This blog is dedicated towards the furtherance of the biblical gospel according to the sovereign and free grace position. Glory be to God..

Month: May, 2016

If you Flush Your Old Conversion, Does that mean that You will Probably Also Flush your New Conversion?

For the Elect Alone

I experienced a “real” conversion to the false Arminian gospel when I was twelve years old. I went three days and three nights without sleep or food, because I was a very serious and sincere person convinced that Christ’s death for all sinners depended on the sinner to make it work, and that I had to make a decision. After three days, the decision was emotional, cathartic. Now I had signed the check and so “jesus” would save me, and my faith I did not consider a work, but I knew that my faith was the difference between saved and lost.

When I was 45 years old, I learned what the true gospel was. I learned that God had either already imputed the sins of a sinner to Christ or not. I learned that Christ’s death saves the elect. Over a process of time, I came to repent of my…

View original post 320 more words


Smeaton on I Peter 4:1

For the Elect Alone

I Peter 4:1– “Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm
yourselves with the same way of thinking, for as many as have suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin”

George Smeaton, p 444, Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement—“Peter recapitulates after completing the intervening parenthesis (3:19-22). When he resumes his previous expressions, he can only refer to Christ’s vicarious sufferings in the flesh. He bids Christians to
realize the fact that, in Christ’s sufferings as their surety, they were co-crucified. Here then we have another instance in which Peter and Paul use nearly the same phraseology in speaking of our death to sin.

Any other explanation is unnatural. Those who represent the expressions as alluding to what Christ encountered in his earthly life from men, and explain the second clause of the believer suffering in Christ’s cause and after His example, can produce nothing to satisfy the forcible terms…

View original post 194 more words

Man of Tin

written by David Bishop

One of the most popular false gods today is the god of unconditional love.   The god of unconditional has a grace and love that cannot be earned, that cannot be bought, that cannot be deserved.   The god of unconditional love expresses this love and grace freely, with no conditions attached to his object’s obedience.   Although the god of unconditional love is angry with sin, and knows that everyone who sins deserves to be punished for their sins, in his mercy and grace the god of unconditional love still bids everyone to come as they are without one plea, but that his blood was shed for thee.

View original post 543 more words

Satan hates Eternal Security

For the Elect Alone

Satan does not agree with God about lost and saved. God says to those who do not have the righteousness required: ye shall surely die. Satan says: let’s discuss that, let’s find a way to verify that empirically. Satan says: nobody knows for sure.

Satan says: do you think you are God that you know for sure? Then Satan says: and who are you to think you know for sure what God has said? Satan says: and who is God to say for sure you will die. Satan says: that was a generalization about people dying, but on this historical occasion, we can’t know for sure what will happen, since future grace is conditional and nothing is finished yet.

I am not saying that the liberals have denied my freedom of speech. I have no desire to sit down at the liberal’s table and “cast my vote” and “say what…

View original post 219 more words

No End Runs Around God’s Laws

For the Elect Alone

In our day many folks think they have escaped legalism by simply eliminating any antithesis between law and gospel. Thus they want to divide up Christ’s righteousness to BOTH the “instead of us” AND also to the “in us”.

They instruct us to stop looking only at the past and at the cross, and begin to look also to the salvation of the Holy Spirit in us (and thus the future work of Christ in our “activity”)

Though law and gospel are not the same thing, they are not opposed because they never claim to have the same function. Law says what God demands. The gospel says how Christ satisfied that demand for the elect.

The law never offered life off probation. Only one sin puts you under its curse. No matter how many acts of obedience you have to the law, the law never promises everlasting life.

The “end…

View original post 245 more words

The Law Was Not the Gospel for Adam, but Christ’s Satisfaction of the Law is the Gospel for Us

For the Elect Alone

The real point of the law-gospel antithesis is not “conflict”. It is non-identity. The law is not the gospel. The gospel is not the law. The gospel, however, is about Christ’s satisfaction of God’s law for God’s elect. Though law and gospel are not the same thing, they are not opposed because they never claim to have the same function.

Law says what God demands. Gospel says how Christ satisfied that demand for the elect. The law never offered life off probation: only one sin would put Adam and his seed under its curse, and no matter how many acts of obedience to the law, the law could never promise the life of the age to come.

The law-gospel antithesis does NOT understand Romans 10:4 in terms of abrogation. The “end of the law” is Christ completing all that the law demanded, so that there is no remainder left for…

View original post 1,291 more words

The James White Fallacy

Cornbread & Bourbon


James White insists that most of the Arminians who he knows are inconsistent.   He has never bothered to explain just precisely what they are inconsistent about, but he does insist they are inconsistent.  In fact, he insists that most Christians are inconsistent about some things they believe.  By inconsistent, I suppose he means unbiblical, as in, most Christians believe some things that are unbiblical.  Perhaps he is right, or perhaps he is wrong.  Regardless, he uses his argument about inconsistency to make a most fantastical leap in logic.  He surmises that if you disagree with his assessment that an “inconsistent Arminian” is a brother, then you must be advocating for faith in perfect knowledge.  This is absurd.   Who said anything about perfect knowledge?

Must our knowledge of the truths about Christ be complete and/or perfect in order to have assurance?  No, because not all propositions concerning the truths about Christ…

View original post 732 more words