The Rich man in hell. A lesson to the Pharisees

Luke 16:19-31 says,

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Luke 16:19-31 is a passage not fully understood by many believers. Many believe that the rich man went to hell because he lacked mercy toward the poor. If that be the case then can we safely assume that all that show mercy to the poor will go to heaven? I will be sharing what our Lord was teaching in this parable.

Today, we do have scholars that deny that this was even a parable since Jesus used a real persons name that had existed (Abraham). This is one argument you will be told to give to the Jehovah Witnesses that come to your door claiming that it was a parable. Now I disagree with them believing that this was indeed a parable. If you carefully study how the parable begins to other parables then you see the similarity:

Luke 15:11 "And he said, A certain man had two sons."

Luke 16:1 "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods."

Luke 16:19 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day."

Luke 16:20 "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores."

This is why I doubt that this was anything other than a parable. This story being a parable doesn't make it any less terrible or true. What about Jesus mentioning an actual person that once existed (Abraham)? Like I said, a parable is teaching a truth and doesn't make it less true. Jesus gave the parable of the sowers and how the devil takes the seed out of ones heart. The devil is an actual literal being and yet he was used in a parable as a bird. Whether or not the story in Luke 16 is a parable or not does not matter. I do know that Abraham was a clear picture to those standing there especially the Pharisees that according to their rabbinic teaching, they believed that Abraham literally sat outside the gate of hades that would not allow one of his sons to enter.

I do know that many cults attack this passage to make it teach something other than punishment in a literal place called hell. You will often hear such people give such a long explanation of this chapter where they rarely even refer to it. They will come up that the rich man represents a nation. The five brothers that the rich man was worried about were 5 other parts making up the nation of Jews. The rich man represents the Jews begging for mercy when they showed anything but mercy. They do teach that the Jews will receive mercy but this passage makes it clear that the rich man (singular) will not be receiving mercy ever. His concern for his other family ( other Jews in general) does not jive with this passage either. Anyone reading any parable can clearly read what Jesus was indeed teaching and not some wild way out there teaching that you cannot find Jesus in one other place even hinting at such an absurd teaching. This parable needed no explanation as your own two eyes can see. Jesus clearly needed to clarify the parable of the sower as nobody would have known what the stony ground versus the thorny ground would really have meant other than what happens in true agriculture as Jesus needed to tie the spiritual aspect with the physical example He gave. Jesus didn't need to dive into the meaning of Luke 16 as it was clearly worded.

Who was the rich man? The rich man represented what the Pharisees believed was a righteous man. Jesus showing that this rich man did not show mercy to the poor proving that he was anything but righteous. This passage had nothing to do with the nation of Jews as some cults try to render it but the Pharisees that believed that being rich was to be equated with a right standing before God. This passage clearly was about the Pharisees that coveted:

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:13-15).

Anyone reading the entire chapter can see why Jesus gave the parable about the rich man and Lazarus as Jesus was dealing with the Pharisees that now derided Him. Anyone claiming that Jesus is giving a parable about the rich man representing Jews as a whole and the 5 family members being to different parts of the Jewish land are just plain fools.

It was the Pharisees that believed that the poor was rejected by God and the rich was to be received. Both the rich man and Lazarus died and the one went to hell and the other 'Abraham's bosom.' Abraham's bosom was nothing more than an idiom representing the presence of God. This was not heaven spoken about here but simply the realm of the dead (paradise) that was reserved for the righteous dead in the Old Testament. Again, you will find fools that run to the book of Ecclesiastes not knowing what that book was about and simply will give verses that the dead do not remember and so on as a way to teach that the two dead men here in Luke 16 are not a literal truth because the dead are conversing and feeling pain or comfort.

This parable was to tell the Pharisees that being rich does not guarantee a persons salvation and neither does being poor prove that a person will be rejected. Money clearly is only temporal and has nothing to do with eternity and that was the message they needed to get through their heads. The parable here was to show the dangers of placing one's trust in money. Obviously this rich man had brothers that had the same attitude as he did and did not want them to come to this awful place and begged that someone warn them. I can only see Pharisees in the pit of hell begging that others be warned of the deception that they fall for and are now paying for it dearly. Pharisees as well as other Jews expected signs and this rich man thought that if one were to rise from the dead then his family members would believe and will not end up in that horrible place. Jesus made it clear that if anyone doesn't care to listen to Moses and the prophets then they will not listen to anyone else even if they claim they have risen from the dead. Ever meet someone like that? They will be a person that will often put experiences and TV wacko's over the Bible. You will tell them that the Bible says, "Believe and thou shalt be saved" and yet they will believe some goof out there that teaches that we all become gods at death or even might be reincarnated and it depends on how we live.

This parable does not teach that being rich is now to be considered evil but only when a person obeys it. If you do not use your wealth as a means of showing mercy as the rich man ought to have been doing with the beggar then you are selfish and wicked.

Luke 16 was clearly dealing with Pharisees that thought riches were associated with a right standing before God and to believe that was to have an eternal deadly consequence. You cannot serve both God and money at the same time. This parable clearly teaches that two classes of people died and the one was tormented with no hope of relief and the other was forever comforted. The one clearly trusted in his riches as a right standing before God. Salvation is not earned by riches of any kind. This was why Jesus told the rich young ruler to give all that he had and in heaven he would have many riches. This man was all about his money and trusted in it as it was easier Jesus said for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. It is clear that one can have everything in this life ending up with nothing in the next life and the one with nothing in this life ending up with everything in the next life.

Do not misunderstand, today the rich are no better than the poor when it comes to a right standing before God. One doesn't have to give money to be right with God but it does reveal your heart. This parable is not a command that we are required to give to the poor. It was a lesson to the Pharisees that one can be rich and end up in hell and one can be poor and end up saved as this was contrary to their thinking.

Eternal Security and 1st John 5:16 "Sin unto death"

1st John 5:16 says,

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

Those that believe you can lose your salvation will appeal to this verse. I will not spend much time here as anyone that would simply read what it says here will realize that loss of salvation is impossible by the mere wording.

Think about this, if "death" represents "spiritual death" and if "life" represents "spiritual life" then you have a really problem. I will rewrite this verse and see if you can now see why teaching that this verse refers to loss of salvation is impossible.

"If any man see his Christian brother sin a sin which is NOT unto spiritual death, he shall ask, and he SHALL give him spiritual life for them that sin NOT unto spiritual death. There is a sin unto spiritual death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

Did you catch that? Why would you have to ask God to give spiritual life to a man that did not commit the sin unto spiritual death? It is clearly worded that this brother did not commit a "sin unto death" so if the "sin unto death" is the loss of salvation then this man didn't lose it but why does his brother then need to ask for spiritual life and this man will get it?????? How can he give him life when he didn't commit the sin unto death??? Do you now see the problem of making this the loss of salvation? This is an example of people desperately wanting a verse to read that one can lose their salvation. How they can be so careless and deceitful to God's word is beyond me.

If you take this also to their logical conclusion then you can pray for "spiritual life" for someone and God will give it apart from believing. You can't get around the words here. If you teach that this is spiritual life we pray for then somehow our prayers can impart spiritual life and we know the Scriptures do not teach that.

It amazes me as to why people that believe you can lose your salvation are so quick to make "death" and "life" to mean "spiritual death" and "spiritual life" and will not even question if "physical death" and "physical life" could possibly be the meaning instead. We do have verses where believers had sinned and died for it as the consequence. In 1st Corinthians 11:30, it says,

"For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

The specific Greek word for "sleep" here was to believers that have died in the Lord. It is reserved for those that died as a believer. Paul makes it clear in the next couple verses that God will chasten those that do not judge themselves and clearly such will not be condemned with the world.

Clearly 1st John 5:16 has a Christian brother in view that is sinning. If a brother is asking on behalf of another brother for life even though this other brother clearly has not sinned a sin unto death because he is still "alive" then he will give him life.

Un-Scriptural statement #3 A believer cannot habitually sin. Part one of two

I already done a blog on 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 that some twist into meaning that one cannot habitually sin and I recommend that if you have not read that blog that you would do it soon as I will be referring to it in this blog. Now I need to address this lie as it is taught also from the book of 1st John by religionists.

The teaching that one cannot habitually sin comes from the idea that God will prevent that somehow. I guess God only allows "occasional mishaps" as Lordship advocates claim and never the practice of any sin. To practice any sin is either to suffer the chastening of the Lord that nobody can seem to define what exactly that is as most believers always ask, "How can I know if God is really chastening me?" They do however teach that God will chasten even though you might persist in that sin for a season (I will have a blog in the future on chastening and what it is).

The only problem that these people have is how to define habitual??? How much sin disqualifies you as a believer? Please define habitual? Ask anyone to define it as they cannot. This is the one question that I ask every pastor/teacher out there that says a believer cannot habitually sin. I ask them if they have ever counseled saved young men that struggle with lust? They said "yes." Well, how can you claim then that habitual sin is not possible for a believer when you counsel those plagued with habitual lust? They will tell me that they are fighting against their sins proving that it does not have the victory and is not yet habitual???????????? So, a drunkard isn't a habitual drunkard if he/she is attending AA meetings to overcome this problem??? If a murderer hates killing people and fights against his urges but still kills others doesn't make him a habitual murderer??

The dictionary clearly defines habitual as "done regularly and repeatedly" and what is so hard with that? It is Lordship salvation that adds the exception clause that tells you that a "regular and repeatedly" done sin is not habitual when one is fighting against it? What dictionary or Bible says that??? The problem is, if you were to define that to the Christian living then none would be saved. Young men lust regularly and repeatedly. Some suffer pride repeatedly and the list can go on and on. This is why when you ask a pastor to define "habitual" that they will have a blank look on their face and will resort to giving you statements as I have given above that are man made garbage to keep his bologna doctrine. You must remember when talking to them that they will offer no response to this from Scripture but will say, "A believer can do this or that but not this or that when..." as nothing he says will come from God's word, but only his clever wording.

As you can see, religion makes up their own exception clauses to fill in all the gaps that they create in Scripture by making un-Scriptural statements nowhere given in God's Word. These people will even have an exception clause to those that quit the faith and plunge head first into sin for a "season" as they put it. They will say that a believer can fall away for a "season" (where is that in Scripture taught?) and wallow in sins but since he is a child of God, then God will draw him back to the faith before he dies proving that he was saved (Scripture please????). So, if you are a believer, you cannot habitually sin even though you struggle with committing the same sin done regularly and repeatedly, and you can even fall away into wanton sin for a "season" that is defined by a period of time that will end sometime before you die and never after proving that you were not living in habitual sin done regularly and repeatedly but were truly saved the whole time????????? Are you as confused as me on that one? Yes, I even heard a story about a man that fell away into serious sins and never showed any signs of being a Christian. However, 12 years later, this man came back proving that he truly was a child of God all along because he came back before he died??????? This is Lordship bologna they teach.

I am not a King James Version Onlyist. However, it makes me smile when someone who normally quotes the KJV will run to another version to prove that one cannot habitually sin since the KJV doesn't say that once. Here was Steve McVey's (free grace teacher) response to me concerning a statement that I commented on recently that he said that I found not Scriptural:

"I admit that it would be difficult to define "habitual" here. 1 John 3:9 suggests that because God's seed is in the believer, he can not "practice" (NAS) sin. The word seems to indicate an ongoing, continuous way of life."

Notice that he used the NAS version to get the word "practice" even though the Greek word for practice is not found there in the Greek. They simply took a difficult verse that speaks in the present tense and automatically assumed it referred to the practice of sin. The KJV translator's didn't make such an assumption but simply translated the verse the way it was supposed to be there. I did send Steve McVey a response (twice) and he has yet to reply or post my replied comments. I used his NAS to prove the inconsistency of that version because if one cannot practice sin as a believer then please explain from the NAS this verse:

"Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning" (1st Timothy 5:20).

OOPS!!! I thought a believer cannot practice sin according to the NAS?? That version made it abundantly clear that a believer can continue in sin and we are to rebuke such believers so other believers will be fearful to continue in sin.

Do you know that the NIV does the same thing too? The NIV says that we cannot "continue in sin" according to 1st John 3:9. However, they do not follow the same rules in 1st Timothy 5:20 as they do here in 1st John 3:9 as they simply quoted that verse as:

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

The word "sin" is in the present tense in that verse and that is why NAS said "continual in sin" but the NIV doesn't remain consistent to how it translates present tense words. However, if you compare the exact wording in the NIV that one "cannot continue in sin" to the exact wording of 1st Timothy 5:20 that says that a believer can "continue in sin" then you have two modern versions disagreeing with each other. It doesn't matter, the NAS contradicts itself with 1st John 3:9 to 1st Timothy 5:20 anyways.

The reason for this contradiction is due to man forcing his opinions into God's word. Most of our translator's do have a Calvinistic or Lordship salvation type of mentality. They see a difficult verse and translate it according to their beliefs. These newer versions set up a real problem for the future believers as more and more are using them. If they do not carefully study the words in the Greek then they will be teaching what the translator's believed instead of what God's word actually stated. I use various versions, but I do not simply believe that everything the translator's typed in there are 100% accurate. I'm glad that some of them believe themselves to be smarter than God and feel free to add words to a verse not found. They need to simply translate God's Word as it is and let the pastors/teachers/flock go from there. It makes it tough to argue with someone that says, "My Bible says that you cannot practice sin and claim to be saved at the same time." I have to show them first the inconsistency of such a teaching and how it was inserted into the verse but to them it must be correct because a man with such great Greek knowledge translated as such.

Question, didn't Solomon practice sin? Solomon clearly was a man that fell into apostasy. Solomon did not repent before death but only Lordship advocates presume that he did. Read 1st Kings 11 as you can read about a man that turned to idolatry. Listen to 1st Kings 11:9-11:

"And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant."

First, I thought no practicing idolater is saved according to those that teach the present tense use of the word "idolatry" in 1st Corinthians 6:9-11?? God Himself clearly called Solomon an idolater when He said, "he should not go after other gods" which was exactly what Solomon didn't obey.

According to our Lordship believers out there, one cannot practice sin or you are not saved and they will quote 1st John 3:8-10 that says,

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. "

The word "committeth" is in the present tense and they immediate claim that it must mean the habitual practice of sinning (see my blog on 'Eternal Security and continually believing to be saved' as I deal with the present tense in Greek) . Poor Solomon, somehow he was an exception to the rule as he certainly was not practicing righteousness. Samson was another man in the Bible that certainly was not a faithful man who actually ended up committing suicide in the end (see my blog on Eternal Security and Samson). How about Lot?? The last thing we read about him is him drunk in a cave committing incest with his two daughters.

If a believer cannot practice sin because he/she is saved then please explain Romans 6:12:

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."

Reign??? I thought that was impossible for a believer?? Reign means to "rule" or be "king." Verse 13 starts off saying,

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin...."

Say what??? Remember, a person born of God cannot practice sin according to the NAS and NIV and Lordship salvation. How can one yield as a believer to sin when 1st John according to Lordship believers claim that one cannot?? How can I who has been born of God, who cannot "practice sin" or "continue in sin" end up being told to not let sin "reign" in my body when it is impossible??? Oh yeah, please define habitual again???? That's right, you can't because it doesn't come from God's word but man's religion. When I read Romans 6:12 then I see a verse that is telling me not to make a habit of sinning of any kind. You see, if the Bible states that one cannot habitually sin then it will also define to what habitual means and it doesn't. The apostle John wouldn't leave people in the dark as to what "habitual" means as so many pastors/teachers today that still can't define it but make up their own exception clauses to the sins habitually present in the lives of believers.

I have religion telling me that I cannot habitually practice the sins of 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 when I can find examples of believers in the Bible doing just that and Solomon the IDOLATER was one of them. He is a tough one for those that teach this garbage that one cannot practice sin because they cannot word around God's word to Solomon that he turned to other gods. He is a tough one because Lordship says that no believer can fall away committing apostasy when Solomon clearly did.

There are so many verses that tells the believer to put off the old man and his deeds. Do you think it is safe for me to say that one should put off the old man and his habits?? Do you now possibly conclude that John MacArthur might be wrong when he said that there is no such thing as a carnal believer but only that a believer can have carnal ways about him as that hurts his "cannot practice sin" theory??? Look at 1st Corinthians 3:1-3:

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

Remember, these Corinthians had already been saved for nearly 5 years. What have they been practicing for those 5 years? Hmmm

How about in Acts 19 where we have believer's that have been saved for 2 years now giving up their occult practices???? Look at Acts 19:18,19:

"And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver."

The word "came" in the Greek is the imperfect middle. These believers kept coming so to speak one after another. Many believers were practicing the occult, but I thought believers cannot practice lawlessness??? Some Lordship advocates will claim that they were ignorant of what they were doing. So, after 2 years of being a believer they were ignorant???? No, it is you that are ignorant. The Greek word for "deeds" (praxeis) here implies spells and magical potions. I really doubt that anyone would not recognize what they were doing as not being wrong. I serious doubt that not one of those many believers there didn't have a clue that what they were doing was wrong. Am I to assume that they were all equally ignorant??? Anyways, Lordship salvation speaks out of the OTHER side of their mouth and will tell you that the Holy Spirit will be letting you know when you sin because you cannot practice sin period. I really then doubt by what Lordship advocates teach that the people in Acts 19 were without any conscience whatsoever of their practice because they indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Let me finish by saying this, do you now think it is possible that Lordship believers and others have approached a difficult verse and simply made it to mean something that it never meant to begin with? Could John now be meaning something other than habitual sins in his book? If you say it means you cannot practice sin and be saved then you will have a lot of questions that you will have to simply not answer directly but will add your own exception clauses. It is quite clear that a believer can let sin reign in his body. Look at the following verses:

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." (Romans 13:11-14).

There are many impossibilities in that verse if one cannot practice sin or lawlessness. Is not Paul implying that a believer can be involved in drunkenness??? The sins he listed shall have no inheritance I thought to the one that practices those things???? Pay attention the the words "awake out of sleep" as Paul uses it elsewhere to refer to lazy and indifferent Christians such as found in 1st Thessalonians 5:4-10:

"But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

Notice the words "nor of darkness" as we are children of the day. Paul elsewhere tells us that we are no longer darkness before God but has to tell us to now walk as children of light. Look at Ephesians 5:8:

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light."

We are commanded to walk as children of light but if we cannot practice sin or lawlessness then clearly Paul should have known that. Paul also says in Ephesians 5:14:

"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

The person awaking would be the believer that now is practicing what was good and acceptable to God. Christ shining light upon him speaks of approval. Verses 7-14 deals with believers only. We are to walk as children of light to reprove those that are not so that they will walk as children of light as well. Most Lordship believers simply try to make this a passage dealing with the unsaved only because to them a believer cannot commit those "unfruitful works of darkness" even though Paul was addressing believers about that (vss. 7-14). Anyways, if these people actually were actually faithful to their Bibles and not some theological system that they place themselves under then they would realize that the word "sleepest" here in the Greek is a word that Paul never used to refer to being dead physically or spiritually but is the same word he uses elsewhere to refer to lazy and indifferent believers. Also, the word "awake" in verse 14 is a Greek word used by Paul in only one other place where again it only refers to believers. Paul told believers in Romans 13:11 that "it is high time to awake out of sleep" (same Greek word as in Ephesians 5:14). Notice that Paul even used similar words back in Romans 13 when he said to believers that we are to "awake out of sleep" and "cast off works of darkness" and to "put on the armour of LIGHT" so please compare that to Ephesians 5:7-14. In Ephesians 5:14, they were to come out of their spiritual stupor like the command to 1st Thessalonians 5:4-10 I quoted earlier where they were to awake as well and not sleep as others. . Most people never check these things but simply assumes it. Lordship salvation has been lying to you as they want you to believe that you cannot habitually sin so that they might glory in your flesh.

Let's cut the garbage here as I am so sick and tired of religion telling people that if they are practicing any known sin then they are not saved. The following verses makes it abundantly clear that a believer is capable of not only sinning but abandoning the faith. Only Lordship will insert words not found in these verses that I am going to give simply because these verses would refute their teachings of 1st John especially if a believer can commit them. Please notice each verse and never once do you find any statement that the people were never saved to begin with as taught in the heretical teachings of Lordship salvation. If their assumption of 1st John is wrong then what do you think they are doing to Scriptures that clearly teach that one can persist in sins??? Look at the following verses and then compare what your eyes clearly see to what Lordship inserts into them as they explain each one away:

"Depart from the faith" (1st Tim. 4:1), err from the faith (1st Tim. 6:10), err concerning the faith (1st Tim. 6:20), deny the faith (1st Tim. 5:8), make shipwreck of the faith (1st Timothy 1:19), cast off one's faith (1st Timothy 5:12), swerve from the faith (1st Tim. 1:6), and not continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23). Believer's can fall from their own steadfastness (2nd Peter 3:17), become barren and unfruitful (2nd Peter 1:8), deny Christ (2nd Timothy 2:12), and be ashamed when Christ returns (1st John 2:28). Hymenaeus and Alexander did not persevere--they were delivered by Paul "unto Satan" (1st Timothy 1:20) as also was the fornicator (1st Corinthians 5:5) and restored (2nd Cor. 2:6-8). Demas forsook Paul because of his love for the world (2nd Timothy 4:11). However, in Acts 13:13, Mark (John Mark) deserted Paul as well but it was later that Paul said that Mark was still profitable for the ministry (2nd Timothy 4:11). Lordship will say that Mark proved he was saved by coming back unlike Demas. How about Solomon the idolater??? What about Lot? The last thing we read about him was that he was drunk in a cave committing incest with his two daughters (Gen. 19:33-36). We do know in the NT, that Lot was called "just" and "righteous" (2nd Peter 2:7,8).

It is extremely important that we interpret Scripture properly because Ezekiel 18:24 says that a righteous man can turn from his righteousness and never turn back because clearly we have men that turned from their righteousness and have come back. When you see verses like that then you must check to see if you are interpreting Scripture properly as there will be no contradiction. If you believe that Christ only died for the elect then you have to rewrite verses that says, "Christ died for all men." The solution isn't making up exception clauses but challenging what it is you believe. The same is true when you teach that one cannot practice lawlessness and simply rewrite every other verse where people clearly are saved and practicing lawlessness.

I will deal with 1st John 3:9 in part two and other verses in that chapter as well. I simply wanted to show the problems with not being able to practice sin as a believer as that is a lie. You clearly can have "works of darkness" and "continue in sin" as the NAS decided to translate 1st Timothy 5:20. Now that we can see that a believer can continue in sin then we have to now look to 1st John to see what he really was teaching and I will do that next time.

Unscriptural statements made in the church #2

This topic will be rather long as I will be dealing with total forgiveness in this topic. I will be arguing against the need for parental forgiveness as taught in the churches today and will show that we are completely forgiven in Christ.

Another unscriptural statements that I often hear pastors say to a person is, "You need to still confess your sins to God because you have been forgiven once for all judicially but now you still have need to be forgiven parentally"??????????????? I don't know about you but this one always bugged me. I always thought, "If God has forgiven me of all sin and all His wrath was fully satisfied with the death of Christ that fully paid for my sin then why does God still hold me accountable for my sins to confess them when He supposedly has forgiven and forgotten them?" He clearly did not forget them if He has to wait for me to confess them. I really didn't get the impression that God has forgiven me as far as the East is from the West as stated in Hebrews with such a teaching. It makes me feel that God now needs to forgive our sins twice. Think about that for a second, God has already forgiven the sins of tomorrow judicially but when you commit those already forgiven sins of tomorrow then He must cleanse you again parentally after you confess them and that seems quite odd. Arguing what we do as parents when our child sins is comparing humans to an almighty God and I hope you can see the problem with that?? God knows our sins of tomorrow and has forgiven them, but we as parents do not know what our child will do tomorrow.

Pastors rely heavily upon the Old Testament to come up with this teachings of making short accounts before God. They teach that you have to enumerate each of your sins daily before God to remain in fellowship with Him. They teach that if you do not confess your sins then God cannot bless you and that He will not hear your prayers.

We do not live under Old Testament conditional blessings. Conditional blessings are "Do this and I will bless you." We live under unconditional blessings today because of the death of Christ. Unconditional blessings are "Do this because I have already blessed you." Ephesians 1:3 teaches that we have been (past tense) blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies. We appropriate such blessings through faith and not by being good. We are to live by faith and not by a list of dos and don'ts.

Pastors take a verse in the Old Testament where David was praying for God to reveal his secret sins. They take that verse and tie it to 1st Corinthians 11 where Paul told the Corinthians to examine themselves to make sure that they are not eating and drinking of the Lord's table unworthily. They take verses from Jesus that was still speaking under the Old Testament as I will soon share on forgiveness.

The Bible says,

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14).

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Colossians 2:13).

Colossians 1:14, the "forgiveness of sins" is in the present tense and that is worth noting since those that believe you can lose your salvation will always claim that the present tense means continual action except when it comes to this verse. They will claim that it means that all of your sins up to this day are forgiven proving that they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

A believer is forgiven of all sins (past, present and future). You must realize that your forgiveness is not conditioned upon your works. Remember, we no longer live under a system of conditional blessings anymore. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not New Testament books even though they are categorized in your Bible that way. The new covenant could not begin until Christ died as told in the book of Hebrews. Christ was speaking under the OT of conditional blessings. Jesus commanded that we forgive to be forgiven and that would be an example of conditional blessings. The apostle Paul said that we are to forgive because we have already been forgiven. You will never find Paul once telling the carnal Corinthians to confess their sins. You will never once find Paul telling us to confess our sins to God anywhere but only that we should confess our faults to one another (people we have wronged). Compare now the words of Jesus to that of Paul and you will see the difference between conditional blessings of the OT and unconditional blessings of the NT:

Jesus said:

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:14,15).

Paul said:

"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

"Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye" (Colossians 3:13).

Jesus commanded people to forgive to be forgiven as a condition, but Paul commands us to forgive because we have been forgiven unconditionally. Pastors try to intertwine the two verses together into, "We have been forgiven once and for all judicially but now we have need of being forgiven daily parentally." Not taught in Scripture but assumed to be. The fact is, Jesus made it clear that we need to forgive our brother to be forgiven prior to His death at Calvary and Paul stated after the death of Christ that we now forgive others because we ourselves have been forgiven of ALL sin.

What about 1st John 1:9? Since there is not one verse from the book of Acts to 2nd Peter or from 2nd John to Revelation that tells us to confess our sins to God then all that pastors and others can do is use one verse and turn it into a teaching of how we need to keep short accounts with God in the New Testament. They teach how God now needs to forgive us parentally even though He has forgiven us entirely judicially. Again, such people first have to rely heavily upon OT teachings and might even quote Proverbs 28:13. However, if you study confession in the gospels (Matthew to John) then you will notice that confessing sins does not mean to enumerate them one at a time. In Matthew 3:6, it reads:

"And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."

Now if you remember, John was baptizing a large crowd of people. Do you really think that a man was standing in the water confessing that he was looking at some lady the other day lustfully? Or that he cheated on his taxes? John the Baptist would have had a very long day if everyone needed to enumerate each one of their sins. The Pharisees came there and didn't feel the need for baptism because they didn't see themselves as sinners. Baptism with John the baptist was to identify you as a sinner and they did so by going to him to be baptized. You were confessing (agreeing) back then by being baptized that you were a sinner and that is the confession.

Now in first John, John was dealing with gnosticism who denied that they had a sin nature. John was stating that one needed to confess (agree with God) about ones sins. Gnostics denied having even a sin nature and to do so was to remain in darkness. Their confession or admitting of their sins had nothing to do with confessing each and every sin that they had ever done. This is not a command to make daily confessions. Those that have come to God for salvation are confessing that they are indeed sinners in need of a Savior. We confessed our sins but do realize that all of our sins are forgiven. How can you be eternally forgiven and not forgiven parentally? This is where pastors/teachers have to resort to giving you examples in your life as a parent. They will tell you that your child will always be your child and you will always forgive them but when they wrong you then it hurts the relationship and an apology is in order even though they are forgiven anyways. Sorry, God is not a human, so we will not be sent to our rooms with no dinner indefinitely until we confess our wrong doings. They cannot prove it with Scripture so they have to rely on us sinful creatures and somehow prove that God will react to wrong doing just like we do now.

The fact is, 1st John says that if one confesses his/her sins then they will be forgiven of ALL unrighteousness. Compare the word "all" to Paul on forgiveness and it should be clear that such a phrase is for those not yet saved. Only the unsaved need to be forgiven of all unrighteousness and that is exactly what we have been forgiven from according to the apostle Paul and John as I will soon share.

Confessing your sins has been a real problem for many believer's. Haven't you ever wondered if there was some sin that you forgot to confess? Haven't you ever got off your knees and realized you missed a sin and had to go back and confess again? Haven't you ever felt like just giving up because you keep confessing the same sin over and over again wondering if God is refusing to forgive your repetitive sin? I bet you have been told that if you do not confess each sin then God will not hear your prayers and that too is a lie. They will quote Psalm 66:18 showing that they have to run back to a system of conditional blessings. The day I stopped confessing my sins was wonderful. I didn't have any of the problems pastors claimed would happen and how I wouldn't be able to grow spiritually. It also made me more Christ conscious and not so sin conscious that led to my guilty feelings all the time along with frustration and so on.

1st John 1:9 is not a command to enumerate your sins but only that if one were to confess their sins that these Gnostics would not do was to have their sins forgiven. Believers however live in a perpetual state of forgiveness and are never commanded in this day and age of grace to confess their sins. Look at 1st John 1:7:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (no command to confess unless people want to claim that such people are walking perfectly here??)

Jesus promises if we walk in the light then we experience forgiveness of sins. Look now at Ephesians 5:8:

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light."

You are now light in the Lord because you have been saved and this is regardless of your works. Paul then tells us to walk as children of light. Paul is asking us to live out in our walk as to who we now are in the Lord. Make your position match your walk. This again is the unconditional blessing that we live under in the New Testament. Now to be in the light is to have forgiveness of sins as Paul elsewhere declared that we have been forgiven of all trespasses and sins. The only thing affected by not walking in the light is to have hindered fellowship with one another. The solution is not to confess your sins and God will restore you to fellowship but to live obediently. If you fall on your rear end then get up. God never said once that we need to confess our sins to have fellowship as verse 7 never says that. You have to force verse 9 back into verse 7 and you have now changed Scripture to your own fancy. How do I know that if we sin that we still have forgiven of sins? Look at 1st John 2:1 and verse 12:

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (Did you get that? "If any man sin" then we have an advocate and there is absolutely no command to confess sin here).

Verse 12:

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins ARE forgiven you for his name's sake."

Where do you see the command to confess? The whole book deals practically with obedience and yet those that are in sin are never told to confess their sins anywhere to get back into fellowship. 1st John 1:9 is being ripped from its context and being made to teach individual confession of sins and not sin itself that the Gnostics were denying.

How about examining oneself in 1st Corinthians 11 when we partake of the Lord's table? For years, I wouldn't partake of communion believing that there might be some hidden sin in my life that God would strike me dead for. One day the thought went through my head, "Why do I need to come to this table with my so-called holiness in order to partake of remembering what Christ had done for me when I was anything but holy?" I realized that baptists and others butchered this chapter into meaning "confessing your sins." You will never once find "examine yourself" to mean confess your sins. The sin that these Corinthians committed cannot be committed today since most churches use grape juice and unsalted crackers. The sin was their coming to the Lord's table and using it as their main meal and were getting drunk off the wine. They were disrespecting the Lord's table. That is why Paul told them to eat before they came there and not to turn the Lord's table into a party. They were to examine themselves in this area as to how they were approaching the Lord's table. Now I believe you will agree with me that if anyone in all of Scripture needed to be told to confess their sins then it would have been this church and yet you will find not one command to them to confess their sins to God. They were merely exhorted to examine themselves in respect to the Lord's table so that they will not sin again like they did and will not experience the chastening hand of God.

I brought out a few points for you to consider. This is really important as you should be aware that you are practicing something not taught to us believers today as your sins truly are forgiven as far as the East is from the West. The apostle Paul had written most of the New Testament and why wouldn't he have made a comment on it if we are to confess our sins? Do you not see that pastors place so much emphasis upon confessing sins when Scripture in the New Testament (after the death of Christ) does not??? It's a little strange when a pastor will tell you that your lack of assurance of salvation is because you probably have an unconfessed sin in your life and yet not one verse of Scripture teaches that, but they rely on the OT where David said "restore to me the joy of thy salvation" as somehow meaning that David doubted his salvation because of sin. It's a little strange that church services will have to have a time where people are to so-called examine their lives for unconfessed sins so that they can partake of communion when that is nowhere taught in Scripture. It is a little strange that Paul deals with sinning believers and never once tells them to confess their sins because they are out of fellowship with God. It is strange to me that Paul teaches that all of our sins are forgiven but never goes into this other sin category that we now live under where our sins are being held against us until we confess them as taught by mostly legalistic teachers though not all. This list can go on and on.

Below are some links for you to visit as they deal with this teaching of having to confess your sins as being wrong today. I hope you will find time to read them if you really are curious.

http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/trueconfession.html (please read this article as it is quick and to the point).

http://www.gospelfortoday.org/jteachings/forgiven.htm (very good article!!!! Please note, this article was written by those that believe in universal salvation that I strongly reject. However, this site does offer some wonderful free grace articles that can be enjoyed.)

http://www.ccwonline.org/confessism.html

http://www.realanswers.net/realaudio/forgiveness.htm

Unscriptural statements made in the church #1

False Statement number one: "If you have doubts about your salvation is a good indication that you are saved since the devil does not want you to have assurance that you have been saved."

This statement is nowhere found in the Bible but only in churches that view doubt as normal. Believers will suffer doubt at times and that only proves that they are still human and nothing more but it is never to be considered normal. Pastors and teachers assume that since the devil does not want people to know that they are saved then doubts must prove that the devil is attacking you. They honestly believe that if you were truly lost then the devil would want your conscience lulled to sleep so that you will never see your need of Christ.

There might be a degree of truth to what they are teaching but since my Bible doesn't teach that then neither do I. What if doubts are from the Holy Spirit prompting someone's need of Christ? Telling them that doubts proves their salvation is dangerous and unscriptural. It is our job to point doubters to Christ ONLY and never to focus on anything in themselves or what they experience. If doubts proved my salvation then I would do all I can to maintain my doubts and that certainly is not Scriptural.

Years ago, I struggled with chronic doubts of my salvation. I used to be a Pentecostal that believed that one could lose his/her salvation but now was a Baptist. I remember two pastors that told me, "Your doubts are a good indication that you are saved since the devil doesn't want you to know that." I told these pastors that the exact same words were stated to me when I was a Pentecostal when it came to speaking in tongues. I was told as a Pentecostal, "If you have doubts when you speak in tongues then it is a good sign that you have the gift of the Holy Spirit because the devil doesn't want you speaking in tongues." I told this to the pastors and asked sarcastically if I should go and speak in tongues again since I had doubts? I never seen two Baptist ministers shut up so quickly.

Arguments such as, "The world cares as much about assurance of salvation as people do about their potassium levels" sounds good but cannot be substantiated in Scripture. So many feel the need to argue what they think or feel instead of what Scripture actually says.

Doubt is what you do and not the devil. You cannot claim that doubting your salvation is the devil doing it. The devil doesn't do your doubting for you nor your believing as it is you that chooses such things. You cannot blame your flesh, parents, upbringing because God holds YOU accountable. Not one person will ever be able to stand before God and come up with a single excuse as to why they doubting a God that cannot lie.

People that claim to be saved and never had assurance of salvation are deceived. If assurance of salvation to you was when you prayed a prayer, cried many tears, felt such amazing joy and so on then you most likely have not been saved. People that can only claim to be believing when feelings are present or from seeing certain experiences in their life are not believing Christ as they require something other than Christ alone. What happens to you when those feelings are gone? Are you the type that has to get emotionally worked up with some Christian music to get those feelings of being saved? Do you have to read some book to get those feelings back? A good sermon to help you along? It is not Christ you are believing because when those feelings are gone then so is that faith you claim to have. That faith that you claim to have is not based in a Person but in what you experience.

You cannot claim to be believing when you are simultaneously doubting. Doubting and believing are not one in the same. You can be 100% certain of salvation and at the same time be plagued with thoughts of doubt. You probably are questioning me on that statement. You can be assured of salvation based on the promises of God's Word even though your feelings are telling you that you are not saved and your conscience is shouting that you are not saved. It is what you are focusing on is what counts.

Here is an example of what I mean that someone can be 100% certain of salvation even though doubts are plaguing them. Some people go to the airport and board an airplane with obsessive scary thoughts running through their heads. One thought that might be running through their head is, "The plane might crash." Now if they choose to focus on such thoughts then fear will inevitably control them and they might cash in their ticket for a train ride instead showing their lack of faith in air travel. Instead, one tunes their thinking into the proven safety of air travel and how more die from automobile accidents than from airplanes. They consider that months go by without a single plane crash and yet people die daily in car accidents. Their faith has been placed in a fact even though irrational thoughts are trying to convince them that the plane will crash. Their flesh might be jittery but their faith that the plane will get them to their destination is certain.

Faith will look past all threatenings of the law, feelings and so on and will look Christ in the face. They may be having thoughts that their faith is not genuine, their profession is a fake, their sins are too serious as well as too many. Their feelings might tell them that God has packed His bags and has moved on. Experiences around them might be telling them that God has forsaken them. Even the world might be judging their works claiming that they are not what they believe a real Christians would be like. In all of these things, their faith looks to Christ believing what He said and not what their feelings, the world or the law is claiming. I am going to alter John 10 a little bit and make a spiritual application here, "Faith recognizes the voice of the Shepherd and the voice of another he will not follow as he does not know their voice (conscience, law, feelings, etc)."

Eternal Security and Judas

Was Judas a saved man that lost his salvation? Those that believe you can lose your salvation (conditionalists) claim that Judas must have lost his salvation because he was a disciple. According to conditionalists, Jesus would never have had an unsaved man represent Him. Conditionalists such as Dan Corner will tell you that Judas over time became evil when dealing with verses that called Judas a devil.

Time and time again, I feel that I have to keep pointing out how conditionalists feel the need to insert words not found in the verse or passage or they resort to what their fallible logic tells them. Let's not resort to logic that begins and ends in man but let's consider what God's word really teaches.

It ought to be clear to anyone reading the gospels that a distinction is always made between Judas and the other 11 disciples. Jesus would always point out the one that would betray Him. John 6:64 states, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." It should appear evident from that verse that Judas is separated from the ones that Jesus knew who from the beginning would believe. Jesus knew who would believe and who would betray Him. The fact is, not one good thing is ever stated about Judas and yet we are to simply believe that he was a saved man simply because he was chosen to be a disciple.

I truly believe that Judas would have fit the following verse if he did not betray Christ and had hanged himself. Matthew 7:21-23 says:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Jesus in Matthew 7 speaks about those that will preach, cast out devils, do many miraculous works, but Jesus will profess that He NEVER knew them and not that He once knew them. Arguing logic, then it would seem that such a person was saved if they were capable of doing such things even though they were not. Remarkably, even Dan Corner the big conditionalist will admit that Matthew 7:21-23 is dealing with those that never believed. Dan Corner stated the following:

"...for they never had a trusting-submitting faith in Jesus to get initial salvation (Lk. 8:21 cf. Acts 20:21). Mt. 7:21-23 shows this kind of thing does exist." (Pages 351, 352 'Believer's Conditional Security').

Dan Corner backs this up again elsewhere as he writes:

"When Jesus returns he will say to the foolish virgins, I don't know you (Mt. 25:12), not I never knew you, as in Mt. 7:22,23." (Page 391).

I'm thankful to Dan Corner for admitting the truth that some actually can appear saved and not be. It now should be clear that people can do amazing things in the name of Christ and not be saved. It should be clear that Judas can very well have fallen under that category.

Another passage that clearly distinguishes Judas from the eleven is found in John 13. Here we see Jesus washing the disciples feet. Jesus said in verse 10:

"Jesus saith to him (Peter), He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean."

Wasn't Judas a disciple? Yes, but a definition of a disciple is simply a learner or a follower. Wasn't Judas an apostle? Yes, but a definition of an apostle is one that was sent. Disciple doesn't mean saved. A person can be a disciple of any man so don't read more into the words. Judas was clearly distinguish everywhere from the other 11 disciples. There can be good disciples as well as bad disciples.

Wouldn't you think that being a disciple or being chosen by Christ to follow Him would mean that you are saved? Yes, it does sound good until I read John 2:11 that says:

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples BELIEVED on him."

Here the disciples that previously were called disciples are found at a later point in time placing their faith in Him. They didn't believe in Him at first as this verse clearly teaches. Wouldn't that verse include Judas then since he was one of the disciples? I would say "yes" until I compare Scripture with Scripture where it tells me in John 6:64:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

I do not see that Judas at any point was ever a believer. Wasn't Judas a friend of Jesus? Yes, Jesus trusted Him even though He knew that Judas was not only a thief but would one day betray Him. Didn't Jesus say that we are His friends if we do whatsoever He commands us (John 15:14)?? Yes, but Jesus called Judas a friend when Satan already entered him and Judas had already betrayed Him before others and I doubt you conditionalists would be claiming that Judas was still a saved man at this point. Wasn't the man in Matthew 22:11-13 called "friend" just prior to being cast out into 'outer darkness'??? Don't try reading the word "friend" as "saved" like other conditionalists out there do but read the verse in light of its context please. This is how conditionalists show their wickedness by making verses read the way they want it to read. They borrow the word "friend" from one place and will read it into another ignoring how it is used elsewhere too.

Judas was also called the "son of perdition" (John 17:12). The same phrase "son of perdition" was also used in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3. Let's read both verses:

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12).

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2nd Thess. 2:3).

Again, in John 17:12, Jesus is distinguishing Judas from the eleven. Conditionalists have the verse as reading that Jesus was able to keep saved all the others but not Judas who lost his salvation. Judas was doomed to this destruction according to Scripture. The day he was born as well as the "man of sin" were both doomed to destruction. No explanation was needed as we were able to read in Jesus own words elsewhere that Judas had a devil a year prior to Jesus crucifixion. Conditionalists like to read the verse as "Those that thou gavest me I have kept them saved, and none of them are damned except for one person." They like to see this verse as proof that one must remain in Christ to stay saved and that is impossible as I will soon explain.

Let me go a little further with John 17:12 as this verse has caused many problems. We have a verse elsewhere that states that the one that comes to Christ will in "no wise be cast out" of those given to Christ (John 6:37). Conditionalists view that the ones given to Christ can end up lost like Judas because of John 17:12. However, Jesus was not including Judas with those given to Him by the Father as Jesus used the word "but" to exclude Judas that was doomed to destruction as foretold by Scripture. In John 18:9, the same words are used but Judas is not included as the verse reads:

"That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none."

Here, the saying is fulfilled that none are lost that were given to Christ. If Judas was one of those given to Christ then how could it have been fulfilled that none were lost? God's failed and so did Jesus then if that be the case. Conditionalists, the verse says, "I lost NONE!!!" Jesus did not lose any of them that were given to Him and Scripture was fulfilled, but Judas being the son of perdition went to his own place so that the Scripture might be fulfilled as stated in John 17:12.

Do you now see the two fulfillments in Scripture met? Not one given to Christ has been lost and that is the one fulfillment of Scripture. The other is the son of perdition who is lost and that is the other fulfillment of Scripture. Judas never was part of them that Jesus was praying for in John 17 as Judas clearly never met those conditions at any time. Stop reading words into John 17:12 as Judas was never given to Christ as he clearly was distinguished from the other eleven. None given to Christ are lost "that the saying might be fulfilled" (John 18:9) and Judas was lost "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12).

Doesn't Scripture state that Judas fell by transgression and went to his own place (Acts 1:25)?? This is a common argument from conditionalists that I've heard that simply rewrites the verse when they argue with you. No, Judas fell by transgression from the office he held. It doesn't say that Judas fell from salvation but from apostleship. The verse reads:

"That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."

John 6:70 is another example of Jesus distinguishing Judas from the eleven. Jesus says,

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

How can one be saved and a devil at the same time? Dan Corner desperately tries arguing around the fact that Judas himself is clearly identified as a devil. Dan Corner wants to view the phrase as though Judas was gradually becoming evil. Dan Corner in his 801 pages of nonsense writes on page 280:

"Others will say Judas was called a devil (Jn. 6:70), a thief (Jn. 12:6), and Satan entered into him (Jn. 13:27), how then could he have been saved? Such people overlook the truth that one's spiritual condition can change from righteous to evil, as we clearly saw with Saul, Solomon and the Prodigal Son. Yes, Judas was once saved, though he wasn't clean shortly before the betrayal (Jn. 13:10,11). This, however, does not mean he was never saved! Remember, Judas was clearly the Lord's disciple in the beginning as already shown (Dan was using verses prior that Judas hated mother/father; carried his cross; gave up everything as proof that he was a disciple)"

This is nothing short of laughable even though it really is sad. Did Judas gradually become evil like Dan Corner claims??? Let's look at that verse again:

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

Here we have Judas being called a present tense devil and at the same time "one of the twelve." Conditionalists always breeze over this statement because it actually refutes their belief that a disciple has to be a saved person. How can you be a saved disciple and a present tense devil at the same time?? There is nothing here to indicate that Judas was gradually becoming evil.

Here is the real problem for Dan Corner, the Greek reads without the indefinite article "a" there. This means that Jesus wasn't saying that Judas was becoming "a devil" or is even "a devil" but "devil." That is a very direct statement about Judas. How Dan Corner comes up with the gradually becoming evil theory is beyond me and Scripture. Dan tried pointing to a later event that Judas eventually became "unclean" and it should be quite clear that Judas was never clean. So how can you have a present tense devil as a disciple?? You can if you argue from a conditionalist point of view that requires reading words into a verse not found.

Didn't Jesus say, "Have I not chosen you, the twelve" which points to a time in the past and the second half of the verse that reads "one of you is a devil" as being part of the past as well? Jesus was saying that I have previously chosen you twelve and one of you that I have chosen is a devil. He didn't say that I have chosen you twelve and one of you became a devil on Me. He certainly did not say, "I have chosen you twelve and one of you is gradually becoming like the devil" either. Let's stop the word games please and the arguments from your feeble logic. If we were really to argue logic then shouldn't the question be, "Why would Jesus deliberately pick a man that He knew would steal as well as deliberately betray Him?" Would you hire a man that you somehow knew would one day rob you blind? OK, so it doesn't make logical sense here according to our puny brains that Jesus would have made such a person His disciple to begin with. Don't argue your logic but argue Scripture. Where is Judas ever described as a saved man? Where is anything good stated about him?

So we clearly have a devil and not one becoming gradually evil as Dan Corner so desperately wants him to be as a disciple. Now Dan tries to run to John 13 where Judas is called unclean claiming that Judas at a later time became unsaved. You still have Judas as a part of the ministry Mr. Dan Corner. If Judas wasn't saved there in John 13 then why didn't Jesus tell him to take a hike? Dan Corner will say anything and everything he can to advance his conditional heresy. Remember, according to Dan Corner and other Conditionalists, a disciple of Jesus must be saved or they cannot be a disciple. If Judas lost his salvation there in chapter 13 then why is he still referred to as a disciple of Christ?? Dan clearly forgot to do his homework but simply blurts out his logical opinions concerning Judas and now has Scripture contradicting him.

We can see for ourselves how much longer Judas continued as a present tense devil. If you look at John chapter 7, then you will find Jesus in Galilee and you can be certain that He was there at least 6 months because chapter 6 took place before the Passover that was held in April. In John 7:2, was the Feast of Tabernacles that was held in October and that is how you come up with 6 months. In John 10:22,23, we have the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) that was held in December. In John 12:1,2, we have again the passover. So that means for over a year now, Jesus kept a present tense devil as a disciple. Conditionalists, would you keep a devil in your church for a year or even consider him saved? The fact is, we have a man chosen of the twelve, ordained, called and a disciple/apostle that was a devil at the same time and you can't get around that fact. I mock the teaching that the final days of Judas was when he actually turned from his so-called righteousness that Dan Corner and others invented to keep their erroneous teaching that Judas lost his salvation right around the time he betrayed Christ. You know as well as I do that if it were any other man that was not a part of the twelve and Jesus referred to such a person as "a devil" then no conditionalist out there in his right mind would say, "such a person was saved but gradually becoming evil." No, they would say that such a person was not saved or lost their salvation. Hopefully, you can now see why Dan Corner argues Judas was saved because he wants people to believe that you can lose your salvation as he attacks the free grace of God in Scripture.

Also, in John 12:6, Judas was described as a thief in the past tense. It said, "he was a thief." How long was he a thief? Long enough where Jesus knew that he was one at this time. You need to read Dan Corner's comments on 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 as he argues how one sin can cause you to lose your salvation. Dan Corner will admit that a thief has no place in God's kingdom. Now if Dan and others are going to say, "How can Jesus allow someone to be a disciple that isn't saved?" then please explain verse 6 according to your beliefs?? No thief has any inheritance in the kingdom of God according to your teaching right? A disciple must be saved according to your logic right? Look at verse 4 that says,

"Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray Him."

Here we have the thief called a disciple and who also is a present tense devil. So much for the disciple must be saved theory. Salvation is free and discipleship is always costly in Scripture. This is why conditionalism and Lordship salvation should embrace each other here since Lordship twists discipleship verses into salvation apart from works verses and so do conditionalists. John MacArthur says that salvation is free yet costly. The conditionalists advocate Robert Shank has a title in his book called the High Cost of a Free Gift where he too mixes discipleship with free grace. Lordship salvation and conditionalism are friends of another gospel and do not even know it. Only Catholics recognize that Lordship salvation is very close to their teachings (see my blog on Lordship salvation takes a slap in the face).

It makes no sense to continue this any further. One can see the deception of those that simply want to take verses out-of-context and merely read their logic into them. Was Judas a saved man? I think we read enough to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not.

Eternal Security and the Prodigal Son

This is perhaps one of the most favorite proof texts for Conditionalists (those that believe you can lose your salvation). The words “was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (verses 24,32) seems to them to be convincing proof that one can become dead again spiritually as well as lost again spiritually.


Conditionalists that I’ve debated will ask me if I can see the phrase “was dead and is alive again” their way as very possibly meaning that a person can be saved and then lost. The answer is yes, if you ignore the context, read extra words into it and if you make the teachings of the nation of Israel as somehow pertaining to the body of Christ as well. The people of the nation of Israel were pictured as children of God since they were children of covenant that has no bearing on the body of Christ today! The nation of Israel was temporarily put aside because of her rejection of the Messiah.

The Conditionalists view of this passage has some serious flaws. 1^st, the Scribes and Pharisees that this passage was rebuking were described as a son as well. The Pharisees and Scribes were complaining in verse 2 that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them.” The parables to follow were spoken to them (vs. 3). Jesus’ message to Israel was for that nation to repent for they were the chosen people of God that had strayed. The message to the body of Christ is found later after the death of Christ. Also, the strayed son knew that he still was a son because he wanted to personally tell His father, "I am no longer worthy to be called your son" (verse 19) and he didn't say, "I am no longer your son because of my sins."

Jesus came only to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) and His ministry was confined to them (Matthew 10:6). Sheep was a term only given to the Jews and NEVER Gentiles. People often quote John 10:16 and believe that the “other sheep” refers to Gentiles but that is a serious error. There is not one verse of Scripture anywhere where any Gentile is called a sheep in the body of Christ. My only point is that the Jews were pictured as “lost sheep” and were the chosen people of God, children by a covenant relationship. This parable that shows both the Pharisees and this prodigal son as being “sons.” Whether one agrees with that or not doesn’t matter since I will still show that loss of salvation is not what was being taught here.

In Luke 15, the Pharisees and Scribes were being rebuked because they did not see themselves as sinners and would have nothing to do with anyone that was a sinner. In verse 2, we have a clear example of their dislike for sinners but Jesus shows on the other hand the love of God for such people while at the same time exposing the heart of these Pharisees and Scribes.

Another problem with what Conditionalists teach this passage to mean is that the parable seems to teach that we get it better the second time around by being saved again. In verses 22-27, the Father made quite a celebration for a man who knew better and went out and squandered everything that he had thereby losing his salvation. His coming back the second time resulted in him getting the “best robe” and a “ring” (not a new ring) and “sandals on his feet.” Then the Father has a celebration by killing a fatted calf followed by music and dancing. If Conditionalists can twist this chapter into saved, lost and then saved again then I can preach a sermon called “The Benefits of Losing Your Salvation!”

Another problem for Conditionalists is the fact that this “son” that supposedly lost his salvation was ALWAYS called a “son.” I never heard a good explanation of that since they are the ones that condemn the phrase “once a son always a son.” This prodigal son has been as a dead man to the Father as Joseph was to his father in the Old Testament when his brothers had convinced his father that Joseph was torn to pieces by a wild beast. This wayward child came to his senses and returned to his Father and still viewed himself as a son (v.19). One must remember that this is a parable that deals with the Kingdom of heaven. The “new robe,” and the “ring” and the “new sandals” were picturing the banquet that symbolized the coming kingdom of heaven that will one day be established on earth that was just talked about in chapter 13:29; and 14:15-24.

Conditionalists amaze me in that they will usually use the prodigal son as an example of someone losing the sealing of the Holy Spirit. They will say that the prodigal son was sealed and then lost it. This proves to me that they cannot separate the promises to the nation of Israel from the body of Christ. Only the body of Christ is promised this sealing along with its guarantee since the Holy Spirit was not yet given when Christ walked the earth. There is no sealing of the Holy Spirit promised to anyone before the Holy Spirit was even given nor was it taught. This is an example of conditionalist such as Dan Corner wickedly inserting words into a passage not found.

Many spiritual applications can be drawn from this chapter but losing ones salvation is impossible since that is not what is being pictured here. If the one lost his salvation then the hard hearted, unloving and self-righteous Pharisee and Scribes are saved even though they clearly hate the grace of God as pictured in this parable. You can’t pay attention to only one son while ignoring the other clearly standing there complaining about God’s grace. It appears that nearly all of those that believe you can lose your salvation never focus on that other son. They simply see the words “dead” and “lost” and read salvation there. This is why I can never be a conditionalist simply because I can never handle God’s Word with such disrespect and carelessness. May God save these people from their sins of self-righteousness that they are blind from seeing.

I too can make up my own spiritual application from this passage in Luke. I can say that the two sons represent the two prominent thoughts in Scripture today. The one son represents OSAS and the other son represents those that believe you can lose your salvation. The OSAS runs away in sin but later remembers the kindness and love of His heavenly Father and comes back humbled by such love and ashamed as to how he could have ever sinned against such love. The other son (conditionalists) complains to God, “I have been so good and faithful to you all of these years. That moron over there has clearly presumed upon your grace and has squandered it. Please do not tell me that you simply have forgiven him of all of what he has done?? Only people like us conditionalists deserve your love because we continually obey you and not those osas people that think that grace alone gives them a place here in your kingdom apart from works.”

Get real conditionalists. This parable is teaching that God loves the sinner, that God seeks out sinner's and those that return to Him by the context will be restored to the full blessings of sons. The Pharisees were being exposed (other son) that believed that God hated sinners and it was the other son (Pharisees and Scribes) that was representing them that stood complaining about the God that "receives sinners." Notice, the banquet was for the sinner and the other son was outside the house as he heard the sounds of rejoicing. This other son became angry as he felt that he was faithful and the Father didn't do anything like that for him. The Father pleaded with the other son (v.28) that was to change his attitude about the returning son. The other son (Pharisee) felt cheated as he said,

"And he answering said to [his] father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf." (V. 29,30).

The Father goes on to tell this other son that he is entitled to the same privileges as well but the other son (Pharisee) shows that he really doesn't care for it. These Pharisees considered themselves as the true servants of God and sons of God. This parable exposes their hearts that they were really not of God at all as their attitude was contrary to the God that they thought they knew. If these Pharisees would only come and acknowledge their own sinfulness then they too could be a part of God's true family by being forgiven also. This parable is Jesus answering the charge in verse two that says, "And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." The parable ends with the Father receiving the wayward son and eating with him.

When considering this parable, I do see the other son mirroring extremely close the today's conditionalists and Lordship believers out there that despise the teachings of grace that God receives sinners. They will claim that God receives sinners but only that they are now living like the other son (Pharisee) after they are saved and that is what we free grace believers reject. God receives sinners and eats with THEM and not the so-called cleaned up people that the other son represents. We serve because we love and not we serve because we fear (afraid of losing salvation). There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus!!!

How can I be righteous before a thrice holy God?

Most people at some point in their life have wondered if they had lived a life that will be considered acceptable by God and His standards. On what the majority opinion believes concerning this topic, we only need to consider two major views. Either one is good enough, or can become good enough to earn God’s approval; or I am not and I cannot be good enough, in which case God must produce a right standing for me and that would be a righteousness that is not of my own (Romans 3:10, 21-24). Here lies the great debate between God’s Word and man’s religion.

God never invented religion, man did and it was man that calls his religion “Christian,” while using Bible words and phrases, will be the same one that will battle God’s very Word when it comes to His pure and unadulterated grace (Galatians 1:6). Religion has compromised grace by their outright rejection often found in their subtle compromises. To compromise grace is nothing less than to reject God Himself. Grace is infinite, as infinite as the God of Grace Himself, and to make it less than infinite is to make it less than grace (Romans 11:6). “A little leaven, leavens the whole.” To add anything to something is to make something other than it originally was.

Two things should be abundantly clear when you study God’s Word. The first is that when a person is lost, he is totally lost (Ephesians 2:1). There are no degrees to the extent how lost a person can be. If two people working at the same company are fired then they are both equally unemployed. One might have stolen and the other was chronically late to work. Even though the consequences will be far worse for the person that stole, the fact remains that they are both equally without a job. A serial killer that never found the righteousness that God requires is just as lost as the morally upright man that never found the righteousness that God requires to be right with Him. The only difference is the consequences of choosing something as horrible as murder than the act of rejecting God’s righteousness will be far worse. God will certainly not punish a man that was morally upright the same as the man that spent his life in immorality.

The other is that when this lost person is saved, then that person is totally saved (Ephesians 2:1). You can’t be a little bit lost as one can’t be a little bit pregnant. Can a person be a little bit dead? Then you can’t be a little bit lost and you can’t be a little bit saved. To be saved has to be a complete and instantaneous change of standing before God. Otherwise it would be probation and not salvation. If God puts you on probation then you can be sure that you are not saved. But if you have been saved then you can be sure that you are not on probation.

Scripture knows nothing of Jesus Christ Who died to be our Probation Officer. It only knows a Christ that died to be our Savior (1^st John 4:14). To be 99% saved, would be 100% lost. There is no gray area here. Either you are saved now completely, with the righteousness to stand before an infinitely holy God, or you are not equipped at all (1^st John 3:18).

Clothing in the Bible can be used to metaphorically to represent righteousness, for any good concordance will reveal that. In Isaiah 64:6, God views human righteousness as “filthy rags.” This does not mean that God is against good works. He is against good works when they are presented to Him for salvation. An infinite amount of good works could not remove the smallest sin, or reduce man’s lost state by an ounce. This gap between a totally lost human race and a thrice-holy God could only be bridged by the crosswork of God’s Son on Calvary. Nothing less than that could rectify our condition as lost and, thank God, nothing more than that is needed. “If there had been a law given which could have given life, indeed righteousness should have been by the Law” (Galatians 3:21). But, “If righteousness is through law, then Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21).

Quickly, if God could have found a way to justify (declare righteous) lost and ruined sinners other than the way He gave, that is, sending His Son to die as our Substitute, then Calvary would have not only have been unnecessary, it would have been completely foolish and even evil. For God to send His Son to the Cross to suffer the immeasurable anguish of being judged for our sins, if some other way were possible, if something less would suffice, if there were any other alternative, would have been the greatest act of stupidity and complete wickedness. But the God of the Bible is neither stupid nor wicked. He found, not only the best way, but the only way to declare the “ungodly” righteous while retaining His integrity (Romans 3:26).

I copied a story years back about a tribe that once lived in Russia just like the Indian tribes that lived and still do in America. I do not know the author, but in this tribe, it was reported that someone was stealing. The tribal leader issued a proclamation that the thief, when captured, would receive ten lashes from the tribal whip master. Despite the warning, the thievery continued, even as the leader upped the level of punishment. Eventually he stopped raising that level once it reached forty lashes, knowing that only he could survive such a severe lashing. One day the thief was finally apprehended, and to the horror of everyone, the thief turned out to be the leader’s own aged mother.

The people speculated what the leader would do. One of his laws required children to love and honor their parents, yet another demanded the public whipping of thieves. Great arguments arose as the Day of Judgment approached. Would he satisfy his love and save his mother, or would he satisfy his law and watch his mother die under the whip?

Finally the day came. The tribe gathered around the great compound, in the center of which stood a large post. The leader soon entered and sat down on his throne. Then two towering warriors led his frail mother into the compound and tied her to the post. Finally the tribal whip master, a powerful man with bulging muscles, entered carrying a long leather whip. As he approached the little woman, the warriors ripped off her garment, exposing her frail back.

The whip master took his stance, his great arm cracked the whip in the air as he prepared to bring the first lash upon her. Just then the leader held up his hand to halt the punishment. A sigh of relief went up from the tribe. His love would be satisfied, but what about his law?

The leader rose from his throne and strode toward his mother. As he walked he removed his own shirt, tossing it aside. He then wrapped his great arms around his mother, exposing his huge muscular back to the whip master. Breaking the heavy silence he commanded, “Proceed with the punishment.”

That wonderful story illustrates what Christ did for us. Like the leader’s mother, our sin put us under the whip of judgment. Christ died the death that we deserved. Christ Himself came into this world so He could pay the penalty we owed just as the leader paid the penalty his mother owed. Christ is both our Judge and Savior, and for this reason God can declare sinners righteous without dispensing with His justice. Christ, Who is perfect righteousness, Who had no sin became sin for us that we, who had no righteousness but only sin, might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2^nd Corinthians 5:21). Christ is our righteousness! (1^st Corinthians 1:30). In our society, some people have more relative righteousness than others, but no one can stand before God clothed in human righteousness! (Romans 3:20). To stand before God, you and I need a perfect righteousness, and this we have in Christ. This means that if you and I as believers, as those who have fully trusted the finished work of Christ on Calvary, were to die and stand before God today, God would find no more cause to condemn us than He could find to condemn His spotless Son! (John 3:36).

No unsaved man or woman can stand before God in the rags of human righteousness. No saved man or woman of God can fail to stand before Him in the spotless garment of the righteousness of God.

If you died today, what garment would you wear into His presence? Are you still going to vainly attempt to satisfy the justice of God by your efforts or are you going to trust Christ that has already satisfied His justice on your behalf? Will you now let go of your works and trust in the Savior that died carrying all of your sins to the cross so that you can stand clothed in His righteousness before the throne of God? All God asks of you is to believe in His Son that has done all the work required to give you a permanent right standing with Him. To believe is like a beggar that can’t give a penny but can only receive. To believe is like the earth that simply drinks of the rain and bathes in the sun. To believe is to hear Christ before He breathed His last breath on the cross “It is finished!” and you simply say, Amen. To believe is to rest from your efforts in order to be made right before God. Any works of yours are only keeping you lost and from being made righteous before God. Works only has its place in the person that has been saved but they are never for the purpose of getting or staying saved. Will you not completely trust Him today and be made righteous in His sight?

Romans 4:5: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

God makes righteous those that are unrighteous; God forgives those that deserve no forgiveness. Come this moment as you are, a sinner that is lost and unrighteous before a holy God. Make no attempt to bring any human righteousness of yours before God but come as you are to Him that justifies the ungodly. God will receive you, forgive you and make you righteous in His sight if you will simply come to Him as a sinner believing His message concerning His Son that died for your sins. Will you be saved now?

Ephesians 2:8,9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Eternal Security and the foolish virgins

Matthew 25:1-13 is the parable about the ten virgins awaiting the return of the bridegroom. The passage reads:

1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."

This is one of the passages that those that believe that you can lose your salvation will appeal too. Here is quote from Dan Corner on this very chapter:

"According to Jesus, five out of ten (or 50%) in the last generation who were once saved will experience this horrible fate (Mt. 25:1-13). The Lord could have said three out of ten or two out of ten, but he didn't. He said five out of ten or 50%! Such foolish virgins once had a lamp burning for God, but it stopped burning because it ran out of oil.
Jesus also taught:
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each. other (Mt. 24:10, NIV).

"Though painful to admit, you potentially can still end up in eternal fire, even if you are a Christian at this moment! To believe otherwise is to be misinformed about the Biblical record." (Believer's Conditional Security, page 582).

Dan Corner proves that he has never had any real biblical training at all. His arguments are almost as bad as Harold Camping who comes up with such bizarre arguments from passages of Scripture. 50% of the last generation were once saved? So if there were 10,000 then saved Jesus was literally teaching that only 5,000 would be ultimately be saved??? Sigh.

Let's look at what Scripture really is saying and not adding what we like it to say as that is Dan Corner's preference.

See my blog on Matthew 24:13 about the one that endures to the end shall be saved. The context of Matthew 25:1-13 comes from Matthew 24. Chapter 24 was dealing with the tribulation period or what is known as the time of Jacob's trouble (Jer. 30:7). This judgment had to do with the nation of Israel in Matthew 24. This is not dealing with the church as the church will not be here during the tribulation period. The passage is Jewish and one can see it. If one wants to see it as embracing all then you simply have not learned yet the difference between the message Christ gave to the nation of Israel and the message given to the body of Christ. I will deal a little with that later.

Matthew 25 begins teaching what the kingdom of heaven will be like. Many people such as Corner do not realize that the "kingdom of heaven" is not heaven but an earthly kingdom (Davidic Covenant). This is dealing with entering the millennial kingdom promised to the nation of Israel and not the United States of America. There is going to be a judgment and yes, the judgment will involve Gentiles alive during that time. The unsaved will have no entrance into this kingdom but will be shut out. One day there will be a people (not 50% of the last generation as this event is future) that are not prepared and the door will be shut and they will not be allowed to enter in. Remember, Christ at this time is returning with His bride, the church and there will those that were alive during this time invited to the feast and they were prepared for Him. Dan Corner and others like to see it as the door of heaven itself shut and not the millennial kingdom.

If this passage is teaching the loss of salvation then we have some serious problems here. What does the oil represent? Some say the Holy Spirit regenerating work in salvation. If that be the case then please explain verse 10 where the virgins went to buy more oil? Is salvation free or does it literally cost money? They did go and buy and came back but not allowed to enter in so please explain how they now received this oil representing salvation and the Holy Spirit in regeneration and still be rejected?? If the oil represents salvation or the Holy Spirit then these 5 foolish virgins got it the next day but then why were they rejected? Hmmm, maybe it is because conditionalists simply like to read words not found in the text. Anyways, at the time of this passage, the Holy Spirit was not yet given, so I severely doubt that the disciples were understanding at this point the future role of the Holy Spirit regenerating the believer and indwelling him/her.

If the oil represented the Holy Spirit then these ten virgins committed the same great sin as Simon the sorcerer that thought that the Holy Spirit could be purchased with money (Acts 8:18,19). If the oil represented the gospel or salvation then these wise virgins were selfish in refusing to give the gospel to them. Are we really to assume that the wise virgins were capable of giving the foolish virgins some of their salvation or the Holy Spirit when the foolish virgins cried out, "Give us of your oil" (Verse 8)??? So then, shouldn't the phrase "give us of your oil" mean "give us of your Holy Spirit" or even "salvation"?? Was there really not enough Holy Spirit or salvation to go around? The Holy Spirit is available for all mankind and no wise person would ever refuse offering life to another person.

Can you see now how the conditionalists are way out of line when making this chapter a loss of salvation chapter? It doesn't say that the foolish were saved and then lost it because they had burning oil. It doesn't teach either that they were once on fire for God as one author said because then these foolish virgins were on fire for God the next day but it is clear that such an interpretation is desperate.

No, this parable is dealing with Jewish people who will be alive on the earth during the time of Jesus second coming. The body of Christ would have already been raptured out of this time of wrath. During that time, faithfulness and watching will be required of those alive to have a part in the Millennial Kingdom.

What about us today? The Scripture makes it clear:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5:9). Not those that have oil burning at the time.

1st Thessalonians 5:4-10 is abundantly clear that we shall be saved from wrath whether we are watchful or not. Remember, the passage in Matthew 25:1-13 is very clear that one must be prepared and watching but what does Scripture say to us believers today in this present age of grace? Look at 1st Thess. 5:4-10:

"5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

Study those words and you can see Paul summing it all up in verse 10 that whether we are watchful or lazy and indifferent (not watchful), we should live together with Him!!!

Conditionalism is a dangerous and damning teaching that will damn more than 50% that believe it since it clearly is another gospel. If you have not believed the free grace gospel to be saved then there is a very good chance that you never believed savingly at all. I do not believe that the gospel as taught by Dan Corner and many others will save a single soul that believes what they teach. I fear for conditionalists and I greatly fear for Dan Corner that has deceived many.

Thoughts about Dan Corner

I have done a book review on Dan Corner. I also did a blog on whether a person must "continually" believe to be saved. There was something that crossed my mind about Dan Corner who clearly does not know Greek and I am not saying that to insult him. I'm saying that because it is clear that he has not studied it period. Dan Corner calls the present tense in Greek as being the "continuous tense" and often refers to that when he deals with passages of Scripture that teaches us to believe to be saved. He doesn't want people to think that a moment of faith can save but a continuous life of faith does saved and keeps us saved. Every time he encounters the present tense when the verse supports the OSAS position then he shouts out "continual tense" arguments showing his lack of education in the Greek Scriptures.

I realized that Dan deceitfully will not argue those words (continual tense) when it comes to our forgiveness being described in the present tense since he would be arguing our position that we are forgiven of all sin. He would have to argue that we are in a continuous state of forgiveness. Can you see Dan saying, "continual tense" to the verse that says we have forgiveness of sins??? NOPE!! Dan also doesn't even agree with Lordship salvation position on 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 since the sins listed there are in the present tense. Lordship will argue that the present tense in 1st Cor. 6:9,10 are not arguing an occasional mishap but a continuous lifestyle of sin. Dan Corner argues that the single act there will cause you to lose your salvation.

I already said concerning those that believe that you can lose your salvation that they will rely on first year Greek, multitude of Bible versions, inserting words not found in the text and so on. We also have a man that will argue "present tense" one way in one passage and another way in another. As I said elsewhere, conditionalists do not care what they argue as long as whatever tactic they use will help keep others from believing in eternal security then somehow it is justified. This is clearly the work of the devil.

Eternal Security and 1st Corinthians 15:2

Those that believe you can lose your salvation will appeal to 1st Corinthians 15:2 as proof that one must persevere believing in order to be saved. 1st Corinthians 15:1,2 says,

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain."

If we look at verse 2 alone then it will appear that one must hold firmly to the gospel or otherwise you will not be saved. I do find it difficult to emphatically argue whether the verse is dealing with salvation from sin or was Paul dealing with progressive sanctification that we believers experience in our daily walk since the Greek stresses the latter in verse 2. When Scripture speaks of our salvation in the past tense then it refers to our justification, if it speaks about our "being" saved presently then it is referring to our sanctification (growth) and when saved is future tense then it is referring to our glorification. The word "saved" here is the present tense that refers to our progressive sanctification and not positional sanctification. Example of positional sanctification can be found in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that speaks about our sanctification in the past tense. That makes it all a work of God apart from man. The present tense has to do with the believers walk. I am not dogmatic here on this chapter on whether Paul was emphasizing in verse two about our present sanctification as I can argue the truth from both points from this passage.

Verse two uses a combination of Greek tenses that make present sanctification the most likely interpretation. The words "are saved" is the Greek Present passive. The word "keep" is the Greek present active. These two phrases I gave deal with present salvation as that is almost always equated with our progressive sanctification (growth) and never positional sanctification (God's work apart from us). Vines Expository dictionary sees the word as referring also to our progressive sanctification and not salvation from sin being the focus here. The phrase "unless you believed in vain" is the aorist tense in Greek. The word arrangement makes a very strong case since the word "stand" in verse 1 is the Greek perfect tense stressing continuous action as I will explain shortly and the Greek tenses in verse 2 make it as meaning that we have been saved in the past with emphasis on salvation in the present that refers to our sanctification or growth. This is the problem with conditionalism as they do not seem to understand the difference between past, present and future tenses when it comes to our salvation. The past refers to salvation from sin, the present from the power of sin and the future deals with our ultimate glorification.

Since conditionalists will possibly be reading this, I will argue that verse two and the word "saved" is from sin to make them happy since they do stumble over the different tenses in Scripture.

The words "keep in memory" have the same meaning elsewhere in Scripture that uses such words as "hold firmly" and so on. It is used in Hebrews and even there it is referring to our spiritual growth and not our positional sanctification. No Scripture ever provides warnings against our position in Christ as it is fixed, but there are warnings concerning our daily walk (progressive sanctification) but it can never affect our position. Scholars do have a strong case for their beliefs concerning progressive sanctification in verse two, but I want to argue it from the standpoint that salvation is in question as that will help those that are struggling with the faith. You heard the one view (progressive sanctification) and I believe when I share the other view (saved from sin) then it will confirm all the more that salvation really is not in question at all here and your salvation is certain.

Scholars try to argue that in verse one that says,

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand."

The word "stand" is the Greek perfect tense and that tells us that our stand is continual. The perfect tense in Greek is stating something that was completed in the past and the results continue on to the present. An example of a perfect tense in Scripture to make this easier to understand are these words from Jesus in John 19:30, "It is finished." The word "finished" is perfect tense in Greek. It was an action completed in the past but the results continue on to this day.

Matthew 4:4 is another example when Jesus said, "It is written." The word "written" is the perfect tense. The word was written and remains written.

In Ephesians 2:8, the word "saved" is perfect tense in Greek describing an action that took place in the past and continues on.

So the scholars argue that perfect tense of "stand" in 1st Corinthians 15:1 argues that their stand will continue. Paul definitely was arguing in verse 1,3 and 4 the gospel that they believed to be saved but to stray from that would affect their growth. Their sanctification or growth in Christ depends on whether they hold firm the truths given in the gospel. Now that is true, if we do not focus on the gospel that we draw our strength from then we will certainly wither spiritually and not grow as many of the Corinthians did not do after 5 years of being saved.

To me, it doesn't matter whether you believe salvation from sins or salvation from the power of sins here. I do find that the context argues something entirely different than what conditionalists believe. The words "unless you believed in vain" is used elsewhere in the same chapter and that is what defines what Paul was trying to teach here. This is why it can be dangerous isolating a verse or words from the context.

These Corinthians were saved by the fact that they firmly believed the truths found in verses 3 and 4 is what I think we can agree on. What does Paul mean when he says, "unless ye believed in vain"?

Please notice that the verses to follow are arguing the resurrection of Christ. Some of these Corinthians were denying the resurrection as verse 12 says,

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Notice what words Paul used in verse 14:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your FAITH IS ALSO VAIN."

If what they have not been taught wasn't true then their faith was vain. Look also at verse 17:

"And if Christ be not raised, YOUR FAITH IS VAIN; ye are yet in your sins."

Paul was arguing in all of those verses that if Christ's resurrection didn't happen then these Corinthians were still in their sins and their faith was useless (vain, empty). The wording is almost identical to verse 2. Paul was not telling them that if they stop believing the resurrection that they would lose their salvation since they "stand" (verse one, perfect tense) in that grace but only that if the resurrection never happened then the present result would be that none would be saved at all and that their faith was useless and so was Paul's preaching. The gospel saves but if you have believed something not true then your faith is vain is what Paul is arguing here. If Christ did not rise from the dead then we are all in serious trouble.

This was Paul's thought from the very beginning of this chapter and he had knew that some of them were denying the resurrection so they are saved by his message (verses 3,4) unless what they believed was vain to begin with is what verse two is about. Paul assured them that the message from the very beginning that saved them was that Christ died, was buried and rose again. If the message wasn't true then their faith was vain. Their standing in gospel that they saved by was firm (they "stand" in it) as they were saved by the message he delivered unto them if they firmly believe it unless what was delivered to them was not true (vain).

That is what verse two is stating. If the message that we believe turns out not to be true then our faith is vain. A Bible version that I do not care much for has translated verse 2 exactly how I was arguing it here. The New Living Bible says in their earlier edition,

"And it is this Good News that saves you if you firmly believe it-unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place."

The New Living Bible is a garbage version in my honest opinion and I am not a Bible hopper like Dan Corner that uses many versions that seems to read his theological position the best as is the same tactic done by Jehovah Witnesses. I only used it simply because it was worded exactly to the way I was arguing the passage here. Simply because the NLT translates the verse that way doesn't make it right. The context is what proves what I am saying as being true. Do not get stuck on a single verse but be sure to allow yourself to look around it. This is the problem with many believers as they stop on a verse that is difficult to understand and they go no further. The context shows what Paul is saying.

Paul here in 1st Corinthians 15:2 is arguing that they are saved by firmly believing the gospel providing that the info was true for if it wasn't then their faith was indeed vain. The progressive sanctification belief certainly is a fact that we need to hold firmly to the truths taught in order to grow and whether Paul was arguing that here or not is not important as we can see what Paul meant now. The Corinthians certainly had a problem with growing in their walk so denying the resurrection would certainly take away the power of it in their lives but I decided to argue from the saved from sin standpoint. Whichever, all I know is that this verse is not teaching that one must continually believe in order to be saved as the context proves that. If one wants to argue verse 2 as stating that the person experiences progressive sanctification from believing or saved from sin is fine as both do not create any problems. The passage clearly defines that our faith can only be vain if Christ was not risen. Paul started with verse two telling them that they are saved providing that what they believed wasn't in vain to begin with as some were doing with denying the resurrection that he went into right away in that chapter.

Eternal Security and Continual believing to be saved??

Must a Christian continually believe in order to be saved? Many out there argue that the word "believe" is in the present tense and that means continually. Free grace believers have accused such people of making faith a work. They feel that this is unfair since they say that they are exercising the same faith that we are but that they do not believe that only a moment of faith saves but a life of continual faith saves. However, are they really exercising the same faith? Why would their faith be a work and our not?

Those that teach that "believe" is in the present tense and that it must mean "continual" either do not know Greek or are a first year Greek student. You will find that the Greek present tense is just like the English present tense where the context and qualifying words help determine whether something is continual or not. I am typing this, but how many here would view the present tense word "typing" as meaning unending? If I were to say, "He that kills another man (singular) commits murder." Now "commits" is in the present tense but did I mean one act of murder or continuous?

The problem with saying that the present tense in Greek means continuous is that the present tense is the second most used tense in Greek next to the aorist. I believe over 700 words in the New Testament are in the present tense so that would mean that in every case it would have to be continuous. Here are some examples in Scripture of the present participle in Greek that clearly does not mean continual:

"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face" (Matthew 6:17). The word "fastest" is in the present tense but if you were to continually fast then you will certainly die.

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (Matthew 6:3). So, who here gives continuous alms? That's in the present tense in Greek too.

"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:42). The word "asks" is the present participle in Greek so does this mean that we are only to give to those that don't shut up asking something from us?

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). The word "says" is in the present tense so are we to assume that such a person is continually saying "Lord Lord"???

"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever" (Matthew 8:14). The word "sick" is present tense in Greek so does that imply that she was continually sick or presently sick?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The word "looketh" is in the present tense so does that mean that I have to continually look upon a woman to lust after and only then have I committed adultery with her in my heart? Does the word "looketh" imply a glance or not? It can be a long gaze or a short gaze but not continually as though it never ends.

Now I only used a few verse very close to each other. The present tense is very common in the New Testament and rarely means continual. These people that believe you can lose your salvation prey upon your ignorance of the Greek. People are made to assume that the Greek present tense must differ from the English so ever instance of a present tense word for "believe" must mean continual. Yes, the present tense is what you would use to stress continual but the context or qualifying words will determine that just like in English.

Acts 16:31 says,

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." The word "believe" here is not in the present tense but in the aorist tense.

We have Scripture that speaks of believing in the past tense. Look at Ephesians 1:13b:

"in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." You were sealed not by continually believing but as the result of having believed before.

John 3:16 has been altered to say this, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever continually believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life if he endures to the end believing." Doesn't sound good does it? Doesn't offer much hope. Puts all the work in the hands of man. Man is now his own savior.

Here is the big problem with making John 3:16 to mean "continually believe." Look at verses 14 and 15 and see what Jesus compared himself too:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

The Old Testament reference was the brazen serpent that was lifted up on a pole and all that looked were healed. In the Old Testament passage, the look there was a moments glance that would heal and not a continuous look. Some people like John MacArthur Jr. try to argue that these people had to crawl and place themselves in a position so that they can see the serpent and be healed. This is nothing short of heresy as he is only seeking to add words to Scripture to keep his heretical Lordship salvation beliefs. They call what I believe as "easy believism" or "cheap grace." I beg to differ, it is not I that cheapen grace but it is they, for my God offers grace freely at His expense and their god offers grace at an expense on your part. If it is "easy believism" then why do so many stumble over the simplicity that is in Christ? He is a stumbling block to them. It is easier to believe that you have to do something for your salvation (works) but it is not so easy to rest your entire case upon another that has done it all for you.

That moment glance that heals is being compared to Christ being lifted up on the cross and whoever looks upon Him will be healed once and for all eternally. Continually believe is not taught in the context, but a glance is. The message is LOOK AND LIVE!!!!

Here is another problem believing in the continual believing theory to be saved. Not one verse of Scripture ever says to continually believe and thou shalt be saved. Do you know that the word "continual" is available in the Greek? If God meant to stress continual faith to be saved then don't you think that He would have found one place to have written that? We have such verses that says continually such as:

"CONTINUE in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving" (Colossians 4:2).

"Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and CONTINUETH in supplications and prayers NIGHT AND DAY" (1st Timothy 5:5).

"These all CONTINUED with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren" (Acts 1:14).

"Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him" (Acts 12:5).

"Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; CONTINUING instant in prayer" (Romans 12:12).

"Praying ALWAYS with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:18).

"ALWAYS in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy" (Philippians 1:4).

"Rejoice evermore. Pray WITHOUT CEASING In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. " (Thessalonians 5:16-18).

"Giving thanks ALWAYS for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"(Eph.5:20).

"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought ALWAYS to pray, and not to faint" (Luke 18:1).

If one must continually believe to be saved then it is very odd that not one verse of Scripture says that. Show one verse that says, "Continue believing and thou shalt be saved and thine house." The Bible sure is stressing the importance of "continuing" in prayer but never once says continue believing to be saved. Am I to assume that God demands continual faith in order to saved me? Why would the Holy Spirit lay such emphasis on prayer but not continual faith to be saved? Is not continually believing important?? Yes it is! However, the Bible places emphasis on Christ that is to be believed rather than the faith that knits us to Him. If we are saved by "continual faith" then where is the emphasis in salvation? Faith is resting where one comes to see that there is nothing he/she can do and it is throwing yourself in the arms of Jesus for salvation. Paul made a distinction between the faith that saves and the faith that grows. Colossians 2:6 says,

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord (by faith), so walk ye in him (by faith)."

Our faith must go on in order to grow. We received Christ Jesus (PAST TENSE!) by faith but now to walk and grow (PRESENTLY) in Him will require that we keep on with the same faith that saved us. Paul wasn't arguing here that we stay saved by believing but here it is emphasizing our walk. Faith that saves and faith to walk are two separate things coming from the same faith. Faith saves us apart from our works but we will require the same dependent faith on Christ in order to walk as people most often turn to law or the power of their flesh to grow. If faith to be saving must have works then this verse speaks a contradiction. Paul is teaching those that have believed in the past on how they are to presently grow. Lordship and conditionalists will say their clever words but the verse is crystal clear. A person clearly can believe and be saved but not be walking simultaneously as he might need later instruction on how to do so as it does not happen automatically nor does one need to do it to be saved or stay saved. The act of believing to be saved is in a category of its own and works that we need to be doing are in a category of their own. Quit mixing faith and works!

Does believing in continual faith to be saved make faith a work? Yes it does! What they fail to understand is that when the moment a person believes is when they are justified, sanctified and washed (past tense). They AFTER believing have been sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13). Our faith doesn't save us and that is why it doesn't have to be continual. If faith saves us then of course it must be continual and it will make our sustaining faith a work on our part. We can actually thank ourselves for continual believing. We now become our own savior. The focus is to be on Christ who is the object of our salvation and never faith. Who ever thanks their hand for receiving a gift? Do you thank the giver for giving or the hand for taking it? Do you take the gift once or does your hand have to stay continually extended receiving that gift? Faith allowed God to save us His way and not our way. Faith doesn't look to itself but to Christ. When Jesus bowed His head and said, "It is finished" then faith simply says, "Amen!" The earth receives the rain but takes no credit for it. We receive salvation from Christ but receive no credit for it. To say that continual faith is required is to take Christ out of the equation. The focus is now our faith and not Christ. The fact is, to believe continual faith only saves is to place your faith in Christ and in your faith. You now believe in faith and works. Get your eyes off of your faith and onto Christ. To focus on your believing is to make you doubt. You will start to wonder if your faith is a true faith and if it possesses all of the right things. Faith has its place in the believers life that has to do with our growth but never with our staying saved and that is why no "continually believe" verse can be found when dealing with the issue of salvation.

Eternal Security and 2nd Timothy 2:11-13

2nd Timothy 2:11-13:

"11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."

People have no problem with verse 11 and verse 13 but they get hung up on verse 12. This passage is dealing with the Millennial reign of Christ. Verse 11 is a statement of certain fact if the condition is met. Verse 12 is a conditional statement to us believers that deals with a reward for suffering.

What does verse 11 say, "IF we be dead with Him, we SHALL also live with Him." That is a promise based on simply if we died with Him. Paul said essentially the same words in Romans 6:8: "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." There are several verses elsewhere that talks about us dying with Him (see Romans 6:3-6) positionally. Another verse that speaks about our certainty is in Romans 5 and it is based on His death and not our suffering:

" 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Have you died (once, for Scripture said that we died in the aorist tense in Romans) with Him? It doesn't ask "Are you dying daily for Him?" We die the moment we place our confidence in the total savior-hood of Christ. If you have died with him then you SHALL live with Him!!! If you suffer (doesn't imply a past event like verse 11) for Him then you shall reign with Him in the Millennial kingdom. Only those that believe you can lose your salvation will want to mingle the two together to mean the same thing. If you believe that suffering with Him is required of us to be saved then you are a stranger to grace and have yet to savingly believe. You are teaching that you must suffer in order to be saved showing yourself to be a stranger to grace and Christ.

He will deny you what by the context? To reign or heaven? To say "reigning" and "heaven" represents the same thing is to show a very limited understanding of Scripture. To say "heaven" even though the passage is referring to the millennial reign is to deny verse 11 and make salvation by works. Verse 11 makes it clear that we will LIVE with Him if we had died with Him. Verse 12 makes it clear that we shall reign with Him if we choose to suffer for Him. To deny Him is to deny us what then? Don't be foolish and simply write "heaven" into that verse when it clearly is not referring to it. This is the problem with those that believe you can lose your salvation as they will always insert words or phrases into a passage or verse that doesn't contain it and that is not only wicked but extremely dangerous.

Salvation comes by faith in Christ and not by suffering for Him. Not one verse says, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Suffer for the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" anywhere. There will be a future glorification for those that suffer for Him. We do not know exactly what this reigning with Him in the Millennial kingdom will be exactly but only those that suffer with Him will share in His glory.

Verse 13 is the death blow to conditional security. Dan Corner explanation of this verse is laughable. He simply wants to view it that Paul is merely stating that Jesus will always be faithful regardless of anyone else. I guess Jesus abides faithful to Himself is what some conditional security believers like to make it. No, it would be a death blow to those that believe in eternal security if Paul were to say, "If we believe not then we will neither live or reign with Him."

Here is why Dan Corner and other conditionalists arguments are laughable. Verse 11 clearly states "if" followed by "shall live with Him." Verse 12 starts off with "if" followed by "shall reign with Him." The second half of verse 12 starts off with "if" followed by "He will deny us." The "if" of those two verses are conditional statements to the hearer. If the person meets those conditions then it follows with the promise relating to the hearer. So, if YOU died then YOU shall live. Dan Corner has deceitfully made verse 13 that begins with "if" separated from what the promise is to the hearer. The "if" follows with what Christ will do with such a person as it has been consistently flowing in the two prior verses. Sorry Dan, "if you believe not" is the condition and here is the result if you continue not believing, "He SHALL abide faithful. Only a fool will seek to separate the two as Dan so cleverly had done. Verse 11 determines the saved, verse 12 determines the reward, verse 13 refers to our ever faithful Lord abiding faithful to us even though we are anything but with Him.

There is another passage that makes it clear that unfaithful Christians will be saved. Look at 1st Thessalonians 5:10:

"Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

How many looking at that verse tried arguing that "wake" or "sleep" simply means "alive" or dead"??? Do you know that many try rendering it that way but it is impossible? There actually is one version that I know of off the top of my head that has deceitfully translated it that way (New Living Translation). Wake and sleep are defined by the context as I will share in a minute. The word "sleep" is not the same Greek word that Paul used elsewhere to describe the death of the believer. In fact, Paul never once used that Greek word to describe the "dead" and he never once used the Greek word for "wake" to describe the living. Look at the context where Paul already used the same Greek word in verse 10:

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

Therefore let us not sleep (lazy or indifferent), as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

I have seen many deceptive articles on this passage where people attempt either to not argue from the Greek or they will argue outside of Paul and the context. I have seen those that simply focus that the believer must be wake (alert, watchful) but nothing about the believer that is not watchful and is lazy as a lazy believer has no place in their theological position. Some have changed "wake or sleep" into "good or bad" even though those words do not have such meanings anywhere. They simply wanted the verse to say that Christ died for the good and the bad so that they might be saved if they trust Him. This is what I mean about people wanting their heresy and will do anything they can to distort God's Word to advance their damnable folly. These fools have taken clear cut verses applying to us believers personally and then tried their best to make it impersonal because it hurts their position.

Sorry, whether you are watchful or lazy and indifferent, you shall be saved from wrath through Him and you shall live with Him!!!!

Verse 13 of 2nd Timothy is a clear reference to unbelief of believers. If we believe not.... I believe it was the missionary Hudson Taylor that came to see the beauty of this verse. He struggled so much with his faith and doubts and this verse spoke volumes. He came to realize that he doesn't have to be so consumed with his unbelief as Jesus would always remain faithful and this served to actually strengthen his faith. He was no longer worried about his faith failing knowing that Jesus would always remain faithful to Him regardless of whether he believed or not. It was such a belief that took away his struggle to believe and cured him of doubts!!

How many Christians today struggle with believing today? They believe that God's faithfulness to them depends on their faithfulness to Him. Remember, it is only humans that have a love that gives and takes but not our God. Have you ever heard a married person claim that only they are giving their half to the marriage and not the other? They see marriage as a "give and take" loving marriage. Many problems in marriage happen because of that, if the husband doesn't take out the trash then the wife doesn't do the dishes as a punishment. God's love and faithfulness to us is not the same as many view marriage. God doesn't fold His arms and pout like we do. He doesn't lock Himself in a room until He felt that the silent treatment has done its job with you. Read 1st Corinthians 13 because the love of God is a love that gives and gives and doesn't expect anything in return. This is why Christ can remain faithful when we are faithless. If you struggle with the faithfulness and love of God then be sure to examine your own love and faithfulness with others as we often view God through ourselves. You can't expect to be a forgiving person when you struggle with the forgiveness of God.

Hudson Taylor was freed when he realized that even if he were to stop believing that Jesus would still abide faithful. Christ will be faithful regardless since we are in Him and He in us and that is all that matters. The reason that it frees is because your eyes are taken off of yourself which is imperfect and allows you to focus on Christ who is not only perfect but abides faithful regardless of our faithfulness. This is why those that believe in eternal security can rest assured that if they have died with Him that they too shall live with Him!! They are not like the conditionalists out there that must "continually believe" and "continually obey" in order to stay saved making it now all by works. We that believe in eternal security believe because of a heart set free of condemnation and fear. We serve with a reverent fear and not a fear that God will get rid of us if we don't persevere. Praise be to God, if we believe not, He shall abide faithful!!!