Free Grace Believer

New Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:18:00 +0000

This message is to inform all that my new blog site is www.godspuregrace.blogspot.com

Please note that I do not hold to all the traditional views of free grace theology. I found some of their arguments to be desperate. I do not agree with their views on eternal rewards in places as they take it to the extreme. I do not agree with their views concerning 1st John as being the 'Tests for Fellowship' non-sense. I better say too that I do not agree with Lordship salvation view of 1st John either as being the 'Tests for Life' as that is pure heretical non-sense. I do not agree with the crossless gospel. I have problems with Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and Joseph Dillow with some of their beliefs. I believe many in the free grace community behaves no differently than those in the Lordship salvation circles. We have many free grace people acting like KJV onlyists as they are nasty in their speech. Some have even resorted to deceitful acts.

Feel free to visit but all comments await my approval. If your goal is to be nasty and argumentative then please save it for your blog. My blog has only one group of people in mind and it is those that have been abused by religion. I have no time for those that seek to promote their heresy.

Simon the Sorcerer and Eternal Security

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:38:00 +0000

There are 3 known positions taught concerning Simon the Sorcerer:

1. Simon was saved but lost his salvation.
2. Simon was never saved at any point.
3. Simon was saved but in danger of physical death for his sin.

I will be focusing primarily on certain free grace teachers out there as I have to side against them on this one. They hold to number 3 that Simon was merely a carnal Christian that had the sin of carnal ambition who was only in danger of the chastening hand of God. He was to repent of his wicked thought to be forgiven and restored to fellowship with God. My refuting number 3 will also refute number 1 as well.

I have read books and articles that have dealt with Simon and him being saved. I have to admit that I found their position to be very unconvincing as they often read words into the text nowhere stated. If we are going to accuse the Lordship Salvation advocates of adding words to a passage nowhere stated then we ought to show the same consistency by not adding words here.

Certain teachers of the free grace position believe that since Acts 8:13 says, "Simon also believed" proves irrefutably that Simon was saved. Simon was baptized too and will quote Acts 2:38 and Acts 16:31-33 for additional support. It appears that any time you have a verse that says, "believed on Him" then it must be true saving faith in every instance according to them. If that is true then those free grace teachers will have a hard time answering what Peter actually meant when he spoke harsh words to Simon. I will share how the words are actually used elsewhere and how free grace teachers will quote verses that clearly do not relate at all.

However, John 2:23-24 appears to contradict such a position that "believe" is always saving. The verses read:

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed (PISTEUO) in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

But Jesus did not commit (PISTEUO) himself unto them, because he knew all men

Some free grace teachers believe that since the words "believe in His name" were used then the people had to be saved and quote John 1:12. I do agree with many others that their belief was not in a Christ who takes away sin but only in the miracles they observed. Jesus perceiving this knowing what was in their hearts did not "commit" Himself unto them. Some versions translates the same Greek word for "believe" as trust. They write that Jesus did not "trust" them. I am not saying that these people are saved or not but that the word Jesus used casts some doubt as Jesus "PISTEUO" appears to speaking against their "PISTEUO" that was "in Him." I just don't know if they believed the message or the miracles. It seems that such miracles is what led us to John 3 and Nicodemus. He too spoke about the miracles that he and others were seeing. I will comment on that shortly.

I found one author comparing Matthew 12:48-50 to these verses here in John believing he is clarifying what Jesus meant by His response "Jesus did not commit himself unto them." Comparing Matthew 12:48-50 to John 2:23-24, the author argues that friendship with Christ is conditional and that is why Jesus would not "commit Himself unto them." I found that to be an example of reading words nowhere stated into John 2. Matthew 12 and John 2 are not even identical. You will not find similar wording either. I also do not like reading words into the context nowhere stated. If friendship with Jesus is conditional then I can read Psalm 41:9 that speaks about Judas:

Yea, mine own familiar (close) friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

(Compare to John 13:18).

Jesus called Judas "friend" when Judas betrayed Him with a kiss. Was Judas a friend because he was abiding in Christ? Reading verses from all over the place can create problems as you can make Scripture teach anything. Looking at the immediate context is critical. Comparing the same Greek words or phrases can be extremely helpful in understanding what an author meant.

I was told by another man claiming to believe in free grace:

"The believers of John 2:23-24 were not willing at that point to abide in His word, so He did not want to entrust them with further intimate knowledge."

That is a little better than the usual free grace arguments that I heard and is the position held by Dr Charles Bing and probably others. "Not willing to abide in His word" and "entrust them with further intimate knowledge" appears to be read into the verse. He comes up with his position by reading John 8:30-32 into what we read here to make it appear plausible. I don't like reading into verses because we can read John 3 into John 2:23-24. John 3:2 says:

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

We can argue again that it is possible to have faith in miracles but not necessarily Christ. The miracles itself should bring one to faith but not necessarily. It appears that in John 3 the Pharisees had discussed amongst themselves the miracles that Jesus had done when Nicodemus said, "We know that thou art a teacher come from God" but were not saved.

I'm not here to argue John 2:23-24 but only to show a similarity of what we read here to Acts 8. As we now study Acts 8 then I do hope you too will see the similarities and how Simon was never a saved man. If one wants to argue "context" then let's let Acts 8 argue for itself. If you are convinced that "believe" must always mean saving then you will be forced to read and see words nowhere stated in Acts.

I read Acts 8 but not once do I see God's wondrous grace being read concerning Simon but the passage certainly has him in focus. I see a story about a sorcerer that "bewitched the people of Samaria." Simon was a man that boasted to others that he was "some great one."

I read that Simon's followers to FIRST believe the good news concerning the kingdom. Simon had lost his followers. Verse 13 beings with "THEN Simon himself believed also" as it appears that only when Simon lost his followers then he too believed. It appears that Simon "believed" the same message of verse 12. It only says, "he believed" and nothing else. I will not argue that "himself believed" as being the same as "believed on Him" as I need to look at the context as a whole.

Verse 13 doesn't even end without us hearing how Simon "wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done" which seems to parallel to a certain extent John 2:23-24. Simon believed the miracles but we will soon see that he had a perverted understanding of a free gift. Again, Simon and not his followers is being singled out here. It still amazes me after all the faith healers that have been exposed that people are still drawn to signs and wonders. People claiming faith because some image on brick wall looks like the Virgin Mary or because of statues of Mary with tears coming down her face.

Verse 17 reads:

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

It doesn't say Simon received the Holy Spirit. Some will argue that "they" would include Simon but this passage already has been "Simon" versus "they" all along. Simon is being singled out here. It appears that his followers received the Holy Spirit because it was something Simon only "saw" in verse 18 that says:

And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money

Verses 18-19 tells us that Simon offered money proving that he had a perverted understanding of a free gift. He lost his followers in verse 12 and now it appears that he found a way to still come across as "some great one" to others if he only can get his hands on this power he was observing.

Verse 20, Peter gives a very strong response to Simon's wickedness:

But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Peter uses the word "perish" that literally means, "be unto destruction." Question, did Peter mean physical death or spiritual death here as both are possible? Was Peter saying, "Go die with your money"? Or, "To hell with you and your money"? This is where some free grace teachers will argue that "perish" here is physical death. They will quote Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead physically over the issue of money. It would help their case if Peter used the word "perish" in Acts 5, but he doesn't.

The word "perish" can either mean physical death or spiritual death. John 3:15,16; 10:28 are some verses that clearly use the word "perish" as referring to the lost. We obviously will have to look further in this chapter to see if Peter was addressing a saved man in danger of physical death or a lost man in danger of damnation.

Verse 21 seems to give the proof that Simon was indeed a lost man. The verse reads:

Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Peter said, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter" and that sounds quite clear to me that Simon was not a saved man. However, certain free grace teachers will quote John 13:8 that says:

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

They read John 13:8 into Acts 8:21 and claim that Jesus was teaching that we must confess our sins to remain in fellowship. To have no "part or lot" simply means to them that Simon was out of fellowship and needed to repent and seek forgiveness to be restored. That is terrible exegesis on their part. The word "lot" in verse 21 is the same Greek word used when talking about the saved. To have "no lot" would mean to have no salvation. The word "lot" can be translated as "inheritance." No such words are found in John 13:8. To further prove that their reading of John 13:8 into Acts 8:21 is wrong is by looking elsewhere to see how the word is used. The exact same Greek word is used in the same book of Acts. Acts 26:18 reads:

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

That verse clearly is speaking a message to the lost and that is irrefutable. How does the lost have the inheritance among them which are sanctified? Was Simon a saved man that had "no part or lot"? How can you now read John 13:8 into Acts 8:21? Look at the same Greek word in Colossians 1:12:

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

1st Peter 5:3 has the same Greek word but translated as "heritage":

Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

What Peter said seems to parallel Deuteronomy 12:12 where the Levites had no inheritance in the promised land as it was not given to them:

And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you.

Deuteronomy 14:27 says:

And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.

I cannot and will not agree with certain free grace teachers that Simon only needed forgiveness to be restored to fellowship in order to escape the chastening hand of God where he would die for his sin as verse 21 clearly contradicts them. The wording here does not support John 13:8 or that Simon was only a carnal Christian needing restoration. Simon was clearly a lost man.

The second half of verse 21 is especially interesting that says:

for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Someone might argue that a believer can have a heart that is not right with God here. However, I found that specific Greek word for "right" only translated as "right" in 2 other places and it doesn't help the case for Simon ever being saved. One of those verses comes from 2nd Peter 2:15:

Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Do you know that the other verse for this Greek word "right" is found only a few chapters away after Acts 8? The part that surprised me in my study is that the same word "right" is used when addressing another sorcerer who clearly was not saved. See Acts 13:8-10:

But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

One might argue that this proves nothing as Greek words can certainly have more than one type of meaning. I agree, but none of these things here supports any idea that Simon was a saved man that turned carnal and only needed forgiveness to have his fellowship restored. The facts keep mounting that Simon was a lost man.

Verse 22 says:

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

The word "repent" (METANOEO) is consistently used in the book of Acts to the unsaved and not the saved. Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:19:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Acts 17:30:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 26:20 uses the word "repent" and it also is the same chapter and context that I quoted earlier using the same Greek word for "lot":

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

To claim that Simon only needed to repent to be restored to fellowship CANNOT be supported by Scripture here as one can see for themselves that "repent" in the entire book of Acts does not mean what some free grace teachers so desperately want it to mean. The evidence is now overwhelming that Simon was a lost man.

Peter said in verse 22, "if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Some free grace teachers will attempt to use this as proof that Simon was a saved man because the message of the gospel is "believe and thou shalt be saved" and not "believe and perhaps thou shalt be saved." It is verse 23 that makes it clear what Peter meant here. Some also view verse 22 that God might be reluctant to forgive Simon but that is not the case either. Verse 23 says:

For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

Verse 23 makes it clear that Peter believed Simon to be extremely wicked and in the bond of iniquity that he chose the word "perhaps" in verse 22. Peter appears to have strong doubts that Simon in his extreme wickedness could even repent in such a condition and we will soon see that was the case. God is not unwilling to forgive as some see the verse to mean but that Simon's condition was a very grim one. It was in verse 24 that one can see that Simon did not pray as Peter instructed but asked Peter to pray on his behalf.

Some free grace teachers argue that "gall of bitterness" does not mean the same thing as damnation, but I do not know of anyone that makes the claim that they are equivalent. They claim that a believer can be bound by iniquity. I agree that a believer can be bound by sins (lust, anger, etc), but I do not like to force our language of today into a verse. Verse 23 here is quite similar to that of the OT that speaks of apostasy. Deut. 29:18 says:

Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood

The "gall of bitterness" refers to extreme wickedness. "Bitterness" can be used for both believers and unbelievers alike (compare Romans 3:14 to Ephesians 4:31). I cannot find "bond of iniquity" as a reference to the saved, but I can't prove that it only applies to the lost either. I examined the word "bond" as to how it is used elsewhere in the NT. Does "bond of iniquity" speak to the saved or the unsaved? I never find the same word for "bond of iniquity" ever being said concerning a believer. I instead find the same word "bond" when addressing the believer as:

"the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3)

"the bond of perfectness" (Colossians 3:14)

"bands having nourishment ministered" (Col. 2:19, bands is the same Gk word).

One might argue that what I just shared proves nothing. It is my opinion that "bond of iniquity" is the opposite of how others use it to describe a believer. I find the "bond of iniquity" as addressing an unbeliever that has not yet been "freed from sin" (Romans 6:7) but is clearly a "servant of sin" (Romans 6:20).

Simon was to repent of his extreme wickedness who demonstrated clearly that he had a perverted view of grace. How can we even believe for a second that a man who offers money for God's free gift is saved man. Was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira who kept back part of the price of the land and lied about it the same as Simon that offered money for a free gift of God? Some strangely will argue they are similar and that Simon can expect the same fate if he doesn't repent. To argue that Simon was a carnal Christian who needed to be restored to fellowship only with God is to argue completely out of the book of Acts. The only way to get such reading is to run to outside passages or books that clearly do not relate or share the same words as found in Acts 8.

It is clear that the words Peter chose to use supports that Simon was NEVER saved. His thoughts were clearly wicked and perverse and obviously one should be able to see that such an understanding of a free gift of God would keep anyone from salvation. This not only refutes the position held by some free grace teachers but also those that believe you can lose your salvation. You can't be saved if you believe God's gift can be bought with money. People today believe that you have to do good works in order to get the things from God that He freely gives. Simon was so wicked that he thought he could offer some money for it.

Verse 24 says:

Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

Verse 24 shows that Simon was greatly concerned about the warnings Peter gave. Do you honestly believe that Simon was merely worried about losing his fellowship relationship with God? Do you honestly believe that Simon only feared the possibility of physical death by the chastening hand of God? Or, was Simon concerned because he feared perishing in the sense that it is given in the gospel? Simon had no "lot" with them. Simon was to "repent" and clearly that applies to the lost in the book of Acts. He was told by Peter to perish with his money. That is harsh language just like the apostle Paul that said in Galatians 1:8 about those that preach another gospel, "let him be accursed." What do you think concerned Simon? What would concern you most if Peter spoke these words to you?

If Simon merely was concerned about his loss of fellowship and only needed to pray to be restored then his comments in verse 24 makes absolutely no sense. He wanted Peter to pray for him instead so that "none of these things" which Peter had spoken would come upon him. The evidence is overwhelming that Simon was never saved. I read many articles and books concerning Simon as being a saved man and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to convince me otherwise.

I support free grace as taught by Scripture and never man. The danger of some free grace teachers that make the word "believed" as always and only meaning "saving faith" in such verses is that they are now put in a position where they will have to make every verse now read their way. Just like the Calvinist that teaches that Christ died only for the elect as they will now have to funnel every verse that speaks about Christ dying for all as now somehow meaning not all but some. Acts 8 is a clear example from the books I have read where free grace teachers will twist, add words or read other passages that clearly have nothing to do with Acts 8 at all. Just as it is clear that John 3:16 teaches that Christ died for all by the context, so Acts 8 teaches that Simon was never saved by the context. Again, if we are going to accuse Lordship salvation of adding words into a passage that clearly are not stated then let's not be guilty of the same. I believe some free grace teachers would do better to say that Peter was judging Simon's words and seriously questioned Simon's salvation for it. If a man told me that he like to offer money for God's free gift then I too would doubt his salvation and question him.

I do not believe that Simon was never saved because he didn't endure to the end like Lordship salvation claims but because his understanding of a free gift was perverted. Simon showed his wicked heart because he never acknowledges his wickedness. As far as I am concerned, Simon only seen himself as "some great one" and never a sinner and that is probably why Simon even in the end doesn't acknowledge his wickedness but only wanted the consequences he feared removed. Simon needed to repent of his thoughts or he would perish.

Ephesians 5:3-6 and Eternal Security

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:25:00 +0000

Ephesians 5:

3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:3-6 is a supposed proof text where if a believer engages in such sins will lose their salvation. Even some free grace teachers believe that Paul is teaching the loss of rewards here by a believer losing their inheritance. I disagree with both.

I will say that if you are a whoremonger, an unclean person, a covetous man then you will have your place among the damned. However, their is a difference between a believer who has been forgiven of all sin and given a new identity in Christ compared to a person that has not. Verses 3-5 are not an exhaustive list because that would mean that any unbeliever that lives a pure life would have an inheritance and we know that is not true. Also, we all know that no matter how well they (unsaved) behave that they will never be called a "child of obedience."

Verse 6 is key to understanding these verses that says:

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."

The "children of disobedience" is a term to those that have never been saved. I am not arguing Lordship salvation that claims that if you "practice" those sins then it proves you were never saved to begin with as Paul clearly was not teaching that. Paul clearly was dealing with believers that were doing such sins and I will deal with that later.

When a person trusted Jesus Christ then a great exchange took place. What was true of you before is no longer true of you now. This great exchange of identity is entirely apart from any works. Look at Ephesians 5:1,2:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience

As you can see, if you are saved then you were a child of disobedience. People focus on disobedience and immediately assume that it refers to our acts of unrighteousness and that is where people get themselves into trouble. You have unbelievers that are more morally upright and put many believers to shame. Children of disobedience is referring to us prior to being saved. There is no mention of any works here in chapter 2 that a person does that makes him anything other than a child of disobedience. All works are excluded. A child of disobedience sins because they are a child of disobedience and such wickedness is the fruit of it. Children of disobedience is referring to your nature and not behavior. Look at the verse next verse of chapter 2:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The words, "were by nature the children of wrath" should have caught your attention. By nature and not works are you a child of wrath apart from Christ. This change of nature has nothing to do with us changing our behavior to be saved as Ephesians 2 tells us:

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

According to Ephesians 2, who will be experiencing the wrath of God? Clearly those that have not been saved by grace and who are still, "by nature the children of wrath." The children of disobedience are clearly the children of wrath. This is not something where God weighs your good works on a scale where you can graduate from a child of disobedience position to a child of obedience by your works. Grace that excludes your works is what changes your spiritual status here.

Look again at Ephesians 5:6:

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

The wrath of God comes upon???? It should be clear that the "children of disobedience" of chapter 5 is the same people in chapter 2 that are by "nature" and not behavior the children of wrath. Some define "children of disobedience" as those that have disobeyed the gospel of grace by rejecting it. It is clearly related though to nature and not works. This is why a person who holds to utmost morality should be called a "morally upright person" but that doesn't alter the fact that their nature without Christ still makes them a "child of disobedience" even though they are living a life better than some believers in many cases. If Mother Teresa was not saved and most agree with that among grace believers then she was a "child of disobedience" even though she makes most true believers look pitiful by her love for people and her total disregard for her own needs.

Look at Colossians 3:5,6:

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience

Here again, Paul is telling a believer to not live in sexual sins and idolatry, and he gives the motivation why. The wrath of God is coming upon the "children of disobedience" by nature. Paul is clearly distinguishing the believers that might be practicing those sins from the unsaved. We are no longer "children of disobedience" so let's not live the lives they do as they will only experience God's wrath. They bark because they are dogs and that lifestyle is natural to them, but believers that bark are living contrary to who they are.

Is Paul distinguishing the saved by their new nature from the nature of those that are "children of wrath" in Ephesians 5?? Absolutely! I have several books by authors that teach that you can lose your salvation and none of them mention verses 7 and 8. Verses 7 and 8 states clearly:

Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

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

Paul is clearly telling these believers to not be partakers of their sins and not their fate. Paul's reason for them to not practice such things has to do with a change of nature. If you look at verse 8 then you will see that Paul argues that the change of nature is the motivation for living upright. Let's break down verse 8:

For ye were sometimes darkness (your former nature or standing with God)

but now are ye light in the Lord (your current nature or standing with God)

walk as children of light (make your walk match your standing)

Those that believe they can lose their salvation will seek only to twist what they see in verses 3-6 into a works salvation. It annoys them to no end that a believer can partake of a sinful lifestyle and still claim to be saved. This too is the problem with Lordship salvation.

Let me sidetrack to say that no free grace believer promotes a license to sin gospel. It is a shame that Lordship advocates and those that teach that a person can lose their salvation cannot see that free grace is actually the greatest motivation to do good works. Free grace has proven the test of time that it does not promote laxity or sin. I might not agree with everything Charles Stanley believes but can anyone claim that he is lazy in getting the gospel to the whole world? Does he live in sin or promote sinful living? Can anyone show a handful of free grace blogs or websites where they are promoted a "live in sin" teaching? The gospel is purely by grace alone apart from works.

I will say this too, EVERY person that I have encountered that lives like the devil and says, "Once Saved Always Saved" has yet to define to me the gospel of the grace of God. Their gospel was some prayer said on June 4th, 1985 or that some idiotic preacher told them to never doubt their salvation because of some prayer. I have yet to meet a free grace believer who was living like the devil that truly understood grace to not bow his head before me and express complete shame of how they were living. This is the difference I have experienced when dealing with others. Just because some moron shouts "I'm Once Saved Always Saved" and lives like the devil doesn't prove that eternal security wrong. It only proves that the guy saying that is an idiot and does not represent the majority of free grace advocates out there. There are plenty of free grace blogs to read and I challenge anyone to produce a handful of blogs where a free grace advocate is saying to live in sin. YOU CAN'T!!! You will find free grace pastors and teachers stressing the importance of living a holy life that truly provides a real motivation to do so that also promotes love to God and others.

I can say this too, I used to be a Wesleyan believer that argued that a person could lose his/her salvation. Do you know how I and others in the church found a way to practice sin? If we were really tempted to sin then many times we would give in to the sin with the thought in the back of our minds, "I will just confess my sins immediately after and God will wipe my slate clean again." I would basically ask God within seconds of committing my sin for that heavenly soap bar to clean me up. I would start my prayers, "Oh God, how could I have done that sin before you(I know how) so I ask you to forgive me........." Sorry, I found a "license to sin" even within the strictest type of churches that promote that a person can lose his/her salvation.

So, does the person in Ephesians 5 lose their salvation or prove they were never saved to begin with? No, Paul was teaching that it is inconsistent for us believers to live contrary to who we are in Christ. The message there is not a warning to believers that they will experience the wrath of God if they were to practice those sins but how they that becometh saints, a child of light ought to be living differently and apart from THEM. The "children of disobedience" by nature will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God so why live like them?

Paul says in verses 11-14:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (implying that one can without a single warning of losing salvation), but rather reprove them.

For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead (a command to the believer), and Christ shall give thee light.

Verse 14 is clearly addressed to a believer that is not bearing fruit unless you are defining "dead" as meaning spiritual death. To believe that means that an unsaved person can make himself spiritually alive then.

Verse 1 is clearly telling believers to be imitator's of God as some there were clearly practicing the sins of the world. Lordship salvation should realize that believers can live in the sins listed in verses 3-6 and stop with the foolish, "they can have carnal ways but not be carnal" bologna they insert into a passage or verse. Comparing verses 6 to 7 clearly shows that the message isn't "don't be partakers of their wrath" but that they should not be "partakers of their sin," because verse 8 says that they were "once" just like them. However, God now sees them as a child of light and that ought to affect their lifestyle. Just as Paul said in verse 1 to be imitators of God so now Paul in verse 8 tells them the logical reason why.

Verse 14 shows us that we have believers living fruitless lives. The ones that sleep are those that are in spiritual slumber just like the believers in 1st Thessalonians 5:6-10. We have believers that have fallen into a spiritual slumber that they now appear as dead. WAKE UP!!! is the message here. Quit living in darkness and start redeeming the time (verses 15,16) because the days are evil. Verse 9, many translations have that verse as reading, "for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth" and that is consistent with verse 14. Wake up and Christ will give you light.

I do believe it is important as believers to be living in the light as that often makes those believers living in darkness aware of their condition and their need to wake up. It is sad when the light goes out in a church. Have you ever been to a dead church where sports and other things takes the place of fellowship? It's sad when the light has gone out in a church as a whole.

Ephesians 5:3-6 has nothing to do with the loss of salvation but with believers to live a life consistent to who they truly are in Christ. For those that have strayed to wake up and live the remainder of their days serving Him for the days are evil.

I close with Romans 13:11-14 that parallels some of what I just stated:

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.

James 2:14 Made Simple

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:42:00 +0000

James 2 is probably one of the most misunderstood chapters in the Bible. Martin Luther was certainly a man that struggled with the book of James as he made this comment:

“St. James Epistle is really an epistle of straw compared to [Apostle Paul], for it lacks this evangelical character.”

Luther wrote a preface to the book of James that said:

“contradicts Paul by teaching justification by works”

There were men even before Luther that had doubts concerning the authority of the book of James. The confusion still exists today but not as to whether the book of James is a part of the Bible but as to how we can understand what James is saying in relation to Paul.

The majority opinion today in most churches that profess salvation by faith alone is that James is merely saying that if your faith is genuine then works will back it up. Lordship salvation advocates make the claim that we are saved by faith alone but faith that is real will never be alone. I found a similar argument from a Roman Catholic concerning James 2 when dealing with the arguments of those that believe that faith alone apart from works is the only requirement to be saved:

“It is true that a person is not saved by his works and that salvation is completely of grace. However that does not mean that works have nothing to do with salvation.”

I doubt any Lordship advocate will argue with that statement. This is probably the reason why the Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis said concerning John MacArthur:

“MacArthur spent almost all of his 300-page work [TGAJ] exegeting passages from the Gospels, systematically going through many of the teachings of Jesus which specified that works indeed play a large part in our standing and relationship with God. This is not surprising. Catholic theology has always maintained that the Gospels deny faith alone theology most emphatically” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, pg. 597)."

When it comes to James 2, I have yet to find any person who doubts their salvation that fails to quote James 2:14 to me. They doubt their salvation because they feel that they serve sin more than they serve God and this somehow proves to them that their faith is not producing enough good works to prove that they are indeed saved. It is now my hope that a thorough explanation of James 2 will help some to see what James was truly teaching.

James 2:14 Made Simple:

Look at verse one:

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”

James is clearly addressing the “brethren.” Now look at the accusation that James brings against these brethren in verses 2-4:

“For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”

These “brethren” were guilty of this sin of showing partiality but were still called “brethren.” James clearly puts the blame on these “brethren” in verse 6a:

“But YE HAVE despised the poor.”

I will argue shortly that verses 14-16 will still be James dealing with the “brethren” for their despising the poor and not James calling their salvation into question.

We can see from the first 6 verses that James recognized these despisers of the poor as saved brethren. Salvation or the gospel is not in the context but only the poor people among them and their despising of them. I find it interesting that nobody seems to mention this but will instead jump immediately to verse 14 with a complete disregard for the context and quote:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”

Lordship salvation and others now places the focus on “can faith save him?” They seem to have forgotten that these were “brethren” being addressed here. We seem to have forgotten that the subject of chapter 2 is about the poor people that the “brethren” have despised. The focus is taken off of the poor and is now placed all upon our works in general where one can know whether they are saved or not according to Lordship salvation heretics. James was talking about other people, namely the poor. Lordship salvation has taken a passage that was extrospective of those around them and now made it introspective where one is now examining their salvation in light of their works. No wonder so many believers and so-called believers live in chronic doubt of their salvation.

Salvation is not in the context, but we have Lordship salvation and others that insert words and phrases into this passage that can nowhere be found. We now have these religionists that will tell you that James is talking about a “faith that isn’t saving” but nothing in the passage supports that heresy. James never questions the salvation of these “brethren” but only the nature of their faith in relation to the poor people among them. James did not change his message from the poor into a general message about how we must have works to prove that we are saved. WAKE UP!!! The poor are still in the context!! Verses 2-4 was James accusing the brethren of despising the poor and so does verses 15-16:

“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

If salvation or the gospel is not in the context then how can religion just throw out “can such a faith save him?” as meaning from “sin and death”? Some even in the free grace camp try interpret the words “save him” as referring to the believer at the judgment seat of Christ and having works will somehow “save him” from having a heartache of living a life for only themselves before Christ. That is clearly stretching it as the judgment seat is not in focus here and “works” can also end up being burned in that day.

If saved, salvation and the gospel cannot be found in the context then what does the word “save” mean in verse 14? The word “save” should always be interpreted in light of the context. When Jesus prayed in John 12:27, “Father, save me from this hour” then we can be sure that it did not mean from His sins as He had none to be saved from. When Peter cried in Matthew 14:30 when sinking, “Lord, save me” then we can be sure that it did not mean from his sins because salvation or the gospel was not in the context. Even the disciples strong words in Matthew 8:25, “save us: we perish” had nothing to do with being saved from sin as the context is clear. If saved must mean from sin and death then females must get pregnant quickly because 1st Timothy 2:15 says, “she shall be saved in childbearing.” Even James uses the word “save” in chapter 5:15a, “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick,” and I have yet to find a single person translating that verse as mean from sin and death.

We can see that the word “save” can have several meanings. It can mean to preserve, help, keep, deliver and so on but clearly the context determines its meaning. Now to claim that the word, “save” in James 2:14 is talking about your salvation when salvation or the gospel is not in the context is to be way out there fishing. I proved that the context is all about the poor here so the word “save” must relate to them (the poor). We can determine whether this be true if we were to call the poor people “Bob” in these verses. We will look at verses 14-16 and now replace the word “him” with the word “Bob” and see how it reads:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save Bob?

If a Bob be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto Bob, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give Bob not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

One might argue that the word “him” in verse 14 is singular and not the poor plural community in general. Yes, the word him is singular, it is the accusative singular to be exact. If you look at the word “poor” in verse 6 then it should be of no surprise to discover that that word too is accusative singular. Verse 15 says, “If a brother…” and that is what “him” (a brother) is referring to here in verse 14 as well as the poor in general. Can your faith that has no works save him (the poor man)?? The verses to follow support this and that is what “save” means here in the context. Can your faith being alone deliver or help the poor man in need?

If you notice, James begins verse 14 with “What doth is profit” and ends the same in verse 16 with “what doth it profit.” Do you really believe James is saying, “What doth it profit YOU”?? Or, “What doth it profit the poor man”?? The entire context is really pointing to the poor man there and not so much you. Look at verses 14-16 again:

“What doth it (faith) profit (the poor), my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him (the poor man)?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food (the poor),

And one of you say unto them (the poor), Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them (the poor) not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it (faith alone) profit (the poor)?”

Again, this is where Lordship Salvation and others take a passage that is extrospective and instead made it introspective. Here is how our religionists like to read those verses:

“What doth it profit YOU, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith without works save him from hell?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit YOU?”

Clearly what I just written above is a damnable heresy. Any person agreeing with what I just typed is a stranger to grace and in need of salvation. I hope that you can see that the word “profit” doesn’t have YOU there in the context but the poor man. Our Apostle Paul even used the word “profitable” when talking about our good works. Paul did not say that our good works are profitable to us (introspective) either but to those around us (extrospective). Look at Titus 3:8b:

“that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.”

According to Paul, our good works are profitable UNTO men. James was dealing with works that would “profit” the poor people. Paul and James are in complete agreements that a person must demonstrate “works” to be profitable to others. I do agree that believers who have works that springs from faith pleases God but that is not what is in the context here. Faith alone is useless without works but neither Paul nor James in these verses is saying that works proves that a person is saved. Only heretics make “works” to prove your salvation in this passage. Question, what do you think Paul would say in Titus 3:8 to the person that was not careful to maintain good works that would be profitable unto men? We can be sure that he would say concerning their faith, “What doth it profit?” James and Paul stress the need to demonstrate our faith by works and no free grace advocate would ever deny that.

James is clear that it’s not enough to say that we have “faith” to others without works. Our faith must be accompanied by works or it is useless. It is clearly useless to the poor in James 2 to wish by faith only blessings onto the poor without physically giving them what they need. We could compare that to praying for the salvation of your friend next door and never giving them the gospel for what does that (prayer) profit (them) being alone? James who was clearly addressing believers was pointing out “their” lack of works in relation to the poor man. If Lordship salvation would strive to be consistent, then they should argue that if your faith doesn’t help the poor by works then you probably do not have a saving faith as that is at least a step closer in the right direction. However, a man’s salvation is not anywhere questioned in the passage. This horrible act was already being committed by the “brethren.”

It is extremely surprising to hear people quote verse 19 as proof that a person can have a faith that is not saving:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

Comparing saving faith to the faith of demons would be comparing white to black and claiming they are the same thing. Demons have no hope of salvation. A demon can have all the faith in the world and all the works in the world at the same time but would still remain damned. If verse 19 is talking about saving faith then it should be logical to assume that a demon can be saved if they would only get their faith to spring into action if one wants to be consistent here. However, even verse 19 isn’t talking about salvation or the gospel. Does believing that there “is one God (monotheistic God)” bring salvation? No! The verse doesn’t say that the demons believe in the gospel of grace and tremble but only in one God. This is a clear example of how religion will seek to twist a verse to read according to their own heresy.

Lordship salvation will argue that a “dead faith” (vs. 17) is a non-saving faith. They view “dead” much the same way they view a sinner that is “dead” in their trespasses and sins. Again, salvation is not in the context and you simply cannot read words not found there. Dead does not mean “non-saving.” Only Lordship salvation and religionists add those words to keep their heresy. If believers cannot be described as having any dead components to them then a contradiction is found in Ephesians 5:14 where Paul was clearly addressing believers:

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

These believers were to “rise from the dead” themselves. Clearly if the dead in that verse meant “spiritual death” then we can be sure that no man has the power himself to resurrect his lifeless spiritual corpse from the grave. Dead doesn’t mean non-existent or non-saving as you can only go by the context. If dead means non-existent or non-saving then Romans 4:19 makes no sense that says:

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb"

The word "save" has to be defined by the context and so does the word "dead." James is clearly telling these “brethren” to demonstrate their faith to the poor or it’s useless and dead as such a faith profits nothing being alone. Others (poor) are the focus here and not God as He is not in the context. The believers in James 2 were being told to “show” or “demonstrate” their faith with works but nowhere does it say that if they truly had saving faith then it will automatically demonstrate itself with good works. Lordship salvation advocates will say that “you will” do good works if your faith is genuine but those words are not found here in James nor implied.

Paul too never said that a believer “will” do good works if his faith is genuine. I challenge any Lordship advocate to find one verse in Pauline Scripture or in the NT that says that a believer “will” do good works. Look at the following two verses and ask yourself if works happen automatically when a person trusts in Christ:

“This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” (Titus 3:8)

Here is another verse about good works:

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10).

The only verse that has the word “shall not (will)” that I know of when it comes to right living is found in Galatians 5:16:

“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.”

This verse is clear that only a believer is someone that can walk in the Spirit and it is clear that it doesn’t happen automatically either here.

Now Lordship salvation and others do not stop there in James 2, but will go on and use Abraham to further strengthen their misconception about what James was teaching. They will quote verse 21:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

This verse was troublesome to Martin Luther and is still a problem to many today. I just came across a Bible version that added words to verse 21 that is nowhere implied in the Greek. I quote this to show how he perceived the verse to mean as well as many other religionists out there. He translated verse 21a:

“Wasn't our ancestor Abraham "made right with God by works" when he placed his son Isaac on the sacrificial altar?” (The Message Bible).

That is just plain wicked and now we have a direct contradiction to Paul. If the translator knew his Bible then he would have realized that Abraham was justified some 20 years earlier by faith alone. God is not in the context here nor does the Greek imply God in verse 21. James could have easily stated those words. Still, this wicked version clearly portrays how many see verse 21. This is how some teach that you must have faith and works to be saved. This is how Lordship salvation tries to rewrite this verse as only saying that if your faith is genuine then your works will prove it. To clarify that the meaning here is about having works before men only and not before God then let’s look at Paul in Romans 4:2:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; BUT NOT BEFORE GOD.”

The words, “but not before God” seems to elude people. I already argued that James had “others” in mind when dealing with our works. These people show their carelessness with Scripture by disregarding Paul and the context in James 2. Verse 21 does not mention in the Greek that the justification was before God as “others” are in the context. Now insert the phrase “but not before God” from Romans 4:2 into verse 21 should help you to see the meaning clearly:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works “but not before God”, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

If our works do not justify us before God then who are they justifying us before? Others! It should be clear by now that the “brethren” in chapter 2 were not demonstrating a faith with works to the poor.

An important thing to note was the fact Abraham was justified by faith some 20 years earlier. This recorded act of faith WITH works did not happen until over 20 years later. If works are supposed to validate our faith as taught by Lordship salvation then why did James quote a work of Abraham that happened 20 years later after he believed? Let’s be consistent, that would be like someone saying, “You are saved by faith alone but if your faith is genuine then in 20 years you will have some work to prove it.” If a pattern of good works proves that you are saved then why would James only mention one act that happened many years later? If Lordship salvation advocates were consistent to James 2, then they should tell their duped followers that they have 20 years to prove that their faith is genuine with only a single act.

James does mention in verse 23 a faith that is passive and now includes God in the verse. Very important, if you notice in verse 23, all works are excluded from the verse that says:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”

James is speaking about a dual justification here. A man is justified before God by faith only, and man is justified before man (not before himself or God) by works and not faith only. Verse 21 is our works before others as they can see them but not our faith, and verse 23 is about God who sees our faith and justifies us by faith only apart from works. You can be sure that our justification before God never comes from our works (see Romans 3:28, 4:2; Galatians 2:16, 3:11).

James has been talking about a work for “others” to see. Look at verse 18:

“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew ME thy faith without thy works, and I will shew THEE my faith by my works.”

You can show your faith to James without works that profits nothing, and James will show you his faith with works that is profitable. Just like what Paul said in 1st Timothy 4:8 that “godliness is profitable unto all things.”

James 2 is addressing our works in relation to others. It should be strikingly clear that there is no mention of the gospel, salvation or even tests to knowing whether we are saved or not anywhere in the first 22 verses. James clearly in verse 23 shared the faith that justifies us before God but spent the entire passage explaining a works that is before men and that is profitable. We are justified by works James says but not before God. The teaching is about YOU demonstrating your faith by works before others and not YOU examining your faith to see if it is made up of all the right ingredients. This passage is extrospective and never introspective.

I hope this has helped some of you out there that have been struggling with the book of James. You will find that good work loses its joy the moment conditions are placed upon your salvation. The moment you look past your works and realize that salvation has nothing to do with your obedience then you are truly free to serve. God no longer sees you in the sins you commit but only in the righteousness He imputes.

Salvation only depends upon the faithfulness of God to us, and our rewards depend only upon our faithfulness to Him.

Doubting salvation and spiritual infancy

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:06:00 +0000

I used to be so scared of the dark when I was a child. I would have to check my closets for monsters after watching a scary movie on TV before going to bed. I would shut off my light and run and jump into my bed so that no hand would reach out from underneath my bed and grab my leg. I often laid there with my eyes open staring towards the closet. I would wonder if monsters were under my bed, in my closet or just outside the window. I had to wait until my parents went to bed before turning on the bathroom light so I could see in my room better.

How I was as a child is how most Christians are with assurance of salvation. They live in fear of the unknown as the child does. You can tell a child that there is no such thing as ghosts, aliens and monsters, but they will still live in fear of them. You can tell these believers the truth of God's word and that He promises eternal life to all that simply trust Him and yet they persist to hold on to their fears and doubts.

A child seems relieved by having a light on but it doesn't cure the problem. The believer too is looking for some type of light that will give them assurance. They often look to their feelings and works. This is something that offers them assurance from time to time as that is what they turn to when darkness floods their soul. This was the trap I was in for many years.

Believers just like children seem to focus on 'What if?' type of thinking. What if there is a boogey man? What if a monster is under my bed? What if I didn't believe enough in Christ? What if I didn't believe the right way?

The problem with Christianity is that it is so performance oriented. Everyone is so worried about what they are doing or not doing as well as how they are feeling. Religion knows this and preys off of it. Religion will tell those that doubt their salvation to read more Bible, pray more, join a ministry and so on. The solution to a performance oriented religion for anyone that is struggling is more performance. They serve a performance oriented god that can only be appeased by your adhering to a bunch of rules.

I struggled with assurance while as a student at Bob Jones University. I had my prayer captain tell me that a possible reason for not having assurance of salvation is that I talk after light bell at school. Light bell was when the bell rang and the lights had to be off in your dorm room and your body better be in that bed or you would get demerits when the hall monitor opened the door to check on you. The rule was that a person could not listen to music, study or even talk after light bell. Somehow according to my PC that not talking after light bell would cure me of my doubts??? I sought special counseling as a student and was given a list of things to do and I did them perfectly. It never fails that I was always told that God must be testing my faith when I followed their additional rules where they did not work for me.

I tried so hard to overcome my doubts that I joined a ministry, preached in kids church, witnessed, read more Bible, fasted, prayed more, rededicated my life in those unscriptural alter calls, made confessions to people that I wronged or think I might have wronged, did the speed limit while driving, worked as hard as I could at work, had 2 hour devotions, listen to nothing but godly music, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't attend movies, didn't gamble, didn't play cards, didn't mix swim, wore my hair a certain length and so on and yet I still had no assurance. I was no apostle Paul, but I sure felt like him when he said:

"Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Phil. 3:6).

It is today that I can say just like the apostle that I consider them all but dung. I do not need the light on today to know that there is no monster in my bedroom. I simply know that no monsters are there. I also do not need feelings and my works to confirm that I am saved either. I simply know that I am saved by God's word.

If you are struggling with assurance of salvation then I can guarantee that you are looking to yourself in some way. You just can't accept free grace and are trying live a life to appease the god you serve. I'm sure that your god is an angry god that is just sick and tired of all of those mistakes you make. You have invented an imaginary god just like the imaginary monsters we invented as a child. It's time to grow up and simply take God at His word and you can only do that by looking entirely away from the law, feelings, your works and even your faith. If you doubt then it is because the attention is on yourself and it has nothing to do with what God is doing so do not try blaming Him for your doubts. We clearly did not believe our parents as a child that there is no such things as monsters, and we clearly do not believe God like a child when He tells us that there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. We believers want the light on so that we can see our faith and good works so that way we can believe that God has saved us. It's sad to see so many believers scared because they cannot sense the light of God in their lives (feelings). They are so focused on the darkness that they cannot see anything else.

If you are struggling with assurance of salvation then it is time to grow up. Get your eyes off of yourself and the darkness you see and turn your eyes upon Christ believing only the testimony that God gave concerning His Son. If you still doubt then you are still focusing on the imaginary monsters under the bed (law), in the closet (feelings) or outside your window (yourself period). Quit being like a child that goes by what they feel to be true when they are in the dark and start living like an adult and simply rest in what is true as stated in God's word.

Galatians 5:19-21

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:43:00 +0000

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

These verses are often quoted to mean that either you can lose your salvation or that you were never saved to begin with, but one should be quick to see that Paul never said that. We live in a Christianity today where all the focus is upon us and what we do or do not do. This is why believers today live in frustration, defeat and doubt.

Is Paul warning the Galatians that if they were to live in the sins listed then they would not inherit the kingdom of God? My question would be as to why Paul would warn the Galatians of these sins when they were not even guilty of them?? The Corinthians clearly were guilty of such sins but not the Galatians. They were striving to be made perfect in the flesh by human efforts:

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

(Gal. 3:3).

I personally believe that the Galatians would have been well received in most churches today especially many fundamental churches and their heavy emphasis upon rules that can never curb one's appetite for sin. We would judge people as saved today simply because they were trying so hard to abstain from the sins of the flesh. It amazes me as to how no religious denomination will confess that they are guilty of Galatianism. They will simply tell you that the sin of Galatia was their adding law to salvation and that is not true as you can see in the above verse. Their sin was adding law for spiritual sanctification.

So why did Paul tell these Galatians verses 19-21? The answer is found in verse 16:

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

These Galatians were adding works to their faith in attempts to keep from sin. Paul was now telling them that if you want to keep from those sins then you must walk in the Spirit and simply supplied the various sins of the flesh.

This is a verse that people have backwards today. People are trying to abstain from the sins of the flesh in order to walk in the Spirit. They believe that they cannot bear fruit if they do not abstain from sin. So instead of walking in the Spirit to keep from sin, people keep from sin to walk in the Spirit and they have it reversed.

Most churches teach that if you are saved then you will bear fruit. I can assure you that as long as you are striving to keep from sin by human effort then you will never bear fruit. You will bear the fruit of pride and self righteousness but that is about all. I read in one book by a popular author and pastor that we should mimic the fruits of the Spirit because that can help such fruits to actually become part of our lives. Where does the Holy Spirit require our help in Scripture? Walking in the Spirit is not by any effort whatsoever but is done by simple faith.

Paul said to the Galatians in 3:2-3,5:

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul said to the Colossians in 2:6:

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

How does one receive Christ? By faith apart from works. Then how is one to grow? By faith apart from works. People believe that we are to live by strict rules and make strong resolves to stop sinning and that God will assist them. They basically have the attitude that the world says that "God helps those that help themselves" and this is wrong. Our growth isn't 99% faith and 1% works. There are thick books to teach you how to properly repent when you sin so that your mourning dearly over them for hours or days until you punished yourself enough will probably keep you they say from doing that sin again. Being sin and work oriented will actually keep you from spiritual victory. Our victory in the Christian walk is all by faith 100%. Christ is our victory! We are to abide in the Vine and receive all from Him by resting in Him. The victory comes by faith as we look to Christ who is our victory. 1st Corinthians 15:57 says:

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God gives us the victory through Christ. We receive Christ through faith and not by works and we receive victory through Christ and not by human efforts or law.

The problem with "trying" not to sin is that we are resorting to our own efforts. I have seen people repeatedly rededicate their lives to Christ in walking an aisle in church. They pray harder and read more Bible. Such people are often instructed to join a ministry and witness to the lost to find the victory that they need but it never works. Placing yourself under strict rules will never keep you from the sins of the flesh and that is what Paul was teaching them in Galatians. Look at Colossians 2:20-23:

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,(Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Verse 23 ends with "not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh" and some might not understand what exactly that means. The NIV says it clearer as it translates those words as "but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." If you are trying to abstain from sins through rules and human effort then such might have an appearance of humility but such efforts "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

It amazes me how two individuals can see Scripture so differently. A grace oriented person does not see threatenings and wrath to us believers but only a law abiding person does. Law oriented people view Scripture as a bunch of warnings and threats where many of them do not have assurance of salvation because they fear that tomorrow they can prove to be a reprobate or unsaved as they put it. A law oriented person will see that God's law is still required not for salvation but for sanctification. A law oriented person will see even praise and thanksgiving as a requirement that they must do or God will be sorely displeased with them. A law oriented person quits sins because of possible consequences but a grace oriented person quits sins because that is what grace teaches them. A law oriented person believes that they have to make Christ number one in their lives but a grace oriented person sees Christ as their life as you cannot make Him any more than what He actually is. A law oriented person tries to be complete in Christ while the grace oriented person knows that they are complete in Him. A law oriented person sees the verse that says that those that love Him will keep His commandments and will strive to keep those commandments to hopefully prove to Christ that they love Him while the grace oriented person serves because of love. A law oriented persons service is done by forcing themselves to do right, but a grace oriented person service should be natural because of such great love the Father lavished on them. A law oriented person will see verses that says to give thanks in all things as a condition for blessings and spiritual success while the grace oriented person simply does it because it brings the believer great delight to give thanks to his heavenly Father. A law oriented person serves a strict and hard probation officer while a grace oriented person serves a God of love. A law oriented person serves a performance and behavioral oriented god, but a grace oriented person serves a God that no longer beholds them in the sins they commit but in the righteousness that God imputes. A law oriented person sees our position in Christ as relating to our walk, but a grace oriented person sees the difference between their position and their walk. A law oriented person is judgmental and critical of others. A law oriented person has no patience for those that seem careless and sinful but a grace oriented person doesn't seek to make quick judgments even though they are considered to be a friend to sinners as Jesus was by the law oriented minds in His day. Only a law oriented person will not allow for a carnal Christian while a grace oriented person believes God's word and knows that there are such people that wallow in sin that are saved but also knows that we are saved apart from any works and that includes future ones as well. A law oriented person is never satisfied and often reads many books instead of Scripture to fill the void that is in their life while a grace oriented person loves the simplicity that is in Christ. A law oriented person reads their Bible out of duty, but the grace oriented person reads their Bible to learn more about this God that loved them dearly.

Galatians is dealing with and condemning those that are law oriented. If you are not saved then you are still in the flesh. It does not matter if you are morally upright and haven't committed any of the listed sins there as that is not an exhaustive list anyways. The fact that you are in the flesh is the only reason that you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Those that are saved are no longer viewed under condemnation. Those that are saved can only keep from the sins of the sinful nature by walking in the Spirit. We are not viewed in the sins listed simply because we have been crucified from those things. You might be practicing such sins but it is a contradiction to who you are in Christ and this is how Paul everywhere deals with believers. A proper understanding of sin and who you are now in Christ ought to motivate you to live according to who you now are. This is why Paul elsewhere said:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Verse 24 of chapter 5 says:

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

This is a positional truth and not a reference to our daily walk. You might be saved and a practicing drunk by man's standards, but God does not behold you in those sins. God is not a behavior oriented God and demanding that we get our act in gear before He will do anything for us. God is interested in changing your heart first. Let's be honest here, if Galatians 5:19-21 is teaching that those that are caught practicing sins whether saved or unsaved then it should be clear that a person is saved by works. It should be clear that if you stop practicing then the kingdom of heaven is yours. What would you do with a person that says to you, "These things I have kept from since my youth up"?? The fact is that they have yet to receive Christ and are still in the flesh. Only those that are Christ's have crucified the flesh and for them to do such things is only a contradiction of how God sees them in Christ. The saved are dead to those things and cannot be brought under the guilt of any. Only a law oriented person will be bothered thinking that he doesn't have to first do something about his life to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Why would a believer practice such sins? It would make no sense as your position is no longer those things in Christ, but we can also be sure that practicing those things has no relation to our position. A queen that has all the riches of the land would live a life contrary to who she is and all that has been given to her if she decided to live in prostitution to make money. We have been crucified to the sins of the flesh and they have no part of a believer whatsoever because God is no longer dealing with us in our sins as law oriented people think. Romans 6:3-6 says:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Many have erroneously altered the verses above to mean water baptism when no water is mentioned in any chapter. Water was never a picture of a grave. People were buried above ground in a tomb, and I do not believe we can claim that this is a symbol of a watery grave here when water never pictured a grave ever. This verse is telling us that we have been placed into the death of Christ. Our old man died with Christ and is buried in a tomb somewhere to never be raised again. We now have been raised in the new man and now should walk in him because our old man was crucified. When our old man was crucified then you can be sure that the past tense of the word always refers to an act of God apart from man and his works.

When someone says that a saved person will bear fruit then be sure that they will not have a single verse to back that up. Paul never once said that a believer WILL bear fruit or do good works. Look at verses above again where it says, "that we SHOULD walk in newness of life" and "that henceforth we SHOULD not serve sin." If a believer cannot habitually sin then the verse should say, "that henceforth we will not serve sin." Paul would not also say, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies" but if habitual sins are impossible then sin simply cannot reign period. According to Lordship Salvation Jesus must reign in your lives or you cannot be saved when no verse EVER states that, but Scripture teaches that Christ is our life when we get saved regardless of lifestyle. You can't make Christ something other than He already is. However, Scripture teaches the obvious and that is that sin can reign in your life.

Look at the following verses:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we SHOULD walk in them.

However, law oriented people read that as saying that God ordained that we will walk in them.

What does grace teach us:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we SHOULD live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

(Titus 2:11-13).

Will a believer bear fruit? He should and it is entirely logical, but I see nothing that says that it is automatic and guaranteed. Does Paul ever say that believers WILL and not SHOULD keep from sins if they are saved? Yes, look at Galatians 5:16 again:

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye SHALL NOT fulfil the lust of the flesh.

It is clear that Paul can say the words "shall not" when it comes to our walk. The only time he says it is when a believer simply walks in the Spirit and not to those that simply are saved. Walking in the Spirit is a command to the already saved people and is not given to those that are unsaved. A believer should do good works and only the believer that walks in the Spirit "SHALL NOT" fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21 is not a warning to believers but a list of what the sins of the unsaved are that they practice and are by nature and verse 16 is how we can avoid such sins. Paul said that we have been past tense crucified to those things and are no longer under condemnation. Paul's point was that if we are to avoid these sins then you will not be able to do it by human efforts but only by walking in the Spirit. If you are doing it by human efforts then you are clearly doing it in flesh that God will NEVER be pleased with. Your hard attempts will get you no kudos from God. The Galatians were dealt more severely who were striving to be made perfect in the flesh than the Corinthians that were openly living in the sins of the flesh.

If you want to keep from sin then the answer is not found in efforts and law keeping. If you are refraining from sin by everything you got in you then you can be sure that it is your unpleasing to God flesh that is behind it. We grow by resting and not by law keeping. If you want victory then it is found by walking in the Spirit. You will experience transformation as you focus on who you are in Christ and this involves looking entirely away from yourself, feelings, law and so on. The Scriptures do not say, "Be ye saved and you will experience a transformation in your daily walk" but:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

The same Greek word for transformed is found in 2nd Corinthians 3:18:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

If you want to experience a fruitful walk with Christ then get your eyes on Him. Don't focus on all the sins that you want to avoid that usually leads to rule keeping but focus upon Christ and you will be changed into the very same image as Him. Don't refrain from sin to walk in the Spirit but walk in the Spirit to refrain from sin. This is done by faith and not by human efforts. The battle is in the mind and change your thinking and make it in line with what God says concerning you then it will affect your walk. Keep your eyes on Christ who is our life and victory!

O soul, are you weary and troubled?
No light in the darkness you see?
There’s light for a look at the Savior,
And life more abundant and free!

* Refrain:
Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

1st John 5:12 and eternal security

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:54:00 +0000

I have heard a minister who had his PhD arguing his belief that one can lose his salvation. He felt that we that believe in eternal security play games with God's word. His example was 1st John 5:12 that says,

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

He sought to prove our inconsistency where we will take a verse and simply say the first half of the clause is unconditional and yet the second half is conditional when the wording is identical in both clauses. What he means is this:

He that HATH THE SON HATH LIFE (unconditional),
and he that HATH NOT THE SON OF GOD HATH NOT LIFE (conditional).

His point was that if the first clause is unconditional then so should the second half be unconditional. However, he argues that since it is clear that the "hath" in the second half of the verse is conditional then so should be the first half. How can you have two identical type of phrases where one is conditional and the other unconditional? How can the "hath not life" be conditional and "hath life" be unconditional??

For a man with a PhD he lost my respect as we talk like that in every day life. I will use those exact words in a different sentence and tell me if the one clause implies a condition with a guaranteed result:

"If you have the surgery you shall live but if you don't have the surgery then you shall die."

It is quite clear that life is conditioned upon the surgery and one is guaranteed life after the surgery. Once the surgery has taken place then the threat of death from that illness is gone. If you have the Son then you have life. But the problem we have with those that believe you can lose your salvation is that they will only focus on what we experience in this life and will argue from that. They will see this as a disease that can return. They are the same people that will say that a free gift can be lost or given back since you can do that in the physical world even though God's Word never states that one can give Him back His gift or lose it but actually says that His gifts are irrevocable. They don't care what they argue as long as they can keep their heretical teaching that one can lose their salvation.

This PhD would like you to think in terms of what we experience in this world that the disease can return and you can die later from refusing that same surgery that saved you the first time. The question should be whether Jesus made sin and death something that has to be treated multiple times as this PhD erroneous belief would certainly imply??? Did Christ die once to sin? How many times did He rise from the dead? What does "having forgiven us of all trespasses and sins" mean?? What does "no condemnation" and "no separation" mean? How long is eternal life and when does a person possess it? What does it mean that Jesus has perfected forever those that are sanctified? Are you complete in Him? Did Jesus do a partial or complete work when He said in the Greek perfect tense, "It is finished"? Was the disease in those that have life cured or does the problem still lurk within? Does Jesus treat us like a surgeon that promises life to the initial surgery but cannot tell us whether the disease will return afterwards? Did Jesus find the absolute cure or not? Did Jesus mean that he that hath the Son hath life as unconditional or conditional? If you say conditional then where does it say it can be lost?

I find it truly amazing that God made it abundantly clear that "He that hath the Son hath life" and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" and "sealed unto the day of redemption" and "but have everlasting life" and "and they shall never perish" (double negative in Greek) and "he shall never taste death" (double negative in Greek) as well as scores of other verses and yet God fails to provide one single verse that says, "If you stop believing then you shall be damned" or "If you stop believing then you shall lose thy salvation" and so on. It amazes me that they are so bent on proving that God meant that you can lose your salvation but do not have one clear verse to run too. It amazes me that they run to some obscure verse and will read it into a clear verse instead. It amazes me how they feel at liberty to play narrator for Paul and others and will read words into the context that cannot be found as though the biblical author must have forgotten to jot it in there. It amazes me that they will quote Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29 as proof and when I ask them to tell me what the sin was there then they have no clue. So according to them some mysterious sin is going to cause you to lose your salvation when salvation is not in the context but going on to maturity is and that it is "impossible" to restore such a one to repentance which they interpret as salvation but to them it is not impossible to be restored to salvation but difficult since the word "impossible" would mean 'once lost always lost.' May they be made aware that "impossible" does not mean "difficult" as God was described in the same book as being impossible for Him to lie unless they want to view that God finds it difficult to lie??? Either they are being willfully ignorant or they lack something between the ear canals. (Please see my blog on Hebrews 6 and 10).

Salvation is always in Another. When you sin then it has no impact upon your salvation since your salvation is in Another. If you were responsible for being saved or staying saved then salvation is in you. If you have to persevere in the faith to be saved then salvation is in you. The law can't condemn you as your life is in Another. You will one day stand before God in His righteousness and not your own as your righteousness lies in Another. You have a choice, to either die for your sins or trust in Another that died already in your place. Jesus stood in our place so that today we can stand in His. The moment you look to your works or sins as to determine whether you are saved or not or whether you lose your salvation or not is to place the work of salvation upon you instead of Another. This is why I can rest assured that my salvation is secure because I know that I have no part in it. I don't work to get it and I don't work to keep it. If I can lose my salvation by being bad then I must have received it by being good. If I can lose my salvation by sinning then it is clear that salvation is by works. If I can lose my salvation by sinning then it is clear that salvation lies within myself and not Another. I'm sorry, God is not my co-pilot but pilot. He is pressing the buttons as captain and not smacking my hands to hopefully prevent me from pressing the wrong button that will crash the plane. Those that fear they can lose their salvation or doubt their salvation is still seeing salvation to be found in themselves and not Another. They are the ones in the cock pit pressing the buttons and turning the knobs supposedly listening to God saying, "Don't press that one or else" where He ends up guiding them down the runway in heaven. I have met those that think just like that and such people need the gospel as they are strangers of grace as they are blinded to their works oriented gospel that can never save.

Remember, rewards are the result of our faithfulness to Him and salvation is the result of His faithfulness to us. Remember, heaven is a gift to bad people and not a reward to good people.

Loved and Accepted!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:43:00 +0000

What a joy to simply rest in Christ!

No fear of law!
No fear of wrath!
No fear of condemnation!
No fear of punishment!

· Absolutely no uncertainties!!!

People who struggle with works would do best to imagine God standing before them with His finger pointing at them saying, "If you try to do one good work in order to find Me, or to have assurance of salvation, gaining of my favor and love, then you will be eternally lost." My question would be to that person, "How many works will you now try to do in order to find acceptance before a thrice holy God?” The answer is NONE!!

We are accepted 100% in Christ. We do not have to fear that our works will alter that acceptance. We must realize that our acceptance is in Another (Jesus Christ). Therefore, how could anything we ever do affect that acceptance? God requires no works from us in order to be loved or accepted. Jesus said that there was only one work that God requires and that was to believe on Him whom He sent.

I hear so many believers push away the love of God because they feel unworthy or they cannot get their minds off of some past sin. They view God's love and acceptance as based on their performance. They see a pattern of sin in their life and question how a God can love and accept them. They must accept that God is no longer dealing with us in the sins that we commit, but only in the righteousness that He has imputed to us.

Here is the beauty of being in Christ. God, the Father, loves us as much as He loves His Son since we are in Him (John 17:23). God does not see the filth you see, but His only begotten Son doth He behold. This is why Christians tend to fail because they are very sin oriented and not Christ oriented. They still look at the law and see their reflection when they should have realized that the mirror (law) has already accomplished its purpose in leading them to Christ.

We are now to look at who we are in Christ. It is His glory in that reflection. That is what we will be transformed into (2nd Cor. 3:18). If we look at our filth, then we will experience its effects and that is depression, guilt feelings and frustration. If we look to who we are in Christ, then we will be affected with feelings of love and acceptance, forgiveness and the desire to live a holy life.

Love begets love and this is something that most believers struggle with. God wants to reveal His love to us because love is the best motivator to holiness. It is far better than fear of punishment could or would ever do. God's love caused Christ to come and die for you! Only we push away that love because we feel that we must do something in order to earn that love. If more people could only discover the freedom of realizing the infinite love of God, then such a realization would cause one to break forth in joy and will have a life that will seek to please Him. This glimpse of His love is what causes me to feel my absolute unworthiness. Yet, it never leads me to attempt to do works so that I can feel worthy of that love. Instead, I work to show my utter gratitude to a God that could love someone like me. What an awesome thought to know that the God of the Universe loves me and is jealous of me. He saved me and now I am a trophy of His grace.

Why push this love away when it is available to every person alive? You will never be worthy of such love so why try as your efforts are not only useless. They will be rejected. There is nothing in us that God will accept, so what do you think you would be able to offer to God that nobody else possesses on this earth? Do you think your goodness is better than the neighbor next door and that God would reject his works, but receive yours? Your works cannot make God love you more and your lack of works cannot make God love you less. You must realize that we experience such love, apart from works, as it is found in Jesus Christ.

Just remember, if you are not saved, then God will reject any works or efforts on your part to receive His love and acceptance. God loves you infinitely now and has done everything required for your salvation and bids you now to come to Christ and be saved. COME AS YOU ARE. God does not want you to first clean up your life to be saved nor does He require you to clean up your life afterward to stay saved. God does all the saving and you do all the believing. You, too, can experience the joy of no condemnation. You, too, can enjoy walking in His love every day. This is available to you right now!. Jesus has paid your sin debt in full and God simply wants you to believe His testimony concerning His Son. Jesus died for your forgiveness as all your sins were laid upon Him. He was raised bodily for your justification, as you have no part in this matter. You can now be saved by His life. God made Jesus who knew no sin, and to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him! The moment you believe that message is when your sins are all taken out of the way. His life and righteousness become yours. You can put your head upon your pillow tonight with full assurance that you are fully loved and accepted by a thrice holy God that had never known sin and you will never have to fear judgment again!

"Father, we thank you that we are sheltered under the umbrella of your protective love. We wake up in it, we walk in it and we go to bed with it. We stand upon Jesus Christ the eternal rock that never moves. We can stand firm upon your promises as the foundation never shakes. It is your love that never ceases, it never fails, it endureth all things and nothing shall separate us from it. Our relationship to you is based on this love. It is this love that produces a life of fruit. It is this love that helps us face even the most difficult circumstances. It is to permeate our very being and our every thought. We are commanded to walk in it and this love is to overflow to others. This is the love that can melt the hardest of hearts.

Our prayer is that of Paul who said ‘to know the love of Christ passeth all knowledge’. To know this love that would move your heart, Father, to send Your Son here to save us. To know this love that caused our Savior to lay down His life for us. To know this love that would allow our Savior to have His hair pulled, crown of thorns placed upon His head, to be spat upon, to be punched, to have His back torn apart from the beatings revealing His bone, to have the very God of Heaven mocked, to be stripped naked before all, to have His hands and feet nailed for us.

· To know this love that gives and expects nothing in return.

· To know this love that we can never work for or earn.

· To know this love that we will experience for all eternity.

Father, we often stray from your love by looking away from you and onto ourselves and what we are doing or not doing. We pray that we never lose sight of that love. Reveal again this love afresh that passeth knowledge, so that we will be filled with your fullness.

In Jesus name, Amen!"

1st Corinthians 6:9-11 Part Two

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:29:00 +0000

I already did a lengthy post on 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 before but it was quite lengthy and wordy. I wanted to redo it with shortened arguments to help show that this passage is not a warning about losing salvation or even the practice of such sins in the life of the believer can prove that one is not saved.

I deleted a comment made by a reviewer simply because he did not choose to read my post but made hasty conclusions. When reading this blog then please note that I believe that Paul here is arguing not about our lifestyle but our former standing before God. It is the fact that we are no longer that former person before God ought to affect the way we act. We were "unrighteous" but now we are "justified." Our standing in Christ is now us having a right standing before God apart from works while before we had an "unrighteous" standing whether or not we had any works. You would have an "unrighteous" standing before God regardless if you never committed any of those listed sins if you still are in your sins. Those sins are the product of that unrighteous nature but if you are saved then you are washed, justified and sanctified and that is apart from your works and such sins are no longer a part of who you are. Such sins now would be inconsistent with who you now are in Christ. When Paul says, "you were" those things then he was pointing to your former standing and not comparing it to your supposed life of good works.

The passage reads:

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

The "unrighteous" of verse 9 is being compared to the "justified" of verse 11. The "unrighteous" have a standing before God and so do the "righteous" of verse 11. We are not unrighteous because of our works and we believers are not righteous before God because of works. If we were declared unrighteous before God by committing any of those listed sins then one can argue that quitting those sins would give you a righteous standing before God and that contradicts scores of Bible verses that we are justified by faith apart from works. One might argue that they are not consciously practicing any of those sins and declare themselves then to be righteous and we know that is wrong. Let face it, the Lordship believers erroneously stress the present tense of the words into habitual practice so any unsaved man can claim not to habitually practice those sins. The fact is, if you are unrighteous before God then you will not inherit (possess) the kingdom of heaven. The fact that the unsaved "do" such things is of no surprise. It does not matter either if they never had committed any of those sins since they are still "unrighteous" in the sight of God.

Paul gives a list of sins that certainly is not an exhaustive list but does name a few sins there. If you are a fornicator then you are not going to inherit the kingdom of heaven. This is your standing before God. Paul is not saying, "Stop committing these sins and then you can go to heaven" but if your standing before God is that of an "unrighteous" man then you can be sure that you will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul then lists in verse 11 all the things that have become true of a person that is saved apart from works. Paul says that the believer is justified, washed and sanctified. He speaks in the past tense that always refer to an act of God. Sanctification in the present would refer to our practical sanctification (daily walk) but when referred to being in the past then it is entirely a work of God apart from works.

You cannot compare the "unrighteous" of verse 9 claiming that it is referring to a life of works and then say that the "justified" in verse 11 is apart from works. The unrighteous does those things simply because he is unrighteous just as a dog barks because he is a dog. The solution according to Scripture isn't to stop doing those things to be made righteous because no man can be saved by his works. The solution is to have your position change before God from unrighteous to righteous and it is entirely a work of grace.

People argue that you must first repent of these sins because Paul said, "and some were such as you." They focus on the word "were" and assume that meant a former lifestyle that they repented of. It sounds plausible because I could say, "you were a drunk" and that certainly implies that you stopped, but Paul is arguing differently and it is easy to prove. It actually refers to a former position or standing that one had and not the act of repentance.

I challenge anyone to search Paul's writings of every time he uses the word "were" and tell me if his use of that word ever referred to repentance in the absence of the word "repentance"?? The only time that it refers to repentance is when he says it such as when he you turned to God from idols. Paul was not arguing here that one turned from anything but that the former position has been changed. I'm sure that some of those Corinthians that were living such lifestyles but stopped but it also clear that there were others that did not stop their sinful practices and Paul never called them unsaved for their sinfulness or even questioned them personally.

You will find in Paul's writings that every time he uses the word "were" followed by the word "but" then you can be sure that he was pointing out what your former position was before God to what your current one is. Here are some examples:

"And you hath he quickened, who WERE dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1 I put "he quickened" so one can see that God did the quickening apart from any action on ours. We were dead and God made us alive and no repentance mentioned. Clearly the word "were" pointing to what we used to be and then what God did for us apart from any works).

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and WERE by nature the children of wrath, even as others. BUT God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us" (Eph. 2:3,4. You can see that we were fulfilling the lust of the flesh but no works of ours and no repentance were even implied but it was God that took action. Only a fool reads words not found to keep his heresy).

"Even when we WERE dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" (Eph. 2:5 Did you revive yourself?? You were dead but someone else performed spiritual CPR. God literally raised a corpse so was repentance implied here in the word "were"? Nope! Saved by grace and no turning from former sins even hinted at).

"For ye WERE sometimes darkness, BUT now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light" (Eph. 5:8. Here specifically you were darkness but clearly God has made you a child of light. Was works of repentance required here? No, it is clear that one is asked to walk as a child of light only after the fact. It clearly says for us now to walk as children of light clearly implying that some are still walking in darkness not realizing that God has changed their position or standing before Him from darkness to light. The logical conclusion was that blessed position ought to affect one's walk and I said "ought" as Paul never said that one "will" do such things as modern day heretics do).

You can see from the prior verses I given above that Paul only uses the words "were" and "but" when describing a work of God on our behalf and never a work of man on God's behalf. Now look again at 1st Corinthians 6:11 and tell me if Paul is saying that you were unrighteous prior to repenting of them or if he was referring as what was clear everywhere else to a change in position? Paul said clearly now in 1st Corinthians 6:11:

"And such WERE some of you: BUT ye are washed, BUT ye are sanctified, BUT ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1st Cor. 6:11).

You were "unrighteous" but now you are justified. You WERE a fornicator but now you are justified. You were an "idolater" but now you are justified. God doesn't view us as "unrighteous" even when we do unrighteous acts. God doesn't view you as a "fornicator" but as "justified." Paul was showing that who they were before God ought to affect their actions. Read the entire chapter as Paul consistently argues from logic and how who they are ought to affect how they live and not that it guarantees how they will live as some Bible butchers try to throw in there even though the arguments are absent. An example would be that they should judge their own matters Paul says as one day they will judge angels as that is a logical thing to do. It is a logical argument just as much as saying that you were darkness but now are ye light in the Lord so walk as children of light. It makes as much sense as telling a former prostitute now made queen of a nation that she possesses all the kings riches so she no longer needs to sell her body for sex. This was what Paul was doing here. The unrighteous shall have no inheritance in God's kingdom, but you do so it doesn't make sense to live the way they do. Shall I unite my body that belongs to Christ to a harlot? NO! It makes no sense. Shall I continue in sin that grace might abound? NO! It makes no sense since I am now dead to sin.

I hope this made abundance sense to you as it did for me years back. The next time someone says that the practice of these sins proves that you are not saved then ask them where Paul specifically says that. They can't but can only argue from their theological position only and not from the context. The next time they say that Paul was arguing that Christians can't live in such sins then ask where does Paul specifically say that too? Paul never said that doing such sins proves that you were never saved or even the practice of it. Paul never argued that one must repent of these sins to be saved. Paul clearly is arguing that we are no longer these things listed positionally and that ought to affect our attitude. You might say, "Where does it say that it will affect our attitude?" Read the entire chapter and please take notice how Paul points out the wrong doing followed by what God has done or vice versa and how that should affect our lives and thinking. If I told you that you are no longer crippled then walking again should be the logical conclusion. The problem is that we as believers do not seem to think logically. One of many examples would be at the very end of the chapter:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1st Cor. 6:19,20).

You are bought with a price so what is the logical conclusion? Glorify God in your body because both it and your spirit belongs to God who owns it. Paul consistently argues throughout the entire chapter from a standpoint of logic that what God has done ought to affect how we live and not once does he say that a person must stop sins in order to inherit the kingdom of God only ignorant men do. Does it make sense for a person joined to Christ be joined to a harlot? Does it make sense for a man justified apart from works to live as though he is unjustified? Should I have fellowship with darkness? You will see that Paul resorts to logic to hopeful motivate you in the right direction but he doesn't threaten us with loss of salvation or that we are proving that we are not saved. Don't alter what Paul was saying in verses 9-11 into something other than it was intended to mean. Don't isolate his style of arguing from the rest of the passage as well as his other writings. You can never get "were, but..." to ever mean repentance but instead will find that it only refers to what we were and who we are now in Christ! Quit butchering God's word to suit your works oriented gospel!!

I have done another blog on 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 a few months back. I argued further against Lordshipper's that believe that the present tense means habitual practice in 1st Corinthians 6. I gave plenty of examples from Scripture how that is carelessness on their part to assume that and how the present tense rarely means habitual but needs additional qualifiers to make that conclusion. I also dealt with some free grace scholars out there that butcher 1st Cor. 6:9 into meaning that a believer was being warned and that he might lose his reward of inheritance as that is entirely unscriptural.

The photo is a picture of Corinth.

Victory!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:58:00 +0000

I had a thought last night while cooking supper. I was thinking about the sermons concerning Job about how God had placed a hedge of protection around him and then they try to compare him to us today. Often believers today believe that some saints in the OT had it better than us. Many feel vulnerable to Satan's attacks and that there is no hedge about them.

I realized how such a sermon about Job and comparing his hedge of divine protection to us is flawed to a large degree. We have a much better hedge of protection today than Job could ever have dreamed of. Job had a hedge about him and yet we are in Christ!! We are hidden in Him!! The devil complained to God about the hedge that He had about Job, but I think it is safe to say that the devil is kicking and screaming today about us because we now have a seat in the heavenly places and now are in a position that he can't even get close too.

The devil is a defeated foe and Christ has shamed them openly:

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Colossians 2:15)

Too many Christians please the devil by believing that he is defeated by Christ but now it is their turn to defeat him too. No, we are to resist him (James 4:7) and give him "no place" (Ephesians 4:27) and not defeat him. We cannot defeat the devil anyways by any carnal endeavors on our part as we will have to consciously apply the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:10). If you are a defeated Christian then the devil did not do it but you simply failed in rightly applying yourself to God's word. You are in Christ the victorious One and you share in that victory. You have all things in Christs as we have been blessed with every spiritual blessings in heavenly places. How can a defeated foe defeat you unless you let him convince you that he did?

Too many believers worry about what the devil might do to them. They give him much attention. If you study Scripture then please notice that very little attention is given to him. You will have one or two verses in most passages in the New Testament that deal with him. Yet Christians spend countless hours worrying about someone that has no claims on us whatsoever. We are commanded not to be ignorant of his devices (2nd Corinthians 2:11) so that he does not get advantage of us. Knowing your position in Christ and the devils defeated position is one way to keep him from getting advantage over us.

In Ephesians 6:10-18, Paul gives us the basics in spiritual warfare. I am not going to go through each of the verses expounding on them but wanted to stay focused on the fact that he has been defeated. Certainly if you doubt your salvation or lack faith then you are vulnerable to attack. Ever notice that carnal believers are often those that do not have a good handle on God's word? They might have been saved for a while but cannot even define simple things in God's word. They are no better today than when they first trusted Christ. I always believed that knowledge is power and people should have their nose in the Book.

I believe Christians that do not spend time in prayer and Bible reading can be equated to the king Adoni-bezek in the OT that had his thumbs and great toes cut off (see Judges chapter one). Lack of faith and biblical understand can cause one to go into spiritual battle with missing thumbs and their great toes as well spiritually speaking. You cannot hold a sword very well if your thumbs have been cut off. I took Filipino martial arts and was taught to grab the meat of the thumb of a person holding a knife as then you can easily disarm them of that knife. How can any believer expect to fight or grow without a grip on God's word? The loss of the large toe would affect balance and certainly one that lacks a good understanding of God's word can easily be knocked down and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). The sword of the Lord is God's word and you must have a firm grip or defeat is almost certain.

An improper understanding of God's word, His grace and having a lack of assurance of salvation can certainly destroy you. I've seen so many gung-ho Christians that can never get the victory as they believe that victory somehow depends on them. These are often the same people that go forward week after week in the un-Scriptural use of an alter call to rededicate their lives to Christ. They tend to mix law and grace as one will try to mix oil and water but can never seem to learn that the two can never be mixed. Our victory or defeat is all tied to this realization of who we are in Christ. It is imperative that we have a proper handle on God's word if we ever expect to be victorious in our Christian walk. Standing upon the Rock that never moves and having a firm grip of God's word is crucial to victory. So be vigilant as commanded as the devil goes about seeking whom he may devour (1st Peter 5:8).

I strayed slightly from topic but the problems we experience are often related to what we believe. If you do not see the devil as a defeated foe then you will live in constant worry striving to overcome him in the power of your flesh. You will be praying to God for victory when you already have the victory in Christ. One must realize the victory that we believers already have in Christ. Just remember, you have it better than Job did as you belong to Christ as well as the Father and none can snatch us out of His hand. Nothing can separate us from His love. We are the temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has baptized (placed) us into Christ as we are now part of His body. Satan is a defeated foe and he can do nothing to us that are in Christ. He is the accuser of the brethren and our adversary but a defeated one. The devil reminds me of Al Gore that lost to George Bush for presidency but kept demanding a recount of votes unwilling to concede. The devil is not willing to concede but will fight tooth and nail in a desperate and vain attempt to reclaim something that he lost. He will certainly want you to believe that he does have power over you and will seek to make you a slave to him. He wants you to believe that he isn't defeated but you have been mistaken. Stand firm on the blessed truths of God's word of who you are in Christ and resisting him will cause him to flee!!

Help with doubts of salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:36:00 +0000

Browsing the internet, I came across a persons cry for help with doubting salvation. This persons complaints are typical of many out there hungering for assurance of salvation. I will list many things this person said and will comment on them.

"But see when I got older I was still feeling extremely empty.... God doesn't exist at all and maybe you're an atheist or something and you just don't wanna believe it. You know I try not to doubt sometimes and And sometimes you like feeldeep down and I don't think I do or else I wouldn't worry about it...."

This was two comments he was making. This is a common problem and that is the want of feelings. Feelings tend to be a persons sight into the spiritual realm they think. The hardest thing for people to learn is that feelings are entirely unreliable. I admit that they are nice to have when they are around but even nice feelings doesn't mean that all is well either. A person must look past their feelings into the face of Christ.

"But sometimes when I'm praying to God once in a while something creeps in and its like, what if you're just talking to yourself?"

I have encountered this problem with so many believers. I have been asked "What if I am only fooling myself? What if I am only mentally saying that I believe Jesus died for my sins when deep down I really do not?" I love to be asked that question because I immediately will say, "Jesus didn't die, the cool tomb revived Him and His disciples went and hid His body. When Jesus finally died then they disposed of the body so that everyone will believe that He was bodily resurrected." Almost without fail, the person hearing or reading this would cry out in complete disagreements saying that I was wrong. I then respond, "The fact that you responded so harshly is a guaranteed fact that deep down you do believe that Jesus died and was bodily raised. If you did doubt that deep down then you would have considered the pretend lies I just uttered." Almost always their face lights up realizing finally that they do believe that Christ did die for them and was bodily raised. The next time you hear someone questioning if they really believe the gospel then try telling them that Jesus really didn't rise and the moment they attack you for denying His death then you can point out that they just proved that they themselves do believe the gospel message that Jesus died for sin.

This poor individual is basing salvation from what he can see and feel and not from the promises of God. This is a terrible cycle that will not end until the person stops looking to themselves for assurance. This is a hard cycle to break since it is a habit. When you are convinced that feelings and external signs are required then it is very hard to break the habit of looking away from yourself to Christ.

I always ask a doubting person to write down on a piece of paper as to everything they can think of that would give them assurance of salvation. They might respond with, "If I can see a pattern of good works then I can believe that I am saved" and so on. I then tell them that everything that they jotted on that paper is a condition that they have erected and actually those things they have written are exactly what is keeping them from having assurance. If seeing a pattern of good works is what you require then how much do you need? What if after a year you stop doing good works? Such a condition will only ruin any hope of experiencing assurance with such foolish thinking.

This persons cry for help gives a little insight as to what conditions he has erected:

"And I really don't feel saved most of the time to begin with anyway. I'm selfish, envious, bitter, judgmental, angry blah blah (not all the time but I'm just saying). Even when I'm happy it seems I just want to change and be some model Christian more for my self than for God...I'd like to be like that but I'm not really. And I don't mean a bible thumper or someone who goes around shouting praise God to anyone who will listen. But someone who just lives life fully, happy, looks out for others, never looking on others with judgmental eyes, or envious ones for that matter."

I believe that it is safe to assume that he is doubting his salvation by what he sees in his life. He certainly is sin and work oriented rather than grace and Christ centered. He clearly shows his doubts of being forgiven of all trespasses and sins. I hate to burst this man's bubble, but Christians even from Paul's day didn't have the life he is desiring in his cry for help. Paul rarely counseled such wonderful people that this person believes Christians ought to be like. Christians that mature in the faith, learn to walk in the Spirit can be what he is desiring to be but it never is a description of what a person will be like if they are truly saved. Paul dealt with Christians fornicating and one even having sex with his step mother. He dealt with Christians getting drunk, divisions, envyings and so on. We have believers in Acts 19 that were saved for 2 years before finally burning their occult practices. Paul declared that all of Asia minor had forsook him. The people in Galatians were turning to faith and works. Paul dealt with constant problems in the Christian faith and such problems continue to this day. What this person is desiring is great but it isn't required for salvation and isn't a guaranteed result of salvation.

Here is another question that I have to ask doubters, "What is a Christian?" Very seldom do I ever get an answer that says, "A Christian is someone that has trusted the total saviorhood of Christ for salvation and is now called a Christian because he or she follows the teachings of Christ." Almost always I hear, "A Christian is someone that follows Christ whole heartedly. Who strives to be absolutely holy..." and so on and so forth. No wonder people doubt their salvation because they have an idea of what a Christian is supposed to be like and then they look at themselves and see that they do not measure up to their mental picture of a Christian and they doubt their salvation. Salvation is a gift to bad people and never a reward to good people. This again is a condition that people erect that they will not believe God has saved them until they first see a change in their life. They will start adhering to a list of rules they impose upon themselves thinking that if they do those things and refrain from sin then maybe they can conclude that they are saved.

"This also makes me think of the unforgivable sin and all that "anyone who tasted the Holy Spirit and turned away cannot come back cause it would be like crucifying Jesus over and over again."

I already done a post on Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29. This person has done what many have done and that is to take an obscure passage that hardly any scholar can agree the same on and made it a sin that he can commit and probably has already done. I do not believe that the unpardonable sin can be committed today anyways as it was a statement that Jesus was making to a nation. We never hear about the possibility of that sin again. However, if such a sin existed today then such a person would not care for assurance of salvation. Assurance to him would be as an important as having a hair analysis done to see what minerals one is lacking in their diet. Crucifying Jesus over again was a warning to the Jews that were seeking to go back to the temple where animal sacrifices were being done. This would be a great shame since they would be identifying with those that nailed Christ to the cross. They were warned that Christ died once for all and returning to that was foolish since their are no more sacrifices for sins. Read the verses again and ask if any Christian is committing that sin today???

"If you're born again, they why do you still put the world first so much still? I hear people always say "Oh I became a Christian and I instantly stopped cussing, blah blha blha blah", "God took all my depression away" "All my fears went a way" "I stopped doing drugs blah blah blah" "

This person again views that if you are saved then some divine zap will instantly change you. He did say something valuable here as he talks about the sins that believers claim was taken away from them the moment they got saved by God. Sorry, God did not remove drugs, fears, depression, profanity from their lives. If God takes away one problem or sin then He is obligated to remove them all. You will not find one Bible verse where God took a sin that one was committing out of their lives. I get sick of hearing testimonies of people claiming that God took away their desire to drink alcohol. It's funny, I have yet to hear one male say, "God took away my lust for a good looking lady in a bikini where I have no desire to stare at her." You will find that lust is the universal sin that plagues man until he's either very old or dead. The reason such people quit certain sins is because Christ filled a void in their lives that drugs or alcohol used to fill.

"I never had any fantastic experience or change happen. I try to change but I'm not very successful. I ask God to change me and I don't really see it. I think God would be sick of me anyway being such a yoyo... Exactly like the type of person Jesus said not to be. So if Gods not changing me was I never saved?"

This is the hardest lesson for believers to learn and that is what you do once you are saved. This is where they incorporate rules into their lives to live by. They will seek to obey the law thinking that God will not be pleased with them if they break it. The law is not of faith and you cannot intertwine grace and law. Jesus Christ is grace and truth and the law is not of faith. People seeking to keep the law to make themselves perfect or acceptable in the sight of God and so on will experience failure and frustration.

"In the future does God see me like totally leaving him so he never accepts me now? What if I died in a down moment would I still go to heaven? Say I just was kind of on a walking down the street contemplating God's existence and got hit by a car even though had I lived, the next day would have been a great day and I would have been thanking him and apologizing for the night before?"

This persons problem again is all too common among many struggling with assurance. They view God's acceptance based upon their actions. What if I were to tell you that you are as righteous as Jesus Christ? This makes doubters feel so uneasy inside. I admit that it is hard to accept but it is true. One author said that our righteousness cannot make His righteousness any better and our wickedness cannot make His righteousness any worse. When we stand before God then I sure hope that you will not be trying to present any good works that you have done. If I were to tell you that if you were to attempt even one good work to be saved that God will reject you eternally then how many good works would you be trying to do? None, so stop viewing works as a condition for being saved or proving that you are saved. God has provided a covering for you so put away your rags and simply trust His (Jesus Christ).

People also seem to fail to understand that prior to the cross that blessings were all conditional based upon works. I believe it was Lewis Sperry Chafer that said that the OT can be described as saying, "Do good and I (God) will bless you" and after the death of Christ the saying now is, "Do good because I have already blessed you." Compare Jesus to Paul and you will notice that Jesus says, "Forgive to be forgiven" and Paul says, "Forgive because you already have been forgiven." In Ephesians it is said that we have already received an inheritance, we have already been blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Paul always addresses the erring believer to see who he now is in Christ. Paul in Ephesians 5:8 shares first God's view of us as being children of light but then Paul goes on to say for us to walk now as children of light. We are to make our daily walk match who we are now positionally in Christ. You can be walking as a child of darkness but that makes no sense to do since God views you as a child of light.

All of God's wrath has been fully exhausted so Christians believing that God is angry with them is stating a lie. A Christian who doesn't "feel" worthy is stating a partial truth as we certainly are never worthy of such love but the fact is that we are in Christ so we are worthy in the sight of God apart from any works we do whether good or bad.

"Simple, can you doubt and be saved? What I mean is will he accept you back? And what if you do it again in the future?"

Will He accept you back? This person doesn't realize that a believer can never lose any form of acceptance with God. God the Father loves us as much as He loves Jesus Christ (see John 17:23) and it is only based in Christ's good works and never ours. You might walk away from God in your daily walk but never in your position. You can be wallowing in sin at this present moment and you are as near and as dear to God as Jesus Christ is to Him. This is why feelings are entirely unreliable. Feelings are what tells a person that God is miles away, God is angry, God is done with you, God hasn't saved you and so on. Are you a Christian right now drunk on alcohol? OK, you are an idiot but you are as accepted and loved as that missionary sweating right now in some foreign country soon to be killed for his faith. You certainly will not receive the same rewards as he, but God isn't looking at him as more accepted than the drunken Christian idiot.

I believe that it was the missionary Hudson Taylor that struggled with doubt until 2nd Timothy 2:13 spoke to him that says, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." He came to realize that it all depended on His faithfulness and not Hudson Taylors. His lack of faith wouldn't alter God's faithfulness to him. A person that questions what would happen if they doubt must realize that salvation doesn't depend upon our faithfulness but His.

Assurance is found in believing a Person and the promise. It isn't found in how you feel, it isn't found in your works and it is certainly not found in anything other than Jesus Christ. You need to believe that your sins are forgiven and simply forgive yourself too. The reason that you do not forgive yourself is because you still see that same person you were before being saved as still there. You feel that you can only forgive yourself once that old person is gone and this is what is killing you.

Remember in Exodus 12 where people were to put the blood on the posts around the door to avoid the death angel from taking the life of the first born? Question, were the people inside the homes worried about how they have been living? Were they wondering about the quantity or quality of their faith? Did it matter if they were wallowing in sin at that moment? No, they showed their faith by applying the blood and God only saw the blood and passed over them. It didn't matter what they were doing on the inside of the house but what was on the outside. Did the death angel hesitate outside the home of any person that wasn't striving to live such holy lives that night even though they applied the blood to the door post? No, and God isn't hesitating with you either. You might be filled with sins but you have been covered with the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ if you trusted Him. Quite thinking that God is ready to hit you over the head with a hammer.

Imagine that Jesus Christ is a thermos. Imagine that the Holy Spirit is the screw top lid. Imagine that you are black coffee that obviously represents your sins. God the Father takes the coffee (you) and pours (places) it in Christ (thermos). Now the Holy Spirit who represents the screw top lid is now sealing the contents (you) inside very tight. Now when God looks at the thermos, does He see the coffee? No, He only sees the thermos which represents Jesus Christ as you are now in Jesus Christ as the Scriptures declare. God doesn't see the black coffee that you do so get your eyes off yourself and place them on the Son. Doesn't it make sense to look to the same place God the Father is? He sees the Son and so should you!! The reason why many suffer with doubts is due to being so sin centered. Every time they sin they are bent out of shape assuming that God is folding His arms in utter disgust. Start focusing on what God says you are and not what you see and feel yourself to be.

Blog Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Thanks to all that have left comments concerning my blog as I do appreciate them. I apologize that I have been gone for a while. I do have this site set up so that all comments will be pre-screened by me and that is why it took a while for them to be posted. I only have it set up this way to prevent a Jerry Springer show in here. I do not believe that the Apostle Paul or others would like to share their writings with heretics. I will allow those that oppose to make friendly comments but will only post 2 of them per topic. Paul admonished us to rebuke 2 times and the third time consider them as a heretic and I sort of follow that policy here. Once you allow your blog to turn into a debate forum then your message often gets lost in it. Visitors will often view the comments first to see if they can get the gist of things and that is what I want to avoid. Many just love to fight and you will find them everywhere. My blog is to help the doubters come to full assurance and not make this a breeding ground for those that simply want to debate.

Eternal security is the teaching of the Scriptures and anything less than that is not saving. If you do not believe in eternal security then may God help you before it is too late. If you believe in Lordship salvation then may God help you too before it is too late. I believe that such teachings are a perversion of the truth and will only serve to damn a soul if believed. Only eternal security can free a person to fully depend upon Christ for salvation stripping one of all so-called meritorious works to be saved.

Being saved doesn't guarantee fruit bearing

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:25:00 +0000

Probably the most difficult area for believers is bearing fruit. I hear not only from Lordship salvation but even from some free grace believers that if you are saved then you will bear fruit if your salvation is genuine. This causes many to suffer doubts because they fail to see fruit or if they see fruit then they question the sincerity of it or the quantity of it. If their fruit is imperfect or scarce then they will doubt their salvation. I believe that religion and a disbelief of salvation by grace alone is at fault for this type of thinking. I am here to disprove that being saved alone guarantees that you will bear fruit.

When a person gets saved does not guarantee that they will bear fruit. Let's be clear, only a saved person can bear fruit but it is no guarantee and I will explain. Being saved doesn't prevent one from sinning or bearing fruit. The Bible makes it clear that if a person wants to bear fruit then they must "walk in the Spirit" and according to John that a believer must "remain in Him." Walking in the Spirit is a command and doesn't happen automatically. Only the saved can walk in the Spirit but if one chooses not too then what do you think is the logical conclusion? Look at Galatians 5:16:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."

Walking in the Spirit is the only way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Walking in the Spirit is the only way to experience the fruit of the Spirit (vs. 22) and not simply being saved. Being saved is not equivalent to walking in the Spirit but certainly is a prerequisite. The Corinthians were saved but many of them were not walking in the Spirit. Galatians were saved but many were seeking to add works to their faith and Paul certainly didn't consider them as "walking in the Spirit."

Paul instructed us in Colossians 2:6:

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

We received Christ by faith and now are instructed to walk by faith. The journey from beginning to end is by faith. If you are not bearing fruit then you are not walking by faith and that is it. Now let's consider what religion says. Have you ever noticed that they consider people in the church that strive hard, join every ministry possible, reads their Bible and prays often as saved people even though such individuals are doubting their salvation? However, if one were not striving hard, joining ministries, reading and praying often then the same church doubts their salvation even though the individual does not. They believe that if you are living in sin and have assurance that they are deceived by the devil. Assurance to such people is grounded in good works and not Christ alone and it is such people that I doubt know Christ. Do you not realize that the Galatians were condemned with harsher language for adding works to their walk than the Corinthians that were full of sin and carnality? Paul handed a fornicating man (incestuous man) over to Satan but said that his spirit will be saved in the day of Jesus Christ (Bema seat that is reserved only for believers). Paul however stood in doubt of the Galatians that listened to the Judiazers. In most churches today, if you are striving hard to obey every rule and struggling to live a righteous life even though you doubt your salvation is somehow a good indication to the church that you are saved and that is a grave error. Do you see maybe that Judaizers are alive and well in the churches today by such a belief? They glory in your flesh and it is your flesh that is striving to live a life that you believe God accepts and maybe will grant you assurance for trying so hard. I can doubt my salvation 100% and yet the church will assure me that I am saved because of how hard I am striving believing that is some divine spark in me that is doing that. Is that Scriptural?? No it is not!!

Do you think we might have it backwards in our churches today? We condemn and question the lazy and indifferent believer but praise and have high hopes for the so-called believer that doubts his salvation but buffets his body and does everything else that appears to be holy and righteous? Do you really believe that one can "walk in the Spirit" that doubts his/her salvation?? Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit is prompting such people to strive such holy lives in the power of their flesh? What does Paul say to such people? Don't define what you think as to why people strive to be holy in the power of their flesh as Paul clearly condemns adding anything to grace to be made perfect. Many claim that only a Holy Spirit filled Christian would be so concerned about his soul and appearance before God in heaven to do that but you cannot find Scripture to back that up. Based on what I read by Paul, I have serious doubts about such people that live like that because they believe peace, assurance and acceptance are found in works. It's sad watching the same people week after week going forward in the non-Scriptural use of alter calls to rededicate their lives to Christ believing that blessings are just right around the corner and the church has no problem with this foolishly believing that the Holy Spirit is responsible. The lazy and indifferent believer is someone else that isn't seeking acceptance or assurance by works but realizes that they have it in Christ. I'm not saying that if one is lazy and indifferent means they are saved but the language by Paul doesn't indicate that lazy people are probably not saved and those that strive hard are. Only religion makes this distinction based on their self-righteous thinking.

I am told that believers will bear fruit of some kind and yet these life long striver's are considered as bearing fruit even though such strivings only come from the flesh. I do believe that believer's will bear fruit but will define fruit as Scripture does. Have you done one of the following then you can be sure that you have experienced fruit that is consistent with the believer:

Faith is called a fruit
Praise is called a fruit (fruit of our lips)

The question is how do we define fruit and when is there enough of it to know that we are saved? You can't. Just because you are saved does not mean that you will be the next Billy Sunday or D.L. Moody. Many make the mistake of assuming that everyone else in church is just so happy and full of peace and assurance when many are not. Such people are only putting on their Sunday faces. You would be amazed as to how many struggle with assurance so do not be deceived by someone's wonderful works of striving. Ask your pastor as to the number one problem that he ends up counseling people on. You will find that lack of assurance tops the charts in most churches. The sad thing is that most pastors feel the remedy for doubts is: soulwinning, joining a ministry, reading more Bible, pray more, fast and so on that will only cause the hearer more doubts and discouragement simply because those so-called remedies NEVER work. The counselee usually ends up blaming God for not doing His part when they have done theirs by following that list of things prescribed by their pastor.

We must never associate our bearing fruit with our being saved. I know that statement might have created confusion and let me explain. Being saved is one thing but it does not mean that you will bear fruit and that is important to know. If you think that being saved guarantees your fruit or that being saved and fruit bearing go hand and hand then you will base your assurance on your works. If you see works then you will believe you are saved but if they are absent then you are doubting. This is the problem of Lordship salvation because works today can prove you are saved according to them but if they are gone tomorrow then you need to question your salvation as they too draw assurance from works that can never be perfect. Let's face it, if you believe that being saved guarantees fruit then what will you look at to determine whether you are saved or not? Christ or fruits?? Let me give a lame example and maybe this will clear it up, If I were to say, "Only a person alive can swim" and your response to that might be, "Duh" to me. However, an alive person must jump into the water to swim so being alive isn't enough and doesn't guarantee that one will swim in his lifetime even if he has a swimming pool in his back yard. So now when I say that one has to be saved to bear fruit is only a partial truth. A saved person must live a life of faith and they must walk in the Spirit if they will avoid the lusts of flesh and bear the fruits of the Spirit. It does not happen automatically.

What does Paul say? Look at Ephesians 2:10:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

This verse is often twisted to read that once you are saved then you will automatically bear fruit and do good works and that is wrong. Paul said clearly that we "should walk in them" and not "you will walk in them." Look at Romans 13:12-14:

"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."

The emphasis is upon us after we are saved to cast off such deeds and is not a guarantee as a believer can hold on to his works of darkness rather than casting them off. We are to put on the Lord Jesus so that we will not make provision for the flesh. This doesn't happen automatically but we must be commanded to do so as this doesn't come naturally as religion likes to make you think.

Ephesians 5:8 says:

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

If Ephesians 2:10 meant that good works happen automatically then why does Paul tell us to "walk as children of light" if it were not possible to walk as children of darkness??? If Ephesians 2:10 meant that one will do good works automatically then Titus 3:8 makes absolutely no sense that says:

"This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God MIGHT be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men."

Study Paul and you will find that when it comes to our works that Paul uses such words as "ought, might, should" and never uses the word "will" as though implying it happens automatically or to some degree. Here is when Paul uses the word "will" as found in Galatians 5:16:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."

Shall not is the same as "will not." If you want to bear fruit, if you want to overcome sin then it is done by walking in the Spirit. So what guarantees fruit bearing? Paul answered that if you walk in the Spirit then you will bear fruit and yet he says to those that are saved that they should do good works and never once says that they will do good works as they first have to fulfill the command of walking in the Spirit. Being saved doesn't guarantee good works as you have to "walk in the Spirit" as Scripture teaches. The fact that you are "trying" does not mean that you are saved any more than the person that doesn't strive to walk in them. The fact that you judge others based on their lack of strivings might indicate a heart that sees grace as earned. You are just as much in the flesh with all of your vain strivings as the other person that shows no concern. Remember, being saved is not the same as "walking in the Spirit" but it is only something that a believer can "choose" to do. Just because you are saved doesn't mean that fruits will mysteriously start manifesting themselves. As long as you are saved but striving to bear fruits then you can forget it. Your self righteous fruits will die in the grave with you. The moment you learn to walk by faith and not your vain strivings then you will start to experience the changes that happens to those that are saved. If at any point you stray from this then the fruits will all disappear again.

Remember, being alive is the first prerequisite to swimming and then jumping in the water is the second. Being saved is the first prerequisite to bearing fruit but you have to walk in the Spirit. It is no guarantee as we live in a day that teaches nothing but non-sense. You are being instructed that you have to bear fruit or the lack of it somehow proves that you are not saved and this leads people to strive vainly in the flesh to have some good works that they can look too and believe that they have indeed been saved. Most people that doubt their salvation are often those that believe that being saved means that they will be living a certain lifestyle that involves bearing fruit. This is why they will always struggle because being saved to them is a guarantee that they will bear fruit and when they do not see it then they doubt. They try grabbing assurance in areas other than Christ alone. They are told that their doubting is a sign of life as well as their strivings and they use that as a glimmer of hope that heaven is their hope when actually they have been told a dangerous lie. Only looking to Christ gives assurance and never our works. I do not view works as a secondary means of assurance either as some teach as Scripture never states that either since anyone can mimic the motions. I view my works as a joyful privilege of serving my God that has saved me from death and wrath to come!

Eternal security thought of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:33:00 +0000

There is an interesting teaching that I found that many (not all) of those that believe you can lose your salvation teach. Many believe that if you have been divorced and married another then you are committing "continual adultery" as they put it as remarriage is a continual sin to them. They focus on Jesus words when He said that if you be married to another then such a person "commits" adultery. The word "commits" they claim is in the present tense and must therefore mean that it is an on-going sin until you divorce that spouse that was married before since the spouse is still alive. I do have to question their intelligence at times since the present tense does not mean "continual" unless you have qualifying words or the context makes that clear. Here is an example, If I were to say, "Whoever kills another man commits murder" then who in their right mind would say that the word "commits" is in the present tense so it really means that the person is killing more than once? It is clear that a single act is being committed even though I used the present tense word "commits."

Do you see what makes this belief so interesting to me that believes in eternal security? Here they are teaching that God will never permit a man and a woman from divorcing. God will never separate the two sinful human beings that He has joined together. God has the the married couple bound as long as they live and no exceptions. This has no exception clauses to those that believe you can lose your salvation between a sinful man and a woman. I find that interesting since God Himself will divorce us from Himself over one little sin but will expect a man and a woman to be bound together as long as they live. So the bride of man can never be put asunder but the bride of Christ can????????? What nonsense do they teach?? How can God expect us sinful human beings to stay married when He cannot even do it Himself according to their teaching?

If God views us as always married then how can not view us as always a part of Him as well? This is where those that believe you can lose your salvation will start coming up with their own take on what they believe what happens. I have heard so much non-sense from them about how we can become unsealed by the Holy Spirit (nowhere stated) and how we can throw away a free gift of salvation (nowhere stated) and so on. I have found so much careless handling of Scripture from those that believe you can lose your salvation that it is enough to make you sick when you consider it. I have read books by Dan Corner, Robert Shank and others to know that they seek to twist areas of Scripture so that it fits their heresy.

If you ever meet a person that believes you can lose your salvation as well as this teaching that you can never be officially divorced then you should know this to be prepared. Ask such a person as to why God would take eternal life from you and if he replies that God punishes the disobedient then be sure to tell that person sarcastically, "Oh Good! I was looking for a reason to divorce my spouse due to his/her disobedience and sinfulness and now I have my reason!!" They will have a hard time replying because how can God expect us that is anything but perfect to do something that He Himself can't even do and who is perfect? They have a god that says, "Do as I say and not as I do." It is like some Calvinists out there that teach that we are to love our enemies even though they believe that God hates them. How can God expect us to do something that He Himself doesn't even have the ability to do?? Jesus did tell us to follow his example. Does it really seem compatible to not believe in divorce and remarriage when you believe in a God that can so easily divorce us? Doesn't it make more sense to believe in a God that doesn't not believe in divorce as He will never be divorced from us?

Is free grace a license to sin???

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:00 +0000

Let's assume that you have a lady next door to you that simply do not like. You seem to get some enjoyment when you do something that gets under her skin. However, you are careful not to overdo it, because her husband is very big and full of muscles and is very protective of her. However, one day that man dies and then what? You probably would feel free to deliver that lady an onslaught of insults and anything else that you can think of that will annoy her to no end simply because the threat is out of the way. The fear of her big husband is no longer an issue. I can see this as a big possibility of someone feeling free to let her have it good with insults and so on.

Let's assume again that you have a lady next door that you simply cannot stand to have around. You take pleasure when you can do anything to her that gets her angry and so on. You are still careful as to how far you go because of her very large and well built husband that she lives with. However, one night your house catches fire and nobody was even aware of it in your household. That big husband from next door sees the fire and runs over breaking down the door and saving your whole family from death but he himself died in the fire. Would you now attack that annoying next door neighbor who just lost her husband that died saving you and your family? Would you consider that the threat is out of the way so now would be a perfect time to unleash some nasty comments as her husbands charred body lays there on the ground as she sobs? Would you wait until tomorrow or the next week to deliver the insults?? I see attacking her as unimaginable and I think you do too.

Those that believe you can lose your salvation will picture us that believe in eternal security as given in the first paragraph I gave. They simply think that if the threat (law) is out of the way then we would just sin it up. This is why I do not believe that most of those that accuses free grace of teaching a license to sin has ever been saved, because they clearly are blind as to the true effects of grace apart from law. In their mind, to remove the threat (law) is opening a door to a life of wanton sin. Basically, the husband now is dead so let's bash that next door neighbor as we are so free to do.

To those of us that have truly believed the free grace gospel have come to realize that the threat (law) no longer has any power over us and that we have died to it. We realize that Jesus died in our place to save us from sin. How can we sin against such love? How can we insult our Savior that has done so much to redeem us? To see His torn up body on the cross drenched in blood and stand there watching His head drop in death for us as a opportunity to engage in the very sins He died for is unimaginable. This is why we do not believe that the free grace movement promotes the "license to sin" garbage that you so often hear of. It is only through the free grace teaching that one serves from a heart that is free and loves. If a person can say that removing the law will promote carelessness does not know the love of God on our behalf because love begets love. The teachings of those that believe you can lose your salvation will produce self-righteousness that God will reject simply because they do it to stay saved as they claim and do not want to end up in hell. Their obedience is forced and ours is willing and out of love.

Remember, the Apostle Paul was accused in Romans 6:1 by what he just got through expounding on, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Make it known that NO person(s) will ever be accused of such a statement that believes that they can lose their salvation. However, those that believe in free grace are attacked all the time and this is one statement that we hear so often. They hear our message and assume that what we teach will promote a license to sin just as Paul anticipated his accusers of the same question. I agree with the apostle Paul's response to such a thoughtless statement "GOD FORBID!!!!"

The Rich man in hell. A lesson to the Pharisees

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:22:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:42:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:49:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:32:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:32:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:26:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 10 May 2008 15:52:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:11:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:24:00 +0000

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.