Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

The Heart of It All: Salvation- Eternal Salvation?

By Peter Amsterdam

January 10, 2013

While all Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and we are saved through the sacrifice of His death on the cross, there are some differences in belief among different denominations as to whether that salvation is permanent or whether it can be lost.

It is a fact that there are Christians who lose faith, who stop believing in Jesus and salvation, and who turn from living a Christian life. The question arises in such instances: Did that person lose his or her salvation? Having once been saved, can you lose your salvation?

The Roman Catholic position on salvation differs significantly from the Protestant view and won’t be covered in detail in this article, though I’ll mention a few general things in brief. (This is by no means a complete explanation of Roman Catholic beliefs on salvation.)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that by the sacrament of baptism God infuses justifying grace into the soul, which cancels original sin and imparts the habit of righteousness. This initial justification is strengthened through other sacraments, love-inspired works, and special merit from Mary and the saints.[1] The belief is that when Catholics die, if they have committed venial (minor) sins which haven’t already been forgiven through the sacrament of confession, their souls will go to purgatory, a place where they will be fully cleansed. Having gone through the cleansing work of purgatory, they are then justified before God. Believers who commit mortal (serious) sin and die without receiving forgiveness through confession fall from grace and lose their salvation. Salvation in Catholic theology depends on continued obedience and can therefore be lost.

The two primary Protestant views are presented in general terms in this article. Beyond the main basic premises, various denominations on both sides of the issue also have further nuances within their belief systems, which aren’t necessary to delve into here.

Let’s look at the two general positions, beginning with those who believe that salvation can be lost if certain conditions are not met throughout a Christian’s life.
Conditions

Those who believe that it is possible for salvation to be lost believe that once one is saved, there are certain conditions that must be maintained in order to keep salvation. The belief is that God has reconciled us to Himself and we will have eternal life, provided these conditions are met. Some Pentecostal denominations, such as the Assemblies of God, as well as Wesleyan-based ones, such as the Methodists, believe this.

These conditions mainly have to do with maintaining one’s spiritual life and living a Christian life. Those who believe that salvation cannot be lost also believe that it’s important to maintain one’s spiritual life, but don’t believe salvation will be lost if one fails in this duty.

The conditions, as seen by those who believe salvation can be lost, are based on five general principles that must be fulfilled: abiding, continuing, enduring, firmness, and faithfulness. The position is that these conditions must be fulfilled throughout one’s life to maintain salvation.[2] In the footnotes, I've included some of the verses which those who take this position base their understanding on.

Abiding

The first condition in this belief system is that one must abide in what they have heard concerning the Gospel. They must stay close to the source, God’s Word and Christ. [3]

Continuing

Continuing means remaining steadfast. While God has begun the work of salvation, one must continue steadfast, to hold fast and continue in the faith. If one moves away from the faith and hope that is in the Gospel, then salvation will be lost.[4]

Enduring

Enduring in the faith to the end of our lives is seen as one of the conditions of the final salvation of a believer. Life is filled with ups and downs, and the expectation is that individuals will hold on to their faith and live it through life’s trials. If there is a failure to endure in the faith until the end of one’s life, eternal life will not be obtained.[5]

Firmness

Those who don’t confirm—or make firm—their faith by supplementing it with virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love are in danger of losing their salvation. By spiritually growing in these—and presumably other—virtues, they confirm their salvation.[6]

Faithfulness

It is necessary to remain faithful to the end. The believer must remain in faith and belief. If that faith weakens and turns to unbelief, then there is a loss of salvation and eternal life, unless there is repentance and return.[7]
Eternal Security

Other Christians disagree with the idea that salvation can be lost. They see God’s work in salvation through Jesus’ death as bringing eternal life, and consider that Christians have assurance of that eternal life due to Christ’s sacrifice.

Among those who believe in eternal security, sometimes referred to as “the perseverance of the saints,” there are differences of opinion as to why salvation can’t be lost. Nevertheless, they are in agreement that it cannot be lost.

Reformed churches (Calvinists) believe that God predestined people to be saved, and since they are predestined by God for salvation, they can’t possibly lose their salvation. While they don’t believe predestined Christians can lose their salvation, they do believe that some who profess to be Christians aren’t truly saved, that they aren’t predestined to salvation, and that those who lose their faith or turn their back on God were never truly saved in the first place. From their point of view, no truly saved Christian will ever turn against God. While there are undoubtedly people who profess to be Christians who aren’t actually saved, or who have said a salvation prayer but didn’t really mean what they were saying and thus weren’t born again, it doesn’t seem within the realm of possibility that no saved Christian ever turns away from faith in Jesus. Most Christians probably know of, or have heard of, saved Christians who abandoned the faith.

Many Protestant and evangelical churches base their belief in eternal security on specific promises in the Bible, without linking them to belief in predestination. Reformed churches also use scriptures which speak of eternal life as the basis for their understanding and belief in the perseverance of the saints.

Those who believe “once saved, always saved” believe this way due to a number of key verses which are very specific regarding having salvation permanently.

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.[8]

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.[9]

These verses have no caveats. They explicitly say that those who believe have eternal life, and no one or nothing can take it away. They will never perish. I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me. The next passage strengthens that understanding.

I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.[10]



Scripture states that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life … [11]



For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.[12]
Eternal Life

Some who believe that Christians can lose their salvation don’t look at eternal life as meaning forever, but rather see it as a quality of life, a type of life in relationship with God, which one can have for a time and then lose. However, this concept doesn’t match the meaning of the Greek word aiōnios which is most often used in the Scripture for everlasting or eternal. The definition of aiōnios is without end, never to cease, eternal, everlasting.[13]

Eternal life stands in contrast to judgment, condemnation, and separation from God. Those who receive Jesus, who are born again, are not condemned—they have been redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross.

God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned … [14]

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[15]

Salvation doesn’t bring an end to sin in our lives. As Christians we are to continually strive to overcome sin, but humans have sinful natures and therefore we sin, and when we do, we should ask God for forgiveness.[16] While our sins have ramifications in our spiritual lives, in that they affect our personal relationship with God, they aren’t a cause for the loss of our salvation. We may suffer the consequences of our sins and be chastised for them, since God, as a good parent, lovingly tries to teach and train us; but we don’t lose our place as a child of God, one adopted into God’s family.

For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives … If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons … He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.[17]



To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.[18]



As children of God, we are heirs of eternal life. It is our promised inheritance through salvation.

You are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.[19]



When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.[20]



Being justified by grace, which means being saved through Jesus’ sacrifice, we are heirs of an imperishable inheritance which is kept in heaven for us and which is guarded by God’s power.



Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.[21]


The Holy Spirit, the Guarantee

As believers, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance.

In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory.[22]

Theologian Wayne Grudem explains the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our eternal inheritance like this:

The Greek word translated “guarantee” in this passage (arrabon) is a legal and commercial term that means “first installment, deposit, down payment, pledge” and represents “a payment which obligates the contracting party to make further payments.” When God gave us the Holy Spirit within, He committed Himself to give all the further blessing of eternal life and a great reward in heaven with Him. This is why Paul can say that the Holy Spirit is the “guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it.” All who have the Holy Spirit within them, all who are truly born again, have God’s unchanging promise and guarantee that the inheritance of eternal life in heaven will certainly be theirs. God’s own faithfulness is pledged to bring it about.[23]

God has promised salvation; through His death and resurrection Jesus has secured it; the Holy Spirit guarantees it. Our salvation is secure, is permanent, and is eternal. Once you have it, you don’t lose it.

We may have temporary lapses in faith, but these lapses in faith and obedience do not change our legal standing as heirs, as those justified by the blood of Jesus.[24] Those who are saved, who have received Jesus, who are born again, do not lose their salvation.

One verse which is used by those who believe a Christian’s salvation can be lost is:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt.[25]

This is a much debated scripture passage, and depending on one’s theology it is looked at differently.

Those who believe one can lose their salvation use this verse to show that it can be lost. According to this view, those who have been enlightened, who have received the heavenly gift of salvation and have shared in the Holy Spirit, if they fall away, lose their salvation.

From the Reformed point of view, Wayne Grudem argues in a lengthy explanation that the author of the book of Hebrews is not talking about born-again believers, but rather about those who were associated with the early church, who were enlightened by the Gospel but had not come to full belief and salvation. They knew something of God’s Word, they had seen the Holy Spirit work in different situations, and had seen the power of God manifest in others. They were connected with Christians, with the Holy Spirit, and had been influenced by them, but had not made the decision to believe. They had become “associated with” the work of the Holy Spirit, they had been exposed to the true preaching of the Word and had appreciated much of its teachings, but in spite of all this, they willfully rejected all of these blessings and turned decidedly against them.

In this view, the author of Hebrews was saying that it’s impossible to restore these particular people, as their familiarity with the things of God and their experiences of the influences of the Holy Spirit had served to harden them against conversion.[26] This interpretation fits the Reformed belief that those who are truly saved won’t stop believing, but will persevere to the end due to their being predestined to salvation.

From the non-Reformed position, Baptist professor Dr. Andrew Hudson explains these verses in the larger context of what the book of Hebrews is teaching. Within the context of the complete book, he argues that while this verse is speaking about saved Christians, it is not speaking about them losing their salvation. He begins by making the case that “those who were once enlightened” does mean saved Christians. He goes on to point out that “falling away” in this context is not fully rejecting Christ, and that the judgment for the Christian who falls away isn’t a loss of salvation.

Hudson makes the point that the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were facing persecution and who were faced with either trusting God for help (through Jesus) or refusing to trust Him. If they were to turn away from Christ and return to the Mosaic worship system, they would be saying that Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient for their daily faith needs. In taking that stand, they would be saying that Christ’s work on the cross was defective. In doing so they would be criticizing His public ministry and thus “putting Him to open shame.” In such an instance, these Christians would lose God’s blessing and experience His discipline. If they repented, they would be forgiven, but they would still face discipline from God’s hand. The believer would not escape the consequences of his sinful action by simply repenting. He’d be forgiven, but would face the repercussions.

Hudson suggests that the verse could be paraphrased like this:

For it is impossible for true believers who have been once enlightened, and have accepted the heavenly gift, and have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and have experienced the good word of the Gospel and the power of the coming kingdom; and then they fail to live their daily life by faith in Christ, to return by means of repentance to a place where they can escape God’s temporal chastisement because they have openly claimed that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient to maintain fellowship with God and they have publicly embarrassed and dishonored Christ, their patron.

I see Hudson’s explanation as the proper interpretation of the verse. It shows that Hebrews 6:4–6 isn’t speaking of Christians losing their salvation and being unable to regain it. (For Dr. Hudson’s full paper, click here.)

Christians who have accepted Jesus as their Savior, who have been born again, are saved permanently. We have received eternal salvation, God’s gift of love. We have everlasting life, we are reconciled to God, and we will live forever.—All because God loves us and Jesus died for us, so that we might receive the wonderful gift of salvation.

There will probably always be some theological debate among Christians as to who is saved and who isn’t, or whether some are predestined and others aren’t, as the scriptures on these matters and the interpretation of them will probably always generate some controversy. Let’s remember that these things are truly in God’s hands and it’s not our place to be judgmental. There may well be those whom we will be surprised to see in heaven, as we may not have thought they were believers, or that they sincerely meant it when they prayed for salvation. But we must remember that God is the true and righteous judge; He is the one who knows each person’s heart and motives, who understands everything about each of us. He longs for people to be saved. He loves us all and freely extends His gift of salvation to all who will receive it.

I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.[27]



[1] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, Volume 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 175–176.


[2] These are summarized from J. Rodman Williams’ book Renewal Theology, Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 122–127.


[3] Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it … how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (Hebrews 2:1,3).

Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He made to us—eternal life (1 John 2:24–25).

If anyone does not abide in Me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned (John 15:6).


[4] You, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard … (Colossians 1:21–23).


[5] Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us (2 Timothy 2:10–12).

Do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised (Hebrews 10:35–36).


[6] We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14).

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10–11).


[7] Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life (Revelation 2:10).

I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (Revelation 2:4–5).

The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from My God out of heaven, and My own new name (Revelation 3:12).


[8] John 6:39–40.


[9] John 10:27–29.


[10] Romans 8:38–39.


[11] John 3:36.


[12] John 3:16.


[13] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press. 2000), 790.


[14] John 3:17–18.


[15] Romans 8:1.


[16] For more on the subject of the connection between sin and salvation, see The Heart of It All, Sin: Humanity’s Sinful Nature, and Sin: Are There Degrees of Sin?



[17] Hebrews 12:6, 8,10–11.


[18] John 1:12.


[19] Galatians 4:7.


[20] Titus 3:4–7.


[21] 1 Peter 1:3–5.


[22] Ephesians 1:13–14.


[23] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 791.


[24] Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9).


[25] Hebrews 6:4–6.


[26] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 794–803.


[27] Philippians 1:6.



Copyright © 2013 The Family International.

The Heart of It All: Salvation- Predestination?

By Peter Amsterdam

January 15, 2013

In the previous article, I wrote about the different views within Protestantism regarding the assurance of salvation or the possibility of losing one’s salvation. There is another notable difference within the various Protestant belief systems related to the subject of salvation. This variance is rooted in different ways of looking at God’s providence, which is defined as His continuous activity of preserving and governing the whole of creation by His wisdom and goodness and power, for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose and for the glory of His name.[1]

There are two general overarching positions: the Reformed position, which follows John Calvin’s (1509–1564) teaching regarding predestination, and the Arminian position, which follows the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). While this article will use the terms Reformed and Arminian as referring to the two different positions, it is only referring to these positions in regard to the interpretation of predestination. It doesn’t reflect total agreement with all Arminan doctrine, nor disagreement with all Reformed doctrine.


Reformed Position

Some denominations, such as the Reformed churches that follow the teachings of John Calvin, believe that each human being’s actions are decreed by God, and thus God ordains all that happens in the world. Within their definition of God’s providence they state that God cooperates with the created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and directs them to fulfill His purposes.[2]

I wrote about this subject in an earlier article. In this line of belief, God is seen as the primary cause of all that happens on earth, but He causes things to happen in a way that is hidden and thus it’s not evident that He caused it. To an observer, there is something else that caused it which he calls the secondary cause … When applied to human actions, this doctrine means that all things that people do are foreordained by God as the primary cause, and that people do what God has foreordained. However, they have no awareness that they are doing these things due to the primary cause. Even though they feel they are doing these actions of their own volition, they are actually the secondary cause. Nevertheless, they are held accountable for their actions.[3]

Believers in the Reformed tradition consider that humans have free will, in that they make free choices, but the choices they make are predetermined by God. As stated in the earlier article on this topic, this belief [Reformed] holds that even though God has foreordained the choices individuals make, humans freely choose what God has foreordained them to do. According to this position, humans make willing choices and aren’t aware of any restraints by God on their decision making, even though those restraints exist.[4] Christians in the Arminian tradition also believe in God’s providence as defined above, but believe that humankind has been granted true free will, in that people can make choices that are not previously decreed by God.


The “Elect”

When these two different belief systems approach the matter of salvation, the question arises as to whether believers—those who are saved and are called “the elect” in scripture—are predestined to salvation or whether they make a freewill choice to accept salvation. Are the elect chosen by God for salvation from before the foundation of the world? Has He predetermined who will be saved and who won’t be? Or is it the case that God, in His foreknowledge, knows the freewill choices individuals will make, and thus knows in advance who will choose to accept salvation?

In the Reformed belief system, the view is that God chose those who would be saved before the world was created. In the Arminian belief system, it’s considered that He knew who would accept His gift of salvation which was offered to humanity because of His omniscience, but not because He predestined some to be saved and some not to be.

Within the Reformed belief system, humans are seen as making a free choice regarding salvation. They hear the Gospel call to salvation and they respond positively and thus have made a freewill choice. However, the Gospel call is seen as being irresistible. When the call is heard by those who are predestined to salvation, they heed the call. They choose to heed the call because they are predestined.

Wayne Grudem explained it this way:



When Paul says, “Those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified” (Romans 8:30), he indicates that calling is an act of God. In fact, it is specifically an act of God the Father, for He is the one who predestines people “to be conformed to the image of His son” (Romans 8:29) … This calling is rather a kind of “summons” from the King of the universe and it has such power that it brings about the response that it asks for in people’s heart. It is an act of God that guarantees a response … The powerful act of God is often referred to as effective calling, to distinguish it from the general gospel invitation that goes out to all people and which some people reject. [5]

In the Reformed understanding, the Gospel call goes out in a general way, but the only ones who respond, who receive the summons that guarantees the right response, are those who are predestined to salvation. Those who reject the call do so because they are not chosen for salvation.


Grace and Works

Those who hold the Arminian interpretation of free will and predestination see the Gospel call as offering the hearer a completely free choice to accept or reject the call. They see God’s election as having to do with His foreknowledge of an individual’s acceptance of salvation, rather than God choosing those who will be saved and those who won’t. From this perspective, God’s elect are those who God, in His omniscience, knows will respond when they hear the Gospel.

Within the Reformed belief system, if someone makes a choice to accept salvation, that would mean that the person is doing something to merit salvation—in other words, the person would have a part in their salvation and as such would feel they deserve some credit for being saved.

Wayne Grudem explained it this way:



If the ultimate determining factor in whether we will be saved or not is our own decision to accept Christ, then we shall be more inclined to think that we deserve some credit for the fact that we were saved: in distinction from other people who continue to reject Christ, we were wise enough in our own judgment or good enough in our moral tendencies or perceptive enough in our spiritual capacities to decide to believe in Christ.[6]

Both the Reformed and Arminian positions affirm that we are saved by grace and not by works. The difference between the two positions is that the Reformed put forth that salvation is a complete act of God, with God being the one to prepare the heart to receive the Gospel of those whom He has elected and foreordained to be called and chosen. He bestows irresistible grace on the foreordained, and because it is irresistible, the elect person can do nothing else but get saved. Thus there is no participation on the human side, and salvation is a complete act of God.

In the Arminian view, it is also understood that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace, and that no works are involved on the part of humanity. This free gift from God is offered to all, but not all accept it. Salvation is made available, but individuals are able to freely choose to either accept or reject God’s gift. That is a freewill choice, granted to humans by God. Such a choice isn’t seen as a “work” to merit salvation.

William Lane Craig makes the following point regarding our freewill choice:



John 6:65[7] means that apart from God’s grace, no one can come to God on his own. But there’s no suggestion there that those who refused to believe in Christ did not do so of their own free will … the fault does not lie with God that some persons freely resist God’s grace and every effort to save them; rather they like Israel fail to attain salvation because they refuse to have faith.[8]


Reprobation

The Reformed position is that God has chosen those who will receive salvation from before the foundations of the world. He has also chosen those who will not be saved. This is known as the doctrine of reprobation.

Some would say that this concept shows God as being unjust and unmerciful. The Reformed understanding is that God is under no obligation to save anyone who sins, yet in His mercy and love He has chosen to save some—those He has predestined to salvation.

The doctrine of reprobation teaches that reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before the creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest His justice.[9]

The Arminian position does not endorse the doctrine of reprobation. Their understanding is that salvation is available to all, and while God’s foreknowledge allows Him to know who will choose to accept and who will reject, it is a choice made by the individual, not by God Himself.


Who Did Jesus Die For?

The difference in beliefs carries over into Jesus’ work of salvation. The question arises: did Jesus die for the sins of everyone or only for the sins of those who were predestined to salvation?

The Reformed position is that Jesus died for the sins of the elect, that it is a limited atonement, or a particular redemption, and He didn’t die for the sins of all. The Arminian belief is that of unlimited atonement or general redemption, that Jesus died for the sins of all, although the atonement, while available to all, isn’t accepted by all because of free will.

Following are some of the verses Reformed Christians use to put forth that Jesus died for only the predestined:



The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep … I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.[10]

The Reformed understanding is that the people Jesus laid down His life for are the sheep, those who know Him, because they were predestined to know Him. And the others aren’t His sheep, He doesn’t know them, and He didn’t lay down His life for them.

In these next verses, the interpretation in the Reformed thinking is that Jesus knew that there were those whom the Father gave to Him, and they were predestined to salvation, while others weren’t.



All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day.[11]

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.[12]

The next verse is used to make the point that Christ gave Himself up for the church—meaning for the believers—inferring that He didn’t die for those who don’t believe.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.[13]

Based on these and other verses, the Reformed position is that Jesus died for particular people (specifically those who would be saved and whom He came to redeem), that He foreknew each of them and had them individually in mind for His atoning work.[14]

Those who embrace the Arminian position, who believe in universal—or general—atonement, base their understanding of Christ’s atonement on other verses which indicate that Jesus tasted death for everyone. That He died for the sins of the world, as a ransom for all, for whoever believes in Him.



[John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”[15]



I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.[16]



He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.[17]



For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all … [18]

We see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.[19]

The understanding in the Arminian position on these verses, which I agree with, is that Jesus died for the sins of the world, meaning for the sins of all. This doesn’t mean that all people in the world are saved, as clearly many people reject the offer of salvation, but it means that through Jesus’ death on the cross salvation is made possible for all men.

God doesn’t wish for anyone to perish, and He desires that all people receive salvation. In His great love, mercy, and patience, He has made salvation possible through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for “the world,” for humankind, so any who believe can be saved.



This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.[20]

The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.[21]

The atonement is universal in God’s attitude and desire that none would perish, and in the saving grace made available through Jesus’ sacrifice. But not all believe or receive, so the atonement, the forgiveness of sin, and eternal life, is not given to all. It is bestowed on those who believe.

Theologian Jack Cottrell explained it this way:



God’s grace as it appears within His own nature in the form of a desire to give forgiveness to sinners is universal in scope. It is true that this gift is actually given only to particular individuals, but the limitation is the result of man’s choice and not God’s. It was God’s choice to create man with a relative independence and a relatively free will. He does not force His own desires upon man, but respects the integrity of the free will with which He endowed His image-bearers at the time of creation. The reason why some receive grace and some do not is because some freely reject it and some freely accept it. This is to say that the actual reception of grace is conditional; i.e., it is conditioned upon a man’s willingness to accept it.[22]

J. Rodman Williams wrote:



God yearns for their salvation … and Jesus Christ died for them all. It is reprehensible to speak of a limited atonement, that is to say, that Christ died only for those whom God elected to salvation. Christ did not come into the world to save some and condemn others, but to save all. The only barrier is man’s own disbelief: “This is the condemnation, that … men loved darkness” (John 3:19). Thus general calling is the calling of God’s outreaching love that would take every person to Himself. He has no hidden agenda, by which He has already decided to save some and reprobate, or bypass, the others. There is no predestination to death. God’s purpose is never destruction. Those who do not believe will go into darkness, but this is not God’s desire. They go, not because God didn’t choose them before the foundation of the world, but because in spite of His great love and act of reconciliation they do not choose to receive it in faith.[23]

As much as I admire many of the Reformed theologians and feel that they are right and very strong on many aspects of Christian doctrine and faith, I believe they are mistaken in this case, and I agree with the Arminian position in this instance.

While there is a difference in some beliefs between Reformed and Arminian Christians, we are, along with all Christians, all part of the body of Christ. All Christians believe God loves humanity, that everyone needs to hear the Gospel message from Christians who are willing to bring it to them. In explaining the differences regarding salvation and atonement, it is not to say that Arminian are better Christians than Reformed, or vice versa. There are differences in theological perspectives, but we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, who love Him deeply and who desire to see others receive God’s gift of salvation.

God loves humanity. In His great love, He made it possible for human beings to become reconciled with Him, justified before Him, and able to possess eternal life, all through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. He loves each human being. His Son died for the sins of each individual. He has given humans the ability and the freewill choice to believe and receive salvation or to decide against it. His desire is for all men to receive redemption, but in choosing to create human beings with free will, He does not force people to accept His love.



For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.[24]



[1] Jack Cottrell, What the Bible Says About God the Ruler (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1984), 14.


[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 315.


[3] The subject of predestination was touched on in The Heart of It All: The Nature and Character of God; God’s Omniscience (Part 2).


[4] The Heart of It All: The Nature and Character of God; God’s Omniscience (Part 2).


[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 692–693.


[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 678.


[7] [Jesus] said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).


[8] William Lane Craig, Molinism and Divine Election.


[9] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 684.


[10] John 10:11, 14–15.


[11] John 6:37–39.


[12] John 17:9.


[13] Ephesians 5:25.


[14] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 596.


[15] John 1:29.


[16] John 6:51.


[17] 1 John 2:2.


[18] 1 Timothy 2:5–6.


[19] Hebrews 2:9.


[20] 1 Timothy 2:3–4.


[21] 2 Peter 3:9.


[22] Jack Cottrell, What The Bible Says About God the Redeemer (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 382–383.


[23] J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.


[24] John 3:16.



Copyright © 2013 The Family International.

Around the World with Ken Ham


Posted: 16 Jan 2013 08:35 AM PST
The 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is this month (the case was decided on January 22, 1973), and Time magazine’s cover story for the January 14, 2013, issue claims, “40 Years Ago, Abortion-Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory with Roe v. Wade—They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.” But how true is this claim?
You know, there are many states that have passed laws requiring women seeking an abortion to first submit to a waiting period, counseling, parental consent (in the case of underage girls), or even an ultrasound. You can view a chart from our Answers magazine that details which states have which requirements, as well as any contested state laws, on this article.
Sadly, however, the number of abortions performed each year seems to be remaining consistent. You see, the National Right to Life’s statistics show that since Roe v. Wade was passed, more than 1.2 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. each year. The total number of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade is more than 54 million. That’s 54 million human beings who have been brutally murdered before birth—since 1973.   By the way—that’s almost three times the population of my homeland of Australia—really puts it in perspective, doesn’t it?
Now, last year, Answers magazine published an interview with Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. He explained clearly why Christians should speak out against abortion:
In 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the court said that if it could ever be proved that the unborn is a person, it would be a gamechanger. That’s why AFA has been promoting personhood amendments. We want to see that question come before the U.S. Supreme Court again now that we have this new medical technology. . . . We need to keep our hands to the plow. There’s nowhere else for us to go to start over; this is it. We cannot abandon our role in the culture, including politics and government. . . . The main thing is that we shouldn’t give up or take the attitude that our vote doesn’t matter because to disengage or not participate or take a fatalistic attitude is to give up on God. God can send revival to our land.
And while I agree that believers must not abandon their place in our culture and that we must oppose abortion, I believe abortion is only the symptom of a bigger problem. For many years, I’ve said that even if we managed to change the laws about abortion, the culture would just change them back, if it continues to look to man’s word for ultimate authority instead of God’s Word.
You see, evolutionary ideas have destroyed the basis for the dignity of human life, which says that man is made in God’s image.
Think about it—if you get rid of spare cats, then why not get rid of spare kids? After all, we’re just animals in this evolutionary world! Sadly, that’s really what generations of kids are being taught.
By way of contrast, the evolutionary contention that man is only an animal provides no moral basis to oppose the murder of the unborn.
So, what can we do to stop abortion? That’s for tomorrow’s blog post.
For more information on the issue of abortion, I encourage you to read Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s (AiG–U.S.) articles:
Also, return to our website on Friday morning for another commentary on the Roe v. Wade anniversary—it will be our lead article.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

When Palestinians Use Settler Tactics


By Karl Vick, TIME, Jan. 14, 2013
Sometime between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Sunday, several hundred Israeli police officers in riot gear moved on a cluster of tents on a West Bank hilltop. Their target resembled the mainly Jewish campsites that pop up like mushrooms in the higher elevations of Palestinian territory, stippling the ridges that run from north to south across the striking biblical landscape. In the lexicon of a conflict that is fundamentally over land, the camps are called “outposts,” a term Israelis use to differentiate these more spontaneous efforts from the state-sanctioned “settlements” that look more like suburban subdivisions. At last count there were more than 100 of each, though some of the outposts have made the transition to settlement, the tents replaced over time by trailers, and the trailers by houses. Technically illegal under the law of Israel, in practice the outposts are typically provided with power and water by the country’s government and protected by the Israeli soldiers who have controlled the West Bank since 1967, the year Israel took the land with an ease that some Jews see as evidence of God’s intention that they should have it.

All of which accounts for the unusual briskness with which the new campsite was dispatched in the darkness of early Sunday morning—the settlers were not Jews, but Palestinians. Not two days before, some 100 Palestinian activists had set up tents on Palestinian land just east of Jerusalem. They dubbed the campsite Bab al-Shams, or Gateway to the Sun, though the area appears on Israeli planning maps as E-1. It’s the parcel that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Nov. 30 ordered be readied for transformation into an expansive Jewish settlement that diplomats and experts warned would, once built, effectively prevent the practical establishment of a Palestinian state, no matter that the U.N. had just recognized one in the airy realm of diplomacy.

In fact, it was the General Assembly’s Nov. 29 vote making Palestine a nonmember state that stirred Netanyahu to announce what Daniel Seidemann, who heads an Israeli NGO dealing with conflict resolution in Jerusalem, called the “doomsday settlement”—apparently to demonstrate that Israel retains the power to render the notion of statehood moot by choking the West Bank with Jewish homes at its narrowest point. Currently, more than half a million Israelis live beyond the Green Line that defined the 1967 limits of Israel’s territory, blocking Palestinian access to some 40% of the West Bank. As a practical matter, there’s little Palestinians can do about it. Israel has the army, and Washington, in the phrase of President Barack Obama, “has got Israel’s back.” The weekend encampment aimed to make the most of that powerlessness.

“If we want peace, we have to resist—nonviolently, but resist—and counter Israeli facts on the ground with Palestinian facts on the ground,” Mustafa Bargouthi, the Palestinian activist who helped organize the camp, tells TIME, a few hours after being arrested and deposited at the edge of Ramallah, the West Bank city. “They’re allowing Israeli settlers to stay on Palestinian land, while at the same time within 48 hours they attack and remove us.”

Israeli soldiers barred the international news media from witnessing the police sweep. Photographers who were already inside the camp recorded the action, which unfolded without significant injury to either side. The news blockade—a literal thing, as Israeli forces manned roadblocks on roads approaching the site—served to confirm that the Palestinian activists had mounted a potent demonstration. “It’s in my view a very successful protest that is exposing the Israeli policy in many ways,” says Hagit Ofran, who monitors settlements for the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now. “First of all, it puts E-1 back on the political agenda. Maybe it’s because we’re on the eve of elections, but the Prime Minister himself was responding to this provocation.”

Netanyahu, who finds himself facing an unexpected challenge from his right in the campaign that concludes Jan. 22, ordered the police action despite a Supreme Court injunction against demolition of the camp (an order authorities finessed by removing only the people; the tents were left standing). The Premier’s election slate has seen its support significantly eroded in polls by the pro-settler Jewish Home party, a situation analysts say accounts for Netanyahu’s pre-election flurry of promises to build additional housing units beyond the Green Line—11,000 announced in a week, as many as in nine previous years combined. “We will not allow anyone to harm the contiguity between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim,” Netanyahu said Sunday, naming the massive exurb that stands on the far side of the largely empty E-1 parcel.

The Bab al-Shams camp, named for an acclaimed novel by Lebanese writer Elias Khoury, aimed both to revive the international uproar over Netanyahu’s announced plans and to highlight the legalistic double standards that Bargouthi and others refer to as apartheid. “When the [Jewish] settlers do the same thing it takes years and lots of trips to the Supreme Court before anything moves, and here in less than 48 hours they managed to kick all of them out!” Ofran tells TIME. “On top of all this, when they evict settlers, sometimes they’re confronted with violence from the settlers. This is a very powerful contrast.”

Indeed, the campsite and its prompt removal marked a watershed for a generation of Palestinian activists who have struggled to channel the transformative energies of the Arab Spring into their own conflict. The problem has been, in part, that mass rallies advertised as nonviolent can be undone by a couple of kids from refugee camps throwing stones—giving Israeli forces the excuse to fire tear gas and rubber bullets that turn the event into familiar scenes of melee. But the campsite protest was staged miles from a refugee camp, by activists trained in the discipline of nonviolent resistance.

The idea of establishing an “outpost” was also clever—a bit of jujitsu, maybe aikido, whatever finds an advantage in being the ostensibly less powerful force. And though the idea of conspicuously taking over hilltops had been tried by other Palestinian activists, those pioneers pitched their camps deep in the West Bank, in remote redoubts difficult for journalists to cover. But E-1 had been made prominent by Netanyahu’s fresh announcement to build—in defiance of international outcry. And it straddles a four-lane highway just outside Jerusalem, where major international news organizations maintain bureaus.

“What happened the day before yesterday was the merging of all these nonviolent movements into one stream,” says Bargouthi, who is a physician and Palestinian politician and not to be confused with Marwan Bargouthi, the jailed Fatah militant. “We merged all these groups from the village and the district level to the national level. And there will be a lot more creative ideas in the coming period.

George Patterson: Obituary


Daily Telegraph, 13 Jan 2013
One of three children of a strongly socialist coal miner, George Neilson Patterson was born at Redding, Falkirk, on August 19 1920 and brought up in nearby Laurieston as a member of the strict Plymouth Brethren. In his memoir, God’s Fool (1956), he recalled how, when seriously ill at the age of 17, he had felt confronted by a Dostoevskian choice between God and Marx. He decided to dedicate himself to God.

After leaving school aged 13, Patterson was apprenticed at a local company, Carron Engineering, where he worked on weapons production throughout the Second World War. At war’s end, when reading Sven Hedin’s book Trans-Himalaya, he felt that God was instructing him to go to Tibet. Penniless after donating all his savings to charity, he studied at the Missionary School of Medicine in London, after which, in 1946, he and Geoffrey Bull, a fellow member of the Brethren, travelled to Shanghai. They then went to the Sino-Tibetan border town of Tatsienlu , from where they trekked westwards for a month with their belongings on 24 mules, arriving at Poteu, in the Kham province of Tibet.

The province at the time was likened by Patterson to “the Wild West”. And it was there that he chanced upon Topgyay Pangdatshang, a Khamba chieftain and great merchant, born of Lhasa nobility, who ran his own tribal army and had done his utmost to wrench for Tibet a measure of independence from the Kuomintang Chinese Nationalist government.

Patterson mastered the local Khamba language and customs and was befriended by Topgyay, on whose behalf he carried out widespread medical work in exchange for his keep. At the time Topgyay was planning a second major revolt (following a failed attempt in 1934 to overthrow the feudal central Tibetan government in Lhasa). But in 1949 a new foe appeared—the communist Red Army, which massed on the Sino-Tibetan border and demanded co-operation. Determined to resist invasion, Topgyay asked Patterson to make a perilous winter journey to India to seek military aid, medical supplies and international protection. When the voice of God told him he should do what he could to help, Patterson knew he had no choice.

Though it was winter, he chose a route to Sadiyah, in northern Assam, which even Tibetans feared to cross. Leaving Geoffrey Bull behind, he and a trio of Tibetan soldiers made the three-month, 400-mile trek on horseback. “We had to deal with blizzards that came virtually every day,” Patterson recalled. “I slept with the horses some of the time. I even slept with a yak, just to get the body heat because it was biting cold. The Tibetans didn’t use tents, so it was easier to go with what they were used to. They used to find dung that previous travelling parties had used for fuel and set it alight using sparks from their guns.”

Eventually arriving in Calcutta in March 1950, Patterson went to the British High Commission to be met with blank stares and sniggers. He persisted, and finally met the First Secretary who, taking him seriously, introduced him to intelligence officials from Britain, America and India—but his requests for help were turned down.

He decided to return to Tibet, but a devastating earthquake, illness and the arrival of the monsoon kept him in India while the communist invasion began in October. Patterson settled near the border, travelling between the Indian hill stations of Darjeeling and Kalimpong. Soon he began sending regular reports to The Telegraph of terrible events taking place in Tibet, as related by the many refugees fleeing into India. Meanwhile, Geoffrey Bull was captured and imprisoned as a suspected spy. Held in solitary confinement, he underwent “re-education” and “thought reform” as his captors tried brainwashing him. His faith in God, however, kept him from breakdown, and three years later he was released to the British authorities in Hong Kong.

In 1951 Patterson was asked by the Dalai Lama’s family to plot his escape from Tibet. The Dalai Lama had been on the point of going, but yielded to entreaties that he should consult “the State Oracle” first. The State Oracle told him he had to return to Lhasa, and the escape was aborted. Four years later, however, Patterson helped the Dalai Lama’s elder brother, Thubten Norbu, escape to America.

Patterson then acted as a covert, unpaid messenger between the American administration and representatives of the Dalai Lama, whom the Americans were prepared to recognise as head of an “autonomous Tibet”. Patterson warned the American negotiators that the Tibetan language made no distinction between the concepts of “autonomy” and “independence”. Consequently, after the Dalai Lama actually fled in 1959, there was widespread disappointment among Tibetan exiles when it became clear that western promises of support meant little in practice.

In his reports for The Telegraph and other publications, Patterson described the “sullen, uncooperative, still rebellious populace and a ruthless Chinese occupation army determined to wipe out the Tibetan race by mass killings, transportation to forced labour camps, removal of thousands of children to China and confiscation of all wealth and property”. He was the first to tell the world about the wide-scale but abortive Lhasa uprising of 1959, and he chronicled the subsequent period of ruthless suppression by the Chinese which was met by reckless acts of defiance by individual Tibetans.

In reaction, on March 17 1959, the Indian government—nervous about relations with China—warned that it would be “constrained to interdict his [Patterson’s] residence” if he did not stop sending “misleading and exaggerated” reports. India’s Prime Minister Jawarhalal Nehru accused him of accepting “bazaar rumours” as fact. Later that day, however, Nehru was forced to announce that “fighting had broken out in Lhasa and the Indian consulate was damaged by shelling”. Later that year Patterson reported a build-up of Chinese troops along the Indian border, and India hardened its stance towards China.

In 1961 Patterson returned to Britain, where he had a BBC radio programme series, Asian Affairs in The British Press, and worked as a commentator and book reviewer. With David Astor, editor of the Observer, and others, he helped to establish, and became first director of, the International Committee for the Study of Group Rights, now called The Minority Rights Group International (MRG), an organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples.

In 1953 Patterson had married a fellow medical missionary, Margaret (“Meg”) Ingram, to whom he had been introduced in Kalimpong. In 1964 they moved to Hong Kong, where she was appointed surgeon-in-charge at Tung Wah Hospital. For the next nine years Patterson used Hong Kong as a base for his travels throughout Asia, writing and broadcasting as he went.

In 1964, for example, Patterson, the British documentary film-maker Adrian Cowell and the cameraman Chris Menges became the first three Westerners to cross the border between Nepal and Tibet with the Khamba armed resistance, which at that time was active in the Himalayas ambushing Chinese military convoys. Claiming that they wanted to film scenes of Buddhist life, Patterson bluffed the team’s way into the remote Dzum valley, a restricted area in northern Nepal where a detachment of the guerrilla force was based. They then travelled over a 20,000ft pass into Tibet and captured dramatic footage of the guerrillas’ subsequent attack on a Chinese convoy.

The three evaded the CIA, which sought to relieve them of their footage, and Cowell’s subsequent documentary about the guerrillas, Raid Into Tibet, caused a sensation when it was shown on British television in 1966, providing Western audiences with the first glimpse of the continuing violent resistance to the Chinese occupation.

Meg Patterson, meanwhile, had discovered that electro-acupuncture analgesia (as applied for post-surgical pain control) could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. In 1973 the Pattersons returned to London so that she could pursue clinical and scientific investigation into the technique.

Together, based at her clinic in Harley Street, they developed Neuro Electric Therapy (NET) into an internationally recognised drug treatment programme, publishing numerous articles and books. During the 1970s and 1980s, Meg Patterson undertook much research in America and was credited with helping rock stars such as Eric Clapton and Pete Townshend come off drugs. The Pattersons argued that psychiatrists failed to resolve the drug problem because they could not address spiritual factors involved in addiction, while ecclesiastics failed because they could not tackle political and social factors. Alongside the physical treatment, therefore, they offered spiritual counselling.

In 1975 Meg asked George to help in the case of The Who’s drummer Keith Moon, who had become convinced that he was being taken over by demons, whom he called Mr and Mrs Singh. At first, Moon said, he had been able to call up these “familiars” of his own free will, and derived his powers from them. But gradually they had begun to take over his mind. “Keith recognised that he had sold his soul,” recalled Patterson.

Patterson told Moon that the demons could be defeated by a relationship with God and, for a time, Moon appeared to follow his advice. He invited Patterson to accompany the rock group on a tour of Europe in 1976. In Zurich for their first concert, Patterson saw Moon in his private dressing room with a fridge full of alcohol and a drawer full of drugs. “Your problem isn’t drugs or alcohol,” Patterson told him. “The only way this is going to work is if you go out on this stage with nothing, with the belief that I tell you about.”

Moon duly went on stage, performing without the aid of drugs or alcohol for what he claimed was the first time in 10 years. The drummer’s new-found “faith” carried him through the band’s European dates, but as soon as Patterson’s back was turned he returned to his old ways. Within two years he was dead.

Patterson was the author of 30 books covering the story of Tibet and his own involvement with its liberation struggle; the purposes of God; and the problem of drug addiction. He returned to Tibet again, visiting Lhasa for the first time in 1987, as an adviser to a proposed Hollywood film about himself which, however, to his slight disappointment, metamorphosed into Seven Years in Tibet—the story of Heinrich Harrer.

In 1999 Meg Patterson suffered a debilitating stroke a week after opening a drug addiction clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. In 2001 she and her husband returned to Scotland, where she died in 2002.

In recent years Patterson was pleased to see major reforms in China and efforts made throughout Tibet to restore and preserve the country’s ancient culture.

On hearing of George Patterson’s death, the Dalai Lama sent a personal message to his family, noting that Patterson was one of only a handful of Westerners to have known Tibetans intimately at first hand.

George Patterson is survived by two sons and a daughter.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Welcome, Chuck Hagel

By Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, January 11, 2013

I find Chuck Hagel eminently likeable. I am not quite certain why. Perhaps it’s his war record. He was decorated for valor in the Vietnam War (which I detested). He was a mere sergeant. Since I was a mere corporal in our 1948 war, I find it elating to see a non-commissioned officer become Minister of Defense. Like so many veterans who have seen war from close up (myself included), he has become an enemy of war.

Wonderful. Now Hagel is violently attacked by all the neocon warmongers, almost none of whom has ever heard a bullet whistle in the wars to which they sent others, and the combined political regiments of the American Jewish establishment. His main sin seems to be that he objects to war against Iran. To be against an attack on Iran means to be anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, indeed to wish for the destruction of Israel if not all Jews. Never mind that almost all present and past chiefs of the Israeli army and intelligence community object to an attack on Iran, too.

But Binyamin Netanyahu knows better. Last week, the former much-lauded chief of the Shin Bet painted a frightening picture of Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak at a security meeting to discuss the bombing of Iran some time ago. The two were in high spirits, puffing on cigars and drinking whiskey, much to the disgust of the assembled security chiefs. In Israel, cigars are considered an ostentatious luxury and drinking at work is taboo. Netanyahu’s spin-doctors retorted that Winston Churchill, too, was a brandy drinker and smoked cigars. Seems that spirits and cigars are not enough to make a Churchill.

Actually, I think that the appointment of Hagel may come as a relief to Netanyahu. After years of depicting the Iranian nuclear bomb as the end of the world, or at least of Israel, the bomb is mysteriously absent from Netanyahu’s election campaign. Hagel’s appointment may allow Netanyahu to climb down from this tree altogether. But the catalogue of Hagel’s crimes is much more extensive. Many years ago he called the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington (would you believe it?) the “Jewish lobby”. Until then, it was understood that AIPAC is mainly composed of Buddhists and financed by Arab billionaires like Abu Sheldon and Abd-al-Adelson.

HOWEVER, HAGEL’S most heinous sin is not often mentioned. While serving as the Republican senator for Nebraska, he once uttered the unspeakable words: “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator!” That is really the crux of the matter. US senators are nearly all Israeli senators. Ditto for US congressmen. Hardly any of them would dare to criticize the Israeli government on any issue, negligible as it may be. Criticizing Israel is political suicide. Not only does the Jewish lobby use its huge resources to get loyal pro-Israelis elected and re-elected, but it openly employs these resources to unseat the few elected officials who dare to criticize Israel. They almost always succeed.

In the present election campaign, the Likud is showing again and again (and again) the scene of Netanyahu addressing the US congress. The senators and congressmen are seen wildly applauding after every single sentence, jumping up and down like children in gymnastics class. The text of the clip says: “When Netanyahu speaks, the world listens!” (A curiosity: right after this shameful scene, the clip shows Netanyahu addressing the UN General Assembly. Since the applause there was sparse—hardly anyone, other than Avigdor Lieberman and the other members of the Israeli delegation in the half-empty hall did applaud—the editors of the clip used a little trick: they took the applause from the US Congress and transferred it to the UN Assembly hall.)

Somebody sent me a satirical piece saying that if Hagel’s appointment is not cancelled by the US Senate, Israel will have to use its veto power to block it. In such a case, the senate would have to muster a 90% majority to overcome the veto. If this fails, President Obama would have to choose another Defense Secretary from a list of three names provided by Netanyahu.Jokes aside, the Israeli defense establishment is not worried by the Hagel appointment. They seem to know him as quite receptive to Israeli requests. Several Israeli generals have already come to his defense.

THIS WHOLE episode might be considered trivial, or even funny, were it not for the question: Why did President Obama put forward this controversial figure in the first place? An obvious answer is: Revenge. Obama is a master of controlling his emotions. During all the months of Netanyahu supporting Mitt Romney, Obama did not react. But his anger must have been building up inside. Now the time has come. Appointing Hagel and openly humiliating the pro-Israel lobby was one way. More of this can be expected to come. Any slight nudge from America is bound to be felt by Israel as a heavy blow. By the way, this blow could be used by the opposition parties here to expose Netanyahu’s rank incompetence. Supporting Romney was plain stupid. All the more so as Netanyahu, who was raised in the US, depicts himself as an expert on US affairs. But no party dares to raise this subject in our election campaign, for fear of being considered less than super-patriotic. I don’t expect President Obama to change the US treatment of Israel in the near future, beyond some small punitive acts like this one. But when we raise our eyes towards the horizon, the picture looks different.

There is already a marked difference between Obama I and Obama II. When he was elected the first time, he chose Chas Freeman, a highly respected diplomat, to head the National Security Council. The pro-Israel lobby raised a storm, and the appointment was withdrawn. Obama then preferred public humiliation to a confrontation with the lobby. How different this time! This change may well become more marked in Obama’s second term and far beyond. The lobby’s stranglehold on Washington DC is loosening, slightly, slowly, but significantly. Why? I believe that one of the reasons is that the perception of the American Jewish community is changing. American politicians are beginning to realize that Jewish voters are far from unanimously behind the lobby. American Jewish “leaders”, almost all of them self-appointed and representing nobody but a small clique of professional representatives, as well as the Israeli embassy and some right-wing billionaires, do not control the Jewish vote. This became clear when Netanyahu supported Romney. The great majority of Jewish voters continued to support Obama and the Democratic Party. This is not a sudden development.

For years now, American Jews—especially young Jews—have distanced themselves from the Zionist establishment. Becoming more and more disillusioned with official Israeli policy, alienated by the occupation, disgusted with the pictures of Israeli soldiers beating up helpless Palestinians, they have quietly dropped away. Quietly, because they fear an anti-Semitic backlash. Jews are indoctrinated from early childhood that “we Jews have to stick together” in face of the anti-Semites. Only a few brave American Jews are ready to openly—though ever so timidly—criticize Israel. But US politics are slowly adjusting to the fact that much of the lobby’s strength is bluff, and that most American Jews don’t let Israel determine their voting pattern.

AMERICANS MUST be a race of angels—how else to explain the incredible patience with which they suffer the fact that in a vital sphere of US interests, American policy is dictated by a foreign country? For five decades, at least, US Middle East policy has been decided in Jerusalem. Almost all American officials dealing with this area are, well, Jewish. The Hebrew-speaking American ambassador in Tel Aviv could easily be the Israeli ambassador in Washington. Sometimes I wonder if in meetings of American and Israeli diplomats, they don’t sometimes drop into Yiddish. I have warned many times that this can’t go on forever. Sooner or later real anti-Semites—a disgusting breed—will exploit this situation to gain legitimacy. The hubris of AIPAC bears poisonous fruit. Since Israel is dependent on US support in almost every sphere—from the UN Security Council to the battlefields of future wars—this is a real existential danger. Perhaps the lobby is becoming alert to this danger. In the present affair, their voice is remarkably subdued. They don’t want to stand out.

THE SADDEST part of the story is that all these false “friends of Israel” in the US Congress and media are not really embracing “Israel”. They are embracing the Israeli right-wing, including the extreme and even fascist right-wing. They are, thereby, helping the right-wing to tighten their control over our country. American policy plays a major role in the agony of the Israeli peace camp, which is so manifest in the present election campaign. Just one example: the huge settlement effort now in process, which makes the two-state peace solution more and more difficult to implement, is financed by American Jews who funnel their donations through tax-free organizations. Thus the US government in practice finances the settlements, which it officially condemns as illegal. Since the 19th century, newspapers have got used to abbreviating their reports by saying “France protests” and “Germany declares” when they mean “the French government protests” and “the German government declares”. Thus the media today write that “Israel” promotes the settlements, when in actual fact it is the Israeli government which does so. Several respected recent polls prove that most Israelis want peace based on the two-state solution, which is undermined by our government on a daily basis.

BACK TO Senator Hagel: the Israeli government and the “friends of Israel” will do anything to undermine his appointment. Speaking for myself, I hope that his appointment will herald a new American policy—a policy of support for a sober, rational, liberal, secular, democratic Israel, striving for peace with the Palestinian people.

Monday, January 14, 2013

A Fonte da Verdadeira Felicidade





Compilação

Deus é tão imensamente maravilhoso, total e plenamente encantador, que pode, por Si só, satisfazer abundantemente, até transbordar, as mais profundas necessidades da natureza humana.—Aiden Tozer[1]

*

O ser humano se encaixa exatamente no deleitoso lugar que Deus projeta para ele dentro do Seu grande esquema. Quando ele o alcança, sente-se satisfeito e feliz. É como o alívio depois da cura de uma fratura em um osso. Quando o nosso desejo é ser algo além do que Deus planejou para nós, na realidade estamos desejando algo que não nos fará felizes. As exigências divinas que, para a nossa natureza parecem mais comandos de um déspota do que o desígnio de alguém que nos ama na verdade vão nos levar aonde desejaríamos ir -- se soubéssemos o que desejamos.—C. S. Lewis[2]

*

Eu sei o que é preciso na vida de cada pessoa para levá-la à posição na qual pode ver claramente a sua insuficiência, perceber a futilidade da carne e do mundo, e quando a sua necessidade por Mim se torna um fato genuíno.

É então que se percebe as coisas no espírito, pela Minha perspectiva, que é a visão da realidade mais verdadeira e profunda. Nesse ponto você entende que Eu sou o centro, a razão, o sentido de tudo, e que sem Mim não há nada.

O resultado final de permitir que passe por dificuldades é levá-lo a esse estado no espírito, quando chega ao seu limite e Eu então assumo o controle. Nessa condição você não é nada e Eu sou tudo. A partir daí eu entro e o possuo completamente.—Jesus falando em profecia[3]

*

Jesus é o meu Deus.
Jesus é o meu Esposo(a).
Jesus é a minha Vida.
Jesus é o meu maior Amor.
Jesus é a minha Plenitude.
Jesus é Tudo para mim.—Madre Teresa

*

Arrependa-se e acredite no Evangelho, Jesus diz. Mude o seu modo de pensar e acredite que as boas novas de que somos amados são melhores do que poderíamos esperar, e que acreditar nas boas novas, viver com base nelas e as tendo por meta, estar apaixonado pelas boas novas, é a melhor coisa de todas as coisas boas no mundo.—Frederick Buechner

*

Sossegado pensando em Deus,
Que alegria!
Refletir nEle e inspirar Seu nome,
Incomparável sensação de harmonia. Pai de Jesus, recompensa do amor!
Será arrebatador esse dia,
Diante do Trono reverenciar
E contemplar Tua face querida! —Frederick Faber

*

Foi-nos dito como nós, seres humanos, podemos ser atraídos para junto de Cristo e nos tornarmos parte desse presente maravilhoso que o jovem Príncipe deseja oferecer ao Seu Pai -- Ele próprio e nós a Ele agregados. Fomos criados para esse único propósito; a Bíblia nos dá sinais estranhos e excitantes de que, ao sermos atraídos para junto de Cristo, muitas outras coisas naturalmente começarão a se acertar. O pesadelo vai terminar e vai raiar o dia.—C. S. Lewis[4]

*

Para ganhar esta intimidade Comigo, na qual as coisas deste mundo são menos sedutoras ou atraentes, precisa ter as coisas deste mundo por perda — se elas o afastarem de Mim. Você talvez se indague, “Como vou fazer isso?”. Precisa manter os olhos no Céu, na eternidade, sabendo que as coisas desta Terra são como a neblina, que logo se dissipa, elas existem por alguns poucos anos, mas as coisas do Meu Espírito duram para sempre. É a visão eterna. A carne e as coisas desta Terra que muitas vezes parecem tão importantes, logo não existirão mais.

Então, avance para as coisas que estão adiante, prosseguindo para o alvo pelo prêmio da sua soberana vocação.[5] Concentre sua mente nos lugares celestiais, pensando no que há de vir, em vez de nas coisas que existem, nas muitas coisas que o rodeiam.

Todas as coisas mudam ou passam um dia, só Eu permaneço. -- Jesus, falando em profecia[6]

*

Mas o que para mim era ganho reputei-o perda por Cristo.

E, na verdade, tenho também por perda todas as coisas, pela excelência do conhecimento de Cristo Jesus, meu Senhor; pelo qual sofri a perda de todas estas coisas, e as considero como escória, para que possa ganhar a Cristo, e seja achado nele, não tendo a minha justiça que vem da lei, mas a que vem pela fé em Cristo, a saber, a justiça que vem de Deus pela fé. Para conhecê-lo, e à virtude da sua ressurreição, e à comunicação de suas aflições, sendo feito conforme à sua morte.

Não que já a tenha alcançado, ou que seja perfeito; mas prossigo para alcançar aquilo para o que fui também preso por Cristo Jesus.

Irmãos, quanto a mim, não julgo que o haja alcançado; mas uma coisa faço, e é que, esquecendo-me das coisas que atrás ficam, e avançando para as que estão diante de mim, prossigo para o alvo, pelo prêmio da soberana vocação de Deus em Cristo Jesus.—Apóstolo Paulo, Filipenses 3:7–10, 12–14

*

Descobrir que Eu basto é uma experiência pela qual cada pessoa tem que passar sem ajuda externa. Ter o desejo ardente de descobrir isso é fruto de Me amar e valorizar a Minha Palavra, de passar tempo Comigo e passar por todas as experiências da vida junto Comigo. E então, como alguém que se apaixonou, você vai querer ter mais de Mim, vai querer saber o que Eu penso, como sinto, como gostaria que fizesse uma determinada coisa. Descobrirá então como sou sábio, cheio de ideias e maravilhoso. Eu passarei a ser tudo para você.—Jesus falando em profecia[7]

Publicado no Âncora em janeiro de 2013.
Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli. Revisão Tiago Santana.


[1] Em Busca de Deus.

[2] The Problem of Pain.

[3] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.

[4] Cristianismo Puro e Simples.

[5] Filipenses 3:13–14.
[6] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.
[7] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.

Start Anew Today!


          Life is all about the little decisions you make every day. Decisions of the Past have had their effect, but every new day can be a new start. No matter what has happened up until now, you have a chance to make the right decisions today.


          Do not waste time reliving the pain of your past mistakes and wrong decisions. That only saps your power to do what you can do today. You can not change the past, but the future is what you make it starting right now, so take full advantage of the present.


          Learn from past mistakes and then put them behind you today. Forgive those who have wronged you and ask forgiveness from those you have wronged. That probably will not be easy, but do not put it off.—Do it today. Look to Me and My Word for fresh courage and hope, starting today. Dream new dreams today. Set new goals today. Spend time on things that truly count today. Love your family today. Be a friend today. Do things better, starting today.


          With My help, your future can be filled with wonderful accomplishments and fulfilment that will more than make up for past disappointments—and it all starts today!

 
                      From Jesus With Love—For Troubled Times, page 43 @auroraproduction.com

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith