April 15, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602, or toll-free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341.

And now with today's topic, here is James White.

James White Announces His Amillennial Conclusion

Oh, what an amazing 24 hours. Oh, man, I'll tell you, you know, it's real easy to get cyber geeks all excited.

You know what? It truly is. Oh, my. I'm just watching the channel. It is going nuts.

There's 55 people in the channel at the moment, and it's just scrolling by so fast that it would be next to impossible to even begin to read the whole thing. Well, welcome to The Dividing Line. I honestly, absolutely seriously was going to start off playing a section from Douglas Wilson from the 2002 AAPC Conference, and I'm going to get to that because this program today is not, not, not going to be on eschatology, okay?

It's not going to do it. But obviously there is a question on everyone's mind today, and there's many people who are truly wondering, what is the answer to the question? Well, did anybody get it right?

Use the force, James. Use the force.

There are many people trying to do that. There, they truly are. Hey, yesterday I just got the, well, actually a week ago today we had a caller. Remember the caller on progressive dispensationalism? Dispensationalism, I think that's what it was.

And I almost got to the point of just saying to the person, well, you know, this is sort of my position, you know, and let's hold on. Let's just wait a little while because, you know. And so I'm just watching the channel here.

For those of you not watching it, you're probably just wondering why I'm laughing, but it is sort of funny to watch. Anyway, so I made a decision yesterday. I was going to put a poll up, and we put a poll up on the MyFamily website.

We have a MyFamily website for our channel. It's not associated with the AOMN .org. It's just for the regulars of the channel, people that we know and can trust, and we can actually put pictures up and not immediately assume it's going to end up in Envoy Magazine someplace.

And so we put a poll up, and what's interesting to me is no one has been watching the poll because I voted in the poll, and no one's noticed it. Now everybody's rushing off the website. We're going to crash the thing.

And it ended up being 59%. Here were the choices that I gave. I gave pre-trib, pre-mill, dispensational. This is well, let me back up. Let me back up here. I don't really get into eschatology a whole lot, okay?

But I've been looking at it, and I've had time to look at at least some things that I'd like to look at. And I'm going to talk a little bit about what I found to be the most convincing argument. And I put a bunch of options up on the website, and I put pre-trib, pre-mill, dispensational, mid-trib, pre-mill, dispensational, post-trib, pre-mill, dispensational, historic, pre-mill, amillennial, post-millennial, non-reconstructionist, and post-millennial reconstructionist, which tells me immediately that if you understood all of that, then you've probably been doing too much reading in this area anyways.

And the people in the channel voted 59 amillennial, 31 historic, pre-mill. We had one vote for post-mill non-reconstructionist, one vote for post-mill reconstructionist, and then we had Wonky, Tim Dudek, that was just off on his own with pre-trib, pre-mill, dispensational.

If you look carefully, you can see that I voted in the poll myself. And yes, yes, I have joined with the amillennialists. Yes, there it is, there's your... Well, you may be asking yourself the question why.

Well, it's really simple, actually. A number of years ago, I listened to a presentation on... Actually, it was a criticism, interestingly enough, of the reconstructionist position. And in the process of the reconstruction criticism, there was an excellent presentation made on the issue of Jesus' eschatology.

And the presentation basically was focused on the fact that the best way to determine an eschatological viewpoint of the scriptures is not to start with the apocalyptic passages or the passages that are written in all these fashions and ways that are very much using types and symbols and things like that, but instead go to the places where Jesus is teaching directly, he's teaching didactically, and determine what is said there, get some bearings there, and then look at the other passages.

And I was raised, I'll be very, very straightforward, my first book that I was ever given as eschatology was by J. Dwight Pentecost. So I was raised pre-mill, pre-trib, dispensational. And I really knew that very, very well.

I mean, when you're reading J. Dwight Pentecost before you go to college in high school, you know, that was, you know, I took some time to look at it. And I remember very clearly sitting in a high school youth choir lock-in, this would have been the late 70s, answering questions about eschatology.

And I had my Bible open, so it was pitch black. I had one, remember those tritium watches? You can't even get them anymore because they're radioactive. But I had one of those tritium watches, and I was using the tritium watch to illuminate the pages.

And so, you know, I know that system very well. And then when I went to college, of course I ran to D .C. Martin, and Dr. Martin and I had a lot of discussions about eschatology. And that's when I discovered that you could actually be a Christian and not a pre-trib, pre-mill dispensationalist.

No! Which was a bit of a shock.

What was that? That wasn't even me. A bunch of odd people. Very, very strange people.

Anyway.

I'm packing up the ministry now.

Oh, you're packing it up? What is that sound? Oh, great. It's the gangbanger driving by outside. I'm sitting there going, why is everything in my office shaking? It's because a guy in a little, teeny, tiny, worthless car is driving by outside shaking the windows.

The guy's got to be deaf by now. Why do people? Anyway, that is very much distracting me. So anyhow, back to this presentation that I listened to. I recognized that much of the eschatology I had been taught started on the wrong end of things.

It started on the end of things where you basically start with your system and you start with certain interpretations of symbols and things like that. And so, hey, when I heard this person saying, you really need to start with the clear things, I found that to be very, very useful.

And so what he did is he went through what Jesus taught about the age. This current age and the age to come. This current age and the age to come. And he went through a number of passages. You can see them in Matthew 13, Mark 10, especially Luke 16, Luke 18, Luke 20, where you have Jesus talking about, for example, in Luke 20, in the question that is asked of him concerning the resurrection.

Jesus said,. And then you have the story of the wheat and the tares, which a lot of people misunderstand and think it's about the church. Jesus himself said it wasn't about the church. That it was specifically when he interpreted it, it was about the world.

And it talks about the fact that the wheat and the tares grow up together. And that you have this present age and the age to come. And it's very consistent. When you look at what Jesus teaches in all the uses, very, very consistent as to this age and the age to come.

Not this age, and then a seven-year break, and then maybe a three-and-a-half-year break, or whatever. All the rest of that stuff. You have this age and the age to come. And there is a vast difference.

And the other part to keep in mind is that when talking about the wheat and the tares growing together, there's nothing there about the wheat slowly getting rid of the tares, or outgrowing the tares, or pushing all the tares out over time, as if there's not a very clear, distinct difference between the ages, between this current age and the age to come.

There's just two ages. And so as I listened to that, that really stuck with me. And as I've thought about some more, let's face it, there is one, the viewpoint that is the simplest, that has the least baggage, and is, of course, the amillennial position.

And so there it is. I am not going to be taking phone calls today from every Jerry B. Jenkins, Tim LaHaye fan who wants to argue. I don't argue eschatology. And in fact, you know, I bet a lot of you have the same experience I do, and that is people who are just constantly focused on the issue of eschatology, they tend to get really weird.

I mean, look at some of the people that are just, you know, the biggest names in eschatology, and they're all just odd. You know, they're just, I don't know, there's not a whole lot of fun to be around.

And so anyway, there you go. Now people can stop asking you questions. I'm not going to argue about it on the phone. Jack Van Impey is on line one. I don't think Jack Van Impey is on line one, at least I hope not.

In fact, I don't know if there's anybody to answer the phone because Rich said he was leaving. So, you know.

I've frozen the bank account.

Oh yeah, like anybody, like the few, the pitiful couple dozen people that support this ministry are really concerned about this particular subject. Like they're all sitting there assuming I was a pre-mill, pre-tribber or something, right?

You're not?

You haven't been listening very closely, have you?

Did I ever?

No.

Thanks. Turn off the microphone now. Go away.

All right.

877 -753 -3341.

Hank needs somebody to do that, you know.

Do what?

Little color commentary.

Little color commentary?

You know, a little Jack.

Oh, you mean on his program?

Yeah, yeah. He could stand to lighten it up a little.

Depends on what guests he has in the studio, actually. Actually, I think when he has Max McLean on, it's very light and fluffy. Good old Max. Or when, what was that? There was something like for three days a couple weeks ago that was like a software program.

I don't know. Sort of like, I don't know. Anyways, I really wasn't listening to that. But anyway, 877 -753 -3341. I am going to do what I said I was going to do. This is what I was going to start, and I was going to drag you all along for a while.

But the people on the channel were losing their minds. It was very strange. I had to kick one person out, and he's normally a very, very, you know, solid type guy, too. It's just sort of sad. And we've got one Roman Catholic in the channel that throws out this comment that gets ignored by everybody.

He was telling us that we need to look to the church for this. And I'm like, yeah, well, as if the church really answers the tough questions like the nature of predestination, election, or things like that.

But we can be certain that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, but we really can't figure out this grace thing. That's always seemed to me to be rather odd. Anyway, I did want to play a section for you from the 2002 AAPC.

And the reason being I was listening, I was listening. When I was working out today, I was listening to this. And as most of you know, in November there is going to be a debate in Los Angeles. And the subject is on the Roman Catholics and the New Covenant.

And, of course, Douglas Wilson believes in the concept of the objectivity of the covenant via baptism. And he gave a talk on the subject of heretics and the covenant. And I was a little disappointed because I really, I had heard most of what was in this before.

In other words, the stuff about, well, if you're a husband, then you can be an adulterous husband, but you're still a husband because you're in that covenant relationship and all the rest of that stuff.

And it wasn't until the last basically three and a half minutes of the talk that he finally got to the part that I wanted to hear. And since it was obviously going so quickly, let me just play it for you and then we'll have some comments afterwards.

So here's from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Conference, Doug Wilson, in a talk called Heretics and the Covenant.

Let me just mention quickly some points of application. The three, in my mind, the three great sticky issues for us in North America today with regard to heresy are Rome. What do you do with Roman Catholic baptism with the problem of Rome?

What do we do about liberalism, mainstream liberalism? And what do we do about openness theology, which is simply the resurgence of a particular form of liberalism within evangelical circles? People who were baptized in Rome and come to your church, I believe their baptism ought to be received.

The same with the mainstream PCUS church, their baptism should be received. If Clark Pinnock baptized someone and that person later on came to a more orthodox viewpoint and came to our church, I would receive the baptism that Pinnock administered.

Augustine made a helpful distinction between the validity of baptism and the efficacy of baptism. The church has had to deal with baptism administered by heretics for many, many centuries. And what Augustine said is that the baptism is valid, meaning it does not have to be repeated.

But as long as the person is baptized and is in this heretical group, the baptism is valid but not efficacious. The grace that is promised by means of the baptism is not operative because the baptism is a sign of judgment on him as long as he is continuing in this unfaithfulness.

If the person repents of that unfaithfulness and comes over to the orthodox church, or to use Augustine's terms, the Catholic church, the old Catholic church, if he comes over to the orthodox body, then his valid baptism becomes for him a means of grace.

Having said that, I do believe that there is a cutoff point. Someone is going to say, what about Mormon baptism? I would not receive Mormon baptism. Part of the reason I would not receive Mormon baptism is it was from an excommunicated body, self-excommunicated from the get-go, that was trying to put as drastic a chasm as they could between themselves and the faithful.

With Rome, you've got a long history of periods of faithfulness and unfaithfulness. There comes a time when I think an ecumenical council of reformed churches, an ecumenical council, could at some point in the future make a judicial determination that at Trent and for centuries following, Rome repudiated the gospel.

If we collectively made that judgment, I would not have a problem with such a judgment. But I don't have the authority individually to do that by myself. So, in the meantime, I would receive Roman baptism.

But it would be important that the heretical or false notions that people have about it be repudiated when the person is received into membership into an orthodox church. It's the same sort of thing with a refugee from a liberal church.

I believe we should accept refugees from all over, apostles from nowhere. So, I want to receive as many refugees from Rome as I can, but not apostles from Rome. I want to receive refugees from liberalism, but not apostles from liberalism, and refugees from the openness movement, not apostles from the openness movement.

So, when you receive these baptisms, you are saying judicially, in the older dispensation, if a Jew was circumcised by a heretic, the fact that the heretic circumcised him, a heretical rabbi circumcised him, doesn't mean that he would have to be circumcised again.

He couldn't be. What you say is that there's a repudiation when the person comes to an orthodox body. There is a repudiation of the former errors. So, to receive it is not to say that you approve. To receive it is not to say that you approve at all.

And so, what do we do? When we are dealing with our brothers and sisters, there are many, there are open heresies, I've mentioned some, and then there are the implicit heresies, the heresy of individualism in our own ranks, the heresy of just modern confusion in the modern evangelical ranks.

And what we need to do is take their baptism as a place that gives us, to change the image we've been speaking of, baptism as a handle, consider their baptism as a place of traction. And this is the concluding comment that I would make.

Baptism means, if you receive baptism, then you are saying that that baptism that you received means what Jesus Christ says it means, not what that group says it means, as I said before. That group might have a screwy view of baptism, might have a heretical view of baptism.

They might believe that baptism does things that the Bible doesn't say that baptism does. They may be all wrong on baptism. But the baptism means what Christ says it means, not what the group administering it says that it means.

And so, what you need to do when you're receiving refugees from these places, you need to be very clear what you're doing and what you're not doing when you receive them in the membership.

So there are the comments that were made at the very end. I felt like he was really rushing there. You can tell I've been in that situation myself. I look at the clock. I've got five minutes. I have ten minutes' worth of material.

I can't stop right now, but I'm really not going to be able to cover this stuff the way I'd like to. So, recognizing that, still, what is being said, in essence, and I think this is what we really need to focus on.

Given certain presuppositions concerning the nature of baptism and the nature of the New Covenant, then what is being argued is as long as you have Trinitarian baptism, and I got the feeling I could be wrong.

I got the feeling that he's not overly certain as to how Mormons baptize. Mormons got baptized in the name of the Trinity. That may change, and then it would become very interesting what would happen at that point because I didn't really follow the argumentation as far as Mormonism was concerned there.

I mean, certainly Mormonism claimed to be the only true church and continues that claim, though modern Mormons have redefined that in a tremendous way. But I didn't really follow what the point was there.

The real point would be Mormons do not baptize in a Trinitarian fashion. Roman Catholics do. So, the point that I think we need to focus upon is the assertion that, the terminology was used, baptism is to be a point of traction.

And elsewhere in these talks, he had talked about calling these individuals to fidelity to their baptismal commitment. Now, what's interesting to me is, first of all, for many of these people, they would have been baptized as children.

And you then have the question of, well, whose baptismal commitment was it? Was it theirs or their parents? They don't remember this. They did not make this decision themselves. They did not say they believed these things when they were baptized as a child, as an infant.

That would be the first question. How do you call someone to fidelity to the content of a sign that they themselves knew nothing about? But more importantly than that, it was interesting, did you catch the statement, well, you should accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid.

And you should accept liberal baptisms as valid. And if Clark Pinnock, now, not everybody here knows who, not everybody who listens to the program necessarily knows who Clark Pinnock is. Clark Pinnock used to be a Calvinist.

Many, many, many moons ago, Clark Pinnock wrote some decent stuff on inerrancy and things like that. And then, Clark Pinnock is the essential, in our generation, sadly, the essential picture of apostasy, of a not overly slow, but at least it wasn't so fast that it wasn't like a whiplash type thing.

You can follow the degradation over time. And Clark Pinnock, his theology began breaking down and now it is broken down at every point. There's hardly any point any longer where there's much of a real, any semblance of orthodoxy left, open theism and post-mortem evangelization and all sorts of odd viewpoints along those lines.

But the reason that he's using that is that Douglas Wilson is very opposed to open theists. And he's an open theist. He's written a book promoting that and inclusivism. And so he's saying, well, if Clark Pinnock baptized someone, well, Clark Pinnock isn't a church.

I found that a little bit odd. What he's saying is a denomination, a church that is open theist, that denies that God has exhaustive knowledge of future events. Is that just simply what we're talking about?

But Clark Pinnock is an individual. That's a different issue. The question would be, would a person who believes what Clark Pinnock believes, know what the gospel is and would you bring them into your church?

In essence is the point there. But honestly, the question that I think we all have to struggle with is very simple. Is there such a thing in the scriptures as Christian baptism without Christian faith in the Christian gospel?

Is there such a thing as Christian baptism? Can Christian baptism exist in a vacuum utterly separated from the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can it exist merely on the basis of the repetition of a phrase from Matthew chapter 28?

Just because you go in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, does that make it Christian? Let me ask a parallel question. The Christian confession that Paul mentions in scripture is Jesus Christ is Lord.

No one can say, Jesus kurios, except by the Holy Spirit. Alright, but are we not told in Matthew chapter 7 that there will be many who did in fact call Jesus Christ Lord. And he will say, depart from me for I never knew you.

The repetition of words does not in of itself accomplish anything. It was just mentioned in Channel, and this was exactly what Douglas Wilson said. That Augustine, in his fight against the Donatists, and in his fight against Cyprian's view of ex opera operante sacramentalism, said that the baptism of heretics was efficacious.

What was valid, but not, he denied the validity, but said it was efficacious. And if it then, if you then came into the Orthodox Church, it would become efficacious. Interesting development, but the question is, do we embrace Augustine's distinctions to the point where we in essence have to say that Christian baptism exists unto itself.

That it exists without any connection whatsoever to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that it can be administered, not only without the gospel present, but it can be administered for the specific purpose of denying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That's the question. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Jeremy and Larry have already gotten online. Your opportunities right now, we're going to take a break. You can call in at 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back.

Promotional Breaks and Station Identification

Man is such a rarity today. So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same-Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at almen .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are imploring Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ. Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed Queen of Heaven.

Viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at almen .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church,. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.

If you are unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

How the pilgrims progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the sun day by day. It's a walk of grace.

I always get caught singing that song, but hey, that's okay. Hey, was there some news that we're supposed to know about the cruise or something that I just got totally left out on and no one told me about and things like that?

I don't think so.

Oh, okay.

You were on the phone and you said something about something.

Well, I have to fix Mike's email address because his email, well, confession of sin and all that. Mike uses Outlook.

Oh, man.

We've worked with him and we've tried to see if he wouldn't repent of these things.

Well, you know he's come a long way, you guys.

Yeah, but he's an Outlook user and it crashed on him today.

On his birthday?

Yeah, born on April 15th of all things.

Oh, man, that's a curse.

I'd just change it. I'd be born the 14th or the 16th.

Yeah, well, you could probably treat it like leap year.

Yeah, that would work.

Poor Mike. Outlook has now crashed on him and he's going through withdrawals and has no idea when, if ever, Outlook will recover.

But I had a gift certificate sent to him for his birthday today.

Well, all I can tell you is that he needs me to redirect the link to a Yahoo account of all places.

Oh, good grief.

Most of our spam filters will kill that.

Yeah, it just goes from bad to worse. We just don't know what to do with him.

He's going to be at Hotmail pretty soon. Oh, that's really bad. Okay, well.

So we're doing our very best to try to come alongside him and all that.

I know. We are modeling the church. The problem is he probably can't even hear this.

Yeah, he's really doing great. Of all people in the whole wide world, he cannot get real audio to work.

He's even on the phone with him and everything. That is incredible. You know it's something like his speakers aren't plugged in or something. You realize it's something really basic.

Turn to stop.

Unmute the wave. There you go.

There it is.

Phone lines are ringing.

Okay. All right. Bye.

Questions on 1 Timothy 1:13 and Paul’s Mercy

I'm sorry. While he's answering the phone there, let's see if he can multitask and talk with Jeremy in Atlanta. Hi, Jeremy. He can't. Oh, Jeremy.

Hello?

Oh, there you are. Not very good. Keep turning them up there, Mr. Pierce. Are you there now, Jeremy?

I'm here.

All right.

Good.

You sound louder, too. I was listening to the show through the phone and I was wishing they'd turn the volume up.

Well, you know, now we've told him that.

At the same time, I was praying you wouldn't come to me while I was finishing grocery shopping at the Publix.

Oh, okay.

All right.

That would have been quiet. Actually, I would have been proud to know. I take my dividing line with me even to the grocery store. I want to change my question now to biblical prophecy, of course. You opened the show with it.

I want to get to my question, but just real quick, if I can, if you would allow me. Have you heard of this new teaching coming out of Knox Theological Seminary with Dr. Warren Gage and R. Fowler White on unlocking revelation by showing the parallels between the books of Joshua and the Gospel of John and how they unlock the book of Revelation with the chiastic constructions and things like that?

Have you heard at all about that?

Nope.

Nope.

I haven't heard a word.

They're doing a conference on it. I'm going to get some taste. I don't know if you've heard of Dr. Warren Gage, but supposedly he's pretty good at that type of thing.

No, that would be new to me. It sounds like a good way to get a book published.

Actually, I heard about it when I was at the Ligonier Conference this year.

Ah, okay.

They were down there promoting Knox Theological Seminary.

We don't want to knock Knox.

Aside from that. I asked what D. James Kennedy thought about it. He hasn't had time to take a look at it yet, really. Let me get to my question, though, before I get off on a biblical prophecy, a-mil, post-mil, or pre-mil position here.

I didn't say a-mil because that would be, if I did it in a British accent, it would be a-millennialism, but I said ah-millennialism because that's the way I go. Ah, okay.

It's probably British and it's probably also like a Georgia. That's why a-mil is what we call it over here. Anyway, ah-mil.

I don't know that eschatology has ever been more poorly discussed than it has been today, actually.

Well, we'll just tune into Jack Van Empey later.

Oh, there you go. Roxella should be able to get me all fixed up.

Who's the guy that's changed his charts at least four times?

That's pretty much everyone on TBN.

1 Timothy 1 .13, and I want to get this out before I probably lose you on my cell phone, but 1 Timothy 1 .13, what if someone said, hey, this is probably problematic for the Reformed position? Then what they mean is the fact that Paul says he obtained mercy, and then because he did what he did in ignorance and unbelief.

How would you address the fact that this passage is problematic for the Reformed position?

I would say that they are taking a passage that talks about very clearly in the context the fact that Paul is addressing his apostleship and the mercy that's been shown to him in the position that he has, and confusing that with the discussion of salvation.

It says, I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has strengthened me because he considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor.

Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, and the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.