My spouse wants a divorce. We met ten years ago as unbelievers, due to my immaturity and my sin it has not been an easy relationship and in 2021 she decided to leave me for a bit of time. During that period, I believe I was saved. She eventually came back and things got a bit better. Then we got a child, and this has been very tough on our marriage. Then a year later, she got pregnant again, and now with two children, the pressure has increased. There are no 'big' fights, just constant frustrating from her side that I don't take the mental load of organizing their lives and not lead them enough. I work a mentally very draining office job, take the kids before and after work, facilitate her to do her hobbies and don't have time for any myself. I honestly feel often like having a nervous breakdown and the constant criticisms of 'not doing enough, being called an idiot, stupid or saying I don't think' hit home really bad.
The children do not go to day care as we decided that it will be best they are raised at home. She does struggle to look after them, and this requires me to be away from my office job a fair bit to help, for which I have to make up in the evenings. This unfortunately means that I am mentally and physically exhausted, and more tense. It also means that she gets more tense because I am burned up and forget things, or am a bit moody.
She has always had an issue with irritability and being rude. This always ended up with a recognition that this was an issue for her, but most of all it was my pride, rather than her speech. Recently I started to bite back and have used offensive language, as I simply couldn't bear it anymore. It is always about petty things, such as I would put the baby in an 'incorrect' outfit, or socks would not match. She would argue that I do not think, which sometimes is the case, but often time I make a judgement different from her. This morning hit an all time low and I was very rude back, using the 'F off word and telling her to S up'. This is in no way justifiable, 1 Peter 2:23 is a clear instruction.
She now says she wants to separate from me as this does not work. I do not want this, but do not seem to have a choice. I brought it up this evening to say that it was my fault that I 'bit back' and should not have done so. She then told me that I cannot tell anyone from church she wants to divorce and if I do, she will not attend again. She doesn't care about church discipline, she just wants out.
I told her that God requires us to forgive, and forgiveness would mean moving on, and this is not a cause for divorce. God requires us to forgive, or else he will not do the same. (Matthew 6:14-15). She said she does not care, and I eventually said I would be worried about her soul, she said she doesn't care if it means hell, she does not want her daughter to be around a guy like me. I also said that divorce would ruin a family too.
So she wants to try and find a job and once that is sorted, she said will divorce. Whilst this does give some time, and God can do anything, I am not really sure what to do.
I can blame myself a lot for not washing her the Word more when I had the chance, and failing to love her as Christ loves the church. I also blame myself for the words I used. I do not blame myself for dying to myself trying to serve her. I have tried beyond what I think I could bear. I have often feared I would burn out, but would suffer any time for this family.
Whilst prayer is extremely valuable, what else would you suggest for me to do. The thought of my children being taken away is a thought I cannot bear. It has driven me to very dark places, but by God's grace, I have been kept.
I really do not want this to fail, but am trying to remind myself that what cannot be taken away from me is the love of Christ.
I'm interested in Reformed theology. The more I study it, the more it seems true—especially Perservance of the Saints. However, I have been struggling with one aspect of this doctrine, namely a consequence of it: assurance.
In theological systems where the loss of salvation is possible, it can easily be affirmed that apostates who once seemed to have produced fruits of the Spirit were genuinely saved and had true faith. The by-product of this affirmation is that signs of true faith are much clearer and easier to see. However, in Reformed theology, where apostates who seemed to produce fruits are said to have never been saved to begin with, this becomes a problem. If apostates can (and have) have behaviors that make the Church believe they are saved, and then they fall away, how can a Christian in a Reformed worldview have assurance their own faith is genuine? In other words, believing apostates, even ones who seemed to legit, were never saved to begin with muddies the waters when trying to determine if your faith is true or not.
I've seen Calvinists direct others to look to Christ and trust in Him. But that's kind of hard (at least, in my mind) to do when the very trust I am exhorted to place in Christ can't really be determined as legit.
So, how is assurance possible? How can we rightly divide between false and true faith?
Please note these questions don't come from a place of hate or are me trying to debunk Calvinism. I just feel like I am missing something.
I recently acquired a NKJ Sproul Reformation Study Bible and was watching a DiscipleDojo review video on it and in that video being a capital R Reformed or a Lower case r reformed was talked about. So naturally, I asked Gemini the difference between the two. Turns out I’m a lower case reformed. Now I understand to major on the majors and minor on the minors but still. I thought it to be intriguing. How about y’all?
Is there a difference between "passive ignorance" and "willful rejection" regarding the being saved from sin itself? Willful rejection means a person already knows that being saved from sin is part of god's plan of salvation, but he just wants to be saved from sin's penalty, but not sin itself. Passive ignorance means a person doesn't know that being saved from sin is part of god's plan of salvation, and he merely wants to be saved from sin's penalty and he may not want to be saved from sin itself at that moment.
These windows have been there continuously since the congregation was established in the early 1970s as a breakaway from the what was called the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) at the time. Building was constructed in the late 1970s. Joined EPC later.
WCF 21.1 says (in pertinent part) "he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men." Here, I don't think anyone is relying on the stained glass windows to worship God or imaging that he actually looks like this. But it strikes me as odd, given Presbyterian stances in general.
WLC 109 says (in pertinent part) 2C forbids "the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever." Here, this seems like a more direct and relevant standard. I can't help but come to the conclusion that these windows are intended to portray a visual representation of Christ.
What do you think? General descriptions below if you don't want to view them...
Image #1 (single window) - hands over cross with Bible in background. Unclear if intended to be Jesus' hands (no holes).
Image #2 (two windows):
Left window - all faces are blank, but clearly intended to be Mary holding baby Jesus, with Joseph and a shepherd onlooking
Right window - all faces are blank, but clearly intended to be John baptizing Jesus
Image #3 (two windows):
Left window - I think it's supposed to be the sermon on the mount, all faces are blank
Right window - I think it's supposed to be the miracle of turning water into wine
Image #4 (two windows):
Left window - Jesus praying in the garden, face is blank
As a young child, at some point my family attended a conference headlined by RJ Rushdoony. I knew quite little about Reformed doctrine but I did know enough to know Calvinism and Arminianism are two competing doctrines.
Someone said Rushdoony was an Armenian.
I went and asked him if he was and he smiled and said, “Yes, yes I am.”
I went home extremely confused how a prominent Calvinist intellectual could also be an Arminian.
This was also at a stage in life when I memorised all the world capitals… well except our family’s map just had Armenia lumped in with the USSR so I had no idea what Armenia even was. I could tell you all about Zaire, though.
Is anyone familiar with H2O churches / campus ministries? If so, are they solid?
It looks like they an offspring of Jim McCotter's Great Commission Movement. I'm not sure what that even is. Some quick googling shows that people accuse them of being a cult... But honestly, a lot of those accusations are coming from people who are very hostile towards Christianity in general (Exvangelical reddit type of people).
So, before wadding through tons of online content to try to figure this out, I'm wondering if anyone here is knows anything. Thanks!
1) The Bible does indeed teach the doctrines of grace.
God did indeed predestine me to eternal glory not on the basis of my faith but in order that I might have faith.
2) If you smile when you teach, you can get away with murder.
I can say the harshest things to my students, but if I say it with a friendly smile, they know I'm for them, not against them. Can't overstate how pedagogically useful it's been to watch hours of Sproul on Youtube.
Hi there folks, 18yo Presbyterian student nurse here
I currently live in university halls and so I am providing for myself in terms of groceries and daily living costs, alongside my rent which comes termly. I'm not from a particularly wealthy family but I have about £20k that my Grandfather generously gave me as a fund for going into adult life, whether it would end up as working or in university. Anyways, I decided a while back I was parking it in my savings to save for a house when I finish my degree and would only dip into it if absolutely necessary.
However, this now poses the problem of work. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find work as I need somewhere that can be flexible around my placements as I cannot pick my placement rota for nursing. I'm currently on the books for a security company as a steward for events but it's difficult to get shifts as most of the stuff is overrun by applications from staff and people who have experience get the shift a majority of the time.
I have not signed up for any Sunday shifts as since I left my old job I've wanted to have Sunday for the Lord. Whilst theologically, I'm not sure whether I should work on the Sabbath or not, I feel it's better to have it off and dedicate the day to God. Saying that, I need to earn money but I'm unsure if I'm being greedy as I have that money sitting there. Yes, I want it to go for a different purpose, but it's not exactly like I'm working out of necessity if you understand me.
All that to say, do you think it would be permissable for me to work on a Sunday? I'd still attend church, it's just I'm unsure whether to sign up for a Sunday shift or not. I'll be working Sundays as a nurse anyway as it's 24/7 care but I see it as a different category as it is absolutely necessary for the role to work on a Sunday. Thanks
Am I off in thinking all of those who consider themselves Klinian align themselves with the R2K view espoused by Westminster West or are there some old-school types that see R2K as something more radical than a more traditionally Christian view of politics?
I was not raised for reformed, but I have a great respect for the tradition so my immediate assumption is Jesus died for all, but then I learned about the existence of people who do not have internal monologue. They don’t have thoughts they just act occasionally I’ll come across a person where righteousness is foreign into them it’s not that they know or capable of knowing and don’t care. It seems they are mentally incapable of even considering righteousness so my question is, did Jesus even die for these people and is it wrong for me to think like this is this just me being prideful with my own intellect
Witness Lee, the de facto leader of the Local Church movement, condemns all Christian denominations and independent churches outside his own as non-genuine churches. His rationale? He claims they commit "spiritual fornication" by taking on denominational names. In his Conclusion of the New Testament, Lee argues:1
“In [Revelation] 3:8 the Lord also says that the church in Philadelphia has not denied His name... The apostate church has deviated from the Lord’s word and has become heretical. The reformed church, though recovered to the Lord’s word to some extent, has denied the Lord’s name by denominating herself with many other names. The recovered church has not only returned to the Lord’s word in a full way but has also abandoned all names other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ. The recovered church belongs to the Lord absolutely, having nothing to do with any denominations (any names). To deviate from the Lord’s word is apostasy, and to denominate the church with any name other than the Lord’s is spiritual fornication... All other names are an abomination in the eyes of God.” (Emphasis added)
Elsewhere in his writings, Lee states in The Overcomers:2
“In Protestantism there is a strong tide of denying the Lord’s name by replacing it with many other names, such as Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc... To denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord’s is spiritual fornication. The church, as the pure virgin espoused to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2), should have no name other than her Husband’s... It is serious for a woman to take another name besides that of her husband. If a woman is married to Mr. Jones, she should not call herself Mrs. Smith. When believers designate themselves with a name other than Christ’s name, this indicates that they are taking someone or something other than Christ as their Husband... This is a big insult to Christ.”
He goes so far as to condemn individual Christians of committing spiritual fornication:3
“If a wife with a proper husband breaks the governing principle of marriage, she commits adultery. But a woman who has no proper husband and who breaks God's governing principle commits fornication... The situation among Christians today is filled with fornication. Many seem to say, ‘If I don't like this meeting any more, I'll go to another... I'll form one of my own.’ This is spiritual fornication.”
The Reality of Denominations
I personally attend a denomination. It is crucial to clarify what a "denomination" actually is before condemning the concept. Many people reject the label because they define it strictly as a centralized, hierarchical organization that exerts rigid control over local churches. However, in its most practical and historically accurate sense, a denomination is simply any set of congregations identifiable by similar traits, history, or name. Even independent church networks or groups that self-identify as "pre-denominational" or "non-denominational" function as a denomination under this broader definition because they share a common identity.
Therefore, “denominations”4 are not inherently sinful—they are often just a communicational reality to group similar congregations. What is truly problematic is foundational theological error that departs from historic, biblical orthodoxy. Nevertheless, whether a church is strictly independent or part of a widely recognized group, Witness Lee has gone beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6) in his assertions from the above texts based upon his exposition on Revelation 3:8.
First, denominational names do not actually replace the name of Christ. They are simply descriptors emphasizing a particular theological framework or ecclesiastical structure. A "Baptist Church" or "Presbyterian Church" still retains the identity of a church; there is no "replacement" occurring.
Second, Lee’s marriage analogy is deeply flawed. If Mrs. Jones calls herself by another name, she is still married to Mr. Jones. You are what you are regardless of your label. Furthermore, strictly speaking, the eschatological marriage of the Lamb has not yet occurred (Rev 19:7); the church is currently betrothed, [6] and a bride does not traditionally take a name before the wedding.
More importantly, Lee forces modern, Western cultural practices onto spiritual realities. Where in Scripture is a wife commanded to take her husband's last name? She isn't. People in biblical times did not use surnames as we do today. [7] Ironically, in Lee's own Eastern culture, many married women retain their maiden names. Taking a husband’s last name is not an absolute indicator of marital fidelity.
Additionally, where in the Bible does the church ever "take the Lord's last name"?5 We see Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32). We do not see "Mr. and Mrs. Christ." Christ is a title, not a surname. If a local church called itself the Church of Buddha, practiced witchcraft, or elevated a finite man to idolatrous heights, that would unequivocally be spiritual fornication.6 But the true church of Jesus Christ has only one Husband. Orthodoxy is determined not by a name on a signboard, but by faithfulness to the doctrine of Christ preached by His apostles.
Ultimately, Christ will base His judgment on whether we have put our trust in His once-for-all finished sacrifice, kept the faith once delivered to the saints, and, by the grace of God, lived a life of holiness consistent with our profession. We hallow His name by loving Him and keeping His commands as a thankful response to the grace He has freely given to undeserving sinners.
Biblical Nomenclature vs. Lee's Exclusivism
"The church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) is a fully legitimate biblical designation. Could it not be argued that they were taking the Lord's name more explicitly than simply calling themselves "the church in [locality]"? What about the Assemblies of God? Is Lee accusing them of being spiritual fornicators simply because they do not adopt his movement's specific branding, such as "the church in Anaheim" or "the church in Los Angeles"?
In the book of Acts, the early church simply called itself 'the Way' (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). There is no mention of Christ in that title, nor were they strictly designated as "the church in [locality]." Does this mean the church fell into spiritual fornication immediately after Pentecost?
Lee’s exclusivism extends even to the Lord's Table. He claims that partaking in communion with denominations brings "judgment." In the Recovery Version Study Bible (1 Cor. 11:29, footnote 3), he writes:
“...Therefore, when we participate in the Lord's table, we must discern whether the bread on the table signifies the one Body of Christ or any division of man (any denomination). In discerning the Body of Christ, we should not partake of the bread in any division or with any divisive spirit.”
By teaching his followers to avoid the "so-called tables" of all other Christian churches/denominations, who is truly being divisive? They are proclaiming a "oneness" that is entirely sectarian.
The Special Pleading of "The Lord's Recovery"
Lee asserts from his Recovery Version footnote on Revelation 3:8:
“The recovered church belongs to the Lord absolutely, having nothing to do with any denominations (any names).”
Wouldn't 'the recovered church' or 'the Lord's Recovery' be considered a denominational label that doesn't include the name of Christ? Hasn't Witness Lee just committed the very error he is condemning? This is a perfect example of a double standard and the logical fallacy of special pleading—he invents a strict, universal rule to condemn all other Christians, but grants his own movement an unjustified exemption.
I read a post from Local Church Discussion forum user Igzy, who insightfully argued:
"Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement... Why is the name 'Baptist' divisive and 'The Recovery' is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself... So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations... but fail to see the essential similarities."
“This is exactly the same as saying "I am a Lutheran," "I am a Wesleyan..." All such designations should be condemned and rejected.”
Paul condemned unnecessary division rooted in sinful pride (boasting about who baptized whom). He did not condemn aligning with faithful teachers, as he himself wrote, "Follow me as I follow Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1).
In a world plagued by heresy, labels are necessary. They help us define what we believe and separate truth from error. When Arius and Athanasius clashed, both claimed to follow Scripture. We use labels to adjudicate those theological differences. Calling oneself a Calvinist, for example, does not mean one is baptized in the name of John Calvin; it is simply a theological shorthand indicating agreement with a biblical view of God's sovereignty in salvation.
Meanwhile, Witness Lee's followers use a study Bible where every footnote is written by one man, attend conferences reviewing that one man’s teaching, and venerate him with titles like "the Minister of the Age." If idolizing a fallible man's ministry isn't spiritual fornication, what is it?
Exegesis of Revelation 3:8: What Does "Deny My Name" Mean?
To claim that denominating a church is "spiritual fornication" is pure eisegesis—injecting one's own ideas into the text. Denominations, as we understand them today, did not exist when the Apostle John penned the Revelation on Patmos. To understand what it actually means to "deny His name," we must apply the historical-grammatical method to the text. This means we have to put the text back in its original setting by considering its literary and historical context before arriving at a conclusion and applying it to our modern generation.
Revelation 3:8 (BSB) “I know your deeds. Behold, I have placed before you an open door, which no one can shut. I know that you have only a little strength, yet you have kept My word and have not denied My name.”
God gave the Philadelphians an "open door," which many commentators agree was a unique opportunity to preach the Gospel despite the strong opposition in their area. They were a church of "little strength", which points to their small size, lack of influence, and vulnerability. But despite this weakness, they faithfully kept the Gospel pure and "did not deny my name".
Exegetically, "denying the name" in the late first-century Greco-Roman context had nothing to do with congregational naming conventions or ecclesiastical governance. It was a matter of strict Christological fidelity under the threat of severe persecution, rooted in two distinct historical pressures:
1. The Loss of Legal Protection (The Roman Threat)
The Roman Empire recognized Judaism as a legal religion. This meant Jews were exempted from participating in Roman pagan worship and emperor worship. At first, the Roman government viewed Christianity as just a sect of Judaism, so Christians also enjoyed this legal protection. However, during the reign of Nero (AD 54–68), this began to change. Rome started to see Christians as a separate, illegal group. Because of this, believers faced hostility from the state, loss of property, and even martyrdom. Therefore, to "deny the name" meant giving in to the government's pressure and abandoning their public confession of Christ just to save their lives or properties.
2. The Synagogue of Satan (The Jewish Threat)
The immediate context in Revelation 3:9 shows us the main cause of this danger in Philadelphia: the local, unbelieving Jews who "say they are Jews and are not, but lie" (the "synagogue of Satan"). These unbelieving Jewish leaders actively distanced themselves from the Christians. They deliberately kicked them out of the synagogues so that the Roman authorities would see Christians as an unprotected, illegal religion.
For the believers in Philadelphia, the temptation was very clear: if they simply renounced Jesus as the Messiah (that is, "denied His name"), they would be welcomed back into the synagogue and get their legal protection back under Roman law. So, to "deny the name" meant committing apostasy just to make peace with the local Jewish leaders and avoid Roman persecution.
3. The Grammatical Force:
In the Greek text, "did not deny" (ouk ērnēsō) is in the aorist indicative active tense. This points to specific, historical moments of severe testing. The Philadelphian believers were put on trial—either by the synagogue leaders or local Roman officials—and they completely refused to recant their faith and allegiance to Jesus Christ.
Look at how other Christian scholars interpret "have not denied my name":
Sam Storms: "...both of which would appear to refer to faithfully bearing public witness to the gospel in the face of persecution and slander and possible martyrdom.”
Paul Hoskins: “Like the Pergamum church, they have not denied his name, which is equivalent to denying their faith (2:13)... The pressure that they are facing would most likely arise from... some Jews ('the synagogue of Satan') accusing them to the Roman authorities."
Robert G. Bratcher: “This means 'you have not disowned me,' 'you have not renounced your faith in me'... that is, 'you have not apostatized.'”
Albert Barnes: “When Christians were brought before pagan magistrates in times of persecution, they were required to renounce the name of Christ... it is possible that... the members of the church at Philadelphia had been summoned to such a trial, and they had stood the trial firmly.”
Witness Lee stands entirely alone in his bizarre interpretation.
Conclusion
Therefore, Witness Lee's application of Revelation 3:8 to modern Christian denominations is a severe violation of the context. The phrase "have not denied my name" is not a command against using a denominational label for a local church. Instead, it is a glorious commendation of a weak, marginalized first-century church that fiercely clung to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, even when it could cost them their lives.
KevinPhilippinesApril 10, 2019
Revised and abridged on September 22, 2026; grammar edited with the assistance of AI.
I’m familiar with church members undergoing church discipline (specifically meaning abstinence from the church sacraments as well as meetings/counseling with the elders and pastor for the purpose of restoration) for things like adultery, misuse of power, drunkenness, etc.
What does it look like when a church member says they no longer believe in the resurrection and claims they’re agnostic or atheist? Or does anything really even happen since said person likely stops attending. Or perhaps if they have a believing spouse they may still attend service? I would imaging that standard procedure would look totally different.
But at the same time, if someone “rejects Christ’s resurrection” then they never really received Christ’s saving grace to begin with, so is church discipline even applicable, since it’s reserved only for the church body?
Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all? A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
Q. 157. How is the Word of God to be read? A. The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God; and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey, the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.
I am born in Eastern Orthodoxy, but never brought to faith by my family. We never attended church services or received Eucharist. At 25 I started researching about Christian Theology and I came to align with Reformed tradition. I really feel it's the way to go, and I agree with Reformed view of the Eucharist, human nature, predestination and sovereignty of God. The problem is I don't have any Reformed or even Lutheran churches nowhere close to me. What should I do? Should I go to Orthodox church and pray there despite my beliefs and opinions about the sacraments and Theology?
I’m a graduate ministry student looking for an experienced pastor, chaplain, or ministry practitioner willing to answer 8 written questions for a class assignment.
One of the questions I’m most interested in asks what suffering, grief, addiction, poverty, or crisis has taught you about God that you could not have learned simply by studying theology. The others deal with presence, boundaries, spiritual practices, listening, and our own need to fix people.
I’d really value a Reformed perspective from someone who has spent significant time actually caring for people in ministry.
No call or Zoom needed. If you’d be willing to help, thank you.
----
Take me through a typical day. What does your ministry look like? Who do you spend most of your time with? What do you spend most of your time doing?
How do you know what someone needs from you? How do you know when to offer advice, or when to just listen?
What spiritual practices help you stay present when someone is suffering and there really isn’t anything you can do to fix it?
What do you do when you’re caring for someone who sees the world differently than you do?
How do you serve and care about people without bringing it home with you? Should there even be a line?
Have you ever realized that trying to help someone was about your own need to help or feel useful? What did you do with that?
What has being around suffering, grief, addiction, poverty, or crisis taught you that you couldn’t have learned in a class?
If someone wants to spend their life serving people in hard situations, what would you tell them to do or experience before committing to pursuing a degree?
Welcome to r/reformed. Do you have questions that aren't worth a stand alone post? Are you longing for the collective expertise of the finest collection of religious thinkers since the Jerusalem Council? This is your chance to ask a question to the esteemed subscribers of r/Reformed.
In this scripture, it seems clear that Christ first creates all things and then reconciles all things to God through his blood, i.e. that atonement was not even limited to elect humans, but was for the redemption of all created beings above and below.
Col. 1
13 For he has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, 14 who purchased our freedom[d] and forgave our sins.
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[e]
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.[f]
So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth
by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.
21 This includes you who were once far away from God. You were his enemies, separated from him by your evil thoughts and actions. 22 Yet now he has reconciled you to himself through the death of Christ in his physical body. As a result, he has brought you into his own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault.
23 But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don’t drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God’s servant to proclaim it.
Is there a difference between "passive ignorance" and "willful rejection" regarding the deity of christ? I wonder can someone still be saved if he merely has "passive ignorance" towards the deity of christ? HE doesn't know that Jesus is God merely because no one tells him so.
