Brother Jay

Reformed Baptist. Human life begins at conception. Marriage is 1 man & 1 woman. Only 2 genders exist & are equivalent to one's sex. USA born #RavensFlock

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

Very well stated.

[Matthew Fledderjohann @mfledd]

Yes, this is a biblical statement. I understand why it unsettles people—it challenges how we think about salvation. The pushback isn’t about whether the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over salvation (it clearly does), but about the implication:

If God has determined the exact number of the saved, then salvation isn’t random, accidental, or transactional—it is God’s choice and His work from start to finish. He gives us faith, and we truly believe—it is ours once it is granted to us, yet only because of Him. Our faith is not from ourselves, but in Christ, who alone saves.

No one is saved apart from His will and grace, and those who perish do so because of their own rebellion. God’s justice is not what makes them guilty; it is what rightly condemns them. People perish because they reject truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10), suppress it in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), and chase their desires (James 1:14-15). They exchange God’s truth for a lie, and when sin is fully grown, it brings death (Romans 1:25, James 1:15).

God’s righteousness stands, but many, in their stubbornness, reject it—clinging instead to their own righteousness—or a false gospel.

Jesus reminds us that not even a sparrow falls apart from the Father’s will (Matthew 10:29), and every hair on our head is numbered (Matthew 10:30). If God governs such details, how much more does He govern salvation?

This is crushing to the self-righteous—it removes any illusion of control or transaction with God. We’ve romanticized salvation, thinking of it like Western marriage—mutual attraction and equal choice. But Scripture presents it differently: we were not lovely, yet He chose us. We didn’t love Him first; we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). He is our Kinsman-Redeemer, saving us not because we were worthy, but because He is merciful.

Thus, it is humbling to the contrite—those whom God has given ears to hear, who know they are unworthy. It forces us to ask: Do I truly trust in a God who does as He pleases (Psalm 115:3), or do I only accept a version of God that fits my expectations?

Jesus said,

“All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37).

That is not an open-ended statement (may come)—it is definite (will come).

So the real question is not whether Baucham’s statement is biblical, but whether we submit to the reality that salvation belongs to the Lord alone (Jonah 2:9). If it does—and He has already chosen—then yes, only the exact number God appointed before the foundation of the world will be in heaven. Not one more, not one less.

Paul declares:
God made the world and everything in it (Acts 17:24).
He determines the appointed times and boundaries of all nations (Acts 17:26).
He is not dependent on human hands, nor does He serve human desires (Acts 17:25).

Yet, in the same sermon where Paul proclaims God’s absolute sovereignty, he also commands repentance:

“God now commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed” (Acts 17:30-31).

Some heard and repented (Acts 17:34).
Many mocked and rejected the truth (Acts 17:32).

And God received the glory in both—through His mercy given to the repentant (not in response to anything they did) and His justice to the rebellious (condemned already).

This is the pattern of history, from Paul’s day until now. Some respond to the gospel, and others reject it—but God is glorified in both. His sovereignty does not negate human responsibility; it establishes it. And faith, which is from God, does not nullify the law—it upholds it.

So what do we do with this truth?

Do we submit to the reality that before the foundation of the world, God chose His people for salvation (Ephesians 1:4-5), that their names are written in the Book of Life (Revelation 13:8), and that the number of His brethren will be brought to completion (Revelation 6:11)?

Because if we do—then Baucham’s statement is not unsettling. It is true.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@YinKysmileS Your theological system has severe hermeneutical issues. Your semi-pelagian framework applied consistently couldn't even conclude the Trinity.

Your system pits God's sovereignty vs man's responsibility, though Scripture doesn't.

2 men hear the Gospel. 1 saved. What's the diff?

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@Ravens Kyle!!!! Hamilton is his name!!!! #RavensFlock

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@longdepzai_n The way people are complaining would have manys generations throughout history perplexed.

My aunts & uncles used to scare us with boogie man pranks, something about "I want my liver back", & all kinds of stuff. They laughed. We learned & laughed too eventually.

They will also.

[𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡 @HwsEleutheroi]

Seven years ago? Wow. Hard to believe.

https://t.co/8tm3zESCnJ

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@DineshDSouza But the Bible does say that Dinesh!

It's a long read but he's just using AI based hermeneutics to change what son of perdition means, & make Judas or someone else be a potential PLAN B.

@YinKysmileS is loose with the text which allows him to say the betrayal wasn't guaranteed.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@YinKysmileS To be quite truthful, your ignorance is palpable Oloyede. Your whole theology is a mess if you use this type of hermeneutic.

"No Judas footnote" on Jn6:37, Ge50:20 agency, & so MUCH more shows you don't know what you're criticizing & you lack basic understanding. (280 chars max)

[𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡 @HwsEleutheroi]

It is amazing to me that anyone, and I mean anyone, who reads the Bible, goes, "Yeah, well...you know, there are places where God speaks in general terms about rebellion and repentance, giving guidelines, hope to hopeless, etc. And, since those general things are there, that means...there is no divine decree. God is just doing the best He can with all the curve balls mankind keeps throwing His way. And so, yeah, the most important thing is...man's autonomy. Man's abilities. And God's plan has to be cobbled together from all the leftovers of man's really bad decisions. So yeah, the Bible says God chose Paul to the Apostleship but hey...Paul might have been God's fourth choice, or tenth choice...we just don't know. Even Paul could have said no! So, God is just lucky to have us good ones who said yes!

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@craigiem12 Saying "Jesus died for all" in a unqualified distributive sense is one of the most dreadful unbiblical errors too many have embraced.

It nullifies Scripture & the power of the atonement.

Nonetheless, we'll stay faithful to Scripture as many before us did against Rome & others.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@craigiem12 @Rick74005811 @Ron172892111531 @Lindaloves1776 "Sends most people to hell" - Stop making stuff up! The Reformed tradition embraces and exegetes all of Scripture unlike your pop culture Christianity.

God saves, by His grace--not by our efforts, a multitude no man can number (Rev 5:9, 7:9). Salvation belongs to God (Ps 3:8).

[Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕ @ronhenzel]

No One Was Ever Executed in Geneva for “Disagreeing” with John Calvin (1509-1564)

By the time Michael Servetus (c. 1511-October 27, 1553) reached Geneva, Switzerland, he’d been a fugitive from Roman Catholic justice as a notorious heretic for 21 years following the July 17, 1532 decree of the Inquisition at Toulouse that he should be arrested to stand trial for his 1531 book, De Trinitatis Erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity).

He eluded Catholic authorities all those years by traveling and working under assumed names (Michel de Villeneuve, Miguel de Villanueva, and sometimes the nickname Revés) until shortly after he decided to publish another heretical book while working in Vienne, France, as physician to the archbishop (of all things!).

After years of being off everyone’s radar, he wrote to Calvin in early 1546, including portions of the book he was working on and requesting safe passage to Geneva in order to have a face-to-face debate with him over the Trinity and other topics, which Calvin refused.

About 7 years later, on January 3, 1553, his latest anti-Trinitarian Christianismi Restitutio (Christianity Restored) came off the presses, which restated and elaborated upon all the heresies in De Trinitatis Erroribus that made him a fugitive in 1532, but without naming a printer, place of origin, or the identity of the author beyond the initials “MSV” (for Michael Servetus Villanovanus).

He no doubt thought he’d go undetected as the author, even with his locally high-profile position, but he was eventually identified and then arrested on April 4, 1553. After formal interrogations on April 5 and 6, Servetus escaped on April 7 and was condemned to death by burning in absentia and was burned in effigy in Vienne on June 17, nearly 2 months before his arrest in Geneva.

And they didn’t do all that because Servetus “disagreed with Calvin.” Far from it!

The fugitive Servetus was now a man on the run, his life in jeopardy throughout France, so he headed for Geneva, about 109 miles (175 kilometers) northeast by road, where he was arrested after some attendees recognized him during afternoon worship on Sunday, August 13th.

In the 38-count August 14, 1553, indictment against Michael Servetus, the only person executed for heresy during Calvin’s tenure in Geneva, Switzerland, not a single charge had anything to do with election, predestination, total depravity, particular redemption, effectual calling, or perseverance of the saints.

Considering the 20 or so charges that include the doctrine of the Trinity, these alone were sufficient to condemn Servetus to death both in Roman Catholic and other Protestant cities—and again, none of this had anything to do with Servetus “disagreeing” with Calvin.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) Had Affirmed the Necessity of Executing Notorious Heretics

In his commentary on Psalm 82, Martin Luther wrote, “Moses in his Law commands that such blasphemers and indeed all false teachers should be stoned (Lev. 24:16). So, in this case, there ought not to be much disputing…” (LW 13:62). And in 1531, Luther signed a memorandum of advice (Gutachten) composed by his protégé Philip Melanchthon to Elector John of Saxony, as well as a second one in 1536 to Landgrave Philip of Hesse, both of which assented to the execution of Anabaptists for religious views that were deemed seditious (for the first see Corpus Reformatorum, volume 4, columns 737–740; for the second, Weimarer Ausgabe, volume 50, pages 6–15).

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) Endorsed Servetus’s Execution

Nearly a year after Servetus’s execution, on October 15, 1554, the mild-mannered Melanchthon wrote, “The church, both now and in all generations, owes and will owe you a debt of gratitude. I entirely assent to your judgment. (Tuo judicio prorsus adsentior.) And I say, too, that your magistrates did right in that, after solemn trial, they put the blasphemer (hominem blasphemum) to death.” (Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 7 [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910], 62.)

This Was in Keeping with the Common Political View of Those Times

The general political consensus in the 16th century was that notorious heresy was not only a sin against the church but also a crime against the state deserving punishments up to and sometimes including death.

Since the 13th century, kings, princes, and other magistrates operated on the assumption that once heretics were tried and found guilty by the church, they were turned over to the magistrate for civil punishment. Maintaining social order among the masses was seen as dependent to some extent on maintaining a degree of obedience to the church, and rulers accepted this role.

Protestant cities altered this process by removing the office of church inquisitor that had been responsible for trying heretics and instead trying heretics themselves in order to remove coercive power from the church. This fact serves as historical background for Calvin’s role in Servetus’s trial.

Calvin’s Authority in Geneva Is Often Grotesquely Exaggerated

For all practical purposes, John Calvin was a foreign (French) employee of the Genevan government that had hired him. To the extent that the government wanted their head pastor to be respected, as any 16th century government with a state church would, they protected him and his reputation.

But that wasn’t always the case. There were times he was on thin ice, and once the ice completely broke under him.

Up through the time of Servetus’s trial, the Church in Geneva could be overruled by the City Council (le Petit Conseil). To be a council member you had to not only be a citizen, but your parents did as well. As a Frenchman, Calvin didn’t even become a citizen until 1559, 6 years after Servetus’s execution, 5 years before his own death, and 23 years after he first came to Geneva.

He didn’t even have the power to change the church liturgy or church calendar without council approval. The council refused his requests for weekly communion and common as opposed to unleavened bread, and it refused to give the church’s pastors sole authority in church discipline cases.

At most, Calvin could influence its decisions in civil matters, but it had no problem rejecting his requests and suggestions, as for example when he pleaded for a more humane execution for Servetus than burning at the stake and it turned him down.

Calvin had devoted some time and energy trying to persuade Servetus to repent and believe. In Paris in 1534, at some personal risk as a Protestant there, he arranged a personal meeting, but Servetus stood him up.

Calvin tried to take advantage of the opportunity when Servetus initiated correspondence with him in 1546 by sending him a copy of his Institutes, but his efforts were a dismal failure.

The Geneva council fired Calvin once in 1538 and they could have fired him any time after his return in 1541 (which the council requested) had they so chosen, and there were several times it seemed as though it would come to that again. But all this historical reality doesn’t appeal to people who prefer to rely on centuries-old slander and libel fabricated and encouraged by Calvin’s enemies.

In Servetus’s trial, Calvin served as a witness for the prosecution, the theological examiner, and the author of the prosecution’s case, but he was not the prosecutor. That job belonged to Geneva’s public prosecutor, who presented the case that Calvin authored.

For further reading on this topic: Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin, 107-110.

The Geneva Council Did Not Consult with Calvin When It Came to Sentencing Servetus

Before the Genevan council sentenced Servetus, it sent a written request for advice to the magistrates and ministers of four other Swiss Protestant cities, Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen.

Those cities’ replies were received in Geneva on October 18, 1553, were unanimous in condemning his doctrine as heresy and blasphemy and in urging that he be stopped, with force if necessary so the churches would not be infected.

The cities didn’t specify what kind of force. The idea of burning at the stake came from the council. Calvin’s request for a more merciful execution was overruled on October 26, 1553, the day the sentence was issued.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@EJBuerto @PastorDScott Added what?? Further, the context is straightforward: 60>40.

When you said "better" you made an unsupported assumption. Did the mechanics get 13.33 for 5 hrs work while the plumbers 1 hour? Job scarcity?

The one fact we knew: 60% went to one group & 40% to the another. Context.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@PastorDScott @Error3022 @ptchinster How can you hate the Ravens? I can appreciate how the Browns beat the Steelers last night though. :)

[Reformed1563 @Heidel_bro1563]

“If God did not act first, no one would be saved"

-R.C. Sproul

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@PastorDScott @Error3022 @ptchinster I'm a Ravens' fan, so you could've chosen a better meme. :)

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@EJBuerto @PastorDScott The higher rate doesn't change the total. The plumbers still received 60% of the total while the mechanics 40%.

Being "better" for mechanics in society overall would assume unknowns. Perhaps work is more scarce for them & plumbers still take home more per year at a lower rate.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@Error3022 @ptchinster @PastorDScott Projecting out a potential cost isn't the same thing as a realized cost.

The original example & my example were realized losses/costs based on a total. 60% went to one group & 40% another.

You're simply taking that to project something unrealized if the # of payments changed.

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@ptchinster @PastorDScott What don't you get? Cost per person is a different metric but totals remain the same.

You have $100. If you pay 7 plumbers $60 of it & 3 mechanics $40, more of your total money was spent on the plumbers. Paying mechanics a higher rate doesn't change that 60% went to plumbers!

[Brother Jay @Brother54799903]

@peteohlinger @ScriptureAlone2 @DineshDSouza 90%-Lol. Stop making stuff up. Scripture says there's a multitude of people no man can number that God, by His GRACE, saved from wrath they DESERVED. Rev 7:9

No one is "denied." All in hell NEVER wanted God. Grace by definition isn't an OBLIGATION else it's not grace! Rm 11:6