The Staunch Calvinist

"Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God." - Jonathan Edwards


You searched for 'Law Of Moses'

I've found 9 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 19: Of the Law of God - Commentary

...e law” (KJV). To sin is to disobey the law and to break it. But if sin did exist before the giving of the Mosaic Law to Israel, then this necessarily implies the existence of the moral law, which was transgressed before Moses. If the effects of sin were present before Moses, how can sin then not be imputed? It certainly was imputed and it was severely punished by God, just think of the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah.

3. “Sin is not counted where there is no law” is a truism just like “sin is the transgression of the law.” The apostle does not, in fact, say that there was absolutely no law before Moses, but rather he clearly has in mind the whole Law Of Moses (moral, ceremonial and civil), which was not given before Moses. He goes on in v. 14 to yet again confirm the effects of sin upon the world before Moses and thereby again establish the moral law.

4. To conclude, we have in this passage and from this idea, namely—that the existence of sin presupposes the existence of the moral law of which sin is the transgression—that the moral law did pre-exist Moses and is known by all men, whether in written form or from their conscience. God did, in fact, punish sin before Moses, therefore this proves that even without the written revelation of God people did sin and violate God’s law and brought God’s judgment upon themselves. Therefore, there is certainly “a law of universal obedience written in [our] heart” which God demands that we obey and every falling short to obey that law is a transgression and sin.

The Threefold Division Of The Law

This is an awkward place to argue for it, but I must, since the Confession goes on in the following three paragraphs to talk about the moral, ceremonial and judicial law. Basically, the threefold division of the law stresses the superiority of the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments above the ceremonial and judicial/civil, which were abrogated and fulfilled by the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord of Glory. I have benefited from:

It has been a classic Christian doctrine to divide the Law Of Moses or the law of the Pentateuch into three divisions, which are 1) the moral laws, 2) the ceremonial laws, and 3) the judicial or civil laws. This does not mean that we have neat categories and we know to which category every law belongs, because some laws are difficult to discern or are a combination. But we do believe that the Bible gives us such a division to understand the abiding validity of the moral law and the abrogation of the ceremonial and judicial laws. The question that we need to answer is: Does the Bible make a distinction between the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and the other laws? If the answer is positive then a division of the law is established. If not, then the threefold division would be proven false.

For those wanting a detailed, exhaustive and interactive treatment of this subject, I recommend Philip S. Ross’ From the Finger of God. The book is technical containing a lot of Hebrew and Greek, and interacting with a lot of pro and con literature. It is not a book for the average reader, but it is a very detailed book. What is to follow is not a detailed case for...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant - Commentary

...e operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

Notice that the 1689 Baptists confess that the Covenant of Grace (“this covenant”) was fully revealed in the gospel, in the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace was indeed revealed and I would say, promised, to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, to Moses and to David. But notice the difference between the Westminster and the 1689. The Westminster confesses that the Covenant of Grace was already being administered under the Law Of Moses and I assume also under Adam and the promise of Genesis 3:15, which some of them would take as the first administration of the Covenant of Grace. This is different from what the 1689 says concerning the Covenant of Grace, about which it does not say a syllable on administration. Rather, the 1689 teaches that the Covenant of Grace was progressively revealed, not administered, in the covenants from the Fall to the Cross.

The framers of the 1689 apparently did not believe in what their Paedobaptist brethren did about the Covenant of Grace. They believed that the Covenant of Grace was revealed and promised to Adam and the covenants after Adam (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Levi, David). If the Presbyterian position may be summarized as “one covenant under different administrations”, the 1689 position may be summarized as “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant.”[32] Pascal Denault writes:

This distinction: (revealed/concluded) summarized the difference between the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament and the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. In the Old, it was revealed, in the New, it was concluded (fully revealed according to the expression of the 1689).[33]

What if the objection comes up that the phrase “covenant of works” nowhere appears in this chapter, while the 2nd paragraphs of both the Westminster and Savoy mention these. Does this omission mean rejection? No, it does not. Why does the omission of “covenant of works” does not imply rejection, but the omission of “administration” does? That is a very good question. The simple answer is that the Confession, as observed above, does speak of the Covenant of Works elsewhere (19:620:1), but nowhere speaks of administrations of the Covenant of Grace, which would strengthen our case that the Confession is denying the idea of administration. Furthermore, they set themselves against the doctrines in chapter 7 of the Westminster and Savoy in speaking about the Covenant of Grace being revealed instead of being administered, by farther steps. The revelation of the Covenant of Grace was progressive until the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. What follows is the belief that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace established in time. 1689 Federalism is in disagreement that any covenant before the New Covenant was, in fact, the Covenant of Grace or an administration thereof. We believe that the Covenant of Grace was in a state of promise under the Old Testament and was formally established in the blood of Christ in the New Covenant alone. “Why?”, you may be asking? Well, we’ll discuss the reasons for this, below.

The New Covenant Is The Covenant of Grace

First, let us start by laying out what we mean when we use the words New Covenant and Covenant of Grace. John Owen is helpful in laying the differe...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 22 Christian Sabbath Sabbath The Lord's Day Fourth Commandment Day Of Worship Day Of Rest Sunday Religious Worship Church

...risees were accusing Him and His disciples of breaking the Sabbath. But the Lord here asserts lordship over that day and vindicates what His disciples were doing. They were accusing Him and His disciples of breaking the Sabbath, but over against their accusation, the Lord Jesus asserts His lordship over the day which they claim to venerate. The Lord Jesus here says nothing negative about the Sabbath. In fact, in all of His holy ministry, there is not a hint of any negativity about the Sabbath. As J.C. Ryle observes:

I find Him speaking eleven times on the subject of the Sabbath, but it is always to correct the superstitious additions which the Pharisees had made to the Law Of Moses about observing it, and never to deny the holiness of the day.

He adds, against those would say that the Lord Jesus abolishes the Sabbath that, “He no more abolishes the Sabbath, than a man destroys a house when he cleans off the moss or weeds from its roof.”[55]

But now let us back up a verse. Let’s take a look at v. 27, which is the issue at hand. The Seventh Adventist Skip MacCarty writes:

When Mark recorded Jesus’ words, “the Sabbath was made for man” (2:27), he chose Greek terms that would communicate the universal and permanent character of the Sabbath—egeneto “made” (literally, “came into existence),” and anthropos, “man.” The Greek word egeneto linked the Sabbath with creation; it is used 20 times in the Septuagint in the Genesis 1 creation story, once in Heb 11:3 in reference to God’s creation of our world out of nothing, and three times in John 1:3, which establishes Jesus as the one through whom all things were “made” (created).[56]

Understanding this passage changed my whole outlook about the relevance of the Sabbath in the New Covenant. The Lord Jesus exercises His lordship over the Sabbath, not by abolishing it, but by pointing to its original intent and by cleansing it from Pharisaism. Moreover, this blew the claim that the Sabbath was only given to the Israelites to smithereens. For the Lord does not only connect the “making” and the institution of the Sabbath to the Creation (for that is when all things were made), but He also claims that the Sabbath was made for man in general, not the Israelites in particular. Against those in His day who would have limited God’s grace and the Sabbath to Israel, the Lord Jesus ‘used the broadest term available (ἄνθρωπος, “man/mankind”) to designate those for whose benefit the Sabbath was established. And in speaking this way, Jesus would have been understood as viewing the Sabbath as an ordinance established at creation for all men and not just as an ordinance established at Sinai for Israel.’[57]Francis Nigel Lee writes:

Sixthly, Christ’s words: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27-8) plainly imply that the time when man was made was the time when the sabbath was made — evidently made for him at the time when he himself was made.[58] 

The Sabbath was made and established for Adam and his posterity as a whole. It was given for the benefit of man. It was not to put him down and burden him but to bless him. Warfield writes:

Because the Sabbath was made for man, he, the Son of Man, to whom has been given dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him—who reigns by right over man and all things which concern man—is Lord also of the Sabbath. There are obviously two sides to the declaration. The Sabbath, ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Exposition Reformed Baptist Chapter 8 Christ The Mediator Prophet Priest King Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Arminianism Universal Atonement Hypostatic Union Humanity Of Christ God-Man

...bsp;for His people. His posture of sitting indicates that His work is finished and that He is resting. But He will not remain sitting there. There will come a time when He shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world (Acts 1:11; 10:42; see chapter 32). 

Christ Fulfilled the Law

Christ willingly and joyfully accepted the Father’s will, thereby taking on human nature and was born as an Israelite under the Law Of Moses. Of this, we read in Galatians 4:4—

Gal. 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 

Christ became man at God’s appointed and perfect time. As a true Israelite, He was born under the authority of the Mosaic Law and in the Mosaic Covenant. The text says that the Son was born under the law, that means that He was subject to the Law. The Lawgiver was subject to His own Law! He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the Abrahamic Covenant. He kept the Law Of Moses perfectly throughout His life, while He definitely broke many of the traditions of the Jews, but never once the Law of God. The purpose, says Paul, that He was born under the law was to redeem those who were under the law. Is this referring only to Jews as they are subject to and under the Law? I have difficulty with this view primarily because of the “we” in v. 5. Paul is writing to a largely Gentile audience about the dangers of placing the Jewish traditions and laws above the Gospel of Christ. The way that I understand this is in the same way that I understand Romans 2:12-14 (see here and here). Both Jews and Gentiles are under the Law and possess it, yet in a different sense. Jews possess the fullness of the written Law, while Gentiles only have the moral law written on their hearts. Therefore, the way that I understand Galatians 4:4-5 is that the Lord Jesus was indeed born under the Mosaic Law to redeem those who were under the Law. But the Law Of Moses is itself an expansion of the Law of Creation given to us through Adam our federal head. In essence, it is the same as the Mosaic and has the same moral law as the Decalogue. Therefore, both Jews and Gentiles could properly be said to be under the law and thus were redeemed through Christ. Matthew Poole comments on this phrase:

This makes it appear, that Christ’s being under the law must be understood as well of the moral as of the ceremonial law, that is, subject to the precepts of it, as well as to the curse of it; for if the end of this being born under the law, was to redeem those that were under it, that he had not reached by being merely under the ceremonial law; for the Gentiles were not under that law, but only under the moral law; and they also were to be redeemed, and to receive the great privilege of [adoption.][4]

The Expositor’s Greek Testament puts it in this way:

The description under Law includes Gentiles as well as Jews: for though they had not the Law, they were not without Law to God (cf. Romans 2:14…): they have indeed been expressly specified in Galatians 3:14 as included in the redemption from the curse of the Law.[15]

The Lord Jesus fulfilled the Law on our behalf. This is part of His active obedience. The Lord Jesus, the federal head of the New Covenant people of God, was fulfilling the Law for us and in our place. Since we could not fulfill the Law, we were doomed, but when Christ fulfilled the ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 11: Of Justification - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 11 Chapter Eleven Justification Justification By Faith Alone Sola Fide Sola Gratia Imputed Righteousness Infused Righteousness Roman Catholicism Protestantism

...n of the law’s demand on the part of the sinner himself, but solely in the bearing of the penalty by Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith. Justification, in its first element [Remission of punishment or the forgiveness of sins], is therefore that act by which God, for the sake of Christ, acquits the transgressor and suffers [lets] him to go free.[18]

Scripture says “that through this man [the Lord Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the Law Of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39). Forgiveness of sins and freedom from the demands and curses of the Law Of Moses go hand-in-hand. Galatians 3:10-14 also beautifully declares this truth. First, the curse of the law is pronounced upon all who do not abide by it (Gal. 3:10). Then, the observation is made that “it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law” (Gal. 3:11). Rather, as Habakkuk 2:4 said, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Gal. 3:11). Therefore, this means that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal 3:13) and for the purpose that “the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14). This “blessing of Abraham”, in context, is justification by faith (see here). John Gill observes on this blessing in v. 14 that this is

The same blessing Abraham enjoyed, even justification by the righteousness of Christ; and what was promised to Abraham, that in him, his seed, that is Christ, the Gentiles should be blessed, or justified; for though this blessing may in general comprise every spiritual blessing, yet it chiefly regards that of justification; or a deliverance from the curse of the law, and which is the end of Christ’s being made a curse[19]

Romans 5:18-19 also pronounces these blessings upon us:

Rom. 5:18-19 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Through the trespass of Adam, the condemnation of the law, which is death, was pronounced and came upon all men. This was the punishment for breaking the Covenant of Works, namely, death (Gen. 2:16-17; see chapter 7 on the Covenant of Works and its curse)! The opposite of death is life, which means that we have been freed from the curse of Adam (though this does not mean that we have been freed from physical death, see chapter 31 for more on this) and received the blessing of the Covenant of Works, which was eternal life. Furthermore, v. 19 says that the “many [who] were made sinners”, will “be made righteous.” And this righteousness is “not by their own obedience; nor by their own obedience and Christ’s together; but by his sole and single obedience to the law of God: and the persons made righteous by it are not all the posterity of Adam, and yet not a few of them; but “many”, even all the elect of God, and seed of Christ; these are all made righteous in the sight of God, are justified from all their sins, and entitled to eternal life and happiness.”[19]

As to the meaning of the word “made” in connection to “made sinners” and “made righteous”, we understand it to mean as “brought into the state” of sinfulness or the state of “righteousness.” Some commentators translate the Greek with “constituted.” The ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Perseverance Of The Saints Preservation Of The Saints Assurance Of Salvation Eternal Security Apostasy Falling Away. Hebrews 6

...his is the case. First, let us say a word about the letter to the Galatians.

The letter was written by the apostle Paul around 49 A.D. to a congregation which was being troubled by Jewish Christians who were seeking to place Gentile Christians under the yoke of the Old Testament Law, teaching that they must be circumcised to be saved, like in Acts 15:1. But Paul sees through the deceit of these false teachers declaring that if anyone adds anything to the gospel, even if it was an angel from heaven, let them be damned (Gal. 1:8-9). The apostle further says that the believers must know what it means to be circumcised, namely, it means being obliged to keep the whole Law Of Moses and thereby place themselves under the yoke of the Law (Gal. 5:3; cf. Rom. 2:25-29). This means that they are trying to please God by works, rather than by faith (Heb. 11:6). The context of the Epistle is therefore between the antithesis of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Epistle is not teaching that Christians do not have to obey God, but rather it is teaching that salvation is not of works, but of faith (e.g., Gal. 2:16). Therefore, what these false teachers are doing is seeking to damn the believers through making them think that their works are the basis of their justification. Now we turn to examine our passage.

He begins v. 1 of chapter 5 continuing the thought from the previous chapter about the antithesis between the Mosaic and New Covenants. The Mosaic is a covenant of slavery, while the New is a covenant of sonship and peace. Furthermore, the apostle claims that his readers are in fact believers in saying “But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother” and “Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal. 4:26, 28). The Epistle is written to warn believers from embracing such a false gospel, which claims that works play a part in our salvation and seeks to place us under the yoke of the law. The apostle directs his word against those who trouble the Galatian believers based on the history of Ishmael and Isaac saying,

Gal. 4:29-31 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Those Jews who are persecuting the Gentile believers are themselves actually still under the slavery of the old Mosaic Covenant and they are children of the flesh and therefore not heirs to the promises of God. Just as there has always been war between the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), so likewise it was between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau and now between Gentile Christians and Jewish “Christians”. These Jews who are seeking to draw the Gentile believers from freedom under Christ into the yoke of slavery, may profess the name of Christ, but they demonstrate through their works and beliefs that they are still under the slavery of the Old Covenant and therefore have no inheritance with the children of promise, i.e., they are not true believers.

It is in light of this clear teaching that we proceed to chapter 5. We have seen from the end of chapter 4 that Paul identifies his audience as believers and children of promise and contrasts those who are troubling them to be sons of Hagar, sons of slavery. Wha...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 25: Of Marriage - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 25 Chapter Twenty-five Marriage One Man One Woman Homosexuality

...ious limitations put there. Such a relationship would be incestuous and it will never be made lawful. It does not matter if a law of man would accept the validity of incestuous marriages, biblically speaking, these cannot be valid marriages. Even the consent of the parties involved does not matter. Therefore, they may not live together as man and wife since there is no valid marriage between them.

Incest is clearly forbidden from the Law Of Moses onward. Prior to Sinai, it was not forbidden, neither was it forbidden in the beginning, for otherwise, we could not have multiplied from one man and one woman. Therefore, it was necessary and it was not yet declared sinful until the giving of the law to Israel. See especially Leviticus 18:6-18. Furthermore, the reason why God did not create other humans than Adam and Eve (Acts 17:26) was so that Adam would represent all humanity as a covenant head. Creating others besides Adam and Eve would not have brought humanity under one head. Moreover, incest, at that time, was not biologically as problematic, as the human genetic was free from error and after the Fall it began to progressively worsen. 

The word affinity designates a relationship by marriage and consanguinity a blood relationship. These types of relationships are forbidden. It is necessary for us to not marry those who are close relatives, like cousins or nieces. Although not prohibited by the Scriptures, these kinds of relationships often result in problems with the children. In the case of Adam and Eve’s children, they were not forbidden back then because of the obvious problem with incest: the genetic problem. As the genetic code became more and more corrupted, God finally and for all following time, forbad incest at Sinai. Moreover, it should be noted in the case of Abraham, lest we too quickly condone that relationship merely because God did not speak anything about it. Let us note that Abraham was already married when God called him. Therefore, God acknowledges that half-sister marriage and blesses Sarah. But does this blessing imply that He approves of the relationship? Not necessarily. Because there was already a covenant of marriage made between the two, God would not have wanted for them to be separated now that they’re joined in a covenant marriage. I may be mistaken on this, but I come from the understanding that the Bible is simply mentioning or narrating something does not directly endorse or condone the things narrated. We noted that with polygamous marriages in the Bible, whereas that was not so from the beginning. Ultimately, incest was clearly revealed as sin from Sinai onward.


He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 

(Matthew 19:4-6)



  1. ^ Many Scriptural references have been supplied by Samuel Waldron’s Modern Exposition of 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which was apparently supplied by the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646.
  2. ^ Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. In loc.
  3. ^ Matthew Henry. Commentary On The Whole Bible (Full). By default in The Word. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. In loc.
  4. ^ Jamieson, Fausset, Brown. Commentary Critical and Explan...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 23: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows - Commentary
The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 23 Oaths Vows Swearing Allegiance

... ear all day long.”

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the Law Of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; 5:19; Deu 29:12, Deu 29:14.[9]

God is the Being by which we must swear. The Lord Jesus is not doing away with swearing and taking oaths, but He is doing away with Jewish hypocrisy and false teaching concerning the Third Commandment. The Jews “avoided of God’s personal name and instead used reverent substitutions, clever liars could take an oath that seemed to appeal to God without technically doing so (23:16-22).”[10] Therefore, we see here our Lord a clear understanding of the Third Commandment and exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews and the taking of God’s Name in vain. Furthermore, swearing by other things than God “would indicate idolatry, or apostasy, which the passage from Jeremiah (mentioned above concerning lust [Jer. 5:7-9]) also conveys.”[11] The Lord Jesus did not do away with oaths, but showed their real intent and exposed false and sinful use of oaths. The Lord’s brother, James, also speaks to the same effect in James 5:12. 

§4 The Plain And Common Sense Of The Words

  1. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. 1
    1. Ps. 24:4; Jer. 4:2

An oath should be made in the plain and common sense of the words, using common definitions so as to avoid and confusion, or worse—deception. Therefore, our words should be without equivocation, meaning open to multiple interpretations, and also without mental reservation, which means by not telling the whole truth. Our words should be clear and understood by everyone involved without ambiguity or reservations or qualifications which we mentally make and those involved are unaware of.

We should not say things which would imply different things than what we actually intend. We should not use verbiage which communicates something different to people in order to be deceptive and cunning in what we actually intend. Our words must be plain and to the point. “The language of the oath must be unequivocal and as to be clearly understood by all parties.”[12] If we are to use difficult verbiage we should be plain about our understanding and definitions of the words. Our intent is to honor the truth and the God of truth (Isa. 65:16), therefore, we make every effort to be truthful in our words and oaths.

§5 Vows


Preservation of the Saints - Scripture List
Calvinism Election Predestination Mercy Sovereignty Verse List God Is In Control Preservation Of The Saints

... transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Heb 10:26-31 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law Of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Heb 13:15-21 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. 18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things. 19 I urge you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner. 20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

2Jn 9 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

Rev 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

This content is taken from this document

[1] I have used Preservation instead of Perseverance as the first title because of the doctrine teaches that God is the one who works in us and also that it does not destroy the TULIP acrostic.  For the Perseverance of the Saints see “Perseverance of the Saints.”

[2] James White, The Potter’s Freedom (New Revised Edition 2009) p. 40

[3] “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” Ed. 2, pp. 7-8.

[4] This section shows us that the believers are also active in their perseverance, but we’ve already seen that God is the one who preserves us. The verses are taken from “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” Ed. 2, pp. 150-3.

[5] Taken from “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” pp. 153-5. Not all Scripture from there are quoted.

[6] Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard...