Essential Theological Video and Audio


Ian Stamps – The Discipline of Sacrifice

Dave Jenkins – Jesus Explains His Example (John 13:12-17)


Paul Tripp – Parenting is Gospel Ministry

Please follow and like us:

Thomas Doolittle – What God is to Families

after Unknown artist, line engraving, mid 18th century

PROPOSITON 1: God is the Founder of all families: therefore families should pray unto Him.

The household society usually is of these three combinations: husband and wife, parents and children, masters or servants: though there may be a family where all these are not, yet take it in its latitude, and all these combinations are from God. The institution of husband and wife is from God (Gen 2:21-24), and of parents and children, and masters and servants. And the authority of one over the other and the subjection of the one to the other is instituted by God and founded in the law of nature, which is God’s law. The persons, singly considered, have not their beings only from God, but the very being of this society is also from Him. And as a single person is therefore bound to devote himself to the service of God and pray unto Him, so a household society is therefore bound jointly to do the same because a society it is from God. And hath God appointed this society only for the mutual comfort of the members thereof or of the whole, and not also for His own glory, even from the whole? And doth that household society live to God’s glory that do not serve Him and pray unto Him? Hath God given authority to the one to command and rule and the other a charge to obey only in reference to worldly things and not at all to spiritual? Only in things pertaining to the world and in nothing to things pertaining to God? Can the comfort of the creature be God’s ultimate end? No: it is His own glory. Is one, by authority from God and order of nature, paterfamilias,2 “the master of the family,” so called in reference to his servants, as well as to his children, because of the care he should take of the souls of servants and of their worshipping God with him as well as of his children? And should he not improve this power that God hath given him over them all, for God and the welfare of all their souls in calling them jointly to worship God and pray unto Him? Let reason and religion judge.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

Melissa Kruger – 5 Principles for Disciplining Your Children

Before having children, I worked for years as a camp counselor and as a teacher in a large public high school. Both arenas taught me the importance of discipline in a child’s development. Without structure and rules, summer camp would quickly devolve into some version of Lord of the Flies. Without order in the classroom, my students would never have the opportunity to learn.

Through my years of working with kids, five guiding principles helped me as a counselor, teacher, and especially as a mom. While not all methods work for all children, I’ve found these principles work for a variety of children, regardless of their age, sex, or disposition.

1. Teach proactively, rather than reactively.

Children need to be taught what is right just as much as they need to be corrected. Bible stories, daily events, and mistakes provide opportunities in various situations to ask, “What would be the right thing to do?” Allowing your child to communicate the proper course of action helps him to understand more fully than just hearing it from your lips.

When my kids were young, before entering a grocery store I would playfully ask, “Are we going to act like hooligans in this store?” Of course, they’d respond, “No!” Then I’d ask, “What does a hooligan do in a store?” They’d come up with all sorts of suggestions: running around the store, not listening to Mom, standing in the cart, asking for candy, yelling loudly, and a host of other silly ideas.

Proactively reviewing grocery store expectations beforehand greatly helped their obedience. Children need daily reminders on how to be a friend, how act in public, how respond to unkindness, and how to apologize. If we spend all our time saying “Don’t do that” without also saying “Do this,” our kids will grow increasingly frustrated, not knowing the correct choice to make.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

Samuel James – The Parable of Anthony Weiner’s iPhone

A question that’s been nagging me: Would Anthony Weiner still have a political career if he hadn’t owned an iPhone?

Last week Weiner pled guilty to sending sexually explicit messages to a minor through his smartphone. His plea deal comes with probable prison time. Weiner, former Congressman and aspiring New York City mayor, told the court that his “destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service.” Weiner’s political ambitions are shattered, almost certainly beyond repair, and his relationship with his children is imperiled. How would his story have been different if Weiner simply didn’t own a phone that could do what he used it to do?

Perhaps our first impulse is to dismiss such a question. We don’t usually think of the physical technology itself as operative in our sin. Wasn’t Weiner just a sexual deviant, and wouldn’t a sexual deviant find a way to satisfy himself regardless? But this response disregards the embodied nature of temptation. In a rush to label our technology as “neutral,” we often ignore the shaping effects it has on us. If our phones, social media, and iPads can condition us toward distraction and insecurity–and there is growing evidence they can–why would we be surprised to discover they can also make us more vulnerable to destructive desires?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

R. C. Sproul – What If I Don’t Feel Forgiven?

There is an important difference between guilt and guilt feelings. The distinction is between that which is objective and that which is subjective. Guilt is objective; it is determined by a real analysis of what a person has done with respect to law. When a person transgresses a law, that person incurs guilt. This is true in the ultimate sense with regard to the law of God. Whenever we break the law of God, we incur objective guilt. We may deny that the guilt is there. We may seek to excuse it or deal with it in other ways. Still, the reality is that we have the guilt.

However, guilt feelings may or may not correspond proportionately to one’s objective guilt. In fact, in most cases, if not all cases, they do not correspond proportionately. As painful as guilt feelings can be—and we’ve all experienced the rigors of unsettling guilt feelings—I don’t think any of us have ever experienced feelings of guilt in direct proportion to the actual guilt that we bear before God. I believe it is one of the mercies of God that He protects us from having to feel the full weight of the guilt that we actually have incurred in His sight.

Just as there are objective and subjective aspects of guilt, so there are objective and subjective aspects of forgiveness. First of all, forgiveness itself is objective. The only cure for real guilt is real forgiveness based on real repentance and real faith. However, we may have real and true forgiveness before God and yet not feel forgiven. Likewise, we may feel forgiven when we are not forgiven. That makes the issue of forgiveness very sticky.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

John MacArthur – Eliminating Spiritual Toxins

Consider a person who exercises fastidiously and holds to a strict diet but also abuses alcohol and drugs. That kind of schizophrenic behavior would raise a lot of questions, and rightly so.

The same goes for Christians who carefully guard their spiritual diet but make no effort to avoid or eliminate sinful, spiritual toxins from their lives. Faithfully studying God’s Word is vital to our growth, but it’s not the only factor. We need to recognize sinful attitudes and motivations as carcinogens that can wreak havoc in our spiritual lives.

Right now, these sinful toxins could be poisoning your life, eating away at your usefulness, and causing all sorts of decay and destruction. Peter recognized the threat these sins pose to our spiritual health and commanded his readers to “[put] aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1).

The King James translation of 1 Peter 2:1 tells us to “lay aside” all of these negative things. The Greek word used here actually means to “strip off your clothes.” It’s the same thing that is meant in Hebrews 12:1 where we are told to “lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us.” Peter highlights five specific toxins we should strip out of our lives for the sake of our spiritual health: malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, slander.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – The Doctrine of Election



The doctrine of election, in particular the two dominating positions postulated respectively by Arminian and Calvinistic theologians, is often a highly controversial topic with widely divergent viewpoints. Theological complexities such as the notion of individual or corporate election only serve to further obfuscate the issue. As noted by Leslie Crawford, “though the topic of election is controversial in theological debate, it is crucial to a theological understanding of salvation. One cannot divorce an understanding of election from a correct view of God since God is the agent who does the choosing.”

An understanding of the doctrine of election can only be achieved through a holistic exegesis of the context in which this doctrine permeates the biblical message. One must broach the doctrine of election through the lens of scriptural exposition with careful attention paid to setting aside presuppositions often based on a particular denominational or authorial stance. Given that finite man is incapable of holistically understanding the actions of an omnipotent God, developing a defined doctrine of election is difficult. This paper will show that the unconditional view of election espoused by those of the Calvinistic theological bent adheres most closely to sound biblical exposition and is in keeping with the concomitant principles of salvation and God’s undeserving grace upon believers in Christ.


While arguably the most robust and cogent overview of the doctrine of election can be found in the New Testament, particularly in the writings of the Apostle Paul, the Old Testament is nevertheless replete with references to the divine election of physical items, people groups, offices, and individuals. The most common term used in the Old Testament for election is bachar, meaning to choose. Many biblical scholars have noted “there is no explicit articulation of the idea of election until the Book of Deuteronomy (Dt. 7 and 9).” However, as asserted by author and biblical scholar George Mendenhall, one “cannot give reliable conclusions concerning the existence or nonexistence of a particular religious conviction; patterns of thought may very well exist without specific labels.”

As noted by H. H. Rowley, the primary purpose of election as outlined in the Old Testament is God’s choice of individuals or people groups to fulfill a divine task. This is evinced in the election and empowerment by God of certain individuals to construct the tabernacle and the various elements subsumed therein. Numbers 16-17 clearly notes that Aaron and his progeny were elected or chosen by God to serve as priests. Still further evidence of election in the Old Testament is seen in the election of Cyrus by God to effect the restoration of Israel to the Promised Land. Arguably, the most notable example of election to fulfill a divine task in the Old Testament is seen in the nation of Israel chosen by God as the bearers of the Abrahamic covenant in order to be a blessing to the entire world.

Concomitant to the more familiar New Testament understanding of election is the idea of election for holiness expressed most often in items or people set aside for a holy purpose. Israel was chosen to be a “holy nation” (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2) and to reveal God’s glory to the nations (Isa. 43:7). Peter O’Brien saliently avers “Her (Israel’s) election was due solely to God’s gracious decision; it had nothing to do with Israel’s choice or righteous behavior. It was because the Lord loved her and kept the oath he had sworn to her forefathers that he chose her for himself.” Through no specific act of righteousness or personal merit, the patriarch Abraham, from the midst of a pagan culture was chosen by God to be the progenitor of Israel.

The Israelites, as God’s chosen people were commanded to adhere to the Mosaic Law and the Abrahamic covenant, with various blessings and curses attributed to their following or rejection inherent in those agreements. Andrew Lincoln comments “Israel’s election was not for her self-indulgence, but for the blessing of the nations: it was a privilege but also a summons for service.” Thus, the election of Israel as God’s people serves as an “interpretive concept of the plot of the Pentateuch and beyond” connecting the blessing promised Abraham to the ultimate fulfillment of that promise found in Christ. Election in the Old Testament is shown through the lens of individual and corporate selection by God with a shift from the personal election of Abraham seen in Genesis to the corporation election of Israel expounded in Deuteronomy.


The doctrine of election finds its fullest definition and description in the New Testament, particular in relation to the church. As expounded in the Old Testament, the concept of election has both corporate and individual application in New Testament theology. D. A. Carson, in speaking to the corporate idea of election in the New Statement, states, “repeatedly the New Testament texts tell us that the love of God or the love of Christ is directed toward those who constitute the church.” Furthermore, the robust nature of the doctrine of election in the New Testament is seen in the expansion of election from the nation of Israel to now include all those who place their faith and trust in the salvific work of Christ to include Gentiles.

Author and theologian Wayne Grudem asserts the “New Testament presents the entire outworking of our salvation as something brought about by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures.” Grudem goes on to rightly note “God’s act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanistic, but was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose.” Such comments are in keeping with John 15:16 which states “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last.”

Additionally, as in the Old Testament, election in the New Testament is a matter of unmerited favor by God to individuals or groups. Furthermore, election is based on God’s grace. Theologian Thomas Schreiner saliently notes the vital connection made in the New Testament between election and grace. He avers “many worry that the choosing of some and not all would be unjust, but this idea overlooks the fact that election is gracious. No one deserves to be elected, and thus the election of any is a merciful gift of God that cannot be claimed as a democratic right.” Further support for the concomitance of grace and election is seen in Ephesians 1:3-14 where the Apostle Paul notes salvation as being a gift from God. As such, “this saving work of God began in eternity past when God elected us to be made holy and blameless through his Son, and it culminates in the future bestowal of our promised inheritance as now guaranteed by the Spirit who seals us for this day.”

Such statements hearken back to the election by God of Israel in the Old Testament to be the bearers of God’s message and the instrument of blessing to the entire world. The fulfillment of this blessing came to fruition in the person of Jesus Christ and through the sacrifice on the cross. As such, the New Testament also teaches the aim of election is the glory of God. Theologian Louis Berkhof suggests “that glory of God is the highest purpose of the electing grace is made very emphatic in Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14.” In the aforementioned verse, Paul declares the very substance of the spiritual blessings he discusses “include election to holiness, instatement as God’s sons and daughters, redemption, and forgiveness, the gift of the Spirit, and the hope of glory.”

Once again, the doctrine of election as explicated in the New Testament bears a strong resemblance to the idea of election in the Old Testament. Arguably, the greatest differentiation is the expansion of the elect to include all who call upon the name of the Lord thus eradicating the Israelites as the sole bearers and participants in God’s blessings and presence. With that said, it is important to note that God’s election of Israel was never abrogated by the coming of Christ or the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan to spread the message of salvation to the world. Theologian Walter Elwell states, “God’s promise to Israel was to all who qualified as Israel, which included the Gentiles.” Furthermore, as stated in Romans 11:28-29, “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” which clearly denotes that “Israel is beloved by God because of the fathers.”


Arguably, the two dominating positions within Christian orthodoxy on the doctrine of election reside within the Arminian and Calvinistic understanding of this theologically difficult subject. The respective views differ largely not on the existence of the doctrine of election within the pages of Scripture, but conversely, on the nature of election, specifically the idea of conditional versus unconditional election.

Author and theologian Roger Olson asserts that “Arminians interpret the biblical concept of unconditional election (predestination to salvation) as corporate. Thus, predestination has an individual meaning (foreknowledge of individual choices) and a collective meaning (election of a people). Moreover, Jacob Arminius defined election to mean “the decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which he resolved within himself from all eternity to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life…believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith.”

While Arminius did not dogmatically reject the idea of election, his issue with the Calvinistic interpretation of this concept centered on the illogical nature of a God who would purpose to elect some while purposefully condemning others. This stance is clearly evinced in the following statement by Arminius:

If you thus understand it, – that God from eternity…determined to display his glory by mercy and by punitive justice, and, in order to carry that purpose into effect, decreed to create man good, but mutable, ordained also that he should fall, that in this way there might be room for that decree; – I say that this opinion cannot, in my judgment at least, be established by any word of God.

As seen in this statement, the Arminian position on election is largely centered on the belief “the origin (fontem) of faith can be said to be the gratuitous election of God, but it is election to bestow faith, not to communicate salvation. For a believer is elected to participate in salvation, a sinner is elected to faith.”

Arminians aver God elects certain individuals to fulfill a specific role or service to further His message. As stated by Jack Cottrell, “among those predestined (elected) to fill specific roles in the accomplishment of redemption, the primary character is the Redeemer himself, Jesus of Nazareth.” Further examples of election for specific service can be seen in the selection of the twelve disciples as outlined in the Gospel accounts. The Arminian position finds further support for election to service as opposed to salvation in the fact “Judas is among the chosen twelve, though his predetermined role was that of the betrayer of Jesus.” Such a position hearkens back to the Old Testament examples, namely that of Cyrus who, though an ungodly man, was elected by God to effect the return of the nation of Israel to the Promised Land. Such a position, at least in the Arminian perception, supports the idea that not every occasion of election explicated in Scripture results in the salvation of the chosen individual.

Additionally, in opposition to the Calvinistic belief in unconditional election resulting in salvation, the Arminian posits Scripture does not explicitly support unconditional election to salvation in every case. Author and theologian Robert Shank asserts “the Scriptures cite numerous instances of actual apostasy and believers are urgently warned against failing to continue in faith” thus “not everyone who once believes the Gospel is eternally elect and will necessarily continue in faith.” For the Arminian, individual election is “the idea that God predestines to salvation those individuals who meet the gracious conditions which he has set forth.” Furthermore, since Scripture declares that no man is righteous or deserving of God’s unmerited favor, the “election which results from his meeting those conditions remains wholly of grace.” The fulcrum of the aforementioned argument for election is it is the individual who has the ability and freewill to accept the gracious gift of election and thus is the “ultimate cause of the decision” , not God.

Perhaps the most notable difference between the Arminian and Calvinistic views is on the election of Israel as outlined in New Testament doctrine. According to Arminians like Jack Cottrell, Israel fulfilled her mission as the people who were assigned the task of preparing the way for Christ. Thus, “her purpose was accomplished and her destiny fulfilled in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus.” Israel’s position as God’s elect has been abrogated with the Church as the New Israel. Cottrell points to 1 Peter 2:9 for support for this assertion noting the Apostle Peter’s declaration of the church as God’s chosen people.


The Calvinistic view of the doctrine of election also asserts “the Bible speaks of election in more than one sense.” As with the Arminian view of election, Calvinism declares Israel was elected by God for a special purpose and individuals such as Moses were elected to offices of leadership. Where perhaps Calvinism differs from the Arminian viewpoint is on the manner of election as being predestined by God. Calvinists disagree with the Arminian belief that man must meet certain conditions prior to accepting God’s gracious gift of election. In the Calvinist system, as evinced in the lives of Jacob and Esau and further explicated by Paul in Romans 9, God chose Jacob over Esau “before they had done any good or evil, a choice God made that according to choice the purpose of God might stand, not from works but from him who calls.”

As noted by author and theologian Augustus Strong, “election is that eternal act of God, by which in His sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses out of the number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of His Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers in Christ’s salvation.” Sam Storms points out “the Calvinist view of election highlights, as does Paul in Ephesians 1, the divine initiative in the work of salvation…there was deliberate, calculated, reasoned intent on God’s part. He knew what He was doing when He chose one but not another.”

Calvinism declares that the Holy Spirit extends only to God’s elect, a “special inward call in addition to the outward call contained in the gospel message.” Calvinists emphasize the Triune nature of the salvific process: God predestined the elect, Christ provided the redemptive element of salvation with His sacrifice on the cross, and the Holy Spirit initiates regeneration of the believer’s sin nature. This understanding is stated by Calvinists to be supported by Scriptures such as I Cor. 2:10-13, 6:11, 12:3 and I Peter 1:1-2 which describe the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Emil Brunner saliently notes in this regard the “basis of election never lies in the one who is chosen, but exclusively in the One who chooses.”

Of particular importance is the Calvinistic belief of irresistible grace. This principle states that once God has initiated the salvific process in the heart of His elect, man is incapable of resisting His efforts as “God’s grace is irresistible because God changes the will of those who would otherwise resist it.” Scriptural support for this idea is found by Calvinists in passages such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 which depict God actively working in the hearts and minds of His elect in an effort to bring them into a saving knowledge of Him. Perhaps the most comprehensive summary of the Calvinistic approach in this area is presented by theologian Edwin Palmer in his statement, “the Holy Spirit will certainly – without any and’s, if’s or buts’ – cause everyone whom God has chosen from eternity and for whom Christ died to believe on Jesus.”

Furthermore, Calvinism purports the doctrine of election as a comfort for believers, a reason to display at all times thankfulness to God for being among His elect, and a clear reason to pursue evangelism. Wayne Grudem, in support of these assertions, points to Paul’s statements in Romans 8 declaring God’s conforming to the image of His son those whom He has predestined or elected before the foundation of the world. Gruden states “from eternity to eternity God has acted with the good of his people in mind. But if God has always acted for our good and will in the future act for our good, Paul reasons, then will he not also in our present circumstances work every circumstance together for our good as well?” While the Arminian view of election posits the need for man to achieve at least a minimal conditions, the Calvinist points to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as proof we can praise God that it was He who chose the elect of His own accord, thus diminishing “any pride that we might feel if we thought that our salvation was due to something good in us or something for which we should receive credit.”

Finally, in response to those who assert that unconditional election abrogates the need for evangelism, R. C. Sproul comments “we find God’s external call in the preaching of the gospel. When the gospel is preached, everyone who hears it is called or summoned to Christ. But not everyone responds positively.” It is because of our inability to know those whom God has chosen that we are implored to fulfill the Great Commission thus leaving the choosing of the elect in the hands of God.


Regardless of whether one ascribes to an Arminian or Calvinistic view of the doctrine of election, one cannot deny that election exists as a dominant them within God’s word. This does not diminish however, the mystery that surrounds the doctrine of election. The condition under which God elects some and not others is ultimately the grounds of debate between the Arminian and Calvinistic mindsets. One thing is certain and that is God has chosen the elect from the foundation of the world.

Some question whether free will should be included in the doctrine of election in an effort to determine whether man can reject the election of God. Scripture continuously depicts diverse situations in which man chose to reject God’s commandments and His call to repentance even when the resultant consequences were clearly evident. As noted by Geisler, “all who receive His grace will be saved and all who reject it will be lost.” The free will nature of man in relation to responding to God’s call is clearly evident in Scriptures such as Deut. 30:19 which outlined God providing a choice for Israel to make. They either chose to follow God’s commands with the resulting blessings or they could reject His commands and endure the horrific consequences of that choice. The story of Adam and Eve presents another valid support for the Arminian position of free will. Geisler notes that the commands given to Adam and Eve “imply the ability to respond.” Unfortunately for man, as stated in Jeremiah 17:9, “their heart is exceedingly wicked” and often the result of the gift of free will is the rejection of salvation.

Ultimately, despite the myriad of issues facing one who seeks to understand the totality of the doctrine of election as revealed in Scripture, believers must assert that God, in keeping with His divine plan has elected some in order to display His glory. As noted by G. C. Berkouwer, “when the church of Christ understands her election, not as a fatum or a dominium absolutum, but as a sovereign, gracious, undeserved election, then she also understands her service to the Lord in the world, a service which is indissolubly connected with her election.” A true biblical doctrine of election is centered on the necessity of living in service to the One who elected us. Our of thankfulness to God who before the foundation of the world has unconditionally chosen His elect to fulfill His divine purpose, the body of Christ should seek to enlarge the kingdom of God by fulfilling the Great Commission, proclaiming the day of redemption is nigh.

Arguably, it is not for us to seek to holistically understand the machinations by which God elects some and not others as such things are truly beyond the capability of the finitude of the human mind. What we can ascertain is God is holy and his methods are pure and righteous. There is no arbitrariness within God’s election and for that, we should be forever grateful. As noted by Millard Erickson, “election is immutable. God does not change his mind. Election is from all eternity and out of God’s infinite mercy; he has no reason or occasion to change his mind.”


The stance espoused by Calvinism and Arminianism present often two polar opposites of the mainstream evangelical views on election. Scripture is replete with passages that seemingly support to varying degrees both Calvinism and Arminianism. Perhaps the best approach to a holistic understanding of the modalities by which God works His mysteries in the lives of His people is to adhere to the teaching found in Deut. 29:29: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.” While neither treatise may be unconditionally incontestable through Scripture, one thing is sure. God desires that none should perish and He has commanded His people to be diligent to fulfill the Great Commission. Believers, regardless of which side of the Calvinist/Arminian fence they may reside, must never lose sight of the necessity of reaching the lost soul for the Kingdom of God for this is what we have been called to do as the elect of God. Arguably, it is not for us to seek to holistically understand the machinations by which God elects some and not others as such things are truly beyond the capability of the finitude of the human mind. What we can ascertain is God is holy and his methods are pure and righteous. There is no arbitrariness within God’s election and for that, we should be forever grateful. In the words of author and theologian Karl Barth, “the election of grace is the whole of the Gospel, the Gospel in nuce…the very essence of all good news.”


Arminius, Jacob. “The Life and Struggle of Arminius in eh Dutch Republic.” Man’s Faith and Freedom, ed. Gerald O. McCulloh. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

_____________. Works Volume 1. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1825.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics Volume II, Pt. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, 1996.

Berkouwer, G. C. Divine Election. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1960.

Boyd, Gregory and Paul Eddy. Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Bruce, F. F. New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1984.

Brunner, Emil. Christian Doctrine of God. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950.

Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000.

Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once for All. College Press Publishing Company: Joplin, 2006.

___________. “Unconditional Election,” Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark Pinnock Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975.

Cottrell, Jack, Clark Pinnock, Robert Reymond, Thomas Talbott, and Bruce Ware. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. Edited by Chad Brand. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006.

Crawford. L. J. “Ephesians 1:3-4 and the Nature of Election.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 11 no.1 (Spring 2000): 75-91.

Elwell, Walter. “Election and Predestination,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: IVP, 1993.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

Farrelly, Dom M. John. Predestination, Grace, and Free Will. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1964.

Geisler, Norman. Chosen But Free. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.

Gruden, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Lincoln, Andres. Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Mendenhall, George E. “Election,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1999.

Olson, Roger. Arminian Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.

Palmer, Edwin. Five Points of Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1972.
Rowley, H. H. The Biblical Doctrine of Election. London: Lutterworth Press, 1950.
Schreiner, Thomas. Baker Exegetical Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Shank, Robert. Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance. Springfield: Westcott Publisher, 1961.

Sproul, R. C. Chosen By God. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986.

Steele, David, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2004.

Storms, Sam. Chosen for Life. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007.

Strong, Augustus. Systematic Theology. Judson Press: Valley Forge, 1907.

Wright, J. W. “Election,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003

Please follow and like us:

John Flavel – Father, Forgive Them

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34

DOCTRINE: That to forgive enemies, and beg forgiveness for them, is the true character and property of the Christian spirit. Thus did Christ: “Father, forgive them.” And thus did Stephen, in imitation of Christ, “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Act 7:59-60). This suits with the rule of Christ, “But I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of God your Father which is in heaven” (Mat 5:44-45).

Here I shall first open the nature of this duty, and shew you what a forgiving spirit is; and then the excellency of it, how well it becomes all that call themselves Christians.

First, let us enquire what this Christian forgiveness is. And that the nature of it may the better appear, I shall shew you both what it is not, and what it is.

First, it consists not in a Stoical insensibility of wrongs and injuries. God hath not made men as insensible, stupid blocks that have no sense or feeling of what is done to them. Nor hath he made a law inconsistent with their very natures that are to be governed by it: but allows us a tender sense of natural evils, though he will not allow us to revenge them by moral evils. Nay, the more deep and tender our resentments of wrongs and injuries are, the more excellent is our forgiveness of them; so that a forgiving spirit doth not exclude sense of injuries, but the sense of injuries graces the forgiveness of them.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:

Colin Noble – Better Than Busy: Recovering Rest in a Burnout Culture

The cry of our age is “busy.”

How are you? “Busy.”

How’s work? “Busy.”

How are the kids doing? “Their lives are so busy. I feel like I’m just a taxi driver.”

How was the shopping mall today? “Too busy.”

Can you help me? “I’m busy at the moment.”

The fast-paced busyness of life that pushes God to the margins can easily turn into burnout. Lots of us are crying out for ways of handling the busyness before it does.

Yet expectations of keeping up with everything continually escalate, courtesy of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Netflix, and the rest. We are all susceptible to the expectation that we always are available, aware of everything that is happening, and capable of achieving anything. Unsurprisingly, this demand to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent places pressure on all of us, whatever our level of social media dexterity.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us: