The Gospel(s) Adam Believed

Gen 2:15-17

¹⁵ Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ¹⁶ And theLord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

It was bad news. In that day you shall surely die. It is also significant that this command was given prior to the creation of Eve. It was given to Adam, it was Adam's responsibility. I've previously linked to to an article at Answers in Genesis explaining the death in this passage is starting on the day you disobey in dying you will die. This was the first Adam had ever heard of death and separation from God. We're not told how Adam reacted to this news, but we find in the very next passage that the Lord God said "It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper comparable to him." Gen 2:18

God makes woman and Adam says that she will be called "woman" because she was taken out of man. Gen 2:23 Then we are given a short picture of the man and woman together, and before God.

Gen 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

They were innocent before God, they felt no need to cover anything up from His sight.

In Gen 3:1-5 we see the Serpent tempting the woman (the name Adam had give her) with becoming like God through eating the fruit and becoming aware of Good and Evil.  In Gen 3:6 her desire overtakes her, she succumbs and tempts Adam as well.

Gen 3:7

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Now they saw their unrighteousness, and the very first religion was born. They sought to cover their own nakedness & guilt with leaves of plants. We read of the first lie, the first temptation, the first lust, the first murder, and the first religion ever in History happen in just 7 verses. Sin took opportunity with the first commandment and sprung forth in full bloom.

In Gen 3:8-12 we read of God pursuing Adam, giving Adam the opportunity to confess. Yet Adam takes on the character of the Serpent whom he had surrendered his rightful dominion of the Earth to. He  twists the truth, accuses Eve, and even implicates God Himself in his sin. “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 

On a bit of a side note; I find Gen 3:13 fascinating. While Adam lied and made excuses the woman simply confesses.

And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The Lord God curses the Serpent immediately as we read in Gen 3:14-15

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:“Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dustAll the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel.”

Gen 3:15 is often referred to as the Protoevangel or the prototype of the Gospel. Yet another fascinating thing to me is the first time the Gospel of the Christ is ever mentioned in History it is mentioned as a CURSE of Satan.

In Gen 3:16-19 the Lord God curses the woman, and Adam. Look carefully, the woman is cursed personally. The woman and women after her are included. Adam however is personally cursed, and all that was to have been under his dominion is also cursed. Creation that was to be a blessing to him was cursed to cause him suffering.

¹⁶ To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
¹⁸ Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
¹⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”

In Gen 3:20 we find the first act of faith in God in History.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Adam knew that he would die physically Gen 3:19 and knew that he had already died spiritually Gen 2:17 ; Gen 3:7, and he knew that God had cursed Satan with the knowledge that He would make things right, and destroy Satan through a non permanent injury to the Seed of the woman whereby though Satan had tempted the woman, God would separate that from her. Gen 3:15 

Adam believed God, that God would make it right. Adam had the knowledge of good and evil. He knew what he had done was evil. He knew that his new nature, what we would call our "old" nature today or the Adamic nature, is evil. Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. In so doing he demonstrated that he knew God would be faithful to his promise to make it right. That God would not destroy man.

Adam knew that God would restore the relationship of man to Him, that Satan's new dominion (not sovereign rule like God has, but restricted dominion like God had given Adam Gen 2:15) would be crushed.

It is interesting to me that God did not promise Adam or the woman (who now has the name Eve) Eternal Life. He had promised them death, both physical and spiritual, for disobedience but not once did He promise them restoration to Eternal Life.

Yet Adam believed what God had told them, and was assured of God's faithfulness to do exactly what He said He would do.

How does God respond to this faith in Adam? 

God kills an animal to make a covering for them. It is not explicitly stated here that this was for sin. However, it solves the problem that Adam and Eve had identified when they realized their nakedness. Gen 3:7 It also matches the patterns observed through out the Old Testament. It is also done in the context of the broken commandment of Gen 2:15-17, and the curse of Gen 3:14-19. We see God's response to Adam's faith in Gen 3:20 in His actions of Gen 3:21

Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

They were no longer naked before the Lord, He had covered them. They became witness to a graphic picture of what the cost was going to be to restore their relationship. Gen 3:15.

With Adam reconciled to God, the God-Head (Trinity, Elohim) discussed what to do with man kind now that we were aware of Good and Evil, and could reach out to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever in our fallen current state. God decides to put us out of the garden of Eden and ensure we cannot enter.

What was the Gospel, or good news, that Adam believed? 

Adam first believed a prototype of the Gospel of the Kingdom, that God would crush Satan's kingdom and restore rightful dominion on the Earth through the Seed of the woman. Adam then was shown the price this Seed of the woman would pay, graphically, and that this would be a covering for man so that man need not be afraid of God any more.  Adam, apparently, also believed a prototype of the Gospel of the Christ.

Adam never promised God anything, nor Believed God "for" anything. Adam believed God in one thing, and God then shared with Adam the most important thing: Christ Himself as revealed through the Gospel of the Christ.

Presuppositions of the Desert Island Scenario

Glenn, of the Wisdom and Knowledge blog has posted an article about the presuppositions of the Grace Evangelical Society's "Desert Island Scenario" which is used to explain their view of what a sinner must do to receive Eternal Life. Glenn's article is unique because of two things. First he looks at the presuppositions that one may or may not be aware of which are the foundation of the doctrine. Secondly, and of particular interest to me, is how Glenn puts the burden squarely on the evangelist, not the one receiving the message.

Here is the scenario as detailed by the late Zane Hodges.

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. 

 On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47). 

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

So how would you answer Zane's question, and why would you answer that way? This is a subject I've discussed at great length in the past. I'm greatly concerned at the strange sudden revival of this discussion. Glenn's article is interesting and thought provoking.  I'm struggling with what to offer as a quote. There is one important point made which I consider to be brilliant. I'm not going to quote it though, I want you to benefit from it in context. So here's a different short quote:

That is the Deserted Island Scenario and it seems deceptively simple but it isn’t. That first paragraph, short as it is, is actually packed full of presuppositions which perhaps even the author was not aware of. It is my goal to help the reader find and understand them.

I hope this is just the beginning of a series of articles discussing the presuppositions of the scenario. You can read the article at the Wisdom and Knowledge blog.

A Reminder of Gossip and Murder

This week I experienced the sting of gossip. The situation has reminded me of an article here at OMW posted way back in 2007.

Of Gossip and Murder

Update: This is a much shorter version of this article. I previously posted a longer post explaining more but I actually think that it would have been taken ALL WRONG by some particular people. So I deleted it. Normally I want the reader to go on a journey through a post, to have emotions and reactions to what they read and then find themselves in the situation so they can learn from it like I am learning. However, given the sensitivity of some recent readers of this blog I have decided to delete the post. I think the old article speaks well enough on its own.

The 5 Points of Gospel Preaching

This is me preaching the Gospel
to a group of Muslims, including their Imam,
at Dundas Square in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Here are what I suggest are the 5 points of good Gospel preaching.

Preach THE Gospel of the Christ such that it is:

Totally True;

Totally Clear;

Totally Convicting;

Totally Free; and

Totally Christ.

Have confidence you who do the work of an Evangelist! Such Gospel preaching is totally effective! Any who believe do not do so in vain, for they are totally saved to the uttermost! The worst criminal, the sweetest Grandmother, anyone at all who believes will TRULY be saved! If you preach the Gospel with these 5 points, you must treat the people who believe it likewise. 

A Privilege

Is this man saved?

Today I was given the opportunity to aid in the editing and honing of an article discussing the presuppositions behind the Grace Evangelical Society's "Desert Island Scenario." Over the last week or so I have gone from being surprised to being greatly concerned with this doctrine's sudden resurgence in several venues.

When the article I was privileged to help with today is published I will link to it. Can anyone explain why this topic is being discussed again all of the sudden? If it becomes an issue for the Church which is His Body again I will write on it myself.

Here's a serious question though: Why is my grammar so much improved when I'm reading someone else's work? Working with an editor is a severely humbling experience. If I could manage to improve my grammar when I'm writing my own stuff perhaps the experience would be more pleasant; like living on a desert island might be!

A Strong Explanation of Good Hermeneutics

As I begin to re-engage the subject of Election I have been studying a number of resources. A few years ago I quoted an author on the subject of the history of attacks on the Gospel. That article has since been deleted from his website (I am not sure why) but I decided to take a look around at other things there. One thing I found was a very large, intellectually strong, and detailed discussion of Election in the light of Dispensationalism.

Included in this discussion was an article on biblical hermeneutics. The author gives a fairly complete study on the subject and accomplishes more than I even hoped to with my whole book in a single article. I  could wish that I would have authored his work.

Please check out Principles of Biblical Interpretation. 

That is SO 2008....

After a few months of attending a house church I found out something shocking, or it finally became clear to me, or I finally opened my eyes, or I finally let myself hear what they were saying... or something! Whatever it was, I suddenly felt like I must have been going 88 Miles Per Hour because what I finally heard sounded like a repeat of the ridiculously lame, and intellectually insulting, arguments of the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) from about 2008. Update 16Apr2012: OK I can admit that this sentence is harsh. However, it is in response to being berated with the same esigesical arguments that the GES used years ago for 5 days straight.

Now I've been baited in a few ways to write an article about this assembly's doctrine. But why would I?

"The Gospel in this dispensation is to believe Jesus for Eternal Life" is the doctrine that the GES set ablaze in the Free Grace movement from 2007-9. Sure there are quotes from before that, and some small discussion after that but that is the period when the discussion was being had. Not only that but in reality the doctrine was ridiculous when it was presented by the GES and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

The doctrine failed any and every test against Scripture back then so why would anyone devote time to it now?

If anyone is truly interested in what was discussed back then these things may well be helpful:

UPDATE: Lou has posted an archived article from 2010 "Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1"

1. Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)"

2. Thomas L. Stegall's exhaustive book The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel

3. Search Google for "The Crossless Gospel"

A Short Open Letter to Those Who Would Teach Christ's Church

To Those Who Would Teach in the Church Which is Christ's Body,

I am thankful to God that He has given, and continues to give Teachers to the Body of Christ. Eph 4:11-16 I am most eager to be built up by those He has given.

Do not feel you need to justify your doctrine to me. You shall justify it to the Lord God Almighty when you stand before Him. James 3:1

Do not feel you need to establish your doctrine by quoting others. You may establish doctrine by rightly dividing the Word of God. 2Tim 2:15 I will not be reading your favorite author to determine if what you say is true, I will be reading what God authored.

Do not feel that your position, fame, influence, or name (or that of those you quote) will give credence to your doctrine.  Know that I will test your doctrine and only hold fast that which is good regardless of what I think about you or those you quote. 1Thes 5:21

These are the standards which I will use to test your doctrine:

By employing the Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic I will determine if your doctrine is explicitly and contextually: stated, demonstrated, and/or required by the inspired Scriptures.

If you, or any unaddressed reader, considers this quarrelsome or any part of it offensive please consider how God the Holy Spirit calls this noble. Acts 17:11

Well Done Abram?

Did God say "Well Done!" to
Abram in Gen 15:6?

I really don't know how the concept of "faith" got to be so messed up.  To me it appears to have started being perverted immediately after the Church which is His Body came into existence. We read letters like Romans and Galatians and they make it clear that people had tried to pervert the Gospel of the Christ while Paul was still alive and ministering. We read in 2Tim 4 that all except Luke had abandoned Paul.

Along with the subject of whether God gives a few chosen people saving faith or not there is an idea that someone having faith is something "good." This is what we will be discussing today.

Normally I would go to Rom 4:16 to show that faith cannot be something "good" it cannot be meritorious because then salvation could not have been by grace and through faith. Paul says that it had to be through faith so that it COULD be by grace, or unmerited favour.

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 

In this verse we see that our salvation is like Abram's salvation. In this way he is the father of all of us who are saved by grace through faith. To me this verse is clear enough. Faith cannot be something "good" or something that "merits favour" because Paul says that salvation had to be of faith so that it could be by unmerited favour. This isn't proof-texting, because Paul is making a statement of fact here. However, let's continue because this is not clear enough for everyone.

Romans 4 intrinsically links how ungodly sinners are justified before God, and reconciled to Him to the experience of Abram in Gen 15:6.

And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

We read in Rom 4:20-22:

20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, ²¹ and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. ²² And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

It is because Abram was assured that God therefore accounted him righteous. What does "accounted" mean?

In the Greek it is the word Logizmai and in the Hebrew it is Chashab. Both of them mean to consider, or impute, a characteristic on someone or something. It means to look upon someone AS THOUGH they were what you are considering them to be.

God did not RECOGNIZE righteousness in Abram, He RECKONED Abram AS THOUGH he was righteous. God did not say "Well done Abram! You believed Me, and that was good to do!" God didn't look at Abram's faith as something that needed to be rewarded. Abram believed God, and yet God YET EVEN STILL had to RECKON Abram as though he were righteous. Abram was not yet righteous, he was only reckoned so.

As a further point; with regard to regeneration prior to faith as a means of God giving people faith because unregenerate people are "totally depraved" or so utterly evil that they cannot believe consider what Paul says in Rom 4:22.

²² And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Abram was not first made good enough to believe through Regeneration. Abram believed and yet even still had to be merely accounted as righteous.

The word therefore in Rom 4:22 in Greek is Dio and means "on account of." Further if we read Gen 15:1-6 we do not find God inserting faith into Abram but God reasoning with him.

Clearly it was on account of Abram's faith that God called him righteous. Clearly, as Paul puts it in Rom 4:1-8 God justifies ungodly sinners on account of our faith in Him. That faith is nothing more that the reasonable assurance of God's promise. It doesn't consist of anything, it doesn't do any thing, it is reception not offering. Faith is not "good" or meritorious.

It is the one who disbelieves that is "doing" something, or taking action, that demands a type of reward. Rom 1:18-32.

What is Not of Works?

I've been having a number of conversations about whether "faith" is the, or a, gift of God. It can be debated that if one reads Eph 2:8 in English that it seems to be saying that faith is the gift of God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

While I am settled on what I have come to understand, I sympathize with people with various other views. After some strong discussion with a dear Brother at the House Church my wife and I gather at,  and also after discussion with Brother Stephen here at the OMW blog I purchased a Greek Grammar by Daniel Wallace. His discussion of Ephesians 2 was most helpful to me, and pushed me on my own views. You can find more about that in the article Wallace on Ephesians 2:8-9.

The discussion came up again today at our assembly and as my wife and I drove home the verses were flowing through my mind. My mind kept returning to the fact that Paul didn't write in verses, and his sentence didn't end in what we now call Verse 8. It actually ends in Verse 9.

⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast.

I sympathize with people who struggle with what the "gift" is in this passage, really I do. However if I asked you the following question what would your answer be?

What is not of works in Eph 2? 

Is there any debate on this subject? Salvation is not of works is clearly Paul's point. He is not saying that Grace is not of Works, for Paul contrasts grace and works continually. He expects his audience to know that grace, or unmerited favor, cannot be of works. He refutes legalism, and "faith+" religions over and over again by showing that works negate grace. Is he saying that faith is not of works? Does that even make sense? No more sense then pointing out that grace is not of works.

At the end of verse 8 Paul says that "it is" the gift of God, and continues the thought into Verse 9 "it is" not of works. While I believe that the Greek shows that it cannot be that faith is the gift of God, while understanding there are other seemingly valid views, even in the English this passage shows that Paul is saying that Salvation is the gift of God, and that it is not of works. Just like we read in Rom 6:23.

When we answer the question "What is not of works in Eph 2?" we also get the answer to the question of what is the gift of God. The gift and what is not of works are one and the same singular concept of Salvation that is by grace and accessed through faith.

Playing in the Jesus to the Nations Band

Over the last 6 weeks or so I have been learning a lot of songs and getting my fingers back in shape to play bass guitar with the Jesus to the Nations 2012 band. Now I want to be clear that these types of conferences are filled with bad doctrine and worse practice. I was asked to play by a dear Brother who has stuck with me through thick and thin. He is genuine and it is an honor to serve along side him.

I'm very much looking forward to the event and have been enjoying all the bass practice that I've been getting in the mean time.

There are a couple of articles in the works, and more videos. I'm primarily concerned with working on the next book right now though.

On My Walk: Started Writing Today

I've been very busy with a bunch of life stuff over the last two months. Evangelism on Friday nights has really picked up and that has led to an Evangelism prayer meeting being held at my house on Tuesdays weekly. This has been a HUGE blessing.

My wife and I have also started attending a House Church just outside of our city. We're finally at a place that holds firmly and completely to a Free Grace view of the Gospel. No more tense moments listening to someone preach a mixed up message and figuring out how to firmly but gracefully correct the problem.

Finally, today I have written the first bit of my next book which is going to be a surgical exposition on the Gospel of The Christ. The target audience includes the Christian Layperson, Evangelists, and Unbelievers looking to discover what the Gospel actually is. I've been researching this for sometime and have been taking notes and planning chapters. Today however, the first actual writing was completed!! I had expected to release this book in December. I guess I'm a bit behind schedule. :)

Evans v Erhman in Halifax

I'll give an overview later, but tonight I watched Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Erhman discuss the question of if the New Testament gives an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus or not. Well... they didn't disagree on very much. Evans basically agreed with almost everything the atheist Bart Erhman had to say about the New Testament.  I am shocked, furious and astounded with Evans' lack of even attempting to defend the Scriptures. I could accept if he got bested... he didn't even try.

Wallace on Ephesians 2:8-9

Daniel B. Wallace has just under two pages in his Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics devoted to the debate about how to interpret what is the actual "gift" in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Recently, OMW reader and friend of mine, Stephen commented with regard to the Greek of Eph 2:8-9 under the article TESTING TULIP: Total Depravity/Inability. In his comment Stephen quoted Wallace's discussion of this passage in his Greek Grammar. I found his comment so compelling that I ordered Wallace's work to read it for myself. What I have found is a discussion of the Greek involved that confirms what I previously have discussed on the subject in an article entitled John Calvin Describes the Faith that Saves, and more importantly opened my eyes to things I have not considered. Wallace presents the four most common views on the passage, including the one that I have held to, and including one which I have never heard before but which is most interesting!

I will now introduce the four views of what the gift is in Eph 2:8-9 that Wallace discusses on Pages 334 - 335 in Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.

1. That grace is the antecedent.
2. That faith is the antecedent.
3. That the concept of a by grace through faith salvation is the antecedent.
4. That kai touto ( translated "and this" in every translation I've read) works with adverbial force without antecedent and means "and especially". 

Options 1 & 2 suffer because touto (this) is in the neuter gender while both chariti (grace) and pisteos (faith) are in the feminine. I would include a 5th option that has been told to me by some Pastors as having the same basic problem; that the gift includes both points or "each and everything involved with salvation" is the gift of God.  Some argue, as Wallace notes, that the gender issue isn't a problem because there are some examples in Greek literature where a neuter demonstrative referes back to a noun of a different gender and that touto has been attracted to the gender of doron (gift).  Wallace goes on to explain that this it is almost always the case that this would be done only when the pronoun is caught between two nouns of different gender. He gives Acts 8:10 as an example, and Matt 18:38 as an opposite example.  Then he notes that Eph 2:8 is not a like example because doron is no the predicate nom. of touto (this) but of the implied "it" in the following clause. He finishes by saying that it is "doubtful" that either faith or grace are the antecedent of touto (this).

He calls view 3 "more plausible" and this is the view that I have come to and held through using my own limited Greek skills and training. Apparently referencing other (as of yet unknown to me) parts of his Grammar Wallace says "As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent."  He adds a note that mirrors my thoughts on the nature of Faith exactly at the bottom of Page 335. I will let the reader find and be edified by this as they read his book.

Of view 4 Wallace expresses surprise that it has had such a small impact on exegetical literature. He notes that BDF and BAGD assume this force for kai touto in Eph 2:8 without discussion. I'm surprised I have never heard the slightest discussion of this view before. While I am satisfied with view 3, view 4 finds an excited home in my understanding of Paul's overall argument for Pauline Justification, or Paul's view of the reception of Eternal Salvation.  Wallace says that if kai touto (and this) is adverbial then it has the meaning "and at that, and especially" without having any antecedent. It focuses on the verb rather than on any noun. He brings up that this same structure is seen in 3Jn verse 5:

Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; (NASB)

Wallace then suggests this translation of Eph 2:8 "for by grace you are saved through faith, and [you are saved] especially not by your own doing; it is the gift of God."

He finally goes on to note that the debate cannot be solved by grammar alone, but that syntactical considerations do tend toward views 3 & 4.

I am truly fascinated by this. What are your thoughts?

Soteriological Thesis Work

A new friend of mine, Nolan, posted something here that struck a nerv with me recently. He noted that a lot of my blog is polemic against various ideas that float around in Christendom. He noted that this was perfectly valid, and in my mind I noted that the topic of the discussion we were having was based on a most polemic document; the Second Synod of Dort.

Chasing bad, or thought to be bad, theology around isn't always helpful. In fact I think it is often anything but helpful. That was a large point I made in my book Fail-Safe for Fallacy.  The first time I looked at, and argued against, the "Doctrines of Grace" popularly called by the acrostic TULIP I made it clear that it is easy to argue against something but much harder to develop something that is true.

Over the last couple of years I've been feeling I should develop a Soteriological Thesis. The late Dr. Robb Lawson and I worked on a project together that we were calling The Grace Reformation. I believe it was a noble idea, but the perspective was too broad and so it was beyond my abilities and beyond Robb's ability to keep me motivated. :)

Over Christmas I have decided to limit the thesis to the methodology by which a person who is unsaved becomes eternally saved. I have a well-known dislike for systems that give answers to people who haven't (and so won't) read their bibles but I think the time has come to truly test what I believe.

This year I will be writing a book that introduces the thesis which is reasonably well developed in my mind, but has not been committed to writing as of yet.