I won’t write here on things left for other posts. However I do have a question for you. You said: omniscience is knowing the knowable I believe that God defines what is knowable. Do you believe the free actions of people that may or may not happen is knowable by God? Whatever your answer is, do you have any Scriptures that you would use to back up your point? I highly value Scripture. Philosophy–not so much.

godrulz37, Perhaps I will do a post on the future regarding the Sovereignty of God’s knowledge. I do not want to go into this deeply because it is not the topic at hand on this article. However I am a bit confused with your point regarding God’s knowledge of the future. Is your point that God cannot know the future as it is unknowable or is your point that God chooses not to know the future? If you could clarify that for me, it would be helpful.

godrulz37, As far as which translation I like, I memorized the NKJV so I read that for years, but I also like the NASB although it has some problems just like all translations have some quirks. I am reading the Bible through right now with the NASB but for serious Bible study I like to work through the passage using the Greek (Hebrew) tools. I also look through all of the Bible translations if I am looking to compare, but for one Bible translation I will always prefer a word for word translation rather than a thought for thought as I am quite picky about paying attention to every inspired word and every inspired piece of grammar and the thought for thought translations miss a lot. As far as the message “translation” I can’t stomach that one. Way too much of man’s thoughts for the faint of heart. I hope this helps.

If anyone reading these posts wants to get a head start, I am working on a post regarding Judas. There are things that people often miss that are in the text that should not be missed. We can have some good discussions on it I think.

I would think that Open Theists would have a difficult time with 1 Samuel 23:9-13 since God gives definite knowledge about future events of free creatures that would be if David had not removed himself from the line of fire.

Also the verse that deals with all the evil acts of men that were about to happen: John 18:4 (NASB) 4So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” We will revisit this in the future as the Sovereignty of God is the key issue on this blog.

Welcome to my blog, Derek! You are special because you are the first to comment 🙂 Thanks for the encouragement! BTW I removed your duplicate post. I am just working through the kinks as I get to know the new blog format myself. Your question/comments are a valid thought. The question we need to ask is whether Jesus identified John as outside the kingdom because of his unbelief or because there were two covenants during this time and John had not entered the new covenant. I do not believe that Jesus’ words to John can be seen as John being like the OT saints while the rest of the Christians were in the NT kingdom. Here is why: 1. There is only one kingdom of God not two. A person is either in the kingdom of God or outside of it. 2. At the time that Jesus spoke, He said that there are people in the kingdom right now (present tense). 3. Jesus did not base His statement that John is not in the kingdom right now on the basis of an OT covenant, but as a result of John’s confession of unbelief. 4. Abraham was set up as the Father of the New Covenant by faith and he was before John’s time. 5. No OT saint was in the OT covenant by grace without faith. Faith was always the basis of entrance into God’s kingdom before and after Jesus. 6. Jesus links John’s confession of unbelief to the cause of someone taking offence. Jesus did not link John’s unbelief to a lesser covenant. It is my opinion that we need to pay close attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar of God’s Word for these will either establish our view or correct our view. I desire earnestly to know the Word of God intimately by allowing the inspired words to light the way for me. I never want to be in a place where I am stuck to tradition so that I cannot hear the Word. The Word is that important to me. I look forward to your comments on this post or others as we continue to look at the Sovereignty of God.

Thanks for asking, Derek. The reason that I believe that John the Baptist invalidates unconditional election, is that if election is unconditional (so that faith is not a condition) then election cannot be set aside by a condition of man. In other words John’s statement of unbelief in Jesus should not keep him out of the kingdom if John was unconditionally elected to salvation. But Jesus gives no indication that John, in his condition of unbelief, could be in the kingdom. If election to salvation is unconditional, then John the Baptist becomes a problem. If the greatest of all men cannot be in the kingdom even after having the Holy Spirit guide him since infancy, then election can’t be unconditional. If election was unconditional, I cannot see any way that John would be outside the kingdom. Does this make sense? If not, I would be happy to try to think through another way to say it. There are two men who throw a wrench into unconditional election. Reading the inspired Words really opened my eyes to facts that I had not seen about John the Baptist and Judas, the betrayer. My next post will be on Judas. I will see if I have enough time by next week to get that one up. This blog is a secondary road for me as my main time is spent in ministry to the body of Christ and ministry to the lost. I am up to my ears in our next DVD series so I try to fit in what I can, hence I am not as fast as I would like. One of my commitments is to be open to correction at the same time I need to give opportunity for those whose view I am correcting, to dialog on the issues. I feel that this is respectful as well as it brings needed balance just in case I am wrong in the way I see the Word. It allows me to benefit from the wisdom of the entire body of Christ. It is a win-win situation.

Hi Derek, Your comment didn’t come through right away as I found it in my spam box. Ahhh! Nothing in it looks spamish to me. I actually have gained a tougher skin and can take much more than I used to. If anyone rags on me, I don’t mind as much. I just don’t want any other poster to be hurt. What you have said came across very respectfully. Yes, the way you described uncondtional election is the way I would understand it as well. The only thing that I would disagree would be when you said: “If we don’t have faith we are not elect.” Are you sure? My understanding is that a person is of the elect from eternity past and even when they are still in their sins and in unbelief. So, for example, Paul would have been elect even when he was murdering Christians because he was elected unconditionally from eternity past. He was not saved while he was murdering Christians, but he was still elect. Perhaps what you mean is that if Paul died as an unbeliever then that means he was not elect? What is faith a condition for? It isn’t a condition for election, correct? That is according to Calvinism. Faith is only a condition for salvation, not election and yes, you are correct in that it is taught that all of the elect will come to faith even if it is on their deathbed. I would think that most Calvinists would disagree with you that John was not elect. There is a troubling doctrine brought out by Calvin who said that God gives some people enough of the Spirit to believe that they are actually Christians but He does this not to bring them to faith, for they are never predestined for faith. He does this to condemn them more. I call this troubling because if this is correct, then no one can know for sure if you are one of the elect or just one of the one’s that God has chosen to deceive into thinking that they are elect. I use the word deceive not to be contentious, but I don’t know a word that would accurately convey the purpose of giving the Spirit for condemnation. Another thing to consider is that John did seem to have real faith in the beginning. He is the one that gave the testimony about Jesus and his testimony was true. He testified that Jesus was before him in time, even though Jesus was born after John. That fact could only have been revealed to John by the Holy Spirit. The Scripture doesn’t give any indication that the one chosen to prepare the way for the Messiah would be a liar. I will also do a post about Paul in the future. Paul was a lot like John the Baptist because Paul said that he too was chosen from his mother’s womb. God’s election is amazing, but is it unconditional to salvation? That is the question. John was elected, but what was he elected to? I think we both have considered that John was not unconditionally elected to salvation.

Hi Derek, I have been appreciating the dialog as well. I don’t know many who enjoy talking about deep spiritual matters. I would rather talk about the doctrine and Scriptural matters than anything else. One of the points that I was trying to make is that if a person is truly of the elect (from the Calvinist point of view) they would have to be elect all of their lives even during the time that they were an unbeliever. For example could we agree that Paul was elect (from the Calvinist point of view) even when he was killing Christians?

Vance, welcome! I appreciate that you took the time to put your view down for all to see. I have a question on your view. It seems to me that the best way to transfer disciples to Jesus would be to say “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” I would think that something along the line of “I am no longer sure of who you are” and “I am thinking we might need to look for somebody who has the power to get me out of prison” might not be effective in transferring disciples to a “maybe” Messiah. I am taking liberties here with the text by toying with why John no longer believed the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you can give me your take how doubt was effective in causing faith to be transferred to Jesus?

Derek, I am very happy to have you hang around. I have tried to get Calvinists to talk to me for years without much success. Well, actually they will “talk” to me disrespectfully, name calling and such. I have longed to an “iron sharpens iron” conversation for so long. Wish I had started this blog earlier. 🙂 Question I have for you, Derek. Do you think that it is possible for a person to be elected to something other than salvation?

Hi Bill, welcome! Long time no see. For those just visiting, I would like to acknowledge Bill as one who participated with me in the ex-Jehovah’s Witness support group. It was 16 years for me leading the group and was an essential part of growing me strong in apologetics. As far as what kind of label I am…I hate these labels, because frankly I don’t study subjects like covenantalist and dispensationalist or redemptive history. If I had to define these terms, I would probably fail the test. My favourite thing to do is just read the Bible. I love just plain old Bible study and I can go from verse to verse for hours. Then I can spend hours looking at the Hebrew and Greek words and the grammar and comparing the context. I do look at other books, but more or less when I am researching on a topic. My major aim in life is to be a Biblicist. I want the Bible to lead me and force me into truth. The issue of Open Theism seems to be against the full Sovereignty of God, at least the way I understand it. I read the other day where a Calvinist was explaining how God knows the future and he said that God looks down the corridor of time to see the future. I don’t get that. Why would God need to look down anything to learn something He doesn’t know? I believe that God not only knows all things, but He also knows all things that don’t happen, but things that could happen. The only way that I know this, is because the Bible gives an example with David and Saul.

Hi Vance, There are two things that I am working off of. The first is the actual words of John and the second is the response of Jesus. John could have sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Should my disciples be following you or should they look for another?” John included “we” in his words and his disciples would have been on the same page because where the leader goes, the disciples follow. The main argument is from Jesus. After all Jesus knows the heart. If Jesus didn’t tell us about his personal words to John about taking offence at Jesus, we would not have known the problem. How does one work with the evidence of John’s words of doubt along with Jesus’ specific word about offence? We must be able to exegete the Scriptures with both parts working together to know the truth. So how do you account for Jesus’ words said “to” John about taking offence “at” Jesus? The next things that must be in the mix is Jesus’ words to the crowd that although John was the greatest he is not in the kingdom. These three puzzle pieces have to be placed together. In what way does all three pieces lay alongside each other without coming up to the conclusion that John is not in the kingdom because he is no longer believing that Jesus is the Messiah and he has taken offence at Christ? I welcome this kind of dialog. It is good and healthy for us all.

Hi Vance, You said: “Notice that it does not say; “I’m starting to wonder if Jesus is really the one, so go and ask him this question for me.” It only says go and ask Him this question.” It actually says a bit more than that. It says “summoning the disciples”. This term means to call them to oneself for a purpose. the purpose is for them to go and ask Jesus the question. Next after John summoned the disciples he “sent” them to Jesus. It was John’s initiative and John’s quest. It was not the disciples question, but John’s. John’s question includes the disciples since “we” is used. In Luke 7:20 the disciples said: Luke 7:20 When the men came to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, to ask, ‘Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?’ ” Notice that they specifically said John the Baptist has sent us to You. The question was not from them, but from John. Jesus understood that the question was from John. How did Jesus respond? Luke 7:22 Jesus said “Go and report to John…” John summoned, John sent, John asked, Jesus sent the disciples to go and report to John. It was all about John. I think if we see that the subject and concern was about John, we will see that John’s disciples are the vehicle for the message, they are not the concern. Does this make sense?

Vance, You have brought up some excellent points to consider. You said: When Luke 7:28 says – – “but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Jesus may have been speaking about His ‘upside down’ Kingdom, wherein the least is the greatest. Thanks for bringing this up! Jesus indeed taught about the ‘upside down’ kingdom, but I do not believe that he used the terms greatest and least. What He said was that if you want to be the greatest, you must be the servant of all. This does not mean that you become the least. Jesus was the servant of all, but He was not the least. What exactly did Jesus mean when He said that the “least” is “greater” than the “greatest” one on earth? First of all I think we need to understand that Jesus taught responsibility with what has been given to us. In the context of judgment, Jesus said: Luke 12:48 (NASB) …From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. John the Baptist was the greatest because he had been given the most of any man here on the earth. He had the Holy Spirit since he was a baby in the womb and He had revelation from the Spirit that was spectacular. But “the much” was not good enough for John as he ended up with doubts about the witness of the Holy Spirit about Jesus. Nothing more would be given John because to whom much is given, much is required from that person. We must use what we have or risk losing it. So John was the greatest, because he was given the most. The least in the kingdom is the most insignificant. Jesus said that John is less than the most insignificant one in the kingdom. How can you have no significance at all unless you are not in the kingdom? Jesus does not call us to be insignificant. Jesus calls us to greatness. He just calls us to greatness through humility. A humble person is not an insignificant person. It is possible that I have missed a teaching of Jesus telling us to be insignificant, but I am unaware of such a teaching. I believe that the upside down system that Jesus taught was about humility, not about insignificance. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. Thank you Vance for popping in and having this dialog. I appreciate your words and the apparent balance that you seek to have. It is a good thing!

godrulz37, I have not seen this argument before, but I have heard it before. Actually my Son corrected me when I thought that John the Baptist was not in the kingdom because Jesus had not yet died. He challenged me to look more deeply into the Scriptures and to see the inspired words. Ryan and I often have deep theological discussions and I SO appreciate him for his wisdom. It is not often that you can find someone in your family where you can stimulate one another to press on into the depth of the Word. Ryan has agreed to be the moderator for our next DVD series, so I am excited that we will be working together. As far as making a lot of money from a book, I have to laugh. We are having to support our ministry from our own income because there is way more followers of Benny Hinn et al, then there is of those who teach apologetics. These are the days when no one wants to hear some of the difficult teachings of the Scriptures. I have no desire to be rich other than to be rich in the Word. Studying the Bible gives me a great deal of joy and I am at peace with that. Thanks for asking, though! How is Edmonton weather? We have been above freezing and my baskets of flowers are still out and mostly in bloom. Mountain living has been good.

Oh and by the way, pardon my ignorance, but I am not sure what “TM it” means. Went right over my head!

Vance, I just thought of one more teaching that Jesus gave. He talked about the last and the first. Matthew 20:16 (NASB) 16“So the last shall be first, and the first last.” However in the context, the last that will be first, and the first that will be last means equality – everyone getting the same reward. It has nothing to do with insignificance, but equality. I can’t think of anymore examples, so if someone has a thought, go ahead and jump in.

“TM” ha ha, I hope you heard me snorkle from so far away. Made me laugh out loud!

No tax exempt status in Canada, but have tax exemption in the US. People here are afraid to go for tax exempt status now except for churches. You have to accept everything and everyone or you are threatened. I prefer to stay away from persecution if I can help it. To do well financially in ministry, one needs a ministry team to get behind the more upfront people. I would rather do video editing than public speaking anyway. I teach a weekly Bible study and the group loves learning how to unpeel the onion by digging into the Scriptures. As long as I can serve God with whatever gifts He gives me, I am as happy as a clam.

Tom,
This might be the time for me to do another post on the Eph 5:21, 22 issue. I haven’t had time to do a post for quite some time, but when we get back from vacation, I may just do another post on this issue and deal with the challenges that have been given us in a full post rather than just in the comment section. Hopefully I will remember to link to the post here so that anyone following up will be able to reference it.

I am dealing with the issue of a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God in my next DVD so it is a heavy subject and needs a lot of my attention. I also have a post that needs to be written about the digital direction that our ministry is heading towards that will be of interest to those who follow my blog,, so hopefully I can get both of these posts up within the next few weeks.

42 Rachael,

Welcome to my blog! Thank you for sharing what appears to be a very painful story.

I haven’t been on my blog much of late as I am working on a new DVD due out at the end of the year, but your comments really got my attention. I feel great compassion for you. I understand what you mean when you say that your father hates (hated) me as I experienced that as well as I sat just a few feet away from him when he stated in front of his own pastor that he would destroy me and my ministry. Both of us taped our meeting and I have never experienced that kind of venom in person before. It seems that I was singled out as one to be specially hated not only because I teach on Women in Ministry but because it appears that I am the only one who has ever succeed in getting him to attend a Matthew 18 meeting. By the end of the 4+ hour meeting, we thought that we had success as he agreed to stop attacking me and mentioning my name but by the time that we made the 12 hour ride home, he had posted pages written against me personally and removed his public correction on his radio podcast that he had agreed to give where he gave a correction to his public misrepresentation of my teaching.

While your father’s reason for meeting with me was to try to destroy me and my ministry by threatening me, so that I would give up on women in ministry, all it did was create a stronger resolve to fight for God’s women who have been abused, maligned and taken advantage of among other incredibly sad treatment.

What I have learned from all of this, is that when a person will not stop attacking and will not reconcile, trying to push them into a reconciliation will not succeed. If their heart is hard, no amount of grace will touch them.

I would really like to have a private email with you, if you can email me. My email and/or contact information is under the email button above. Also if I can help you in anyway, I would love to do so.

For the other side of your Father’s hatred of me, I have posted a statement here http://mmoutreach.org/slick.htm I hope this helps you to see the other side because there is no way that your Father would share this side with you. Hatred is a very harmful thing that has no good fruit.

Frank,

Excellent comment!! Sorry that I did not get to it sooner. I am onto my next DVD project and when I get focused, it is difficult to tear me away. Everything else becomes secondary and so I haven’t been on my own blog for awhile. I will be so happy to “birth” this baby by year end, so that I can become more normal. I really appreciated your comment and thank you for posting it here!

It is very important to put on the full armour of God because when we are doing the work of the Lord, we are going to be fighting the arrows of the enemy coming from all different sources.

Greg,
Thanks for stopping by, and I am glad that you posted. Those who have made themselves my enemies will have to stand one day before God and give an account of their actions and until then I am trusting in the Lord, my protector who knows all in advance and is able in everything and every way to protect.

Things are indeed changing in the churches and God has promised that He will work through women too in these last days. I have no idea how God will get past some of hold-outs who will not receive from God through the hand of a woman, but God knows. Praise the Lord that it doesn’t just depend on us to figure it all out!

Thanks, dear folks for adding good thoughts while I was not able to be here! I have been so incredibly busy the last while that something had to give and the blog just couldn’t have my attention. I will try to catch up a bit, but since my next DVD comes out by the end of the year, I am likely to be in an overwhelmed state until it is finished.

Pinklight, I fixed the problem of your extra bolding on your post.

Pastortnew, welcome to my blog! Sorry that I didn’t get to your request sooner. My 4 DVD set (linked at the top) has all the information that you are looking for on 1 Timothy 2:12 and although there is much on this blog that answers your question, the best is the DVD that goes through not just 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but also all the “hard passages of Scripture” on the women’s issue.

Also about Don and Dr. Wallace. Don is a very kind individual that always strives for balance and gentleness and I am sure that you would like him a lot if you knew him. His comments are never meant to berate another, at least not that I have seen, so I think you misunderstand him.

I like Dr. Daniel Wallace too. In fact he has been helping me with Greek grammar issues for my next DVD (on a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God) and I find Dr. Wallace to be a very knowledgable and gracious man. What I also like about Greek grammar from newer literature is that they are able to make use of the latest resources that may not have been published years ago. Dr. Daniel also has a copy of my DVD set.

I will comment on a few things regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First of all there is no command in verse 12. The imperative is in verse 11 which many people miss when they read the English. Secondly in verse 15, the she and they (singular and plural) are important to notice. Verse 15 gives the expected outcome for what Paul is not allowing in verse 12. Also the “she” is not the same as “they” as that would be bad grammar, so understanding the passage, it is important to go back to find out who is referenced by “she” and how far back do you need to go to reference “they”. No biblical passage ever has a generic person or a generic group with both singular and plural pronouns.

As far as “discernment” that is a term that was used by Phil Johnson. I believe that all of us are to work hard to have discernment. One of the signs of the end time is that there will be great deception, so we must stick close to God’s Word, give it great care and attention and seek to be discerning in all things.

Hi folks,
I have been gone for some time now, totally overwhelmed with ministry work, and converting over to an iMac and needing to relearn everything! I am still working on my next DVD project with filming to begin in September. Unfortunately the blog was set aside as I had no time to keep up. I am going to try to catch up a bit tonight as before I get back to my cycle of learning.

I removed the link to the blog that Jennifer provided as it appears to me that some of the material there is meant for shock value with sexuality used to draw people in. There are challenges that are worth the effort and then there are others that are not. The overt sexual talk makes that blog one to pass by.

Jill,
I am so glad that we have been encouraging to you! May the Lord richly bless you as you serve Him with the gifts that He has given you!

Frank,
I am not sure that there is anything you can do to completely block people from keeping any enemies from trying to harm you via the web if they are persistent. You could trademark your name for several hundred dollars, but then are you willing to sue those who infringe on that trademark? If you aren’t willing to go there, then trademarking the name might not provide any real protection.

It seems to me that fighting a spiritual battle will bring out opposition and that is what has happened to me. I can try to get rid of all opposition by using their tactics but that only puts me into the same mud pit as they are in. Sometimes we just need to keep going and be persistent in spite of opposition and trust that God will protect us as we keep our integrity. Surviving in the midst of strong opposition is a tremendous sign of God’s empowerment. That is the way that I see it now and no form of opposition is going to silence me or stop me. At the same time I am not going to judge anyone who uses the law to keep themselves safe. I understand that God does not always do things the same way for everyone. Pray about what God would have you do and be wise in all things. Then persistently go ahead with the opportunities that God opens up for you.

My views on physical circumcision are different than my views of spiritual circumcision which came later. The post is about the spiritual meaning.

Thanks pinklight!