The Doctrine of Eternal Life: A Civil-Minded Study of Calvinism and Arminianism in the Light of Scripture

By Pastor Kevin Kline

The Doctrine of Eternal Life is a civil-minded study of Calvinism and Arminianism in the light of scripture. It answers many questions that have plagued both followers of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius alike. Questions are answered as such: Does the Bible really teach that God chooses some people for heaven and some for hell? Can eternal life be lost? Why in 2 Timothy 2:10 was Paul willing to endure all things for the elect's sake so that they may obtain salvation, if the elect were already saved? Is eternal life given by God as a gift or as a payment for doing good works? Discover the doctrine that Calvin seemingly overlooked, which led to some lengthy and unnecessary teachings. Where did Arminius depart from a fundamental truth of scripture? What is the Bible definition of eternal life? Is the future written in stone? And of course, a simple, Bible-based explanation of the "TULIP" doctrine. Learn how a brilliant theologian with a single innocent assumption may arrive at an incorrect conclusion, while a lowly person with average intelligence using a superior method of study may arrive at the correct conclusion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Mar 9, 2020
• ISBN: 9781645696605

Book preview

cover.jpg

The Doctrine of Eternal Life

A Civil-Minded Study of Calvinism and Arminianism in the Light of Scripture

Pastor Kevin Kline

Copyright © 2019 by Pastor Kevin Kline

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Let’s Consider Twenty Questions

Coming to Terms

When Did the Church Begin?

No Lumps Please!

The Three Parts of Man

The God-Given Free Will of Man

The Name Game and the Doctrine of Eternal Life

The Proper Balance and Importance of Good Works

Total Depravity and the Introduction to the TULIP

Unconditional Election: The U of the TULIP

Limited Atonement: The L of the TULIP

Irresistible Grace: The I of the TULIP

Perseverance of the Saints: The P of the TULIP

Foreknowledge, Foreordained, and Predestination

Is the Future Written in Stone?

The Point System

Odds and Ends

Questions and Answers

God’s Salvation Plan

Preface

I have endeavored to write this book in the spirit of kindness, not judgment. The purpose of this study is not to attack Calvin, Arminius or any other person, living or not. We will examine the doctrines of man in light of Bible truth. The reader is invited to decide for himself which doctrines are of God and which are of men. We should never hate those with whom we disagree, but rather each individual should form and/or change his view based on his understanding of scripture. God hates sin, but loves the sinner. In truth, we are to love every brother while hating every false way.

Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it (Ps. 119:140).

Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way (Ps. 119:104).

Paul said that there were heresies among the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:19), yet Paul loved them and showed them the truth. Whether you identify yourself as a Calvinist, hyper-Calvinist, 2.5-point Calvinist, non-Calvinist, Arminian, Biblicist or other, my goal is to assist the reader in understanding the reasoning behind these various views. We all should learn from scripture and change our views based upon our understanding and spiritual growth. Those who never change, never grow, for growth is a series of changes. We must, however, be assured that our changes are based on truth and not religious dogma or pressure to conform to man’s religion. In plain English, something isn’t true just because many people believe it or because we wish it to be true.

My burden is to challenge the reader to think. Do you believe what you do because you were taught it, because it seems to make sense to you or because you have read the entire Bible numerous times and use scripture to answer scripture without adding, diminishing or changing Bible words and their meanings? A true student of the Bible doesn’t reject a teaching because it doesn’t fit with his preconceived ideas, but rather because it violates the clear teaching of scripture. It’s helpful to keep in mind that just because one side of any issue is wrong, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the other side must therefore be correct. I have been studying the doctrine of eternal life as understood by Calvin and Arminius for almost forty years with the premise of allowing the Bible to speak for itself without putting words in God’s mouth. If I can help clear up even a small portion of confusion in the reader’s mind, surrounding the teachings of Calvin and Arminius, all the writing effort will have been worth it.

Perhaps a brief personal testimony might be appropriate here. I grew up with no church or religion. When I was twenty-two years old, I decided to read the Bible for myself to see if there was anything to it. I said in my heart something like this, God, if you’re real, help me to understand your Bible. Not long after, I became a born-again Christian by receiving the free gift of eternal life. You do believe that eternal life is a free gift and not a payment for doing good works, don’t you?

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23; emphasis mine).

I will admit that I was confused by the plethora of Christian denominations and sects and set out to learn what made each distinct. Intuitively and meticulously, every doctrine was examined through the light of scripture, the same scripture which had led to the salvation of my soul.

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21; emphasis mine).

Dear reader, please let scripture alone direct your doctrine and not preconceived ideas, popular opinion, organized religion or rationalization, and you will have a special peace that intellect alone will not allow. Literally, thousands of Bible verses have been referenced, examined, cross-indexed, and prayed over in order for this book to be in your hands. Please be willing to follow truth wherever it leads, while keeping in mind two things. One, truth usually lies between the two extreme viewpoints and two, following man is easy; following truth requires work!

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

My personal experience has been that most Christians defend the Bible doctrine of salvation and eternal life not with scripture, but with human reasoning. The Arminian usually defends his belief by saying something like, You mean to tell me that if I become a Christian and go out into deep immoral sin that I’m still going to heaven? Their argument being based on that which makes sense to their human reasoning and not on scripture. Likewise, I’ve been told by Calvinists that Calvinism must be true because many great and famous men were Calvinists! Again, this is a rationale based on human reasoning and not on Bible fact. If Bible facts agree with either Calvin or Arminius, then accept the part which agrees with scripture and discard that which disagrees. Truth is never based on human reason nor on popular opinion. Does John 3:16 really make sense? Is it reasonable that God would be willing to leave heaven, become a man, be born of a woman, suffer, bleed, and die to redeem any sinful person?

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16).

When anyone says that the preceding verse doesn’t apply to Jesus Christ, I ask them to whom then does it apply? The verse is written in the past tense, so if God was not revealed in Jesus Christ, then please tell me, in whom was God revealed?

Is it reasonable that God in the person of the Holy Spirit would possess any fleshy body other than that of his Son, Jesus Christ? Yet we read in Romans 8: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom. 8:9).

Is it reasonable that the Lord himself will one day descend from heaven and suddenly snatch away millions of people from the earth in an instant?

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16–17)

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Cor. 15:52)

I question whether or not any one of these examples is reasonable; yet each is true and we believe them solely based on scripture. Human reason should never be the final basis for truth; the Bible is true whether we believe it to be reasonable or not and whether we understand it or not.

A brief summary of history:

John Calvin was a theologian who lived from 1509 to 1564. Some of his core beliefs were the doctrines that God chose some persons for heaven and some for hell, and that those whom God chose would persevere unto the end. Calvin believed and expanded the works of Augustine who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Jacobus Arminius who lived from 1560 to 1609 reacted against Calvinist doctrines by believing that God did not foreordain people to heaven or hell and popularized the belief that a child of God could lose eternal life. It is the doctrine of potentially losing one’s salvation, which most clearly defines Arminianism. Others such as Martin Luther, who lived from 1483 to 1546, also held the belief that it was possible for a child of God once saved to become unsaved. Most of those groups, which separated from the Roman Catholic Church, were and still are Arminian in doctrine. It is noteworthy that while both Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines came out of the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist, Anabaptist, Waldenses, and several other groups were never a part of the Roman Catholic system. It may not set well with the reader that John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Jacobus Arminius were Roman Catholics, but their doctrines cannot be condemned because they were once a part of the Roman Catholic system; neither are their doctrines vindicated as pure because they separated from the system. Each doctrine must be accepted or rejected in light of the totality of scripture. Historically speaking, both Luther and Calvin did a great deal of good backing the reformation by exposing the corruptness of the Roman Catholic Church. It may be helpful to the youthful scholar to be reminded that the correct view of any controversy is usually between the two extremes.

When I was asked by several different individuals to write this book, the Lord reminded me that we see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, no one has perfectly flawless doctrine. The dark lens can be preconceived ideas from our own human reasoning or the paradigm of what we have been taught. Both Calvin and Arminius sought to explain the Bible to the best of their abilities, and no mortal can do more. It is, however, the methodology we utilize in truth seeking which becomes extremely important. An extremely intelligent person using a flawed methodology will probably arrive at some wrong conclusions, while a person of average intelligence, following a superior methodology, is more likely to arrive closer to the truth.

Some further thoughts:

This book is meant to be used as a study guide for further reference.

To avoid confusion, all scriptures are from the authorized King James Bible.

Let scripture be the final authority.

Be intellectually honest; don’t change or add Bible words to support a particular view.

Please forgive me for being redundant, slow, and plodding. There is a reason for this and if the reader skims, I guarantee that he will misunderstand points and be confused.

Please pray now and ask God to show you what is true and be willing to go where God’s truth, not Calvin’s truth, Arminius’ truth, or the author’s truth, but the Bible truth takes you. There is a saying that goes something like this: The greatest hindrance to truth is the perception that you already have it. Indeed, if we believe we hold ultimate truth, we will defend the truth we hold without considering a deeper way of looking at that truth. Let’s look at an easy and quick example. Some folks may believe that money is the root of all evil and as such, they may live a meager existence because of their belief. However, we know that the Bible doesn’t teach that money is the root of all evil, but rather, the love of money or avarice is the problem.

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Tim. 6:10; emphasis mine).

The point being that the problem wasn’t what the Bible said, but what some individuals thought it said, and this is the polarizing factor underlying many doctrinal differences.

Yet another hindrance to truth is that of taking our stand with less than all the facts. Here is a simple example. If we ask a hundred people, What is the city of David? Some would turn to Luke’s gospel and read.

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11; emphasis mine).

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)" (Luke 2:4; emphasis mine).

Very often, when Christians find a single corroborating scripture, they are satisfied that they have arrived at truth! The Bible scholar, however, must exhaust the scriptures on any given subject before he’s satisfied. For example, if we stop with our search for truth and say the Bible says that Bethlehem is the city of David and reject all other possibilities, we then are doing truth itself a disservice. How so? Another person, not knowing your truth, puts forth his truth and declares that Jerusalem and not Bethlehem is the city of David.

"And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David" (2 Kings 9:28; emphasis mine).

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the lord out of the city of David, which is Zion" (2 Chron. 5:2; emphasis mine).

Now what do we do? Who is correct? Is there a contradiction in the Bible? No, it’s never the right answer to suggest that there is a contradiction in the Bible. That is, of course, if we adhere to the traditional texts and the authorized version. Who then is correct? The answer is both and neither. How can this be? If the first person believes that Bethlehem is the city of David to the exclusion of all other possibilities and the second person believes that Jerusalem is the city of David to the exclusion of all other, then both individuals are wrong. However, if both persons take the position that they only know what the Bible says in some scriptures, but there may be more possibilities, then they are both correct. Both cities are called the city of David. Bethlehem, because it was David’s birth town, and Jerusalem, because it was a stronghold in which David captured. We can now see how very easy it is for all of us to hold to one truth so strongly that we reject other facts that are equally true. All scriptures are true and are in harmony with all other scriptures when they are rightly divided. It’s perfectly fine, however, for us to say we don’t understand how two or more scriptures or Bible doctrines agree.

1

Let’s Consider Twenty Questions

Questions for those of the Calvin and Arminian faiths.

Twenty questions for those who follow the teachings of Calvin:

Do you consider yourself to be a Calvinist? Would you make an honest effort to answer all of these questions using scripture?

Why was Paul willing to endure all things for the elect’s sake so that they may obtain salvation if the elect were already saved?

Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Tim. 2:10).

If no one can resist the grace of God, then why aren’t all men saved?

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men (Titus 2:11).

If no one can resist the Holy Ghost, why then did Steven, who was full of the Holy Ghost in Acts 7:55, say in Acts 7:51, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost?

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye (Acts 7:51).

If man has no free will, then why did the Lord Jesus say he does?

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16:24; emphasis mine).

Does God’s will always overpower man’s will?

If God is only the Saviour of the elect (or a chosen few), then how do you explain 1 Timothy 4:10, which says that God is the Saviour of all men?

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe (1 Tim. 4:10).

Is either the word sovereign or sovereignty found in the Bible?

Does sovereignty mean that God forces some people to be saved and others not to be saved?

According to the Bible, is it God’s will that only some men be saved or all men?

If God only wants a select few to repent and be saved, why would God command all men everywhere to repent?

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30; emphasis mine).

According to the Bible, for whom did Jesus die?

If God chooses people for heaven, why is it the Comforter’s (the Holy Ghost’s) job to reprove (convict) the world of sin and not just the elect?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. (John 16:7–8; emphasis mine).

Does the Bible teach that believers must persevere in order to be saved?

Does man’s total depravity to save himself from hell mean that he can’t repent and believe the gospel? If so, why did the Lord Jesus tell people to do something that he knew they could not do?

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15).

Is God’s election of man for salvation or service?

What crucial Bible point did Calvin overlook relating to the election of man?

Did Calvin believe in the doctrine of the limited atonement of Christ?

Can you explain the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism?

A follower of Calvin may claim to be a one, one and a half, two, two and a half, three, three and a half, four, four and a half, or five-point Calvinists. Why are there so many variations on Calvinism?

If election is for salvation, and God only calls the elect to be saved, and no one can resist God’s calling, then every called person must be God’s chosen, right?

I invite you to make an honest effort to answer these questions using scripture. The answers from scripture will appear in a later chapter.

Twenty questions for those who follow the teachings of Arminius:

Do you believe that eternal life can be lost? Can you answer these questions using scripture?

What is the Bible definition of eternal life?

Is eternal life given by God as a gift or as a payment for doing good works?

Does the Bible teach that born-again believers keep their salvation or that God keeps the believer?

Is it possible for a child of God to have no rewards in heaven?

Can God lie?

When does a believer in Christ receive eternal life?

What does the Bible phrase never perish mean?

Can a person pluck himself out of God’s hand?

Can a believer in the Son of God know that he has eternal life?

What does the word redeemed mean?

Did God buy us just to throw us away when we fail?

Did Job and Paul guess, hope, feel, or know that they were saved?

For which category of sins did Christ die: past, present, or future?

Is there a difference between sins before salvation and sins after salvation?

What is threefold sanctification?

Does the Bible make a distinction between salvation and service?

Does the Bible make a distinction between being delivered from hell and discipleship?

What does it mean to become a child of God?

Can a child once born become unborn?

Is our will greater than God’s promise?

2

Coming to Terms

If you have not read the preface, please do so. Each part of this book builds upon its previous parts. This is the line upon line, precept upon precept teaching design of the Bible known as cognitive scaffolding.

Below is a list of common words and terms in alphabetical order. Which of these terms and words are found in the King James Bible and which are not?

atonement

depravity

elect/elect’s/election

eternal security

foreknowledge/foreknow/foreknew

grace

irresistible grace

limited atonement

perseverance

predestinate/predestinated

saved

sovereign/sovereignty

total depravity

total inability

unconditional election

Space to write your answer.

These terms/words are found in the Bible:

atonement

elect/elect’s/election

foreknowledge/foreknow/foreknew

grace

predestinate/predestinated

saved

These terms/words are not found in the Bible:

depravity

eternal security

irresistible grace

limited atonement

perseverance of the saints

sovereign/sovereignty

total depravity

total inability

unconditional election

At a glance, we can see that the Bible words and terms are far outnumbered by man-made terms and non-Bible words. Let me assure the reader that I believe in all the Bible terms listed above; however, it is Calvin’s explanation of these terms that we will examine in the light of scripture. As we go through our study, we will define all of these terms, especially these five common non-Bible terms used to explain Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism:

total depravity

unconditional election

limited atonement

irresistible grace

perseverance (of the saints)

Rather than clutter our thinking with a pile of definitions, we will define these terms as needed while moving deeper into our study.

Below are some important rules that will assist the reader to come to logical and biblical conclusions by defogging and defining confusing words and terms.

Rules used to help determine truth:

Don’t force people into a theological dichotomy of camps.

Use Bible words and terms whenever possible.

Always define the terms.

Let the Bible define the words or terms by comparing scripture with scripture.

Let the Bible define the words or terms by their context.

Draw your conclusions based on logic, not emotionalism.

Don’t forget to pray.

Rules and examples:

Don’t force people into a theological dichotomy of camps.

In other words, we must not assume every issue is an either/or proposition.

Example: We would be wrong to assume that a person is either a Communist or a Capitalist. There are many other options; here are a few:

Socialist

Free enterprise system

Democrat

Representative Republican

Monarchist

The United States of America did not begin as a pure democracy, but rather as a representative republic and a free enterprise system. If politics confuse you, don’t worry, because many politicians are confused also. My only point here is that we must not stick an oversimplified label on our system of government and by the same token, we must not be too quick to label people as either Calvinist or Arminian. A person may not believe all of what Calvin wrote, yet he may still label himself as a Calvinist. Another person may believe that his soul is eternally secure in Christ, with no chance of losing eternal life, yet he may choose not to use the Calvinist label. The point is that it’s not necessary to believe all that Calvin wrote or all of what Arminius wrote. Let’s believe all that God wrote and let God himself explain the Bible by comparing scripture with scripture.

Although many Christians label themselves as belonging to the camp of Calvin or Arminius, remember Christianity predates both men. How would you label Christians who never heard either man’s explanation of the Bible? The most common misunderstanding is to label anyone who believes in the Bible doctrine of eternal life as a Calvinist.

Use Bible words and terms whenever possible.

The Roman Catholic church mixes Bible and non-Bible terms to the point that Bible scholars unfamiliar with Catholic jargon cannot communicate effectively with a Catholic. Catholics also redefine Bible terms, causing greater confusion. Here are a few commonly used Catholic terms; which of these are Bible terms and which are non-Bible terms?

Are these Catholic terms or Bible terms?

Absolution

baptism

confirmation

dispensation

Eucharist

mass

penance

purgatory

rosary

sacrament

saint

These terms/words are found in the Bible:

baptism

dispensation

saint

These terms/words are not found in the Bible:

Absolution

confirmation

Eucharist

mass

penance

purgatory

rosary

sacrament

The Bible terms above are indeed found in scripture; however, the Catholic meanings are changed and varied from the true Bible meanings. Let’s examine one of these terms. Arguably, the most misunderstood Bible term in the English language is the term saint. Here is the word saint in the official Catholic dictionary.

Saint: A name given in the New Testament to Christians generally (Col. 1:2), but early restricted to persons who were eminent for holiness. In the strict sense, saints are those who distinguish themselves by heroic virtue during life and whom the Church honors as saints either by her ordinary universal teaching authority or by a solemn definition called canonization. The Church’s official recognition of sanctity implies that the persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked everywhere, and that their virtues during life or martyr’s death are a witness and example to the Christian faithful. (Etym. Latin sanctus, holy, sacred.)

Do you see what happened? The meaning of the word saint was changed from the Bible meaning of any Christian in general to some kind of super Christian. These saints can be invoked or prayed to in public! According to scripture, any living person praying to any dead person is a necromancer; a practice forbidden in the Bible. Unfortunately, the Catholic rather than the Bible definition of the term saint has permeated our society. We hear in our society, even from professing Bible-believing Christians, the phrase I’m no saint! which, because of the Roman Catholic Church, carries with it the connotation of sinless perfection or a miracle worker. The unbiblical practice of invoking and worshipping saints compounds the confusion. The light of scripture declares that no saint is to be worshipped, but God only.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Matt. 4:10).

This truth is repeated in Luke 4:8. In truth, every born-again believer is a saint. The unnecessary confusion surrounding the term saint was caused by changing the definition of a Bible word to a man-made definition and term. As we will see, this very practice of changing the meanings of Bible terms causes confusion and is at the heart of our study.

Define the term. (The general term as opposed to the specific term)

Much confusion and waste of time can be avoided by defining the terms of any subject before any discussion of that subject. Even the difference between the general definition of a word or term and the specific can cause chaos.

Example 1: A woman goes to a lawyer and asks for a restraining order against her husband. The lawyer asks, Do you have any grounds? To which the woman replies, Yes, I have forty acres! The lawyer replies, No. I mean, for example, does your husband beat you up? The woman says, No, he never beats me up. I’m up at five every morning and he gets up at six. Ha! So, until the terms are defined and both parties understand what is meant by the terms grounds and beat you up, there is no use in discussing the subject.

On a more serious note:

Example 2: If we choose to study evolution, we must distinguish between the general and specific meanings.

General definition of evolution: Change over time.

Specific definition of evolution: Changing from one kind of animal into another.

Everyone will agree with the general definition of change over time. Everything in the material world (not God or his Word, etc.) changes over time. It’s the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, or in Bible terms, the heavens and earth wax old like a garment. Yes, material things do change over time and if you’re still not sure, check out your waistline; gravity always wins! Notice that the natural change over time is to devolve, not evolve. All things tend toward chaos or disorder. I would agree that generally, people and animals change over time, but I would disagree that lower forms of life evolve into higher forms of life. Fish don’t turn into birds and monkeys don’t turn into humans.

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds (1 Cor. 15:39).

Simply put, Bible believers accept the general definition of evolution while rejecting the specific.

Now let’s apply this same distinction of a general term as opposed to the specific Bible term.

Consider the Bible word church. What does it mean? Generally, the word church means any called out assembly. However, specifically, there are no less than seven different meanings based on the context in which the word is used. We’ll consider all seven contextual definitions later, but for now, let’s briefly look at three definitions and see how those various meanings can affect doctrine.

Example 3: The church of Moses.

The general definition of the word church: a called-out assembly

Specifically: An Old Testament called-out assembly comprised of believers and nonbelievers or a professing church; a mixed multitude.

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us" (Acts 7:38; emphasis mine).

Here, the Bible is referring to the church of Moses in the wilderness, which is separate and distinct from any New Testament assembly.

Example 4: The local or professing church of today.

The general definition of the word church: a called-out assembly

Specifically: A local New Testament called-out assembly comprised of born-again believers and un-regenerated persons or a professing church; a mixed multitude.

If we ask the question, To whom is the book of Revelation written? how would you answer?

If you answer, The church, then we must ask, What do you mean by church?

Born-again believers only (the possessing church).

The local churches (the professing church).

Please take some time to consider your answer. The book of Revelation is not written to born-again believers only, but also to the local churches!

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne" (Rev. 1:4; emphasis mine).

Why is it important to know whether the book of Revelation is written to the professing church or the possessing church; to the local churches or the born-again body of Christ? The answer is one of context. If we don’t know the proper context of a passage or book, we will misapply the scriptures. Any local church may consist of saved and unsaved persons; those who have been born again as well as those who have never been saved. It should be noted that while every believer possessed by the Spirit of Christ should profess Christ as Saviour, some may not. Also, a person may profess Christ as Saviour and may not be a possessing Christian because he was never born again. Moreover, it’s not one’s profession that makes someone a believer, but rather being possessed by the Spirit of God.

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom. 8:9b).

A great deal of doctrinal confusion has resulted simply because scholars often neglect to rightly divide the word of truth by recognizing that the specific context of the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is to the professing local churches and not the possessing church of born-again believers. Again, John tells us that the book is addressed to the seven churches which are in Asia (Rev. 1:4), which were local churches. The point once more being that in any local church, we expect to see a mixed multitude of saved and unsaved souls. This is what is often referred to as a professing church because there may be persons therein who claim or profess to be saved but are not possessed with the Spirit of God. Further, this is why we find in Revelation 3, written to a single local church, such opposing language as He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. This only makes sense if we realize that Revelation is written to the local or professing churches made up