Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.

POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.

POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.

Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?

Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?

Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).

You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.

Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.

Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil

Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.

The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.

1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.

2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.

The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.

Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.

In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.

Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power

The Book of Revelation -- Is it really what we think it is?

My thoughts on the book of Revelation have always been cloudy and the only thing I think John Calvin did that was truly smart was he never wrote a commentary on it. Perhaps a lesson to the rest of us, but here I go making a series of posts on the subject of Revelation. I remember sitting in Sunday School as a teen when they taught about the end times (eschatology is the technical term) and asking the question of -- what if everyone is wrong? It is not an inconceivable option and as I went through my education I realized a few things:

1. The doctrine of the Rapture as most evangelicals have come to know it has only been around since the 19th century.

2. The doctrine of the Great Tribulation hinges on a single passage in Daniel that could be interpreted as fulfilled already in the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. See Daniel 9:24-27 for details.

3. The seven year tribulation timeline that is superimposed on the book of Revelation has its origins in both western thoughts of time and is only a recent phenom as it also has its origins in the 19th century.

4. "Seven" is put against many things in Revelation -- horns, trumpets, vials, seals, etc. One thing it is not put against is 'years'. Yep, for all the talk about a seven year tribulation, there is never a time in the Bible where the concept of a seven year time period and a great tribulation are linked.

5. Now, I also have different ideas on how the God of the Bible relates to time (aka as open theism) and I am wondering how that might affect my interpretation of the book of Revelation? I also wonder if all I had was the book of Revelation, how would I interpret it without referencing other books of the Bible?

So discarding the one wise thing John Calvin did (hey, I have already discarded everything else he did, so I might as well throw the last thing out), here I go into the wonderful world of Revelation and the great effort in this series, which may take a quite a while, is to let the book speak for itself. Onward and Upward.