John Owen's doctrine of the atonement

Owen's work, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ is without question the greatest treatise on the atonement that has ever been written and for anyone who has read the book and studied the arguments from Scripture, no criticism has ever or could ever be effective laid against it. It is especially important in our day, with the popularization of faulty unbiblical speculative theories on the atonement by certain neo-Calvinists. It goes back to the fundamentals and smashes these false theories completely.

Of course there are many areas regarding the atonement which Owen treats which the 3FU does not talk about (since even the Canons are more summaries of doctrine and refutations of specific errors), but the basic doctrine of limited atonement as expounded by Owen is the doctrine taught in the Canons of Dordt. Ursinus made some comments in his commentary on the Heidelberger which seem to be closer to an Amyraldian view of the atonement (although it would be anachronistic to call it that), but his commentary is not the catechism itself, and it is not the official interpretation of it by the Reformed church. 

The Form for Ordination calls the Canons of Dordt an interpretation/explanation/clarification of certain points of doctrine in the Heidelberger and the Belgic Confession - and this is exactly what the Canons are. The Canons explain the doctrine of atonement in the catechism and confession as particular efficacious atonement, excluding the Amyraldian views (although it obviously does not deal with Amyraldianism as directly and fully as the Second Helvetic Confession does - history accounts for that). Nevertheless when the various statements in the Canons of Dordt are put together, especially along with the Rejection of Errors (which are part of the Canons, despite the fact that so many "Reformed" churches today have removed them), they do not allow for the idea of a hypothetical universal redemption or any kind of conditional redemption in the atonement. 

On this point, the doctrine of the atonement in the Canons is precisely that which is so much more fully expounded and proved by Owen's work (and remember Owen wrote much later than the Synod of Dordt, when Amyraldianism was being further developed and promoted as a half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism). If the Rejection of Errors are ignored/removed, this greatly weakens the position of the Canons (understandably - otherwise they would not have seen it necessary to include them!) - although even so, still Amyraldian ideas do not sit well with them (and a case could still be made). The Westminster actually is not a strong as the Canons with regard to particular efficacious atonement - since the Canons include the phrase "the elect and them only". Sadly, the prevailing view among the neo-Calvinists is a form of the Amyraldian view of the atonement - even though they often claim to hold to the five points of Calvinism (the Canons ARE the original five points)!

But aside from the confessional issue, the Scriptural arguments of Owen are compelling and solid. For a man who has studied these arguments, and confesses that the Bible is the very word of God, he cannot consistently then deny limited atonement with Amyraldian ideas - and any Reformed church ought to discipline a man who is promoting Amyraldianism - on the basis of the Canons, and on the basis of the clear teaching of Scripture (which on this point, has been so fully explained to us by Owen's work). This is the reason that Owen's work is becoming unpopular today, because it stands in history as the greatest refutation of Amyraldian and Arminian views of the atonement ever to have been written - and these false views of the atonement promoted today by the neo-Calvinists simply cannot stand in light of it.

Owen goes back to the basics of the nature of Christ's work, as it is pictured in the Old Testament and especially as explained in Hebrews. Hebrews stands on the foreground of his book. He shows what it means that Christ is our High Priest, the nature and meaning of redemption, propitiation, atonement, etc. These are the topics which are shied away from today. People love to talk about the extent of the atonement, but they do not want to talk about its very nature. And Owen shows that its nature determines its extent. I could not praise this book highly enough. Its greatest strength is that is builds with the basics and is so thoroughly comprehensive (of course, this does means that Owen can be very long-winded at times - but long sentences were in fashion then, it was assumed that people had a longer attention span than five seconds, to be able to remember and tie in the beginning of the sentence with the end of it). Its weakness today is only that people today have such difficulty with long sentences and long trains of thought - they forget the beginning of the argument by the time they reach the end, and respond more to immediately felt emotional appeals. When someone says "Christ died to save everyone" that has a half-truth, and a strong emotional appeal, but it does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter about the sophistication of the Amyraldian position. But such snap-responses are not the Christian way: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - I Cor. 9:24-27.

Sometimes that means have the spiritual self-control and discipline to study and remember long step-by-step arguments written by people who didn't realise that long sentences would be so difficult for people in our modern times. But it is rewarding.

In fact, a more accurate and emotionally appealing description of the extent of the atonement would be the word "catholic" (Rev. 5:9). "Limited" although true just does not give the main idea or the emphasis of Scripture - and this is one reason why people have such reactionary problems to it.

Drawn by the Father

Some try to escape the clear teaching of particular election unto eternal life in John 6 by means of various convoluted distinctions. But an examination of the text in its context, and in the light of the rest of Scripture, demonstrates that the Arminian cannot escape this word of God:

"But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
Here Christ equates "believing" in Him with "coming" to Him. He does not mean locational displacement - but to come spiritually by believing. His message is therefore: You believe not, but all that the Father gives me will come (believe), therefore you were not given to me by the Father.

And this is confirmed by His words in John 10: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Here he says likewise: Your unbelief demonstrates that you are not my sheep, since my sheep hear me and follow me and cannot be plucked out of my hand.

It is also confirmed in that Christ says "this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." So all who "come" to Christ will not be cast out, and in verse 44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." He clarifies again that all who "come" to him (which are only those whom the Father draws) will be raised up at the last day.

So all who "come" are the same as all those who "believe" since to "come" to Christ is to "believe" in Him, and since all these who believe have eternal life, just as all who come have eternal life. And should anyone ask if there are some who do not believe or do not come who have eternal life, John 3:36 shows that only those who believe have eternal life. But more directly, this cannot be the case, since Christ's argument here would then be pointless. His entire argument hinges on the fact that those who do not come do not have eternal life.

He is explaining that they do not come/believe because they are not given to him by the Father and are not drawn by Him.

Another place this is proven is John 8: "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Here Christ proves to them that their spiritual father is not God, but the devil, on the basis that they cannot receive his teaching. The reason they do not believe him, is because he is telling them the truth about God. Therefore they are not of God, because those who are of God hear/receive/believe God's words. It is those who are of the devil who cannot receive the truth, whose native language is lies.

This is also corroborated by II Thess. 2: "...they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The plain meaning here is that there are those who do not receive the love of the truth (and so are not saved). For this cause God sends them strong delusions with the purpose that they believe a lie so that all those who do not believe the truth are damned. In contrast to this are those whom the Apostle must give thanks to God (since it is all of God's grace, not at all of their ability) for those who were chosen from the beginning to believe the truth and be sanctified by the Spirit and so be saved. And this is the salvation which we have been called to by the gospel. Just as Romans 8:28ff teaches concerning those who are thus called, that they are all those whom God foreknew, and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, and justified, and glorified. No others were glorified, justified, called, predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, or foreknown by God.

This is why Christ will say to the wicked reprobate on the last day, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23). Clearly this is the knowledge of a loving relationship therefore. Not a clinical knowledge of certain actions or decisions, but a loving knowledge of particular people, since those who are not saved, according to Romans 8 are not foreknown by God.

Finally the objection that a man can resist being drawn by the Father is useless, since no doubt the fish resisted being dragged in the net, but when the disciples were with Christ, the net did not break. The question is whether one can effectually resist. Since all who are drawn by the Father are raised up at the last day, are those who come/believe and who are given eternal life, therefore our sinful nature which always opposes the work of the Spirit cannot defeat Almighty God, who renews our will, giving us a new nature, so that we love Him freely from the new heart that He gives us. As Christ said: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

If you can show where I have misunderstood all these texts, please do so. But if you find that you are fighting against the truth of God's Word, then please restrain yourself - because those who stumble at the word and oppose Christ in disobedience will find themselves smashed into pieces by Him. "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." - I Pet. 2.

I might add: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:12-14)

Also the objection based on the use of "draw" in John 12 is futile. Immediately preceding this teaching is recorded: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus."

The clear meaning which does not contradict the rest of Scripture therefore is that Christ is referring to the whole world of every tongue, tribe, and nation when He uses the phrase "all men". He means that the benefits of His atonement are for all men, including these Greeks, not just the Jews. His atonement will bear "much fruit". He does not mean every single person, but all men without distinction. The same chapter records: "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." - Clearly the Pharisees did not mean by "world" every single person, since for example, they themselves had not gone after him, nor had the Chinese.

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/allmeansall.htm

"He made reconciliation with God a POSSIBILITY"?

"He made reconciliation with God a possibility." Where is this taught in the 66 books of the Bible? That is a denial of the work of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. The Lord Jesus did not simply make salvation a possibility for every single person. He actually saves His people (those graciously unconditionally chosen in love) from their sins by His Spirit bringing us to faith in His propitious sacrifice and to repentance from sin.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." - Matthew 1:21.
"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." - Isaiah 53:11. 

There is not even a hint in Holy Scripture that Christ just makes it possible for us to save ourselves. He is the Saviour, not us. His is the glory, not ours. Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself as the Head of His elect church (which is His body - Ephesians 5). He suffered the punishment dues to us for our sins, that is what it means that He died FOR us, as a substitute. He propitiated the wrath of God therefore, satisfied God's holy justice and righteousness. We know through faith in Christ that we will not be cast into hell, only because Christ has suffered all the just punishment of God already.

God, in His justice cannot send anyone for whom Christ sacrificed Himself to hell, otherwise Christ's sacrifice was not an atoning sacrifice. Can God deny what Christ has done on the cross because many do not believe? Absolutely not. As Christ said in John 17: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given me." As our High Priest, offering Himself as a fully sufficient sacrifice, He prayed not for every single person, but only for those God has given Him. No-one can come to Him unless the Father draws him, as the Lord teaches in John 6. So it is that only those for whom Christ died, are given the gift of the Spirit who creates true faith in us.

 To reduce Christ's work to making salvation a mere possibly for everyone, rather than a reality accomplished for many, but not all, is a denial of Scripture's teaching about the nature, perfection, efficacy, power, and sufficiency of His sacrifice. On the cross Christ purchased the gifts of faith and repentance for His people, so that He does not leave it up to us to make His sacrifice effective - of ourselves we cannot do any good, being dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2), because apart from the Spirit, the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His law (Romans 8). And those who have the Spirit belong to Christ, are known by Him, and saved. These are the sheep for whom He laid down His life, who are brought graciously to believe in Him - not the goats as He teaches in John 10. God alone determines who is saved and who is not. We are not masters of our own destiny - God alone is the King over the universe who determines all things, especially the salvation or damnation of sinful men.

Who will argue with Owen about the atonement?

Few doctrines could be more important to the Christian than those concerning the cross of our Saviour. And since we know that it is only by Christ's work on the cross that we can be saved, it is especially important for us to consider the question asked by John Owen below in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." We must know the answer; did Christ die for:

1. all the sins of all men,
2. all the sins of some men, or
3. some sins of all men.

Let's sit at Owen's feet for a while to hear him bring the Scriptures to bear on this issue:

"Nay, but in dying for us Christ did not only aim at our good, but also directly died in our stead. The punishment due to our sin and the chastisement of our peace was upon him; which that it was the pains of hell, in their nature and being, in their weight and pressure, though not in tendence and continuance (it being impossible that he should be contained by death), who can deny and not be injurious to the justice of God, which will inevitably inflict those pains to eternity upon sinners? It is true, indeed, there is a relaxation of the law in respect of the persons suffering, God admitting of commutation; as in the old law, when in their sacrifices the life of the beast was accepted (in respect to the carnla part of the ordinances) for the life of the man. This is fully revealed, and we believe it; but for any change of the punishment, in respect of the nature of it, where is the least intimation of any alteration? We conclude, then, this second act of God, in laying the punishment on him for us, with that of the prophet, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned each to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," (Isa. 53:6): and add thereunto this observation, that it seems strange to me that Christ should undergo the pains of hell in their stead who lay in the pains of hell before he underwent those pains, and shall continue in them to eternity; for their worm dieth not, neither is their fire quenched." To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists: - God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" (Ps. 130:3; cf. Jas. 2:10). We might all go cast all that we have "to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty," (Isa. 2:20, 21). If the second, that is it that we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins [Hence, they cannot be saved, SW]. Let them choose which part they will."

We can see that to understand who the intended objects were, we must understand the nature of the atonement. And the nature of this work of Christ will forever elude us if we do not always hold God's perfect justice before our eyes, by which we stand either condemned, or justified, if it is that Christ has satisfied God's justice on our behalf. If justified, then certainly glorified (Rom. 8:30-34), and since not all are glorified, not all are justified, and Christ died only for those who are saved: the elect.

Sam W.

Acceptable Worship in Christ Alone

The only thing acceptable in God's sight is what proceeds from Him alone. God is holy, and the highest good and only source of all goodness. The human heart is always filled with pride, and all kinds of malice, idolatry, wickedness, and envy. There is such evil in the human heart by nature that we cannot fathom it. Nothing good can possibly come from the heart of those fallen in Adam. And though the life of Jesus Christ is present in every Christian, there is only a small beginning, and the totally depraved, vile, and abominable sinful nature remains.

It is entirely evident to me now, as despite myself God has graciously taught me by His glorious law of light and liberty, more of how deceitfully wicked we really are at heart, that for a man to get the insane notion into his head that he can write a song that is worthy to be brought into the presence of Holy God in the congregation of the saints as pure, true, and spiritual worship to the Holy One, is nothing but rotten, foul, and stinking pride of the worst sort - spiritual pride.

David, and the others inspired writers of the Psalms were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God to pen the 150 Psalms, and God has not added to them, nor ever will, because His Word is sufficient, and perfect. Some say that this is a lack of diversity and is unworthy of the God who created millions of species of insect, but He eternally decreed 66 books of the Bible, and every word of it, and all the history recorded therein, all the commandments, who should write them, all the prophecy, and the lives of all those mentioned in the Bible, and of those who penned the books. And He decreed 150 Psalms to be perfectly inspired by His Spirit, to proclaim the praises of the redemption of His elect church by the promised Messiah, for His glory and honour. And He is worthy, not of the lame and blemished to be brought to Him (Mal. 1:6-14), but only for that which is perfect, as He is perfect, to be offered as praise before Him.

First of all, this tells us that Christian worship can only ever be acceptable, by being sanctified in Jesus Christ. The beloved Son of God covers the filthy rags of our pathetic worship to make it acceptable in the sight of God. He atoned for all the impurity, weakness, and carnality of our worship. But does such grace give us license to be proud before the Holy One, and lift up our hearts as if we were acceptable of ourselves? That is what we say (whether we realise it or not) to God, when we offer up the ridiculous writings of mere men as worship. Even the holy Psalms become filthy rags as we try to offer them as worship, so how much more the products of proud hymn-writers, no matter how much derived (or distorted) from Scripture (which God did not appoint to be sung, but to be preached). Such hymns may indeed be edifying, and helpful in their place, but that place is not in worship. It is not a matter of greater and lesser, but of appointed for worship, and not at all.

Shall we sin that grace may increase? By no means. Rather we must, in holy reverence granted by the Spirit of God, repent of our spiritual pride, and seek to worship with what God Himself has given approval, and to do so in spirit and in truth more and more as He causes us to grow by the powerful preaching of the Gospel. Considering our depravity, it is utter foolishness to expect that our own carnal imaginations and reasoning about what God desires in worship should ever be anything other than completely wrong and even abominable in His sight. Instead, we must humbly seek His wisdom, and ask of God in His Word revealed to us, how we ought to worship, just as we must learn from Him how we must pray. Naturally, all our own ideas about spiritual things are nonsense, and worse than folly; even directly opposed to what is godly and righteous.

Furthermore, since Christian worship can only be acceptable in Jesus Christ, knowing that there is one Mediator between God and man, and that He is the only way to the Father, we should know that anything not appointed as worship in His Word is as vain and idolatrous as seeking God outside of Christ. Again, it is idolatry to worship God according to our own ideas about what is acceptable. The Lord Jesus alone appoints how we must worship, just as He alone directs and governs all things in His church. And the church that refuses to submit to His rule, is not His bride, but a whore with which the world commits fornication. To offer anything other than the Psalms of Holy Scripture as worship is nothing less than disobedience to Christ, and seeking to have fellowship with God apart from the Mediator, Jesus Christ, by whom we were given the Psalms.

The starting principle of the godly is that he humbles himself before God, and forsakes his own thoughts, and inquires carefully of God how it is that He must be worshipped. Those who come to the Scriptures with this Christian attitude of humility, and this question, cannot escape the conclusion that there is nothing else apart from the Psalms of Scripture that God ever appoints for us to sing in worship to Him. And so all other notions and objections, no matter how persuasive must be utterly rejected as deceitful and devious lies and temptations of the devil who always seeks to corrupt the worship of God, and whose greatest ally in the church is the sinful heart of man, with all its proud natural reasoning.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So they that are in the flesh cannot please God." - Rom. 8:7-8. 

The most blind argument that can ever be made against singing the Psalms only, is that it is proud. The idolatry of offering worship that has not been appointed by God is proud. And it is natural that a church which loses the doctrine of the depravity of man, and the holiness of God, and of Christ the Mediator, and in short where Christ is no longer heard in its preaching, and the sacraments are carelessly profaned, and there is no spiritual discipline to remove the leaven of adulterers (for example), that such a lump becomes more and more leavened, so that the worship too is utterly corrupted, in that proud man-made worship is proudly offered, and the sincerity, holiness, purity, richness, and worthiness of the Psalms are no longer heard at all. The voice of the Bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, are no longer heard in such false churches. Where you hear the voice of the Bridegroom however, there you will also hear the voice of His bride, singing joyfully to her Saviour, with the words given to her by God Himself.

Still the best after 400 years

As it happens to be the 400th anniversary of the KJV, I suppose it would be appropriate to explain some of my thoughts on what is perhaps going to be a controversial anniversary. I use the KJV, because it's the version I read and study, and that my church uses, and that English-speaking churches whose heritage is found in the Reformation have used for the last 400 years. There are certainly deeper underlying reasons, which are far more significant.

First of all, I'm not a "KJV-Only-ist" in the sense that I don't believe it is as good as it could be, or entirely perfect, or on par with the text in the original languages (I say this for theological reasons, and because I know a little, but enough generally about the grammatical differences between languages, not because I know anything specifically about Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). Also because I'm not against other versions in principle if they are faithful translations of the true Scriptures, but the problem with almost all the recent versions which have been released in the number of years is:

1) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture. They are based upon a couple of manuscripts which differ vastly from the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts, (which the Reformers deliberately rejected as corrupt). One bunch was preserved in a library in the Vatican, and the other lost in a waste-basket in a city that was notorious for the propagation of heresy. If God's word is preserved for the sake of His people, then how could these manuscripts which dwelt in obscurity away from God's people for so long, really be God's word? Especially when they contradict the other manuscripts in so many places?

So, the text which has been preserved and received by God's people throughout the ages is what we should receive, just as Christ received the Scriptures of His day, trusting that God had preserved them. It is not insignificant that the modern-day Arian heretics, who inappropriately call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses," are strong proponents of these deviant manuscripts.

2) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the plenary (full) and verbal (each word) Inspiration of Scripture. The more recent translations are mostly based upon a "dynamic equivalence" philosophy of translation. This means that the translators interpret what they think the original meaning of the phrases and sentences were, and then they paraphrase this perceived meaning in a different language. So, then we are not reading God's words, but the words of the interpretation of the translators.

Now the translators of the KJV, were a very godly bunch of men, at the height of the strength of the Reformation, of the calibre (both intellectually, and in understanding of the original languages, and spiritually) that can hardly be found anywhere in these present dark days. But what of, for example, the translators of the NIV? At least one was a lesbian (Dr. Virginia Mollenkott). But also, the translation philosophy used by the KJV translators was "formal equivalence", which means that with as little interpretation as possible, and as little paraphrasing as possible (only enough to retain the original sense taking into account the differences in grammatical structure and word order in different languages), they translated the words of the Bible, and when they had to insert extra words to give the original sense, they put these extra words in italics to show that they were not present in the original (the more recent translations add words willy-nilly with no indications whatsoever). The result was "Biblical English".

It was a peculiar style even then, as much as it is now, being so similar in structure and style to the original Greek and Hebrew phraseology - yet it remains easily understood (if you doubt this, read it, and consider how many foreign mission fields have successfully used the KJV when English was not even the first language). Not only that but they compensated for certain deficiencies and ambiguities in the English language which were not problems in the original languages - such as the use of "thou" and "thee" for "you, singular" and "you" and "ye" for "you, plural". There has not yet been a translation anywhere near as good as the KJV for these reasons, in terms of its precision and accuracy. And it's all because the translators feared God, and took seriously His warnings not to add or take away from His word, and that every word of the Bible is God's word and may not be trifled with.

You may examine these two simple claims yourselves, and make your own judgments.

Sam W.

P.S. More reading materials on this subject can be found here:
http://limerickreformed.com/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=6&Itemid=35#catid52
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets.htm#bible
http://www.cprf.co.uk/scriptureresources.htm

The most significant issue (regarding which texts are valid), is not controversial for the Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but concerns the Greek New Testament. This article from the Trinitarian Bible Society deals with this subject comprehensively, and definitively: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.html

The Victorious Word Conquers Violence

"I will preach, speak, write, but I will force no one; for faith must be voluntary. Take me as an example. I stood up against the Pope, indulgences, and all papists, but without violence or uproar. I only urged, preached, and declared God's Word, nothing else. And yet while I was asleep, or drinking Wittenberg beer with my Philip Melanchthon and Amsdorf, the Word inflicted greater injury on popery than prince or emperor ever did. I did nothing, the Word did every thing. Had I appealed to force, all Germany might have been deluged with blood; yea, I might have kindled a conflict at Worms, so that the Emperor would not have been safe. But what would have been the result? Ruin and desolation of body and soul. I therefore kept quiet, and gave the Word free course through the world. Do you know what the Devil thinks when he sees men use violence to propagate the gospel? He sits with folded arms behind the fire of hell, and says with malignant looks and frightful grin: 'Ah, how wise these madmen are to play my game! Let them go on; I shall reap the benefit. I delight in it.' But when he sees the Word running and contending alone on the battle-field, then he shudders and shakes for fear. The Word is almighty, and takes captive the hearts." - Martin Luther.

Of all the things I've read by Luther, this is my favourite. I quoted it from Prof. Hanko's "Contending for the Faith" which is an historical-biographical history of the rise of heresy and development of the truth. This book is available on the RFPA website. It's also available from the Limerick Reformed Bookstore too for people in Éire.

Faith: the Only Cure for Pragmatism

 (Written to a man defending R.C. Sproul's supposed co-operation with Arminians, who also defended the supposed claim that Whitefield and Wesley co-operated)

"How can two walk together except they be agreed?" By dissimulation, certainly, by dishonesty, and by craftiness indeed, but not in true fellowship. If two believe fundamentally different messages (even diametrically opposed messages, which are not only incompatible, but antithetical to one another), how can they co-operate in the work of spreading such messages? They can only co-operate in spreading one or the other. And always in such attempts to co-operate, it is the truth that is compromised for the sake of lies. Why? Because God is jealous for His glory, and will not share it with another. He will not bless efforts which profane His holy name.

But we serve Jesus Christ alone, and therefore have no need for the co-operation of men. It is God who preserves, defends and spreads His Gospel in order to gather and sanctify His church from every tongue, tribe, and nation. So, if we are His instruments in bearing witness to this Gospel, what aid could we possibly need in addition, since the power of God is with us? The temptation for whatever reason to co-operate in church work (which is primarily the preaching of the Gospel) with those who preach a false gospel ought to be condemned by seeing with the eyes of faith that whatever power or resources they might seem to offer is nothing is comparison the thousands upon thousands of the chariots of God, which we must learn to see by faith.

The sinful compromising philosophy of pragmatism only seems attractive when we take our eyes off Jesus who is reigning at the right hand of the throne of God. The arm of the flesh seems tempting only the eyes of the flesh, not to the eyes of faith, and so there are many today who need reminded of this and exhorted to repent and cast off entirely the help of the wisdom of the princes of Egypt which is no help at all, no matter what it seems.

Revivalism: A carnal discontent with the biblical means for church reformation

"Revivalism and the unceasing desire for revival in the church all come from the desire for a 'quick fix' for the church's problems and weaknesses. Rather than insisting on the necessity of true holiness, of living faith in Jesus Christ, and of sincere repentance for sin, the desire is for some excitement which will give the appearance of bringing the church back to her spiritual moorings, however temporary such excitement may be. Rather than the hard work of preaching the gospel and of calling for these things in the church, the easy way is sought."
- Rev. Ron Hanko (2009) "Another Look at the 1859 Revival in Ireland", British Reformed Journal, 51, p26.

Revivalism brews when the preaching of the gospel in a church falls to the ground, and is replaced by vain stories, amusing platitudes, and entertaining nonsense, and the sacraments are corrupted by no longer being explained biblically in the preaching, and church discipline is wholly neglected, such that the most profane adulterers and idolatrous unbelievers are not only treated as if they had nothing to fear on the Day of Judgement, but are regularly, and unashamedly welcomed to the Lord's table.

People in this environment often don't see that the solution to these problems is for the church to diligently and zealously return to Scripture, not to seek the misguided and ignorant enthusiasm and excitement of Revivalism. And if the church opposes the biblical protests for her to correct her doctrine and practice in these areas, then believers must flee and seek to join a church which does submit to God's Word. An institution which rejects the authority of Scripture is not a true church of Jesus Christ at all, but a syngogue of Satan.

We are naturally lazy and weak, and prone to every kind of carelessness and foolishness because of our sinful nature. We are prone to not believe in the power of preaching of the Word of God, and instead search for all manner of unclean gimmicks, godless tools, and every other kind of imagined means instead of the means that God has appointed for us in His Word - which is primarily biblical expository preaching. In this way, Revivalism is actually a lack of love for the truth, despite all the passion it boasts of. Love must be demonstrated in action, and if heartfelt passions do not lead one to search the Scriptures and insist on its authority alone, then such passions are an abomination before God. All our passions and the thoughts of our minds (along with every other aspect of our beings) must be conformed to the image of Christ through the knowledge of God which is eternal life (John 17:3).

Yet it is also God's sovereign decision whether a church falls further into apostasy or reforms (and we have no right to insanely protest against His good and perfect will). It is nothing but pride, rebellion, and stubbornness, stemming from a stiff neck, to pray for the Almighty, sovereigng and only wise God to change His mind (which is impossible for Him to do). Our calling is to submit to His will and to be "reformed, and always reforming", and to join churches which manifest the marks of a true church, and to leave whatever institution which claims to be a church yet does not bear the marks of it, when it refuses to hear godly biblical protests.

May God give His beloved elect believing saints in Limerick, and throughout the world, the grace to do so.

What does God require in our public worship services?

A good friend recently invited me to special musical performance and I thought it might be helpful to share my full response in a broader context:

I am inviting you to the Children's Christmas Programme - Sunday 13th December - 11am ServiceOur children's church will be performing a special musical event during our Sunday Worship Service. You will be blessed by their talent as they present - "Glory to God in the Highest". Invite your family and friends to attend -... all welcome. The Cafe will be serving Free mince pies after the service - be sure to have a cuppa and make new friends!

I responded initially: "I'd come over for a cuppa afterwards and say hello (since I don't think that this performance is appropriate for a Lord's Day worship service), but I have commitments at my own fellowship which is from 12 to about 1 or so, so I probably won't even be able to come for that." To which my friend replied:

How is this performance not appropriate for Lord's Day worship service

Good question! While I'm absolutely sure that this will be a wonderful performance and very worthwhile in many other contexts, I have a very high view of how we have been called to set apart the Lord's Day for public and private worship with the saints. And it is the historic position of God's people in faithful churches throughout the past too, and one of the most important issues that led to the Reformation in the 16th century.

I believe that God requires of us that we worship "in spirit and in truth", and this includes only worshipping Him in the way He has specifically commanded and no other way. If the second commandment teaches us not to make any graven image with which to worship God, then this shows us that we ought not worship with anything of our own invention/imagination, but only with the means that God has prescribed for us to worship Him. In the Old Testament, this was veiled by the earthly shadows of the temple and the sacrifices, but now the veil has been torn, the temple destroyed and the sacrifices nullified - because Christ has come - and we approach the Father only through Him, and no other way. Our worship is pleasing to God only as we are accepted as forgiven in Christ through faith in His sacrifice once for all. See also Psa. 51:15-19.

Since then we are seek salvation only in Christ, and worship only through Him, and by His Spirit of Truth at work in us, it must be that we only search the Scriptures to learn of how we must rightly worship the one true and infinitely glorious God. Certain elements of the worship service are clearly commanded in Scripture by apostolic example, such as public congregational prayer, biblical, expository and exegetical preaching by ordained ministers of the Word (and biblical listening and obeying too!), congregational singing of the spiritual Word of Christ found in the book of songs/hymns (i.e. The Psalms; Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:18-19), reading of Scripture, and congregational offerings for the work of the Gospel and mercies for those in need.

In prayer we pray to God through Christ, and the Spirit prays without utterance with our uttered prayers (since our prayers are so frail and often ignorant; Rom. 8:26-28) and so Christ intercedes Himself for us and works out all things for our good, since He has purchased us by His blood. In preaching, Christ speaks to us by His lawfully called and ordained ministers of the Gospel as they faithfully explain and apply His Word in the Scriptures, the Spirit giving us all understanding and applying the Word to our hearts to change us by God's grace. In singing, which is much like prayer, we all together (not only a certain group) offer up the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to Him (Heb. 13:15-16) by the power of the Spirit which fills us to work true spiritual devotion in us toward God, as we teach and admonish one another by the words of Christ in the inspired Psalms. And in offerings, we give as we have prospered freely and cheerfully as worship to God, for the support of the ministers of the Gospel who must have their living from this work, and for good Christian schools for the godly teaching of our covenant children, and for all those of the household of faith who are in need - all for the mutual edification of God's people.

By these means, we live in covenant fellowship not only with the other saints who are our brethren in the household of God, but also with our Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (I John 1:3), we speak and live with Him, and He speaks and lives with us as we are the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit. If then, this additional special musical performance takes the place of one or more of these vital elements of the worship service, I strongly disapprove (Col. 2:20-23). And even this performance is merely additional, it still does not have a right to be in the worship service. For example, it is not the whole congregation singing, but only the children, which in the public worship is not fitting and is in fact schism and not covenantal. Also, they are not singing the God-breathed Psalms which God Himself has granted to us graciously that we might have songs worthy to bring before Him in worship, songs which are those of Jesus Christ Himself. And this should therefore not be considered as appropriate worship for the public worship service.

If it was held afterward or before, then that is certainly permissible, and even beneficial for others as they use their talents to sing about such wonderful topics as God's glory. These truths about acceptable worship being regulated by the Word of God, while once generally widely known and understood, have sadly fallen into obscurity in these times, which is why I gave such a long explanation here. God is seeking those that worship Him in spirit and in truth, and so may He graciously gather us and teach us, if it be His will, so that He would praised as He ought to be in the splendour of holiness.

God bless,

Sam W.

P.S. I have not dealt here with many other crucial issues in proper worship, but I would recommend the many good resources found here:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/psalmsingingresources.htm
http://www.cprf.co.uk/lordsdayresources.htm

The End of Discussion: My Arrogance

The Bible tells me that I am an arrogant and proud person. Indeed, that in me there is no humility whatsoever, but only a pride which knows no bounds. But the Gospel tells me that Christ has ascended up on high, and has poured out His Spirit into my cold dead heart of stone, and made it soft toward Him, and by which I now cry, “Abba, Father”, in the certain knowledge and full assurance that I have everlastingly been united to Him. This is the faith that the Spirit of Christ works in all those in which He dwells; He is the Spirit of adoption so that where once we were children of wrath, we are now called sons of the living God in Christ who is the well-beloved Son of God.

Only by this same Spirit, can I believe the Bible which tells me of the enormity of my pride. Only by this Spirit, who works the fruit of humility, can I believe the doctrines of sovereign unconditional and particular grace which demolishes all the grounds on which the pride of my flesh rests. By these mighty truths of Scripture, delivered to me by the One who is the Truth, my soul is set free to praise the glory of the Almighty God instead of the shame and dust of who I am. By this sword of the Spirit, sovereignly given to me, with Christ upholding and strengthening me, I am made willing in the day of His power to strike mercilessly at the root of pride in my own old self.

This true spiritual warfare rages within me; there is the new me, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, who is wholly enthralled only with the glory of God, and there is the old child of Satan, who was created for eternal destruction, and who has eyes only to despise God and all His works, and to proudly vomit up my own shame in putrid self-glorification. This is who I am apart from my Saviour Jesus Christ; all my being at enmity against God in bitter and violent hatred. But in Christ, I am redeemed, and renewed. I am a new creature, made to declare to wondrous praises of the Lord who has called me out of darkness into His marvellous light. For when I dwelt in darkness, I could only boast of myself, but when the light of Christ shone in my heart, I could see Him that dwells in unapproachable light, in the face of Christ, the image of the invisible God.

“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” - Job. 42:5-6.

And now that I see who I am, as I see the perfection and splendour and beauty of the One to whom all praise is due, I live to put myself to death, seeing that I have been crucified with Christ, and no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And it cannot be possible for me to extol this wondrous grace enough, though I had all eternity in the state of perfection to declare it. But now, I travel through this pilgrimage of affliction and hardship – for I see the sure hope that I have, and I have not yet obtained it. The light of revelation fills my consciousness, awakens me, brings me to life from the dead, and yet while I tarry yet here in this present evil age, I have only the small beginnings of that new life in Christ. I have only the earnest and seal of the Spirit, and I await with deep groanings, the full inheritance that I have as a child of God in Christ.

When I look at myself, what do I see? Only sin. Do I even see a faint glimmering of that miraculous grace that I have received by the power of the Holy Spirit? I can only see small beginnings of obedience, that I could easily convince myself are merely manifestations of hypocritical self-righteousness and wishful thinking. But when I look to Christ, and see the glory and splendour of His death and resurrection for my sins, I am justified. I know He has borne my sins on the tree, for my iniquities it pleased the LORD to crush Him, for my transgressions He was wounded, and the chastisement that brought me peace was laid upon Him. By His stripes, I am healed. The LORD has laid on Him all my iniquity.

What do others see when they look at me? Much the same, I imagine. But many look at me more graciously than I deserve. But how ought we look at another Christian? Surely if the confession of his life is a credible confession that he belongs to Christ, we ought to afford him the judgment of charity, and treat him as a beloved brother in Christ, elect and justified by God. Unless he lives in some gross public sin, or denies the doctrine of Christ, surely we have no grounds to reject him, even though his faith may be weak and confused. Surely we ought to see him as a fellow-pilgrim, burdened and heavy-laden, battling with sin, and only standing by the omnipotent power of God which He exercised in raising Christ from the dead, who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

We may say to ourselves, oh, does he not seem greatly prideful and arrogant? But do we so quickly lose sight of ourselves and the fierce battle that we too have against our own totally depraved nature? And how can we run so quickly to judge by appearances when if we were to do likewise with ourselves, we could only ever conclude that we were wholly forsaken and cursed by God? But we ought instead to have the faith of our father Abraham:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was also able to perform.” - Rom. 4:16-21.

After all, what is it that this precious faith that we have obtained consists of?

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” - Heb. 11:1.

What then is the conclusion of this? That faith is the victory that overcomes the world!

“Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” - Heb. 12:12-14.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have [been led, Greek: prosagoge] by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” - Rom. 5:2.

The role of true humility in actively seeking to manifest the unity which all believers have together in Christ cannot be over-stated. But this is wholly absent when the judgment of charity is not also made. The only way in which the unity that all believers have in Christ (who is the Truth, and in whom we are united by the Spirit of Truth) can be manifested is by common confession of the Truth. We are commanded not to be silent but instead to all speak the same thing, without the truth, the only unity present is hypocritical carnality.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.” - I Cor. 1:10.

“If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” - Phil. 2:1-2.

It is obvious to me, seeing with all the differences dividing churches and believers today, that to obey this apostolic command to all speak the same thing must require us to openly, frequently, continually, tenaciously, perseveringly and stubbornly discuss all these points of disagreement until we come to agreement in the truth. We ought to do this believing that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, and the unchangeable One who cannot lie, will keep His promise that His Spirit will lead us into all truth,and that Scripture is sufficient and self-interpreting to make known to us the truth and keep us from error. We ought also to do this trusting that whatever our inadquacies, weaknesses, failures, sins, and errors are, that He can overcome them by His boundless grace.

But the attitude today of so many modern Irish Evangelicals tortures my soul. These simple principles are turned entirely upside-down and violently corrupted. Instead of pursuing discussion with such patience and charity, people so often end any attempt at discussion by accusing the others of pride and arrogance. I say to myself, yes, of course – that is who the Bible tells me I am, but why are you reacting like this? But seeing the inseparable connection between true active humility and graciously bearing with the sins of other in the judgment of charity, it is quite apparent that those with the most pride are those who end all discussion in this way. Implicit in their accusation against others of arrogance, is the idea that they are better.

Clothed in garments of hypocrisy, while they accuse others of pride, it is those with this attitude who are the schismatics, because by this cruel philosophy they burn the bridges of discussion, and refuse to speak about the things that divide us, so that then we can never come to a common understanding of Scripture. In the face of these eyes who say to the feet, “I have no need of you,” it becomes a difficult thing to continue to afford them that judgment of charity, to say that we ought to seek unity with them, seeing that they openly manifest themselves as schismatics actively opposing unity, despite their proud boasts and excuses. But knowing our own sinfulness, we ought to continue to invite these to discussion in the hopes that God will melt their hearts.

This is not judging hidden motives, but judging words and deeds. When a person consistently refuses to discuss any differences, and gives only the shallow and lame excuse that the others are too prideful, this is nothing less than schism in word and deed (not simply a hidden motive), and ought to be judged as such, so that this person may be called to repentance. But when this person presumes to judge the hidden motives of others as proud, this is only judging by mere appearances, which our Lord expressly condemns! How things have been reversed and confused by such hypocrites!

Against this, we ought instead to bear with one another, even if it seems overwhelmingly to us like the others are swallowed up in pride. Too often this is our own prideful perception, and ungraciousness toward our brother. Instead, in lowliness of mind we ought to consider the others better than ourselves, against all appearances; i.e. even if it appears to us that they are not affording us the same grace. And does the fact that the Bible tells us that we are all full of pride mean that all theological discussion ought to be abandoned or at least avoided? God forbid! For then how could we ever confess our Lord and Saviour who has called us to be His witnesses – ought we to sin for fear of sinning?

No, even though we know that all our "righteous" acts are as filthy rags before the Lord, to use this as an excuse for idleness, sloth, schism, silence, and inactivity is to mock the Lord who sanctifies our works. We may say, “If I do such and such, it will only be done with mixed motives and be therefore unacceptable to the Lord.” But this is the reasoning of our natural selves and Satan. We know by faith that the Lord will strengthen us because we are His workmanship, prepared unto good works, and so He will sanctify our works for His glory – and so instead of sinful unbelief, we ought to hope in our Saviour and press on to travel the narrow path that He has laid out for us. We ought therefore not to despair of reaping any good fruit from theological discussions simply because of our arrogance and other sins, but instead look to the mighty power of God who does as He pleases in the heavens and the earth.

Read the urgency and weight of the apostle's plea in Phil. 2:1. Why is this? There is one body, one Lord, one God, one Spirit, one Truth – and we together, as the body of Christ ought to be confessing a monotheistic religion to the world. Our testimony ought to be that there is only one Lord whom we obey, and that there is only Spirit who dwells and works in us all, and that we are only one body working in unison with all our different roles and functions. This issue weighs so heavily upon the apostle's heart because of his great and overwhelming desire that God's people would show forth God's glory. It is for this purpose that we were saved, and without this passion for the proclamation of God's glory to all creation, there is little passion for true church unity in which we confess the same thing. This is the root of modern Irish Evangelicalism's schismatic attitudes – it is the lack of a genuine desire for God's name alone to be glorified, and an ignorance that this is the purpose for which people are saved.

Finally, there is a great need, not only for the eager and dedicated pursuit of discussion, but also for that discussion to be wholly objective, strictly logical, decently ordered, and based solely upon the testimony of Scripture as the absolute authority in all matters of controversy. Without these, there is good grounds for refusing to enter discussion. For how can we argue with a man who tries to prove his doctrine simply by emotional pleading? And how can we come to agreement with a man who claims that directly contradictory statements can both be true? And in the midst of confusion and disorder, how could we even begin to discuss? And without God's Word in Scripture being the only authority, surely we have nothing to discuss.

May God graciously gather His people together, out of hypocritical, false, and apostatising churches, and into that which a true pillar and ground of the truth, which has not lost its first love.

Sam W.

How Do I Know God's Will For My Life?

On Thursday, 24th of September, Rev. Angus Stewart gave a lecture entitled, “Guidance: How Do I Know God's Will For My Life”. This included a robust and comprehensive defense of sola Scriptura over against all the insane notions of various kinds of fanatics, charismatics, pentecostals, Arminians, etc. It began by examining all the wild, wacky, and wonderful ideas about guidance that abound today, and which are utterly false and lead people into all kinds of difficulties. I remember as a young Christian in the Methodist church hearing all these ideas about guidance and seriously desiring to be led by God – especially as regards what career to pursue (I had heard no small voice in my head as a call such as the Methodists seemed to speak of, and thought it very easy to fall into being guided by my own desire or pride). I would ask people about it and at various youth conferences I would go to the lectures/workshops on “guidance”.

I guess I heard a few useful things, like letting the Bible fall open randomly and blindly putting your finger on a verse is downright stupid, but I think I knew all those things already - the inituitive Christian hermeneutic militates against it. It all really caused me to despair about what to put on my CAO form for a college course to go to after writing my Leaving Certificate exams. Why? Because I had not heard any “voice” telling me what to do – I did not have the kind of subjective, supernatural, experiential “calling” like the Methodists so often spoke of, and so I assumed that either they were just talking trash or God was determined not to guide me. In the end I made a decision, hoping that I would receive some special supernatural revelation later eventually. This of course seriously harmed my assurance too. If I do not receive such guidance in such a manner, does God really love me? Of course, biblically speaking, to receive a direct revelation from God is to be a prophet, and the prophets, along with the apostles, are laid in the foundation of the church with Christ (Eph. 2:20).

Once the coffin had been nailed firmly shut (and a few more planks hammered on top) on all these unclean spirits of “guidance”, the meat of the lecture was expounded. The all-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work is the answer to how we are to know God's will for us. A careful distinction was made between God's commands and God's purposes (since these can both be referred to ambiguously as His "will"), and it was highlighted in view of this, that while we can certainly be outside God's will of command by walking in disobedience (in which case we ought to repent), we cannot be outside God's good and perfect purposes. Rev. Stewart proved a number of crucial principles from Scripture, and how God guides us as we apply these wise biblical principles to our circumstances:

• How does God guide Himself? First of all, is His own glory, and His own glory in Christ, and His own glory in Christ in the salvation of His elect church (Col. 1:16ff).
• This model is given in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), so we are admonished to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:31-34).
• We are aided by the Psalms by which we teach and admonish one another to be guided rightly (e.g. Psalm 23, 25, 37, 73, 119, 143).
• It is hypocrisy to claim to seek God's guidance if we are not obeying His commandments – of which the ten commandments are a summary, and include the 4th commandment (Exo.20).
• We are guided by many biblical examples, both positive and negative; the patience of Job; the longsuffering of Joseph; and the folly of Jonah.
• Luther famously contended that the Spirit guides us by the Word and prayed that he may be content with this alone – and prayer cannot be a substitute for diligent study of Scripture and thinking biblically, but rather, in prayer we ask that we may be given the ability and willingness to do these things.
• Advice from others is also not a substitute for the above, but ought to be sought in order that we may benefit from the experience and knowledge of others to make more informed biblical decisions (Prov. 11:14; 24:3-7).

The lecture was finished with a few concrete examples of how to apply biblical principles to various key areas of decision-making; dating, church, and employment. See here also concerning work (I Cor. 7:17-24). Finally, Rev. Stewart mentioned decisions in which we cannot clearly see which is better either way, sometimes it is needless to devote much thought to it, such as what brand of beans to purchase, and in others, at least if the more difficult option is taken, it will work for our sanctification (Jas. 1:3). In all these things of course, we must trust that God works all things together for good (Rom. 8:28), even when we make foolish decisions (as sadly we often do - Prov. 24:9). Thank God for another fabulous lecture, soon to be available on Youtube!

A Contemporary Observer's Scriptural Iniquiry into the 1859 "Revival"

In my continuing analysis of the bizarre, unbiblical, and antichristian phenomena of neo-pentecostalism, fake charismaticism, unscriptural revivalism, carnal enthusiasm, and false spirituality, I've been reading a book by the Rev. William Hamilton, written around 1859 about that much-lauded "Irish Revival" which started in Kells.

While I am sure that I could find a few disagreements about certain particulars mentioned by the author (as in fact, Rev. Stewart of the CPRC also says in his foreward to the book), his work in this book is of great value in correctly diagnosing the current fanatical insanity we can observe not only in explicitly Pentecostal and Charismatic circles - but increasingly and almost ubiquitously in traditionally faithful denominations. Many who claim to be scriptural and even Reformed devote an inordinate amount of time and effort into promoting and encouraging revivalism, and in particular for this island, the Revival of 1859 in Kells.

Rev. Hamilton's book, "An Iniquiry into the Scriptural Character of the Revival of 1859" makes it very plain that such an attitude is wholly misplaced, as he lays bare the genuine characteristics of the 1859 Revival - and by extension, all revivalism - and reveals their sinister nature in the light of the very foundational truths of Scripture regarding salvation, the church, preaching, pastors and teachers, and much more.

I leave you with this quote, and counsel you fervently to read the book, and to afford all such phenomena a similar attitude of always first bringing it to the test of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit reveals His will:

"... it is the supernatural that is relied upon in their favour. We must, therefore, pause a little to shew the unscriptural nature of their position and conduct as manifested in this Revival. Look at it.

"Men and women, boys and girls of every description, many of them, according to their own statements, of the worst character, and as ignorant as they were immoral, and yet they become, in a few days or weeks - in some instances in a few hours - the teachers and leaders in the largest religious assemblies, and little, if any good, can be attained without them; and woe to the minister who will not approve of them, encourage them, nor employ them. It is no imaginary evil, no shadowy phantom, that he is called upon to encounter.

"The first thought that arises in the mind is, will the next generation believe that such a state of things existed in the year 1859? Very likely it will be recorded as a gracious Revival; but we leave the future to the future; we are in the midst of these sad realities, and it is our duty to deal with them." (pp. 142-143)

I hope that you will take the opportunity to purchase the book and study it closely. Again find the book here: http://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/1859revival.htm

- Sam W.

The Spirit of Bezaleel, son of Uri.

I've been reading Exodus, and it is has been amazing. I never cease to be amazed at how God continues to reveal His glorious unchanging truths in passages of Scripture that I have read many times before. I just want to point out something really powerful, that I never noticed before.

Reading the ten commandments (Exo. 20:1-17), we see the first commandment (Exo. 20:2-3), which is a precursor to all the others - who do we worship? The LORD, and Him alone! Worship is the centre of the Christian life, without a shadow of a doubt. Ask why was God so merciful to save such wretched and despicable sinners as us? That we might show forth His praises! (I Pet. 2:9) And most especially, the glories of His unending, incomparable grace! No surprise that this is what all the commandments are about.

I like to ask people what makes the second commandment (Exo. 20:4-6) different to the first. Some people seem to have the idea that it also speaking about who we worship - but in fact it is teaching that if we are not worshipping God according to His way - His commandments, then we are worshipping idols. The second commandment is about how we worship! We don't worship God with graven images. What is a graven image? (Deut. 4:15-19, Isa. 40:18-21) It's just something from our own ideas - our own imagination. No surprise that today, the most popular kind of worship is always this imaginative human-invented worship. Well, God tells us that this kind of worship is not what He requires, and that it is worship of idols - not Him. He requires worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

To teach us this, He shows us the example of the Israelites who asked Aaron to make them a graven image (Exo. 32:1-35). He gathered their bits of gold and just formed a molten calf to represent the God who brought them out of Egypt (Exo. 32:2-4; 23-24). Remember that the word "gods" is the same as the word referring to the one true "God", Elohim. They did not think they were worshipping an idol - Aaron told them that by means of the calf they would worship the LORD - the God who brought them out of Egypt (Exo. 32:4-6). But God identifies this practice as despicable idolatry (Exo. 32:7-8)! Why? He cannot be represented by anything in heaven or on earth, and cannot be worshipped in any other way that the way that He has commanded.

All evangelicals ought to know this very well. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Apart from that narrow way of faith in Jesus Christ alone, we have no way to worship God (Rom. 3:20-31). We cannot worship the Father except that we are in the Son by faith. Without His life, death and resurrection for our sins, we would be utterly separated from God - and heading to hell. We could not even pray to God except for faith in what Christ has done for us (Prov. 15:8; 26; 29; 28:9; Isa. 59:1-21; Jas. 1:6-8).

So we see the burning anger of the Lord against this wickedness, and Moses' pleading for them - his pleading rooted in the desire for God's name to be hallowed and the promise of the covenant established and maintained throughout generations (Exo. 32:11-14). And then we see Moses' anger at such wickedness and the terrible judgments brought upon the children of Israel that day (Exo. 32:19-20; 25-28).

A little later on, we see Moses, having been given the detailed instructions about how God is to be worshipped. The first person in the Bible, that we are told that was filled with the Spirit of God, was Bezaleel, son of Uri, who God raised up to follow exactly His instructions about the tabernacle (Exo. 31:2-11; 35:30-35). What follows is one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture (and I used to think it was boring!). In clear and sharp contrast to the wickedness of idolatrous Israel with the molten calf of their prideful imagination, Bezaleel carefully, worshipfully, and lovingly crafts all the articles for the tabernacle according to every detail - just as God had commanded (Exo. 36:1), so that the children of Israel may worship Him as He ought to be worshipped - in the splendour of holiness.

And here we see another glorious picture of Christ who alone builds the altar of the Lord and provides the sacrifice by which we may worship our Lord with clean hands and a pure heart. Not only do we see such glorious pictures in the various articles of the tabernacle and the glorious truths that the tabernacle itself points to - all these things pointing to the Person and work of our Lord and Saviour, but we see the Spirit of the Lord at work in Bezaleel to do all these things, just as God had commanded.

The contrast is mind-blowing. On one side we have the impatience, pride, and presumption of Aaron and the children of Israel who worshipped with a hastily made molten calf. On the other side we have Bezaleel and the others, who painstakingly, carefully, attentively, prepared everything just perfectly so that they could worship exactly as God had commanded. And we taught even more - Bezaleel, was chosen for such a task only because God had filled him with the Holy Spirit.

May God graciously grant us that same Spirit, so that we also, with Bezaleel, may be delivered from wicked idolatry, to worship God in spirit and truth, as He has commanded us and no other way. And may we take great delight in worshipping God in His way in His temple, the body of Jesus Christ, which has been raised from the dead - to proclaim His glory!

--

From all this, I have some sad conclusions too. Popular contemporary worship, in all it's attempts to be new and fresh and relevant, is no different to the idolatrous ritualism of the medieval Roman church - it is Romanism at best. But to use this biblical example we have - it is simply worshipping that golden calf again - and will bring those terrible judgments again. May God cleanse us of such wicked practices and may He open our eyes to see them, may He reveal His commandments to us, so that we may delight in them and glorify His name.

And I see no suggestion anywhere throughout Scripture that we are commanded to sing any songs as praise to God, except the Psalms. We are reminded again and again throughout Scripture to sing the Psalms of David - and that he is the sweet psalmist of Israel, speaking the words given to him by the Holy Spirit, as a picture of Christ (II Sam. 23:1-2).

Again, we ought to be reminded of this truth that runs throughout all this: that the only way to worship God is the way that He has made and given to us. The only tabernacle to worship in, was the one which God Himself had laid down the instructions for, and even more, had Himself crafted by means of His Spirit at work in Bezaleel. The truth of salvation is Christ alone is also taught in this. We cannot worship in any way that we have invented - only the way that Christ has made and Him alone. Faith itself being a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and Christ even entering this world by the virgin birth - teaching us that man was not involved. We have no part in our salvation (Rom. 9:11-16).

How much then, ought our worship to reflect this? We are nowhere instructed to craft our own songs to worship God with - but we have been given the Psalms and are told to use them, over and over again (Jas. 5:13; Psa. 95:2; 105:2; I Chr. 16:9; Eph. 5:18-20; Col. 3:16). Some people point to the phrase used twice in Scripture: "psalms, hymns, and songs, of the Spirit." (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) How can this suggest that we ought to write our own songs? Such would simply be more golden calves.

The word, "of the Spirit" is always used to refer to something coming from the Spirit of God, that can only be Scripture - and especially, it can only be the songs of the sweet psalmist of Israel who spoke by the Spirit. These "psalms, hymns, songs" also are called the "word of Christ" (Col. 3:16) with which we are to "teach and admonish one another" and to be "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) - and in the Psalms, David speaks the word of Christ, filled with the Spirit. This can only be the Psalms of David. And "psalms, hymns, songs" are three Greek words, which are the three different titles used in the headings of the Psalms in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and triplets used to describe the same thing are used elsewhere in Scripture too. There is no suggestion anywhere that they could refer to anything other than the Psalms.

Finally, what would the Ephesians and Colossians assume that Paul meant when he wrote to them? The Bible is persipicuous, clear and lucid to believers - Paul wrote to be understood, as he would prefer to speak five intelligible words than ten thousand in an unknown language (I Cor. 14:19). There is no question as to what Paul was referring to - the Psalms. And so we ought to sing the Psalms only, and any who claim otherwise must have to go to terrible lengths to prove something different. But why even try to go to such lengths? What songs could be better than the biblical Psalms?

And why bring something less than the best to God in worship? The prophet Malachi was sent to rebuke the priests for bringing lame and sick sacrifices to the Lord (Mal. 1:6-14). He will not accept them - He requires the best sacrifices - and so only what Christ has given us in the Psalms should be the sacrifice of praise on our lips (Heb. 13:15). And what other songs come so infallibly from the Spirit of God, with such continual recommendation and exhortation to sing? After all that, we ought to remember that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). If one has no conclusive proof for singing other songs - then don't risk worshipping with a golden calf.

The Psalms are the songs of Jesus Christ, of whom David was a type, and nothing less than these songs could possibly be worthy as an offering before God. Heb. 13:15 teaches that it is by Him that we must praise God, how else but by the Psalms? May God grant us the spirit of humility and grace to delight in the songs that He has given us, and not seek broken cisterns elsewhere that will only bring judgment on us (Jer. 2:9-13). May God's name be hallowed among His people. May Christ's grace and mercy be known among the nations.

Listen to the Bible - not feelings.

Things have been really tough going recently. I don't really understand why, apart from the general reason - my many sins, especially my lack of faith. At times, I am in awe of the cross, and then I lose sight of it and get stuck in rut staring in horror at my depravity.

Has Christ not set me free? How then can I not give Him the praise He deserves? Can my wickedness be so deep that I fail in some many things to honour Christ above all? I know the answers to these questions - scripturally, logically. I believe the answers, but how often my actions do not match my beliefs! How quick is my heart to run after the things which cannot satisfy and which profane the name of my Saviour!

But I am comforted, when I recall, and when I bring to mind (oh, what glorious miracle!), the words of my Saviour. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." I remember that it is impossible to serve God and Mammon, and I am in no doubt as to who Christ serves with all His heart and mind and soul and strength - His Father. And I am in no doubt as to the Father's love for the Son!

What despair I would be in if Christ had not preached to me the Gospel and loosed my from my bonds! How devoid of all hope I would be if Christ was not my Saviour. As it is I struggle to overcome feeling down now and again. If not for Christ, I would have no weapon with which to strike against my constant enemies - the world, the flesh, and the devil. If my own feet were to support me, I'd be groveling in the dust with the serpents. But Christ is my Rock who makes me to stand. How glorious a thing it is, that the ground on which I stand does not depend on myself! The only light I can see is that Christ is the all-sufficient Saviour - He will not leave me nor forsake me.

How I long to see Him more clearly, and yet how often I struggle to even find such a longing in me! Why do I not hate wicked apathy as I ought! But Christ will keep me waiting for His deliverance - His rod and staff will guide me down the narrow path. I have no strength of myself - of that I am certain. It seems that the people in the world have plenty of strength, they struggle and succeed in the world, yet I struggle to struggle, and often don't struggle. Yet how much more motivation I have, than they. They live to please themselves, I live to serve Christ who saved me, and yet their perseverance and dedication puts me to shame. And is my longing to be rid of this old man, also selfishness and pride, rather than love for my Creator? A lucid moment is very precious.

I've not been working on my final year project for college as much as I ought to have been. I should have been finished weeks ago. Now I've had the deadline extended and I wonder will I even meet that target. And I tell myself not to get stressed - and depressed. I remind myself of Romans 8:28. I imagine the possibility of failing utterly and tell myself that it wouldn't be the end of the world. And then I feel like it would be. But what business has a Christian to listen to himself - especially a Reformed Christian. Scripture alone is our authority. We must listen God, and not ourselves, for we are filled with lies - our old man in the image of that father of lies, Satan.

I've been keeping up to date with http://www.creation.com/ and they've really been pumping out some great articles. I wanted to share a great quote (not an endorsement) from Louis Berkof:

"Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture"

I ended up sharing a few thoughts that have been running through my head for weeks instead though, which is fine. Funny how it came around to a very similar topic - the authority of Scripture. I also need to remember their sufficiency, that same sufficiency of the Holy One who breathed them. May we rest in Him and give Him glory - for He is worthy.

Do "all men" and "world" really mean "every single person"?

"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." - Romans 5:18.

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." - John 3:17.

There are some who say that Christ died for every single person. These people point to verses which use the terms "all men" or "world", like 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 4:10, John 3:16, John 4:42 etc. This issue I have with this position is that it tears down what Christ actually did by His death and resurrection. If Christ died for every single person and some of those people are not saved, then what Christ did wasn't enough to save every person for whom He died. And worse, then the reason that some are saved and some are not is not the grace of God, but something of themselves.

If the difference is not of God but of man, then it is not of grace but of works.

This was the central point of the controversy at the time of the Reformation. There were many faults in the church at that time, but it came down to this one crucial issue: are we saved by grace alone, or do we contribute something of ourselves to our salvation. To put this another way, is Christ our complete Saviour, or are we and Christ both half-Saviours. Is salvation the work of God alone, or is it the work of God and man. Is salvation by unconditional grace alone of God, or is it by merit conditional upon something of man. The Bible presents only two options, grace or works (it cannot be both):

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." - Romans 11:6.

A universal atonement means one of two things:

1. Every single person is saved (Universalism).
2. The atonement is conditional.

Every single person is not saved, so that leaves us with a conditional atonement. A conditional atonement means one of two things:

1. If the condition is supplied by God, then salvation is by grace but the extent of the atonement is in conflict with the extent of His intention (Amyraldianism), but God is supposedly one and all wise.
2. If the condition is supplied by man, then salvation is by works and not by grace (Romanism and Arminianism), but man supposedly has no grounds for boasting.

The Apostle Paul summarizes our conclusion from this in the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." - Ephesians 2:8-10.

In summary a universal atonement denies the efficacy of the atonement, the total depravity of man, salvation by grace alone, and that all glory belongs to God alone. It also tears down the theological basis for the perseverance of the saints (yet many try to retain that, at the same time as introducing the concept of "carnal Christians" along with their Semi-pelagianism). We can clearly see now that the doctrine of universal atonement is a vile heresy. It is insidious also, because it often comes under the guise of being "more loving" and "more inclusive" and "less offensive". It makes people feel better to think that Christ died for every single person and really wants to save every single person. But all the while it makes a wretched mockery of Christ's sacrifice, and God's sovereignty and His all-powerful love and man's depravity. To such blasphemies the Spirit loudly declares:

"What shall we say then to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is He that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" - Romans 8:31-35a.

"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." - Romans 5:8-9.

But aren't the verses of the many "gainsayers" compelling? "For God so loved the world!" "Who will have all men to be saved!" "He is the propitiation for ours sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Yet these verses actually condemn their position. If God loved every single person, every person would be saved, for isn't that the greatest expression of love? Surely God would not leave those He loved to their own sinful depraved wills, only enslaved to the sinful nature! If God would have every single person to be saved, then what power is greater than His that it might stop Him from saving them? Surely not our feeble resistance! If He had been the propitiation for all of every single person's sins, then how could He send any to hell? Surely He is not unjust to punish twice for one offence? If He is the Saviour of every single person, then how could some not be saved? Surely if some are not saved, He could not be called their Saviour!

Their argument is entirely based on their erroneous, alien and unjustifiable interpretation of the words "all men" and "world". Firstly "all men" quite often just means a general "all" which is only defined by the context, such as all fish, all sheep, all stars, all angels, all reprobate or all elect. Here the context defines what all refers to. For example:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9.

Peter has just spoken about God's word keeping into store the heavens and the earth reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, and about the false teachers of whom Jude 4 says that they "were of old ordained to this condemnation". Clearly he not teaching that God is not willing that they should perish and come to repentance. They were ordained by God to condemnation, and the heavens and the earth are being reserved unto fire against the day of their perdition! The plain meaning of this verse (and the only meaning that makes any sense in the context) is that the "any" that God desires not to perish and the "all" that He desires to come to repentance are the "us" that Peter refers to. Verse 1:1 explains, that Peter is speaking of the elect of God, the Church of Christ who will obtain like precious faith.

The phrase "all men" is best demonstrated in Romans 5:18 where Paul uses it to mean two different things in one verse. First he says that judgment came upon "all men" unto condemnation by the offense of one. There is no confusion here. The "one" refers to Adam (clear from the context) and the "all men" refers to every single person (clear from the context). This teaches us that by Adam's offense, judgment came upon every single person unto condemnation. This is what Ephesians 2:3 means when it says that we were by nature children of wrath. Every single person was born with a sinful nature and therefore justly under the condemnation of God.

Secondly he says that the free gift came upon "all men" unto justification of life by the righteousness of one. There can be no confusion here either. The "one" refers to Christ, the only Righteous One. The phrase "unto justification of life" means that just as the judgment was unto condemnation by the offense of Adam, the free gift was unto justification of life by the righteousness of Christ. Just as every person on whom the judgment came was under condemnation, now every person on whom the free gift came is under justification unto life. In this context "all men" can only mean those who are justified unto life, and all those whom the free gift came upon. If some are not justified unto life (which must be the case since not all are saved), then the free gift only came upon some and all of those on whom the free gift came are justified unto life.

In this one verse then, we find that in the first part "all men" probably refers to "every single person" and in the second part it can only refer to all upon whom the free gift came or all men of the elect. In other words, all men who Jesus Christ justified by His blood. The context must always determine what such a vague term as "all men" really means. In 1 Timothy 2:4 it means the same as in verse 1, all kinds of people, that is ranks and classes etc. Certainly we are not to pray for every single person, for example: not the dead and not those referred to in 1 John 5:16. 1 Timothy 4:10 of course explains itself: Christ is the Saviour of all kinds of people, that is in particular, those who believe, not those who do not believe. He cannot be the Saviour of those whom He does not save, and all those whom He saves will believe; He is only the Saviour of those who believe. To try to make these verses mean anything different is blatant Scripture-wresting.

What of the word "world"? This word simply means kosmos as in, the universe, the entire creation, space-time-matter continuum. It can refer to many different things depending on context: the world of the wicked reprobate (John 17:9 where Christ does not pray for the "world"), the evil world-system of the ungodly (1 John 2:15 where we are told not to love the "world" or anything in it), the world of the elect of every tribe, tongue and nation (John 3:16-17 where Christ declares God's love for the "world" and His Father's intention that He should not condemn the "world" but save it, while teaching the Jewish Nicodemus that salvation was for whosoever believeth, and 1 John 2:2 where it tells of who Christ's propitiation is for, and those propitiated for can no longer come under God's wrath).

In Noah's day, God both saved a "world" and destroyed a "world". He preserved the godly world with the Ark through baptism, and destroyed the ungodly world with the Flood by immersion. Afterwards He revealed His cosmic covenant of grace with the world of the elect, and reminds us of it every time we see the rainbow. Of course not all Noah's family were elect believers, Canaan was cursed, just as today in the church there are some who are wicked hypocrites. So today we know that there will be a new heavens and a new earth along with the New Jerusalem.

Those who claim that "world" means every single person have a completely untenable interpretation. It is not correct, and cannot be correct. To take that interpretation leads to the heresy of a universal atonement and wrests the Scriptures violently. Now, I boldly claim that there is not a hint anywhere in the Bible that Christ's atonement was universal or that some of those for whom He atoned with His blood would be condemned. Such would be to call the blood of Christ an unholy thing and to trample it underfoot.

There is just one final objection that is made (yet again Scripture interprets Scripture, so this cannot be an honest objection when so many passages speak so clearly about the efficacy of the atonement): that is a few verses like 2 Peter 2:1 and even Hebrew 10:29. Even a cursory glance at a few cross-references explain these without a doubt. 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers "denying the Lord who bought them". This is explained in verse 20 of the same chapter (if its meaning was not already apparent) they had "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", that is, these people were in the church institute (not the church organic). Outwardly they were in the church (the called ones, apart from the world), but inwardly they were not. They were hypocrites (Jude 1:4 says that they "crept in unawares"), without saving faith, only a surface knowledge. They knew all about the Saviour, and could recite the creeds in church etc, but they didn't know the Saviour and their hearts were far from Him.

They were bought in the same sense as the wicked hypocrites in Israel were bought from slavery in Egypt (Jude 5). They were bought out of the pollutions of the world into the church, but as the unbelievers with uncircumcised hearts in Israel died in the desert, the hypocrites in the church will also be condemned on the day of judgment. They were not of course truly ransomed by the blood of Jesus, because then they would be saved. They appeared to be bought with Christ's blood from a human perspective, but not in God's eyes.

Likewise Hebrews 10:29 carries the same idea, to the human perspective, they were in the church and had been baptised, and therefore seemed sanctified with the blood of Jesus (set apart as holy like the children of believers in 1 Co 7:14), but in God's eyes they were wicked hypocrites, still polluted by the stains of their sins. Just as not all the children of believers are elect, not all those in the church are elect and not all those baptised are elect. These reprobate covenant-violaters had received the outward sign of being sanctified with the blood of Jesus, by being outwardly baptised, but they were not inwardly baptised. Jude calls them blemishes in our feasts of charity (Jude 12). These verses use strong language to highight the depth of the hypocrisy and profaning of the covenant which these apostates are. To suggest that these verses teach that there are some who Jesus died for that are not saved would be to try to overturn all of Scripture and of course rob the believer of assurance and introduce the heresy of salvation by works again.

May we not err regarding the atonement, that we might say with Paul:

"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." - Galatians 6:14.

Thanks to AiG for the pic!