Calvinism's Proof Texts

Is the TULIP Position Scriptural?

Perhaps the best way to answer this is by examining some of the principal Scriptures used by the five- point Calvinist, showing how they have been taken out of context. By making the “tulip” advocate consider Scripture in context, his system collapses like a house of cards in a tornado. What are some of his foundation passages?

ROMANS 9:10-13

One of the key passages is Romans 9:10-13. This is really a favorite with the five-point promoters, and says: “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

However, the key to unlocking the mystery of this passage – if “mystery” it may be called – is found in our Lord’s declaration of verse 12: “It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger.” It ought to be pointed out, and pointed out very strongly, that “S-E-R-V-E” does not spell “S-A-L-V-A-T-I-O- N.” What a dishonest perversion of Bible teaching: to endeavour to build a theology of salvation upon a passage relating to service!

As a matter of fact, the whole issue is a national matter which pertains to governments, not a personal matter dealing with the salvation of individuals. This “purpose of God according to election” deals strictly with the descendants of Esau serving the descendants of Jacob! The entire chapter relates to God’s dealing with a nation, Israel, not with individuals as such.

Perhaps it should be pointed out also that it is common practice with the five-point Calvinist to mingle the “not yet born, neither having done any good or evil” of verse eleven, with the “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” of verse thirteen. The implication is that Jehovah’s love and hatred were predetermined, long before either was born or had done any good or evil. This is not so and such implication slanders the holy character of God!

If you check the source of the statement in verse twelve, “the elder shall serve the younger,” you will find that it was made in Genesis 25:23, when the twins, Jacob and Esau, were struggling in Rebecca’s womb. That, if we follow Usher’s chronology, was probably about 1,800 B.C.

In checking the source of the statement in Romans 9:13, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” we discover that it was made in the last of the Old Testament books. Malachi 1:2,3tells us: “l have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

This statement was made, again using Usher’s chronology, about 400 B.C. In other words, the declaration about loving Jacob and hating Esau was made by God approximately 1,300 years after the death of Jacob and Esau, not before they were born, “neither having done any good or evil.” One was a prophetic statement, looking forward; the other was historical, looking backward. Furthermore, note that the hatred of Esau as defined in Malachi had to do with “his mountains [a biblical expression often representing multitudes of people] and his heritage.”

Perhaps Jacob was saved and Esau lost – I am not arguing that matter either pro or con at this moment – but whether Jacob was personally saved and Esau personally lost is definitely not the issue in Romans 9. To make it the issue is to pervert the Scripture!

JOHN 15:15,16

Another favorite passage of the five-point Calvinist is John 15:15,16, where our Lord declared to His disciples: “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

Does this have to do with election in salvation? It most definitely does not! Note carefully that our Lord is talking here about His “choosing” of servants, not sons. To discover how His sons are chosen, turn to John 1:11-13 and read: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Sons are chosen by their reception of Christ and their believing on His Name.

Furthermore, note that the statement of our Lord in John 15:16 about choosing relates to bearing fruit, not getting saved! To relate this choosing to the election of salvation is to pervert the Word of God.

Perhaps, however, you are like a man in one of my meetings. After a clear-cut evangelistic message in which I invited whosoever will to trust Christ, he came up to argue the “five points” theology. To defend his position, he immediately turned to this passage in John 15:16. When I pointed out that the subject under discussion was fruitbearing, not salvation, he explained to me that he had read The Institutes and knew all about it. He confidently assured me that “chosen” and “election” were synonymous terms and that since these people had been chosen, even though the subject under discussion was fruitbearing, they had obviously been elected as well!

But you should have seen my friend’s face and visualized his embarrassment when I made him turn back to John 6:70,71 and read: “Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.” Obviously, he couldn’t stay with his theology any longer!

If “chosen” is synonymous with “election” – and the same Greek work is used for chosen in both John 15:16 and John 6:70 – then Judas was elected! This was something my friend – and all the friends of five-point Calvinism – could not swallow. To do so would force the unscriptural conclusion that Judas is now in Heaven as one of the elect, or the equally unscriptural position that he apostatized and fell from grace.

II TIMOTHY2:9,10

Another favourite passage of the “Five-Point” brethren is II Timothy 2:9,10: “Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 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.”

At a session for preachers at a national conference some time ago, I listened with amazement to a dear brother refer to this passage and say, “You see, man’s salvation is not according to evangelism, but according to election.” He went on to explain, “I preach the Gospel, not to win men to Christ, but because I know the elect out there will respond!” But if that is the case, the elect will respond whether he preaches the Gospel, recites passages from the Koran, or goes fishing!

However, this passage is teaching the exact opposite of unconditional election. Why should Paul “endure all things” if the elect would be saved anyway? No, Paul was saying that he must endure those things in order that the elect might be saved! If he did not suffer according to the description of his sufferings as he outlined them in II Corinthians 11:16-33, then some would not be elected, he felt. His enduring was that others might “obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Perhaps this would be a good place to answer the slander of five-point Calvinists that failure to accept their position minimizes the sovereignty of God. Nonsense! Election based upon foreknowledge rather than predetermination does not make God one whit less sovereign than He is represented to be in the “tulip” position. The God Who in His sovereignty “elected” men to salvation, also in His sovereignty “elected” the MEANS of that salvation and made it available to all: REPENTANCE and FAITH!

Apart from this, how would it be possible to understand II Peter 1: 10, where the apostle makes his appeal to “give diligence to make your calling and election sure”? How would it be possible to make one’s election “sure” according to five-point Calvinism? You either have it or you can’t have it! The same argument would be applicable to Paul’s demand of the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (II Corinthians 13:5). Suppose one did examine himself and discovered he was not in the faith; what good would it do? If he happened to be one of the elect “in the faith,” well and good; but if he were not, all the “examination” and “proving” in the world would not help him.

What about Mark 3:28,29, where our Lord said, “Verily, I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”?

How, in the light of five-point Calvinism, could this warning about the unpardonable sin make sense? Who could commit it? If the “elect” could, then you would have “falling from grace,” as some unscripturally refer to a saved person losing salvation. If the “non-elect” could commit the unpardonable sin, so what? How could it make the “danger” of “eternal damnation” any worse or more real? The force of the whole argument in our Lord’s teaching about the unpardonable sin would thus be annihilated. Perhaps that is one reason why most five-point Calvinists teach that the unpardonable sin is “not for this dispensation”!

Furthermore, if God in His sovereignty did not elect the means of salvation man’s individual repentance and faith based upon “whosoever will” – what happens to babies when they die in infancy? Augustine, the originator of the unconditional election theology in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, taught that all non- elect babies went to Hell.

Since this grates rather severely on the minds of even spiritual people, John Calvin, when he revived the doctrine of unconditional election, modified Augustine’s view somewhat. Calvin concluded that babies dying in infancy go to Heaven; hence, apparently, only “elect” infants die!

This, too, since it lacks even a single sentence of scriptural support, is rather difficult to swallow. The Dominicans taught still a third possibility with their doctrine that both elect and non-elect babies experience death, but the non-elect infants end up in Limbo, a “way station” on the road to Purgatory.

Of the three, the original doctrine pro-pounded by Augustine is the most logical. Would it be logical to suppose that God allows non-elect infants to reach maturity only to mock them with insincere “general” calls to salvation? Would it be logical to suppose that God determines to let non-elect infants live and grow to a state of harmful wickedness, while refusing to let elect infants live who would bless the world by their contribution of righteousness and purity? Would it be logical to suppose, since the lost will be punished “according to their works” (Revelation 20:12, 13), that God would refuse to mercifully allow some of the non-elect to die in infancy and thus lighten some of their eternal horror? No, of the three choices facing the “unconditional election” brethren, Augustine’s original theory of non-elect infants dying and going to Hell is the most satisfactory.

Actually, the entire five-point Calvinist position on election is completely untenable. As another has so graphically pictured it, according to the five-pointer’s own illustration of a dead man being totally unable to do anything to get saved – even to believe – he is faced with a picture like this: God has made two men. They are both corpses. He stands both corpses upright, draws a line before them which we will name salvation, then says to one: “Either cross this line or I will damn you in Hell for ever!” But, in His love and mercy, He picks up the corpse and carries it across the line.

Then, to the other, He says: “Either cross this line or I will damn you in Hell for ever!” But because the corpse does not cross the line, God, in hot anger and fiery indignation, picks him up and hurls him into the damnation of the fires of eternal Hell!

No one denies that this is not a very pleasant picture! As a matter of fact, it was because of such assassinations of God’s character presented by preachers in by-gone days that the Voltaires, Tom Paines, Bob Ingersolls and others stumped public platforms in protest of such a God! Fortunately, this does not portray the God of the Bible!

II THESSALONIANS 2:13, 14

Another favorite passage of the five-point Calvinist is found in II Thessalonians 2:13, 14: “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Note the words: “God hath from the beginning chosen you unto salvation.” There is absolutely no question but what these words, taken by themselves, do portray unconditional election. But these words do not stand by themselves! There is no period after salvation; the sentence does not end there. The passage goes on in unbroken continuity to present a conditional salvation, one “through” something else.

To take the words, “God hath from the beginning chosen you unto salvation,” by themselves belongs in the same dishonest category with the baptismal regenerationist who quotes “baptism doth also now save us” (I Peter 3:21) by itself. The full statement in the latter passage shows that baptism is a “like figure” of salvation, not a saving ordinance in itself. It even goes on to state positively that baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.”

In like manner, the supposed unconditional election in “God hath from the beginning chosen you unto salvation” immediately evaporates with the revelation following that this Bible election hinges on “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”

How could one believe before the foundation of the world? It is impossible! Then the “election” before the foundation of the world must be an election based on God’s infinite foreknowledge!

This interpretation fits I Peter 1:2 perfectly, where we are told: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” This election to salvation is “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Consider the language carefully. It is not, as some would have us think, “foreknowledge according to election,” but “election according to the foreknowledge.”

Incidentally, some have tried to eliminate the tremendous impact of this verse by following the revised version, which moves “elect” to verse one, making it read: “the elect who are sojourners.” This, however, makes absolutely no difference whatsoever since the entire matter, both electing and sojourning, is according to God’s infinite foreknowledge.

ROMANS 8:28-31

Note also, in the same light, the passage of Romans 8:28-31. This is the only passage in the Word of God setting forth the steps in man’s redemption, from eternity past to eternity future, in chronological order. We are told there: “And we know that all things work together for good them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us ?”

It starts in eternity past with foreknowledge and concludes with glorification in eternity future. That future glorification is based upon justification; justification, in turn, is based upon calling; calling, in turn, is based upon predestination; predestination, in turn, is based upon foreknowledge. The Bible kind of election starts with foreknowledge and any teaching of election today not starting in the same place will be fraught with confusion, misunderstanding and outright heresy.

Recently, in an excellent Christian journal, I read an attempt by a highly revered and respected evangelical leader to answer this argument. He wrote:

“We are told by the supporters of the foreknowledge theory that Romans 8:29 substantiates their position. This verse says, ‘For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate …’ We would call attention to the fact that the opening word of this verse is ‘for,’ which, of course, immediately throws us back into something that has gone before. And in this case it throws us back into verse 28 which says, ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’ Then we slip into verse 29, ‘For whom he did foreknow …’ So when we take the whole passage together we discover that His ‘foreknowledge’ does not rest upon what He saw in the future at all, but upon what He saw in His own sovereign election in an eternity which was past. The order in these verses is clear. First, we are called according to His purpose. Second, we are therefore foreknown. Third, we are therefore predestinated. Fourth, those whom He had called in His own counsels, foreknown and predestinated, He calls by preaching, by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word to come into fellowship with Himself. This is where we come into the picture, and those whom He called He certainly justifies, and those whom He has already justified He will yet glorify.”
 

No one denies that the “for” of verse 29 refers the reader back to verse 28. However, far from being an “extra step” in God’s chronological plan for the sinner, it is the setting forth of a precious truth which verses 29 and 30 merely substantiate. Paul is simply arguing, “Since one ‘whom he did foreknow’ is predestinated, and one ‘predestinated’ is called, and one ‘called’ is justified, and one ‘justified’ will be ‘glorified,’ you may be sure that all things work together for good to such a person.!”

Furthermore, the explanation by our brother foolishly puts the “call” in twice. He makes it start with the call of verse 28, then finds himself with a second call in verse 30. This would be like having two justifications or two glorifications in separate places within the chronology.

Finally, the writer’s explanation proves too much! If the “for” in verse 29 refers back chronologically to the “call” of the latter part of verse 28, then it would be logical to suppose that it, in turn, refers to the first half of the same verse. This would make the “call” hinge upon “loving God,” something a sincere five-point Calvinist would never acknowledge for a single moment.

Perhaps the problem is that the five-point Calvinist confuses foreknowledge with predestination. They are not necessarily the same! It is possible to foreknow without predestinating. Edmond Haley, of Haley’s Comet fame, was able to foreknow the time of the comet’s appearing and predict it with great accuracy. But he certainly did not cause the comet to appear; it was not due to predetermination on Haley’s part.

The eclipse of the sun is further illustration of this truth. Scientists are able to foreknow right to the exact minute, centuries in advance, the eclipse of the sun. But their foreknowledge is a far cry from pre-determination! As a matter of fact, foreknowledge of the eclipse has nothing to do with the actual eclipse. And an election based upon foreknowledge is the only understanding of election whereby all of the biblical parts fall perfectly into place without confusion.

For a biblical illustration of the fact that foreknowledge is not predetermination, consider Peter’s words: “Ye therefore, beloved, SEEING YE KNOW THESE THINGS BEFORE, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” (11 Peter 3:17).

THE “FIVE POINTS” EFFECT ON OTHER DOCTRINES

In truth and in fact, “tulip” views of election have a deadly detrimental effect on a number of other important Bible truths. For example, the doctrine of prayer. If the five-point Calvinism teaching be true, why pray for the lost? Since the matter would have already been arbitrarily settled in eternity past, prayer could not have any possible effect whatsoever on an individual’s conversion. If one had been elected, he would be saved whether Christians prayed for him or not. If he had not been elected, all the praying of thousands of righteous saints would do not the slightest good. Prayer would have no effect one way or the other. One college student told me his professor – a godly, good man, but an unconditional electionist in theology as much as acknowledged this to his class.

One five-point Calvinist said, “1 pray for the lost because I know the elect are going to be saved.” But, if his doctrine be true, they will be saved just as easily and just as surely if he does not pray!

Someone else objects, “But such prayer is good for the one who does the praying!” Perhaps so, but the purpose of “asking… seeking … knocking” in prayer is “receiving… finding… opening” (Matthew 7:7,8). The five-point Calvinist’s philosophy reduces begging God for the salvation of souls down to the level of a Mohammedan spinning a prayer wheel! He gets a warm religious feeling, but there isn’t any result from his intercession … and he doesn’t expect any!

Another illustration pertains to the biblical teaching regarding training children. In the Christian journal referred to previously, the author, quoting from Romans 9 [which we have already seen pertains to service, not salvation], went on to comment:

“No matter how much we may shake our heads at this proposition, here is Scripture which seems to declare in unequivocal language that God prepares some people as vessels of dishonour and destruction and others of honour and salvation. And if He does not and if He cannot, then He is not sovereign. The fact that one of these vessels not ordained to eternal life may happen to be one of our own loved ones or one of our own children in no wise changes the picture. And if you imply that God is under obligation to save your beloved, we would ask, whence cometh the obligation? The answer is self-evident. The supposed obligation arises from our own selfishness in insisting that our own loved ones be saved but not caring so much about someone else’s loved ones.”
 

Note here: (1) The author refers to the Romans 9 passage and confesses “… here is Scripture which seems to declare …. ” This seeming declaration evaporates the moment the context is viewed in the light given by the Holy Spirit; that is, here is a passage explaining sovereignty in service, not salvation. (2) He says, “The fact that one of these vessels not ordained to eternal life may happen to be … one of our own children in nowise changes the picture.” Then he asks, “And if you reply that God is under obligation to save your beloved, we would ask, whence cometh the obligation?” That is dead easy to answer! The obligation comes from a divine inability to lie (Titus I :2; Hebrews 6:18). As Paul declared, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (11 Corinthians 1:20). Since He went on record as guaranteeing, in Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” when parents train their children in obedience to Christ and His Word, God has an obligation to save them, help them live victoriously, and take them to Heaven when they die! The writer would have us believe that Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old – if he happens to be one of the elect- he will not depart from it.” That is absurd! (3) We cannot join the author in bemeaning the “… selfishness in insisting that our own loved ones be saved but not caring so much about someone else’s loved ones.” We have a greater responsibility, surely, to our own loved ones than to others. Is it sinful selfishness that we be more concerned that our own loved ones have food, clothing and shelter than we are that someone else’s loved ones be cared for? I think not. Paul did not tell Timothy that failure to provide for all the loved ones of the world was denying the faith and being worse than an infidel, but he did regarding providing “… for his own, and especially for those of his own house…” (I Timothy 5:8). And Christians likewise have a special responsibility about getting their own loved ones saved.

One brother told me that election could be likened to a man who offered candy to a room full of boys and girls. All shyly refused (something rather difficult to imagine, by the way), so the gentleman forced some of the children to eat the delicious candy. Naturally, the ones who had been compelled to eat enjoyed it very much! Thus it is, he informed me, in election. Man, because of his depravity, refuses to accept God’s wonderful redemption. So God, in His grace, forces some men to receive Christ in order that they might experience the sweet blessings of salvation.

I asked this dear brother, “Why give only part of the kids the candy? If it would be a tremendous enjoyment for them, why not make them all partake? If you were the man with the candy, wouldn’t you?”

He just grinned sheepishly and declined to answer.

The doctrine of unconditional election makes God an unjust respecter of persons in denying the candy to all the children. Biblical election, which is based upon foreknowledge, offers freely and sincerely “the candy” to all – and all the responsibility for “going without” is laid at the door of the would-be receiver, not the anxious Giver Who makes the loving offer.

Some time ago I spoke at a Baptist school where considerable emphasis is placed upon unconditional election. As is usually the case when I address audiences on the Bible institute, college or seminary level, I bore down rather heavily on the matter of personal responsibility in soul winning. As soon as the chapel hour was over, one of the ministerial students rushed to the front, blocked my path and announced that he had “a question.”

Putting on the pseudo-intellectual air so common to his breed – any experienced chapel speaker can immediately spot the type – he smilingly intoned in the special, intellectually superior voice which seminary freshmen with six weeks in theology behind them reserve for such occasions, “Suppose there just doesn’t happen to be any ‘elect’ in your neighborhood! What then?’

My, how suave, how sure was his manner! It was obvious that he thought he really had the poor, ignorant evangelist between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

So, putting my best, condescending, brother – I ’11 – get – down – on – your – level – at – least – this – once – to – try – to – help – you attitude, I held up my Bible so that the wide side was flat and level. I said, “We’ll let this Bible represent a community neighborhood of about two thousand people.

“Here,” I continued, pointing to two spots close together on the dark surface of the Bible, “are two evangelical, fundamental, Bible-believing, Bible-preaching Baptist churches.

“This one,” I said, pointing to one of the spots, “believes, as you do, that everything is already settled. Those who are ‘the elect’ will be saved, but those not fortunate enough to have been ‘chosen’ will not and cannot be saved. Absolutely nothing can be done about it!

“On the other hand, this other church believes, just as Paul and Peter both declared, that Bible election is based upon God’s foreknowledge. Hence, Heaven or Hell for some hinges on the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of those who know the truth. Believing this, these folks go all-out in a strong program of mass and personal evangelism. They have a visitation program. Their members witness on the job, in their neighborhood, and to their lost loved ones and friends. They have several evangelistic crusades throughout the year. Everything they know to do is tried in an effort to bring the lost to Christ.

“Isn’t it strange,” I concluded, pointing again to the spot which represented the evangelistic church, “how many souls God is ‘electing’ over here and how few,” pointing to the spot representing the non-evangelistic church, “God is ‘electing’ over here?”

I will never forget the dumbfounded, amazed expression on that young seminarian’s face! His mouth dropped open, and then he stammered, “I ..I ..I never thought about that!”

Laying my hand on his shoulder in a fatherly manner, I softly counseled, “Well, son, you’d better think about it,” turned on my heels and left the chapel.

I certainly hope he honestly faced and seriously studied this fact of common experience which, to the five- point Calvinist, is such a strange phenomenon. Many, many more souls are being “elected” into the family of God where a strong program of New Testament evangelism (Acts 5:42) is in operation than in the non– evangelistic – and sometimes even anti-evangelistic atmosphere of the “tulip” churches.

Do not misunderstand: doctrine is not based upon experience! On the other hand, correct doctrine is always harmonious with actual experience. Theology which disagrees with the fact of experience is “suspect” theology.

Let me illustrate. In Matthew 14:22-34 we have the account of our Lord walking on the water and His invitation to Peter, “Come.” Now someone might conclude from this account that our Lord wants all His followers to walk on water. He might preach on the text, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come” (Matthew 14:28,29). But that theology would soon prove destitute of supporting practical experience. All who believed thusly and based their doctrine on this invitation would sink the moment they attempted to walk on the waves.

A proponent of such a doctrine would do well to recheck, since not supported by experience, to see whether Christ was giving instructions to Peter only, or whether it contained an admonition for all followers. He would need to study the context, re-evaluate and re-assess his position, Experience conforms to doctrine if the theology is correct.

Election according to foreknowledge harmonizes with the experience of church history, both ancient and current.

CONCLUSION

Thank God, the answers to the questions voiced at the start of this study are positive and dogmatic: God does want all men to be saved! He does want all men to come to the knowledge of the truth! Christ did give Himself a ransom for all on the cross! He does want all to come to repentance! It is a blessed fact that He wants no one to perish!

Now let us get busy reaching sinners with a fervent program of mass and individual evangelism. May God help us to face our faults, correct them lovingly, and pursue the scriptural program – both now, and until Jesus comes. “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few”!