"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise."

To understand what I want to say in this blog we need to read quite a few verses to understand the historical context Paul is using, for he will be talking to an audience that understands the law.

Gal 4:22  For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
Gal 4:23  But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
Gal 4:24  Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25  Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26  But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Gal 4:27  For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
Gal 4:28  Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29  But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
Gal 4:30  But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Gal 4:31  So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

The promise from God that Abram would have a son of his own through his wife is found in Genesis 15:4. His wife Sarai did not trust in God's promise of an heir, so she got her female slave Hagar to be Abram's new wife so that she would conceive a child. This child, Ishmael, was promised to Hagar.


Gen 16:11  And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction.
Gen 16:12  He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."

This was a promise of a curse that God would have on Ishmael that he would be at constant war with other nations and would be like a wild donkey of a man; rebellious and stubborn. When Isaac came along through Sarai, this was to fulfill the promise He had made to Abram. Genesis 17 describes this covenant through Abram which was that his offspring would be God's people and would be blessed with this everlasting covenant. "...Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him." Genesis 17:19

Gen 17:1  When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 

Gen 17:2  that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly." 

Gen 17:3  Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 

Gen 17:4  "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 

Gen 17:5  No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 

Gen 17:6  I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 

Gen 17:7  And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 

Gen 17:8  And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." 

Gen 17:9  And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 

Gen 17:10  This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 

Gen 17:11  You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 

Gen 17:12  He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 

Gen 17:13  both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 

Gen 17:14  Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

Gen 17:15  And God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 

Gen 17:16  I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." 

Gen 17:17  Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" 

Gen 17:18  And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" 

Gen 17:19  God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 

Gen 17:20  As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 

Gen 17:21  But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year." 

So in Galatians 4:22,23 we can historically see where Paul is going to go with his argument. In verse 24 he tells us, 

Gal 4:24  Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 

Gal 4:25  Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 

Hagar, the slave of Sarai, conceived Ishmael who was given a promise of curse and outward blessing for a time. Paul uses this allegorically to show how the Jews who are persecuting the Christian church by demanding they be circumcised, observe certain days, etc are descendants of that promise given to Ishmael, as they are enslaved to the law given on Mount Sinai. Paul then contrasts the present day Jews with "us".

Gal 4:26  But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 

Gal 4:27  For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband." 

Gal 4:28  Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 

Paul tells the readers that they are not like Ishmael, rather are of their mother Sarai, who was promised to Abraham an heir that would be the people of God; an everlasting covenant. He quotes Isaiah 54 to demonstrate that this has always been the case. This is key to understanding the flow of argument in what Paul is saying. Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah of Israel and concludes 53 with His death,

Isa 53:10  Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 

Isa 53:11  Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 

Isa 53:12  Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. 

And so this leads in Isaiah 54 in which Isaiah tells the children of the barren woman to rejoice and to expand their tents. (I believe this is in reference to the kingdom of heaven on earth).

Isa 54:1  "Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married," says the LORD. 

Isa 54:2  "Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes.

Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 to illustrate that we (the believers ) are of the promise given through Isaac, being set free from the law and having our transgressions bore on the Messiah. This argument totally destroys any sort of promise of salvation given to those who try their best, exercise their free will or strive to please God, as Sarai bore a child after committing a great sin by giving her slave as Abram's wife in order to bear a son. Sarai  and Abram did not deserve a son and especially a promise of an everlasting covenant from God. But, as Romans 9 tells us,

Rom 9:7  and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 

Finally Paul concludes with,

Gal 4:31  So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. 

We as believers were given the promise before we were born and had done anything good or bad (Romans 9).

"But when he who had set me apart before I was born,"

"But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace," Galatians 1:15

Paul affirms the doctrine of predestination, not only in Galatians but, also all throughout the epistles. Grace is not something that God has on everyone, as Paul parallels here the setting apart with God's grace. It was by God's grace that He set Paul apart before he was born. "For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Romans 9:15. God does not have to save anyone. It is entirely up to God whether or not He decides to show mercy, and it doesn't depend on man's willing or man's attempting. (Romans 9:16) In fact all sinners deserve the righteous hate of Almighty God; eternity in hell.

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--" Romans 9:11

Before Jacob and Esau were even born, God had elected one to salvation and hardened the other to reprobation. Paul even goes so far as to make clear that it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what man will do."were not yet born", "had not done anything good or bad" so that "God's purpose of election might continue, NOT because of works BUT because of Him who calls--". How does the argument of God basing election on what man would do fit anywhere in this text? It doesn't, it is the exact opposite of what Paul is telling us. "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Romans 9:16

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:29

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you" 1 Peter 1:20

I'm going to get the ole' "He knew who would believe!!!" argument out of the way by demonstrating what the word "foreknew" means. In 1 Peter 1:20 we see that Christ was foreknown, so does this mean that God just knew what He would do? No, on the contrary it refers to something God has done. (Parallel with Acts 2:23) The word "know" Biblically speaking in relation to God's people, is that of coming close to or coming into relationship with. God has been actively working in His elect all of their life and will succeed in drawing them to Him. How can God do this? Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with free will, rather a bound will.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:3-6

Predestination is synonymous with love, "In love He predestined us for adoption". This love that Christ has for the elect is unique. It is the love He has for His bride; the church. If this love were on anyone else, this would make Christ an adulterer, as He only seeks to enter into relationship with His bride, not every single individual to ever live. This adoption was according to His will so there is no room for man to make an decision here. God has not left it up to us to decide on our own, rather He will accomplish that which He pleases.

Everything for a Purpose

"The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." Proverbs 16:4 ESV

God has made all things to glorify Himself, yes even the wicked. We can see this same teaching in Romans 9,

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--" Romans 9:22,23 ESV

And so, we have a Biblical basis for this teaching of God causing all things. God is not a big bumbling idiot in the sky who made everything good in the beginning and then had no clue what would happen afterwards. After Adam fell God did not ask, as Mr. Shearer would say, "What happened?!", instead God had ordained it all to occur to fulfill His purpose, even the sinful act of Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If God can ordain the crucifixion of Christ, which is the greatest sin in history, then there is no problem saying that God ordains all the "lesser" sins. Notice how man attempts to contrast other sins such as rape, murder, etc to the crucifixion of Christ.

I truly question the salvation of some when professing Christians attempt to hold a candle to the crucifixion by using emotional arguments like "Does God ordain rape? Does He want children to be killed?". What if He did? So what's the problem? One vessel for honorable use, another for common use, all from the same lump. In the below video, James White gives examples of the type of argumentation that anti-Calvinists use to plea to the emotions of others.

This attempt to discredit the God of Calvinism is actually ignoring the Scriptures or changing it to relieve God of "responsibility". Obvious texts like Genesis 50:20 MUST be twisted and turned to actually say "God allowed it" or some other pathetic attempt at eisegesis. The Scripture has made itself crystal clear that God ordains all things, yet God does not sin. That will be another article for the future, but the concept is very basic.

Sin is rebellion against God and His law. God cannot steal, as it all belongs to Him anyways. God cannot murder as He has given us the life we have. He cannot commit adultery because He is not swayed from His affection in the church. The responsibility of man is not based off of what God does, it's not based on whether or not man is free, rather it's based on what man does and his hearts condition.

We must believe all that the Bible says and not pick and choose what we like about God. Yes, God is love and because He is love, He must also hate. For He is the potter and man is the clay. Who are we to question God?

The Politically Correct Gospel

Worldliness
Something I have started to see within professing Christians of whom most are free-will Arminians, is the abundance of worldliness in the gospel and message they bring to the table. The gospel I’m hearing isn’t anything to really consider and think about. “God loves you so repent else you’ll go to Hell, but He really does love you, died for you and doesn’t want you to perish,” what sort of love is that? If God loves me He will save me, and if He doesn’t love me then I don’t really matter in the end. Although it seems bad enough that this sort of thinking has loads of theological issues swept under the rug, evangelicals and even your common church-goers pile on a heaping load of political correctness, reeking with non-confrontational vocabulary. This is what appeals to the world.

“They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.” (1 John 4:5)

In my generation of the world’s nations moving towards unity and world peace, political correctness has become the unwritten moral standard to almost every major nation. Political correctness attempts to establish a vocabulary that does not contain dissenting ideas, differences in morality and especially confrontation. To strongly disagree with someone would be considered a bit rude or “unloving” of you. Even worse, if you dare to call someone wrong it’s as if you spit in their face. The ending result of political correctness would be a population that all thought the same way without asking questions or even fighting for what they believe in.. It is a conforming ideology that is meant to drive civilization to “peace”. This type of thinking is very common within communist countries.

Scary enough, this ideology has entered the visible church. With fatal attempts to become appealing to the world and to be modern and popular, some “Christians” have sacrificed theology, doctrine and truth for a lie. A lie that fits right in with political correctness and ultimately focuses entirely on man and the potential he has to improve himself. No talk of sin, doctrine, theology or even repentance. It’s all focused on helping the world by giving away your shoes and clothes and feeding starving countries. Although there is nothing wrong with those things, the “churches” that claim to be Christian are actually just a do-gooders club, passing around the offering bucket, giving “sermons” on how to be a better you and how to bring others to Christ by showing them all the stuff God has given you for what you’ve done!

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Call me mean-spirited, call me rude or call me hateful, but this type of thinking is an abomination in the eyes of God. At the core of this movement of prosperity, self-help and the anti-confrontational “Christianity”, sits an idol called humanism. How many times have you been talking to someone, whether it be on Facebook, work or even face-to-face and someone corrects you by saying, “Well, I think we should all just stop arguing about these “tier” issues because all that matters is the relationship and love.”? Umm…love who? How do we love God? What if correcting others involves loving others, is it still a “tier” issue? Many times their intentions are not rooted in the Bible, rather in a non-confrontational approach to theology, witnessing and doctrine; a sacrifice of truth for the sake of unity.

I tend to wonder if any of these people have ever read books like Leviticus, Psalms, Exodus, Samuel and Kings. Even if, and that’s a huge if, in some miraculous way they could excuse the Old Testament for it’s “old world ways”, the same type of confrontation and boldness continues in the New Testament! How many times did Jesus talk about Hell? “Well God is love”, yes and God loves righteousness, not wickedness. Aren’t the 3 epistles of John filled with warnings about false teachers? Isn’t Jude entirely devoted for encouragement of waging war against false teachings?

“I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3

How does this politically correct Christianity stand in the face of passages such as Romans 8:7, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and the teachings of Jesus on the inability to come to Him? It doesn’t, yet consistency seems to be one of these “tier” issues to the politically correct “church” . I think John made it very clear to us how to discern what is a message of the world and what is the message of God.

“We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” 1 John 4:6

John 6:44

I was having a conversation with someone on Facebook regarding free will and predestination. One of the verses I used to justify the Biblical teaching of predestination and absolutely sovereignty was John 6:44. In some way, my "opponent" tried to force Matthew 11:27 into John 6:44, in an attempt to show how John 6:44 involved all people being drawn. Although he thought this was a correct exegesis of the context and examining the passage correctly, he actually proved my point that we do not have a free will. Here is what I said:



""Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

We immediately notice that Christ thanks the Father because He has "hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children" which shows that God can overcome any man's will to know God. I would also note that this passage says nothing about God hiding those things because they weren't willing or because they had hardened their own heart, or allowed them to not see it, it clearly says that God has hidden something from them. God actively did it, not allowed it. Verse 27 is a problem for free will, synergistic theology, because it's made clear that "no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.". It's an inability on our part to know God without Him doing something inside a man's heart. This text doesn't say that He makes Himself known to every individual, nor does it mention that these wise people did not receive Him because they reject Him or hardened their hearts. It says "the Son chooses to reveal Him".

The next verse, which you implied that Christ made an offering to every single individual, is a conditional statement. He said "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He is speaking to an audience, specifically to those who recognize that they are heavy laden and who labor, not every; single; individual. He clearly said it to certain people. All of who? "all who labor and are heavy laden". See where you added to the text? (in reference to whom I was speaking to) It's not every individual that ever or will ever live.

John 6:44 has nothing to do with this text anyways.

"Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Joh 6:41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
Joh 6:42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
Joh 6:43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--
Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

God's will is that Christ will lose nothing that He has given Him. Now, in order to move on be sure we are talking about the same God, we need to agree that God accomplishes His will, do you agree that God's will be done and that no one can stay His hand? If we agree to this, we can recognize that there are absolutes in this passage, such as verse 39 states. God's will is also "that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Remember that part "raise him up on the last day" because it's synonymous with those who believe and look to the Son. Those who believe and look on the Son will be raised up on the last day.

Now, reading verse 44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Who can come to the Father? No one. Who will be raised up on the last day then? Verse 40, " that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Will all who look on the Son be raised up, or just those who use their free will and stay within God's grace? "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." Christ will lose none that the father has given Him, rather raise them up on the last day.

This isn't a solely New Testament teaching either, notice verse 45 says "It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- " This is a reference to Isaiah 54:13 " All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." prophesying the work of God in His peoples heart. It is an act of God, accomplishing His purpose in the hearts of men. If I could emphasize something in these passages, notice the particularity within them. All these passages refer to people who believe, look to the Son, are taught by God and lifted up. The whole entire passage, just as Matthew 11, are all to specific groups of people and contain conditional statements, not everyone in general. That is why the drawing act of the Father and the lifting up in John 6:44 have nothing to do with Matthew 11."

The Confusion of Salvation: Free Will and Collateral Damage

How God saves spiritually and the means by which He does so, is something many church goers are completely confused and flat out wrong about. Most believe it's a manipulation of emotions that is accompanied with salvation, rather than the sole conviction of God regenerating them. I recall talking to someone just recently about a community project the local church was doing. The person said, "maybe someone will hear a sad story and be saved" (paraphrased). Of course, being aware of that church's theology I knew exactly what method she was speaking of. I'm sure that the woman would agree that testimonial videos do not save a person, but seems to think that them being sad will emotionally entice them and move them to be saved, as if it is the church's job to stir up emotion within the lost.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that music, sad stories, life change testimonies, social services and soft words do not in any way lead someone to repentance. Controlling someone's emotions by these means is not how you save anyone. In fact, we as humans do not save anyone at all. God may use you as an instrument and He may save someone through an invitation, but the extent to which churches have gone by planning to have someone within the pews to come down to the altar, just to make everyone more feel comfortable, then playing "Just As I Am" 13 times and other methods, just go to show how confused they are about how salvation and repentance work.

Bob did not get saved because "sister Mary sang that certain song" after the screaming preaching, which probably included "God loves you and wants everyone to be saved, but you have to choose him!". Five people are not saved because "someone obeys the lord during the invitation and goes to the altar, and then that moves everyone else". All these things are traditions, void of Scripture; rampant within Arminian camps.

What does this all stem from? Free will theology seems to be the culprit here. The most offensive concept that I find is that man is able to create conditions that would lead the lost to repentance, yet god is not and fails to do so continually because of our free will. Man can win over man's free will; god cannot. Man wins souls; god does not. It is a spit in the face of God to believe this is how it really works. If God is all knowing and all wise, then why is it that He is not able to create the required conditions for repentance, yet almighty man is? The Arminian god is impotent, a helpless beggar pleading, even trying to save those who He knows will not accept Him but will be in hell for all eternity. Not only is this a contradiction soteriologically, but it is a sick kind of love for those who He casts into hell. He loves them, yet is going to burn them forever while having no power to change it.