grace quite simply means that God woos those who he would such that they have an offer they quite simply cannot refuse.

In a startling new development in my longstanding tag-blogging relationship with Jollyblogger, he and I have posted on the same subject within a minute of each other!!! Admittadly the posts were both part of a series, but it is somewhat amusing to me that without planning it we were quite this synchronised.

L - Limited atonement (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3) Dr Adrian Warnock's UK Blog Nov 30 19:34

Before we can ask what is "limited atonment" in todays' climate of doubt regarding our theories of the atonement, including accusing people like me of propounding a theory of cosmic child abuse we need to start by defining the very idea of the atonement

L - Limited Atonement (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3) Jollyblogger Nov 30 19:33

Well, it's time for another post in my series on the TULIP, aka the five points of Calvinism. Today we are looking at the middle petal of the TULIP - the "L" for "limited atonement." This has been one of...

Before we can ask what is "limited atonment" in todays' climate of doubt regarding our theories of the atonement, including accusing people like me of propounding a theory of cosmic child abuse we need to start by defining the very idea of the atonement before moving to whether it is limited or not.

The atonement is simply another word for Christs death, bit it is a word that links his death to the removal of sin in the way that has been classically understood- the removal of sin. The penal substitutionary view of the atonement simply means that Jesus died to take a punishment or penalty (ie penal) he died to substitute himself (ie to take out place) and he died to bear the wrath of God.

�God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself....For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.?� (2 Cor 5:19,21)

Why did Christ need to become sin? So he could justly be punished for sin. Why was that necessary? Because it was the only way that God could be right to let us off the hook.

For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Everyone has sinned. Romans 1 makes it clear that God really does have wrath against sin, and I for one cannot accept this notion some people have that he can simply pretend it never happened!

God does freely give us a gift but this passage makes clear that this gift came at a cost - everyone who has had to "redeem" a loan knows that this word "redemption" is to do with cost. What is the cost? It is a propitiation which can be translated a turning away of wrath.

God shows that he doesnt simply pass over sins, but does something about them. He shows that he is not like the unjust judge who lets everyone off declaring them not guilty when they are guilty.

The only way this passage makes sense is that sin has a penalty to pay, a consequence if you like. That God cannot be holy and overlook this, and that somehow in Jesus death that penalty is taken away.

To me that is not cosmic child abuse it is the gospel. I am concinced that you have very little that can be called Christianity left if you rob God of his justice by denying the idea that Jesus took the consequences of my sin on the cross.

Now I have that off my chest, what does it mean "limited atonement"

Well lets say what I believe it doesn't mean

-It DOESN'T mean that Jesus death was not sufficiently powerful that everyone could have been saved
-It doesnt nullify the gospel offer that "as many as will" repent will be saved.
-It doesnt mean that some people are damned from before time began simply because God didn't like them
-It doesnt mean we should only preach to people we believe are "elect"
-It doesn't mean that Jsus death had no value to unbelievers. The fact that God can be patient with sin and still be just is because of Jesus death. The fact that God can graciously keep sinners alive and during their time on earth they can enjoy anything in life is a mark of the "general" grace of God also bought by Jesus' death on the cross.

My view of the limited atonement is that it was sufficient for all, but not efficient for all. In other words that whilst it is probably OK to say that Jseus died for the sins of the whole world, in another sense he died particularly for me, and knew that it was for me that he was going through this. Jesus death was not in vain, and could never have been in vain. God would make sure of that.

In one sense limited atonement is the easiest of the TULIPs to accept if we simply take it to mean that although Jesus death could have saved everyone, it in fact will not. If you don't believe this, then you are a universalist. Limited atonement really only says that Jesus blood is not applied to every person who has ever lived.

"We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim 4:10)

I hope David will forgive me but I am going to be very naughty and jump ahead of him on my uninvited tagging allong on his TULIP series. I will not do as good a job of explaining this as he will, but we do seem to spark off each other quite well. Consider this a primer for the masterly post he will no doubt put up fairly soon.

I have been speaking quite a lot about "free will" lately and that leads nicely to this subject. My point about the limits to our will is really important to understand the subject of Unconditional election. Terry Puritt has also posted his own story about his "Free will journey" which is well worth a read.

Unconditional election quite simply means that there is nothing in us that prompts God's choice of us to save us. The doctrines of grace are there to humble us and recognise that it wasnt something special about us that led to us being saved. As the old saying goes, the only thing I contributed to my salvation was my sin.

There is a natural tendancy for us to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. If our wills are totally free then we have grounds to congratulate ourselves on our own morality and to feel superior to the "sinners" out there. I fear that many evangelicals today are distinctly lacking in the grace department. The old notion "there but for the grace of God go I" seems all too often to be absent.

I believe firstly that from a moral point of view even before I am a Christian I owe much to the general grace of God in restricting my will. Even as a Christian, it is less about my will power and more about the power of God in restraining my errant impulses. If the congregation I am a part of knew the kind of thoughts my mind sometimes has I wonder would they want to hear me preach? If my will
had free reign and was unfettered by God, by society, by my upbringing, by my experiences I guess my life would not be a pretty sight.

When we find someone in the "gutter", it is not usually exclusively because of bad choices they have freely made- although their choices do play a part. Is a son of a robber more likely to grow up to be a robber? You bet your life he is. Can he change? Yes, sometimes. Might he change even without becomming a Christian? You bet. Is he likely to change entirely of his own accord without any influence being put on him from outside? No way.

I guess my point is this- we are all sinners, and it is the grace of God that constrains us from becomming worse ones.

The idea of free will if it doesnt take account of the restraining and at times hardening hand of God, of the constraints of society, and yes even of the biology of our brains, is just an illusion. It is well known now that if the biology of the brain is disturbed in certain ways our "impulse regulation" can go awry and people start to act out the urges that we spend most of our lives suppressing.

To my mind, it is vital that we realise something else about our wills- we are in ever increasing bondage to sin when we are not yet saved. We willinging put ourselves in that path, and some of us go further along it than others. But we all choose to rebell against God.

I do believe that the gospel comes with a genuine offer of salvation to all who hear it. Turn around, excercise that will of yours- repent and believe in Jesus. Begin to walk away from the sin you have been giving yourself too. But, those pleas fall on deaf ears.

The reality of our so called "free wills" is that they cannot recognise a good thing when they see one. Which convict on death row offered a pardon and release wouldnt grab it with both hands? We say instead "it can't be that simple" and "how can Jesus take my punishment, that would be wrong"

The harsh reality of our situation is that faced with a choice to get out of the trap we are in we instead choose to reject our Saviour's offer of help.

Thats where grace becomes even more gracious. We never deserved an offer of help in the first place. But having turned down his offer Jesus woo's us and over-rules our wills. I didnt freely choose to follow him, he chose to pursue me. I didnt reach out to him, he reached out to me. I wasnt seeking him, he was seeking me. I was dead, he made me alive. I was blind, he made me see. I hated him, he loved me.

For God's over-riding of my will I am eternally grateful. My wonderment at his choice of me makes me realise that he can choose others. I am determined whenever I preach to do so expecting to see fruit. If God can save me, he can save anyone.

We have to believe this, and at risk of offending any arminian readers I have yet to offend, I think you believe this too. For sure I have never heard an Arminian pray except like a Calvinist. An Arminian will ask God to change peoples hearts and soften them to hear the gospel as much as any Calvinist.

I thank God that Jesus says to us today the same thing he said to his disciples all those years ago "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (Jn 15:16)

JOLLYBLOGGER has continued his series on Calvinism, which I am tagging along with by saying "We Calvinists affirm that man has a free will. ". He then goes on to circumscribe the limits that our will is put under in the rest of the post. So which is it David, are our wills "totally free" or do they rather have limited freedom?

I believe that there is no such thing as a totally free will except God's, and I am very greatful to God for that. I do believe in a circumscribed human vollition that gives us responsibility. I just dont believe that it is totally free. Our wills are actually very limited in lots of ways.

For a start we cannot will something impossible (unlike God!). However much I might wish I could fly like Superman I wont be able to! Secondly, our wills are incredibly limited by the 'norms' of those around us. How many teens believe they are excercising their own 'free will' as they flock to the shops to buy the same designer clothes as all their freinds? Thirdly our wills are limited by our upbringing. There is no doubt it is infinitely harder to make choices that differ dramatically than those our parents have made. If a child is brought up in a certain way or has certain experiences as a child they are far more likely to act in a certain way as a result. Also, and this I praise God for, our wills are constrained. Since we are by nature evil, the constraints God puts on our wills are a real mercy or else there would be much more reape and murder for example.

I thank God that I dont have the free will to reject him now he has saved me. I thank him that he has guarded my fragile will by making sure I have never been seriously faced with certain temptations that many others face daily. I thank him that the wills even of my enemies can be limited or moulded by God.

God frustrates the will of his enemies. He defeats their plans. He laughs at our rebellion (Ps 2) and woos us even against our expressed will to love him.

So, yes I believe in human responsibility but NOT in human "free" will. I thank God that my will is not free, but am humbled by the fact that I know I will be hold to account not just for my actions, but also for the deliberate choices I make to dwell on wrong thoughts. I thank him that he turned my will towards him and that he has forgiven me for the sins my will continues to lead me into, but that he doesnt give my will free reign in my life.

A sovereign God knows when to allow our plans to succeed and when to frustrate the decisions of our wills, and for that I am eternally greatful

HAve decided to tag along with JOLLYBLOGGER in his new series on the five points of Calvinism often known by the acronymn TULIP. He has done a couple of introductory posts and then begins with the following quote "The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called 'Total Inability.' "

David is anxious to point out that this doctrine doesnt mean that the non-christian is totally incapable of doing good. I am glad he says that as in my view many Christians behave WORSE than some non-christians. It is my belief that not every Christian is a better person than every non-christian. However a Christian should be a better person than they were as a non-christian.

We are all lost in sin and need a miracle to be saved. That is what Total Depravity means.

UPDATE
For the rest of the posts in this series see its all about you Jesus- calvinism and worship

I am thrilled that our new project the league of reformed bloggers appears to be taking off! With 30 members this is an exciting new aggregator that nicely complements the Blogdom of God. So if you if a sola means more than green electricity and tulip is not just a spring flower then get over there and join! There is even advice over at jollyblogger for blogger.com bloggers over there about how to get your feeds working (I expect a blogspot deluge from those wanting to join the Blogdom of God!)

Like so many of these things the Blogdom has got perhaps slightly unweildy although I still look at it almost every day myself. If bloggers would comment just a little more on other blogs posts of interest then we could keep up with the whole blogosphere right there!

People mustn't see these blog aggregators as an either/or, and provided you meet the criteria then why not join them all- after all ideally the Reformed list will be a subset of the Evangelical Aggregator's list which will be a subset of the Blogdom! Of course people are welcome to submit to as many or few lists as they like, but especially be including at least one of the blogrolls on our sites then Christian sites should assist one another in being more read. Certainly it seems to work for me.

You may have noticed a list of reformed blogs growing in my sidebar. Jollyblooger has posted formally announcing the list of reformed bloggers. I am proud to be associated with such a list, and would encourage any of you who consider yourselves reformed to head over there and sign up. There are also some instructions in the comments section on getting atom feeds to work with server.com. This could be helpful for some of the blogs wanting to join the blogdom of God who's looser definition could certainly encompass any blog in the Reformed bloggers league. The reformed blogs aggregator is now a handy resource which with fewer blogs than the Blogdom of God aggregator features posts for a longer period of time and as such really complements it nicely.

In his post David describes me as "indomitable". I had to look the word up to see what it means. It made me smile when I discovered it means "impossible to subdue". By God's grace us Christians are all intended to be overcomers so may that always be true of me and each of us.

To God alone be the glory!

Have found a site which aims to be the home for Reformed bloggers- I wonder if they will kick me out for being charismatic?

Found a new reformed blogger. He likes Jollyblogger. Thats good enough for me.....

Came across a great website The Calvinist Corner which even has "a list of Reformed Churches and or people that believe in the Charismatic Gifts". Pop over read his stuff, and tell him you found out about his site on a blog and he needs to add one to his site! Seriously, his material is great- maybe he'd make a good blogger.

I have missed my blog lately- but business has prevented me from giving it much attention. I am determined not to apologise- like a friend the absense makes the heart grow fonder and the chance to spend an evening in blogland has been great tonight.

We forget sometimes what a priveledge it is to be a part of this community.