the priesthood...

Disclaimer: i compiled this little paper as a result of my 'fed-up-ed-ness' of people praying/worshipping WITH unbelievers. i wrote this, printed out like 20 copies, and gave it to a bunch of people that i worked with at a Salvation Army Camp in CO. they didn't like it too much. but i want people to read this, so here you go.


But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
1 Peter 2.9-10
Who is Peter speaking to? The Christians in exile. Peter calls them priests (and rightly so). Christians are priests,
just like the Old Testament priests. What do priests do?
15 Then he presented the people’s offering and took the goat of the sin offering that was for the people and killed it and offered it as a sin offering, like the first one. 16 And he presented the burnt offering and offered it according to the rule. 17 And he presented
the grain offering, took a handful of it, and burned it on the altar, besides the burnt offering of the morning. 18 Then he killed the ox and the ram, the sacrifice of peace offerings for the people. And Aaron’s sons handed him the blood,
and he threw it against the sides of the altar. 19 But the fat pieces of the ox and of the ram, the fat tail and that which covers the entrails and the kidneys and the long lobe of the liver— 20 they put the fat pieces on the breasts, and he burned the fat pieces on the altar, 21 but the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses commanded.
22 Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. 23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, and when they came out they
blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 24 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.
Leviticus 9
They make sacrifices on behalf of the people (after they make sacrifices for themselves). God chose to use priests to make it possible for there to be forgiveness of sins. Priests make atonement possible. Priests make reconciliation possible.
What’s so special about priests? They are Holy (1 Peter 1.16; Leviticus 11)
Why are they Holy? Because God is Holy. Priests represent God on earth. God is firstly concerned with
reconciliation (hence the Passion), and the entire purpose of the priesthood is reconciliation. Priests exist so that man can be reconciled to God. God reconciles man to Himself--priests make that possible. But priests must be Holy for reconciliation to be possible. Or else they won’t be priests. They’ll burn (Leviticus 10.1-3)
It was the duty of the priests to protect the Holiness of God in the eyes of the Nations (Numbers 3.5-10). One of the ways the priests protected the Nations’ perception of God was by killing those who were not part of the priesthood. Those who tried to become members of the priesthood, and did not meet the qualifications, were put to death by the priests. Another way is that they made it clear that those who were unclean were not part of the camp, which was supposed to be Holy unto God (Numbers 5.1-4)
So priests are characterized by representing God in the world by making reconciliation, by being Holy, and by protecting the priesthood from defilement.

And yet, instead of protecting the priesthood from defilement, you make a habit of defiling it every day. Whenever you pray with a non-Christian, you are attempting to bring that which is unclean, into the Holy of Holies. Every time you pray with an unbeliever, that’s what you are doing. Every time you sing praises with a non-Christian, that’s what you’re doing.
You are SO willing--ready--to call anyone a Christian, when the opposite should be true. You should be weary and protective against anyone who would come near the priesthood who you do not know is a priest themselves.
What prayer is, is someone who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, entering into the throne-room of the Almighty. Only Christians can do that. God only hears the prayers of those whom He has regenerated.
If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.
--Proverbs 28.9 --Proverbs 15.8 --Proverbs 21.7
“When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.
--Isaiah 1.12-17
“He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations; I also will choose harsh treatment for them and bring their fears upon them, because when I called, no one answered, when I spoke, they did not listen; but they did what was evil in my eyes and chose that in which I did not delight.”
--Isaiah 66.3-4
So we can see from the text, that God hates when the wicked attempt to worship Him (be that by prayer, or by sacrifices). Their worship is an abomination. Their prayers are an abomination. And yet, you are more than happy to usher wicked people into doing things that God will punish them for if they are not saved eventually. God hates when the wicked people attempt to do the things that are exclusive to God’s people. Even more so, is when those who claim to be God’s people, encourage those who aren’t, to do the things that He hates.
God only accepts the worship of His people, and it is an abomination when people pretend that God hears them, because then, in the world’s eyes, the pretenders really are Christians. Christians are God’s representatives on earth, and God can’t have people mis-representing Him.

Enough Said...

Disclaimer: This paper was written for a class called "Ministry Observation." i make very little comment on the church's theology. my purpose in writing the paper was to 'observe how they do ministry.' perhaps i will write about their theology in another post...




When I went to Crossroads, I walked away feeling like I had just experienced the beginnings of what will eventually lead up to the American church’s self sufficiency, and ultimately, a declaration that it is god. I am a Dispensational A-millennialist, so there is no sense in me that there is going to be a rapture, a tribulation, and then the Anti-Christ declaring that he is god in the newly rebuilt temple. This way of interpreting Scripture does not make sense to me. There is a part of me though, that sees the prophecies in Revelation and Daniel as having been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled again, just as most of the Old Testament prophecies do. There are prophesies about Jesus that were fulfilled by people before Him, and this is what I think may happen with prophesies in Revelation.
There are many reasons why I think that Crossroads, like some of the many other churches I have visited, will one day claim to be god. Everything is subliminal. For instance, most churches have a crucifix on the main wall in the sanctuary. At Crossroads, their crucifix is way off to the side, and in the place of it, where most churches would place their crucifix, is the band. So the church band has replaced the visual image of God (which, crucifixes in general, are blasphemous in the first place, but that was dealt with by John Calvin in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 11). Another thing is that while the band is leading the congregation in musical worship, there are videographers who record the band, and there are live images of them on the screen with the words to the songs. Now the band has become the physical object of worship. If you stand back and look at the crowd, and had never seen a worship service before, you would swear the people were worshipping the band, the way they stretch out there arms toward them. On top of that, everything is dark, except for the band, who is illumined in extravagant lights and smoke. It’s almost heavenly (sarcasm intended). Who does that remind me of? Oh ya: God--in Whom there is no darkness at all (1 John 1.5), in contrast with the world, which is darkness (Matt 5.14).
One night the pastor gave a message about demons, which he defined as “troubles” to “bad memories,” in other words, ‘demons are things that you have control over, if you just listen to what I have to say.’ Yet another God-like quality attributed to man. Halfway through the pastor’s message, a pianist comes out to give the preacher more of an emotional flare: the church has control over your emotions. I’m a huge skeptic of this church, and even I was drawn into the theatrics of it all. At the end of the service, the pastor asks all those who are hurting to come to him, so that he could lead them in a prayer that will save them. After this, he welcomes all those who prayed the prayer, into the church’s prayer room. The parallel of this to what happens at a person’s salvation is uncanny.
Crossroads denies that God is a God of wrath, because Jesus makes him all love. Their worship leader is a woman (one of the highest, if not the highest position in the Church). They have Arminian beliefs. Enough said.

i fear my calling

All of my life, even before I became a Christian, I have had little to no concern for my personal well being, and instead have been one to hold others’ on such a pedestal so as to neglect my own comfort. I have no concern for my own vitality in situations where someone else’s could be threatened. It is simply in my nature to take on the burdens of others so that they can be free to occupy their time and strength doing something less burdensome. I also believe that I am called by God to set up Churches in regions where the Gospel has never been preached, and even to places where people are hostile towards people who believe in this good news. God created me for a purpose, and it can’t be a coincidence that I am so naturally willing to give up my life for the sake of someone else if I am to live the majority of my life in situations where my life is constantly under threat. But what happens when I am married, and am therefore held responsible for the safety and well being of another? Of course I would exert myself to make life as blissful as I am able, but how does my responsibility and union to another human being play into my calling to go out into places that will be hostile towards me, and by default, the one I love? How can I drag her into that world, when to do so would be potentially life threatening to her? These are the realities I was faced with after having heard of the life Adoniram Judson was blessed to have endured.
My initial introduction to Judson’s life left me inspired and excited to go into the mission field, but it wasn’t until after the realities of the trials of his life actually penetrated my psyche did I realize that to choose that particular path would mean to endanger my future wife, and eventually my children. I admire Judson for being upfront with his wife and his father-in-law about the severities of what life in Burma would be like, but even if my wife and her father were fully supportive of my decision to go to a place where both my we would most assuredly die a violent death, I’m not sure that I could ever bring myself to the point where I would be willing to do that. An even more daunting prospect is the possibility of my death, and the result being my wife, defenseless and vulnerable.
This reality has made me realize how much I need to grow in my spirituality as far as my trust in God. I know all the Sunday-school answers to this conundrum, but the reality is, that I would have to come to grips with being willing to give someone up to men who will violently rape her repeatedly, when I was given the responsibility to protect her at all costs. I would have to be at peace with the idea of watching my wife die at my feet, because I wasn’t strong enough to protect her. God is strong enough, and He is sovereign, but it’s my sinful nature that keeps me from taking those beliefs, and applying them practically in my life. What if it would please God to exalt his name by having my wife martyred? What if it would please Him to have her raped? To have my children killed because of my calling? Only by God’s grace will I be saved from this fear. God will be glorified, no matter the circumstances.

failure to be

"Sin is the transgression of a law, yea of a good law, yea of God’s law. Sin presupposes that there is a law in being, for where is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4.15). But where there is sin, there is a law, and a transgression of the law. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3.4). That this is the sin intended in out text is apparent from Romans 7.7.
Now the law not only forbids the doing of evil, whether by thought, word or deed, but also commands the doing of good. So to omit the good commanded is sin, as well (or ill) as is the doing of the evil that is forbidden. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, but against the works of the flesh (for the antithesis holds) there is law, for they are all against the law, as the Apostle tells us (Galatians 5.19-24). Whatever, then, transgresses the law of God--in whole or in part (James 2.10)--is therefore and therein a sin, whether it break an affirmative or a negative precept i.e. whether it is the omission of good or the commission of evil.1"

Sin, it can be agreed upon at the outset, is a failure to meet the requirement of God’s law. Somewhere along the lines of history, though, the term has been misconstrued to mean something that is yet still offensive to those who are labeled “sinners,” but the word does not carry with it, the same weight that it once did. The way culture “hates the sin, but not the sinner” is a redefinition on it’s part, and completely changes the mindset of people who define sin as something that can simply be taken out of a person. Sin is not like a person who is at the control panel of an army tank, who if killed, would then leave the tank free for usage by the opposing army. It would be more sound to equate sin to an incurable, highly contagious virus, in which case the only thing left to do is to kill or shun the person infected by it. The awful truth though, is that the whole human race is affected by this death. But just as if a murderer were placed into a community of like-killers, it would not benefit him to write off his neighbor as a friend just because he had the same murderous nature that was so characteristic of himself. An objection then arises, that if men cannot be separated from their sin, then the Divine Law which was given must pertain to something more than a simple list of ‘do’s and don’ts.’ This is sound reasoning, and can be satisfied along with the answer to a relative question, namely, what does the Bible mean when it speaks of ‘the Law?’
"When the word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is set out into the air, and come forth beyond God himself, as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies. The reference rather is to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by which all oracles and prophesies were inspired. For as Peter testifies (1Pet 1.11), the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet manifested we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God [emphases added]. And this is clearly enough shown by Moses in his account of creation, where he places the Word as intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in creating each of His works, said, Let there be this--let there be that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in His image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that “Word” is used for order or commands; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us that the world were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word (Heb 1.2). For we here see that “word” is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.2"

So then, one can see that from Scripture, (with the extraordinary help of Mr. Calvin), that the Divinely spoken word is no less God than the Spirit is less than the Father. God is simple, in that He is whole and one with Himself in all that He is and does.
“The Father is made of none,” says the Athanasian Creed, “neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but preceeding.” God exists in Himself and of Himself. His being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being.
"The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of His being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts. Between His attributes no contradiction can exist. He need not suspend one to exercise another, for in Him all attributes are one.3"

One can conclude from all of this, that the Law, quite literally, is God. If the Word of God is God because “‘word’ is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.”--and if the Command of God is the Law of God, then it follows that the Law is God inseparable.
The ramifications of this concept shed completely new light on the subject of sin. With the notion that the Law is God in mind, we can look at the words of the apostle Paul in a new light:
"So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.4"

Paul is saying that the law is what gave him the realization that he was a sinner by nature. He previously mentions a more specific law, namely “you shall not covet.” This is the type of law that would be better characterized as a command. Commands have correlating consequences if they are not adhered to, as does the law as a whole, for why would there be a law if not for the fact that there were a punishment for transgressing the law? The apostle acknowledges the reality of the wrath that is due for his transgression, specifically that he coveted when the law clearly stated that he was not to covet. This is all fine when speaking narrowly about the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, but what about in the greater view, when one can step back and know that the Law represents God, and all that encompasses that reality (if it were possible to encompass The Supreme Being)? To draw a parallel, the command “you shall not covet”--on the scale regarding ordinances--directly correlates to the Transcendence and Holiness of God--on the scale regarding the Law being God.
A more clear representation of sin can now be drawn taking into account everything discussed above: that sin is the failure to fulfill the law. To sin is to come short in attaining what God has decreed is perfection--holiness. Sin is literally, failure to be--or the state of not being--God.



1 Venning, Ralph. The Sinfulness of Sin (Puritan Paperbacks). New Ed ed. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996.
2 Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Limited ed. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
3 Tozer, A. W.. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life. New York: Harperone, 1998.
4 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 7:12-13.

“Whoring” for His Good Pleasure

It seems to be the common teaching among American churches in recent years that Christians are forbidden by God to intermarry: Christian to non-Christian. This simply is not a teaching that has any warrant inside of Scripture. In actuality, there is more evidence that men should marry non-Christian women1 as opposed to abstaining from the institution all-together. This became apparent to me over this past summer when I was pursuing a more intimate relationship with a girl who was not a Professing Christian at the time.
There were brothers in my church who had very strong warnings against what I was doing, and even my ex-youth pastor got involved. Yet with every confrontation about my situation, the arguments I presented in scripture to my defense always came out on top, without any legitimate refutation. If religious intermarriage is seen as such a grievous thing to many in the Church, and is regarded as sinful, or even blasphemous, it would follow that there would be multiple proofs of this apparent outrage, and yet there is not a single one inside of Scripture. People try to make certain passages mean what they want them to mean, but this is a severe transgression on their part. For the Church to look at a man who is pursuing an un-saved woman for marriage purposes, and condemn him for it is a serious problem that must be corrected. It is aproblem because not only do people misinterpret Scripture in this area, (which is enough of a problem in itself), but it also stifles any good that could come out of such a pursuit. A union like the one in question could prove to be a very God-glorifying one, despite the vast belief that it is an abomination. Pursuing the marriage of an unsaved person is not prohibited within the Bible, and is even warranted.
Many people will look at this hypothesis and immediately turn their attention to 2 Corinthians 6:14 which apparently prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. What people seem to ignore though, is the fact that the writer never mentions marriage in the passage itself, nor in the surrounding context. The section of 2 Corinthians people point to as proof to their argument is a mere seven sentences long. That small paragraph is right in the middle of the writer’s--Paul the Apostle--recollection and contemplation on his previous trials. Why would someone go into detail about all the persecution that goes along with being a Christian, randomly insert an instruction on the marriage sacrament, and then go on to analyze his experiences in his trials? It makes more sense that the passage speaking about being “unequally yoked” is referring to Paul’s trials rather than marriage.
“Though verses 14-15 are often applied to various sorts of alliances (e.g., mixed marriages, improper business associations), Paul’s primary association was probably ecclesiastical.2” Paul wasn’t writing to the Church to warn them from marrying non-Christians, but was exhorting them to expel the pagan worshippers from among them so as to keep the Church pure for times of trouble. The Church is a body, and just like a body, if there are parasites or contaminated parts, the body as a whole is more susceptible to falter in times of sickness or pain. If their is a fortress made of cement bricks, but in a few places are some bricks made of soft clay, the fortress will crumble because of those few bricks that were posing as legitimate strongholds. Christians are constantly under persecution, trials, and stress, and if there are Pagans who are imposing to be strong uplifters of the actual Christians around them, the believers will lose to worldly powers.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians in a time when the early Church was being widely persecuted. Even the Apostle himself, “five times, received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times was beaten with rods. Once was stoned. Three times was shipwrecked; a night and a day was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from [his] own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure (2 Corinthians 11:24-27).” Just before Paul speaks of being unequally yoked, in verses 6:3-10, he refers to these trials that he and his brothers with him had to go through. He lists the tribulations, gives the charge to not be unequally yoked, and finally rejoices in his afflictions. The logical flow of things leads the reader to infer that when verse fourteen turns up, Paul is referring to his brothers who went through the trials with him. If he was “yoked” with non-Christians, Paul would have been demoralized and deterred in his mission to evangelize the nations.
“Yoke was used figuratively as a symbol of hardship, submission, or servitude.3” Trials are burdens: yokes are burdens. Paul talks about his trials, and immediately refers to a yoke. Somewhere in Church history, someone decided to separate and misinterpret the two passages, and it has left the Church confusing the verse for decades. When people misinterpret a passage of scripture, it is easy to debunk the delusion when one takes the context into account. It nails the
point home though, when one can not only disprove the fallacy using the surrounding text, but can identify instances in Scripture where the interpretation actually conflicts with other passages. To interpret 2 Corinthians 6.14 the way the majority of American “Christianity” does would be to contradict the entire book of Hosea.
“For the purpose of depicting before the eyes of the sinful people the judgment to which Israel has exposed itself through its apostasy from the Lord, Hosea is to marry a prostitute, and beget children by her, whose names are so appointed by Jehovah as to point out the evil fruits of the departure from God.4” The book of Hosea is an account of God’s command to His prophet to marry a prostitute. A prostitute is not a Christian because she is living one of the most detestable lifestyles one can live, yet it pleased God that His representative would become one flesh (and even produce children), with a pagan whore. “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have dchildren of whoredom, for ethe land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.5” “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.6” God commands the man twice to marry the non-Christian woman, and Hosea obeys with God’s blessing. Most modern evangelicals cringe at the idea of a combined, Christian/non-Christian marriage, let alone one who’s better half is a cult prostitute.
Another instance where God commands His people to marry pagan women is in Numbers 31. God commands, “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him fkeep alive for yourselves7” which blatantly goes against any thoughts that cross-religion marriages are wrong. The Israelites had just finished conquering the Midianite men, and were then instructed by God to take for themselves, the virgin women of the land. The Midianites were a pagan
people, and common thought in the Church today would prohibit such a practice, but to do so would be to contradict God.
There are innumerable good things that could possibly come out of a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. For the Israelites, there were more women with which to bear children and grow the population. With Hosea, he depicted to the Israelites, exactly how whorish they were being towards God. The Church is hurting today because of it’s legalism in this regard. They accept the sayings of their elders without question, when there is scripture that contradicts people’s claims. Not only does misinterpretation on the Church’s part, hurt her, but the good things that could come out of such marriages are being stifled. It’s difficult to say how that would look practically, but who would have thought God would have told a prophet to marry a whore for His good pleasure? Change needs to happen, because this is a problem.




























1 Notice the clarification: men marrying women. While I would argue that it is not necessarily “UN-Biblical” for a man to marry a pagan woman, it is utterly sinful for a woman to marry an unsaved man (1 Cor. 11.3; 14.35 ESV). Chapter eleven of “First Corinthians” makes the man out to be ‘the head’ in the relationship, in correlation to Christ being ‘the head’ of the man, and God being Christ’s ‘head.’ So the implication is that the man is the ‘spiritual father’ to the woman, just as it is with the relationship between The Father and Christ, and Christ and the man.
Moving on to chapter fourteen of “First Corinthians,” the context is an exhortation to women to keep silent in the congregation, and instead of inquiring at the church gathering, to ask her questions to her husband in the privacy of their own home. The implication is that 1) the husband of the wife must be knowledgeable enough in the Word, to be ready for any question his wife presents to him, 2) that he must be saved, so as to be acquainted with Spiritual truths, once and for all, delivered to the saints (Jude 1.3), and 3) that he should always be in the process of being concerned with the spiritual state of his wife: discipling her, and growing her up in the Faith, so that she doesn’t have to question what she hears in church.
2 John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary., The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:570.
3Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers. Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature., Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1153.
4 Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 10:26.
dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15
5 dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15 5The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 1:2.
6 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 3:1. fSee Deut. 21:10–14
7 fSee Deut. 21:10–14 7 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Nu 31:17-18.

the dividing line

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe that the doctrine of limited atonement is a Divine truth. Notice the distinction: it is not said that belief in limited atonement is necessary for salvation, for that statement would bring with it, the implication that there is something other than Grace that saves a person. No, it is by grace alone, through faith alone that a wretched sinner is made perfect in the sight of Holy God. This is lovely and true, and should not be neglected by the mind in this treatise on the nature of salvation. With that said, it can be assumed that at no point should anyone think anything higher of the belief in the limitedness of Christ’s passion for the saving of His elect as but a necessary inclusion in the renewing of the mind that occurs when God decides to save a soul. The awareness of this reality is embedded into the intellect simultaneously with the enlightening--salvation--of the human vessel. God does the work of making the mind new in Christ. He makes truths such as Limited Atonement, intrude and invade the intellect so as to bring about humility and obedience--characteristics that are true for every Christian. As the famous theologian, J. I. Packer, penned it, “Calvinism [and by default, the doctrine of Limited Atonement] is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ.”1
The theologian, Augustine, was one of the Early Church’s first advocates for Calvinism, and was actually the individual that reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Owen looked to for insight apropos the sovereignty of God. Augustine had opponents though, the greatest of which were two men named Pelagius and Cassian. Pelagius claimed that every human being is capable of living as sinless a life as Jesus’ because man is born into the same moral state that Adam thrived in before the Fall. Both he and Cassian taught that everyone is able to save himself from the wrath of God by believing on the Gospel, independent of God’s will. Augustine was quick to put to death these antichrist’s beliefs, and did so with an authority that silenced all the defenders of Pelagianism, as well as making it known throughout the Church, that those individuals were heretics that would be damned if they did not repent. Unfortunately (or ‘fortunately’ because of God’s good purposes), because of Satan’s determination to pollute truth by any means, there arose an even more threatening sect of believers who followed the teachings of one Cassian.
James Arminius was a disciple of Cassian’s writings. After his death, his faithful seminary students compiled a five point protest against the Belgic confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. After these protesters submitted their objections, the States-General of Holland thought it necessary to not only dismiss the Arminian’s five points, but to compose five rebuttals that directly corresponded to the Arminians. This was decided by a synod that convened at Dort over the matter. The Synod of Dort consisted of 129 delegates, who, after seven months of 154 sessions, finally agreed upon a set of statements that they thought would be sufficient to label Arminianism as a heresy once and for all.
The key point that Arminian’s deny is one that defines what actually happened at the Cross, in regards to the salvation of souls. This point defines for whom, and with what level of specific intentionality the Messiah died. Arminianism affirms that Christ died for sinners, but denies that He only died for some as opposed to all. Calvinism claims the opposite to be true. There are many ramifications that are spurred from the denial of Actual Atonement, the majority of which redefine God in the mind of the individual, three of which will be explored here. Redefining God is the error that every religion besides Christianity commits, and the cult of Arminianism commits the same fatal error.
There are different aspects to the intentionality of the atonement, one aspect though, is what Christ’s intention was in dying on the Cross. “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”2 While Arminian’s would agree with this passage, they would disagree with Calvinists on the point that Christ only died for the sins of a select few. Since Arminians disagree with his idea, and would rather affirm that Christ died for every sin ever committed, it follows then, that God is either a liar, a failure, or that every human and angelic being will be saved from the Torments deserved by a life of sin.
The Bible is God’s written Word, and everything that is written in it is true. What happens then, when an Arminian reads Revelation 14, which is one of the most vivid descriptions of the Torments of Hell? Someone who truly denies the Actual Atonement would have to assume that that passage is a lie, because if Christ died for every sin, there is no sin to be punished in Hell.
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me3. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day4. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him5.

An Arminian would have to admit that God is a failure in light of the Biblical text. Jesus came to do the will of The Father, and the will of The Father is that sinners would be saved by the death of His son. If Christ died for the specific purpose of actually saving everyone, then there would be none in Hell, and no damnation for anyone but Jesus (because He is the Divine Exchange). But since it is clear in the objective truth of scripture, that there will be people who enter Hell, Jesus must have fallen short in obtaining what He apparaently purposed to do: to save every sinner form Hell. That is why Christ died: to save sinners; but if He died to save all, and did not save some of those sinners whom He died for, and those whom He did not save will burn in Hell, then Christ is most to be pitied because of His inadequacy to fulfill His mission. Ultimately, if God is inadequate, He is no God at all, and the Arminian is deceiving himself.
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name6.”
If someone who denies Actual Atonement, can’t find it in Himself to admit that Jesus is a failure in light of their beliefs, it might be easier for them to conclude that He is a liar. There are many passages like the one above, that describe what Hell will be like, and what the experience of those damned to it entails. If someone believes that Christ died for everyone, they must conclude that He was trying to deceive everyone who has ever read those descriptions of Hell into thinking that that specific reality would never actually materialize: that “Hell” was just a sort of scare tactic used by Christ, for whatever purpose when He was inspiring the writers of the Bible. Again, just as with ascribing insufficiency to God, to attribute Him with deceit, would also create a non-deity in one’s mind.
C. Sproul and John MacArthur were once asked in a Q&A session,7 whether or not Arminians could be saved, and their response was “Of course an Arminian can be saved.” They used the argument that ‘simply because someone doesn’t have all their theology down exactly, that that doesn’t negate their salvation.’ That the man who died next to Jesus was never introduced to doctrines such as Calvinism or Arminianism before he died, and so one can expect that anyone else is going to be a carnivore of a theologian at the point of his salvation. A response to this claim would be what J. I. Packer has written, that “Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ.” Essentially, what Packer is saying is that Christians are Calvinists, and it follows to say that Christians believe that Limited Atonement is true.
Actual Atonement is a doctrine that separates sheep from goats, even if those goats are the most sheepish looking goats there ever were. There are many who claim to be four point Calvinists, and by definition, deny the intentionality of Christ’s Atonement, and they will die in their sins for such a grievous matter. In the end, it simply comes down to what Jesus has to say about the business, namely that “[He] is the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep… I am the Good Shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me… and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Jesus taught Actual Atonement, and when He did, “There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, ‘He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to Him? Others said, ‘These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?’” Truth, and the belief or denial of it, divides and separates God’s Own from all others.

i must not waste it...

What if a soul was condemned to God’s wrath on my account? I can’t think of anything more terrifying than that possibility--and most likely, that has already been a reality in my life. My complacency has probably caused someone to miss out on the gift of salvation: my disobedience is no doubt the thing that scared many goats away from the flock that is being led by the Great Shepherd. It is my prayer that any sheep that went astray on my account would be found by God’s grace, and that I will be sanctified by my Master, so as to attract more sheep to the herd. A wasted life for me, would be to stand before The Father, and be shown how any souls were damned because of my insubordination.
Some--probably “most”--would say that to be crushed by the Almighty Hand is the thing most to be feared; but for the sake of a lost and dying world, it has pleased God to break my heart for the unsaved to the point where I would willingly take on the torment an unsaved soul deserves if it meant their own salvation. The thing that I fear the most, is that someone would be tormented for eternity because I was selfish enough to stifle the growth of the Kingdom by wasting a single moment on something non-evangelical. My life would be such a waste if that happened--a total, utter, and disgusting waste.
I mustn't let this happen--I pray that by God’s grace it doesn’t. The Divine prohibition to stay my members from being used by sin for unrighteousness, and instead be used by God for righteousness’ sake, must become the overflow of my heart if I am to live the UN-wasted Life. It must become apparent to me that every time I sin, I am a hindrance to the Church. The sin of complacency could mean life or death to a potential convert, and the Body of Christ will suffer for it. “Who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7. 24-25a ESV).
A few weeks ago, I made a resolution to live life, so that every action I take or pass off, would serve to be only evangelistic. The implications of this resolution are astronomical, and potentially life-changing if I live with the resolve necessary to accomplish it. From an outside perspective, a life lived to this degree would look most like Jesus’, and that quality of living most definitely would be anything but a waste. My life would be beautiful if it looked like that. Every word I spoke would be Christ exalting. The things I ate would be most beneficial. Seconds throughout the day would become Holy in and of themselves. All this, by God’s grace. If it would please Him to pour that much grace into my life, I would be most grateful, and because of Him, I will have lived with purpose driven vigor: a Gospel driven existence: a cross centered fate.
I want to live my life with my face always filthy from having dug my head deep into the dust at the feet of My Dying Savior. The UN-wasted life would be one characterized by a prevailing understanding that Jesus died to save sinners. It must be heavy on the heart of one who has been freed from the slavery of sin, to return to his previous estate, and burden to loose the shackles of his once-fellow laborers. This is why I was created, and I would hope that the rest of my life would be painted with a shade of obedience that can only be given as a gift from The Grand Artist. I must live with a dread that I could waste it.