They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God. It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them.
Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God. Postmodern truth is your truth. Postmodern grace is your grace. Adherents though count this as the grace of God. They remain bitter with those who reject their failing of the grace of God. The bitterness fuels further rejection of true grace, accompanied, like Esau, by tears of grudge-filled resentment.
Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism. Space combats , resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else. No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth.
Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space.
That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. Another angle I hear relates to suffering.
Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.
In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us John God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance.
The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. One, God wants to be sought after. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. T etelestai is perfect passive not to get super Greeky with you , not the aorist tense, completed action. With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing. How do you know your salvation is done? The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived. You are when you lump sanctification with justification.
It shows up. God provides measurables. They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature 2 Cor The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one 1 John ,2, , what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature 2 Peter This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam.
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them.
Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge. Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality.
No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power. Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language. Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism.
Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races , and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil. Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge.
What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. In Genesis 2 vv. In the same context, Genesis say:. If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree.
Instead they trusted their own knowledge. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament. Ephesians , But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans , For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. How did the physical universe get here? You will find many arguments for the young earth or immediately appearing earth. What does the Bible say? Or what does God say? God created the universe and He gave the account of what He did. If we believe He created it, we should also believe how He said He did it.
What we read is immediate appearance. The grammar and syntax of Genesis 1 show this, but the structure of the entire Bible also portrays it. The biblical authors very often wrote the narratives of Old Testament or Hebrews texts or passages in what is called a chiastic structure, also called an inverted parallelism. The chiastic structure of the whole book emphasizes the third chapter of five, and then the third chapter, the lengthiest of the five, three times longer than the other chapters, is also chiastic, giving a clue to the point of Lamentations.
The central axis of the book is Lamentations With none to comfort Jerusalem in her affliction, she comforts herself when she remembers that the LORD is merciful and compassionate, faithful and good to those who seek Him. The Bible also point to an immediately appearing earth as seen in its structure.
One could go much more detailed than the following, but consider this schematic. The Bible starts with creation and ends with creation. The chiastic structure moves forward from the first creation, which is the doctrine of first things, and moves backward from second creation, the doctrine of last things.
The Bible and history pivots on Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega, but He is also everything in between. In the diagram above, the chiasm forms an apex, where Jesus stands at the top. God creates in the first creation and in the second creation.
They are parallel in the chiasm. If the second creation is an immediate appearing earth, which it is, then the first also is. It must be. Other parallels indicate all this is an existing structure. One that supports the position of an immediate appearing earth is that God provides the light for both the first creation and the second creation.
He does want our faith though. Does anyone question the immediate appearance of the second earth? Does anyone posit a process for the future earth? They argue for a very slow process for the first earth and for reasons unnecessary if they believe in creation in the first place.
The ground out of which God formed Adam in Genesis is the same ground out of which He formed the animals in Genesis , both Hebrew words for ground related to the Hebrew word for man, Adam.
Animals appear instantaneously, as does Adam. None of this is a process. None reads like a process. What makes Adam unique to the animals is the breath of God, the spirit in man Genesis , breathed into him, which is the image of God in man Genesis This is not a development. Both animals and man appear with age at a necessary degree of difficulty, one of impossibility without the power of God, that is the same as the original appearance of the heavens and the earth.
The Hebrew verb bara , to create something out of nothing, is used with heavens and earth , animals , and man I want to point out at least one more chiastic structure that relates, I believe, to an Immediately Appearing Earth. Man immediately appeared with his own creation in Genesis 1 and the expansion on that account in Genesis 2. Man immediately is recreated in his resurrection and glorification. This structure matches that of the earth.
Man waits for His redemption as does creation groan for its day of redemption Romans He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Our country is divided. Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War. Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you. Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject.
The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America. I pastored it thirty-three plus years. Besides helpful edification of our church, Bethel Baptist, a plan for the conference from the morning sessions was the writing and publication of books. A Pure Church came from the first three years of the conference.
A short book on apostasy, Lying Vanities , is coming soon from the next three years. From the following four years will come a book, The One True Gospel , not yet published. We covered the doctrine of sanctification the last three years, and a book, Lord-willing, is also forthcoming, which will be titled, Salvation That Keeps On Saving.
Past conference audio is still available at the Word of Truth Conference website. You can also watch video. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and the church is local only. It was our goal with the conference to propagate and preserve the truth. God has given churches this responsibility. This year will be the first every WOT conference I will miss. It's occurring this year again and you can watch it on livestream through the links below.
I'm sure it will be very helpful. I believe the sessions could be watched later as well upon its completion. Here is the schedule. You can also click on each one of the links to get to the location of the livestream at youtube. Thursday Morning, November 11, ampm—Two Sessions.
This session will also address the notion of circular reasoning and of its failed application to the Bible. Friday Morning, November 12, ampm—Two Sessions. Saturday Morning, November 13, ampm—Two Sessions.
This session will show biblical prophecy to be of God alone. Sunday Afternoon Service, November 14, pm—Preaching. Spurgeon explains that this "failing" is "falling short," and then "falling short" is not getting "the true grace of God" but "something that they think is like grace. The grace of God is what saves us. Very often people want that base covered, but at the same time they don't want the holiness true grace produces.
Hebrews uses Esau as an example. He allowed his fleshly desire to keep him from true grace, replacing it with something short of God's grace. God's grace produces holiness. Through the years, I've read many different opinions about what the "root of bitterness" is. In the context, it's a cause for failing of the grace of God. Some say that the root of bitterness is an apostate in the church, like Esau, who brings about further apostasy from others. Others say that it is sin, which is bitter and defiling.
Rick Renner writes:. Esau lacked peace between he and his father, Isaac, and his brother, Jacob. So many especially today allow the slights, real and otherwise, and even actual sins against them to keep them from the grace of God.
They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God. It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them. Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God. I'm titling what I believe is the most common contemporary replacement for true grace , "postmodern grace" Jesus Loves Me with postmodern lyrics. It isn't the grace of God, because it is short of the grace of God.
Postmodern truth is your truth. Postmodern grace is your grace. It doesn't follow peace, because it allows a grudge and resentment to keep it from that. It doesn't follow holiness, because it sells holiness for temporal, carnal appetites, like the morsel of Esau. It counts this though as the grace of God. Postmodern grace isn't about pleasing God, but about pleasing self.
Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism. It doesn't follow after holiness, but after its own lust. You can regularly get free books on Accordance and Logos! Find out more in my blog post here. I'm not saying that God isn't obvious, but that is a major reason in what I've read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It's also something I've thought about myself. God doesn't go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed.
God doesn't show Himself in a manner that people expect. Outside of earth's atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth.
No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else. No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth.
Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God's beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.
Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn't show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago.
Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today. According to scripture, God is a Spirit John , which means you can't see Him. John and 1 John say, "No man hath seen God at any time. That does not mean He doesn't reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us John God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people.
They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn't give that. God deserves the crown performance.
He wears the crown. He doesn't give the crown performances. I believe there are four main reasons God isn't as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn't want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, "Seek God," twenty-seven times, "seek the Lord," twice, "seek his face," and thirteen times, "seek him," speaking of God.
A good example of God's desire here is Deuteronomy I believe what is termed, "Lordship salvation," and don't believe there is any other kind. I've read articles meant to expose Lordship salvation as false, that say that it was a false version of salvation that proceeded from 16th century Calvinism in its form of 17th century Post-Reformation Puritanism, which resulted in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Lordship salvation is what I read in the Bible.
Before I dig into that, I want to clarify some points. No one is saved by works. Scripture not only does not teach salvation by works, but it teaches against salvation by works Romans , Galatians The Bible does teach salvation by grace through faith alone Ephesians It is not a grace or a faith like the Mormons, their vital doctrine of salvation found in the Book of Mormon, a man-made, uninspired book, says 2 Nephi :.
The Bible not only teaches nothing like that statement, but it teaches that if one adds one work to grace, Christ becomes of no effect unto him and he then becomes a debtor to do the whole law Galatians On the other hand, even though salvation comes by believing in Jesus Christ, that means "believing" must be what scripture shows is "believing" and "Jesus Christ" must be who scripture shows is the Jesus Christ someone is to believe in.
These aren't arbitrary, "believing" and "Jesus Christ. When I write this, I'm not attempting to be difficult or wanting truly saved people to think they're not saved. They go wrong when someone adds to or takes away from what the Bible says. Also, when someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ does that mean he is truly saved? Is that what scripture teaches about the assurance of salvation? It doesn't. The Bible teaches the opposite. Someone merely professing he believes in Jesus Christ does not mean that he has believed in Jesus Christ.
Just because someone continues to profess faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that he is saved. The ones that I have read that critique Lordship salvation as Calvinist or Reformed, say that the original Reformers, Calvin and Luther, said faith was only acceptance of the Word of God. I could agree with faith being acceptance of the Word of God if it really was acceptance of the Word of God, which means that someone truly accepted in a genuine fashion what the Bible said about Jesus Christ.
As a matter of history, Melancthon in the 16th century defined faith with three Latin words in his Loci Communes Theologici : Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Those three in order bring in intellectual, emotional, and volitional. From that, I would argue that the volitional aspect of faith arose before the 17th century.
Among writers, these three divided into two, notitia and assensus representing the mind and fiducia , the heart, so that genuine faith involved the head and the heart, not just the head. I'm not going to do this here, but if one were to follow through with a study of faith in all theological literature, one can see that this volitional or heart aspect goes back very far as an understanding of faith.
As an example and before the printing press, Irenaeus in the early 3rd century wrote:. As I always do and as I presented above, I divide the issue into two parts, "believing in" and "Jesus Christ.
There are more examples than these, but "believing" must be believing, and we know that some faith does not save James ; John It reads as only intellectual, which means something must be added. It is easy to see that repentance must be something more than just sorrow 2 Corinthian If you add intellect and sorrow without volition, you are falling short of believing. Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance.
One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul Luke Salvation is described as the restoring of the soul Psalm and the converting of the soul Psalm To be restored or converted, the soul must be relinquished to the Lord. This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way John Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ. The second half says, "Lord Jesus Christ.
This fits with Jesus' and John the Baptist's preaching to "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will. But shall we, on this account cease from doing good, and give up charity?
No, we shall labor with unwearied zeal as God, who has called us, always works, and rejoices in his works. Saving faith includes more than intellect.
Repentance means something more than just sorrow 2 Corinthian Intellect and sorrow without volition falls short of believing. Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance, which must be volitional.
One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul Luke Scripture describes salvation as the restoring Psalm and converting of the soul Psalm To be restored or converted, a sinner relinquishes his soul to the Lord.
This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way John Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will, becomes subject to the King. This can be proven over and over in the New Testament. Just as an example, one should read the parable taught in Luke His audience was to receive His authority and ownership, Lordship, if they believed in Him.
They killed him, so they were in big trouble. This kind of teaching is all over the New Testament. I understand the popularity of non-Lordship teaching. It is what the Bible teaches. When one reads the early Baptist confession, the Schleitheim Confession , written by Michael Sattler, not a Protestant confession, he reads not a full confession of faith or explanation of the Baptist doctrine.
It reveals the distinctions between the Baptists and those not, who claim salvation by faith. Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.
This defined for Baptists who believed in Jesus Christ. Repentance and true faith in Christ, including Lordship, did not arise from Calvinism. If Dr. Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation? McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day—that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.
Two experiences dovetailed for me to write this post. As to the first, while working out I watched a documentary on Martin Luther. Is the true church a reformed one? The second, I took my dad to a podiatrist in Layton, Utah. As a diabetic, he goes in for his feet every three to six months. In my conversation with the LDS doctor, I gave a short gospel exposition and explained Baptists and the perpetuity of the truth and a true church. Rather than perpetuity or reformation, the Mormons believe in restoration of a true church gone apostate.
I see at least six possible historic positions on the truth. One, we never ever had it. Two, we received it, lost it, and have never restored it since. Three, false teachers corrupted the truth to the degree that some needs reformation. Four, men reformed the corrupted truth but not likely to its original state. Five, men restored lost truth to its original condition.
Six, it was never lost or corrupted. Those six positions find themselves in restoration, reformation, or perpetuity. Someone could add total apostasy to the three to take in the six. Historic positions on the truth relate also to the church. The preservation of the truth pertains to the preservation of the church. God gave the truth to the church to preserve 1 Timothy Applying the same views to the church, one, did the true church end?
If it ended, was it restored? If forces corrupted the church, submerging it in various degrees of darkness, was it reformed? Or, was the church never lost, the truth never lost, but both were preserved? Only one of them can be true, because each of the three or four contradict the others. Another important facet to this discussion or question is, how do we know which of these four is true?
Only one of them can be true, but how do we know which one? Philosophy of history revolves around the question, what happened? Many other questions, however, arise, important of which is whether a person can report on historical events accurately with his personal interpretation.
In this discussion, this is the crux of the issue. History can be and is slanted by those recounting. If perpetuity of the truth and the church is true, that truth and the church were never lost, how do we know?
What is the proof? Most historical evidence is on the side of corruption and reformation. Is there proof for perpetuity? As I listened to the introduction in the Martin Luther documentary, the makers presented a very dark world out of which the reformation began. The producers posited a world as Bosch did. The church was corrupt with few exceptions, John Wycliffe and John Hus. With the reformation view of history, Luther becomes important.
Was that true? Luther retained many Roman Catholic doctrines, including a state church. He was better than the Catholics, no doubt. A reformation viewpoint embraces Luther and then adapts him to provide the proof. The Bible is true. What Jesus said was true. Jesus and the Bible teach perpetuity.
As I watch a Luther documentary, it is easy to see a reformed view of history as a matter of personal interpretation through a convoluted lens. The Mormon podiatrist asked me when the Baptists started. It was important enough for him on his own. How did I answer? Roman Catholicism was an apostate institution that had departed from the faith, when the Reformation started. The Reformed or Protestants trace themselves through Roman Catholicism, a viewpoint incompatible with a scriptural position on the truth and the church.
A perpetuity view starts with scripture and then gives the most complete historical evidence that corresponds to what the Bible says. In every century since Christ and the founding of the church, churches exist separate from the state church that embrace scripture as authority.
With a scriptural presupposition of perpetuity enough historical evidence exists to support that viewpoint. Many historians vouch for this. Cardinal Hosius wrote in the 16th century that the Anabaptists had been persecuted by the state church for years :. We shall afterwards show the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles.
In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church. We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who, long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin.
On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and, as a Christian society, has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.
I include these only as samples. There are many more quotes that back the hypothesis that assemblies existed separate from Roman Catholicism, which believed and practiced the Bible. They long predate the Reformation, substantiating a perpetuity viewpoint.
Modernism of the nineteenth century brought a solely empirical basis for truth. The nature of knowledge brought the necessity of rational justification for faith. Traditional beliefs that proceeded from scripture alone were questioned and criticized. The empiricist claimed knowledge through the senses alone. The only reasonable view of the world comes by scientific discovery. Sufficient evidence for perpetuity could be questioned next to the massive documentation of Roman Catholicism.
This clashes with the doctrine of scripture. Faith is the basis of pleasing God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. I like to say that faith bypasses our lying eyes.
Revelation exceeds, transcends, or eclipses discovery. At the same time, perpetuity is reasonable because scripture is reasonable. Enough history exists either direct or indirect to corroborate the scriptural presupposition of perpetuity. Saying that the truth was lost and the church ceased as an institution is not reasonable. You know the conclusion. Restoration and reformation are false, but perpetuity is true. What does that mean for authority, the truth, or the church?
It has repercussions worth exploring. What does that leave you? Pleasing God requires living by faith, which means obeying scripture. With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. T etelestai is perfect passive not to get super Greeky with you , not the aorist tense, completed action. With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing.
How do you know your salvation is done? The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived. You are when you lump sanctification with justification. It shows up. God provides measurables.
They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature 2 Cor The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one 1 John ,2, , what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature 2 Peter First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.
Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son—that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy.
In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner.
And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev.
0コメント