A 5th Gospel?

A church minister from abroad once had a strong influence over the forty-plus years of being a Christian believer. Back in 1976, the pastor of a Pentecostal Church in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires, came over to visit the UK, and delivered a series of sermons at a public auditorium in Reading, not far from where I live. After the sermon was over, I sauntered to the front where he was standing, with both of us ending in a clinch of a tight hug which must have lasted for a better part of a whole minute.

His sermons had a big impact on me, especially when it comes to praising God. His church was typically Pentecostal, where informal services, free from any fixed liturgy, normally include the four phrases of worship: Praise God!, Hallelujah!, Glory be!, and Amen! Then one day he asked his own congregation what they were praising God for. Where anyone would think that his greatness and power, the source of the free gift of salvation should have been the obvious answer, instead his congregation was shocked into stunned silence. It was then that the pastor coined up the term Empty praise.

Their praises were likened to boxes with gaily-coloured wrapping, very much like unopened Christmas presents under the decorative tree. Praises are offered to God as if we are offering to him all the well-wrapped presents. Then the Lord takes each of these gifts, excitedly unwraps each one, only to find each box to be empty. Empty boxes. His insistence that our praises to God can be ritualistic without any real substance given for praising him, has struck a cord in my heart, causing me to ponder on why I'm praising God. His effect had lasted for the rest of my life. Whenever I want to praise God, I always try to reason why I'm praising him. Praising him for who he is - the Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of all life, along with his love and mercy - the most obvious being the free three-fold gift of salvation: Justification, Imputation, and Eternal Security. But there are many more reasons: Such as the beauty found in this world, a healthy marriage to a loving wife, our daily supply of food and clothing, having a roof over our heads, a history of travel, both as a singleton and as one of a couple, and thanking the Lord to see this particular day in human history.

It looks to me that there is an overlapping link between thanksgiving and praise, even though praise for what it is actually means to exalt God for who he is. It is difficult to praise someone who is a spirit: invisible, inaudible, and untouchable. So, as Paul wrote to the Romans, that the invisible qualities of God, his eternal power and divine glory, are seen in his Creation (Romans 1:20). Little wonder whenever I gaze upon something naturally spectacular - like a powerful waterfall, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, or for that matter the stars in the night sky, or admiring trees, whether its the Traveller's Palm trees of Singapore, the Mangroves of Queensland or the sturdy English Oak, I can't help but magnify the goodness of God as Creator in my heart. Hence a gift of praise offered to God which is actually worth opening.

Travellers Palm - I saw plenty in Singapore

But praising God was not the only topic this pastor was delivering. He was also the same man who coined up the term The Fifth Gospel. That is, we as Christians tend to favour parts of the Bible which is favourable, and leaving out the less favourable. Rather like a child licking off the jam and then handing back the bread. The Gospel of Offers versus the Gospel of Demands. Basically, the Fifth Gospel is man-centred, in opposition of a far less popular God-centred demands. Maybe looking at these Scriptures may enlighten such statements this Argentinian pastor has made.

We have this verse, found in Matthew 11:28:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

Matthew 11:28 may be called a verse of the Fifth Gospel, according to the pastor. It is a popular verse found quoted by itself in text books or preached from the pulpit. However, the very next verse may not be held so highly, because here the Lord is asking for something:

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me...

A yoke is a wooden bar strapped across the necks of two oxen for the purpose of pulling a cart in unison. What the Lord Jesus is really offering is a lighter yoke in exchange for the heavy yoke in trying to keep the Law of Moses. But even the offer of a light yoke is not seen as part of the Fifth Gospel. 

A more striking example is found in Luke 12:32 - 

Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.

What a lovely example of a verse from the Fifth Gospel - the offering of the kingdom from the Father in Heaven. But then the Lord takes a very different direction in the very next verse, one of demand and certainly not part of the Fifth Gospel:

Sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Ah, not quite so nice after all! This voluntary impoverishing approved by the Lord has been the cause of my envy towards the homeless back in the 1970's, particularly in London, due to a false belief that by the state they were in, they were closer to God than the average citizen such as myself. He doesn't even stop there. Soon after conversion towards the end of 1972, I was drawn to this verse: Luke 14:33, which reads:

In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

In the forty-plus years of being a Christian, I don't think I have ever heard this verse preached from the pulpit. Far from being an example taken from the Fifth Gospel, I once read that this particular verse is the most unpopular verse in the entire Bible. Of all statements Jesus has uttered, this one must be the most demanding. What does it mean, forsaking all that he has, as the KJV puts it? Comparing this verse along with others of the same topic, Jesus does seem to indicate that selling our possessions to the poor in order to qualify for discipleship was part of his mainstream teaching. To the extent that Peter gasped at such a statement and asks:

Who then can be saved?

In which Jesus replies:

With man that's impossible, but with God all things are possible - Matthew 19:26, Luke 18:27.

Those finalising words - "With man that's impossible but with God all things are possible" - has lifted a yoke so heavy that it was practically impossible for me to bear, especially during the early years after conversion. And such an impossible yoke was placed around my neck by a cult group using false teaching aimed mostly at hippies and the desolate roaming around the streets of the city. With very little to give, what they had was easy for them to turn over to this particular group, which in return gave them a sense of belonging, together with a special favour with God. Really, it was nothing short of salvation by works, and as one as myself struggling in those days between Roman Catholicism and the free gift of salvation, all this was just an additional burden. However, these conclusive words from the Lord's mouth has changed the perception of everything. To make a choice to sell everything he has to give to the poor is impossible for a believer to undertake in his own strength, unless the grace of God works in the person's heart in such a way to bring him to the decision to voluntarily impoverish himself for the sake of the Kingdom. Even then, such a decision is the result of salvation, and not to merit it.

But the contrast of attitude towards which is part of the Fifth Gospel to what is not, could not be more apparent than the key verse which defines our church. the verse referred to is John 10:10, which reads

The thief comes only to kill and to steal and to destroy. I have come that they might have life, and have it to the full. It is John 10:10 which was chosen to be the church's catchphrase, and not, for example, Luke 14:33.

I'm not at all surprised that this verse, which could be considered as one from the Fifth Gospel, has become the catchphrase for our fellowship in Ascot. But such an offer by God through faith in Jesus, is necessary to attract the crowds. So such occurred during his ministry. Crowds gathered to hear the teachings of Jesus, to be healed by him, and to be fed supernaturally. They were indeed "lost sheep without a shepherd" as he expresses it. Then he suddenly turns around to this same crowd following him and utters strong words such as leaving father and mother, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, along with everything he has, and even his own life as well, if anyone wants to follow him seriously. Impossible?

But actually, what he was doing was showing the truth of the First Commandment given by God through Moses to Israel:

You shall have no other gods before me - Exodus 20:3.

If this is true, then the forsaking of father, mother, brothers, sisters, children, his wealth, and even of his own life for God's glory falls within the realm of keeping the Law of Moses perfectly. According to the Law, my love for God must exceed everything else in my life. If I don't measure up to this standard, then I'm in serious trouble and in need of a Saviour. And that is the whole point of the first three Gospels, often referred as the Synoptic Gospels. Their main purpose was to demonstrate the true purpose of God's Law, how the Law is meant to be fulfilled, and how every person ever born falls short of such perfect keeping and in danger of Judgement. Just as the Synoptic Gospels shows up our sins, our weaknesses, and our shortcomings, so the Gospel of John reveals the solution to a universal problem.

The commandment of God is an impossible yoke to bear. As Peter gasped, "Who then can be saved?" The correct answer is that left alone to human devices, it is impossible to be saved. Each and everyone of us stands condemned!

That is why the teachings of Jesus contains many offers and promises, most of them found in the Gospel of John, but also found scattered across all four Gospels. These offers Jesus makes to the crowds are not from the Fifth Gospel, as such a "gospel" does not exist. Instead they all are from the true Gospel of salvation by free grace given to everyone who believes.

Experience has taught me, over the years, that such "wisdom" including that which was delivered by the Argentinian pastor simply plays upon semantics, and can be dangerous, even if the speaker meant well. I am aware that he would like to see churches, including his own, take on a more devout commitment towards God, including holding a deeper and more sincere meaning to praising God, but to tamper with the free grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, is the highway to damnable heresy and will bring down the curse of God, according to Paul's entire letter to the Galatians.  

To Take A Peek Inside...

Mohamed Lahouaj Bouhlel, the terrorist trucker who deliberately slew many in Nice, hardly ever attended a mosque, so his cousin testified. He ate pork, a meat forbidden in Islam. He also drank wine - also forbidden in the Islamic faith. And oh yes, he took drugs as well, also forbidden. Yet as he used his truck as a weapon to plough into a cheerful crowd celebrating their Bastille national holiday, he cried out in Arabic: Allah is great!

Is he?

Allah must be one hell of a lousy entity if he has ordered such a massacre to be carried out in his name. And then, the hating trucker had hardly completed his divine assignment when the police approached and shot him dead. Maybe some of the more radical Muslims are now looking at this martyr and feeling envious of his entry into paradise populated with virgins for eternal enjoyment as a reward for his Jihad commitment. So the Muslims believe. On the contrary, if the whole Bible is a true and a reliable document, then this Allah is certainly not the God of the Bible, neither the God of Israel, nor the God of the Christian. Allah had never created the Heavens or the Earth, neither breathed life into any organic substance, whether it be animal, human or vegetation. Rather, Allah is more likely a demonic entity residing in the air, and the slavish master of deceit for every Muslim who has lived and died without ever knowing Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. A shocking testimony! Furthermore, this would immediately bring up the question - how can I be so sure that I am in the right faith and they are not? Does this train of thinking make me equally bigoted as the Jihadist himself? More on that a little later.

 Victims of the terrorist attack, Nice.

But what was really on Bouhlel's mind? Simply this: Hatred of society. Hatred based on envy of the freedom enjoyed by us Westerners. No diet restrictions, no ban on alcohol, no compulsion for religious attendance, women don't have to cover their faces with a burka or veil. Education is free, and leading to advances in Science and technology. But most of all, we are free to enjoy some fun without the fear of breaching religious restrictions. For example, I do not perceive as sinful to have a glass of wine with my dinner, or to bite into a delicious pork fillet, or for a mate and I to enjoy a day out at the fairground, or to take my wife out to a dance hall or to a rock concert. And at church I can stand and clap my hands in joyful praise, even feeling free to remain seated while others are standing. No tight religious liturgy or order of service, as in a mosque. And no calls to compulsory prayer at fixed times. Instead, we are free to pray any time.

Tied in with this may well have been a feeling of inferior complex. Perhaps wishing for a higher level of education and a profession to go with it, bringing in a decent income. Decent by comparison with high income earners in France or any other Western country, and not by Arab standing. Envy gives way to hatred, and hatred into revenge, bloodthirsty killing of as many as possible. No consideration for young children or their mothers. Instead, man, woman and child suffers without any discrimination, without a sliver of pity.

His hatred of Western society with all its liberties was also tied with hatred of his own childhood religion. Islam is a religion of fear, based on works and punishment. Hell is real to Muslims as well as to Christians, but with the former, one has to work to earn his place in Paradise, although a direct entry is granted to anyone who dies in defence of his faith, or better still, to fight in order to spread it. What I find amazing is there has always been a parallelism existing between the history of Islam and the history of Roman Catholicism, where direct entry into Heaven is concerned. The Vatican grants a plenary indulgence for anyone who dies whilst defending or promoting the faith. That means the martyr enters Paradise from the moment of death through his own merit, and not on the merit of Jesus Christ.

But with the case of Bouhlel, I don't believe either Heaven or Hell mattered to him. He hated his own religion, and he hated the freedom within the constitution of Western society. And he took his revenge. It is certainly not new.

The first recorded case of hatred based on envy is about Cain and Abel. Abel offered a sacrifice based on faith which was acceptable to God and, in a sense, he was set free from the penalty of his sins. Cain's sacrifice based on self-effort was rejected by God, and we read that "his face fell". Consumed by envy, hate and anger, he did not hesitate to slay his own brother (Genesis 4:1-16). In the New Testament, a well detailed record of the first Christian martyr is readily available. After showing the real meaning of the Law to all the Sanhedrin members assembled, and demonstrating their inability to keep that Law, Stephen was led outside to be stoned to death (Acts 7). The real fury among the Sanhedrin was aroused when Stephen shared his vision of the risen Lord standing up beside his Father, ready to receive him. Again, expressing his own freedom from the Law led to his murder by the hands of those who maintained living under the Law.

Nice during better times - symbol of Western liberty.

Then to mention the countless believers who were martyred for their faith and freedom in Jesus Christ, first by the Jews who were still bound by the Law of Moses, then by the Romans, who for millennia had to sacrifice at the altars of their pagan deities. Indeed, the believer's freedom in Christ did not go down well among those under the Law, whether Jewish or Gentile. And so, over the first centuries began the rise of the Catholic Church, whose Catechism rejected salvation through faith in Christ alone. As a result, the Vatican instituted the Office for the Preservation of the Faith, still in operation to this day. This department of the Holy See was responsible for the torture and killing of "heretics" who found freedom in Jesus Christ alone.

As the aggressive stance of the Catholic faith subsided with the rise of Protestantism and the widespread reading of the Bible by the common people, another source of aggression began to rise - and that is within Islam, and at present poses the greatest threat to the West since the War. As I see it, the liberties we enjoy both as individuals and socially were initially laid by our Bible-believing Christian forefathers, particularly in Northern Europe, Britain, and North America. These freedoms now enjoyed represents the freedom bought by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and are meant to allow us to live for God out of the purity of our regenerated hearts. Catholic-dominated Southern Europe, along with South America, learnt of such freedoms only after the Roman Catholic Church was forced to relax its church regulations under the eyes of the Protestant world.

What a great pity it is, when deserting the Bible has led to the rise in crime and the decline of personal morality. For example, a quiet social at the pub. There is nothing wrong in that in itself. From time to time I go out for a drink with my mates (although these days, being on medicine, I abstain from all alcoholic drinks.) But none of us has ever left the pub drunk. Unfortunately here in the UK, excess alcohol consumption is a problem among the younger people in major cities. Our reputation abroad, especially at the Mediterranean island of Ibiza, has become notorious through consumption of cheap alcohol. With the thought of taking my wife in a wheelchair to Paris in the Autumn, I am concerned about the high levels of pickpocketing and handbag-snatching. And that despite the presence of the famous Notre Dame Cathedral, the principal church of the whole of France.

Reading and understanding of the Bible, mixed with faith, liberates us to live for God from the purity of our hearts, enhanced by the presence of the Holy Spirit within. Paul himself writes that having faith in Christ liberates us from the obligation of the Law of Moses (eg: Galatians 3:1-25, 5:1-6 where circumcision is part of the Law) but gives us the enablement to live in Christ with the power of Christ in our hearts. Supposing much of society read, believe in, and take heed of the Bible. Would there be far less evil in the world? But amazingly enough, it is the academic world which must take a large proportion of blame for our present society's rejection of Holy Scripture. The theory of Evolution is constantly pushed through schools, colleges and the Media, mainly television. Darwinism is constantly being popularised in BBC documentaries presented by atheists such as Professor Brian Cox, along with naturalist David Attenborough.

Multitudes tune into, watch and soak in these Darwinian theories, maybe not realising that such propaganda destroys the credibility of the Bible. For if the record of Divine Creation is proved to be false, along with the existence of Adam and Eve, then how could the record of the Virgin Birth of Christ, his Crucifixion and Resurrection be reliable? Genesis holds the key of the entire Bible. If proven historically untrue, then the whole Bible falls, including the New Testament. And it is this unbelief which enslaves us to the moral law with the resulting increase in evil. There are many atheistic academics who knows the Bible very well, maybe even better than Christians do. But their head knowledge without faith provides a source for ridicule rather than believing, and the multitudes follow in their footsteps, simply because they are well learnt and therefore counted for reliability.

But I need to answer this question: If I, for example, declare that Jesus Christ and the Bible is right but Mohammed and the Koran is wrong, does that make me a bigot? One source of proof is Old Testament prophecies. No other book contains prophecies which as been fulfilled over thousands of years as the Bible has. Even in the dawn of human history, a prophecy was announced by God to the serpent, within both Adam and Eve's earshot. All three heard the prophecy of the coming Messiah (Genesis 3:15). Later, Melchizedek  brought a meal of bread and wine to Abraham, after freeing Lot and the people of Sodom from hostile armies (Genesis 14:18-20). The bread and wine can only symbolise the body and blood of Jesus Christ, some two thousand years before he was born.

The story of Moses' early years is also prophetic of Jesus Christ. When he was a boy, the young Hebrew was adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh King of Egypt. He grew up in the King's palace. When he was in his forties, he went out to see for himself the plight of his own Hebrew people. He saw one of his own brothers being beaten by an Egyptian guard. In his quest to deliver Israel, he killed the guard and buried his body. The next day, he saw two Hebrews fighting. Moses went over to them and asked why they were fighting each other, since they are brothers. But the one in the wrong replied, Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Will you kill me like you killed the Egyptian yesterday?

At this, Moses fled from Egypt to the desert of Midian, where he spent the next forty years tending sheep, and marrying a non-Hebrew wife Zipporah, before being called by God in a burning bush to return to Egypt (Exodus 2). Jesus came into the world to redeem Israel and rule over his Jewish kingdom. But instead he was crucified, buried, and on the third day rose physically from the dead - a phenomenon never experienced by Mohammed or by any other religious leader. He then ascended to his Father in Heaven, where he is now, waiting for the command to return to the Throne of his father David in Jerusalem.

Moses was rejected by the children of Israel, so was Jesus rejected by the same people. Moses went into exile, so did Jesus after his Resurrection. During his exile, Moses married Zipporah, a non-Jewish wife. The Bride of Christ is the Church, which is mainly Gentile, which he is at present gathering together during his "exile". Just as Moses returned to Egypt to rescue Israel from slavery to the Egyptians, so Christ will return to deliver us from our sins and all its effects, including death.

Other prophecies relate directly to the Jewish Messiah. Micah foretells of his birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and that a virgin shall first conceive (Isaiah 9:14) and the child will be called Immanuel, which means God with us. David's psalm foretells of his suffering on the cross, along with the accurate description of how his clothing will be distributed - a thousand years before the event taking place, and long before the Roman form of capital punishment by crucifixion ever existed (Psalm 22). Isaiah gives a full chapter over the future suffering of Jesus - some 700 years before it happens (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). Then Zechariah 9:9 foretells Jesus entering Jerusalem riding upon a donkey, a foal of a donkey, which was fulfilled at his Triumphal Entry. And in Zechariah 11:12-13, an accurate prophecy of the thirty pieces of silver was foretold, which was fulfilled in Judas Iscariot's betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. These are just a few of the many prophecies regarding Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

It has been mathematically proved that if all the prophecies foretelling the life of Jesus were not divinely inspired, then the probability of all these prophecies being fulfilled entirely by chance would be one out of a number consisting of one, followed by 181 zeroes!* On the contrary, the Koran does not contain any prophecies whatsoever, which makes the Bible unique among every other book ever written in human history.

The claims of Jesus himself. One of his titles is Immanuel - "With us is God." A series of sermons delivered at our church at the moment is about what Jesus says about himself. Statements such as: I am the Way the Truth and the Life, I am the True Bread from Heaven, I am the Door of the Sheep, I am the Resurrection and the Life, I am the Light of the world - has never been spoken by Mohammed or by any other religious founder. These statements must prove either:
That this Jesus of Nazareth is totally insane, or a deliberate liar, or -
What is says about himself is true, and therefore must be the Son of God, something Mohammed does not and cannot claim.

Thirdly, Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the only person in human history ever to rise physically from the dead. This itself is enough testimony that he is the unique Son of God.

My faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God is not based on bigotry, but of his testimony on who he is. And Mohammed, whose bones are still with us, buried in Medina, cannot even compare.

Too bad Mohamed Lahouaj Bouhlel never knew Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Had he, he would be alive and well now, along with 84 other people who have so far died at the promenade in Nice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science, Moody Books, 1968. P. 120.

Wearing A Tie In Heaven - Really?

And so after a vigorous two-hour workout in the gym, I was looking forward to relaxing at home to ease my legs. They were aching and as stiff as an ironing board with an oversupply of lactate in the muscle fibres. I browse the current news on the Internet. Then I thought, Oh no, not again. What is it all about this time? It was a report about a teenage schoolgirl in the North of England, whose tie was worn slightly out of kilter. A passing teacher reminded her of this, and she immediately corrected the mistake. That, with an apology from the student, should have concluded everything and allowed to attend class as normal alongside everyone else.

But no. Instead she was ordered to go to the Consequence Room, an area of isolation to sit in as punishment. Funny that. In my day, back in the mid-sixties, if a student - or pupil as we were known back then - was told to straighten his tie, he would have made the adjustment immediately without further ado, knowing full well that any resistance to authority would have led to the Headmaster's office for a caning. Then that was it. Back to the classroom. The Consequence Room was totally unheard of. But in this case, the teenager, who has Asperger's Syndrome, was unaware of her attire, and when it was brought to her attention, her condition immediately compelled her to sort the matter out. She could not understand why further punishment was required, and she protested against the order to go into isolation. As a result, the school sent her home for the day, forcing her to miss out on her education.

It is my opinion that female pupils at school should be exempt from wearing a tie as part of the uniform. To me it looks ugly, a form of masculinisation, especially when the tie is very short, the knot very large, and the top button left undone. Very untidy, and not only that, but also a sign of rebellion. But all this is only my own opinion. You may strongly disagree. But apparently, many other schools see the girl's uniform in the same way that I see it, and compulsory V-neck collared blouses are instead worn. It looks much more smart and tidier. Furthermore, with a possible exception of the Forces, no grown woman wears a tie, ether on or off duty. Indeed, for a female adolescent having to wear a tie at school is a typical example of British cultural idiosyncrasy.

A scene from the BBC soap, Waterloo Road.

But this does not deter the majority of comments in the long forum which trails the article. These comments were aimed at the schoolgirl's rebellion against school rules, condemning her and serving her right. Typical comments included: Her Asperger's has nothing to do with it. She was a wilful rebel and deserves to be sent home. Good Heavens! Has anyone read the article properly? It was emphasised that the student corrected her attire immediately afterwards, a natural reaction of an Asperger's sufferer when confronted with such a situation. Oh well, I guess there will always be an England, eccentric as it might be. The nation's obsession with the necktie has not faded despite its decline among many male professionals. I recall the Daily Mail right-wing national newspaper heavily criticising the BBC for allowing foreign and home correspondents to deliver their reports dressed without a tie. Clive Myrie, for one, was heavily criticised for this, but others such as Mark Lowen and Will Gompertz readily deliver their reports tieless. Then there was this massive hoo-ha over Robert Peston's refusal to wear a tie while on air, which stirred another long forum of controversy following the article. By contrast, among female correspondents, a tie is as rare as an oasis in the Sahara Desert, but not a single whimper had ever sounded. Something which makes me wonder how an average school girl feels about compulsory wearing of a tie.

Why such controversy? I know, it's all to do with discipline. In many ways, it is well known that a school with a strict uniform policy delivers graduates with a higher educational level than the more liberal school, and with a greater percentage going on to university. Statistics constantly bear this out. But I do wonder whether the willingness to shed the tie before the commencement of university, for example, is due to a level of physical discomfort caused by the restriction, or a sudden sense of liberation until the job interview, or even whether it's a sign of rebellion against stuffiness - the "stuck-up" image, or a combination of two of the three, or of all three. But one thing seems guaranteed: Going about tieless creates controversy, stirring feelings. 

And I can see a stark similarity between the controversy over going about tieless, and that of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Both are very controversial. Especially over whether one is saved by pure unadulterated grace, or whether one has to play a role in his salvation. I for one, believe in pure unadulterated grace. That means that by dying on a cross, he took all my sins - past, present, and future - upon himself, reconciling me to God forever. That means, as a believer, I can enter his eternal rest, free from the Law of Moses, and therefore irrespective of how I think, feel, and act, as the word unadulterated simply means without any human effort or contribution. Therefore Once Saved Always Saved. And that is through the grace of God through Jesus Christ, who offered himself as the one sacrifice - once and for all time - so that the one sanctified is forever made perfect (Hebrews 10:14).

Religious people don't like this. They don't like it at all. In the dawn of history, Cain murdered Abel because he was the recipient of God's grace, while his older brother was religious. Later, the religious Pharisees threatened to put Lazarus to death for being another recipient of God's grace. Also the man born blind. He received his sight without working for it, and the Pharisees threw him out of the synagogue. But most intense, other than to Jesus Christ, must have been the stoning of Stephen. The Sanhedrin must have got so hot under the collar (pun intended) that they literally yelled and gnashed their teeth. And all this happened after Stephen tells of his vision of the risen Jesus standing up in his Father's presence to receive him at the point of death.

I believe that the Inquisition - Rome's effort to eradicate "heretics" for the preservation of the Catholic faith by torturing on racks to extract a confession - was another works versus grace episode, and what a bloody episode that was! On October 16th 1555, two Bishops: Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, were burnt alive outside Balliol College in Oxford as another case of works versus grace. Then to this day, works versus grace continues relentlessly. So what do I mean by "works"? It is the effort to keep the Law, to keep God satisfied and to keep his wrath or his disapproval in check. Because God is holy, and by nature we are not holy, it is human nature to try and please God one way or another. This natural human tendency to try and please God in our own strength is called the flesh. As Paul wrote, in our flesh we cannot please God (Romans 8:8 KJV) - so it's not worth trying.

Martyr's Memorial, Oxford.

It is so unfortunate that there are many who can be considered true believers who are prone to be controlled by the flesh rather than by the Holy Spirit, even if they declare that they are Spirit controlled. Here I am not talking about "sinning wilfully" or doing bad things. Rather, I'm talking about those who believe that salvation can be lost through abandoning the faith or excess sinning. Often known as Arminians, because it was originally taught by Jacobus Arminius towards the end of the 16th Century, these Christians feel the need of constant good works in their lives to keep the disapproval of God at bay. So they turn to Christ for forgiveness of their past sins, then turn to the Law to remain holy. The snag with that it doesn't work. For example, prayer is often begins by confession - to "clear the air" in case God has something against him and his prayers go unanswered. I have been through many years with this train of thinking, stemmed from my upbringing as a Roman Catholic. Throughout life, if my experience has anything to go by, God is perceived as constantly checking over my performance, and always finding something amiss. Nothing could be further from the truth. If all this is true, then Christ's death on the cross has failed to atone completely - a reasoning upheld by the Catholic Church.

Therefore it is not too surprising to have found Arminian Christians to be more judgemental of other believers, and tending to be more in want of patience against those who might differ. If they struggle to measure up to what the Law demands, it would be natural to see others failing to keep the Law perfectly as well, and therefore prone to judge. In my fellowship, I am under constant scrutiny, judgement, and even hatred by another member of our church. Not surprisingly, he is as Arminian as he can get.

This is where such controversies have in common. Whether a school girl must wear a tie to keep the rules of her school, or for a Christian to keep the Law to avoid divine punishment, the two are basically the same - to keep the rules or risk punishment. I have reason to believe that the majority of boys do not like wearing ties. Just walk through the High Street of any town on a Saturday, or stroll through a theme park in the Summer. You'll be hard pressed to find any young person, or even older people, of both genders wearing a tie. But at school they wear ties because it's part of their uniform and to wear uniform is the rules. Likewise, Christian believers try to keep the Law instead of resting in his grace because to obey the Law perfectly is the rules. And breaching of these rules brings judgement - whether for not wearing a tie at school, or that the tie isn't straight, or whether a Christian angrily shouts "F**k off" in church. Tut! Tut! A forum of controversial commenting to follow. 

Finally, I need to say to any of you Arminian readers: I'm not here to get at you. Rather, I wish you to see the freedom Christ has bought for you, and enjoy your eternal rest in him. Recently I have lost a small number of followers. At first I thought it was due to calling the English eccentric. There may be some truth in this. But more likely, I think they were Arminians feeling "got at". Rather the opposite. Jesus Christ has set you free, nailing the Law to the cross. So enjoy the eternal security he bought with a very high price. 

God HATING Esau???

Way back in 1974 I found myself sitting next to a very distressed man at St Jude's Anglican Church in South London. When I saw his despair, I turned to him and asked what was the matter.

He then explained to me that he had read in the Bible that God loved Jacob, and HATED Esau. He felt that he had committed enough sins in his life for God to hate him too. Having access to a Bible, he turned to Romans 9:13: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. I saw the tears and the fear of Hell in his eyes. Over time, I can't remember what I said to him, neither was I able to go into depth back then, for I had only been a true believer since early 1973, and as a strapping twenty-one year old, I still had a lot to learn.

Whatever I said to him in reply I can't fully remember, but his grief ceased, his spirits lifted and his face shone with a new found freedom. Then this guy, all of two metres tall and a physique to match, gave me a bear hug in gratitude, and after the service left in a better state of mind.

I wish I could remember what I said to him back then. But even with the basic learning I possessed, there was a good chance that the individual named Esau was referred to as a nation of people, as suggested in Malachi 1:2-5, from where Paul quoted when writing to the church in Rome. Here, the prophet writes that God had loved Jacob but Esau he had hated and has turned his mountains into a wasteland suitable for jackals. In addition, a people always under the wrath of the Lord, mainly for oppressing Jacob, that is, Israel, and refusing access for Moses and the fledgling nation to pass through their land on their way to Canaan from Egypt (Numbers 20). It was a typical example of the antagonism Esau (Edom) had against his younger brother. And they were under the wrath of God, according to the prophet Malachi, which was before Jesus Christ was crucified, through which God had made peace with the world, including Edom. It is through this peace that Edom, along with his cousins Moab and Ammon, will escape the future times of trouble. More of this later. But just before Esau and Jacob were born, God did not say anything about loving one and hating the other. All he said was that one will serve the other.

Esau was the older of the two brothers born to Isaac, the son of Abraham, and his wife Rebekah, who did not have children for the first twenty years of marriage. When Rebekah eventually gave birth to twins, it was already confirmed by divine decree that Esau shall serve Jacob.

But during their lives, Esau never served his younger brother! Esau was his father's favourite son, an icon of masculinity. He went out each day hunting for game, which would feed the entire household, including the servants. In other words, he was the breadwinner, the pride of Isaac his father. Jacob, on the other hand, was Rebekah's favourite son. As a Mummy's boy, he stayed at home, engaged in "women's work" according to eastern culture. Jacob did the cooking, prepared the table, took care of the tablecloth and cutlery and did the washing and tidying up. Jacob, as with the rest of the family, was sustained by Esau's hunting skills. To bring this to modern times, one can say that Jacob stayed at home with Mother while his brother went off each day to work at the shipyard.

Jacob was the craftier of the two. As their father grew old and his vision became impaired, the rest of the family knew that the time for the blessing from Isaac was drawing near. One day, Esau came home hungry and bitterly frustrated in not catching any game. Jacob saw an opportunity to steal his brother's birthright. When Jacob offered some stew to his hungry brother in exchange for his birthright, Esau was too hungry and frustrated to give a moment's careful thought. Not long after, Isaac called for Esau to go out on a hunt and bring back game for him to feast on, and he will receive the blessing. Rebekah overheard the conversation and sent her son Jacob to fetch a goat and prepare it for his father, while Esau was out. Jacob's objection to all this was the deceit, not because he felt that it was wrong, but in fear of being caught out by his father. However, his mother disguised him with some fur on his neck and arms, and clothed him with his brother's clothes, making him feel and smell like his brother Esau.

Isaac was surprised at the rapidity of the dinner being prepared and served. After the meal, Isaac called in his son, believing him to be Esau. In fact, his vision was impaired, therefore blind. His sense of touch fooled him, as did his sense of smell. Only his sense of hearing was telling him the truth, and immediately aroused his suspicion. Jacob had to lie to his father in order to keep him deceived and receive the prophetic blessing.

Meanwhile, Esau returned from a successful hunt and prepared the feast. But when he discovered that his brother, through deceit, had stolen his blessing, he was furious, and vowed to kill Jacob. Rebekah had to send her favourite son away to spare his life. Lying and deceit is always sinful, no matter the circumstances. Rebekah's punishment was that after sending her favourite son away, meant for a duration of just a few weeks or several months at most, she was never to see her son again, having died before his return.

Jacob remained in exile for more than twenty years at his uncle's tent. But when the time came for him to return to Canaan with his own family, he was literally terrified of his own brother, and prepared gifts to offer for peace and reconciliation. When the two eventually met, Esau was far from angry. Rather, he was joyous to see his brother return, and both went to the tent of their elderly father Isaac, still alive but widowed. After his death and burial, the two brothers went their separate ways, Jacob remaining in Canaan while Esau settled on Mt. Seir, a territory south and east of the Dead Sea.

The people of Edom, descendants of Esau, were never subservient to Israel. Rather, the two became hostile to each other. Not long after the exodus, Moses begged the king of Edom to allow his people pass through their land, promising that nothing of theirs would be taken or even disturbed. But the Edomites railed at Israel and even sent troops to destroy or disband the fledgling nation. Their unkindness to Moses and all Israel was what brought the wrath of God, and not Esau himself! It was a part fulfillment of what God had told Abraham that he will bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 12:3). It was not until nearly a thousand years after Jacob and Esau had died that Edom became subservient to Israel under King David, who set up garrisons across their land.

Edom's subjection under King David foreshadowed a greater fulfillment which, even in the present day, is still future from our standpoint in time. In the book of Daniel, there is a prophecy which foretells the deliverance Edom will share along with cousins Moab and Ammon (Daniel 11:41). This verse is in context of a passage (verses 36-45) which many, if not most, Bible students consider to be the rise and reign of the future Antichrist, the Man of Perdition of the second chapter of 2nd letter to the Thessalonians. In short, God will deliver Edom, Moab and Ammon from the terror of the future world dictator. So who is Edom, Moab and Ammon? According to Biblical chronology, they are all descendants of Terah, Abraham's father. Abraham had a brother, Haran, whose son was Lot, making Lot the nephew of Abraham. Lot became the father of  Moab and Ammon. The present city and capital of Jordan, Amman, comes from the name Ammon.

Therefore the three nations of Edom, Moab and Ammon makes up the modern Arabs who to this day, are an irritant to Israel. At present, Edom is by no means serving Jacob. Rather, it has been one of Israel's oppressors for many years, particularly from 1948, the year the sovereign nation of Israel came into existence. This is the age of grace. God in Jesus Christ has removed all hostilities between himself and mankind, including Edom and the Arabs in general. God's grace is available for all believers in Jesus Christ being God and the Jewish Messiah, regardless of which nation the believer comes from. For God so loved the world - all who believe will receive eternal life and be saved. Therefore who will Esau be serving? I think it's none other than Jesus Christ himself, the seed of Jacob. This will be the final fulfillment of the prophecy Rebekah received from God during her pregnancy, that their Messiah will come from the younger brother Jacob, whom Esau, and everybody else, will willingly serve.

God hating Esau? Not anymore! Jesus Christ died on the cross to reconcile all mankind to himself. Now that looks very much more like the love of God, not hatred.

Eternal Security? It's In The Genes

The church service had not been running long. You are singing the first verse of a traditional four-verse hymn. Suddenly you hear a slight scuffle three or four rows behind, to your left. Curiosity at the intruding noise causes you to turn around, only to see a strikingly beautiful, curvaceous young woman, in modest dress, just arriving to settle at her seat. Perhaps with a slight tinge of frustration over her full body cover, you mentally undress her, and imagine how she would look in a bikini. Suddenly your eyes and hers meet for a fleeting moment and you immediately turn to face forward, and you sing the remainder of the hymn with a much louder tone of voice than at first.

Four different views are put forward to explain this incident, the first one positive.

The first is what the evolutionist would explain as a healthy sign for the survival of the human species. According to him, you should feel elated over your red-blooded sexual desire. After all, this was what Charles Darwin was writing about concerning Natural Selection, nature's way to ensure that mankind still have a future.

But the next two are rather less positive. If the church you are in is a Roman Catholic church, then deep inside you will be fearful, despite your loud singing. Would this sin committed be a venial sin or a mortal sin? If venial, then this would add an unspecific time to your duration in Purgatory. A few minutes? Unlikely. More likely a few years, even centuries. Nobody knows, not even the highest echelons of the clergy. But if the sin was a mortal one, according the the Catholic Catechism, it would mean eternity in Hell. Even then the clergy would not be able to tell whether that particular act was a venial or mortal sin. But the safest remedy would be to confess to a priest next time the Confessional is open, and receive the Penance, a course of specific prayers and good works to restore the grace of God in your soul. So you better pray that you won't die before the Confessional opens, or else you will be in deep trouble!

If, on the other hand, your church holds to the Arminian view of salvation, then you still have cause for fear. Such a church is Protestant, but believe that your salvation can be lost if you commit certain sins, or fail to overcome your sinful nature, or to lose faith. As with the Catholic church, no one really knows just where the line is drawn, but if you believe that you are still saved, then you better watch out, because your salvation is teetering on the brink. Otherwise you need to confess to God on how you mentally undressed that woman in order to get your salvation restored, and promise not to do it again, as in the Catholic church.

But whether you are Roman Catholic or an Arminian Protestant, despite your efforts in restoration, you know deep inside that such restoration won't last. After all, you have a strong sex drive which could ignite at any time, especially if, like this morning, you weren't expecting it to happen. Then, on the other hand, the thought of losing your libido is a very serious threat to your manhood. You actually want to remain red-blooded - it's a natural attribute to your self esteem, vital for the species to continue, according to Darwin.

So you are squeezed into a corner, with one side telling you that your sex drive is not only vital to life, but also to your self esteem. Then the other side threatening you with hellfire if you indulge in its pleasure except strictly in the confines of marriage. Little wonder that such trains of thought quickly leads to liberalism and eventually atheism. Darwinism appeals strongly to liberalism, which says that the Bible is not the authoritative Word of God but fables written by men to teach, to a certain extent, morality. Instead, Darwin explains the scientific view which sets us free from any ideas of accountability to a fickle God for our peculiar state of behaviour. Conversely, left to themselves, Roman Catholic and Arminian Sotorology has done a tremendous amount of harm over the past centuries of church history.

Just prior to writing this blog, I was browsing "Eternal Security" on Google. Right up among the top of the page was various websites linked to Daniel Corner, a radical Arminian who has spent a lot of time and effort debunking Eternal Security, or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) - founder and director of Evangelical Outreach as well as author of an 800+ page book, The Believer's Conditional Security. I have read about Corner before, and I mistakenly thought that his church was based in Washington DC, but further investigation showed that he leads a church in Washington, Pennsylvania - a smaller town just south of the city of Pittsburgh. There was even an article written about Corner on when he met our Methodist author and preacher David Pawson, and concluded that the two Arminians did not like each other very much due to some differences in opinion on various matters!

Daniel Corner
Dan Corner is a former Roman Catholic who has repudiated much what is taught in Rome, including veneration to Mary, the Rosary, the Seven Sacraments and other Catholic doctrines. However, it is so ironic that Corner embraced Arminianism. The irony is that Arminianism originated from none other than the Vatican, in its stand against the doctrine of Sovereign grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. In one of my former blogs, Once Saved Always Saved - How Did This Originate? published 10th April, 2011 - I gave a full description on the history of the debate. To summarise, James Arminius, a 16th Century Dutch theologian was, as a student, brought up to believe in the Sovereign Grace of God advocated by John Calvin. But feeling uncomfortable with such doctrine, he travelled to Rome, where he became a student of Luis De Molina, a Spanish monk who was also a Jesuit. The Jesuits themselves were a society founded by a Catholic priest, Ignatus Loyola, who at first had an occult  vision of the Virgin Mary telling him to fight and put out the "Babylonian whores," referring to the new Protestants formed by Martin Luther and John Calvin respectively. As a result of Jesuit Molina's teaching, Arminius wrote his own treatise, A Reconciliation of Free Choice With the Gift of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Providence and Reprobation. (1588)

This book became standard for many Protestant churches, particularly Methodism, the Anglican Church, the Pentecostals, the Assembly of God and others. Arminianism is the branch of Roman Catholicism which has also found a home in all other groups - the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unitarian and even Freemasonry - despite all denying any links to the teaching of the Vatican. On a wider scale, the idea of working for an uncertain salvation prevails in all other religions - including atheism. Here lies the irony of Dan Corner repudiating Roman Catholicism, yet strongly proclaiming the arm of the Vatican used to weaken the tenets of Protestant Christianity.

So as it is fair to say that Arminianism - the teaching that a believer can lose his salvation by not holding faithful or by committing certain sins - has its roots in the Occult (Loyola's vision). So far we have not looked at the fourth conclusion of the sin committed above, a look at a few examples of Eternal Security found, yes, in the Old Testament.

Our God is eternally Omniscient. This means that there is nothing he does not know about. He cannot be taken by surprise, and everything, yes, absolutely everything, about us was known, and will be known by God long, long before we were even born. So when we believed on the Son of God, we were saved once and for evermore. There is no possibility of ever losing our salvation - or else we be denying God's omniscience - a form of blasphemy!

So what happened when you mentally undressed the other person? Did you sin? Yes. Did you lose your salvation, or was it teetering on the brink? No, of course not. Instead the sin was laid upon the Cross of Jesus Christ. We sin every day, to the greater or lesser extent. But every sin committed is laid at the Cross. It will be an ongoing thing until the end of time.

In the Old Testament, we read of the exactly the same happening, the only difference was that the sin committed was carried into the future to the Cross which was yet to happen. One good example of this was the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham. (Genesis 15:6 with Romans 4:1-3) The Cross atoned for Abraham's sins some two thousand years before the Crucifixion.

Another case, even more specific, applied to King David after committing adultery with Bathsheba along with his conspiracy to have her husband Uriah murdered. When Nathan the prophet came to confront David with his sin, the King confessed, "I have sinned against the Lord." To which Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die." (2 Samuel 12:13.) Where had God taken David's sin? To the Cross of Christ. In Psalm 51:12, David, reflecting on his grave sins, asks God to restore to him the joy of his salvation, not salvation itself.

On another instance with King David was when he had his army of fighting men numbered. God passed judgement on the king as a result (1 Chronicles 21.) In verse 15 we read that while God was about to execute the men in Jerusalem, he saw, and told the angel to stay his hand. What was it that God had seen? The Cross of Christ. Apparently, all those in Jerusalem and beyond had their sins transferred to the Cross instead of suffering the consequence of David's sin.

When Jesus died, he died on a cross. A cross has a stem and two arms. One symbol of the two arms of the cross is that they each represent time. One arm points to the past, the other to the future. The two arms can also represent Israel and the Church. However, the sins of every believer from Adam to the end of time has been put on the Cross of Jesus Christ. It was, and is, and will always be, the plan of salvation God already knew about, right down to the very last believing person, before the beginning of time.

If you are a true believer in Jesus Christ, you are eternally saved, and you will never lose your salvation. When you die, the Lord will welcome you home with open arms.

Here is the beauty of God's character, his boundless love, his unlimited glory. Eternal Security is in the very heart of God, so to speak, it is in his genes. You are a gift given to the Son from the Father as a reward for atoning for your sins. To say that you can lose your salvation is blasphemy, because it would be the same as saying that God screws up, or he does not know what is going to happen next.

Arminianism is a false gospel with its origin in the occult. It should be repudiated, for it brings no glory to God, only fear to those who believe in it.

As for the beautiful woman in the church, take your eyes off her and set them on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of you faith. For he can satisfy you in a much richer way than any human being can do.