Paper thin theology

@RandalRauser

There is no inconsistency between atheism and the existence of objective moral values. So Christians who insist that atheism entails moral relativism or, worse, nihilism, are simply mistaken. Atheists may have various accounts. See, for example, the platonism of Erik Wielenberg.

i) To begin with, Rauser acts like this is just a Christian caricature of atheism. But many atheist thinkers admit that atheism is inconsistent with objective moral values. Is Rauser so uninformed that he doesn't know their own side of the argument? 

ii) Then there's his fallacious appeal to "various accounts," including Wielenberg's platonism. But the fact that some atheists subscribe to moral realism fails to demonstrate that atheism is consistent with moral realism. It just shows you what they believe, not that their belief is true. By the same token, the fact that Wielenberg has an argument for secular moral realism fails to demonstrate that atheism is consistent with objective moral values unless his argument is successful. 

Assumption: if life doesn't go on forever, life is absurd. But why think that? If God created us only to live for 70 years and then extinguish, would our existence be absurd? No. So it doesn't follow that finite existence is, of itself, absurd.

Notice that Rauser offers no argument for his contention. Although I don't think immortality is a sufficient condition for human life to be meaningful (important, worthwhile), it is a necessary condition. Something I have argued for elsewhere. 

iii) But also notice, even by his own reckoning, how little his progressive theology contributes to what matters in life. According to him, God is unnecessary to ground moral realism. And immortality is unnecessary for life to be meaningful. So what does is progressive theology offer that atheism does not? On his view, there seems little to lose if God does not exist. Whether progressive theology is true or false makes little if any difference to what ultimately matters. 

It's no wonder that he's so sympathetic to atheism. From his perspective, there's so little at stake if God does or does not exist. It's no wonder that he constantly plays both sides of the fence. 

Rauser spends most of his time attacking conservative theology and conservative ideology. Although he's fairly clear about what his own political beliefs are, he has very little to say about what progressive theology stands for. 

Cultural genocide

@RandalRauser

Conservative Christians tend to be among the fiercest critics of cultural relativism ... except when it comes to the cultural relativism that says genocide is morally abhorrent today but it was a fine way to deal with the Canaanites.

i) Progressive Arminian theologian Randal Rauser never misses a chance to remind the world that he's 3/4 atheist and 1/4 nominal Christian. 

ii) God promised the descendants of Abraham a homeland. The Canaanites had forfeited the right to live their due to gross depravity. God held the Israelites to the same standard. If they desecrated the Promised Land, they'd be deported or exiled. God made the Promised Land an emblem of holiness. 

Under the new covenant, no piece of land is an emblem of holiness. If, however, the same conditions prevailed today that justified God's original policy, it would not be morally abhorrent to follow God's orders. 

I follow the definition recognized in international law:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

i) OT holy war wasn't committed with the intent to destroy the Canaanites due to their national, ethnic, or racial identity. They weren't executed because they were Canaanites. To the contrary, OT pagans were invited to convert to the one true faith. 

ii) Canaanites in the Promised Land were free to self-evacuate. The only Canaanite military targets were those who chose to stay behind and fight. 

iii) There's nothing sacrosanct about religion. Religion can be true or false, good or evil. Depends on the religion. 

There's a sense in which Christian missionaries commit cultural "genocide" when they convert Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and witches to Christianity. Some ideologies ought to be destroyed (e.g. Nazism, Communism). That doesn't single out any particular means. In some cases it can be peaceful. Rational persuasion.   

Publicity-seeker?

Arminian NT scholar and blogger Scot McKnight has a guest post by Ruth Tucker impugning John Chau as a publicity-seeker:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2018/11/28/john-allen-chau-a-missionary-historian-perspective/

Unless I'm misremembering, I believe Ruth Tucker is an apostate. She wrote a book about her defection from the Christian faith several years ago. That doesn't mean her observations about Chau, Jim Elliot, and Elizabeth Elliot are necessarily wrong, but she does have an ax to grind. I find it odd that McKnight would host her diatribe without any awareness of the conflict of interest. 

Apostates and androids

Apostates and atheists are like androids in science fiction stories who don't initially know that they're androids. They've been programmed with false memories so that when they're switched on, it's like waking up from the day before. 

Then they discover that they're androids. They have a built-in expiration date. Their programming is arbitrary. They can be reprogrammed. There's no one way they ought to be. Nothing they're supposed to be. A blank slate that can be anything. Programmed to fall in love or programmed to kill. 

Unitarian Truthers

Dale Tuggy has been leaving belated comments on an archived post of mine. Since readers may be unaware of that exchange, I'm going to repost my responses here:

"When we add in the claim, which I'm sure you'll agree to, that the Bible teaches monotheism, we get a perfectly clear apparent contradiction."

No, not a clear contradiction. Not even a prima facie contradiction. The Bible describes monotheism by contrasting the one true God with paganism, not by contrasting the one true God with Jesus.

"Steve, please find me one usage of 'God' or any other term in any language, before Nicea, which in the original context of that place and time, was meant to refer to a tripersonal god."

Nice exercise in misdirection, but patristic usage isn't my standard of comparison.

In addition, you're committing the word=concept fallacy. The Trinity is a theological construct based on many lines of Biblical evidence. It doesn't depend on use of the word "God" to specify the Trinity.

"Perhaps "doing exegetical theology" here means quoting authors with whom Steve agrees."

Dale, that's one of your dumb, uninformed responses:

i) To begin with, I don't just quote authors I agree with. I mount my own exegetical arguments. I've done so in detail in many posts responding to you. Is your memories a sieve?

ii) In addition, there's a difference between quoting scholarly opinion and quoting scholarly arguments.

"1. There is only one divine being. 2. Jesus is divine, and the Father is divine. 3. - (Jesus = Father) [it is not the case that f and s are numerically identical] Assuming any two, you'll see that the third must be false. I urge you to try out all the combos."

i) That's just you playing little word games. We could easily recast it as:

There is only one God. The Trinity is God.

The Father, Son, and Spirit share all the same divine attributes.

No contradiction in that formulation.

ii) In addition, I view the Trinity as a symmetry of persons who mirror each other. Are three mutual reflections one or three? They are both, considered from different viewpoints.

iii) Likewise, we need to resist the temptation of visualizing Trinitarian distinctions as if these were spatial boundaries or surfaces, like separate physical objects. If, a la classical theism, we're dealing with timeless, spaceless entities, then they aren't distinct in that sense.

"This is a perfect illustration of why I think your reading is uncharitable to the authors at hand, and that it takes a lot of chutzpah to put it out there are the correct reading. It's *apparently contradictory*, which we usually take as a very, very tough problem to overcome, unless we're willing to just say that the author is confused. The normal response is to carefully re-examine the various readings that imply the contradiction."

Dale, God is not an ordinary object of knowledge, like a tree or a game of checkers. God is the most complex being in all reality. We'd expect God to be baffling in some respects. God is not a merely man-sized object of knowledge.

This isn't like harmonizing historical accounts, where we're dealing with mundane events which we could fully grasp if we were there to see it unfold in real time and space. It's not like reconstructing questions from answers, when we only have one side of the correspondence (e.g. Pauline letters.).

You don't even open your mind to the possibility that God is bigger than your mind. But unless God is bigger than your mind, what kind of "God" is he?

Like a 9/11 Truther, you've developed a conspiratorial narrative that's become plausible to you. Hence, you dismiss any appeal to "mystery" as special pleading. But that doesn't take seriously the transcendent nature of God.

"No. Rather, the point is that if some community lacks any term meant to express some concept, then it is likely that they have no such concept."

That's like saying if anthropologists discover an Amazonian tribe with no word for jealousy, then they have no concept of jealousy. That's a ridiculous inference.

"It needn't be a patristic example. Could be NT too. But we both know that there is no such word or phrase."

Dale, complex concepts are not reducible to single words or phrases. At best, there can be technical words or jargon that stand for the concept, but you wouldn't know that from the word or phrase in isolation.

The question at issue isn't the use of a word or phrase, but the logical implications of the Biblical data.

Bullheaded unitarian

One of Dale Tuggy's dilemmas is his unsuccessful attempt to compartmentalize numerical identity. He makes allowances for personal identity which he disallows in the case of numerical identity. He's too bullheaded to appreciate that personal identity is just a special case of numerical identity. Numerical identity is the general principle, of which personal identity is one example.

For instance, Tuggy himself seems to think personal identity requires numerical identity. Tuggy the militant unitarian is numerically the same person as Tuggy the social Trinitarian. Yet Tuggy is a methodist about numerical identity, but a particularist about personal identity. Where numerical identity is concerned, he begins with criteria: Leibniz's Law! A necessary truth! Or his a priori stipulation that "numerical identity doesn't come in degrees."

But where personal identity is concerned, he begins with examples: "Don’t things change? e.g. Last year you weighed 200, and now you weight 210 lbs. But does this mean that the you of 2010 is not numerically the same as the you of 2011? Ridiculous! Things can qualitatively change while remaining numerically the same. That’s just common sense."

Here he just stipulates that qualitative change is consistent with numerical identity because "that's just common sense." So he has two contrary standards for defining identity. And yet he tries to merge the two when it serves his purpose. 

Consider two hypotheticals: 

i) What would I be like if my mother had died when I was five?

ii) What would I be like if I were a giraffe?

The first hypothetical is realistic. We may not know enough to answer that question, but that was possible, and if it happened, I would turn out differently.

But the second hypothetical is basically nonsense. A giraffe is so different from a human that it wouldn't be the same individual in any appreciable sense.

That's why a standard move in discussions of transworld identity is to take the nearest possible world as the frame of reference. A possible world most like the real world. But that means counterfactual identity is based on similarity rather than sameness. And similarity is a matter of degree. Degrees of similarity and dissimilarity.

That's why the first hypothetical is realistic. It posits that I and my counterpart have the same personal history up to the age of 5, at which point, due to a family tragedy, our paths begin to diverge. But because we were the same person with the same history up to that point, and because we remain human, have the same surviving parent, and so forth, there's a meaningful basis of comparison. Those could be alternate outcomes for the same individual. 

By contrast, a giraffe is so unlike a human that a giraffe can't be your counterpart in a possible world. There is no sense in which you could be identical to a giraffe. 

But if counterfactual identity is a matter of degree, then why not diachronic identity? Suppose we recast the counterfactual scenario in chronological terms: What would I be like if I turned into a giraffe tomorrow? Here issues of diachronic and transworld identity intersect. It's about past and future identity, as well as counterfactual identity. And the comparison fails for the same reason. Lack of adequate, salient similarity. 

Tuggy's objection to the Trinity is especially ironic considering the fact that he maintains a temporalist view of God. So for Tuggy, personal identity and diachronic identity intersect in God's case no less than man's case. Tuggy's God undergoes change. And change is a kind of difference. Clearly, then, there's a sense in which Tuggy's God is not uniformly the same God from t1 to t2. 

Likewise, Tuggy is a freewill theist. Tuggy's God has counterparts in possible worlds, where God said or did something different. Where God's experience is different. Clearly, then, there's a sense in which Tuggy's God is not uniformly the same from w1 to w2.

Even in reference to divine personal identity, Tuggy makes allowance for differentia concerning that individual. So why does he refuse to make allowance for differentia concering the Trinity? Why does he measure the Trinity by the yardstick of strict identity, but use a rubber ruler for his own God when it comes to transworld identity or identity over time? Flexible theories of identity for unitarian open theism, but inflexible theories of identity for Trinitarian theism. 

Sure, Tuggy can dictate that certain kinds of change or difference are somehow consistent with numerical identity; sure, he can dictate that certain kinds of change or difference are consistent with his denial that numerical identity admits degrees of identity, but is there anything beyond his arbitrary stipulation to show how that's consistent? 

He can attempt to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic properties, but that presumes rather that proves consistency with numerical identity. For unless you can already establish that the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction is compatible with numerical identity, you can't invoke that distinction to salvage numerical identity. Whether distinctions like that are consonant with strict identity is the very issue in dispute. And if that's consistent with numerical identical, why not other kinds of differentia? 

This is a central tension in his position. He doesn't begin with Leibniz's law when he clears space for personal identity. When push comes to shove, he makes ad hoc modifications to Leibniz's law to accommodate whatever personal identity demands. His unyielding definition of numerical identity in relation to the Trinity becomes very yielding when he turns to the ambiguities of personal identity. He regards the "law of identity" as a necessary truth, but contingent truths shape his view of personal identity. As a result, you notice the gearbox smoke and grind when he tries to mesh the two. 

There are philosophers like McTaggart who are far more uncompromising when it comes to strict identity. McTaggart is a consistent methodist. Tuggy, by contrast, has a makeshift position. He's a methodist when attacking the Trinity, but a particularist on personal identity. Yet his views on personal identity infect his views on numerical identity. By introducing fudge factors into personal identity, his theory of numerical identity becomes chocolate-coated in the process. There's no uniform principle driving his theories of identity. 

Kissing the blarney stone of unitarianism

This is a follow-up to my previous post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-coming-king.html

Here I respond to Dale's comments.

The coming king

Here's a followup to my previous post:

Anti-Trinitarian apostate Dale Tuggy attempted to respond to this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/08/jesus-and-prophets.html

Dale Tuggy:
The only problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually imply or even suggest the deity of Jesus. 

Except that it does.

Of course, he *is* a prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:15)

Of course, that's equivocal. In typology, the antitype isn't just more of the same. 

A prophet is a messenger. Jesus is the message. 

We do "believe in" prophets - that is just to trust them. There's nothing idolatrous about such trust. We're trusting them to inform us about the God who (allegedly) sent them; we may thus entrust them with our very lives, our eternal destinies. It is trust in the man, and not only in what he says. Just so with Jesus. He too is a messenger from God. But it doesn't follow that he's "just" a messenger; he's the Messiah too, with all that implies. 

i) Dale is disregarding a basic conceptual distinction. There's a difference between believing X and believing in X. That doesn't even depend on the preposition. In idiomatic English, that's a convent way of elucidating the distinction, but it doesn't require that verbal formula.

To believe a speaker simply means you grant the truth of what he said. To believe in someone shifts the emphasis from what was spoken to the speaker himself. From what was said to who said it.  

ii) What the Messiahship of Jesus implies for a unitarian is very mundane. 

Indeed, Jesus is a proper object of faith, and even of prayer in the NT ("calling upon the name of the Lord").

"Lord," where Kurios is a traditional rendering for Yahweh. Throughout the OT, moreover, the concept of calling on the name of the Lord means calling on Yahweh for deliverance. 

He couldn't serve as the mediator between God and us, if we couldn't talk/pray to him. (1 Timothy 2:5)
John 14:1 - Yes, Jesus demands our absolute trust, like the trust we place in God. Of course, we trust God *by* trusting in the one he sent. Note his "also" there. If you trust in God, you haven't automatically trusted in Jesus - they're distinct. Some of his Jewish opponents thought they could do the first without doing the second; but since God sent, empowered, and confirmed the ministry of Jesus, rejecting Jesus was rejecting the one who sent him. (John 13:20)

i) I've been debating Dale since 2011, and he never updates his argument. He constantly recycles the same debunked arguments. He's the John Loftus of unitarians. 

In NT usage, theos sometimes functions as a proper noun (i.e. a designation for a particular individual, the Father) and sometimes functions a common noun (denoting a member of a kind or class). Dale constantly treats NT references to the Father, where "God" is a proper name, as if that's equivalent to a common noun–distinguishing one kind of being from a different kind of being, as if "God" and "Jesus" belong to two different classes. But terminology alone doesn't justify his claim. Not to mention that the NT sometimes uses the same terminology for both. 

How are we to account for Dale's persistent confusion? Is he too dimwitted to even absorb that distinction? Does he privately grasp the distinction, but is too unethical to acknowledge it in public because that would impede his efforts as a propagandist? Or does his bondage to diabolical falsehood create an intellectual impediment which prevents him from registering that distinction?

ii) Apropos (i), since Father and Son are different persons, NT writers naturally employ different designations for each, more so when discussing them together. In Johannine usage, this is typically "Father"/"Son" language. In Paul, this is typically "God"/"Lord" language. But all these designations are divine designations. 

iii) Jesus isn't a prophet come from God. Rather, Jesus is the coming of God. Both events are revelatory of God. In that respect, both events are prophetic. A prophet reveals God indirectly, whereas Jesus reveals God directly. It's like the difference between meeting a king's emissary and meeting a king face-to-face.

iv) A prophet is essentially a figure of the past. He has a temporary and instrumental role to play. Once he delivers the message, he served his purpose. 

Throughout the NT, by contrast, Jesus is a past, present, and future object of faith and devotion. A perpetual object of faith and devotion. It's not confined to something he said or did in the past. It's not even limited to something he has yet to do. Rather, it's about something he is, and always will be. Just like how we relate to God–because that's what he is.  

Prophets and apostles don't have that future-oriented identity. 

v) Throughout the Gospels, Jesus commands and demands faith in himself. And that feature continues throughout the NT. 

You don't have anything comparable with respect to apostles. That's because the faith in view is faith in God. 

vi) In Jn 14:1, "God" is shorthand for the Father. In the Fourth Gospel and 1 John, you have a Father God/Son of God relation. Sometimes the full titles are used, but sometimes abbreviated expressions are used, since the reader is expected to know by now who they denote. But all these variant designations are used to denote a deity or divinity. 

vii) The NT treats the Father as God, as well as Jesus. At the same time, the NT distinguishes the two. The NT doesn't attempt to harmonize these classifications. 

viii) The Trinity means God is one in one respect, but three in a different respect. At that level there is no contradiction, not even a prima facie contradiction, inasmuch as that formulation denies that God is one and three in the same respect. 

Problems occur when we  frame the issue more strictly than Scripture does. Using a more exacting category or definition of "one" than Scripture does.

It's sufficient for a Christian to say God is "one" is whatever respect Scripture intends by that. We don't need to begin with an a priori definition which we impose on Scripture. 

If Scripture reveals that there is only one true God, even though the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, yet each is fully divine, then God is "one" in whatever sense is necessary to accommodate all the facts. There's no requirement that our formulation be more precise than the revealed truths which sum the Trinity.

As far as a philosophical definition goes, my preferred model symmetry. There are types of symmetries where you can put two (or more) distinct (abstract) objects in a relation of one-to-one correspondence. 

One-to-one correspondence is a typical way of unpacking identity. Yet these are distinct objects. For instance, one may be right-handed while the other may be left-handed. You can pair each element, yet these aren't interchangeable. 

And because these are abstract, they can be distinct objects without being separate objects. They aren't differentiated by time and space.

Dale himself fudges on numerical identity in relation to personal identity, for he makes allowance for diachronic identity and counterfactual identity in reference to human persons. How can I be the same individual through time if I change over the course of time?

Likewise, his strictures create problems for counterfactual identity. What I might have done. But is that the same "me"? 

But he refuses to accommodate the Biblical revelation of the Trinity. 

Both a monkey and a child can manipulate a Rubik's Cube. But what's incomprehensible to a monkey is comprehensible to a child. What's incomprehensible to a child may be comprehensible to an adult. What's incomprehensible to the average adult may be comprehensible to a genius. What's incomprehensible to a genius may be comprehensible to an angel. 

Threats and promises

When 4-point Calvinists like David Pointer attack special redemption because (according to them) it makes God insincere when he offers the gospel to the unredeemed, 5-point Calvinists typically counter that, by parity of logic, election also makes God insincere, yet 4-point Calvinists continue to affirm election.

But that’s not the only doctrine in the remaining four points that’s problematic for 4-point Calvinists. 5-point Calvinists could also raise a parallel objection with respect to perseverance.

If the offer of the gospel is a divine promise, then the corollary of a divine promise is a divine threat. Consider Scriptural warnings about the dire fate of apostates.

Yet God hasn’t made “provision” for the apostasy of the elect. Apostasy isn’t “available” to the elect. Where the elect are concerned, that’s a counterfactual threat. (I'm using "provision" and "availability" because those are the same categories which Ponter deploys to critique special redemption.)

4-point Calvinists reject special redemption, yet two of the remaining four points which they still affirm stand in tension with their objection to special redemption.  

Unitarian apostates

Sam, you should be embarrassed to slander a Christian like this. I worship the one true God, and have since I was born again in 1978.

I wasn’t planning to comment on Tuggy’s Christian status. Since, however, he’s thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll take it up.

i) Tuggy is a paradigm apostate. What is more, like many apostates, he’s also a recruiter. A self-deceived deceiver.

From a Reformed standpoint, if he dies in his current condition, he was never regenerate. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 Jn 2:19).

ii) Tuggy ceased to be a Christian the moment he became a unitarian. “No one who denies the Son has the Father” (1 Jn 2:23).

Keep in mind that John’s antithetical statement is contextualized by John’s high Christology. John repeatedly teaches the deity of Christ.

For a useful summary of the evidence, cf. Andreas Köstenberger, “The Deity of Christ in John’s Gospel,” “The Deity of Christ in John’s Letters and the Book of Revelation,” C. Morgan & R. Peterson, eds. The Deity of Christ (Crossway 2011), chaps 4,6.

Of course, unitarians like Tuggy deny that John teaches the deity of Christ, but that’s irrelevant. Unitarian Christology is on a par with Ufological Christology. You have professing Christians who think Jesus was really an alien from outer space. They, too, deny the deity of Christ. The fact that both groups present alternative Christologies doesn’t make them Christian. Just deluded.

Tuggy has allied himself with John’s Christ-denying opponents in 1 John. Sam didn't slander Tuggy. Rather, Tuggy slanders the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. 

I can't fathom where you get the idea that I'm uninterested in exegesis (prejudice based on my being a philosopher?); in point of fact, I've spent many years sweating through the texts, reading trinitarian and unitarian arguments with constant recourse to them.

In my exchanges with Tuggy, he ducks exegesis. And for someone like Tuggy, exegesis is a waste of time. Regardless of what the exegesis yields, Tuggy can always resort to his philosophical escape-cause to evade any unwelcome exegetical results.

The very point of the logic is to find some fixed points to reason about what the authors are and are not saying, on the assumption that they are self-consistent.

But Tuggy doesn’t assume the viewpoint of the Bible writers to understand how they understood consistency. Rather, he swaps out their understanding, then swamps in his understanding.  

Neo-Marcionites

When writers like Randal Rauser and Roger Olson deny that God ever commanded the execution of the Canaanites on the grounds that such a God would be evil, and when they contrast that with Jesus, what they’re doing is to repristinate the Marcionite heresy. There’s the evil God of the OT, exemplified by Yahweh, then there’s the good God of the NT, exemplified by Jesus.

At this point, writers like Rauser and Olson forfeit any claim to be Christian. They don’t believe in the OT God. They find the OT God morally repugnant. And this is despite the fact that Jesus and the NT writers treat the OT God as the one true God. The God of the OT is the God of the NT.

Writers like Rauser and Olson don’t believe what Jesus believed. They don’t believe what other NT authors believed.

They come to Scripture with a preconception of what God, if there is a God, must be like. When they don’t find what they’re looking for in the Bible, when they encounter depictions that challenge their preconceptions, they revile and deny the offending depictions. 

Perseverance of the Saints (Howell)

There seems to be some confusion on certain skeptical (and Arminian) blogs with respect to apostasy and backsliding. Folks are acting as if a profession of faith or even the sustaining of certain experiences over time constitutes a valid conversion experience in the past. Likewise, they are acting as if, in the case of apostates, we, their critics, have stated that their experience was not "real" (to them). Neither propositions are true: This should clear it up (emphases mine):

Perseverance of the Saints

DELIVERED BY
R. B. C. HOWELL

---

The Privileges of Believers In Christ Include
Their Perseverance In Grace Unto the Attainment of Final, and
Complete Salvation

Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

To persevere in grace unto the attainment of final, and complete salvation, is another, and the last in the catalogue which I shall at present particularly consider, of the inestimable privileges growing out of the union of believers with Christ. I need not tell you that a result so glorious will not be achieved without a struggle. The utmost energies of minds renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, will be imperatively demanded. Battles are to be fought; victories are to be won; labors are to be endured; before the end is gained.

. . . Not for thee
Spreads the world her downy pillow;
On the rock thy couch must me,
While around thee chafes the billow."

But in every struggle, every conflict, Jehovah is your guide and support, and has promised that you shall be "more than conquerors," through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many excellent christians however, in opposition to the doctrine maintained by us, hold, to use the language of one of their most distinguished divines, that--"A believer may totally lose his faith, and regeneration, and may continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish."[1]

Either this proposition is not defensible, or that which asserts the final perseverance of the saints--in other words, the continuance of all believers "in a state of grace to a state of glory"--must be abandoned. Both cannot be true. To which shall we adhere? It is our interest, and our duty, to know the truth, on this, and all other topics; and thanks to our God, the means are accessible and at hand by which the whole inquiry may be fully and satisfactorily determined.

Before entering upon the argument however, whether in refutation of the opinion stated, or in defence of our own conclusion, it is necessary, if you would clearly comprehend the question to be examined, that several preliminary observations should be submitted..

In the first place, we predicate final perseverance in grace of those only who are "born again"--the saints of Christ Jesus--and not of mere professors of religion. Let this fact be kept constantly in memory. Professors of religion, members of the Churches, are not all, as a matter of course, the children of God, and followers of the Redeemer. Many, in every age, have assumed the outward forms of godliness, in whose hearts true piety had no dwelling place. In the estimation of enlightened christians of every class, such are expected to "fall away." Their relations to the Church are not congenial; their spiritual duties are burdensome; they soon become weary; and in going back to the world, they return to a course of life which their hearts always preferred. Their apostasy is a natural consequence, and always to be anticipated.

It is, secondly, necessary that you discriminate carefully, between backsliding, and apostasy. The former is the act of turning back from God; the latter is the forsaking, or the renouncing of the religion of Christ. Backsliding consists either in the relinquishment of evangelical doctrine; or in the loss of spirituality of mind; or in the gradual departure from correct morals. All these evils are embraced in apostasy. The backslider commits transgressions, but returns to his allegiance, and obtains forgiveness, and acceptance. The apostate continues; dies in his sins; and "so eternally perishes." We teach that none of the true children of God--he believing, the pardoned, the regenerated, the sanctified--become apostate, but to backsliding, of every character and degree, all, it is but too evident, even the best, and most devoted, are constantly, and painfully liable.

A third preliminary remark--Final perseverance in grace is never accomplished without the divinely appointed instrumentalities. The means, and the ends, are invariably associated. And will believers in Christ always employ those means? If they do, the result can never be doubtful. Messiah himself says they will. If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."[2] "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous."[3] The saints of the Redeemer--

"Have proclaimed him King, and in their hearts
His title is engraven, with a pen
Dipt in the fountain of eternal love,"

With these considerations before you, we proceed to weigh carefully, and prayerfully, in the balances of divine truth, the principal objections to the conclusion that all believers in Christ will persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation, never "totally losing their faith, and regeneration," but pressing onward till they reach, and wear, the crown of eternal life.

The first of these objections may be stated thus--Many of the angels apostatized; our first parents also, fell from their original state of holiness; why then, may not christians "lose their faith and regeneration," and so bring upon themselves eternal perdition?

We have here brought before us two classes of intelligent beings; angels in heaven; and men in their primal state of innocence. Let us consider them separately. Angels belong to another world. Of the cause, and nature, of their apostasy, I may be permitted to remark, we know very little. Upon this topic our Heavenly Father has not deemed our instruction necessary. Allusions to the subject in his word, are made only incidentally. No argument therefore, can be predicated upon the fall of angels, in support of the doctrine which teaches the apostasy of christians. Here we dismiss this part of the objection.

But our first parents also fell from their original state of holiness. If so, may not christians under similar influences, fall and be lost?

This proposition demands our serious investigation. I observe, that between their primitive condition, and that of truly regenerated men of subsequent ages, no such similarity exists, as will admit of conclusive reasoning from the one to the other. Let several facts, evincive of the truth of this statement, be considered. You will, in the first place, remember that the covenant of God with them was wholly different from that upon which you now stand. To Adam Jehovah said--"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not ear of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."[4]

The obligation of this covenant was a simple negative, upon a single point. How easy would have been compliance. The conditions were explicit--obey, and live; disobey, and die. The result need not be repeated.

With this, contrast the Gospel Covenant--"I will put my laws into their mind, (saith Jehovah) and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more."[5]

Well may this be distinguished as "the covenant of grace!" How utterly unlike the Adamic. With our first parents all was unbending justice; with you all is favor, mercy, boundless forbearance. In the covenant with them, no provision was made for the pardon of sin; in the Gospel covenant, this is one of the strongest features. Besides all this, they were, until they sinned, utter strangers to pain, and sorrow, and wasting wretchedness. They had not experience of evil. You have known all its bitterness. And further, They disposed of their own life, and alas! incurred its dreadful forfeiture! "Ye are lead (to sin) and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also, appear with his in glory."[6]

Their condition was wholly different from yours. Almost its antipodes. The reasoning from analogy therefore--is here clearly out of place--it is not legitimate. Neither, as you now see, from the fall of angels nor of our first parents, from their original state of holiness, can any valid arguments be adduced, proving that regenerated men, once depraved and sinful, but now redeemed and sanctified, are liable to "loose their faith, and regeneration, or to continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish." The objection is without relevancy, or force.

The threatenings, cautions, and warnings, with which the word of God every where abounds, imply, it is alleged, if they do not aver, the probability that some true christians will apostatise, and forever perish. They are therefore presented as a second objection to the doctrine it is my purpose to establish.

That such threatenings and cautions, and warnings, are of constant recurrence in the divine word, and that they are in their character, appalling, is most true. The premises are therefore cheerfully conceded, but the conclusion from thence, does not appear to me, by any means natural, or a matter of course. The reasoning is illogical, as I shall presently fully demonstrate. Let two important facts be here fixed carefully in the mind. The Church of Christ is composed, not of the regenerate alone, but of the unregenerate also. This is the first fact. The second is, that all these threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the members of the Church as a body. Both these truths will, I suppose, be readily admitted by all.

But I would be fully understood, and therefore, will refer you to testimony. I do not admit that the unconverted have any right to a place in the Churches. The word of God, we very well know, does not approve their admission. On the contrary, it is strictly prohibited. But those who administer the affairs of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, are men. They are imperfect; their administration also must therefore be imperfect. Our best efforts may be exerted to preserve the body pure from unworthy members, but we cannot read men's hearts, and in despite of all our vigilance, very many find their way into the Church, who are strangers to repentance and faith; some probably, for some reasons, seeking to appear what they know they are not; and others candid, and sincere, but misled, and deceived. I state the simple fact that there are unconverted men in the Churches. So it has been in every age---in apostolic as well as in our own times. A Judas, and a Simon Magus, were then members of the Churches, and stood side by side, with a James, and a John. So now, the converted and the unconverted, the eminently holy, and the profoundly depraved, meet and mingle in the sanctuary, and at the very table of the Lord. Such, to a greater or less extent, are all the Churches. This we know to be true, by the institution in the word of God of disciplinary measures to exclude the unworthy when discovered, and by our own personal observation.

To the Churches as bodies, so composed, are all the fearful passages in question addressed. To the members of the Church at Rome for example, Paul said--"If ye live after the flesh ye shall die."[7]

To those of the Churches of Galatia, "Be not deceived God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption."[8]

To the members of the old Jewish Church the prophet Ezekiel said--"When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he love? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sins that he hath sinned, in them shall he die."[9]

Does any one deny that these, and all similar threatenings, are, in fact, addressed to the members of the Churches. If they are not addressed to members of the Churches, they can have no influence upon the argument; they are directed to those who are not members, and whose claims to religion, since all truly religious men unite with the Churches, are at best, exceedingly questionable. They are in truth, however, addressed to the Churches, all of whose members are professedly righteous, and claim to be accepted of God through Christ. They are so regarded by their brethren, and by all others. For a season, they all act in accordance with their profession. No difference in zeal, and good works, can be perceived between the truly converted and unconverted. They all, whatever may be really the fact, bear the same character. They are known as christians--men of God.

Uniting with the Church however, important as this act may be, is any easy matter. It is but the beginning of the christian life. Next comes the period of trial. Will all who join the Churches, bear the test to which sooner or later, they will most surely be subjected. Remember also that the period which is to try the strength of their faith, patience, obedience, and fidelity, extends through their whole life upon earth. With these facts before you, survey the scene which I will now sketch, as it passes. For one, the seductions of sense, ere long, prove too mighty; he yields; lives after the flesh, and dies. Another, carried away by the fascinations of the world,--wealth, ambition, honor, pleasure--is found sowing to the flesh; he reaps corruption. Then the righteous man--he who had been eminent for zeal, and good works, foremost in the sacred ranks, is overthrown, turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and miserably perish! A succession of similar events continues. Their profession when tested, prove unequal to the trial! They have fallen; and are probably lost forever. Behold the picture. Is it imaginary? Alas! far from it. Do these facts, however, prove that the persons in question have "lost their faith, and regeneration?" Surely not. The facts all concur to demonstrate that they never possessed these high endowments. True they professed religion. But the indubitable evidence of a man's faith and regeneration" is, not alone that he has been excited, and experienced fears and sorrows, and confidence and raptures; nor that he does many righteous acts, and is lauded as eminently devoted; but it is that he sustains the tests to which he is subjected in the christian profession. The "refiners fire" consumes the dross only; the pure gold all remains, and is by the process, rendered but the finer, and the brighter. Can it be proved that these men who have fallen, although they previously maintained the character of great piety, were ever rally regenerated? Never. Such proof is impossible, as long as men can appear to be what they are not. Then their fall is very far from showing that the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints is not true.

Do not, however, the truly converted also, sometimes fall? We have seen that there are in the Churches two classes of persons. So, I beg you to observe, are there two classes of persons among the fallen. The one class, now free from the Church, seem to delight in sin; their hearts grow daily, more and more obdurate; their conscience appears but a feeble impulse; their sin against God has no restraint, except their desire to subserve their own personal and family reputation, and interest. The other class are, after a while at least, overtaken by remorse; repentance pursues them; and with self loathing and tears, they return, and assure us that, throughout all their wanderings, they were doing violence to their consciences, and their judgment, and were supremely miserable. The former were unregenerate apostates; and latter converted backsliders. If some like Hymeneus and Alexander make shipwreck of their professed faith and good conscience, and thus go down miserably to eternal death; others, like a David and Peter, return from their sins, and give themselves anew to the service of him who has graciously said--"I will heal their backslidings; I will love them freely."[10]

These general remarks apply to all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and which are constantly occurring within the circle of our own observation. Prophecy foretells them and time witnesses the truth of the prediction. Many of Christ's own personal disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Men are still characterised by like conduct. Were such ever changed in heart? They have been, we have said, under spiritual influences; they have done many things religiously; but all the testimony accessible forbids the conclusion that they were ever renewed. Of those in the Philippian Church, and they may be safely assumed as examples of all others, Paul does not intimate the former regeneration, but says--"Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction."[11]

Of what value then, we may be asked, are all these threatenings, and warnings, and cautions? They are, I answer, of infinite benefit to those who without having experienced any change of heart, have nevertheless professed religion. True, they have assumed a most dangerous position. Deception--

"--So potent is its spell,
That none, decoy'd into that fatal ring,
Unless by Heaven's peculiar grace, escape."

Still they are not beyond the boundaries of mercy. They may yet repent, believe, and be saved. But how are they to be reached? Threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the whole Church. Were they not, these graceless professors would never apply them to themselves. The appalling declarations of Jehovah of which we speak, may bring dismay, and trembling to the heart of the contrite; they at the same time however, apprise the unrenewed of their danger, and thus become the means of their salvation. They are promotive also of the highest interests of the true christian. What in fact, are they all, but so many expressions of love, by which their Father in heaven assures them to the inseparable connection which always subsists as well between sin and misery, as between holiness and salvation. They in all cases, imply the opposite promises; and do often, most effectually, the work of mercy. If we truly "have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," the fears they excite will serve to make us cleave to the truth with increased tenacity, and to walk before God with growing carefulness, and humility. By how much therefore the awakening and deliverance of the erring, and the carefulness, and security of these who love Christ, are valuable, by so much are the threatenings, cautions, and warnings of the word of God fraught with benevolence and grace.

Upon a careful examination of this whole topic you must now clearly see that the threatenings, the cautions, and the warnings, of the word of God, and all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scripture, and that occur in our own day, afford no proof that any true believer in Christ will ever "lose his faith, and regeneration," or will not persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation.

Many, in the third place, object to our conclusion on this subject from the apprehension that the doctrine may inspire a dangerous security, and create a carelessness in the use of the means of salvation. They think its practical tendency injurious.

Such may be the effect of crude and erroneous notions of the doctrine. Ignorance and error, are always productive of evil. But no such consequences are attendant upon it when truly and fully comprehended. Does any one, professedly a christian, and properly instructed, deliberately, and intentionally, practice sin against God? This fact ought instantly to convince him that he is yet unrenewed in the spirit of his mind; and he may perhaps be moved thereby to seek as never before, and obtain, salvation. It is essential to the very nature of grace that it lead to holiness and obedience in this life, as well as to salvation in that which is to come. But it is said, men are free agents, and therefore, have the power to throw away their "faith and regeneration." Yes, men are free agents; but will they therefore act contrary to nature? Because you are a free agent will you leave the abodes of civilization, resort to the fields, and "eat straw like the ox." Never. You will not, because it is in opposition to your nature. The nature of the christian is renewed. His will is turned to God, and it determines him to serve God. Can you will in opposition to your will? His affections are holy. You love your Lord Jesus Christ.--Can you then love and follow sin? Can you have experience of its criminality, and ingratitude, and misery, and not instinctively reject it? Can you know Christ, and deliberately, and finally forsake him? Can you have faith in the Redeemer, and cherish an impure heart? Can confidence of your safety in Christ become the motive which impels you to rebel against him, and follow the life of a sinner? Surely not. Such things cannot be. Yet they must all occur before it can be rendered probable that the doctrine, which teaches the final perseverance of the saints, is of injurious practical tendency. But there is another, and a still plainer test, by which the strength of the objection may be tried. I appeal to facts. They are numerous, and at hand. Look around you, and tell me, are those who believe in the doctrine that christians "fall from grace, and eternally perish,"--and there are many such--more circumspect, spiritual, religious, or less likely to become apostates, than those who believe in the final perseverance of the saints? We know they are not. They are, to say the least, as frequently as men of any other class, overcome by the evils which so thickly beset the paths of the christian. All the testimony in the case disproves therefore, the injurious practical tendency alleged.

These I believe, are all the objections of any importance, to the doctrine which maintains the final perseverance of the saints--the fall of the angels, and of our first parents, from their original state of holiness; the threatenings of the word of God; the individual examples of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and that occur in our own day; and the alleged injurious practical tendency of the doctrine. We have candidly and impartially considered them all, and have seen that they are without weight, and fall far short of disproving the proposition that all true believers will at last, gain the crown of eternal life.

We now turn to consider briefly, some of the leading arguments in favor of the doctrine.

Salvation, I remark, in the first place, is preeminently the work of God. This great truth constitutes a primary article in the faith of all evangelical christians. He has redeemed, regenerated, and sanctified his people, with a view to their salvation, and the glory of all his attributes demands that the end proposed shall be accomplished. His love to his people is unchangeable, and therefore they cannot be the objects of it at one time, and not at another. His faithfulness to them, and to his promises, is not founded upon their merits, but his own will and goodness; it cannot therefore be violated. His wisdom foresees every obstacle in the way, and is capable of removing it, and directing them into the right path. Has he chosen an end so glorious, and will he fail to choose the means necessary for its accomplishment? His power is absolute, and perpetually exerted for their preservation, and protection. And will he not save his people? To them all, the divine declaration is made--"To an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you," ye "are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time."[12]

The nature of their connection with the Lord Jesus Christ, I observe secondly, justifies the assurance that all the truly regenerate will persevere in divine grace unto eternal life.

"We are bound to give thanks always to God, for you brethren, beloved of the Lord," says an apostle, "because God hath from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; whereunto he hath called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."[13]

Again. The atonement by Jesus Christ, God the Father has accepted for the forgiveness of your sins. Will he revoke his act of pardon; and will the law once satisfied by Messiah, again turn upon you, and demand at your hands a second satisfaction? Is not the law just, and holy? Again. By your adoption into the family of Jehovah, you are proclaimed from on high, "Heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ."[14]

Will this proclamation be reversed, and you disinherited? How can this be, since you receive all these blessings by the Will and Testament of our Lord himself, and to give full effect to his actions, the Testator is dead? And again, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."[15]

You believe, and therefore have everlasting life. Shall this life be extinguished? This cannot be, since it is impossible that that which is everlasting can after a few years cease to exist. Once more. Jesus Christ is our Advocate to plead our cause before the Father in heaven. Will he fail of success? Now if in Christ Jesus you were from the beginning chosen, to salvation, and to secure it you have been actually called, and endowed with faith, and sanctification; if through him you have been pardoned, and the claims of the law against you fully satisfied; if you are recognized, and proclaimed heirs with Christ of the heavenly inheritance; if you already have everlasting life; and have his glorious promise--"Because I live ye shall live also;"[16] what can we conclude but that your connection with Christ secures effectually, your final and complete salvation.

The perseverance of the saints in grace unto eternal life, is also evident, thirdly, from the work of the Holy Spirit.

"Now he," said Paul, "which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."[17]

By this holy anointing the people of God are distinguished as already consecrated to be kings, and priests, on high; by the sealing they are received, recognized, and acknowledged, as his peculiar treasure; and by the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts--that is the giving of a part as a pledge of the future bestowment of the whole--he fully ratifies our title to eternal salvation. Further. Our regeneration, and sanctification constitute important parts of the process by which we are fitted and qualified for heaven, and give undoubted proof that it is the intention of the Holy Ghost to save us. Will he, after all this, fail of his design?

God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--purpose the salvation of all believers. This truth is now placed beyond the reach of controversy. On this point there is, I must think, no question in the mind of any intelligent christian. No deficiency can exist on the part of Jehovah, nor of any of the persons in the adorable Trinity. If all believers are not saved, the failure cannot be chargeable to God.

Finally. The salvation of all believers is a result guaranteed by the influence of the new nature in the soul of the regenerate.

In every instance of true conversion to God, the will, the affections, the desires, the purposes--all the powers of the mind--are, as we have already said, turned from sin to holiness. The old unsanctified nature, followed worldly things; the new spiritual nature follows of choice, the things of God. This is now the ruling influence of the soul. Men, as a general rule, act always in accordance with the impulses of their nature. This every one knows to be true. To suppose that any one will do otherwise, long at a time, is both unphilosophical, and unscriptural. This principle is recognized by our Saviour himself. "The tree is know by its fruit." "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things."[18] Christians are, by inspiration, addressed as "Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling."[19] All men undoubtedly act in accordance with their nature; the nature of believers is holy; they will therefore pursue a course of holy action. Will they then, ever finally abandon themselves to a life of sin? If so they will act in opposition to their nature, to suppose which, we have seen, is against both philosophy and scripture. Into snares, and temptations, they, as has been shown, may, and do, often fall, and not unfrequently, go very far into worldliness, and transgression. But if their nature is renewed, grace will ultimately triumph. The enlightened conscience will not always remain silent. They return to the path of life. This is the doctrine of Paul, who asks--"How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"[20] The grace of the Father, the love of the Son, and the promptings of the Holy Ghost, combine with the desires and aspirations of the soul, and bear the believer onward, and upward, until he stands accepted, and glorified, in the midst of the shining hosts "who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb!" If additional proofs of the correctness of this doctrine were needed, they are abundantly supplied by direct, and unequivocal declarations of God himself. I must of many, satisfy myself with one, or two. He says--"I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish."[21] Truly, he "shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."[22]

The perseverance in grace of all true believers, unto the attainment of eternal life, is, as we have now fully shown, guaranteed by the perfections of God the Father; by their relations with our Lord Jesus Christ the Son; by the work in their hearts of the Holy Spirit; by the character of the new nature with which they are endowed; and by the express declarations of the divine word of truth. With glowing spirits, therefore, and boundless gratitude and love, we too, may join in that apostolic exultation, which so gloriously delineates the privileges of all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ--"If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also, freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that is risen again; who is even at the right hand of God; who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, 'for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.' Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."[23]

I have now brought in review before you, some of the most distinguished privileges of believers in Christ. How strong the emphasis with which they speak the infinite love and grace of our Heavenly Father! It is yours to enjoy the free and full pardon of sins; to receive from Jehovah entire justification; to be admitted, and approved, among the adopted children of the Most High, an heir of the kingdom of grace on earth, and of glory in heaven; to have conferred upon you all the blessings described in the promises of the divine word; to be animated and sustained by the power of hope; and to persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation. How rich are these honors! Surprising unspeakably, is their magnitude! Their excellency, what mind can justly conceive! They clothe you with a dignity and glory, not inferior to those of the tallest of the angels in his presence. And by your side stands God himself, your Father, your Friend, your Deliverer and points you to exalted seats in that "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." There you will soon be received, perfect, glorified, immortal. Who can describe the rapture which will thrill your bosom, when Messiah shall say--

"Ye blessed of my Father come, ye just
Enter the joy eternal, of your Lord;
Receive your crowns, ascend and sit with me,
At God's right hand, in glory evermore."

---

[1] Limborch's Theol. v. cap. lxxx.

[2] John 14:13, 19

[3] 1 John 5:3

[4] Gen. 2:16, 17

[5] Heb. 8:10-13

[6] Col. 3:3, 4

[7] Rom. 8:13

[8] Gal. 6:7, 8

[9] Ezek. 18:24

[10] Hosea 14:4

[11] Phil. 3:18, 19

[12] 1 Pet. 1:4, 5

[13] 2 Thess. 2:13, 14

[14] Rom. 8:17

[15] John 3:36

[16] John 14:10, 20

[17] 2 Cor. 1:21, 22

[18] Matt. 12:33, 35

[19] Heb. 3:1

[20] Rom. 6:2

[21] John 10:28

[22] 1 Cor. 1:8

[23] Rom. 8:31-39