Tribalism? The Queen Was Right.

One of the downsides with Christmas is that in just one day it's all over. That is after a build-up commencing from mid-November until Christmas Eve, that part of the year when independent TV channel adverts constantly pushing items that would make ideal presents to our faces. This alongside Christmas carols sang at churches and cathedrals - especially at King's College in Cambridge, which appeared daily on Facebook since the start of December. Then, of course, the putting up of the decorations - and it wasn't difficult to tell who was better off - such houses were adorned with decorative lighting from the roof to the front garden. A demonstration on their affordability with high energy bills, I guess. Suddenly, from after Boxing Day, all those gaudy and glittering paraphernalia had suddenly taken on a tired look, spent, having had its day.

But for many, the highlight of Christmas day begins at three in the afternoon, the Queen's Speech on the BBC. But I'll be honest with you, we did not watch it. But before you gasp in horror and turn your computer off, please read on.

With my late father being a Republican, Royalty had never scored high on his agenda. But Mum was more keen on it, or at least with its rather colourful history. However, the boyfriend of my niece was keen to watch it, and I guess Alex my wife would have too, as she is a keen monarchist, more so than I am. However, it was afterwards on Boxing Day when the Daily Mail online had posted the full transcript, allowing me to absorb exactly what she said.

Her content included her plea not to let tribalism take over the culture of our nation. Indeed, it indicates a subtle way of looking at Brexit. The Queen has got it right. Those who voted to leave the EU had tribalism in their hearts and weren't too concerned about the direction of the Economy or its consequences. That was endorsed by the devaluation of the Pound on the day after the 2016 Referendum when compared to both the Dollar and the Euro currencies. Hardly a whimper was heard, especially among Brexiteers who saw, and still sees, a bright future of an Anglican nirvana.

As Her Majesty pleaded against national tribalism, protests against this plea began to appear on the forum thread beneath the online article. There were a large number of similar comments, but one in particular read:

She treats tribalism as if a bad thing! Without tribalism, mankind would not have survived to our day.

And the username of that particular writer indicated a keen Brexiteer.

Other forum comments also condemned her negative outlook on such a worldview along with the hypocrisy of showing compassion to the poor and the unfortunate while displaying her "solid gold piano" in the background. What amazes me was that the vast majority of comments centred on these two main issues: Tribalism and her "solid gold" piano. And there were not a few comments on that thread, but hundreds, nearly all on the same theme - accusing her of blatant hypocrisy as both Head of State and her lavish wealth. Yet I knew that had I watched the broadcast, I would have hardly noticed the piano. Even if I did, it would have had no effect on how I was feeling.

About the piano, as any qualified wood finisher or antiquarian would straight away point out, that a piece of furniture of that size made of solid gold would be an impossibility. For a start, it would be so expensive, that the price would be out of reach from even the richest of billionaires. Furthermore, that amount of solid gold would make the piano so heavy, that to move it would require a crane! Then I wonder how the floorboards of the Drawing Room of the Palace, where it is located, can support such a heavy artefact without eventually giving way beneath it. In reality, the piano is of wood finished with gold gilt. And it wasn't recently bought by the Firm, as these comments imply. Rather it was a gift to Queen Victoria from her husband Albert, and it stood there for the last couple of centuries.

When a later online article appeared revealing this rather sobering truth, the forum thread beneath changed altogether from being a rebuke to the Queen for being so anti-tribal and hypocritical, to be the best gift providence has ever given to the nation. Wow! I'm amazed by this. All of a sudden she is the nation's darling! According to them, everything she said during her speech was right after all.

And I agree. Her stance against tribalism seems to be an endorsement to the book I have recently read, Hitler, Darwinism and the Nazi Worldview by Jerry Bergman, which I bought at Creation Ministries International Conference, 2018. As I see it, tribalism is intrinsically linked with warfare. History is so filled with one tribe going to war with another. Even the historic section of the Old Testament is filled with records of Israel constantly fighting with the Philistines, with the Midianites, with the Amorites and other ancient tribes. Then again, World War II was about a contest for superiority. First, the Jews, considered unfit for their struggle for survival, had to be eliminated from our planet, then the contest for world supremacy. Who of the two leaders was the most advanced on Darwin's evolutional scale? Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill?

As pop band, Frankie Goes to Hollywood released a hit in June 1984, Two Tribes, which features a video of two world leaders: American president Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union leader Konstantin Chernenko, both fighting each other in an arena, thus emphasising a nuclear holocaust which would have desecrated the entire planet and wiped out the whole of mankind.   

Pretty grim, this in-group/out-group attitude. Little wonder that the Queen was unhappy about it in the country where she is Head-of-State. Surely, tribalism goes contrary to the Gospel, doesn't it?

Indeed, the Gospel does not advocate the in-group/out-group attitude of tribalism. Rather, what the Bible recommend is that we all change our minds and believe that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Jewish Messiah and the risen Son of God (eg Acts 8:37 AV; 1 John 4:15; 5:1, 5). We call this change of mind Repentance. And on one occasion the apostles of Jesus Christ command that all men everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30). And Peter, in one of his letters, writes that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise as men count as slackness, but is not willing that anyone should perish, but all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).  

I suppose that the entire population is divided into just two groups: Believers and unbelievers. But according to the Scriptures, God does not want it to be this way. Rather he wants all men (and women) everywhere to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). If God loves everyone who is born universally (John 3:16), then there is no room for tribalism. Indeed, John says that the light of Christ shines into every person who is born into this world (John 1:4 and 9).

This universal desire for God to have all men and women come to him for salvation, to be reconciled to him and receive eternal life, looks to all the world why we are here. Maybe that is the bedrock on which my political views rests upon - and therefore voted to remain in the European Union. I am not ashamed of my decision but admit this openly. With the mixing of peoples from different nationalities, maybe the Gospel will spread further. Such a good case of this is found in the second chapter of Acts. Here up to fifteen locations are named, all with their own tongue, yet all understood the universal language of Aramaic and of them, three thousand believed. Sure enough, they were all Jews and even their converts (proselytes) worshipping at the Hebrew feast of Pentecost, yet each was able to receive and believe the Gospel.

True enough, Europe does not consist of Jews, even if they may be quite a number living there. But one thing which I consider to be very important. That every single person born is in Adam, Jew and non-Jew alike. And that remains true regardless of nationality. That is why I see Creationism as a fundamental bedrock for the Gospel. If Darwinism is true instead, then the Gospel is a lie and should be discarded, for our faith would be in vain. We are naturally born in Adam and we need to be regenerated to be in Christ, with his righteousness imputed into us. That is far, far more important for every individual than tribal nationalism or patriotism.

Oh, what a shame it is when my fellow brothers in Christ keeps on harping about Brexit, and to support a no-deal exit from the EU rather than risk becoming a vassal State. Supposing that the UK ends up as a vassal State of the European Union. So what? Will we become ill more frequently? Would we even die earlier? Or looking at the economic side, would we be poorer? Or for argument's sake, will dragons start flying across the sky? Er, I don't think so! Instead, we will carry on living on a day-by-day basis with a wounded pride until we are each called to meet our Maker.

Being reconciled to God before drawing our last breath is much more important than worrying about our national fate, whether it's for Leave or Remain. And that takes love rather than political division. Since it's the end of another year, I wish that every true believer in Christ would resolve to love and respect his brother rather than argue about politics.

How I long for Christians to put away their political differences and start loving each other! That is a good New Year's Resolution! On this point, I wish to share an incident which took place two weeks before Christmas. I had to take my wife to the hospital after an appointment with our GP. Whilst there, she suffered a severe episode of an acute backache which made her howl loudly in A&E. The doctor decided that she should be seen by a neurologist. Therefore instead of a discharge and a trip back home I was expecting, she was transferred into a ward to spend the night there. Fearing that she could be detained for weeks on end, as was the case in 2013, I burst into tears at her bedside and a nurse had to draw the curtains around our bed to lessen the distress my weeping would cause to the other patients. 

A little later, after alighting from the train at Bracknell Station, I called at the apartment of my good friend Dr Andrew Milnthorpe. He invited me in and together we watched The Apprentice. Andrew and I have opposing political views. He voted to leave the EU and he is happy to leave without a deal. I voted to remain and having lost the vote, I was happy with the proposed deal. We were as different as chalk is to cheese. But during the programme, he placed his arm around my shoulder and I rested my head sidewards on his chest. It was a sign of compassion he felt for me, allowing his love for God to cover all differences, to be one in Christ while I was going through intense distress.

I have not forgotten such a gesture, and I won't allow myself to forget it. It meant much more to me than any political issue. Therefore for this year's Christmas blog, last week I wrote a fictional story based on my real-life visits to the Church of the Nativity with the Star of Bethlehem in its crypt. The story was borrowed from the 1985 American movie Back to the Future. Having travelled back in time over two millennia, I found myself comforting a distressed mother named Rachel, whose baby son was slain by one of Herod's soldiers. In it, I had my arm around her shoulders, her head was on my chest while I spoke gentle, comforting words. As such, her faith in God was restored despite her terrible loss.

And so this should be our New Year's Resolution for all us Christians.

I wish you all a happy New Year. God bless.

Santa's Biggest Mistake!

I could I ever forget one particular incident some twenty-four years ago, give or take. When my two nieces, who were my younger brother's daughters, along with myself, were all at my parent's house together with my father's older brother and his German wife, all sitting at table celebrating Dad's birthday, which happened to be exactly two weeks before Christmas Day. The older pre-teen niece was acting rather boisterously, which brought attention from my uncle, who looked directly at her and delivered this warning:

Unless you behave yourself, young lady, Father Christmas will not deliver any presents! He likes only good children, so you better behave! 

I watched her face cringe, but not from as if about to cry, but more of a sense of disgust, as if she was thinking:

In that case then, he can stuff his presents up where the sun doesn't shine!

And I would have fully agreed with her. For I was thinking on how could he have spoken this way. For it conveys the message that giving of gifts is conditioned on behavioural reform and day-to-day performance, and not on unconditional love. Or going further back in time by another 28 years, when I was twelve years old. I recall walking home from school and I caught my left arm on a sharp twig protruding from a front garden hedge, tearing a hole on the sleeve of the heavy grey overcoat I was wearing in this chilly late-Autumn afternoon. Unfortunately, by the time I arrived home, I had already forgotten the incident and therefore did not approach Mum to apologise. Instead, the next morning, whilst dressing to go to school, suddenly out of the blue, Mum shrieked:

What have you done to your best coat? You can forget having any presents for Christmas!

That was when I remembered the tear on the left sleeve. But fortunately, my lack of sleep during the small hours of Christmas morning was well justified. For like all other children across the land, a pile of gaily-wrapped presents were awaiting both my brother and myself. But the attitude of both my mother and uncle could well have been a very-distant reflection of what St. Jerome wrote as he translated the Bible some 1,600 years earlier, as detailed in last week's blog, One Word, Just One Word. That is, anything which is good is given on the condition of behaviour modification, staying free from sin. And having started to play our Christmas album on the run-up to the festival, one song sung by the Jackson Five has proven a popular 1970's chart-bounder:

You'd better watch out! You'd better not cry.

Better not pout, I'm telling you why,

Santa Claus is coming to town.

He's making a list, and checking it twice;

Gonna find out whose naughty or nice.

Santa Claus is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when your're awake.

He knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake! Oh,
You better watch out! You better not cry...

Not only is Santa Claus is narrated here as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but it looks as if keeping a British stiff upper lip is also a condition of behavioural reform. And he will give presents only to good Christian kids. Never mind that his generosity is limited to rich, First World countries, but also it is a crying shame that he is almost totally oblivious of whole continents such as the Far East and Africa, where the population of the former is predominantly non-Christian, whilst many families in the Earth's second largest continent remains gripped in poverty, disease, and malnutrition, even if some of them may claim a Christian background. Children suffering and dying by the thousands, yet Santa's team of flying reindeer completely boycotts the poorer areas of the continent - except for some better off, healthy Christian families living in certain cities. And even within the same city, good old Santa is far more generous to those living in an exclusive middle class area than he is to those living in shanty settlements. Somehow, I can't help seeing a strong parallelism between Santa's picky generosity and that of our churches being predominantly middle class.

And the comparison of the middle classes' less-hostile attitude to God was brought home only yesterday evening at the sauna. After a vigorous two-hour workout at the gym, on Friday evenings a relaxing couple of hours in the sauna follows. One of the regulars there is a blue-collar manual worker, older than me, who I will call Fred. Fred is what you can refer to as extroverted, very talkative, and filling his gaps with repeated 'F' words, even if he says that he never swears at home. Last night, there was just the two of us relaxing in the sauna cabin, and I had the opportunity to ask him how he feels about Jesus Christ, whilst stating that the Lord was everything to me, and I couldn't live without him.

He had something like a wild look on his face as he admitted that he had no time for such things, and this Jesus can get lost as far as he's concerned, as he needs to keep on overseeing his family, particularly his grown-up son who, after University, had "boomeranged" to his parent's home, according to what I thought he was telling me. I felt sad. He gave no consideration over his present spiritual state and its consequence in the afterlife. He then left the cabin, leaving me alone inside to contemplate over the conversation. I felt sorry for him. Assuming that he is Church of England, as most of us living in England must have had contact with, especially during childhood. At least in my opinion, there is a parallelism between Fred and what he thought about God's gift of salvation, to that of my niece over Santa's picky generosity. Both preceded by the need for some sort of behaviour modification.

As stated in my last blog, this need to "repent" is the most misunderstood word in the English language. Right from pre-conversion, the false meaning for repentance was instilled in my sub-conscience to mean a turning away from sin, or to be willing to turn from sin before believing and receiving salvation. In other words, behaviour reform is required as a condition for receiving salvation. No wonder, over many generations this had created fear or hatred, or one leading to the other. Fred was one typical example, and I am convinced that just about everyone who was born in England with Anglican parents had at one time of their life at least, came face-to-face with the prospect of behaviour reform in order to go to Heaven after death. Roman Catholics in particular, like myself, faced the prospect of living a sinless life, or face at best the promise of time served in Purgatory. Salvation as a free gift was as far from a possibility as East is from the West. No wonder, like my niece was thinking about Santa all those years ago, Fred reckons that God can stick his salvation up where the sun doesn't shine.

Christmas is a time and season of goodwill, even though it's incredibly short compared to the rest of the year. It is a time for giving. As already mentioned, as a child I have always received toys and games for Christmas despite my undeserving behaviour. It was a visible demonstration of undeserved grace, an expression of my parent's love. For example, I was never required to sew up and repair the hole in my coat sleeve before receiving the presents. Instead, Mum had already done that some time earlier. Neither were any of my presents taken away as a result for misbehaviour. Once received always mine. Continual access to them wasn't dependent on my behaviour.

And that is how Jesus Christ is so willing, so keen to give the free gift of eternal life to anyone who asks. One of my favourite verses in the Bible is Luke 11:13, where the narrator records Jesus saying that if we, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more will the Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! Those who are evil receiving the Holy Spirit! Who would ever thought of coming up with that? Without behaviour modification to precede the receiving. It is another way of saying, Whoever wills, let him come and take the water of life freely - Revelation 22:17. And the whole of the Gospel of John is centred on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God who promises the free gift of eternal life to all who believe. So all it takes is a change of mind from seeing Jesus as an imposter or even merely as a good teacher, to that of the risen Messiah, and asking him to give life as promised, and he will be eternally saved. Or to put it another way, from unbelief to believing. That is repentance, a change of mind. No reformation of behaviour is required beforehand. In fact, the word repent or repentance does not even appear at all in John's entire Gospel.

If only my friend Fred at the sauna realised this when he was a boy, or even older. That in AD 380 St Jerome, in translating the New Testament from Greek to Latin, used the Latin word Paenitentiam Agite - Do Penance, instead of the Latin words Mutare animum tuum - Change your mind, whenever the Greek word Metanaeo appears in the Greek, meaning change of mind, and translated into the English word Repent. Would my friend be as equally hostile against Jesus Christ of Nazareth as he is now? Could such a mistranslation be the bottom cause of Fred's eternal state, growing up thinking he had to reform his life before any hope of receiving eternal life? Really, doesn't he believe at all that salvation is a free gift?

Really, I give presents to those I love without any preconditions. My nieces receive a free gift at Christmas because I love them unconditionally. I have never asked them to reform or modify their behaviour before receiving presents. I give them with the hope that they will appreciate what I'll give them. But even if they don't think much of my gifts, and that has happened at least once in the past, my love for them will never diminish. And there is something else. Once the presents are given, I don't expect them to feel that they "must be obliged to commit themselves to me." Furthermore, I would never say to them that if they misbehave, or show no appreciation, that I would take their presents away from them. No. Once theirs always theirs.

But there is one difference with God. Like my presents, God's free gift of eternal life is given to all who wants it, a free gift of love given with no strings attached. With this new life the Holy Spirit comes in and gradually changes the recipient's heart with new desires, to love and serve God, motivated from within, from his heart. This willingness to submit to the Holy Spirit becomes a source of joy, not a spirit of slavery or fear. This process is known as Sanctification, and has no part in keeping or losing salvation. Rather, the recipient only wants to know what the will of God is, and his desire to fulfil it in his life.

I hope that every reader who reads this blog has received the free gift of salvation. If not, then why not believe in your heart that this Jesus of Nazareth is the risen Christ, the Son of God (e.g. Acts 8:26-40, Romans 10:9-13, John 3:14-18), and ask him to forgive all your sins, and to receive his free gift. I can guarantee that you won't regret your decision.

Having said this, I wish all my readers a very merry Christmas, and a prosperous year ahead. May God bless you richly. Also look out for my next blog for Christmas Day, which will, God willing, be a pictorial blog with little wording.

One Word - Just One Word...

It wasn't long since I read the following story, whether it was true or made up. But it is an interesting case on how I, and probably many others, perceive on how we feel about God:

A local newspaper editor noticed each morning a road sweeper at work keeping the kerbside clear of litter. He was dressed in rags and unbecoming clothes, and his hair was constantly untidy. The editor wanted him featured in an article about the town on which his paper covered. So finding a way to contact him, the road sweeper was invited to the office for a series of photos to be taken of him, in preparation for publication. Feeling rather excited, the sweep turned up at the agreed time - dressed in a suit and tie, his face washed, and his hair combed. The editor immediately dismissed him from his office without a single snapshot taken. His explanation was simple. He wanted the sweep to arrive as he was, without any self-reform to precede his visit. In other words: Come as you are.

And that is one of the biggest problems I face in the Christian life. For example, difficulty in prayer due to the presence of sin in my life, and the need to "clear the air" before asking anything from God - especially during a prayer meeting. Being aware that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. - John 9:31. I wonder just what level I must reach in order to be seen by God as doing his will in a godly manner? There is where I find the snag: just where is the line drawn before the presence of sin turns godliness into ungodliness? It has always been this sense of uncertainty which has cast a shadow over my spiritual life. Is that the same with you? Maybe so. Or maybe you are one of those fortunate ones who lives in constant victory over the dark shadow within, and comfortably revelling in the joy of remaining in his will.

And I wonder just how many of you had at times have been troubled by those statements made by Jesus towards the end of his hillside sermon:

Not everyone that saith unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' 

And I, will profess unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.'

Matthew 7:21-23 AV.

I must admit, I have been troubled by these verses. And although I tried to wrangle my way out by explaining that those standing outside must have been Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, even Freemasons, Spiritualists, and all others who held false doctrines; I couldn't help feeling that there will be far more than just these. After all, the percentage of all heresies set against Christian belief has always been very small by comparison to the history of human population. And by careful reading, those who remain standing outside professed Jesus Christ as Lord, not Buddha, Shinto, Mohammed, or any other non-Christian leader. They were addressing Jesus. But worse was to come. At our church in Ascot, I was personally judged by another member with these same words. Not that I was guilty of any overt sin. Rather it was because I don't keep the British stiff upper lip, and therefore seen as not conforming for the benefit of all other men around me. Thus I was seen as not living out God's will.

Evidence that not everyone has that confidence and peace in the Lord seems manifest in many churches, if my own experience of them can testify. And to add to this, I have read other people's blogs, watched their videos on You-Tube, and have seen for myself the apparent unhappiness among other believers, especially of a quick arousal to anger when doctrinally challenged. As for an example, I was once shouted at my face by another Christian - a married father of one - for admitting that I believed in Once-Saved Always Saved. I guess this rage between two parties within the Reformed churches has been on-going for centuries. One of the most noted examples took place at a holiday resort of Minehead Somerset, in 1994, when an Arminian speaker had very nearly caused a  mass riot to erupt within a theatre audience - after rebuking them for believing in Eternal Security of the Believer and, very much like I was, they were judged by him to eternal hell-fire for anyone who has married a divorced partner.

I guess this kind of fear - fear of eternal punishment - is thought to keep all Christians living a holy life, with efforts to keep all sin at bay. I could say that in addition, the above mentioned speaker, David Pawson, insists that fear of punishment is the right motive for Christian service, as none of us are yet mature enough to be fully motivated by love, as quoted in 1 John 4:18. Because only perfect love casts out all fear, therefore he assumes that since we don't yet have this perfect love, fear is the acceptable motive. Such is the fruit of his Wesley House of Cambridge University training. As one who came from a Catholic background, I could not help but ponder whether there was something disastrously wrong with the whole Reformation. As I have come to gradually realise over the years, I have eventually concluded it's to to with the meaning of the word Repent, and its derivation - Repentance.

The best way to look into this is to take an example. In this I could say that a little booklet containing a cartoon strip This Was Your Life, drawn and narrated by the late Jack Thomas Chick, which had a massive influence on me since 1972, and it had played a major role in my conversion to Christ. Some influence globally it must have had, for over 46 years since publication began in 1970, around 500,000,000 copies has been distributed, with This Was Your Life being the most famous of all Chick's publications. But rather than this tract stirring a love for the grace and mercy of God, it has instead aroused an awareness of future punishment.

What it says at the back cover gives the reason:

The way to Heaven is:

1. Admit that you are a sinner - Romans 3:12.

2. Be willing to turn from sin (repent) - Acts 17:30.

3. Believe that Christ died for you, was buried, and rose from the dead - Romans 10:9-10.

4. Through prayer, invite into your life to become your personal Saviour - Romans 10:13.

When I read that, of course everything looked reasonable and solid, as it has always been with me to subconsciously absorb as truth everything stated here. But it wasn't long when I realised that the true peace and joy in the grace of God was lacking, and I couldn't understand why. Has God really forgiven all my sins, and furthermore, has set me free from them? Obviously he hadn't, and for decades I have questioned my own salvation as a result. And on top of all this, I have both heard and read testimonies of devoted church-goers feeling queasy over their certainty of salvation - quite a number of times. 

The problem lies with Chick's statement # 2: Be willing to turn from sin, the meaning of the English words Repent, Repentance. I have recently discovered that this is a heresy, and a dangerous one at that, because it has all the hallmarks of Biblical orthodoxy. The English word Repent is seen as meaning forsaking sin, or to be willing to forsake sin, and is used as a condition for receiving salvation. When I read Scripture, especially the Book of Acts, I could see no substance to support this. The truth is, when Peter preached at Pentecost (Acts 2), then to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10); or the evangelist Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), there is no mention of any of them told to be "willing to turn from sin". Later, Paul and Silas, as they were singing whilst confined in jail, the jailer also wasn't told to "be willing to turn from his sins" either. Instead he was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he will be saved (Acts 16). The same in Athens, when many thought that by quoting the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, his listeners believed that the apostle was introducing another god to add to their pantheon (Acts 17). There was no mention of "having to turn away from sin" as a condition of salvation.

The idea that the English word Repent meaning a change of mind, a change of opinion, has been with me for the last few years. And I have used this definition several times before on this blogger page. This week I have done some research on this, and one thing is for sure - Repentance does not mean Turning from sin in the New Testament.

The word repent is an English word, and its used as a translation from the Greek Metanaeo, a change in the course of one's thinking, a change of opinion, a change of mind. Putting into context in the second chapter of Acts for example, the people were instructed by Peter to change their minds concerning Jesus of Nazareth, from the thinking that he was an imposter who deservingly died a criminal's death, to that of their risen Messiah and Lord, whom God has raised up. And all the other testimonies of conversion found in the New Testament follows the same procedure: for the sinner to change his mind about the risen Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ whom God has raised up.

It is wonderful good news, and gloriously simple! Change your mind about Jesus Christ of Nazareth and be saved. Such simplicity. And that was when the trouble began. It seemed too simple. So simple in fact that some Judaists had trouble with it, and presumed that some work of a kind had to be added as a condition. To them this felt much better, more sensible. Then this teaching began to be spread across the churches in Galatia. Changing your mind about Jesus of Nazareth is not enough. You need to be circumcised as well, and obey the Law of Moses. So they told these churches. But Paul called these perpetrators Cursed. Such teachings nullified the Atonement made on the cross (Galatians 1:6-9).

For the next three centuries the Church, which by the 4th Century, was already had its headquarters in Rome, was struggling with the idea of the Gospel being effective only through a change of mind by the believer. By 382 AD, Pope Damasus commissioned St Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin. In the Greek New Testament, he had trouble with the word Metanaeo, which he already knew that it meant a change of mind. The direct Latin translation of Metanaeo is Motos animi - "a change of mind," or Mutare animum tuum - "Change your mind". Instead, he inserted another word: Paenitentiam Agite, which is literally translated as Do Penance. By the 16th Century, the Latin Vulgate became the official translation of the Catholic Bible, and when the Bible began to be translated into English, especially by John Wycliffe in 1384 and William Tyndale in 1526, the Latin word Paenitentiam was by then so entrenched in the minds of theologians, that by then became the standard meaning for Repent by the Reformers, who were responsible for the translation of the King James Version in 1611, which not only incorporated the original Hebrew and Greek texts but also from nine other versions, including the Latin Vulgate.

This may be a good study during my research, but it wasn't enough to convince me. I wanted independent evidence. It is so wonderful how the Internet can be such a limitless storehouse of knowledge, so with it I had no problem in finding a Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. I then selected three verses at random which contains the English word Repent or Repentance. They were:

Acts 2:38,

Acts 17:30,

2 Peter 3:9.

In the Latin, all three verses contained the word Paenitentiam instead of Motus Animi or Mutare Animum Tuum - the proper translation of the Greek Metanaeo. However, it must be said that St Jerome had by no means acted maliciously. Rather, he felt that gaining salvation by changing the mind about Jesus of Nazareth was too simplistic to swallow, so he substituted Change of mind with Doing Penance - an act of promising to turn from sin in order to receive salvation, rather than to believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah who died, was buried, and on the third day risen from the dead, according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). In other words, the idea of behaviour modification as a condition for receiving eternal life has become so entrenched in our subconscious, that it has unwittingly replaced the simple truth that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31, also 1 John 5:1).

It is a tragedy to think that substitution of one word for another early in the Church's history could have such a catastrophic consequence throughout the last two millennia. The rise of the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, social evils such as piracy in the Caribbean, the need for the Reformation, the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the feeling of uncertainness among many believers, the rise of Darwinism to discredit Creationism, and the present-day spirit of agnosticism and atheism existing in modern society - I believe, can all be traced down to the Latin word Paenitentiam, translated into the English word Repent, and allowing the need for behaviour modification as a precedence for receiving salvation. And since it's very difficult to imagine a holy and pure God justifying a sinner who is wicked and having no righteousness in himself, therefore allowing such need for behaviour modification to become entrenched in our minds to the extent that we don't even give it a second thought.   

Major Tom - Lost Forever?

I was always fond of David Bowie. That is despite only a few songs of his I would endeavour to buy. This would include Space Oddity, Life on Mars, Heroes, Ashes to Ashes, along with any other that made it into the charts. Ziggy Stardust failed to appeal, but to me, no way would that have degraded his superb musical talents. On one occasion he also performed as a duet with Bing Crosby, and sang the main lyrics of Little Drummer Boy, while Crosby added his backing vocals. This looks to confirm Bowie's familiarity with the Christian faith, much of that gotten from his schooldays. Not surprising then, that the announcement of his sudden death at 69 years of age from liver cancer took the entertainment world by storm. So much so, that the death of actor Alan Rickman, of pancreatic cancer, also aged 69 and just a few days after Bowie's demise, passed almost unnoticed.

  

So I couldn't help feeling shocked, while his body was still warm, that a group of American Christians had already recorded a video, Is David Bowie in Hell? available for anyone to view, while his family mourns over him before cremation. What I found shocking about all this was the crass insensitivity in recording so quickly, even while his family were standing around in mourning. By then the video had already collected several thousand views. The truth is, none of us have any right to decide the singer's fate in the afterlife. Throughout the entire Bible, the clues of only three saints were given about their certainty of Heaven, and they were actually seen or witnessed by those around them - Enoch, Elijah and Stephen. Recorded Bible narrations of everyone else, saint and sinner alike, ends with physical death. The silence about the afterlife remains so loud that as a result, the eternal fate of Ananias and Sapphira, recorded in Acts 5:1-11, remains prime examples of debate to this day.

Details of Bowie's infancy remains very patchy, after reading Wikipedia's biography, along with other official websites. There was a hint in a national newspaper, unproven, that from birth, his mother might have been emotionally distant from her son, something which, if true, would stick with him for life. With a 1950's-style schooling including the morning Christian assembly based on the Church of England liturgy, I wouldn't be at all surprised that the schoolboy's perception of God was that of a strict disciplinarian, constantly eyeing for every misdeed yet at the same time aloof, virtually impossible to please, and any good deed done as seen as a means to get something by means of earning. And that is going by my experience of school days throughout the 1960's, which rather than convert to faith in Jesus, (no record of this) instead had alienated quite a number of schoolboys into atheism, with myself included. Indeed, to say that God is love sounds like an alien language.

With a feeling of sexual attraction towards his own gender as well as for the opposite, Bowie could well have developed a guilt towards a stern God he perceived as grossly unfair when considering that his libido responding to same-sex attraction was beyond his control. This he had to keep secret, for fear of reprisals and schoolboy bullying, rejection from society, admonishment from the Church, possibly even disowned by his parents. Little wonder that David Bowie nee Jones embraced the Philosophy of Thelema, which was the brainchild of the 19th/20th Century English occultist and magician Aleister Crowley. Simplified, Thelema is about, "Do as you will" shall be the whole Law. Love is the Law. Love (subjected) under will.

I found Aleister Crowley to be an interesting character. His parents were Plymouth Brethren, which was renowned in those days for its strictness and emphasis in discipline. In many of its churches, Holy Communion was forbidden for visitors, and a dress code was also in place. Each member was evaluated on how much he was devoted to Christ and how committed he was to abstain from sin. In short, his parents taught their young son Lordship Salvation, the idea that - "If Jesus Christ is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all." Proof of salvation is 100% commitment. If the mark is not adequately met, it proves that the member is not truly saved. Little wonder that young Crowley, after experiencing a childhood of discordance between church teachings and his own experience, totally rejected any form of Christian faith from his life.

Crowley was very intelligent, brilliant if I may say. His interests included mountaineering, an endeavour which I'll admit was never brave enough to give a try. But his rejection of a Christian God also included a rejection of Satan as an entity, being associated with the Christian faith and belief. This may come as a surprise to some Christians who has a smidgen of knowledge about Crowley, whom they have associated with Satanism. Rather he was an occultist, tarot card reader, and a worshipper of the Egyptian entity Horus. He was also a member of the Masonic Lodge, and it was he who fathered the philosophy of Thelema, based on love of self and love being the fulfillment of the will being the final goal to aim for.

Aleister Crowley.

Both Crowley and Bowie had the same in common. Both shook off "the horrible shackles of religious inhibitions" and engaged in "free love" - in Bowie's case with men as well as with many women. Therefore, I can't help but see a parallel between Bowie, and who the English publication John Bull referred to as "The most wicked man on Earth." Incredibly enough, just as Crowley boasted that his spirit guide was the Egyptian deity, so Bowie too, while going through the stage of Ziggy Stardust, had the jagged stripes painted across his face in relation to the gods of ancient Egypt. So according to the Youtube Christian video already mentioned.

There are three distinct similarities shared between Crowley and Bowie. First, both rejected the Christian faith whilst young. Secondly, both achieved fame through their talents. And thirdly, both suffered ill health towards the end of life. Remarkably enough, both were addicted to drugs sometime during their lives - Crowley to heroin and Bowie to cocaine. And both were fornicators, with Bowie having a greater number of females in his harem. And with his admittance to his bisexuality, Bowie looked to be more of a rebel against the Judeo-Christian society than even Crowley. And thirdly, both embraced the philosophy that the Law is the self-will being fulfilled by love - which led to free fornication on both cases. It is these parallels that I believe that Bowie was a disciple of Crowley and embraced Thelema. This seems to be endorsed by one of Bowie's pop songs, Quicksand, containing the name Crowley in its lyrics, while another one of his songs, After All, contains a reference to Crowley's philosophy.

Both suffered ill health in their latter years. Crowley from drug addiction and Bowie from liver cancer. I am aware of the conclusion made by many Christians that you reap what you sow. If you sow sin, you will reap death. So biblical and sound. And that was why I felt distressed - not only about the news of Bowie's death, but even more so by the video so quickly recorded. At first I refused to watch it, not being emotionally prepared enough to what I would have had to listen to. So I waited until the following morning when both my wife and I watched it. Surprisingly enough, the video was not as judgemental and decided as was first anticipated. The presenter was open to the possibility that his deathbed repentance might have saved him "like a brand out of the fire."

Which had led me to his Twitter account in referral to God just before his passing. Did he have a change of mind about Jesus, finally believing in his heart that he is the Christ? He might have done, he might not have done. That is why none of us mortal humans are allowed to decide on the matter. If he had made such a positive decision shortly before his death, then right now he would be in Heaven with Jesus. This is the pure unadulterated grace of God, totally dependent on his mercy, and incredibly enough, an indictment to all the self-righteous religious people who has spent their whole lives with the hope of pleasing God continually!

Such deathbed repentance is possible, as aptly demonstrated by the thief on the cross (Luke 23). It is interesting to read Luke's narrative carefully. There was nothing else the thief could do. But as he looked upon Jesus crucified beside him, it became apparent to him that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. With that heart conviction, he had the temerity to rebuke the other thief who was also crucified, and then plead with Jesus to "Remember me when you go to your kingdom" - an indication that this Jesus crucified is the Christ and King. It was this heartfelt conviction and faith which allowed God to save him.

The same could have happened with David Bowie. This is why, I believe, he suffered his last eighteen months of his life with cancer. To give him the opportunity to reflect on his life and his need for God to save him through faith in Jesus Christ. That is all it takes. Once Saved Always Saved. If such a deathbed repentance had taken place shortly before his death, this too would be a rebuke to all Arminian Christians who believe that salvation can be lost if the believer loses faith or sins excessively. As a saint, Bowie could be seen as taking a massive shortcut to Heaven, avoiding all the threats and potential pitfalls in life that would have put his salvation into jeopardy.

I hope to see you in Heaven, David - and receive your autograph.

Turning From Sin.

In a few of my last blogs I gave an impression that one does not attempt or try to turn from his sins to know God but to believe in the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This I wrote about the meaning of the word repentance - which literally mean "to change your mind" - in this case from doubting who Jesus Christ was to believing that he is the risen Lord who atoned for our sins by dying on a cross.

So let's take a look of what sin really is, a brat which is a lot more subtle than the overt misdeeds that readily comes to mind - fornication, adultery, murder, stealing, drunkenness, telling coarse jokes, getting into fights and whatever. The sort of things Christians don't generally get up to.

Most evangelical Christians, when asked how one can be saved, normally give this formula: "Repent and turn from your sins and believe the Gospel of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, calling on his name." That seems fair enough. Only that repentance (turning from sin) and believing can be seen here as two separate stages, when the truth is; Repentance simply means to change your mind about Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. In my last blog, A Letter To Church of Christ Members, I gave two examples of this kind of repentance, first to the three thousand-plus Jews who were at the Temple precincts on the day of Pentecost, and then of Cornelius and all who were present in his house. On both occasions, Peter never said, Turn from your sins, especially to Cornelius, who was already seen by God as a righteous man. Yet he had to believe in the resurrected Christ, whom God sent Peter to announce. The same can be said for the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) where Philip arrived at his chariot to find him reading a portion of Isaiah, but was unable to understand it.

Philip and the Ethiopian

There is no hint that Philip instructed the eunuch to turn from his sins, but instead Philip gave an explanation who this servant the prophet was referring to; himself or someone else. When Philip revealed Jesus to him, the eunuch believed and was baptised.

In the dramatic conversion of Saul, he was not told to "turn from your sins" when the Lord appeared to him. Instead, he was asked why this religious Jew was persecuting him. In response, Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?"
"I am Jesus, who you are persecuting. Is it hard to kick against the thorns?"
Immediately Paul believed and was saved from that moment on. The Lord then proceeded to instruct him what he must do, including baptism. By "kicking against the thorns" Saul was aware of Jesus Christ condemned on the cross. He was also aware that rumours of his Resurrection were widespread. He had heard all about it, but had put it down to a group of fanatics who wanted a way out from the responsibilities in keeping the Law of Moses. When the Lord revealed himself to him, everything about his Resurrection fell into place, and he believed - so much so that he was willing to lay down his own life for this truth.

In Acts chapter 13, we read how Paul performed a miracle in condemning a sorcerer which led to his master, Sergius Paulus, believing in Jesus. It was the miracle by which he was convinced, not a list of his sins he had committed.

And there are more examples of the preaching of the Gospel as found in Acts. In Thessaloniki (17:1-9) Paul spoke to some Jews at the synagogue there, emphasising the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some of his listeners believed, others did not. In verse 18, while Paul was in Athens, some philosophers were discussing about "his strange gods" because of his preaching of Jesus and his Resurrection.

Paul in Athens, preaching Christ Resurrected.

Paul's defence against Festus and King Agrippa was centred on his conviction that Christ died and rose again, Acts 26:8, 23. His only exhortation was to turn from darkness to light, from Satan to God, verse 18, which was something only the power of the Gospel was able to accomplish, the Gospel being that Christ has risen from the dead and believing this brings this deliverance.

So we can see, mainly through the book of Acts, that conversion involves a change of mind about Jesus Christ. But we tend to say to prospective converts that they should turn from their sins and call upon the name of the Lord. Other Christians may even emphasise "the sinner's prayer" which involves asking Jesus Christ into their hearts. Checking over the tales of conversion found in the Bible, I have not come across any of these. The emphasis always seem to be Jesus Christ: His death, burial and rising from the dead. Especially the latter.

As mentioned earlier, sin is a much more subtle brat than what we often imagine it to be. If you were a thief in the past, it is relatively easy to stop stealing. This sort of thing is an overt act done out of choice, and one can choose not to steal any more. But getting sexually stimulated is another matter all together. Not so easy to control. In fact, sexual stimulation is rather enjoyable. Yet is it sinful? Jesus taught that one only has to look at a woman with a lustful heart, and he has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28.) Or if you call someone a fool, it is murder (Matthew 5:21-22). Can you as a Christian man lay your hand across your chest and honestly plead that you had never felt sexual stimulation over someone not your own wife, or hated another person because he does not meet your expectations? If you can say yes to both these questions, then congratulations! You are well ahead of me. If I were to believe that, because these feelings are very much alive in me, therefore I'm still lost, then such a burden becomes impossible to bear. There is no way that I have assurance of my salvation.

And to be honest, I do still have these questioning thoughts. Thinking that as a believer, God expects perfection in my life, and if and when I feel lusty, I wonder if I'm really saved. That is the reason the statement turn from your sins I have found to be binding, not liberating.

In preparation of this article I read carefully the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus. Now if there is a book giving such detailed instructions on holy living, then this is it. This is a chapter about sexual relations, and it deals with forbidding having sex with a member of the same family, whether your stepmother, an aunt through marriage or your brother's wife, your nieces or daughter-in-law. Even bestiality is mentioned and forbidden, along with same sex activity (sodomy). All these sins were sentenced with a death penalty. But reading this chapter, I have found that all these sins were overt and of choice. They did not deal with the condition of the heart. For example, one may have a crushing desire for a niece or sister-in-law, but the death penalty would only be applied if one choose to fulfil such desire by carrying out the act itself. So for one to say that in order to be saved, one must turn from sin - if such overt sins of choice were meant, then I can see some justification in this. But if I'm in church and I see someone that stimulates my desire - well, that's quite a different matter, even if I know perfectly well that nothing overt will come out of this. But does this prove that I'm still lost?

Then there is that other form of sin - hatred and murder. As with sexual sins, no Christian in his right mind would go around with a knife under his belt in readiness to stab someone. But before his conversion, he could well have been a gang member toting a knife, although unfortunately, converts from such backgrounds are far and few between! Rather, they tend to end up in prison. But it still remains within his power of choice to put the knife away or even dispose of it once such a gang member experience regeneration.

But Jesus said that only calling someone a fool is enough to call that murder. And I wonder how many Christians have done that throughout their lives, especially as mentioned in my last blog, the anger felt by a driver of a car who was cut up by another driver. Or for that matter, (common here in the UK where many rural roads are narrow and twisting) being stuck behind a slow car driver, trucker or even a tractor, unable to overtake. As the patience of the driver stuck behind runs out, his feelings of frustration and anger starts to mount up, and a torrent of expletives is thrown out of his mouth. If the car is shared with an unbelieving passenger, the driver would have fallen from grace as the passenger sees it. His Christian credentials would never be restored.

Road rage can be the end result of such pent up frustration, when the driver takes physical revenge on the offending driver or vehicle. This could lead to physical murder. The fact is, anyone can hate or feel anger towards another human being, and being a Christian does not free us from such emotion. Therefore to say that turning from sin is essential to salvation has put me under an impossible burden to bear, and such emotional turbulence is enough to question whether I'm really saved.

And we can take this issue of murder even further. According to James 2:11, it looks like favouritism or snobbery is a form of murder. This verse appears after a rebuke against favouritism was delivered. Yet I have seen this sin not only overlooked but condoned in church life over the past forty years. If an elder in the church, or a group of elders evaluate one person over another due to his higher level of education or profession, then isn't this a form of favouritism? And furthermore, this sort of thing is quite acceptable in churches in this country. Therefore this turning from sin to be saved becomes even a greater problem. According to this formula, isn't there anyone in our churches genuinely saved?

The idea that a sinning saint can lose credibility among unbelievers is certainly true. As a believer myself, I want to be honest enough to admit that I am not unfamiliar with such experiences. In James' letter, we read of a believer shutting up his bowels of compassion against the needs of a poor, naked or hungry fellow human. How would the poor man evaluate the believer's faith? Dead, as far as the poor man is concerned.

Therefore, I suppose, sin can be defined as a lack of love for God or fellowmen, particularly believers. We as humans will go through such negative emotions, being natural as they are. Such life experiences has helped me understand the Bible better, and I have found, particularly through the stories recorded in the book of Acts, that faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the key to salvation. It is the sanctification process which follows salvation is where sin can be exposed and dealt with, although all our sins, past, present and future, are totally forgiven by God at conversion. The exposing and cleansing of sins is for the benefit of the believer living in a world of unbelievers.

Hence, we are disciples, or learners. Learning on how our faith in Jesus Christ can make an impact on unbelievers, for the sole purpose of winning them to the Lord, so they too can be saved. And the only answer for dealing with our sinful nature is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and letting him do a work in our lives which will not only be a fragrance towards God, but also to the world around us.

Once Saved Always Saved - Part 2 - Holiness is Fun!

Holiness is fun!
This is the follow up of the last blog about the Calvinism/Arminian debate. If you wish to refresh on my last post, just click on the "Older Post" prompt at the foot of this page.
It was a typical Sunday morning at Ascot Baptist Church, my home church where I attend regularly. During the sermon, Phil Rogers, our Elder, came out with these words:-
Holiness is Fun!
I was somewhat stunned. To me, "Holiness" had always conjured up in my mind of a group of monks chanting in the monastery, way out in the countryside, separate and away from the hustle and bustle of life in the secular world.

Or I imagine a "holy person" so pious, that whenever he looks at me he could see into my soul and mentally judges me, and I turn away to avoid that look.
Holiness is nothing like that.
Jesus himself said that holiness is fun. In John 15:10-11, he says:
If you keep my commandments (that is, to love one another) ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
Jesus also said:-
Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels in heaven over one sinner that repents. Luke 15:10.
Just imagine it. Our God is a happy God! Because somewhere in the world somebody had just got saved, and received the free gift of eternal life. And here and there someone is saved all the time. So the heavenly party never ceases. The believer is a gift from the Father to the Son for dying for his sins on the cross. So I can imagine a Heavenly Christmas morning that never ends. Gift after gift is received by Jesus Christ from God the Father, the myriad of angels shout for joy and everyone is having fun. The party is enhanced further by millions of saints (Christian believers) who have already died and entered glory. Their thunderous shouts of praise are twofold: first at a conversion of a sinner to saint on Earth, and the death of a Christian as he then enters the glories of Heaven, very much like the winner of an athletic foot race crossing the finishing line and breaks the tape.
Exhilarating!
God is a happy God. He loves us immensely. We are a gift to the Son from the Father, and there are no unwanted presents either. God does not make mistakes. That's why I firmly believe in Once Saved always Saved.
If there is such a doctrine so strongly debated, it is this one. Once Saved Always Saved seems too good to be true. In fact, all it says that there is absolutely no way a sinner can do anything to merit grace. Instead, the Good News of God's Grace is proclaimed, and the hearer believes, his faith resulting in salvation. Another name for "Good News" is the Gospel.
Once Saved Always Saved has been the cause of this Big Debate for nearly half a millennium and which shows no sign of slowing down.
In this article we shall look into further into the debate and what is it about Calvinism which Arminians and other non-Calvinists so dislike about it.
When one talks or reads about this debate, the issue is almost entirely about Once Saved Always Saved. This issue being: Are we as believers eternally secure in the hope of entry into Heaven after death? Or can we fall away, lose our salvation and end up in Hell? In other words, in this case the believer, rather than receiving a free gift from God through grace, he is on probation, to see if he is worthy enough to be saved.
But eternal security is only a part of what Calvin advocated. His whole treatise involved five points with which each initial letter spell the acronym TULIP.

To deciphering this acronym, we get this result:
T Total depravity of the sinner
U Unconditional Election
L Limited Atonement
I Irresistible Grace
P Perseverance of the Saints

It's the P in the last article which the debate really is centered on, which we get the modern terminology, Once Saved Always Saved.
But for anyone who sees Limited Atonement as something akin to blasphemy or grossly unfair, it simply means that Christ died for the Church. This means that the power of the Atonement is effective to everyone who has faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. Each believer who has this faith becomes a member of the Church, which is the family of God, with God himself as his Heavenly Father. But the power of the atonement is for each person who believes, or trust in Jesus Christ to save him. To those who refuse to believe, the Atonement has no effect on them.
Thus Jesus himself said while at the Temple in Jerusalem:
And (Jesus) said, Therefore I say unto you, that no man can come unto me, except that it was given unto him of my Father
John 6:65.
He also said, in John 10 that the Jews did not believe because they were not of his sheep. His sheep hear his voice and follows him (because they are his sheep already, apparently not because they have just decided to follow him) and he gives them eternal life (free gift of grace) and they shall never perish (eternal security) - my Father, who gave those sheep to me (as a reward for his coming Crucifixion) is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them from his hand (so God can't be beaten by human will).
In John 17 we see Jesus praying for first his immediate disciples, than for all believers to come. On more than one occasion Jesus emphasised that each disciple was given to him by God, indicating that they were already his from eternity past. He also says that all that are his belongs to the Father as well, indicating that very believer belonged to God from eternity past, for there is absolutely nothing that could happen without God knowing about it beforehand. In plain English, God knew every single work, thought, feeling, speech and action you would ever say, think, feel and do before you were even conceived!
Thus where TULIP is explained: Total depravity, is where it would be impossible for anyone to come to God in his own power. Yes, many people are good to others, kind, compassionate and generous to each other, but because of our fallen natures, these virtues are of no use to God.
It can be likened to a glass of clean water to a thirsty person, it is desirable. But just one tiny drop of ink, and the thirsty person would not touch it, even if there is only a very slight discolouration.
All this seems to indicate the U in Tulip for Unconditional Election, and I, for Irresistible Grace. If God foreknew the believer from eternity past and has predestined you to conform unto the likeness of his Son, then he also knew that he will not resist his grace. As Jesus himself said,
Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65.
And also:
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44. And,
All that the Father gives to me shall come to me; and he who comes to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:37.
Therefore the P in Perseverance can only make sense if we are to believe that God the Father has given you to his beloved Son as a gift, and God does not makes mistakes! Especially if God knew that the believer was chosen right up until the believer falls away and loses his salvation. Some "gift" for his Son!
So then, what about Free will, human choice? Does the Bible teach it? Yes, it does. Does it contradict Divine Sovereignty? Yes, apparently it does!
Look at John chapter 1. in verse 9 John wrote that the Light of Christ shines into the soul of every man born into the world, and the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have eternal life."
Jesus also said, He who heareth my word, and believes on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24.
Later, Jesus called out to the crowds, If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink. John 7:37.
He also said, Except that you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins. John 8:24.
Paul also said,
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth that all men everywhere should repent. Acts 17:30.
And also Peter stated:
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise...but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that anyone should perish, but all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9.
Do these verses indicate free will and human choice? Yes they do.
So here is the apparent contradiction between God's Sovereignty and free will. Both are true.
So what do we do? Accept them both equally. The Bible is God's Word to mankind. How one becomes a believer through hearing the Word preached was the result of God's Sovereign choice and at the same time a choice the person himself had made, cannot be explained. But it is taught. Rather than fight it about in a debate lasting centuries, why not just accept what the Bible says?
And it says that Christ died to reconcile us to God.

So in this final part I wish to discuss why believing in Once Saved Always Saved is the key to Holiness.
It is the assurance we need when the chips are down, when feeling lonely, a loser, struggling with a problem or as in the the days the New Testament was written, under intense persecution. Back then every Roman citizen must confess by law that Caesar is Lord. They must accept that the Emperor was divine. To say Jesus Christ is Lord instead of Caesar added up to treason, and the offender was imprisoned or executed. That is why Paul writes to the church in Rome that no one can confess that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit in him. In other words, confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord is of God's grace, not human merit. The same applies to perseverance. It is a grace from God, not a human strength. Many times in his letters Paul admonish his readers to "stand firm in the faith". That is to allow God's power to work unrestrained in the midst of tribulation without allowing the human weakness of fear and doubt get in the way.
It has nothing to do with loss of salvation.
To all those who trusts in Jesus Christ to save them:
God is a happy God. You are a gift to the Son for dying for your sins.
He had chosen you from eternity past, to enjoy the privilege of holiness.
Would he let you go? I can't see the sense in that.