1 Peter 1 is about the holiness that comes from Christ's imputed righteousness

1 Peter 1 talks of the holiness that comes by the blood of Christ alone. It is because of him (by his death which he took our sins and by his imputed righteousness to us) that we know and believe the gospel.

God can only deal with those who are in Christ

"The works of God are holy, all that He made was very good. He formed man perfect and in His image. He wrote His law in his heart and glorified Himself in grace, sanctifying the elect in Christ and by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He is called the Holy One of Jacob in Isa. 29:23. From His holy hill He hears the prayers of His people. (Ps. 3:4) God, the Holy One, shall be sanctified in righteousness (Isa. 5:16) for the redemption and the comfort of the hope of His poor. He is jealous for His honor (Josh. 24:19) and is therefore great and fearfull. 'Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?' (Ex. 15:11) 'Let them praise Thy great and terrible Name; for it is holy'. (Ps. 99:3)
Because of His holiness God can have communion only with those who are perfect. Not one person is holy in himself, yet those who are in Christ, are complete in Him (Col. 2:10) for He is the Holy One of God, (Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14) and the holy Child Jesus. (Acts 4:27) He sanctified Himself for His people. (John 17:19)" -G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Pg. 86-87

God is sufficient in and of Himself

"God is a knowing God. He is not a cold, abstract power, but he is the absolute, perfectly self conscious, infinite being, who is in himself the implication of all perfections. When we say that he is a knowing God, we mean that he is the self-sufficient one even in his knowledge. He has no need of anyone, of any being outside of himself, to be a knowing God. He is not in need of an object of knowledge outside of his own infinite fullness. In himself he is subject and object of all knowledge. he is the perfect subject as well as the infinitely perfect object of his own knowledge. When we say that God is the principle of all knowledge of God, we mean thereby that in the deepest sense he is also the principle of all knowledge of him that is found in the creature." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics

The Law demands perfect righteousness or beacons us to Faith in Christ

"The law, then, as a covenant of works, demands in the most authoritative manner, from every descendant of Adam who is under it, perfect holiness of nature, perfect righteousness of life, and complete satisfaction for sin. And none of the race of fallen Adam can ever enter heaven unless he either answers these three demands perfectly in his own person, or accepts by faith the consummate righteousness of the second Adam, who 'is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth' (Romans 10:4)." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise On The Law and The Gospel

The importance of the difference between Law and Gospel

It is very important to know the difference between the two principle points of Christianity or else one would become liable to the charge of legalism or licentiousness.

"By 'the law' here is meant the moral law as a covenant of works, and by 'the gospel' is meant the gospel in its strict and proper sense. To know the differemce so as to be able to distinguish aright between the law and the gospel is of every itmost importance to the faith, holiness, and comfort of every true Christian. It will be impossible otherwise for a man so to believe as to 'be filled with joy and peace in believing.' If he does not know the difference between the law ...and the gospel he will be apt, especially in affair of justification, to confound the one with the other. The consequence will be that his painful experience, bondage will be mixed with liberty of spirit, fear with hope, sorrow with joy, and death with life. If he cannot so distinguish the gospel from the law as to expect all his salvation from the grace of the gospel, and nothing of it from the works of the law; he will easily be induced to connect his own works with the righteousness of Jesus Christ in the affair of his justification. This was the great error of the Judaizing teachers in the churches of Galatia. They mingled the law with the gospel in the business of justification, and thereby they so corrupted the gospel as to alter the very natof it and make it another gospel. They taught that unless men were circumcised and kept the law of Moses, they could not be justified or saved (Acts 15:1-5). They informed the people that while the righteousness of Christ received by faith was necessary, their own works of obedience were also requisite in connection with it to entitle them to justification before God. This is a fundamental error, and such a one that if even an angel from heaven would publish it he should be accursed." -John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel

"The principal DIFFERENCES between these two parts of the doctrine of the church, consist in these three things:

1. In the subject, or general character of the doctrine, peculiar to each. The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ.
2. In the manner of the revelation peculiar to each. The law is known from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed.
3. In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and commencement of new obedience. Hereafter, however, more will be said upon this subject in the proper place." - The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism by Zacharias Ursinus

Supralapsarian

Only the Supralapsarian scheme can be said to be Trinitarian. God decrees his Glory which is the final cause for why He does anything. From this God decrees to that end.

God's Simplicity, Love, and Knowledge

For many the idea of God's simplicity has been a confused subject. For the Arminian to say that God is simple and that God knows by necessity all things is to mean that God is dependent upon something else outside of his nature. However, this is by far outside the truth of things. To say that God is one is to mean that God's love, holiness, Justice, Grace, Mercy, Knowledge, Aseity is one. Love does not contradict God's holiness nor the other way around because it is a Holy Love. God does not love at the expense of his holiness. The fact that God is eternal means that all of His divine attributes are so. God does not grow in anyone of his attributes. His knowledge does not change ever. God never changes as the verses say. But this is far from saying that God's knowledge depends upon something outside of Himself. When the assertion is made that by this knowledge God depends upon His creatures - we respond by asserting first and foremost no. You Arminian synergist are actually the one who makes the love of God depend upon creation. To say that God's knowledge is eternal and that it does not change is to say that God's knowledge is not dependent upon anything outside of Himself. What God knows, God knows fully well and does not change. His knowledge is based upon His own free and elective choice. This sadly has been the issue in Time. The Molinist have also tried to combat this issue by saying that there in God a Middle knowledge. By this assertion God in reality is dependent upon something outside of Himself to Decree. God looks at all the options and decides to create something that really brings Himself greater glory, from which God decrees such. This view of God makes God dependent upon something outside of Himself. No longer is his knowledge said to be original to God Himself or based upon His own pleasure.
For the Reformed, God's knowledge is actually based upon God's eternal being. God's knowledge does not change at all. As it is said, "God is, and always was so perfectly wise, that nothing ever did, or does, or can elude His knowledge. He knew, from all eternity, not only what He Himself intended to do, but also what He would incline and permit others to do. 'Known unto God are all His works from eternity' (Acts 15:18). Consequently, God knows nothing now, nor will know anything hereafter, which He did not know and foresee from everlasting, His foreknowledge being co-eternal with Himself, and extending to everything that is or shall be done (Heb. 4:13). All things, which comprises past, present and future, are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." - Jerome Zanchius

More from our estrange Arminian

In talking about Romans 9, the Arminian says, "Thus it is important to note that the text is not trying to describe unconditional election, but is in fact denying election by lineage. The Jews thought that they were elect by birth and justified by works. In other words, the entered the covenant by birth, and maintained it by works. Paul’s original thesis makes this clear. These examples are not examples of God choosing Isaac and Jacob, but examples of God not choosing Ishmael and Esau (as well as their descendants), even though they were sons of Abraham."


I am not sure what his logic is. If he is denying salvation by lineage then what else could Paul be talking about? The fact that Romans 9:1-13 is directly dealing with the Jewish line of lineage gives credence for Unconditional Election. I mean by this that in verse 7 only Isaac is mentioned in context. Before this Paul says it is not as though the Word of God has failed. The reason why is because not all are really Israel who are from Israel. Then he speaks of Isaac. We want to supply the Antithesis of Isaac as being Ishmael. Elsewhere Paul does compare the two, but here Paul's argument is only about the Jews. The question is why do not the Jews believe - For they had all things pertaining to Salvation. The answer is found in verse 11in order that God's purpose of election might continue. Again it is not the Children of the flesh who are heirs but the Children of promise.

Geerhardus Vos once said in his Biblical Theology that election "in regards to indidivuals, the divine saving grace is always a differentiating principle. There is a people of God, a chosen people, a people of election, as truly today as in the time of the patriarchs. Of this likewise Paul was intensely conscious. . . . On the one hand, as between Jew and Gentile, he upholds the principle of universalism, and proves it from the patriarchal history [Gal. 4.22]; on the other hand, as between Jew and Jew he insists upon discrimination; not all who are descended from Abraham are children of God and of the promise [Rom. 9.6]."

Does an Arminian Exegete exist?

I read a post on another blog that gave some Bible verses that are most often times quoted by Reformed folks. One such Bible passage is Ephesians 1:1-13.

I will only attack his points one by one.

He says,

First, the context is not doctrinal but liturgical. Paul isn’t trying to lay down a foundation on the doctrines of predestination and election. Instead, he is using the concepts of predestination and election to praise God for the inclusion (or predestining) of the Gentiles in election.

One, I am not sure what the difference is? Whether it is doctrinal or liturgical. Our liturgy should be based on Doctrine. But, it is interesting what he says here that he praises God for the doctrine of predestination for the inclusion of the Gentiles. I am not sure what he means by predestining in the brackets. Maybe he means that God predestined before hand that the Gentiles would be saved? Calvinist would say that and more. Some people amongst both the Jews and Gentiles have been included.

Next he says,

Second, this text does not apply directly to all Christians (though indirectly it does). The text above is directly talking about the election of the Jews. God predestined the Jews to be the sons of God on this earth, and to establish them to be who the are. This is evident in verse 13 where Paul directly contrasts the “we” in the above verses with the Ephesians themselves. The text only applies to us in the sense that we are now given something that we didn’t have before: inclusion in the promises of the Jews.

This one may seem hard to tackle. It seems very viable. We, you, and they... Must be talking about Jews and Gentiles distinction! Kid in the candy store... Anyways, the point is simple he says that the text is talking about the election of the Jews... I wonder if he thought about what he just said. For one thing he said earlier that Paul was praising God for the inclusion or predestining of the Gentiles, but, here he says that Paul is talking about the election of the Jews. Also I am wondering just what he thinks about Predestination. The text says before the foundation of the world and not after... Unless Biblical words have no meaning?
Next he says that God predestined the Jews to be the Sons of God on this earth... Sure. He did. As a Calvinist I will gladly say he did such. But I won't stop there though. I will say furthermore that God had a plan or purpose to which he Created the world and that Purpose is In Christ.
Lets just say for a moment that he is right.... on this one little part about the Gentiles now being included in the promises of the Jews what does that take away? Nothing at all. Paul says in Romans 11 that the Jews were harden so that the Gentiles might be engrafted. The promises are all in Christ and not inherent to the Jews alone. As Paul did say in Romans 9 that not all are Children of Israel because they are from Israel.

He next says,

Third, the central themes here are also not election and predestination. Instead, they are revelation, redemption, and the dominion of Christ. When you begin to try and make this text to be a proof-text for Calvinism, you lose sight of Paul’s heart. 

This one I am doubly confused. The central themes are Election and Predestination. It is why Paul is blessing God because he has predestined us to be In Christ. I am not certain what he means by losing sight of Paul's heart here. When I see election and predestination being revealed in Scripture I am doubly amazed about how God would save me a sinner by His grace alone. But the words here are also complex. He says that only revelation, redemption, and the dominion of Christ are the themes but not predestination? Why? It is talked about all throughout the text.

Finally he says,

Finally, to believe in unconditional election undermines Paul’s whole point in the book of Ephesians. Paul makes his point most clearly in 3:5-6: In former generation this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
He says that the major point of Ephesians is to show the amazement of the inclusion of the Gentiles and Jews. And although this is true as Ephesians does talk about the Mystery. But to disregard the Purpose or Plan of God is to throw out the Baby along with the Bath Water. For one thing he points out that We and You are distinct. It is true. But if he follows his case down to its conclusion then he will end up saying that the Jews were the only ones atoned for, predestined, and the Gentiles are not. His points really do not make much since. (Plus this view is not new - Barth probably had it). If anything these passages show that it has been God's primary intention to save a people amongst the Jews and Gentiles which is now being revealed. One should read Gordon H. Clark.

Christian Rap

Without Holy Scripture we cannot discern rightly General Revelation. Apart from Special Revelation no one can discern rightly what is being spoken of in General Revelation (in fact some even have taken liberty to say this does not really exist). God exist and has shown Himself and continues to speak of Himself in nature, but unless God turns man and gives him light to see he will not turn to God and God’s wrath abides.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

Two wills of God discussion.

Josh said: God is more complex than for us to limit Him to only one emotional disposition towards individuals. He can desire every human to be saved and at the same only desire to unconditionally save the elect.


Me (Kirk said): if you say God is complex then we in fact cannot know Him. Scripture does not say that God is complex but that God is one. Scripture does not say that God is unknowable, but that He is inexhaustible. This is why Scripture says that what has been revealed is for the purpose that you should follow. God has not revealed to us everything about Himself, but only that which we should know. What God knows as Creatures we to can know. The difference in our knowledge is quantitative and not qualitative. Jesus says that we worship what we know. What we know that is what we speak.


Josh: Well, the idea is not that there are two wills, but two things that He wills. One more than the other. Massive difference. One is confusing and nonsensical, the other is very relatable and understandable.



Me: God wills two things? No one disagrees with that statement. Obviously the command is based upon God's will. You have not clarified the issue. The issue is not whether or not God wills two things. The issue is whether or not God desires in the same sense the salvation of the reprobate that He does the salvation of the elect. Does he at the same time desire to save all when in fact he does not save all? I'd say you should read the Van Til/Clark Controversy which speaks on this issue. 



I (Kirk) asked him: would it not be better to say that God COMMANDS that all would repent and believe the gospel, but only WILLS that the elect should repent and believe the gospel?


Josh: My response is that the idea of a command, if it has any real significance, is that it accords with God’s desires at some level.



Me: I'd disagree. Command does not mean that God actually longs for someone to do something or not. By this you are arguing the same line of the Arminian. God is the legislator.  God as the creator of the universe is the governor of His creation. Apart from salvation-history, Adam (Creature of God) does not have the right to salvation because salvation is a prerogative right that God freely does. As a Creature of God however Adam should obey God. This does not mean however that Adam by obeying God should merit eternal life (this is only grounded in Christ alone - which is covenant language).



Josh: This is how the whole distinction between wickedness and righteousness has fundamental distinction: it is rooted in God’s very nature (i.e. what pleases Him) expressed in desires, which is the formal cause of His will. For example, God makes real commands against wickedness and evil, and those commands are rooted in His character which manifests in desires.



Me: Well God commands are different from what God wills to do. God makes a command because He is the creator. This is the responsibility of man. No one denies the fact that the commands are grounded in who God is. But, you must be careful. God is not bound to certain commands. He could have justly commanded that murder is just as righteous as not to murder. The distinction between wickedness and righteousness is found in Christ. However,  the distinction between wickedness and goodness is ground in sin. However, the distinction between the elect and reprobate is based upon God's free elective choice.





Josh: However, He may, and very often does, desire other things more than “everything” happening according to that set of desires. In the case of His moral commands, He desires that all men obey them, but more than that, at the same time, He desires His plan to unfold as He has ordained according to the counsel of His will. The chief example of this is seen in the Cross: God opposing sin at all times, but because of His grater plan, He ordained the sufferings of Christ at the hands of wicked men.



Me: God command is rooted in God's will of election and reprobation. You cannot make the two on the same level. Nor should you condition the will of election and reprobation on the command. You are using desires and commands equivocatively. However, as Calvin says the command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation so that although God commands not to murder, He however wills that a person does murder. The command based upon God's righteousness is stated to serve the doctrine of election in that sin is revealed by it and that the reprobate are destroyed because of sin.



Calvin says, "Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence



In as far as God wills a thing in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God.

 But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. The command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation.



Josh: So it is with Salvation: God desires the salvation of all men, but more than that desire, He desires the salvation of the elect, being part of His eternal plan, so that the purpose of election might stand, and so He intentionally ordains their salvation and ensures that it will happen by His Spirit, knowing, and ordaining, that without His Spirit irrevocably changing people, they will never repent and believe and so be saved.



Me: Actually salvation is rooted in the justice of God. God desires solely the salvation of the elect, if he had not then the reprobate would not be reprobate but also the elect. What the two wills fail to explain is the fact that salvation is established with the elect alone who are in Christ alone. It is not true that because God commands Christians to preach the Gospel that this administering of the Gospel is actually itself the desire. Again the reprobate by hearing the Gospel are condemned more harshly for the light which they have. Further, they even suppress the truth of God clearly revealed. If God supremely desired to save the reprobate then he would have them to be saved, but he does not. Unless of course you are wanting say that natural revelation is in fact genuine and is capable of saving without the special work of the Spirit to reveal to Him the truths.



Josh: So, it is a surface level distinction to say that the difference between the reprobate and the elect, as regards God’s disposition, is that God wills one set to repent while commanding both to repent because commands are rooted in desire and will.



Me: No the command is that all should repent and believe. The command is that all men should glorify God. But not all do so. God however, in the administration of the gospel commands all to repent, but the command is also effectual and so calls the elect unto Christ.


Josh: All people have lesser desires they will forgo for the sake of more deep and abiding desires.



Me: God's desire is perfect and not complex. Human beings whose nature is fallen are complex and may desire anything under the sun.

  

Calvin and the supposed two wills of God

Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence

In as far as God wills a in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God. But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. 

 

On the only way to have Peace with God

"Christ is a way to take away the effect of God's displeasure; Christ is the only way to take it away. 'Shall I give the fruit of my body,' saith the prophet Micah, 6.7, 'for the sin of my soul? thousands of rams, or ten thousand rivers of oil?' No, alas! this will not buy out the penance of one sin, when he hath sinned; it is all too mean a price: there must be a better to take away that wrath; that is, the heavy punishment of God from a believer. I say a better price than this; not a dearer price to us poor men, but yet a more dear and acceptable price unto God; a price, in its nature, infinite and invaluable; but, of this price, not a farthing goes out of our purse; there is the greatness. Christ is a way to take away all wrath, in respect of the heavy hand of God, which is the fruit of man's sin." - Tobias Crisp

On Right, and salvation

God does not have to save anybody. Salvation is a prerogative right belonging to God alone to do as He pleases for His glory. Salvation is not a right that man has. If anything man is a creature of God responsible to Him alone as Creator who created all things and created man especially in His image. In as much as God created man for His glory alone that man would live to represent God and to honor God, man however rebelled in Adam and after the fall All men are lost and depraved. If anything man who sinned against an infinite, holy and just God deserves punishment and condemnation. If anyone is saved it is due to the free sovereign and gracious elective choice of God to save a particular people in Christ.

On God, Sovereignty and Freedom

How is God not sovereign when Calvinist say that God purposed to save some men (His Elect) and reject others (The Reprobate) when the foundation of this relies in God's free elective choice. Is it not the same when we say that God has commanded the good not because of any arbitrariness with God or that the good was above God (as if  making God obligated to something higher than He). That is the most exagerated statement anyone can make, when on the contrary we uphold God's absolute freedom by the fact that He is God and nothing else is. God is free and sovereign to uphold whatever is of His Glory.

What do Christians fundamentally believe?

The fundamental christian belief is that there is a God who is good and just and that he impartially judges not according to appearances but according to the heart.

The problem of pain and the cose of sin

This week Pastor Stewart Leafblad exegeted Luke 13:1-5.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them,  'Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.'

The question to consider in this text: Why would God allow the events of 9/11 to happen?
There are two assumptions which are both false. 1. Suffering draws us closer to ourselves. That is it makes us learn to love one another. But, this is insufficient, for it makes lightly the problem of sin. 2. Martin Marty has said, "I don't know." This is the answer that says there is no answer. It gives suffering too much credit. Therefore there is no God.

However, when considering the question of suffering we must go back to God. The question one must ask is What does God say however?There are two tragic events where it involved the death of 'innocence' people - according to our worlds standards. In verse 2 Jesus answers by challenging the Jewish answer. That ones suffering is caused by ones deficiency. It is in other words Karma - that is what comes up must come down.

Verse 3 - Jesus answers no they were not the worse of sinners. This is the assumption that someone is suffering it must mean that they are worse than anyone else.

Verse 4 - Jesus explains with another example to help clarify the first comment.


There are 4 universal principles we may see in this passage:- Tragedy in a persons life as no sure signs of a persons standing. One can see that Jesus is now tearing down the issue of pride.

- Sin is personal. The external important matter is our own sinfulness.

- The result of the enterance in the world is death. This means that one day we will die. The proof that we are all sinners is that we all die. But there is another part of this death to - that is the fact that we are all born in Adam by birth and so are thus born spiritually dead which one sees the outcome of this spiritual death which leads ultimately to physical death.

- The judgment of God against sinners is eternal death which is so clearly emphasised in this verse

SO what is the conclusion?

There are no good people. We all like sheep have gone astray - Isaiah 53:6. Of course the way that I went is different than the way you may have gone -whether it be Homosexuality, disobedience to parents, or even stealing. We all choose to live in sin daily - this is the passive wrath of God who hands us over according to the lustful patterns of our hearts. Romans 1:18-32

We are to repent. Again the call is still the same for you and me to repent from sin.

God invites us to turn from our wickedness today to turn to Jesus Christ in faith - trusting not in ourselves for righteousness but in Him.

Finally, why does God allow suffering, it is because tragedy's are used by God so that we would know our sin. C.S. Lewis - the problem of pain.

The unfairness of Man and the fairness of God

"Why do they not accuse God because He punishes innocent beasts and baptized infants with no small physical pain? indeed He gave up his own most innocent Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to a most painful, cruel, and tormenting punishment. But since God is omnipotent, completely free Lord of His whole creation, whose will alone is the most righteous law for all creation - if He should eternally punish the innocent, particularly sin He does it for the perfection of the universe, for the profit of others, and for the honor of God Himself, who would presume to dispute with Him, no one! 'Has the potter no right over the clay to make of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for menial use'?" - Bradwardine


God, who sent His own Son Jesus Christ to die the most horrific death ever imagined, cannot be charged with indecency when he does judge and destroy Man who have fallen and sinned and disobeyed Him.

On Proper Functions in Marriage - Or What is a Proper Functioning Marriage?

"When compared with the biblical pattern of marriage and the family set forth in the opening chapters of Genesis, homosexuality fallse short on numerous fronts. First, as the antithesis of heterosexuality, homosexuality is at odds with God's design for marriage and the family at its most foundational level.... A second component of the biblical model of marriage that homosexuality violates is its complementary nature.... Since these marital roles are tied inherently and unalterably to gender, same-sex partners cannot participate in this aspect of biblical marriage....A third integrated component of God's design for marriage and the family that homosexuality does not fulfill is the duty to procreate.... By nature, however, homosexuality falls short of this essential component of the biblical/traditional model of marriage and the family, since it precludes reproduction."

Kostenberger, Andreas J. "God, Marriage, and Family" Pg. 202-03 2004 1st edition