Rose's Reasonings

Friday, December 12, 2008

A Thoroughly LS Sermon

My brother, bless his heart, sent me a sermon via email. I listened to it, not knowing what it was going to be. I had not remembered hearing of Paul Washer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQUfOgj5ZA8&feature=related

I then had to make these remarks:

Faith is not enough to be saved? We must be a disciple to the fullest extent or else we have no sure destiny with God for all eternity?
We are threatened with the fear of hell if we have not surrendered fully?
What happened to our language? Do we have to have an hour-long sermon to explain a simple word: “BELIEVE”?

Here is just one quote from Mr. Washer talking about the meaning of “believing” in Jesus for salvation:
_____________

“[Believing] doesn't mean that if they said the right thing or that if they invited him into their lives that they were saved from hell...
Believeing in Him means to believe on the full orb of everything that Scruipture says about Him.”
_____________

If that is required in order to receive Jesus Christ… then who can be saved? Who in humanity UNDERSTANDS the FULL ORB of scripture regarding Jesus?
Do we need to know the “full orb” of Scripture in order to receive Jesus? What ever happened to simple trust in Jesus and child-like faith?

I also understand that simply saying a prayer does not save anyone. BUT… the alternative is NOT to add all these stipulations to the word “believe” … to explain and EMBELLISH the word “believe.” Belieiving is simple … so simple that a child can understand it.

Totally repenting of one’s sins, having an “ongoing communion with Christ” is not the same as “believing” which is used in the gospel of John to explain the way people receive eternal life from Jesus the Messiah. All these things that Paul Washer is speaking of are called abiding in Christ, growing in Christ and following Him. These are not simple, but take work for the believer and are a life-long process in the life of a maturing, growing Christian. Discipleship and growth are important but they are not what saves someone... or even what proves salvation. The fact that Christ came out of the grave proves that those who believe in Him are saved. This is simple.

Categories are being mixed up in this teaching … what is under the discipleship column is being moved into the conversion column.
No.
What is necessary to be a disciple is not necessary to receive eternal life. Christ won this life and is giving it away freely! How sad to hear someone put a price on it for men to pay.

What man-centered assurance is presented here.

Paul Washer asks how can people know that they have “believed” in the correct and “saving” sense? His answer is to give a complicated explanation about being a true disciple. If you are sure that you are a true disciple then you can be sure that Jesus has saved you. Huh? How can anyone ever be sure that they are thoroughly a true disciple? What if you’re a fake? What if you’re just making yourself live right to prove that you’re a disciple but you really don’t believe in the true sense of REAL and AUTHENETIC faith? Has anyone touched on that complication in these types of sermons? You might have the fruit but not the root! What about when you fail? Everytime you fail you know you aren’t measuring up.

You have to look to Christ because He is the only one who has measured up. According to the teaching presented in this video, you have to continue repenting, continue following or you can’t be sure that Christ has saved you.

The solution to this conundrum is simple:
LOOK TO CHRIST!

People need to stop talking people into looking to themselves for proof of salvation... the quality of their faith, the sincerity of their prayer, the trueness of their discipleship etc…
They need to be told that Jesus is suffficient to save!!! His incredible Person and Work is what we look to to see that we can be saved. This anthropocentric introspection is not God glorifying and not what the apostles meant to convey regarding the reception of eternal life. Evangelistic preaching needs to be about Jesus Christ and what He has done and that is how people will know salvation, not pointing to their own performance or quality of discipleship. Believers should be encouraged on in growth and discipleship, but not with the threat of “If you don’t behave thusly then you were never saved to begin with.” What “Christian” sect teaches that our behavior or works bear on our hope of salvation? I left that church.

Merry Christmas!

209 Comments:

Rose,

I was confused for many years by this kind of preaching and teaching. I am convinced that the majority of people in Christendom are likewise confused by some variation of this kind of garbled theology. I think it was George Barna who recently did a poll that showed that about 70% of all EVANGELICALS believe that faith AND works are necessary for salvation. This is shocking but true. It would seem that evangelicals need to be evangelized doesn't it? But this is not anything new. It is exactly what Paul was referring to when he wrote Galatians. LS is a "different gospel" which "distorts" the truth and "troubles" those who are deceived by it (Gal. 1:6,7).

I love the comments and observations you have made. The church is in desperate need of more believers like you who are well grounded in the truth of God's word. There are many, many people out there who are either struggling with this or have already given up, thinking they can never be saved. On the other hand, there are many others who vainly imagine that they "measure up"(Lk 18:11) and aren't bothered at all with this kind of "gospel" preaching. On the contrary, they zealously defend it. They are in just as much need (maybe more) of help as the others.

Thanks for posting this. It is encouraging to know that there are others such yourself who understand and care about this issue which is so serious and prevalent today.

God bless.

Gary

By goe, at 12/12/2008 1:39 PM
Your so right Rose. Greetings.

This type of preaching for salvation only motivates the flesh through fear, the very thing thing that God has condemned through His Son. It has no power for salvation. Many people, unsaved & saved have "walked the asile" out of fear because of these messages. The unsaved to put their faith in their repentance and the saved to rededicate their flesh.

Many churches, the latter day saints, & the military run fine on this system & why not! It sounds so true and wise. The flesh always wants to be wise. (Genesis 3:6)

1 Corinthians 1:20,21
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Simple belief in Christ for salvation is truly a stumbling block.

I myself stumble over the grace of God in Christ many times. It is so easy & comfortable alot of times to walk by the flesh and lean on my own understanding instead of growing in grace & living by faith instead of my works.

Thanks for stopping by Okie Dokies. The email alert on the comment was the first time I had that opened in a while. Maybe I will post something over the Christmas holidays.

Merry Christmas & may your nemesis remain silent. LOL

Kris

By Kris, at 12/12/2008 3:49 PM
Oh one more thing.

Is just me or do LS sermons seem to run against the grain of Good News?

By Kris, at 12/12/2008 3:55 PM
After listening carefully to him, I realized that with only a few very minor changes, his sermon would be well received not only by LS Calvinists, but with Arminians as well, including the RCC. The LS of Calvinism is not really any different from the LS of Arminians. They both believe essentially the same thing about what is required for eternal salvation.. The only differences are for the most part merely theoretical in nature and of no practical consequence. Translation: without good works, you go to hell. Therefore faith + works required for eternal life.

I do agree with him that people are not saved by saying a prayer, but wow, this guy has been so thoroughly indoctrinated with 5-pt Calvinism that he is not capable of making any biblical distinctions between faith and works, or being born again as a gift and the costly life of discipleship. It's all one big synthesis in his thinking. It reminds me of how I used to think. Assurance (certainty) of salvation is impossible with this kind of theology. Washer seems to think that most "Christians" think they are saved by praying a prayer. But Barna's survey suggests just the opposite--that the vast majority (including evangelicals) believe exactly as he does. Could that be the real underlying problem that's causing the carnality he's berating all the "false believers" for?

By goe, at 12/12/2008 4:36 PM
Some thoughts from the reality of experience with regard to defining "faith" or "believing." I was at one time diagnosed with Colon Cancer. The initial tests indicated very large tumors. An advanced case that may have gone into other organs. There were other tests, and spaces in between, that made the time span between initial diagnosis and scan results almost 30 days. It would indicate a clear in other organs. During this time it appeared to me, based on reading, that I may have but three to six months to live. As I thought, prayed, and read scripture I went through an interesting process. I would go to be with my Lord. Yes, but now that what I have preached and believed is going to be reality, what makes it so real and certain? As I thought through this process and read scripture and prayed, the wonderful reality of Grace become real. If my reality and certainty of hope rested in what occurred in me by way of changed life, attitude, repentance, confession, or any minuscule thing that came from me or was thought by me, then there was no assurance. Perhaps my faith was but false assent to truth, or any repentance not quite enough, or I had not loved God enough, or some other.But what could I really count on? What was real assurance ? It could only be in what was outside me. It could only be in what I was minimally part of or had no part in. That assurance must rest upon another of flawless character. That assurance can only be in Christ. Also, the requirement must be such that anyone can have it, even a child. Jesus made it so clear and easy: "Truly, I say to you he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 6:24 NASB). This and so many other passages make it simple. Believe what Jesus has said. He will keep his word. There is ultimately only one assurance. It rests on what God has promised and we merely need ask if we really do believe it and are willing to rely on it. Repentance, commitment, submission, changed life are all part of our progress in holiness but it is progress that has no meaning for ultimate assurance. The promises of God are our assurance. Our claiming them must be as simple as possible. Believing has no place for works. It is opposed to anything that involves works. (Rom. 4:4,5). That includes our attitude toward sin, our love for God, or any commitment and submission we may have or feel. What if it is not sufficient or really not deep enough. All become but our filthy rags even if we involve God in them. From such evolved the penance and works salvation of Roman-ism in the early centuries.

To attempt to expand simple believing and fill it with any additional concepts to define it further is to make it no longer believing at all. Then salvation, and especially assurance of it, are placed beyond our reach.

I have looked into the coffin and seen my face. I have come to see more than ever that our only hope must be as simple and clear as possible or it gets muddled in all our failings and lack of worthiness to receive anything but the wrath of God. To be of Grace and Grace alone it must be of faith (believing) and faith alone.

Experience must not be the basis of our theology. But our theology must be the basis for reality and true experience.

By the way, I did not die. That was 1998 and after surgery and a year of Chemotherapy, God has been gracious and has so far allowed more years on this earth. Every time I read statements from those advocating what they call the Lordship Gospel I can't help but smile as I feel they will ultimately change their view, even if it be for but a final few minutes. However, I respect their having a Gospel message that saves, and a desire to honor God and His word.
However they do not really understand a Gospel of Grace.
I posted this on Sharper Iron as part of a longer post.

Bob Topartzer

By Anonymous, at 12/12/2008 10:34 PM
Rose,

It's amazing. Just tonight I was thinking about much of the "preaching" of my past that kept me in a state of uncertainty & fear. I am so thankful for the Lord Jesus Christ who IS our peace! (Ep.2:13-14) Yes I fail, sometimes miserably. Especially at such times I become even more thankful for the wonderful grace of Jesus! I agree with bro. Gary! Thank you for posting this & for standing for genuine grace!

By David Wyatt, at 12/12/2008 11:24 PM
goe,

I think your last question is very a very good one.

By Kris, at 12/12/2008 11:32 PM
Hi Rose,

Unfortunately I haven’t time to listen to the whole 75 minute clip and therefore my comments cannot be directed to what the preacher did or did not say, or in what context he said it.

I take the line in this matter of justification before God that it is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. The root of my justification before God is free grace – the channel of my justification before God is my faith in Christ alone while the fruit of my justification before God is my good works. Having been saved by grace through faith and that not myself, but the free gift of God, I am His workmanship, created unto good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) All kinds of mischief abound on two fronts:

[i] When we mix justification with sanctification and suppose that the latter either in itself or contributes to our justification before God.

[ii] When we separate justification from sanctification and treat the latter as an optional extra or an upgraded version of the overall salvation package:

Excuse the slightly bullish approach here. I see in my mind’s eye an advert either in a magazine or a flyer. It reads:

Basic and new salvation Package: Saved from hell beneath – Summed up in the words: (Actual quote) “If it is true that your eternity can be absolutely secure no matter what your behaviour is (past, present, or future), then you can get fire-insurance and live like the devil.”

One of our salesmen, reportedly [Very weak word, I accept, but given by a big fan of his who thinks he remembers him saying it, and obviously thinks that it can be repeated on the world wide web and not in any way blacken the character of the one who reportedly said it, so it is taken here on good faith as true.] gets excited in their presentations when the face of wicked and unrepentant sinners lights up at this point. It shows (I quote) “I think I remember _____ saying that when he is witnessing to someone and then they make the statement “so that means I could just go out and live like the devil?” ______ said he was pleased when he got that reply because that was telling him they were REALLY getting it, that eternal life was a gift!”

This basic and New Package is not the best package on offer, but if that’s all you want: Thieving, lying, cheating, fornicating, adultery, whoring, murder, violence, greed, blackmail, blaspheming, atheism, false religion, idolatry – you name it! – plus Heaven when you die, then tick this box and say after me: “Jesus, I believe you guarantee me eternal life without me ticking the other boxes. Therefore I am eternally saved. I understand that this is only from the hell without and I can sign up for any upgrades later if and when I choose or not at all and still get a mansion when I die, because John 14 (Note: JOHN’S gospel) promises a mansion to the Apostles without anything being said about them being sanctified. Yes, I’ll take it now.”

If you want to receive further communications from contemporary “Evangelical Society” tick this box. You can receive free stuff to help you argue your point without having to read the Bible for yourself. Remember: We read the Bible for you, so that you don’t have to, unless you want to upgrade to the older package, described below. Note: We are not legalists like JVM who said: ”Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him. This is plain and direct language. Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar. IOW: His life is a lie.” This is Romanism! Remember, you really can go out and live like the devil and still escape hell – one of the best places to really get the truth that eternal life is a gift is a drunkard’s bed.

Older and “Uttermost” Package Saved from Hell without (hereafter referred to as “justification”) and from the hell within (“hereafter referred to as “sanctification”) For two thousand years, the church has excitedly proclaimed this message that Jesus was called (Er…) Jesus because He shall save His people from their sin – its penalty (justification) it’s power (sanctification) and presence (glorification.) – Matthew 1:21. We felt inspired by the Holy Spirit to call this the “Salvation to the Uttermost” package (Hebrews 7:25) Problems with this package: People brand you as a legalist and query your salvation.

Remember: You shouldn’t feel rushed into taking this second package. Reject it if you want. Some penalties will apply, but your basic “View Heaven through a drunkard’s wineglass” package cannot be taken away from you. No matter what you think, say or do after you sign here.

OK – very bullish indeed. But I’ll stand over the basic part of it, but only to those can conduct a discussion based on the basic premise that I am being up front in what I believe. If you believe that I am a barefaced or even a deceived liar, or talking out of both sides of my mouth, or playing mind and word games, then there is no point in expecting a response from me. I have no professional training to deal with your paranoia. But that doesn’t mean to say that I’m not out to get you :o)

Regards, (whew!)

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/13/2008 7:45 AM
Gary,
Thanks for the visit! I thouht the sermon was so heavy and gloomy. When I received it via email the subject line was "every church should listen to this sermon." I totally disagree. I think it is confusing to say the least. I am so thankful that your confusion ended at some point in the past.

Barna's data - how intersting. Is the "evangelical" church? Wow. This could be due to the increase in LS book sales in these past decades. The popularity of some of the authors (I am thinking of 2 in particular) is amazing in my own church.

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 8:47 AM
Kris,
Yes! It is trying to motivate through fear... which I wouldn't say is always wrong. What is wrong here is the effort to motivate a stary sheep by questioning his sheep-hood. Of course there are some in the fold who are not sheep, but the reason they aren't sheep is because they have't really trusted Christ re: eternity. It isn't because they aren't living right - there are plenty in that category who should not be motivated by this fear. How about the fear of being ashamed before Him at His coming? That's a motivating fear rirght there for a believer. Or the fear of God's discipline. It's just all so muddled up and so utterly gloomy. I see no clear path to hope in this sermon. It is dreadfully sad. :~( I am sorry to have listened to it... and I am not in agreement with it!! How must it be for those who actually believe this teaching? Wow.

Hey, thanks for visiting and no - excpet for one isolated and of course unsoliciated email a couple of weeks ago, ___ has not bothered me for a very long time. :~)

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 8:59 AM
David,
It saddens me to think that people in the evangelical churches ahve suffered the way you describe. I have not had that so I can't relate, but I do feel compassion.

I also wonder at what goe has expressed: that the real problem in the church could be the lack of clarity on the solid basis for assurance - being Christ... rather than oneself.

LOOK TO CHRIST! :~)

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:04 AM
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your visit. What a great contribution you have made to the discussion. When faced with death it all became clear how futile looking to your own subjective experience to define your destiny.

That assurance must rest upon another of flawless character.

AMEN!!!!

Well... I am glad that you have survived the cancer to tell the story!

I have seen you on Sharper Iron. I have an ID there. Maybe I will have to pop over and read your article. Do you have a link to it?

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:07 AM
Colin,
I will have to get back to you :~)
...got to take the four kids out to do Christmas shopping for the papa.

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:08 AM
Kris,
I hope you do a post again soon!

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:08 AM
one more thing...

Kris,
I was thinking the exact same thing! This is not Good News at all, but it is a burden! It presents no real hope. I see a "I hope I make it if I walk the walk" not a "calm assurance" kind of hope.

The fact that I can't know that I am saved or not because of the fluctuality in my own performance and proclivities is Bad News.

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:13 AM
one more thing...

The guy said that we should ask ourselves "Do I like to be around other believers?" (This is one of the tests to tell if you are really a child of God). He then said, "OK, you say yes, I like to be around other believers. Alright, what KIND of believers?" Then he went on to ask about if the believers you felt comfortable around were the sold-out to Christ committed types or if you were more comfortable around lukewarmish types. It occurred to me that in this mindset, under this test, I not only have to examine myself, but I have to examine the kinds of believers I like and see if they measure up as well. If I like "shortcomers" then what does that say about my own salvation?

What kind of theology is this?

Where does it end?

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:17 AM
and now I am really going to get movin...

By Rose~, at 12/13/2008 9:18 AM
Rose,

You are right. It makes me want to say as did Peter at the Jerusalem Conference: "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

By David Wyatt, at 12/13/2008 10:51 AM
What kind of beleivers to hang out with?

Gee, sounds like if your "sold out" then you should thank God you aren't like those who are not "sold out" according to his theology.

By Kris, at 12/13/2008 7:38 PM
And we all know who prayed that kind of prayer!

By Kris, at 12/13/2008 7:43 PM
Hi Rose

Someone might say:

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. Rom 3:8,9

But we affirm just as the Apostle Paul did:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Rom 6:1,2

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?

Certainly not!

Rom 6:14,15

Those ones who attaché works to grace are going to accuse us just as they did Paul, so were in good company! Since they attaché works to grace as something that must happen they don’t realize they are preaching a works-salvation gospel that can’t save anyone. Others as Hixson who add requirements to taking the living water by saying you must believe in Jesus as your personal Savior are yet to see the sufficiency of the cross for the whole world and not just for a select group. They really don’t believe Jesus paid it all.

(Getting The Gospel Wrong p. 146)

God is the One who put an invitation on the last page of Scripture! And that invitation is for everyone who desires to take of the water freely without any reference to sin!

Why is that? Because Jesus is the Lamb that took away the sin of the world! Jesus is not only the propitiation for believers but for the whole world! And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself not counting their sin against them! The fact is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. And that is why Jesus can make the offer to whoever desires, let him take the water freely without any reference to their sin! That’s because as one great man of God who not only believed it but lived it, has said it’s “Absolutely Free!”

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”

And let him who hears say, “Come!”

And let him who thirsts come.

Whoever desires, let him take the water freely.

Rev 22:17

It REALLY is a Gift!

alvin

By alvin, at 12/14/2008 10:40 PM
Is Obedience Optional?
by Bob Wilkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one sense the question, "Is obedience optional," is merely a variation of the question Paul asks in Rom 6:1, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" It is a question I have heard often.
Of course, we should not be surprised when people who do not believe in eternal security ask this question. According to such people, good works are necessary to gain and maintain one's salvation. If one's obedience falls below some vague standard, then salvation is lost unless and until the person confesses and repents and gets back on track.

However, when we hear someone who believes in eternal security ask this question, we are naturally surprised. If someone believes that once anyone is saved he will always remain saved, then how could he possibly wonder if ongoing obedience is necessary in order to go to heaven?

Earlier this fall I presented a seminar in Moline, Illinois. There I received variations of the question, "Is obedience optional," from a young man just entering the pastorate. He believed in eternal security, yet he kept asking me questions, such as: "Can a person who believes in Christ and is an alcoholic go to heaven?" "Can one who believes and is an adulterer go to heaven?" "A homosexual?" "A murderer?"

Receiving that kind of question from one who believes in eternal security causes me to be both saddened and amazed. Modern Reformed thought has garbled the Gospel so badly that it is a wonder anyone ever gets saved under such preaching.

Obedience Optional for Salvation
If when one asks, "Is obedience optional?" he means, "Is obedience optional in order to go to heaven?" the answer is a resounding yes. Otherwise no one would be saved. No one!
Think about it. If disobedience excludes one from the kingdom, then only those who are never disobedient would get in. And, according to verses like 1 John 1:8, 10, there is no Christian alive who is completely obedient in his or her Christian walk.

Some will object that what they mean is that habitual disobedience excludes one from heaven, not occasional disobedience.

If believers never arrive at a point where they can truthfully say that they are without sin, then they are habitual sinners. There is no such thing as a believer who avoids habitual sin.

Some may further object that Scripture says that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals and the like will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21). Thus while all believers sin habitually in the sense that they sin daily, true believers never habitually commit big sins.

This argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny either. For one thing the vice lists of 1 Cor 6:9-11 and Gal 5:19-21 contain sins which many don't think of as "big sins." Those lists include, for example, the sins of strife, envy, jealousy, covetousness, hatred, and selfish ambitions. I have never had anyone ask me if a covetous or jealous or selfish person could get into the kingdom. Instead they ask about sins on the list like murder, drunkenness, and homosexuality. Why? The answer is because it is easier to feel smug about one's performance in external areas than it is in matters of the heart.

For another thing, the verses in question do not concern kingdom entrance. Rather, they concern kingdom inheritance. That is a big difference. I have discussed this elsewhere (see, for example, my article on Gal 5:19-21 in the Autumn 1991 issue of the journal). Space doesn't allow more than a statement of conclusions here.

Inheritance refers to what parents leave their children. A true child may be disinherited. In fact, I had a relative (who has since died) who was disinherited by her parents because of her disobedience. Yet she remained a child in the family, attended family get-togethers, etc.

Believers whose lives are characterized by things like covetousness, jealousy, murder, and the like will not inherit the kingdom in the sense that they will not rule with Christ. Compare 2 Tim 2:12 and Rev 2:26.

Obedience Not Optional for Sanctification
If when one asks, "Is obedience optional," he means, "Is obedience optional in order to please God and grow in the Christian life?" the answer is a resounding no.
Many things are conditioned upon ongoing obedience for the Christian. They include: progressive sanctification, the fruit of the Spirit, present blessings, eternal rewards (including eternal treasure, rulership, special garments, special abundance of life, etc.), pleasing God, being praised by the Lord Jesus at His Judgment Seat, feeling confident and not ashamed of ourselves at His Judgment Seat, and being in fellowship with God and with committed Christians.

I marvel at those who charge us in the Free Grace camp of teaching that obedience is optional in the Christian life. That is a ridiculous charge. We strongly and repeatedly teach that God commands us to obey Him and that many blessings come with obedience and many unpleasant things come with disobedience.

Conclusion
At the bottom of this question is a fear that those who know with certainty that they are eternally secure will go out and live like the devil. However, that is just not so.
Grace permits the possibility of abuse, yes. However, grace in no way encourages disobedience. God's grace in eternal salvation does not cancel the biblical teaching that "whatever a man sows, that he will also reap" (Gal 6:7). A believer who walks in darkness will stumble and fall and hurt himself every time. There is no such thing as sinning with impunity. Sin never pays.

In addition, grace promotes obedience because of the gratitude it engenders. Those who understand and accept God's grace are filled with a strong feeling of gratitude for what the Lord has done for them. This gratitude prompts us to loving obedience. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Similarly John wrote, "We love Him because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

The beauty of God's saving grace is that while obedience is not required to gain or keep it, yet that very grace powerfully motivates those who have received it to loving obedience!

By Antonio, at 12/15/2008 12:07 PM
Alvin.
You said:
Others as Hixson who add requirements to taking the living water by saying you must believe in Jesus as your personal Savior are yet to see the sufficiency of the cross for the whole world and not just for a select group. They really don’t believe Jesus paid it all.

(Getting The Gospel Wrong p. 146)

What exactly are you saying here? What is it that you are taking issue with Hixon on in this point?
I want to understand.

By Rose~, at 12/15/2008 1:05 PM
Antonio,
I love that message from Bob Wilkin!!! I may have to repost that. How true!

By Rose~, at 12/15/2008 1:07 PM
Nice banjo, David :~)

By Rose~, at 12/15/2008 1:07 PM
Colin,
I read your comment again.
It sounds as if you believe that FGers tell people that theiving lying and all the rest of sin is PART of salvation. You know this isn't true.
I just don't get how you can tell someone that salvation is all of God/a gift of God out of one side of your mouth while also telling them that they will have to change the way they live/behave in order to receieve it.

By Rose~, at 12/15/2008 1:11 PM
Hi Rose
I believe because of Hixsons Calvinistic beliefs that sin is THE issue rather then life. By emphasizing personal Savior, it goes back to Calvinism that Christ only REALLY died for the elect. I believe the Scriptures clearly show that sin has been taken away that’s why living water can be taken WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO SIN in Rev 22:17; John 4:10. A persons sin is not an issue to take the water freely, by saying a person MUST believe that Jesus is their personal Savior IS making it THE issue. And IF that was the case we would see a reference to sin in Rev 22:17 no one would be able to just take the living water like it clearly says anyone can. Hixson ALSO calls for a profession of faith (pp. 89-90). Also Hixson shows his Calvinistic roots in his reply to Tony Evans concerning little children, the ones who go to heaven. Here is a little taste of his Calvinism:
At the conclusion of his appendix Evans cites several passages as proof-texts that children go to heaven when they die ( 2 Sam. 12:1-23; Matt 18:1-3; 19:14; Mk 9:36; Heb 1:14). While this disussion is helpful in that it demonstrates that some children do go to heaven when they die, Evans fails to acknowledge that it does not necessarily prove that all children go to heaven when they die.
(emphasis are in the original italics)
I don’y personally agree with all that Evans believes but I KNOW I don’t agree with Hixsons Calvinistic beliefs concerning just the elect children going to heaven. And that is why according to Hixson you MUST make sure your believing in Jesus as your personal Savior because of his underlying belief of unconditional election.

brother alvin

By alvin, at 12/15/2008 2:51 PM
Hi Rose
If you want to read the article in it's entirety you will find it HERE

By alvin, at 12/15/2008 3:47 PM
Hi Rose

I thought Anonymous "Bob" testimony was just "WONDERFUL" it illistrates that assurance can only be found in one place . . .in Jesus promise!
The Brethern almost to the man on their death beds were looking back over their lives and thought they were going to hell because they didn't see enough works to prove they were one of the elect.
Here we have a man who came to the right conclusion and has lived to tell about it! Praise the Lord!!!!
Assurance can ONLY be found outside ourselves in the promise of eternal life that Jesus offers to the one who believes in Him.
Everything else is relevant to our perception whether, did I repent enough or did I love the brethern enough.
Jesus promise of eternal life is based on the fact that He cannot lie! That whoever has believed His promise is born of God!!!

Also Antonio's post of Bob Wilkins hit the nail on the head!!!

By alvin, at 12/15/2008 5:50 PM
Rose,

Thank you for the banjo compliment! As they say, "There's no instrument more American than the BANJO!" Wish I could play the thang like ol' Earl Scruggs!

By David Wyatt, at 12/15/2008 7:09 PM
Hi Rose,

Two things:

1) I have stated on a number of occasions that I do not believe that “sinners will have to change the way they live/behave in order to receive salvation.” Perhaps, we can put that one to bed (or better still: the grave) once and for all. What I do state is that receiving salvation will result in a change in the way they live. They become new creatures when they are in Christ Jesus – not in order to be in Christ Jesus. When this thought is presented to the sinner, i.e. that Jesus saves His people from their sins, he either wants to receive it or he wants to reject it. If he says that he wants to be saved from hell fire, but live as he wants, then I tell him that such cannot be done. That is not the salvation of God, which is not merely “from the uttermost” but “to the uttermost.”

2) Certainly, I do not hold that the FGer’s teach that lying etc., is PART of salvation. I have never claimed that. If this statement is being made on the basis of my illustrative use above of a supposed leaflet or advert, then the illustration has taken over the point being made. Which ought not to be.

But still, recent statements from your camp include this one: “If it is true that your eternity can be absolutely secure no matter what your behaviour is (past, present, or future), then you can get fire-insurance and live like the devil.” With the one who brings us this statement adding his own approval: “I agree.” Compare that with my statement above: “Such cannot be done.” Another statement (admittedly given on the basis of someone who only thinks he remembers) is yet repeated as if it were the glory of the movement’s message: I think I remember _____ saying that when he is witnessing to someone and then they make the statement “so that means I could just go out and live like the devil?” ______ said he was pleased when he got that reply because that was telling him they were REALLY getting it, that eternal life was a gift!” REALLY [emphasis his] getting it? That living like the Devil is compatible with reception of eternal life? I would groan, if not weep, if I was talking to someone and they come off with this. This is not Eternal life. This is Eternal Death, packaged as Eternal Life and being sold to gullible, unawakened souls as the truth of God.

Was JVM talking out of the side of his mouth, when he tells us how he deals with carnal enquirers: “Someone else objects, ‘Maybe I am not given the gift of faith.’ That’s not your problem. Your problem is that you don’t want to give up your sins which the Bible condemns. Whenever you get sick of your sins, when you want to turn from yourself, from the things of the world, from religion, from everything the Bible condemns, and turn to Christ, then you will be given faith. You can trust Him.”? (Comments on Ephesians 2:8-9) I don’t believe that JVM was preaching that sinners have to behave to be saved. That would a works gospel. But he was preaching a salvation that really saves – not only from the hell without, but the hell within. IOW: Saved sinners behave. And if someone didn’t want to be saved from their sins (but wanted to “live like the devil” while enjoying the thought that they would never be in hell) JVM saw this as a problem and evidently refused to take the matter forward until they got sick of their sins and wanted to turn to Christ. This is a million years away from the FG statements faithfully reported above. Hence to those who think that they can view Heaven from the bottom end of a drunkard’s wine glass, JVM bluntly says: Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar. IOW: His life is a lie.” (Comments on 1 John 2:4) It is not that Christians do not sin. We all know that we do. But at least our policy is to “shoot straight” even if we unfortunately “shoot short” – As I say, a long, long way from agreeing that we are eternally secure while “living like the Devil.”

Sorry that this is another long post,

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 4:02 AM
The bottom line for our LS friend, Colin, is that unless there be behavior commensurate with one's profession of faith, he is on the way to hell.

Therefore my insistence that for the Reformed LS behavior is intrinsically correlated with one's hope of heaven.

Case closed.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 5:45 AM
Antonio:

The bottom line is:

Unless you can evidence that you are saved, then you have no right to claim otherwise.

It is not faith plus works equals salvation.

It is faith equals salvations leading to works.

If you find this offensive, then your problem is not with me, but with the Bible as a whole and subsequently, every Evangelical (Reformed or otherwise) teacher who refuses to agree that the grace of God can be turned into lasciviousness.

You cannot make me believe that all of these church members who have no love for the Word of God and are disobedient to Christ are really His children. I do not believe they have had the experience of regeneration. John is making it clear that we know that we know Him because we keep His commandments." (JVM on 1 John 2:4) I agree. 100%.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 6:51 AM
Correction:

I wrote: If you find this offensive, then your problem is not with me, but with the Bible as a whole and subsequently, every Evangelical (Reformed or otherwise) teacher who refuses to agree that the grace of God can be turned into lasciviousness.

Perhaps this would be better worded:

“… every Evangelical (Reformed or otherwise) teacher who refuses to agree that the true grace of God can be turned into lasciviousness.

This is a quote from Jude 1:4 concerning false, spurious professing Christians. Falsely professing to have been saved by grace, their immoral lifestyle which they defended and sought to justify gave the lie. Jude simply takes their profession at face value (“the grace of God” ) and observes how they have perverted it so that (in their theology) the grace of God can be turned into lasciviousness. IOW: They believed that you can live like the devil and still profess to be saved by grace. This was obviously unacceptable to Jude as an attack upon the faith and so he contended earnestly against it.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 7:07 AM
Colin,
I can't help but think you may be getting the wrong impression. I could be wrong on that, but let me clarify. I have no problem with the statement of the person that said what you refer to. I think the point is that if someone realized that salvation did not depend on his own future performance, then they were seeing that it was truly ALL OF GOD and not by something they themselves could do. I would also be glad to witness to someone and have them see this. As I shared with you before, I remember asking, "Then Hitler could have come to Christ and have been saved just like anyone else?" I asked that because to me, that would be the supreme test of whether or not what a man does really has nothing to do with whether or not he can go to heaven. If it is *not* dependent on what a man does, then entrance into heaven really is a gift of God's grace.

I get that.

On the other hand, I want you to know that if I were in the witnessing situation that was described and a person said to me "You mean I could receive God's gift and be assured of heaven and then just go on and live like the devil?" I would not gleefully and carelessy answer "yes" and I am certain said person who was originally quoted would not do that either. I imagine that his response would be something like mine... and most people who are FG in belief as well. I would tell the person yes, theoretically you COULD, but you wont want to. I would say that theoretically you could go on and "live like the devil" but for goodness sake, I hope you wont. I would encourage the person that if they do decide to come to Christ and receive His gift that they will want to learn about Him and get to know Him better. I would hold up the Word of God as the lifeline for this person because I know that if he spends time in God's Word, while the Spirit of God is indwelling him, that he will not *want* to live like the devil. He will fall more and more in love with the Savior and will want to please the one he knows more and more.

Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness is not what this is about at all. I am not telling anyone that whatever they do in the body doesn't matter. HEAVEN DOESN"T DEPEND ON IT. That is the point. BUT IT DOES MATTER!!!!!

The Gnostics taught that it didn't matter what people did in the body because all flesh was intrinsically evil and so men were free, under that heretical teaching, to live in open sin. FG is not the Gnostic heresy. It teaches that it matters what you do in the body. FG teaches discipleship. It DOES MATTER what we do in the body. FG churches practice church discipline. You can't live in open rebellion and remain in fellowship in most churches that teaach the freee grace of God, unless they have gone the liberal route - then anything goes.

Jude was teching aginst the Gnostic heresy, not FG Theology or the FG of God. ;~)

By Rose~, at 12/16/2008 10:07 AM
I love it when people will take Jude 1:4 and add that it was directed to "false, spurious professing Christians" when it was directed to false teachers. I do not call Mormoms "false, spurious professing Christians." Even John MacArthur called them false teachers here in Jude 1:4 and never said spurious believers. If anyone would have said that would have been him but he doesn't.

Nothing in the preceding verses said that they once were confessing the same faith as us but later proved false and spurious. These were "certain men" that "CREPT" in with their false teaching. Do false and spurious believers creep in unaware or do false teachers? It were they that were forewritten (ordained) about.

You have changed this verse into arguing that people that thought they were saved only later proved that they had a spurious faith. Why does Lordship Salvation feel the need to add words to a passage simply because they want their theology??? Can't anyone be honest with the Bible anymore??? Believers are being told to uphold the gospel in Jude because of these false teachers that have crept in as they were seeking to corrupt and pervert our faith. This is not the job of spurious believers but of false teachers that were "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation" and this "before of old" was not a reference ever to false and spurious believers but false teachers. These certain false teachers stood out like a sore thumb with their open wickedness.

It was these false teachers that were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and not former so-called spurious professors. Who knows if anyone here then is not a spurious professor as you too might turn the grace of God into lasciviousness if that is what is meant??? Don't bother with assurance as faith mimics the true according to Lordship salvation. It's amazing how many words they feel comfortable adding to God's word (spurious believer) and not even twitch doing it.

Scholars are pretty united on this and believe that these were gnostic heretics being described because they were "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" as they were known for that. Gnostics denied Christ and that He came in the flesh. It were these gnostics that thought that morality was impossible and created lawlessness instead. They believed in allowing their flesh to do anything it liked. They believed that the flesh was evil and that is why they denied that Christ was come in the flesh. These false teachers had perverted the doctrines of grace and turned them into something else. This verse is talking about gnostic heretics and not "false and spurious believers."

It is true, you can make the Bible say anything you like if you try hard enough.

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2008 10:47 AM
Excellent Rose! I was typing the same time you were but you beat me to it. You and I see eye to eye about gnostic heresy.

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2008 10:52 AM
Rose:

Our difference here lies in the nature of salvation. What actually happens when a soul gets saved? Not what potentially happens or could happen if the convert takes it further, but what actually, invariably, happens?

Unless, I read you all wrong, (I’m always willing to ‘eat crow’, even if it does taste “yuk”) you seem to say: “Gets justified (declared righteous) gains present and possession of eternal life, has the potential to live godly in Christ Jesus. Ought to do so for many varied reasons – but might not and even if he lives like the devil, (aggravated by the fact that he asked carefully beforehand) is still to be regarded as a child of God – albeit an erring one and liable to fatherly chastening and eternal loss.”

Far from holiness being “invariable” it now becomes “optional” - albeit we may need to do a wee bit of “leaning” on the new convert. Lovingly, of course.

But for 2,000 years Evangelicals have not read their Bibles like that. Whatever the local circumstances of Jude 1:4 (I do not doubt your interpretation) yet an application of it to anyone who arrives at the place whereby they can live like the devil and still be covered by the grace of God is still to be commended. The result is the same even if gotten to by another road.

Salvation is much more than being saved from hell. Fire insurance as it has been put. It is more than “Heaven when I die” but “Heaven begun in my soul while I live.” Even the very Greek word for salvation shows this. “Soteria is made up of two component words: Namely: “Sodzo” (I save) and “Tereo” (I keep) Salvation is when we are saved and kept by the grace of God. Therefore Jude, in his great doxology closes his book (which treats of the common salvation) with the words; “Unto Him which is able to keep you from falling…” (v24) As said, this is where the difference lies. The FGer’s make it entirely optional – even if highly recommended – but those who want to be called Christians and yet frequent brothels, gay bars, Satanist meetings etc., and “live like the devil” can safely do so and have the assurance given them, that they will still be in Heaven when they die. Basically, the FGers could rewrite Matthew 1:21 and make it say: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus because He saves (at least some of) His people in their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

The issue with Hitler is not whether he could have been saved in 1945 after he wiped out 6 million Jews etc., I do not hesitate to say that had he repented and believed the gospel, then “Yes, he could” and what a trophy of grace he would have been. The issue with Hitler is, if in 1945 he had’ve said: “I believed in 1923 when I was ranting in the Beer Halls that Jesus alone could guarantee me eternal life and now, 22 bloody, murderous years on, with no absolutely no regrets, once I pull this trigger, then I claim my place in Heaven, because during all these 22 bloody, murderous years, filled with concentration camps, massacres, genocides etc, I was nothing less than a child of God.” then all the FGers, by reason of their doctrine, would nod their heads and say “Amen!” Fundamentally, is this not true?

Regards,

P/s At least, we agree about the banjo. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG_EXnn_0zA

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 11:08 AM
I do believe Rose comments still stand as she and I did argue exactly what Jude 1:4 was about and who was being addressed as false and spurious believers were never talked about.

The problem is that many seek to twist this verse and claim that this applies to any person that lives in sin and then proclaims, "I am Once Saved Always Saved" even though they are living like the devil. We need to understand that the person in Jude 1:4 was not abusing grace that only believers can do but perverting it or changing it as there is a huge difference.

Believers can abuse grace or it cannot be grace, but a person cannot pervert grace and call it grace. The Corinthians abused grace but didn't pervert it. Gnostics didn't abuse grace but perverted it into something else.

Again, you can abuse grace because if you couldn't then it wouldn't be grace. However, if you pervert grace then it is no longer grace. If you add works to grace then is it grace anymore? No, it is a debt as Romans 4:4 states:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

Romans 13 is talking about to believers to cast off works of darkness. These are people saved by grace but clearly are not perverting grace:

"11And 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.

12The 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.

13Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Eternal security is not a perversion of grace but a grace that teaches us to deny all manners of ungodliness. Only an idiot will abuse but only a false teacher will pervert it.

Question, is a believer that gets drunk perverting grace or abusing it? If a believer perverts grace then God will deal with that person as well as the one that abuses it.

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2008 11:28 AM
Hi Anonymous

Let’s suppose a Christian (a real one) falls into a sin. Drunkenness. Too much wine at Christmas. (I am ignoring the abstinence debate here) He ends up making a complete fool out of himself and people are heard to say: “And I thought that he was a Christian!” He has abused the grace of God that has saved him, because such grace teaches him to deny such ungodliness and worldly lusts, that to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Titus 2:12)

However, next morning he is genuinely sorry for his sin. He recognises it as such and admits that his behaviour was totally incompatible with his profession of faith in Jesus Christ. He confesses it to God. He declares that he will be careful in the future and desires never to fall into that sin again.

OTOH: He might not be sorry for his sin at all. He might not even recognise it as a sin and argue ferociously that it is not sin at all and threaten all kinds of things to anyone who says otherwise. It’s amazing how we can rename these sins nowadays. Before he would have been a drunkard (At least for the night) Now, he is a ”a colourful character” – “the life and soul of the party” When tackled by the oversight of the church, he refuses to back down. He starts to say things like: “I can live like the Devil and still be a child of God. Drunkenness will not keep me out of Heaven. The FGer’s say so.”In my view – he is now perverting the grace of God. The words “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness” still apply to him, even if we omit to attach Jude 1:4 unto them.

BTW: I have no problem with the concept of eternal security as defined by the Bible

Regards,

P/s Any chance of a name? Even a pseudo name?

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 11:59 AM
Colin writes:

Unless you can evidence that you are saved, then you have no right to claim otherwise.

This is the satanic claim of the Lordship Salvationists who correlate one's behavior with their hope of heaven. In a very real sense, works are a condition for heaven, for if they are not there, there is no heaven.

This is nothing but "Bear or Burn" theology, or a distinct form of works salvation.

The above quote is the reason why people are so confused about the gospel and the reason why many people agonize over assurance. Such statements as Colin's will dangle people over the pit of despair.

Spurgeon once wrote:
"Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith", and such statements as given by our LS friend Colin inevitably scatter doubt and stab at faith.

John MacArthur has stated in one of his radio programs:

"You may be a spiritual defector who hasn't defected yet!"

Perseverance theology has grounded assurance of salvation subjectively on self. This has, to a great extent, spawned debilitating doubts in the congregations where teachers proclaim this doctrine.

Yet, even Colin's prophet John Calvin does not agree that assurance comes from introspection:

"But if we have been chosen in Him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves... Christ, then is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election." (Institutes III.xxiv.5)

He furthermore states:

"Doubtless, if we are to determine by our works in what way the Lord stands affected toward us, I admit that we cannot even get the length of a feeble conjecture: but since faith should accord with the free and simple promise, there is no room left for ambiguity" (Institutes III.ii.38)

For John Calvin, works were not to be viewed in one's quest for assurance. Christ gives a "free and simple promise", and when our faith "accord[s]" to that promise, "there is no room left for ambiguity" for one is certain of their eternal standing before God.

But since for Colin works are necessary for entrance into heaven, one's works must be subjected to some ambiguous criteria to see if there is sufficient evidence that one is actually saved.

But what happens when one doesn't pass the test? Will he look to the Savior in faith according to His gratuitous promise? Absolutely not! His life will be spent in the anxious pursuit of performing deeds to gain some assurance of acceptance with God.

Furthermore such a careless and evil statement from Colin (not attributing evil intent to Colin, merely attributing it to his theology) witholds assurance from those who need it the most, the babes in Christ, who have "no right to claim" that they have eternal life "[u]nless [they] can evidence that [they] are saved," and they may not claim so "otherwise".

This is the tragedy and legacy of Reformed Perseverance theology, which is nothing but performance salvation and "car buyer" theology.

Suppose you go to a car lot to buy a used car. You don't have to pay anything at the time of purchase, for the salesman may arrange a loan for you to pay for it over a period of years. But does the fact that you don’t pay anything up front mean that you got the car free? Absolutely not. You are paying for it—the payment is just an inevitable result of your buying the car. To paraphrase the Classical Calvinist saying: "You are a car-owner by signing a sales agreement alone (apart from any money changing hands), but the signing of a sales agreement by which you are a car-owner is never alone (apart from money changing hands)." If the money doesn’t change hands, you lose the car (this wording reflects Arminian theology; in Calvinist theology, you never had the car in the first place!).

So too it is foolishness to say that salvation is by faith alone, but that faith is not true faith unless it comes with works. Let’s be honest: this is salvation by works!

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 12:27 PM
Goodnight,

You really ran with my comments. Both LS and those that believe you can lose your salvation like to come up with the most incredible cases to make FG look foolish.

I'm used to it though. I could resort to the same extreme examples back on LS. Here is one:

A very wealthy man put up a sign saying, "I am offering 1 million dollars cash as a free gift to those that receive it." However, when you show up for the money, he then tells you that you must endure to the end to get it. You must surrender all or you never really believed that he was going to give you the money in the first place. This man claims that he deserves your allegiance because of this free gift and anything less is unacceptable. He wants your 100% loyalty. If there is any reserve in your obedience then you are undone. He claims to love people so much that he provided the best laundry detergent, the best lawn mower, the best dishwasher, the best vacuum cleaner and so on and anyone that fails to do these things "habitually" will only prove they were never serious about getting the free 1 million dollar gift. The reader of that sign failed to see the fine print that said, "Free yet costly."

So anyone that lives in drunkenness can not be saved according to you?? I am glad that you are a judge. You can't say that you are not a judge if this is impossible if you are saved. You are making a case with Jude 1:4 that has clearly been refuted. It is sad that Solomon clearly abused grace as he truly is a sore spot to LS as that man died in a final state of apostasy.

Antonio, great post!

Dave

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2008 1:16 PM
Antonio:

I assume that you are answering someone else who bears my name? If so, let him answer for himself. I have enough battles to fight without fighting those of some one else.

My credo:

The grounds of my salvation - By God’s grace alone, based entirely and 100% on what the Lord Jesus Christ has done for me on the Cross.

The channel of my salvation: Faith which called upon the name of the said Lord, without any reference to works either before or after this calling.

The assurance of my salvation: Belief that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13) coupled with the words: “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” (John 6:37)

The fruit of my salvation: Good works performed in the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

The joy of my salvation: Too many here to number

The purpose of my salvation: The glory of God who called me, not unto uncleaness, but unto holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:7)

Beyond this, I cannot go. If the other “Colin” wants to answer Antonio’s imaginations, (where he probably exists) then let him do so. “This Colin” (aka Goodnightsafehome) sees no profit in doing so. I am willing to defend what I believe. Too busy this weather for polemics.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 1:29 PM
Dave,

You write:

Both LS and those that believe you can lose your salvation like to come up with the most incredible cases to make FG look foolish.

You might find it useful to be aware that:

[i] It was Antonio himself who first talked (at least as far as these posts are concerned) about someone professing faith and living like the devil (his words) and still getting to heaven. And saying, "I agree" I am only responding to his own amazing statement.

[ii] It was Rose (our gracious host) who raised the matter about Hitler. Again, I am only responding.

I raised the somewhat simpler and less dramatic example matter about a Christian getting drunk over Christmas and then seeking to defend it by using (even if to the horror of the FGers) their belief: That you can profess faith, live like the most maligant and wicked being who ever appeared on the face of this earth, and still go to Heaven when you die.

Let me introduce here a somewhat simple argument. Suppose I am wrong, and I cause grief to a real child of God who is living like the Devil and rob him of the joy of his (dare Im use the word?) salvation. Is he still a Christian? If I am wrong...yes, he is. My thoughts on the matter will be proved to be worthless.

OTOH: If Antonio and others (presumably you too) who believe that you can wilfully engage in all kinds of sin, justify it, and still be saved are wrong ... then you are confirming souls in their soul damning error. If I err (and i don't beleive that I do) I have scaped from that serious charge. If you err, then you don't.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 1:43 PM
Play all you want with your identity and backpeddling. You are the Colin who stated this most satanically inspired message:

Unless you can evidence that you are saved, then you have no right to claim otherwise.

And to the Colin who stated such was my reply directed.

It is throughly incredible to me that you can hold all of these contradictory doctrines at the same time without the slightest evidence of mental dissonance.

Your statement stands as it does to everyone here. No amount of backpeddling will be able to erase or nerf the implications of your candid remark which honestly paints your theological convictions.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 1:47 PM
Antonio: You are the Colin who stated this most satanically inspired message:

That's sad, Antonio.

Answer me this,then:

Does JVM deliver a most satanically inspired message when he writes (as quoted above)

”Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him. This is plain and direct language. Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar. IOW: His life is a lie.”

or:

You cannot make me believe that all of these church members who have no love for the Word of God and are disobedient to Christ are really His children. I do not believe they have had the experience of regeneration. John is making it clear that we know that we know Him because we keep His commandments."

A simple "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 1:56 PM
Colin, you must subject yourself to the word of God and not the doctrines of men. Your remarks have betrayed your true colors.

Here is your statement:

If Antonio and others (presumably you too) who believe that you can wilfully engage in all kinds of sin, justify it, and still be saved are wrong ... then you are confirming souls in their soul damning error.

What is their soul damning error? It is their persistence in sin and their neglect of works. Their damning error is that they are not fulfilling the behavior conditions for heaven.

But I thought Jesus died completely for each one of this person's sins, from the day of his birth to the day of his death. They were all yet future from Christ's death, and upon Him was laid each one, even their rebellion and willful sin.

But I thought it was "the gift of God not of works, so that noone can boast".

I thought that Christ died for the ungodly and that the ungodly can be justified.

It is a true statement that I wrote over at Unashamed of Grace yesterday that the Reformed people have behavior on the brain.

People just cannot get themselves to agree with the premise that full pardon from God, entrance into heaven, and eternal life have absolutely nothing to do with their behavior whatsoever; that nothing they have done or can or will do in the future has any bearing on whether or not they end up in the kingdom of God.

They cannot get themselves to understand that even a sinful, debased individual, nevertheless justified and covered by the blood of Jesus, can be in God's kingdom.

Deep down inside they believe, in a very real way, that behavior is intrinsically correllated with one's hope of heaven.

The problem is that LS of all varieties have behavior on the brain. It all started with Calvin backtracking in his views in the face of the opposition of the Romanists.

"Yes, salvation is by grace through faith alone, but that faith is never alone. If a person does not increasingly show forth the behavior commensurate with a profession of faith, his profession is a false one. If a person's behavior does not persevere until the end, he is on the way to the lake of fire. A person's behavior is instrinsically corelated to one's hope of heaven."

With these statements the Romanists would find little to disagree with.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 1:57 PM
Antonio:

Can I have a simple "yes" or "no" answer please?

At least, be consistent. If nothing else, then I can know for sure that your remarks are not personal against me.

So, is it a most satanically inspired message if I (goodnightsafehome) teach that:

”Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him. This is plain and direct language. Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar. IOW: His life is a lie.”

and

"You cannot make me believe that all of these church members who have no love for the Word of God and are disobedient to Christ are really His children. I do not believe they have had the experience of regeneration. John is making it clear that we know that we know Him because we keep His commandments."

Because this is what I believe. Again, is it a most satanically inspired message to deliver from a Christian pulpit?

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 2:09 PM
Did Solomon know God who disobeyed and died in a state of apostasy Goodnight?

Only LS will say that Demas was never saved because he loved this present evil world. How about Solomon???????????

Solomon died very disobedient and no record of his repentance so did he know God?????

I'm going home for the day as it is snowing like crazy here. I have a 25 mile drive so everyone have a great day where ever you are at!!!

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2008 2:50 PM
You are asking me to answer a question where we do not agree on the definitions, Colin. Your question to me needs to be qualified much greater than merely answering yes or no. It could be likened to me asking you this:

"Did you stop beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice."

If you say "yes" it will be assumed that you did beat your wife. If you say "no" it will be assumed that you beat your wife.

Let us analyze your statements:

"Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him."

Depending on how you define "know" here, I could agree or disagree. If "know" means being born again then, yes, it is a satanically inspired message. I don't know about you, Colin, but I seem to disobey Christ every day, and then wake up the next day and do the same. Until I get my resurrection body, I am a habitual sinner, habitually disobeying Christ each time I sin. If salvation depends upon my obeying Christ, then we all have no hope of heaven.

Furthermore, do not those who are not saved strive to obey Him? Do not Mormons, JWs, 7th day Adventists, and Arminians do such? In such a case their obeying of Christ (in some instances which would put real Christians to shame) would be a false and erroneous evidence.

But if "know" (which is a polymorphous word) means "intimate fellowship and connection" with Christ, then your statement is true. Disobedience to Christ shows that we are not in intimate dependence and fellowship with Him at that moment or time.

"Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar. IOW: His life is a lie."

Are true Christians prevented from being hypocrites, Colin? Can a true Christian, nevertheless caught up in a time of sin and backsliding state that he is in fellowship with God? Sure he can, but such a one is a liar and is walking in darkness, not in the light as God is in the light.

These strong words of JMac are not the words of Christ and God's grace, but of legalism and work-salvation.

"You cannot make me believe that all of these church members who have no love for the Word of God and are disobedient to Christ are really His children. I do not believe they have had the experience of regeneration."

Coming from a man who preaches the false gospel of commitment, surrender, lordship salvation, I would not be surprised to learn in heaven that the majority of the people in his congregation are not "really His children".

A false professor is one who has not believed the gospel of God's grace, but has believed some false gospel like commitment salvation's. Or they could be one who is lying about trusting in Christ for eternal life for any one of a variety of reasons.

A saved person, a child of God, could be in a state of disobeying Christ and not loving His word for a number of reasons as well: from being a babe in Christ dealing with tragic circumstances and heavy trials, from backsliding, not taking the time in God's word to taste and see that it is sweet, from peer pressures, from not putting to death the members of the body, to not walking in the Spirit, from sliding into bouts of apathy, to any number of things that are possible for a true Christian (as testified by the Westminster confession).

"John is making it clear that we know that we know Him because we keep His commandments."

A person experientially knows Christ, in an intimate fellowship way, when he keeps his commandments.

If JMac means that a person knows he is saved because he keeps his commandments, I would ask, how much percentage would one have to keep His commandments to know that He knows Him?

And again, you are proceeding to talk out of two sides of your mouth. In one breath you can say your assurance is objective based upon the Word, then you give us these prooftexts that the surrender salvationists use to state that assurance comes subjectively by introspection and fruit inspection. That is the problem with many facets of the man-made theology of Calvinism: they want their cake and to eat it too.

But maybe you are merely saying that you get your assurance from the objective word, but that others should get it from an accounting of their works and devotion to Christ. That to me would seem mightily presumptious.

Still, I am not going to let you get away from your works-salvation messages that you have given in this comment thread.

For you, a soul damning error is to sin to some subjective degree and not have some subjective degree of holiness. This is works salvation.

For you, no one has a right to say they are saved unless they have the evidence of it, and there is no other way!

Sir, your insistences are not of God!

Anyone who has faith in Christ for eternal life has the right to say they are saved for Christ is emphatic in his oath:

"Most assuredly I say to you, whoever believes in Me HAS everlasting life" (Jn 6:47)

Thus if I believe in Christ, yet not have any evidence as you so subjectively state, I have the RIGHT, sir, to state that I have eternal life. "Let God be true but every man a liar." (Ro 3:4)

You sir, nor John MacArthur have ANY RIGHT to state that "[you] do not believe they have had the experience of regeneration" by one's outward behavior. "For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." And the Lord, not you or John MacArthur, can make such pronouncements. How presumptious!

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 2:58 PM
I just got home and read all these comments.

ummmm.....

Antonio,
Just a little detail: Colin was quoting JVernon McGee not JMac.

Colin,
JVM often said things like this. I didn't agree with everything he said. He made many conflicting statements. That's OK. I loved him anyway.

By Rose~, at 12/16/2008 3:45 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Rose~, at 12/16/2008 3:46 PM
Antonio:

Where is the trick in asking you whether or not the statements of JVM are a most satanically inspired message? You did not hesitate to attribute such to me, but when I move to someone else who more or else says the same thing (a popular Non-Reformed Evangelical), you get all coy about it and seek to evade it.

It appears to me that you have two different standards operating here. You have one for Calvinist Evangelicals who believe in essential holiness as the outworking of salvation by grace alone and another for non Reformed Evangelicals who say the same thing.

You talk about the need to analyse my words before giving me an answer, but judgement has already been passed. The strongest possible allegation has been made. My message - a earnest desire to maintain the truth that Christ really does change the lives of His people ("save them from their sins" as Jesus put it) is denounced as being "a most satanically inspired message - but lo, an admission is then made that more investigation is needed. Are you prepared to then withdraw your strong allegation until this clearness that you say you need can be found?

You then accuse me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth. What can I say to that? As indicated in my first posting here, there is absolutely nothing I can do to help you at this point. If you are determined to load me with the worst possible opprobrium and are convinced that I am a bare faced liar – then no matter what I do or say will be found faulty in your sight. Conspiracy theories make for great entertainment but they grow somewhat wearisome after a while. It is my observation that conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously. Give me a sober minded opponent any day who does me the Christian courtesy of accepting that I know what I believe and is honest enough to state it, even if unpopular to do so. It wasn’t all that long ago on the that you were hailing me as a respected contributor to the UoG site. Now, it seems that my respectability has given way in a few weeks (wherein I have added no new doctrine to my creed nor removed any nor took any new way to state my belief’s) to Satanic inspiration :o)

Dave: You ask: Did Solomon know God who disobeyed and died in a state of apostasy Goodnight?

My answer: If you can give me a verse from the Bible that shows that Solomon died in a state of apostasy then I might be able to proceed further. As it stands, you have appear to have an advantage on me on this one. I am unaware of any verse in the Bible that tells us how Solomon died.

Rose: I am aware that you do not share JVM’s views as quoted above. I assume, however, that you do not believe that his views constitute being "a most satanically inspired message? A bit OTT? You have the advantage on me with JVM. All I have is his commentary on 1 Corinthians thru to Revelation. You say that he sometimes contradicted himself. (A nicer way of saying that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth :o) Seriously though, did he ever outwardly say anything remotely near the thought that a professing child of God could live like the devil and still go to Heaven? I would think not, but then again (as said) you have the advantage on me there.

Regards to you all,

I’m off to bed. Good night, every one. Safe home.

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/16/2008 5:21 PM
It’s hard to kick against the goads Colin!
Your main contention with FG is that we can offer the living water to anyone to freely take just as Rev 22:17 makes clear with no reference to sin!

Your Calvinistic belief regeneration preceding faith makes it impossible for anyone to take the water freely. God must pour it down their throats, and then give them the gift of faith so they MUST believe and bring forth good works!

They have NO choice whatsoever!

Your contention is with GRACE itself because yours is a works-salvation!

By attaching works as something that MUST happen you are mixing works with grace as this verse shows cannot be done and still be grace!

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. (Romans 11:6)

Either this invitation can be taken freely or God is deceiving people by offering it to be taken freely. The ONLY way God could possibly offer this living water without any reference to sin, is because everyone’s sin was paid in full on the cross. (John 3:16)

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”
And let him who hears say, “Come!”
And let him who thirsts come.
Whosoever desires, let him take the water freely.

Isn’t that the most beautiful words anyone could here?

The ONLY reason anyone would think otherwise is because their theology doesn’t allow it to be true!

alvin

By alvin, at 12/16/2008 7:57 PM
Colin, be they words of you, J. Vernon McGee or Charles Ryrie, they are anti-Christ, anti-grace, anti-biblical, and satanically inspired.

Furthermore, Colin, I have not called you a liar. You are traffiking in contradiction. I believe you are sincere in your errors; but what you say in one sentence contradicts what you say in another. Your inconsistencies are here for everyone to see and they have been noted by me.

Your adamant professions of believing in salvation by grace through faith are neutralized by your insistence that heaven is in any sense conditioned on one's behavior.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 8:27 PM
Rose,

It was my error in thinking he was talking about quotes from JMac. I had not realized that JVM has made such statements as these. They are at their very heart anti-grace.

People who have I found very helpful, such as Charles Ryrie, have stated anti-grace messages.

My pastor, for instance, will preach the gospel straight and biblical at times, and at others, be soft Lordship and ambiguous, unclear, and imprecise. It dfepends upon his mood, the scripture being considered, or any number of things. It is a tragedy that Lordship Salvation thought has so pervaded Christianity and the interpretation of the Scriptures.

Any error of such import as those quoted by Colin of JVM do not have their source from God, and such assessment is no respector of persons. If Zane Hodges would have come out and said such a thing I would deem such satanically inspired.

Satan has made himself out to be an angel of light and to pervert the gospel of the grace of God.

Your free grace brother who may not phrase things as you would,

Antonio

By Antonio, at 12/16/2008 8:38 PM
Hi Rose

A friend of mine has said: AFTER I was saved, I listened to Dr. J. Vernon McGee and grew a lot in my Christian life. I love Dr. McGee. I've come to recognize that he was not right on some of the N.T. passages like 1 John. What he believed and what he taught SOMETIMES contradicted one another. But Zane once told me (in answer to a question I wrote him) that good men (Bible teachers) can disagree and still be in the light. They both can't be right. They both CAN be wrong. But only one can be right. Dr. McGee would say that famous phrase...... "You're saved by faith alone, but real faith is not alone." I remember using that in my own life at the time. I looked at it like Dr. McGee did at the time. He really did believe that faith alone in Christ alone saved. He also believed that people could live like the devil and still go to heaven, losing eternal rewards and blessing in this life. Yet he believed that true faith produced works in a believers life. TODAY I understand that this is discipleship teaching. This is true ONLY if you're walking in the Spirit. Dr. McGee would agree with that.
Zane told me that everyone's just not thought through all the ramifications and are not necessarily an expert in certain portions of scripture (paraphrased). It's one thing to teach it wrong, and another thing to have it presented to you clearly and close your mind to it. I use to believe like Dr. McGee did when he taught it that way. But I NEVER believed that works were necessary to be saved, and I also knew that Christians can live their lives NOT living for the Lord.
BTW..... In the next to the last sermon Dr. McGee ever preached he called Lordship Salvation heresy.

By alvin, at 12/16/2008 9:41 PM
Good morning Rose/Antonio:

Antonio: I think we might have fallen victim here to the use of the term “Talking out of both sides of your mouth” Over here, it is an euphemism for lying. It would appear that it such is not the case in your usage and (since you are the speaker) then your definition must be accepted, although you can see why it can lead to Trans-Atlantic problems and especially so in a debate like this where more serious charges have been levelled.

I am wondering, at this stage, who among the many names that have been mentioned, you do not consider to be the purveyors of a satanically inspired message? JVM, albeit mistaken for John MacArthur, has been totally gored. Yet who has not, in past Evangelical circles, taught what I am teaching i.e. Salvation by grace alone (without the deeds of the law) through faith alone in Christ alone with the invariable result of good works following as the fruit (although never, ever, ever the root) of such faith?

You enlisted Spurgeon against me, yet CHS too surely lies under your anathema when he said: We must be moving onward and onward, and remain in that exercise, or we cease from walking. Holy walking includes perseverance in obedience, and continuance in, service. Not he that begins, but he that continues is the true Christian; final perseverance enters into the very essence of the believer’s life: the true pilgrims of Zion go from strength to strength. (Sermon on 1 John 1:6-7) ?

I see that HA Ironside is flavour of the month over on the UoG site. Yet what said this Evangelical Worthy from the past? I quote from his book on the “Eternal Security of the Saints”

“People say, “I see you believe in that old Baptist doctrine of ‘once in grace, always in grace.’” Or another says, “I understand you hold that old Presbyterian idea of ‘the final perseverance of the saints.’” I do not know why this should be called either Baptist or Presbyterian, only to the extent that Baptists and Presbyterians agree with the Book, and the Word of God clearly shows that once God takes us up in grace nothing can separate us from the love of Christ so that evidently the expression, “once in grace, always in grace,” is a perfectly correct one. But, on the other hand, I am not so enthusiastic about the other expression, “the perseverance of the saints.” I believe in it; I believe that all saints--all really belonging to God--will persevere to the end, for the Book tells me, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13), and if a man starts out and makes a profession but gives it all up, he will never be saved, because he was never born again to begin with, he was never truly changed by grace divine. On the other hand, the reason he endures to the end is not because of any particular perseverance of his own. What I believe in, and what the Word of God clearly teaches, is the perseverance of the Holy Spirit. When He begins a work, He never gives up until it is completed. That is our confidence.”

HAI later enlarged upon Matthew 24:13 when chatting to some Mormon missionaries who also alluded to this verse. HAI gave his application of it as follows: “As to this, one need only say that endurance certainly is a proof of reality. One who said he was saved, yet did not endure, would thereby prove the emptiness of his profession.”

He alluded to it again in his commentary on Matthew and later on in 1 Corinthians 15:2 . I quote:
So bitterly is the world opposed to its rightful King that those who are loyal to Him will be hated of all men for His name’s sake, and so they could expect suffering and persecution such as would turn shallow and unreal souls aside; but to the one who endures to the end salvation is assured. This does not imply that we are saved by our own faithfulness or devotedness. All is of grace. But where there is a genuine work of God in the soul there will be final perseverance, whether in the days of the Great Tribulation yet to come or in this present evil age. (Matthew)

This is exactly what I have been arguing for. Salvation by grace alone – not salvation by my faithfulness or devotedness or anything of mine – but entirely by His grace and evidenced by God persevering in me, continuing that good work which He begun.

I must admit that I am at a loss to know why you enlist men under your banner when you condemn their position as being satanic etc.,

Sorry that this post again has been so long. “The quotes made me do it” :o)

Alvin: Your comments seem to be taking us down the Calvinist controversy road, which (as we both now) only seems to wind you up. This is the not the crux of this particular debate. Neither JVM or HAI were Calvinists. They were just basic Evangelicals, proclaiming the message that Evangelicals have proclaimed for the last 2,000 years.

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 4:48 AM
I love these LS games where we read of the terrible apostasy of Solomon and yet because we do not have a verse that says, "Solomon died in a final state of apostasy" then it must mean that Solomon repented and was restored before death. LOL!!

Do I think someone that can be disobedient and know Christ as their Savior? Yes! I see the following verse teaching that:

"Psalm 89:30--35: "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, arid their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly, take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David." (Do we have it better than they did or worse since the death of Christ?)

Do I think one can habitually sin? Yes. 1st Timothy 5:20 says:

"Those who continue (habitually) in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning (habitually)."

I'm sure that we can twist whatever verse to our liking but LS has no evidence whatsoever that Solomon's heart was turned back as his final days are recorded and nothing showed that he was making any attempt to get right with God. It is clear by God's statement that a man's heart can turn from God.

Can LS supply any evidence that Demas was never saved to begin with? No, they read their own theology into Scripture. You have no verses that state that Solomon returned to the faith but according to LS Solomon must have returned and yet we have no verses that state just that. We have Demas, but he was never saved to begin with according to LS????? Demas loved this present evil world and Solomon made alters to demon gods and his heart was "turned" from God????? How does LS know that Solomon returned to the faith without a single verse of Scripture as well as how they know that Demas did not return to the faith without a single verse of Scripture????

What good do we read about Lot in the OT and where did he ever repent? How about Samson who spent his whole life fulfilling his lusts (habitual) but only in the end did he become a hero of the faith???? This is typical LS game playing by inserting words into a passage not found.

Only LS will have to make exception clauses that a believer can fall for a period of time (they cannot give a time frame as to how long that is) into serious sins but will be restored before he dies or that faith was never genuine to begin with.

I am amazed reading one unbiblical statement after another. According to LS, a believer cannot habitually sin but that is exactly what Solomon had done. Only LS will have to make up exception clauses because without them then you have Solomon really destroying what it is they believe.

So can a believer claim to be a believer that lives like the devil? OK, then can a believer take on 700 foreign wives against the command of God? Can a believer's heart be drawn away from God? Can a believer offer sacrifices to a demon god? How about Acts 19? Can a believer be saved and continue to practice the occult 2 years after being saved? The answer is YES!!

I am done with these silly arguments that are based on pride and how LS will reason from their own understanding as to how God and a believer must be.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 7:34 AM
Hi Anonymous (Dave?)

You write:

I love these LS games where we read of the terrible apostasy of Solomon and yet because we do not have a verse that says, "Solomon died in a final state of apostasy" then it must mean that Solomon repented and was restored before death. LOL!!

Having failed to substantiate your original claim that "Solomon died in a final state of apostasy" from the Bible, can you now (assuming that this is a continuation of our conversation last night) show me where I have claimed that such must mean that Solomon repented and was restored before death? I just want to be sure that any readers of this blog do not think that I am not part of these games that you get so much loving laughter from. If you can enclose such claims in the customary speech marks and reference them, then it will make it easier for me to respond to your criticsm.

If you are unable to do so, then you might like to make it clear that, despite the context, you are not actually referring to me. This means that we both know where each other stands on these matters.

Appreciated.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 7:50 AM
Thanks for singling out only a part of what I said. My point was that you cannot accept that Solomon ended in apostasy because there is no verse that states he died in such a state. I tried comparing the foolishness of such an argument to Demas where LS will claim that Demas was never saved to begin with but has no verse that says that and we have no verse that says either that Demas did not come back. Your silly argument for Solomon works also for Demas.

Thanks for ignoring the rest. To everyone else, please read my comments just above Goodnight's and tell me who is playing a game?

Thank you and an official goodbye to this silliness of word games with the Bible.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 8:43 AM
Sorry, I did not write the above very clearly so let me do it again.

We read about Solomon and the end of his life and his apostasy. According to Goodnight, we do not read that he died in this state so that must mean that Solomon repented even though we have no verse that states that.

We read about Demas and his love for this present evil world and yet LS said that Demas died in this state proving that he was never saved to begin with when no such verses support that.

LS seems comfortable with telling you that Solomon must have repented without a single verse of Scripture because that would destroy their position. However, they will tell you that Demas was never saved to begin with because he did not return to the faith when there is no verse that states that either.

Basically, if it fits their system then they use it. They will add and take away from God's word if it fits them. This is the game that I am talking about.

Please see my originally comment that Goodnight danced around above his please. Thank you!

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 8:51 AM
Anonymous:

What "silly argument for Solomon?"

This is the point. I haven't made any argument at all.

You made the statement that Solomon died in apostasy. All I did is ask you to substantiate it from the Bible. That is not an argument. That is simply asking you for scriptural proof of a statement which you made.

Failing to give this proof, you then come back and (at the very least) suggested that I believed that the silence of Scripture
must mean that Solomon repented and was restored before death

But I made no such argument. Again, all I did was simply ask you to clarify i.e. clarify if you including me in your criticism and, if so, could you give me in speech marks with a reference where I had claimed such a thing.

Asking for clarification is not arguing. Arguing is saying to the effect. "Yes, this is what I believe or don't believe etc., because..." (and so on) There has been no argument yet.

Re: Demas. There was little point getting unto Demas etc., until we sorted out where you coming from re: Solomon. I don't feel under any pressure to defend what I have never said or claimed. As it stands, your comments on the other matters do not pose me any problems whatsoever, but as said: It is mere polemics to defend things that I do not believe. that is a luxury at the moment I cannot afford to have.

So, my Anonymous friend (David?) if you want to take your ball and go home that's fair enough with me. There are plenty of other kids in the park who are willing to clarify what they mean, retract erroneous assumptions or enforce their arguments for true ones so that we all benefit from honest discussion with each other.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 9:01 AM
Anonymous:

Just read your fresh post. You repeat the allegation that:

According to Goodnight, we do not read that he died in this state so that must mean that Solomon repented even though we have no verse that states that.

Again, I must ask you to put my words in speech marks and reference them. Surely this is not asking too much?

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 9:04 AM
Goodnight said about Solomon to me:

"My answer: If you can give me a verse from the Bible that shows that Solomon died in a state of apostasy then I might be able to proceed further. As it stands, you have appear to have an advantage on me on this one. I am unaware of any verse in the Bible that tells us how Solomon died."

Ummm, if I am not mistaking, is this not an admission that Solomon did not die in a state of apostasy? We read about the end of Solomon and how he turned to apostasy and we do not read that he repented but only the severity of his apostasy.

Sorry, when I read from you, "If you can give me a verse from the Bible that shows that Solomon died in a state of apostasy then I might be able to proceed further" then it appears that you are denying that he died in such a state. My point was that we never read that Solomon ever repented and was restored that is common to LS thinking. I compared that to Demas where we do not read about his death either but LS seems comfortable stating that he never did and proved that he never was saved to begin with.

Hmmmm, was I really misstating your position on Solomon? Can you then educate me as to your position about Solomon? Did Solomon repent? If you say, "I don't know?" then can the LS position be correct that a person cannot die in such a state as "I don't know" makes a possible allowance? If you say, "Solomon repented" then how do you prove that?

Your arguments really seem to want to keep from talking about Solomon. Did Solomon know God Goodnight that disobeyed Him and had 700 wives where some he even made alters to their demons gods?

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 9:29 AM
Anonymous (David?)

All my comments admit to is that we are not told how Solomon died and no more. Where Scripture is silent on a matter then I find it best to remain silent also. I can hardly be faulted for that? If others want to go further and make assumptions – as to the thought that he did repent or that he didn’t repent – that’s up to them. I am quite happy to let God be the Judge on the issue because the Judge of all the earth always does right.

As for Demas, again the Scripture leaves us hanging high and dry on the issue. I would like to think that Demas returned again, if indeed he was ever saved in the first place (the “if” of argument rather than doubt.) I have certainly no desire to keep him out of Heaven. But then, what I would like to think is hardly the stuff good solid arguments are built upon and therefore again (wisely I think) I will sit tight. My thoughts will have little bearing on the matter. If I were to have met Demas while he was enjoying the world’s pleasures, I would have counselled him to seek the Lord afresh. I would base this on the profession of faith that he had made. If he were to tell me that his profession was all a sham, then I would still urge him to seek the Lord. Basically the immediate need is the same in both cases: To get into fellowship with God. I would remember that I am just a very fallible preacher. God is the Great Physician is this case. One thing is sure though: I see the need to leave a good solid testimony behind me so that there could be no doubt about me.

I have no problems talking about Solomon – as I said earlier, this is really the first that we have got to the arguments stage. Requests for proof and clarification are not arguments. I believe that Solomon did know God, even when he slipped into the awful sins of polygamy and demon worship. If this should lead you to ask as to far a professing Believer can stray from his first love and wander from God, then my simple answer is this: “Any distance is too far” Certainly his story gives us a severe warning. How apt to fail is even the strongest Christian. Therefore we should look unto Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith and thank God that salvation is founded entirely in His grace and not on our miserable efforts to be faithful.

I trust that this clarification helps.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 9:56 AM
Goodnight,

Your answers are not typical of LS and that's good. LS does teach that Solomon had to have come back to repentance because it is impossible to them that such a person could die in such a state and be saved.

Your answers about Demas were not typical either and that is good. You stated that you do not know but the LS position believes they do and will say that Demas never believed to begin with because he wasn't restored to the faith.

My argument was the inconsistency between the two. My point was how one could argue that Solomon could have come back when no Scripture supports that and how Demas did not come back when no Scripture states that either. Both men fell into serious sin but LS says the one was saved and the other wasn't and that answer is way out there. Thank you for your clarification.

My question to you about Solomon had to do with your question to Antonio. Did Solomon know God? You said, "yes." So how can we then claim that any believer that lives in sin does not know God? Was Solomon eternal secure living like the devil? We would have to say yes because he persisted in this sin for a long time and even to the point of death most likely as the Scriptures are silent. You did say:

"Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him. This is plain and direct language. Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar."

You said that you believe Solomon did know God. This appears to be a contradiction to your question that you asked Antonio. This is the problem I find with LS. They have to keep changing how they say things in order to make such situations fit their theology. If such a statement that you believe 1st John makes is "plain and direct" then clearly Solomon does not know God. The Bible says his heart was turned from Him.

I guess I really would like to see a verse that states that a believer can live in sin for a certain period of time (years even) but he will not die in such a state or that proves that he was never saved to begin with. This is a bunch of LS theories without any verses stating that. According to LS, Solomon must have repented, but you allow the possibility that he didn't.

If I meet a person that is living in sin and proclaiming that he is eternally secure then it is not my job to reintroduce him to the gospel as I never seen Paul do that. I will ask him to share his testimony as to how he came to trust Christ. If it is biblically correct then it is not my job to say, "Your works say you are a liar and are in need of the gospel again." I do what Paul did and that is to show them that it is inconsistent to live such a lifestyle when God has made us contrary. Paul always pointed one to their perfect standing and how it ought to affect their state (walk).

Thanks for your honesty about Solomon and Demas. You have demonstrated in your own words that a person can live like the devil and possibly be saved. You have even allowed the possibility for a person to die in such a state.

You said, "One thing is sure though: I see the need to leave a good solid testimony behind me so that there could be no doubt about me." That would be great! I would hate to have a funeral service and people were to say, "Wow! I didn't know he was a Christian!!!" Samson would have had such an statement made at his service because it wasn't until the end that he demonstrated faith as his whole life was characterized by sin. The thief on the cross had nothing to show either but his simple trust in Christ!

Thank you!

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 10:26 AM
Anonymous (Dave?)

I wouldn’t build too much e.g. You have demonstrated in your own words that a person can live like the devil and possibly be saved. You have even allowed the possibility for a person to die in such a state. on what I have said. All I have done is be silent on the matters you have raised re: Solomon and Demas because the Scripture itself is silent. Or, if you want to put it another way, if I were arguing your position and came to these words I would continue looking for support elsewhere. There has been a lot of assuming going on, on your part (if you don’t mind me saying so) and assumptions are pretty poor foundations stones upon which to build. However, my answers are honest, even if not quite what you seem to be assuming here from them.

Re: the reintroducing of the gospel even to the backslider. You say that you have never seen Paul reintroduce the gospel to such. I see him doing it in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff when he reintroduced it to the backslidden Corinthians. My dealing with backslidden saints is not to “get them saved all over again” (as some might put it) but (as said) back into fellowship with God. There can be no grounds for this outside the blood of Jesus Christ and the blood is at the very heart of the gospel.

Not so sure that I agree with you that Samson’s “whole life was characterised by sin though. That he sinned and that grievously is without doubt. But he is set forth in Hebrews 11 as an example of faith and that when the Apostle appears to have been itching (to use popular language) to have other worthies mentioned.

Anyway: You seem a lot happier now than we began our discussions yesterday.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 11:03 AM
Your view of 1st Corinthians 15 is out there. Let's read those verses:

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Where do you see Paul telling someone to make sure you are saved and believe this message afresh here? He reminded them of the gospel that he claimed the did "receive" (verse 3). Again, you are reading into the text what you want so that it fits with your theology. Amazing!!!

Verse 1, the word "stand" is in the perfect tense in Greek. Again, Paul said that this was the gospel they "received" (vs 1) and now stand (Gk Perfect tense). Are you saying that the perfect tense is conditional??? Jesus was said to have risen in the perfect tense so was that conditional or forever stands?

The word "saved" in verse 2 is in the present tense. The present tense stresses our growth and not salvation itself normally. You can consult with Vines Expository dictionary on this one if you like. It doesn't matter as we only need to really see what Paul meant about a faith that is vain here.

Verse 2 says, "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain."

The words, "unless ye have believed in vain" was how Paul talked later in this same passage. There were some that were denying the resurrection. Paul said in verse 14, 17:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."

Paul was stating in verses 1 and 3 that this is the gospel that they received and now stand. Where do you even read anywhere that Paul was stressing either perseverance of faith or that he was preaching again to possible lost people here????

Verse 2 is Paul saying that this is the gospel that they are saved if they take hold of it unless of course the gospel that he gave was not true to begin with. Paul was arguing after that that if the resurrection never happened then their faith was vain. If this gospel was not true then their faith is vain. You have changed verse 2 into a bunch of invented statements nowhere taught.

I am not much of a Zane Hodge fanatic but he does sum it up pretty good when he said:

"First Corinthians 15:2 must be read in the light of the subsequent discussion about resurrection. Paul is simply saying, in verse 2, that the Gospel he has preached to them is a saving Gospel when it is appropriated by faith, unless, after all, the resurrection is false. In that case, no salvation has occurred at all and the faith his readers had exercised was futile. But naturally Paul absolutely insists on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. He therefore does not think that the Corinthians have believed "in vain."

I definitely agree big time with Zane Hodges last statement: "He therefore does not think that the Corinthians have believed "in vain"" simply because Paul stated two times (vss 1,3) that this gospel they indeed received and did not distinguish between "backslidden Corinthians" as you put it. Why would a backslidden saved Corinthian need the gospel again? I only see a passage dealing with Corinthians that were denying the resurrection and what would have been the case if they were right. This gospel that they "received" is what saved them unless what they believed was all in vain to begin with.

I did like when you said:

"Not so sure that I agree with you that Samson’s “whole life was characterised by sin though."

Not so sure? Can you show me otherwise? It wasn't until the 'very end' of his life that his act of faith was entered into the book of Hebrews as a hero of the faith. I like how you refute people! I will simply tell you "Not so sure I can agree with you" and basically leave it at that. LOL!

I'm still glad that you can argue that the Scriptures are silent about Demas and Solomon but I wished the rest of LS can admit that instead of saying that Solomon repented and Demas never did. That one was saved and the other never believed it to begin with.

I still like to leave you again my comment to you about Solomon and something you said to Antonio:

"My question to you about Solomon had to do with your question to Antonio. Did Solomon know God? You said, "yes." So how can we then claim that any believer that lives in sin does not know God? Was Solomon eternal secure living like the devil? We would have to say yes because he persisted in this sin for a long time and even to the point of death most likely as the Scriptures are silent. You did say:

"Disobedience to Christ is a proof that we do not know Him. This is plain and direct language. Disobedience to Christ on the part of professing Christians is tantamount to being a liar."

You said that you believe Solomon did know God. This appears to be a contradiction to your question that you asked Antonio. This is the problem I find with LS. They have to keep changing how they say things in order to make such situations fit their theology. If such a statement that you believe 1st John makes is "plain and direct" then clearly Solomon does not know God. The Bible says his heart was turned from Him."

Solomon was clearly disobedient in a horrific way but you said he knew God??? What do you really want to ask Antonio???

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 11:49 AM
For clarification, when I said:

"Why would a backslidden saved Corinthian need the gospel again?"

I meant that why would they need to be presented with the gospel afresh if they are already received it and stand? It is because they now were denying a part of it and Paul shared the message they originally believed. If what they were now saying was true about the gospel then their faith was vain and they all including Paul would not be saved.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 11:54 AM
Sorry, I am anticipating word games. When I said:

"The word "saved" in verse 2 is in the present tense. The present tense stresses our growth and not salvation itself normally."

I probably should have explained it better. Saved in the past tense refers to the work of God in salvation. Saved in the present tense refers to our progressive sanctification. Saved in the future tense refers to our ultimate glorification.

I only made a point to mention that but wasn't looking for another redirection to avoid my direct comments and questions in this topic. I simply went on to argue what 1st Cor. 15:2 said and what it clearly did not say.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 12:00 PM
p.s. Just in case we misunderstand each other again. You said:

"My dealing with backslidden saints is not to “get them saved all over again” (as some might put it) but (as said) back into fellowship with God."

Back in fellowship will cause no disagreements with the free grace community. I was only arguing when you quoted yesterday concerning 1st Cor. 15:2:

" but to the one who endures to the end salvation is assured."

I'm glad that you think that one cannot have assurance of salvation until the end. I fail to see how 1st Cor. 15:2 is arguing that as I again see words being inserted into a passage.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 12:04 PM
p.s.s, Sorry for the many comments in a row. I am racing here at work to get some things done so my thoughts are all over the place.

I will not be back today as I have to get a report off. You have the last word.

Officially done,sorry.

By Anonymous, at 12/17/2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous:

Unsure here where or how to start answering you, what with a large comment and then several qualifications and then comments like:

I'm glad that you think that one cannot have assurance of salvation until the end.

I have never ever said that. As before, the use of speech marks with a quote would be most useful. This is starting to go round in silly circles. If you are still convinced that I am playing word games with you, as you indicate, then (as flagged in my first posting) there is little use me discussing it further with you. These posts take up valuable time and basically I think it is a waste of time to discuss matters with those who constantly harbour such suspicions. After a fair bit of insistence, I got the matter re: Solomon and Demas hammered down and made seure. Now, I can see this otter matter popping up. No...it takes too much time and i simply haven't got the desire or the time itself to try and nail this down as well.

Anyway, you have said that you are going to giveme the last word. Thanks.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/17/2008 12:26 PM
Colin,
That is so interesting what you tell us about the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth." To me that means double-speak or contradictory statements, not lying. Someone could be doing such quite honestly. Someone could be making contradictory statements and not even realize it - especially in the area of theology!!

I never want you to be accused of deliberately trying to cover what you believe or of deceiving anyone in this venue. I think you are as sincere as the rest of us.

I am surprised that you can't perceive your own statements as a bit contradictory, but I suppose in my view.... discussing these things will help you to see that they are... or me to see that they aren't. :~)

...but I never want you to be charged with being cloak-and-dagger. I think you are a most reasonable and sincere brother, POD notwithstanding ;~D

...the theology could be charged with deception if it is indeed deceiving the minds of people, but not you. No, not ever.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 8:07 AM
I need to start proofreading BEFORE I press publish.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 8:08 AM
I was so busy yesterday with work that I couldn't participate, even though I read every comment that came though. After I get the kids off to school in a bit here I hope to converse a little about these things. I think there is a good discussison going on here and I have many thoughts.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 8:10 AM
Good morning Rose,

Your comments are as kind as ever. I look forward to your doctrinal insights.

Excuse the argument from history here (which is and must ever be secondary to Scripture, but not to be dismissed either)

Within the broad Evangelical school, there are many names that crop up as men of God. These men have been recognised as giants and they are quoted regularly, again on a broad basis by all within the school. Some of them are often quoted by those in the FG camp, including Spurgeon. Yet, as can be proved (even on this very page) they made consistent statements (as opposed to one off ambiguous efforts)to the effect that professing believers who live like the devil are living a lie.

At the same time, these men positively held that salvation is by grace through faith alone etc., and negatively lambasted Rome and the cults etc., for teaching salvation by "grace" plus ... human works etc., This kind of thing has been going on now for hundreds of years. Do you really think that had the FG teachers not have come along in the last 20 years or whatever very short time it is, then this inconsistency as you see it would have been missed again?

If I am preaching (as I have accused) the most Satanically inspired and antichrist message, then so are those names above. On this issue, both Reformed and Non Reformed Evangelicals stand shoulder to shoulder. These men mentioned above were giants in the church in their day. Has the whole Evangelical Movement until 1980 embraced the most Satanically inspired lie? If so, do we cease to be Christian, nevermind Evangelical?

Your thoughts as ever are appreciated!

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/18/2008 8:43 AM
Goodnight,

I will say this as I was through with this topic. I apologize as I was doing two things at once yesterday and wasn't fully devoting my attention to what I was reading but was trying to reply as fast as I could as I was talking about yesterday. I said concerning you:

"I was only arguing when you quoted yesterday concerning 1st Cor. 15:2:

" but to the one who endures to the end salvation is assured."

I'm glad that you think that one cannot have assurance of salvation until the end. I fail to see how 1st Cor. 15:2 is arguing that as I again see words being inserted into a passage."

My mistake was really accusing you of guilt of association as that was what Matthew Henry said so my statement should have been in form of a question to you. I should have stated:

" but to the one who endures to the end salvation is assured."

And then asked you whether you agree that 1st Cor. 15:2 is really teaching a perseverance to the end with faith to be real and whether salvation is not assured until the end would have been better. It appears that Matthew Henry believes that assurance really isn't possible by the statement until the end and that contradicts Scripture everywhere.

I do apologize as I was racing to get a report done. When I see someone quoting a particular author who makes such a statement caused me to make an assumption that the person that shared this believes it as well. It would be like me quoting a particular author who says in the midst of everything, "the Bible doesn't teach repentance at all" as that would raise eyebrows as to what I believe when my purpose was supplying the whole quote because their was something else in that quote that I was looking to get across.

I am going to stay out of discussions until I have actually time to really focus on what was being said. I am trying to read and type as fast as I can and am paying the price for it. So I am done, sorry.

By Anonymous, at 12/18/2008 9:00 AM
Just call me the 'mad typist' as that is what I look like as I race to get my reply up so I can go back to work.

By Anonymous, at 12/18/2008 9:14 AM
Fair enough "Mad Typist"

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/18/2008 9:42 AM
Colin,
A thought that occurred to me was to ask you about when you are evangelizing. In fact, put yourself in the position of the man in the story. You are witnessing to someone and telling them of God’s free grace, that God has done it all to provide for their salvation, reconciling man to Himself. You are explaining that salvation is not of works but of grace through faith. The person asks you “What about being sure of going to heaven? If I walk away from this encounter …and if I had truly received Christ in faith today… then it wouldn’t matter if I lived like the devil? I would still be getting into heaven just by faith?” If someone were to say that to you, how would you answer?
Would you tell them that there is no possibility that that would ever happen? Or what?

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 12:10 PM
Mad typist,
That is why sometimes I don't answer because I don't have time to be careful and thoughtful. I completely understand how that could happen. I do appreciate your visits, even if they are undercover ;~)

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 12:11 PM
Alvin,
Thank you for explaining to me what you meant by the personal savior thing that you were concerned about with Hixon. I had no idea he was a Calvinist.

That throws a whole new light on the phrase re: 'personal savior' in regards to Calvinistic considderations. I never thought of it that way.

I can't believe that Hixon would mention unelect children in that book. Did I undersatdn that right?

I think people need to see that Christ provided salvation for the whole world and that they need to receive it for themselves based on the facts that it was proven to have been provided, that proof being the ressurection. To me the "personal" part is involved in wanting to have that provision for myself. I have argued with Matthew and perhaps yourself (or maybe it was Antonio) about the idea. We disagreed. Matthew argued that recognizing that Christ could guarantee eternal life to whoever believed was enough. I felt that it needed to be followed by a reception of that life for oneself, a more personal recognition than just "Christ can guarantee life for those who believe..."

I was curious when you mentioned this earlier if you were referring to my idea - if Hixon was talking about the same issue I argued about. I can tell you were thinking of something completey different, though.

God bless.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 12:19 PM
Antonio,
I do say things differently than you do, but I still appreciate your contributions here! I hope you will join in some more. I know you want Colin to feel welcome on our blogs because you have said so before. :~)

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 12:21 PM
Hi Rose,

Re: your first scenario: If someone is living happily in their sin, justifying it totally without reserve, then I find it very hard to accept that that person is a true child of God, regardless of what they profess to believe. If they say that they want to live in the Devil and are looking for someone to give the nod, then I must ask: where is the evidence of grace? I run entirely with the person who wrote: “The faith that saves is not alone because salvation causes a person to be born again and they now have the life of God dwelling in them and the power that rose Christ from the dead is now living inside of them. So right - faith isn't alone... and the born-again person isn't alone. We have the spirit of God.” A person who wants to live for the devil is alone (at least spiritually speaking) or maybe again, not alone, but still under the total control of the evil one who they wish to emulate and serve.

Re: your second scenario: I wouldn’t torture myself nor the girl about the past. It is the present and future that matters. She evidently wants to be in fellowship with God. Let her tell God that (which presupposes faith) – let her repent of her past deeds and then bring forth fruits meet for repentance.

Regards,

p/s I would have posted this half an houra go, but blogger is playing havoc with my computer at the moment. But I'll persevere :o)

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/18/2008 1:53 PM
Rose,

My heart hurts for this lady. I do not have time to post much now. I must say, though, that it is not so easy for us to say if one is happy in sin. Obviously no one really is, but even so, the flesh certainly can be for a season. It is mighty difficult for us to say from the outside. I am thankful that the grace & blood of Christ cleanses from ALL sin! Please tell her we are praying for her. I'm sure this makes no sense. Forgive me.

By David Wyatt, at 12/18/2008 4:12 PM
Hi Rose,
I've been watching your blog the last coupla days. Annonymous thinks that he has a handle on L/S thought as pertains to believers falling into grievous sin. MacArthur, the chief spoksmen for L/S thought, acknowledges that true believers can and do fall into grievous sin. I agree with him there. I noticed when reading Ryrie's "So Great Salvation" that Ryrie, as well as the more radical free gracers that I have encountered in blogdom, like to exaggerate the L/S position by making the perseverance of the saints into some sort of "perfect living of the saints", as though the L/S teaches that the saint will be darn near perfect throughout life - a straw man; a caricature.

Whenever I hear a convicting sermon, such as Paul Washer's here, I see where I must confess and repent. I am NOT perfect. I do not think that I have arrived. I am not like the self righteous pharisee that Anon seems to like to equate L/S folks with. "Peseverance of the saints" is NOT "the saints shall lead perfect lives". No! Paul acknowledges that in Galatians 5:17. In fact, in Philippians 3 we see his pursuit of Christ as his "not having obtained". He was pressing forward. He also said that if anybody was otherwise minded that God would show that to him.

Now, concerning your friend - we are to continually point her to Christ. Colin hit the nail on the head with his take on Paul pointing the sinful Corinhtian believers back to the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. However, if she falls back into sin then Matthew 18 is also clear. Steps included there: One on one approach. Secondly a brother goes along. If no repentance takes place that one is to be treated as an unbeliever, meaning evangelizing them.

It is tricky here. I don't agree that somebody should be telling her that she may not have been saved in the first place. Give place to repentance. Then follow what is written in the Bible - either she repents and we are to encourage her in the faith, as per Hebrews 10:23-25, or, if she goes back into sin, Matthew 18:15-17. Let the Bible be our guide, not our assurance driven system. The courses of action are pretty clear. If course "A" is chosen by her, then Hebrews 10 comes into play. However if Course "B" is chosen by her, then Matthew 18 comes into play.

Too methodical or machine like? We DO have our marching oders in the Bible. Love is to be our guide - not a judgemental attitude. Love and encouragement; or, love and evangelism - whatever course is indicated, love is to be the driving force.

By mark pierson, at 12/18/2008 4:13 PM
Levi and I just got back from some more shopping.

Colin,
Thank you for your thoughts. I would still like to know what you would say to the person who is STILL LOST who is asking this.

I asked:
You are witnessing to someone and telling them of God’s free grace, that God has done it all to provide for their salvation, reconciling man to Himself. You are explaining that salvation is not of works but of grace through faith. The person asks you “What about being sure of going to heaven? If I walk away from this encounter …and if I had truly received Christ in faith today… then it wouldn’t matter if I lived like the devil? I would still be getting into heaven just by faith?” If someone were to say that to you, how would you answer?
Would you tell them that there is no possibility that that would ever happen?

You answered:
If someone is living happily in their sin, justifying it totally without reserve, then I find it very hard to accept that that person is a true child of God

So that makes me think you did not understand my question. In that question I wasn't asking about a person who was already saved so it wouldn't be a matter of judging whether they were a true child of God or not. They aren't yet, but you have been witnessing to them and they are considering the gift of God; you are reasoning with them and they ask you about the requirements of the future if they take Christ as their savior now. What would you say? I am not trying to play tricks or anything, I just really am curious what you think is a better response.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 4:23 PM
Mark,

Thank you. I read that pretty quickly and at first glance it seems to be a very reasonable response. I am going to ponder it some more.

You will note that I am only going on what SHE SAYS about her own faith - I can't prove her faith - only she knows. I am not telling her her faith is or was real. Only she knows that.

One thing I do take issue with that you said is in referring to our assurance driven system. I would think that all evangelicals would view it important to know that one can KNOW that they are saved and not just hope and pray that they are saved. That is not specific to any "system." :~D

I am going to study your comment some more to make sure I really do think it is reasonable. heehee

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 4:29 PM
Thank you, David. I do appreciate your prayers. Pray for me too that I would have patience and that I would be given wisdom when I deal with her.

I missed her when she was away. I had invested a lot of time with her before and now I feel a little bit protective about my investment of time... which is a little selfish and I need to be less selfish about that too.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 4:31 PM
Mark,
I will see if Dave (anonymous) answers your thoughts on the straw man of "perfect living of the saints" If not, or if Antonio or Alvin or someone else doesn't take that up with you, maybe I will have some time later.

Birthday party Saturday. Levi will be 2.

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 4:33 PM
Hi Rose,

Basically what I would be telling the unsaved one who seems to be enquiring about getting to heaven as a Christian while desiring to live like the devil is that such is the “salvation” is not of God and therefore will not admit any one to heaven. Yes, in my presentations of the gospel I always emphasis that salvation is a free gift, without money, without works of any kind (before or after salvation) but I also emphasise the reality of salvation. It is much more than fire insurance from hell. It is something that invariably produces a new heart in those who possess it and that new heart manifests itself in holy living.

Should the enquirer pursue the matter i.e. can he live like the devil etc., I would challenge him on whether he wanted to be saved at all and from what. If he has no desires to forsake the bondage of his sin and seek to live in holiness as a consequence of his salvation, then he doesn’t want salvation. He evidently just wants to sin and sin and sin and not pay the awful price for doing it. I would seek to persuade him to embrace alternative i.e. a salvation that really does save from the power of sin as well as the penalty – the chains as well as the curse.

I hope that this answers your question.

Any chance of your thoughts on my question above i.e.

If I am preaching (as I have accused) the most Satanically inspired and antichrist message, then so are those names above. On this issue, both Reformed and Non Reformed Evangelicals stand shoulder to shoulder. These men mentioned above were giants in the church in their day. Has the whole Evangelical Movement until 1980 embraced the most Satanically inspired lie? If so, do we cease to be Christian, never mind Evangelical?

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/18/2008 5:04 PM
Hi Colin,
I will try to get back to your question in a bit.

From what you say your theology is then I can't see why you would have a problem with my response to such a one:

I would tell the person yes, theoretically you COULD, but you wont want to. I would say that theoretically you could go on and "live like the devil" but for goodness sake, I hope you wont. I would encourage the person that if they do decide to come to Christ and receive His gift that they will want to learn about Him and get to know Him better. I would hold up the Word of God as the lifeline for this person because I know that if he spends time in God's Word, while the Spirit of God is indwelling him, that he will not *want* to live like the devil. He will fall more and more in love with the Savior and will want to please the one he knows more and more.

Can you consider retracting your accusation that the idea driving the original statement that you found so offensive was "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness"? Can you possibly see that the teacher who said what he said was merely taking the thought that salvation was really and totally of grace and free apart from works to a logical, albeit unlikely, end?

By Rose~, at 12/18/2008 5:13 PM
Rose,
Nowhere do I down-play assurance. I teach that one should take God at His word when He says that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. On the other hand I believe that when God the Holy Spirit regenerates a person they will not be "still born". Just as Levi came forth 2 years ago Saturday, breathing, with a heartbeat, and with brainwaves, so the new born Christian NECESSARILY will come forth with signs of life - namely, a new heart with new desires for the things of God.

Remember your own testimony? Old friends eventually didn't want to hang with you anymore. Why? Your new nature was showing...

By mark pierson, at 12/18/2008 6:04 PM
rose,
Antonio has offered to be a contributor at Blue-Collar! Come on over to encourage him there.

By mark pierson, at 12/18/2008 8:30 PM
Yes, Rose. I will pray. Thanks for your prayers as well.

By David Wyatt, at 12/18/2008 8:58 PM
Hi Rose,

About your friend, I think some who have believed in Jesus have issues in their past that are so painful it takes much prayer and support from others for them to have a chance at defeating the flesh & maturing. Many are not even aware they have this pain because it is so deep in their souls.
But they have to honest about it to themselves & others who will not question their simple belief in Christ.

You are right assurance is so vital in even having a chance at recovery. A person needs that foundation to have hope. So anyone who trys to tear down the hope she had when she first believed is a stumbling block to her IMO.

I know you will wise & loving toward her.

Kris

By Kris, at 12/18/2008 10:53 PM
It's fate - just wanted to say I agree with Kris and I got to be #100, too. :)

By Missy, at 12/19/2008 12:59 AM
Good morning Rose,

As far as I can see (but always willing to put “crow” on the menu) there is no Apostolic precedent to use language like this or anything similar when dealing with the unsaved. I think that, despite all the qualifications that you attach to your statement, that you are elevating the freeness of the gospel (i.e. without money and without price etc.,) at the expense of the gospel content itself – invariable freedom from the power and domination of sin. I want to secure the whole house – your statement (Yes, theoretically you could go on and “live lie the devil”) leaves a window at the front wide open. To my mind it gives a false hope to someone who professes to be a Christian but shows absolutely no evidence of the new birth. I can almost hear them reply: “You said ‘I could’ but hoped that I wouldn’t want to. Well, I do and according to you, I’m still heaven bound.” No wonder the NT is silent on this kind of approach. It would be foolish to go beyond what is written there.

Without getting into the “Total Abstinence” debate, let me say that I do not drink alcoholic wine at all. If I were tackled over this, one of my simpler arguments runs like this: “Why should I? I can slake my thirst and enjoy any one of a number of drinks that have no alcoholic content at all. I do not need to qualify myself when I say that I drink of these alternatives. I don’t even have to worry about driving my car or whether or not (at least as a result of drinking them) worry about what I might say or even do if I drink too much.” Application: Why should I use a dangerous statement that carnal people want to hear when there are proven Biblical statements and approaches out there that do the job a million times better?

Regards,

P/s I hope that you have a good day with wee Levi. Our Andrew was 6 last week and we had a whale of a time with his school mates at a party.

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/19/2008 4:03 AM
Hi Rose

If your friend believed in Jesus for His gift of eternal life “one drink and you’ll never thirst” then her eternal destiny is settled. But just as the women at the well there was no guarantee that she would not return to the one she was living with. We have every reason to believe she didn’t but the Scripture clearly does not tell us. Those who think it does are reading their theology into the story, and are under estimating the power of sin even in a believer’s life.
But the story of the women at the well is not about sin but about the gift of eternal life that Jesus freely gives.
Once this has been settled with your friend and she knows where she will spend eternity, then she can go on to enjoy the life Jesus has given her. As we renew our minds in His word and walk by the Spirit He has given us we can experience the victory abiding in Him brings!

Take of the water of life freely!

I hope this Christmas Season you all are enjoying the GIFT and the GIVER . . . .Jesus

alvin

By alvin, at 12/19/2008 4:54 PM
Hi Rose,
I'll bet you're digging out from under the same snowstorm that I am.

Alvin,
I know I've said something similar to you before, but I'm gonna say it again - I admire your zeal for Christ, and to see souls saved!

Questions:
1) where did that zeal come from?

2) why don't all professing Christians have that same zeal that you have?

By mark pierson, at 12/19/2008 6:01 PM
Hi Rose

I couldn’t keep quite if I wanted to, I have such joy way down in my soul from knowing that all my sins have been paid for too knowing I will never thirst again based solely on Jesus promise! And I know He cannot lie! I have the GREATEST message in the world to share with a lost and dying world. That message is for each and every person that Jesus paid it ALL and that’s why He can offer the living water to anyone to take of freely! Paul was compelled by the love of God, and there is no greater power!!!!!

As someone has stated on this thread 70% of evangelicals believe that it’s grace and works. And that takes the joy of your salvation away, for the joy of our salvation is our strength!!!!

By alvin, at 12/19/2008 11:04 PM
Hi Rose1 Please tell little Levi some person named Mark, one of your blogger friends, says "Happy Birthday!!!!!!!

By mark pierson, at 12/20/2008 10:50 AM
Merry Christmas, Rose, John & the family.

I was reading the following post & comments over at Bluecollar the other day & my first impression & quite frankly my last impression was this post was disturbing.

All but the comments were originally posted on this blog.

So if anyone has time please read the following and see what you think.

"Mark asks Alvin Some Questions"

The following was taken from the comments thread at Rose's Reasonings, under the post "A Thoroughly Lordship Sermon". There I asked Alvin to answer two questions. Please tell me if you think that he answered them both -

Mark Pierson said...
Alvin,I know I've said something similar to you before, but I'm gonna say it again - I admire your zeal for Christ, and to see souls saved!

Questions:
1) where did that zeal come from?

2) why don't all professing Christians have that same zeal that you have?
12/19/2008 6:01 PM

alvin said...
Hi Rose
I couldn’t keep quite if I wanted to, I have such joy way down in my soul from knowing that all my sins have been paid for too knowing I will never thirst again based solely on Jesus promise! And I know He cannot lie! I have the GREATEST message in the world to share with a lost and dying world. That message is for each and every person that Jesus paid it ALL and that’s why He can offer the living water to anyone to take of freely! Paul was compelled by the love of God, and there is no greater power!!!!!As someone has stated on this thread 70% of evangelicals believe that it’s grace and works. And that takes the joy of your salvation away, for the joy of our salvation is our strength!!!!

Here are the comments after Bluecollars post:

mark pierson said...
I was leading Alvin into a theological trap. See if anybody picks up on it...

December 21, 2008 6:38 PM

jazzycat said...
He certainly didn't answer your question!

December 21, 2008 7:28 PM

mark pierson said...
If he had we would have seen the self initiative side of FGT.

December 21, 2008 9:41 PM

mark pierson said...
It would have been a clear "I" or "me" scene. "If "I", or, it is up to "me" to do this or that, then God will...." It is man taking the initiative in the sanctification process. But what can I expect from the same group the says that man can believe in God though dead in trespasses and sins, and is by nature a child of wrath.

December 22, 2008 7:27 AM

mark pierson said...
It is a defacto gutting of the regeneration experience no matter how much they protest that assessment.

December 22, 2008 7:30 AM

mark pierson said...
that whole comments thread can be seen here...
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17149877&postID=1288987471223489190&isPopup=true

December 22, 2008 7:56 AM

mark pierson said...
I guess I really want to know why Alvin is so on fire while he and his system teach that a "believer" can become carnal, or worse, become hostile to Christ. What is it that makes Alvin so different than the carnal christian? Why the fire in Alvin and the ice in the carnal one?

December 22, 2008 11:23 AM

jazzycat said...
Could it be a belief in a theology of the sovereignty of human decision? I chose Christ. I chose to be a disciple. I chose to be carnal and ignore Biblical exhortations to be a disciple. God woos, but man chooses. I, I, I, I..........

December 22, 2008 12:08 PM

Now why would anyone say;

"Alvin,I know I've said something similar to you before, but I'm gonna say it again - I admire your zeal for Christ, and to see souls saved!"

and then with less than admiration, attempt to set up a trap to tear a brother down?

Is my question reasonable?

In the comments above;
jazzycat said...
He certainly didn't answer your question!

and then;

mark pierson said...
If he had we would have seen the self initiative side of FGT.

Now how on earth can they draw that conclusion?
Would Alvin say he initiated his own salvation? How could he or anyone else we all read or are told the word of salvation and then believe.

The "initiative" is brought to us by God Himself through His word, no one would ever say otherwise.

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as rightousness. Alvin and others have believed God it has been credited to us as rightousness.

Why & how do LS advocates come up with this bogus thought about free grace advocates?

Merry Christmas to all especially Missy! :)

Kris

By Kris, at 12/23/2008 8:01 PM
Hi Rose,

You said in your post:
They need to be told that Jesus is suffficient to save!!! His incredible Person and Work is what we look to to see that we can be saved. This anthropocentric introspection is not God glorifying and not what the apostles meant to convey regarding the reception of eternal life. Evangelistic preaching needs to be about Jesus Christ and what He has done and that is how people will know salvation, not pointing to their own performance or quality of discipleship. Believers should be encouraged on in growth and discipleship, but not with the threat of “If you don’t behave thusly then you were never saved to begin with.” What “Christian” sect teaches that our behavior or works bear on our hope of salvation? I left that church.

I benefit a lot from your knowledge as you blog on this, it is such a breath of fresh air to listen to someone get salvation and sanctification in the right frame.

Thanks, Michele

By Sanctification, at 12/23/2008 10:15 PM
Kris,
Yes, some seem to think that if we say an unbeliever may *want* the living water, then we are necessarily saying that those people are *creating* the living water. Some seem to think that if we believe that an unbeliever who is not regenerated can be interested in knowing the Creator, then we are necessarily saying that the unbeliever is initiating salvation. God has to create the desire for Himself in the unbeliever thhrough regeneration and irresistable drawing or else their is reason to boast.

I have a question about that which I think needs to be discussed someday. What about the people who are DRAWN, but *not* irresistably?

Anyway, Alvin was smart not to fall for that lure to what I thought seemed like a sincere desire for felowship/discussion. I was dissapointed to see that Mark said he had only been setting a trap for Alvin. You guys are sometimes a lot more discerning than us womenfolk.

Merry Christmas!!!

By Rose~, at 12/24/2008 11:45 AM
Michele,
Thanks for the visit. I try to understand but honestly a lot of things are over my head. This is one that is not though - I know that LS is all wrong - God doesn't want us to offer something that we have for his grace, whether it be our repentance or our willingness to follow or any thing at all. I call that "CHEAP GRACE." Any price I can pay and "cost" I ahve to count to be saved is "CHEAP GRACE." What can I offer that is anywhere equal the value of God's grace? I would be getting that grace awfully cheap if LS and committment salvation were true. I prefer "FREE GRACE" because it is clearly what the Bible teaches and is the only way men can be saved, by receiving what GOD HAS DONE - He did it all!!!!

Merry Christmas!!!

By Rose~, at 12/24/2008 11:50 AM
Amen sister. So true. If I as His child then abuse His grace, & if we're honest, ALL of us do somehow or another, but when I do, He knows how to deal with me in loving discipline. So true sister. God Bless you!

By David Wyatt, at 12/24/2008 1:52 PM
Hi Rose,
Merry Christmas to everyone from
the state of Georgia.

By Peggie, at 12/24/2008 7:36 PM
Rose says - "I know that LS is all wrong - God doesn't want us to offer something that we have for his grace, whether it be our repentance or our willingness to follow or any thing at all. I call that "CHEAP GRACE." Any price I can pay and "cost" I ahve to count to be saved is "CHEAP GRACE." What can I offer that is anywhere equal the value of God's grace? I would be getting that grace awfully cheap if LS and committment salvation were true. I prefer "FREE GRACE" because it is clearly what the Bible teaches and is the only way men can be saved, by receiving what GOD HAS DONE - He did it all!!!!"

Rose, I have seen LS folk explain this to you time and again. L/S is not teaching that God wants us to offer anything for His grace - no way, no how! It is our hermeneutic that considers Mark 8:34-38, as well as other portions of the synoptics, as parts of the whole picture, things to be considered when presenting the unsaved with the Gospel. Trying to dispensationalize those portions of scripture, saying that those portions of scripture were for another people and another time is not warranted in scripture itself. The characteristc of saving faith IS immediate discipleship.

What is needed is an examination of the building blocks of a system, why it is that L/S and the GES believe what it is that they believe.

Rose, you say that L/S has it all wrong. That is only because your system does theology differently than L/S. Your system of "right dividing" is foreign to non dispensationalists. Of course you will conclude what we believe to be wrong. I guess the real task is for the GES to convince L/S that their brand of dispensationalism is THE way to do Bible interpretation. Keep in mind that many of the leading voices in L/S are dispensationalist. They also decry the hermeneutic employed by the GES. You must show the rest of chritendom that Mark 8:34-38 is not to be considered by the unsaved today.

Yes Christ did it all... as a result His people are new creations, with new hearts; contrite hearts. His call to them, the call to repentance, is due to the fact that He did it all.

Rose, I humbly ask that you please stop misrepresenting the L/S position.

By mark pierson, at 12/24/2008 10:02 PM
And Alvin, please carry this conversation over to Blue-Collar blog, under my post where your name appears.

By mark pierson, at 12/24/2008 10:06 PM
Hi Rose

I believe Mark 8:34-38 That if a person wants to save his life for all eternity then he needs to take up his cross and follow Jesus. The cost of discipleship is great in Luke 14:28 Jesus warns to count the cost!
And I believe there are ones the Son of Man will be ashamed of ( 1 John 2:28) just as those verses state,but that is different then saying He will say “I never knew you.” It’s the ones who were trusting in Jesus and their works who were told that. Mark I’m not trusting in anything other then Jesus promise to give me eternal life. I’m not promising I will follow Him if He will let me into heaven. I simply believe Jesus is the resurrection and the life, that if I die He will resurrect my body. And if I live and believe I will never die! I’m taking Him at His word, and that is why I can KNOW I will spend eternity with Him. Mark by you making perseverance something that must happen your attaching works to getting into heaven. I’m not!!! I’m not attaching anything to His promise, I’m taking it as a simple gift. I don’t know if I will persevere in good works, or if I have given up everything to follow Christ. I’m not counting on that at all to get me into heaven because just Like Paul I would say that I could be disqualified. I’m trusting in Jesus to work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure. I see evidence of that in my life, but I know that has NOTHING to do with me getting into heaven. You can’t seem to separate these two things, so you run the risk of attaching works as something that must happen for you to get into heaven. Assurance is part of Jesus promise when I believed Him at that moment I passed from death to life, I’ll never perish and I have eternal life. I will never come into a judgment that will determine my eternal destiny because that was settled the moment I believed. If assurance is part of the offer to the one who has believed then works has nothing to do with it either on the frontend or the backend. It’s impossible for the one who attaches works as something that has to happen to know at the moment they believe they will never perish and that they have eternal life, UNLESS at that moment they know they also will persevere unto the end, and Paul didn’t even know that. I believe the gift of eternal life can be taken by anyone freely, just as Rev 22:17 states without any reference to sin or the cost of discipleship.
Why? Because Jesus paid it all on the cross for the sins of the whole world. And discipleship is not a requirement for that water, what is needed is simply the desire to take of it freely! And apart from Jesus drawing us to Him we would never have that desire. I believe that none will seek Him left to ourselves, but He has not left us to ourselves as this verse shows.
This Christmas season we remember what the angels said “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to ALL PEOPLE. “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Until you believe it REALLY is a GIFT that can be taken FREELY, your believing something Jesus does not offer, AND WILL NOT SAVE!

alvin

By alvin, at 12/25/2008 12:49 AM
Alvin,
I believe that a person is saved the very moment they believe in Jesus - BEFORE any good works issue forth from their lives. Good works WILL issue forth eventually. It is the constant insistence of the GES that L/S teaches works righteousness that must stop, cuz it aint true. But I guess keeping straw men alive is the only way for your system can stay alive.

It is the work of Christ on the cross that made it possible for Paul to preach that people should repent and do works befitting repentance. Acts 26:17-20. Your system teaches only part of the story; and that so that you can keep alive the notion that a "Christian" can go on to become unresponsive to the leadings of the Spirit in their life. Paul's concern about being "disqualified" has to do with apostolic ministry, not about becoming ultimately unresponsive to the Leadings of the Spirit. He was worried about being put on the shelf in his ministry life, period. It is much like a pastor today after being found in compromising sexual sin. He no longer can minister as a pastor, but can go on in intercessory prayer and counsel to those who have fallen.

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 11:35 AM
Mark,
Merry Christmas! I wish you and yours a wonderful day.

Now, I have a minute and I do hope to get back to some of the things that you raised in your comment to me, and I fully intend to do so, but... there is one thing I want to say that I think I can say relatively quickly and without a lot of careful thought, so here goes:

You accuse me of misrepresenting you. I am not doing that on purpose. I reason around these things in my mind and what I say is how I see the logical end of the beliefs that I see presented by you and those who hold your similar views. Mainly in this comment section, I am referring to the sermon in the link (by Paul Washer). I am sorry if you reason around these points differently than I do, but I am not misrepresenting your position on purpose. We just conclude differently, you and I.

But you - are you sure you are not trying to do a bit of misprepresentation yourself in these comments? Here is why I ask: I have not identified myself with the GES. You call my position the "GES position" repeadedly in these comments. You know that the GES has come under a lot of fire in this blog neighborhood as of late. So... are you sure you are not trying to weigh down what I am saying with what you see as a millstone of contempt by mentioning the GES? I am hoping that you didn't mention the "GES" several times in this comment to try and associate the FG view in general with what you think has successfully been labeled as a fringe position.

???

By Rose~, at 12/25/2008 11:54 AM
Merry Christmas

By Bhedr, at 12/25/2008 11:58 AM
Rose, friend, we arrive at different conclusions because we employ a different hermeneutic. IMHO, the L/S allows all 4 gospels to inform them about the content of a gospel message. Your system, on the other hand, sees the primacy of the gospel of John in evangelism - and must do things to the gospel of John itself; like redefine pisteuo, and drive a manmade wedge into John 8:30-32 in order to get around the plain reading of that passage which clearly teaches that the reception of eternal life and the beginnings of discipleship happen in the same instant.

If you wish to keep the straw man alive by your insistence that we preach "cheap grace" and by saying that we teach that one must somehow give of himself to Him before He will save us - and this after having been corrected on this matter MANY times over the past 3 years - well then, I'm sorry, but I can't see how a discussion can go forward when one side refuses correction and instead reverts back to old talking points, and refuted arguments.

I'll hang with you here in this thread only for the sake of defending L/S against your false charges. After that I see that there is no point in continuing to debate with you, TFGA or the GES. It's pointless.

You are my sister in Christ, and as such I love you. I count you as my friend. In fact you are my oldest blog-friend; but these discussions are fruitless if you keep going back to talking points without actually engaging my thoughts...

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 1:22 PM
Mark,

I think your being grossly unfair & unreasonable. To say that Rose refuses correction by you reeks with arrogance IMO.

And the passage in Mark 8 that you say speaks to the unsaved is wrong. Jesus is clearly speaking to Disciples after they try to tell Him He should not take up His cross.

By Kris, at 12/25/2008 6:16 PM
Kris.

An L/S advocate speaks up to defend his position against false charges, he being in a position to know the L/S position, and he is being arrogant? Interesting. Charges of what L/S teaches are flying around here. That makes an advocate of the L/S position to be in a unique place to correct those making the charges, no?

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 8:00 PM
Mark,

I understand defending things. But when you defend the L/S position of grace alone and include passages that require works such as Mark 8:32 it's honestly hard to understand.

Your arguments are based on a system that teaches regeneration in order to have faith right?

If so why do you believe this system is the only correct system?

Thanks for engaging.

By Kris, at 12/25/2008 8:27 PM
Before Chafer one would be hard-pressed to find commentators and expositors who taught that the call to salvation and the call to discipleship were two different calls. This was a new inovation beginning with Chafer, and carried on by Ryrie and Hodges/Wilkin. It has been roundly denounced since Warfield in Chafer's time; Philip Mauro ten years later; and every Reformed writer since. Even dispensationalists have denounced it as well.

Yes I believe regeneration preceeds faith, as does Ryrie. Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 5:1.

Why do I think this is correct? It is the plain reading of those verses plus the dancing and gymnastics that nonCals do around those verses in order to maintain their position.

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 9:53 PM
Check out dispensationalist Ironside had to say on these matters...
http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/series/10442

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 9:55 PM
Please also check Mark 8:34-38 again. There were more than the disciples there. See verse 34 "He called the *people* to Himself, with His disciples also".... Many of those were hearing Him for the first time.

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 10:11 PM
If you look at Acts 26:18-20 we see that Christ's cross-work made it possible for Paul to preach that men should repent, and do works befitting repentance. There is a turning that takes place in those who belong to Christ - turning from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God... This is no mere position change. There is experiential change as well. There is that new heart with new Godly desires; there is the translation into the kingdom of God's Son. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the Kingdom realized in its present form - God dwelling within His people, moving them to walk in His ways; hence the preaching of repentance to the unsaved.

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 10:19 PM
Coversion is the work of God on the heart once dead in trespasses and sins. Conversion is faith which inevitably leads to repentance - a new life.

By mark pierson, at 12/25/2008 10:22 PM
Hi Rose

Mark said:
Before Chafer one would be hard-pressed to find commentators and expositors who taught that the call to salvation and the call to discipleship were two different calls. This was a new inovation beginning with Chafer, and carried on by Ryrie and Hodges/Wilkin. It has been roundly denounced since Warfield in Chafer's time; Philip Mauro ten years later; and every Reformed writer since. Even dispensationalists have denounced it as well.

What saith the Scriptures, it does not matter what men taught. If we went by the majority we would be Catholics! And now you see many Protestants going back into the fold of the Catholics believing in a faith and works proposition just as Mark is propagating. Luther called the book of James a straw epistle because he did not understand that it was speaking of a justification by works before men. We must be Berean’s as Zane Hodges was who harmonized the book of James with a gift that can be taken freely. The believers in James who had received the gift that comes down from above, other words they were born again but they needed to be saved (James 1:17,18,21). I bring up the book of James for the purpose to prove that the majority taught it as your faith must have works or your not really born again. Just as Mark is saying about repentance how it was taught in the past, so was James but it was taught wrong! Don’t ever go by the majority, but be a Berean!
Mark said:
Yes I believe regeneration preceeds faith, as does Ryrie. Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 5:1.

This just shows we don’t just go by what men say but we need to check it out, a lot of these men haven’t been able to shake their false Calvinistic roots just as with J.B.Hixson and just the elect children going to heaven. This belief would have God pouring the living water down people’s throats, rather then what it clearly gives, an invitation to drink of it freely! (John 4:10;Rev 22:17)

Mark said:
Why do I think this is correct? It is the plain reading of those verses plus the dancing and gymnastics that nonCals do around those verses in order to maintain their position.

Mark is clearly putting works and faith together and he is calling that harmonizing!
What the FG believers have done is harmonize as I’ve shown with James and Paul and John. John taught clearly that the women at the well needed to know what the gift of God was, and who it was that asked her for a drink. And this harmonizes with Rev 22:17 water that can be taken freely, not poured down your throat!

Mark said:
If you look at Acts 26:18-20 we see that Christ's cross-work made it possible for Paul to preach that men should repent, and do works befitting repentance. There is a turning that takes place in those who belong to Christ - turning from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God... This is no mere position change. There is experiential change as well. There is that new heart with new Godly desires; there is the translation into the kingdom of God's Son. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the Kingdom realized in its present form - God dwelling within His people, moving them to walk in His ways; hence the preaching of repentance to the unsaved.

This should be a big red flag “works befitting repentance.” This is why Mark MUST have regeneration FIRST so he can say it’s not of works but a gift. Because he puts faith and repentance together as something that must be done. But what saith the Scriptures?
“Testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:21
They are two different things! Works of repentance cannot be mixed with faith (Rom11:6).
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Zane Hodges hit the nail on the head again in his book “Harmony With God.”

If eternal life depended on our repentance, we could NEVER know whether our stauts before God was secure, since at anytime (if we know our own hearts!) we could wander away and need to repent again.
Those who teach that repentance is necessary for eternal salvation can have no true assurance of their eternal destiny. And if they claim to have this, they are either fooling themselves or us or both! (Zane Hodges “Harmony With God” p. 123).
Mark has no assurance because he has combined his works of repentance to his faith which could turn out to be a spurious faith.

alvin

By alvin, at 12/26/2008 12:33 AM
Mark,

Not sure which comment to reply to. If regeneration preceeds faith then how can we explain 2 Corithians 3:16?

I think when a person is regenerated is unclear. I can look at the passage in 2 Cor and conclude that regeneration happens when the veil is lifted & that happens after a person turns to the Lord & believes.

I may be a few days returning.

By Kris, at 12/26/2008 12:35 AM
Hi Rose

I was watching a movie tonight called “The Unforegiven” with Burt Landcaster in it. They had hung a man who had told the truth about their sister being stolen from the Kiowa’s. It reminded me of the book I’ve been reading by Zane Hodges called “Harmony With God.” Why it reminded me of the book is because the Israelites who crucified Christ for telling the truth, and they said at the trial “let His blood be on us and our children.” They were unforgiven and had offended God by crucifying their Christ, and it wasn’t until they repented and were baptized would they be forgiven and given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Forgiveness was personal and had to do with harmony with God. Eternal life was given freely to anyone who believed in Jesus as the Christ. 1 John 5:1 tells us the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. All the Palestians who had rejected John the Baptist and Jesus and His disciples call to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, before they would be in harmony with God they needed to meet these conditions. Paul is an example of the Palestians who before he would be in harmony with God had to be baptized washing away his sins, then he would receive the Holy Spirit. Remember the Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost, see John 7:39. Eternal life was given simply by faith alone, but even though the Holy Spirit was a gift, He was only given at first to those who were in harmony with God. Paul when he was on the Damascus road believed in Jesus for eternal life, and you notice in Acts 9:6 Paul asks Jesus “Lord what do you want me to do?” This is the same statement the Jews in Acts 2:37 said “what shall we do?” We see that Jesus told Paul he needed to “ Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” And you notice in vrs. 17 Ananias calls Saul “Brother Saul.” And we find out in Acts 22:15 when Paul is retelling the story ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ Only then was Paul in harmony with His God who he had deeply offended. Remember eternal life is a gift that could be taken freely but forgiveness was personal. Cornelius is an example of how Gentiles were saved, and how we are saved. He had already repented by turning away from idolatry to the true God. So repentance did not save him but put him on the road to harmony with God, just like the prodigal son. Whether a person is saved or not repentance puts them on the road to forgiveness. It wasn’t until Cornelius heard the saving message that he believed and received eternal life and forgiveness of sins and also the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then he was baptized! Cornelius didn’t have to wait to be baptized in order for his sins to be forgiven, or to receive the Holy Spirit because he had not deeply offended God by crucifying Him.
Anyway I gave you a little taste of a great book, and you even got a western thrown in for free . . .Ha!Ha!

alvin

By alvin, at 12/26/2008 3:45 AM
Alvin, thanks for the laughs!

Alvin says, "What saith the Scriptures, it does not matter what men taught. "

So Alvin, after you said that to me...Just how many times did you mention the teachings of Zane Hodges?!?!?!

For the record: I'm saved by faith alone in Christ alone - He is my only hope of salvation, period. Works play absolutely no part in my justification - not to bring it about, not to improve my position within it. Works flow from a justified heart, God the Holy Spirit Who indwells me being the life-blood. It is Christ's life within and issuing forth.

I have complete assurance of my eternal security.

Alvin, I've seen Colin call you on these things before. This is why the discussion can never progress with you people. All you do is go back to all your old talking points.

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 10:00 AM
Kris,
Indeed the veil is taken away when one comes to Christ. Look earlier in that same chapter, to verse 6 "the Spirit gives life". When does He give life? Are we to believe that He gives life to those dead people who call out from the grave for it? No. He gives life and the first things to issue forth from that life is repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 10:11 AM
The benefits of Christ's crosswork are received through faith; in this case the veil coming off the eyes.

Let us remember that the salvation experience with the Calvinist is the very same one as the nonCal. The difference is the explanation of how it all comes about. Where we differ is that the Calvinist says that one's salvation is wholly the monergist work of God, not a cooperative effort.

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 10:19 AM
So Mark, are you saying the Spirit indwells us before we have faith in order that we can have faith?

By Kris, at 12/26/2008 12:19 PM
I'm saying that regeneration takes place before we can believe. It is clear from 2 Thess. 2:13 that a sanctification process takes place in/on the unbelieving elect one. After that the Spirit quickens that elect one upon his/her hearing the Gospel - James 1:18; 1Peter 1:23; Romans 10:17. He works in concert with His word in bringing the elect one to Himself. And, no, He does not regenerate any amount of time before the hearing of the word. It is a simultaneous, in concert working with His Word.

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 1:10 PM
Let's call it indwelling with a purpose - to take an fallen, unbelieving, rebellious, unregenerate sinner, and turn them into a believing, repentant disciple of Christ, transforming that one into the image of Christ; and making of that one a temple of God.
MONERGISM, unmerrited favor...

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 2:35 PM
Hi Rose

Hi Mark, I’m glad you got a good laugh out of it but I actually wasn’t saying what I said for your benefit. I was speaking to Bereans like Zane Hodges was. He use to be stuck in the orthodox Calvinistic mold as a mild Calvinist. I know there are other Bereans who read here and have read Zanes writings on James and because they are Bereans and searched the Scriptures they came to the same conclusion. Just because someone says what you did doesn’t mean anything, if the professing Church could be so wrong on James and Calvinism and Catholicism being orthodox. Well I would just encourage everyone to be like Zane Hodges was and not stuck in a mold where you end up making salvation by works and faith supposably harmonize! Now that’s something to laugh at IF it wasn’t so tragic.
I think if were honest we can see where men like Charles Stanley and Vernon MaGee said things that also contradicted, even though I believe they were godly men of God. Which just goes to show we have to keep being Bereans, and check out by Scripture what everyone says.

Mark said: Before Chafer one would be hard-pressed to find Commentators and expositors who taught that the call to salvation and the call to discipleship were two different calls. This was a new inovation beginning with Chafer, and carried on by Ryrie and Hodges/Wilkins, it has been roundly denounced since Warfield in Chafer’s time; Philip Mauro ten years later; and every Reformed writer since. Even dispensationalists have denounced it as well.

These same ones I’m sure had the book of James contradicting a free gift of eternal life saying that your faith had to have works, which just goes to prove the majority is seldom correct! Be a Berean!!!
Off to work I go!
alvin

By alvin, at 12/26/2008 4:15 PM
Hi Rose

I want to make something clear before I head off to work. I’m NOT saying that Mark isn’t saved. If he ever believed in Jesus for His gift of eternal life then no matter how messed up he is now he is still saved. What I am saying is what he believes can’t save anyone. It’s like the Galatians they were saved by believing in Jesus for His gift of eternal life. But then they started believing in Jesus plus their works, which is another gospel like Mark’s faith-works gospel. The tragedy of this false teaching is the next generation who hears the Jesus plus gospel, cannot be saved by that false gospel. That is how it is with any belief system that adds anything to the free gift of eternal life. Remember, just like the women at the well, Jesus said she must know the gift of God and who it is who asked her for a drink. And THEN by receiving which is believing she would never thirst again. Mark has Jesus pouring the water down the women at the wells throat because of his teaching of regeneration preceeding faith. But remember she had to know the gift of God and who it was who said to her ‘give Me a drink’ BEFORE Jesus would give her that living water.

Have a good day

Alvin
Note: Vernon MaGee in his second to last sermon did make clear that LS was a heresy!

By alvin, at 12/26/2008 5:05 PM
Hi Rose,
Let me see if I got this right: If I'm a good Berean I'll track with Zane Hodges. And so Alvin, just because you said that it must be true, right?

Well, with that, I say Goodbye...

If y'all want to talk to me some more then feel free to come on over to my Blue-Collar blog. The last coupla posts there are for conversing with you. Please feel free to bring this conversation over there. I'm done here.

Have a good day Rose.

Happy New Year.
Mark

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 6:19 PM
BTW, Alvin, you never answered those two questions I asked you. Please do so at my blog.

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 6:29 PM
I'm just amazed. Alvin, how many times have you mentioned Zane Hodges' name here?!?! And this from one who exhorted us earlier to go by the scriptures and not pay so much attention to the writings of man. I leave here shaking my head...

By mark pierson, at 12/26/2008 6:34 PM
Mark,
I was busy on Christmas day and then yesterday as well. I could not take part here. Now I look and it seems you are heading out and away because of Alvin.

This is my blog. I thought you and Kris were having a profitable discussion. I also told you that I wanted to answer your comment soon and talk about it with you.

I agree that you and Alvin probably aren't going anywhere. It doesn't seem profitable for the two of you to go on.

A couple of thoughts: I should think that Alvin would never visit your blog after you publicly said there that you were "trying to set a trap" for him. OTOH, I disagree with ALvin saying that you don't have assurance of your salvation. I think Alvin should not say such things. However, I do want him to be welcome here. But he shouldn't say that to either you nor Colin. He might want to say that he doesn't undersatnd how it is possible for you to have assurance given your theology. That is really what I think he meant, Mark, but I agree those are not the words of understanding that we want to hear from others.

Now, I really try to be fair-handed on these things. I happen to think (and I have heard from many on both sides of the debate) that my blog is a good place to have these discussions.

I am sorry I was not here on Christmas to moderate better.

Before I take the time to answer your original comment now that I have time: are you gone now... or are you going to discuss things further with me or Kris here on the most reasonable blog in blogland? ;~)

By Rose~, at 12/27/2008 10:19 AM
Alvin,
Dear brother, when you say this: Mark has no assurance because he has combined his works of repentance to his faith which could turn out to be a spurious faith.

It really is offensive. I think Mark, like many reformed folks, knows that he is saved.
I think I understand you to be saying that you can't see how it is possible for Mark to have assurance given his theology. Is that right?

We have to be careful how we say things about what goes on in the hearts and minds of others. Me too.

I am glad you are here :)

By Rose~, at 12/27/2008 10:37 AM
Thanks Rose for pointing that out, that’s exactly what I meant! I could see the way I said it is offensive and for that I apologize to Colin and Mark. I need to articulate better, “I can’t understand how it can be possible for them to have assurance when they attach works as something that HAS to happen.”

I was listening to a CD by Bob Wilkins last night here are some of what he said concerning the Reformed view: Three problems with Perseverance Theology and it destroying assurance!
So perseverance theology destroys assurance, so what? There’s three big, big, big so what’s! The first one is that this false gospel who can’t save anybody. If you teach this you’re not going to come to a person and say. Look Jesus said: “he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” He died on the cross for the sins of the WHOLE world, He removed the sin bearer so that all a person has to do is believe in Him and when they do they are secure forever no matter what they do in the future they couldn’t lose it, no matter what, there’s no perseverance required . . .No nothing!
They can’t say that because they don’t believe that. So what they have to do is say something that is consistent with, which is something about faith being commitment, of faith being a decission to follow, of discipleship. The call to discipleship being the call to faith. And with the fact that you’ll know if you really believe based on your life and you see your good works accumulating then you’ll say I’m probably one of the elect. And if you die and you found out you persevered you joyfully wake up in the Kingdom, if not you’ll bring glory to God suffering in the lake of fire. I don’t think they share that part.
I’ll finish the CD tonight but that was a little taste. The point is their free gift they offer is a man-made system and therefore is not really free at all but cost everything.
Off to work..

alvin

By alvin, at 12/27/2008 6:53 PM
I wonder if "Free Grace Theology" could exist without "Lordship Salvation?"

What I mean, is that FG basically seems to negate LS; and then builds their theology on that negation. In other words, it often, at least in threads like this, does not come off as having its own positive platform. For example, with FG, we still have "perseverance theology," it's just that the referent has been shifted---so that the FG'r perseveres for reward (and hopes of being in the 'inner circle of Jesus'); while the LS'r perseveres for salvation (justification). All I see with FG is a need for the framework provided by LS; w/o it the FG view would really have no framework.

I say all this as a non-advocate of Lordship salvation.

Hello Rose.

By Anonymous, at 12/28/2008 3:05 AM
Good morning Rose/Bobby:

I hope that you both had a good Christmas.

Bobby: I must take issue with your statement that "the LS'r perseveres for salvation (justification.

Assuming that your definition of Ls'r refers to the long established Reformed position, then it is more accurate to say that the perseverance is because of salvation, rather than for salvation. When this is understood, then the false charges of a works salvation simply melt away in snows in spring. If it remains minsunderstood, then a carciature has been created and that serves no one.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/28/2008 5:06 AM
Rose, I was thinking of my eblog that I sort of abandoned a year ago... I miss it's focus of studying the scripture. I may come back to it this year. Come visit.
This post of yours was very thought provoking lots of good insights. Keep being reasonable:^)
Jacinda

By Jacinda, at 12/28/2008 10:20 AM
Goodnight,

merry Christmas.

I disagree. When I refer to LS, I'm referring to the idiosyncratic version of Federal Calvinism, reflected in the teachings of John MacArthur.

When I say that for the LS'r perseverance results in salvation, I wasn't confusing the cause or the effect. Indeed, an LS'r WILL persevere, because Christ has already persevered, and applied His active obedience to the elect's account. If Christ had to persevere for salvation, which He did, according to the Federal/juridical framing; then I think we can accurately say that the elect persevere for salvation . . . if they don't they aren't elect.

By Anonymous, at 12/28/2008 3:59 PM
Hi Bobby,

I was simply trying to avoid the idea (at least from a Reformed point of view) that our perseverance led to our justification, rather than invariably flowed from it.

If our justification depends on or flows from our perseverance in any shape or form, then it may be said to be by works, whether in part or in whole. I disagree with that. Whom God justifies, He glorifes and this fact ensures our perseverance unto the end.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/28/2008 4:58 PM
Hi Rose,

Hopefully Mark will return and continue to engage.
I will respond to his last comments to me so he won't be waiting.

Mark,

I believe that the Holy Spirit's convicting work is necessary for salvation. In that I will not argue or debate. I am not sure that the Holy Spirit "enables" us to have faith.

In the 2 Thess passage you cited I see the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration but it also states man's responsibility of faith in the truth.

I think we agree regeneration is necessary, it may just be at what point this takes place is where there is questions.

Although this should not be a major issue it seems it must be with Calvinist because so much hangs on the doctrine of total depravity.

I believe in the total depravity of our flesh, no one is good not even one & none of us seeks after God on our own. What I think Calvinist have done is turn total depravity into total inability to believe. Which in turn must lead to doctrines of regeneration in order to have faith because man is so depraved he is inable to exercise faith after hearing the truth.

I think it is in this ability to either believe the truth or reject the truth when convicted by the Spirit is where God is just and the justifier of those who believe.(Rom 3:26)

One last thing to make clear. The Holy Spirit's convicting work is to convince the world of sin and that sin is unbelief in Christ.( John 16:8,9)

By Kris, at 12/28/2008 5:19 PM
Goodnight,

I just wrote a rather lengthy comment for more clarification, and wouldn't you know it, it was swallowed by cyberspace.

Here's a shortened version of what I said.

>I am Reformed, Scottish Reformed.
>There are many more streams represented by the term, Reformed other than Westminster, Dordtrechian orthodoxy.
>It is not fruitful or helpful for people to take the label 'Reformed', today, and assume that their perspective is the only historical label that correlates to 'Reformed'.
>For further info that establishes my point, contra the popular appropriation of the term by contemporary followers of Federal/English Calvinsim see Janice Knight's: Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, T. F. Torrance's Scottish Theology, Ron Frost's chapter on Richard Sibbes in the book The Devoted Life, and my own blog with many posts that illustrate this point.
>Scottish Reformation theology sees salvation and the incarnation/atonement from an ontological frame vs. English/Federalism's nominalistic/juridical frame . . . which ends up emphasizing a more trinitarian approach to salvation vs. the monadic version emphasized by Federal theology.

Goodnight said:

If our justification depends on or flows from our perseverance in any shape or form, then it may be said to be by works, whether in part or in whole. I disagree with that. Whom God justifies, He glorifes and this fact ensures our perseverance unto the end.

Did you miss what I said, then? That's what I just said! In the Federal scheme, Christ did and does persevere for salvation . . . which is applied by the Spirit, to the elect. If one does not persevere, then they are not elect (in the Federal scheme). So in other words, it's not your perseverance that God 'ensures' at all (which is one of the problems that I see with the Federal scheme here, election, at a functional level, as evinced by you here, ends up anthropocentric and "my assurance" driven vs. christocentric and "Christ's assurance" driven) . . . it is His life that is 'assured', and thus anyone in Him (the elect) are 'surely' His (btw, this is where Calvin is at odds with Federal Calvinists, given his view of election relative to Christ's constant and continued mediation of salvation to the elect from the throne Heb 7:25).

In short, you/we have nothing assured, relative 'our' salvation . . . it is Christ's salvation as He vicariously assumed humanity into His life, and mediates salvation to all who will by 'His vicarious faith/trust'. If His life is stable, and solid, then His 'shared' salvation with us certainly is thus.

By Anonymous, at 12/28/2008 5:33 PM
Hi Rose

Calvinist believe something but it’s not what God offers.

It’s often been said, “you can’t believe what you don’t understand.”

So comprehending what God is OFFERING us is a prerequisite to BELIEVING it!

The women at the well had to know WHAT the GIFT of God was FIRST!

That ONE drink and she would NEVER thirst!

It had NOTHING to do with her persevering in GOOD WORKS, but all to do with the GIVING and RECEIVING of a GIFT!

Calvinist will say you will prove you NEVER really had eternal life in the FIRST PLACE if you fail to persevere in faith and GOOD WORKS.

I agree with Bob Wilkins when he said: It’s my contention that a true five or six point Calvinist doesn’t really believe in eternal security. Doesn’t really believe in the preservation of the saints.
Because eternal security means that you’re eternal secure whether you persevere or not.
And if you say, if you don’t persevere then you never had it in the first place, you do not believe in the biblical doctrine of eternal security. You believe in some man-made doctrine you’ve chosen to call the preservation of the saints.

Off to work
alvin

By alvin, at 12/28/2008 6:02 PM
Good morning Rose/Bobby:

Thanks for your reply, Bobby. To be honest, you are a bit above me on these things. I hardly know where to start.

I'll settle instead for where we agree, rather than disagree.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/29/2008 4:03 AM
Kris, you say " What I think Calvinist have done is turn total depravity into total inability.."

No, that arrises exegetically. See Romans 8:7; John 3:19-21; Romans 3:9-19. If the Holy Spirit were convicting the world in the manner which you suggest would that not have been considered in the Romans 3:10-21 passage? Man's hostility against God is aroused through the preaching of the cross. Would you say God the Holy Spirit's convicting of a person's unbelief in Christ is more efficacious in some more than others? Or, would you say that some are more sensitive to His convicting?

The calvinist maintains that all are dead in trespasses and sins and hostile to the truth, and equally so. It is only the election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit that separates the one so elected from the rest of hostile humanity; that elect one being convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement to come.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 8:22 AM
Hi all,

Anonymous's contribution here is from CH Spurgeon's "All of Grace" book. (I recognised the style before I checked it out on "Google")

It is a lot easier read here:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/allofgrace13.html

Good stuff!

Regards,

P/s Rose...do you think that Spurgeon is reading yuor blog from beyond the grave? :o)

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/29/2008 8:55 AM
You're right, Colin. That is easier to read so I just went ahead and erased the anonymous comment. It was so long.

...besides, anonymous didn't greet me.

...see: I can be like the Gestapo too.

heehee

By Rose~, at 12/29/2008 11:34 AM
...see: I can be like the Gestapo too."

Is this a FG variation of being saved and living like the Devil?

:o)

Regards, (as you Goosestep all over the place)

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/29/2008 11:56 AM
Hi Jacinda!
Thanks for stopping by. Did you read these comments? I brought up our mutual friend and got some people praying for her.

God bless you and the family.

By Rose~, at 12/29/2008 1:23 PM
Bobby,
I don't think so. I totally disagree with your first comment. Then again, I am not as smart as you.

By Rose~, at 12/29/2008 1:24 PM
Mark, you stated:

"Yes I believe regeneration preceeds faith, as does Ryrie. Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 5:1."

Where did you get your information that Charles Ryrie believes that regeneration precedes faith? I'm assuming that you possibly read his statement quickly and missed what he really said. Not a big deal if you did since I do it all the time.

I find that Ryrie believes that faith and regeneration occur simultaneously. Here is what Charles Ryrie said concerning regeneration:

"In the Reformed statement of the
ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given
new life in order to be able to believe. While this is admittedly stated only as a logi-
cal order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a
sinner has new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? Of course,
there can be no chronological order; both regeneration and faith occur at the same
time‖ (Basic Theology [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986; reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1999],
326).

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 1:45 PM
Mark,
I don't want to offend you. :~)
Can I ask you this:
Do you feel that the Catholic religion makes a "trade for grace"? I mean, would you agree that in the Catholic system, one is promised grace by doing something good to gain it... like a trade?

Would you agree that whatever good the person can do in that Catholic system to gain God's grace would cheapen said grace... and that if grace is rather compeletey free and apart from anything that I can offer to God in the way of works or committment, that then it is *free* and thus not cheapened?

Once a couple in our church actually GAVE us a car. They knew we needed a car - we were just starting out and they had many means. They gave us this old car that had tons of miles on it and was in pretty bad shape but it helped get us through some months. It was FREE, not cheap. Now if they had called us and told us they would like to give us a car and we offered to pay them $100 and they agreed, then it wouldn't be FREE, it would be CHEAP. One could say it was VIRTUALLY FREE, but not ABSOLUTELY FREE. Committment and/or surrender in order to gain grace reminds me of the same thing. If you don't believe in that, then I am glad. I have seen you make statements both ways, so I am not sure how you stand on it.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but the way you would negate that description of your view is by saying that the whole committment/surrender is a gift from God, it being part of the new nature that is also a gift of God which one received before one did the committing and surrendering. This is your regenersation preceding faith. Is that right?

I guess for those of us who don't hold to regeneration preceeding faith (RPF), we can't digest your "defense" (I hate to use that word, I don't mean to turn negative) because we don't accept RPF. RPF is like the rationalization for the view - without it, it ends up resembling the "trade something for grace" view I was describing. Does that make sense? See... so I and others are not trying to misrepresent your view, we just are missing that rationalization (RPF) - we don't buy that rationalization - so we can't see your view the way you see your view. It looks like something different to us.

I hope that makes sense.

By Rose~, at 12/29/2008 1:45 PM
Rose,

that's find, you can disagree, but you know, I still would like to know why . . . I don't think disagreeing is enough, although you can disagree, not know why, and be justified in this---but then you still need to work at justifying it :-).

As far as regeneration preceding faith thing . . . I would want to frame it differently. I would want to say that Jesus precedes faith, and that the key to understanding how this is, relative to us, is to look at the incarnation.

Did Jesus take us, before we were 'saved' to the cross with Him? Did He objectively provide salvation for all humanity in His incarnation (i.e. cross-work)? If you say yes, then Jesus precedes faith, at an ontological level (in other words He, in Himself, provided the Spirit given capacity for man to look away from himself [bondage of the will], and finally look at His beautiful face). If you agree to vicarious/substitutionary incarnation and atonement; then even you believe in 'regeneration' prior to 'faith', it's just that you 'say' it different.

The alternative is Pelagianism, or semi-P., but you don't want to hold to that.

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 3:44 PM
Bobby Grow said,

Did Jesus take us, before we were 'saved' to the cross with Him? Did He objectively provide salvation for all humanity in His incarnation (i.e. cross-work)?

Is this limited atonement or universalism we are talking about here?

I think the message is believe and thou shalt be saved and not be saved and thou shalt believe.

Maybe a good article to read Rose is:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:cFzopwlfbVgJ:www.dts.edu/utility/file.aspx%3FFileID%3D383+rene+lopez+on+faith&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Be sure to read it. It is by Rene Lopez called 'Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?'

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 4:03 PM
Anon.,

I typically don't care to respond to someone who is not brave enough to identify them self; but I will make an exception this time.

It's universal atonement, but not universal salvation. It's universal atonement--objectively, and non-universal salvation--subjectively.

And it's fine to believe things, we all do; but to establish, theologically, why we believe things is another; which you aren't attempting to do. If you did, we would quickly realize that your view flows from a semi-Pelagian anthropology, where man has a semi-autonomy from God (which must assume certain elements from Gen 3 to be sound). The challenge is to frame salvation talk from a completely "Christ-centred" frame, and maintain some sense of 'human-freedom' in the process. Thankfully the incarnation (the God/Man relationship) can provide just that. Of course in this frame, man is relativised by THE proto-typical man Jesus. We must see any 'capacity' we have, by the Spirit, in Him . . . if not, we end up abstracting a humanity from the humanity that Christ is, and subordinate Christ's supremacy to OUR supremacy in OUR salvation.

Scripture makes clear (Col 1), that salvation is Christ, it's not a quality, it is a Person.

As far as the Order of Salvation, we can speak of chronology, and such, and we should, scripture does . . . but then we also need to look at the 'inner logic' that shapes that discussion; and when we do, we realize all, and more, that I have been sketching above.

I think the title of Lopez's article assumes a false dichotomy . . . 'faith is Christ', and in Christ, faith is humanly exercised (remembering Christ's trust in the Father . . . when we trust in the Lord for salvation, we are only echoing Jesus' trust exemplified at the cross "Father into thy hands I commit my spirit").

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 4:31 PM
Here's some articles I have posted on the issue of the extent of the atonement, and its relationship to salvation:

Universal Atonement, but not Universal Salvation

and this one, which gets at human freedom and God's sovereignty; this one is more of a quote, and I would want to qualify it a little (in regards to the Spirit's role here), but it gives a good idea:

Human Freedom and God's Sovereignty

and this one on universal election in Christ, and I would want to nuance this further; but again, it provides an helpful trajectory:

Universal Election in Christ

in Christ

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 4:47 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 5:45 PM
Even Antonio recognizes that many FG'rs are Calvinist, minus the perseverance point; Joseph Dillow (Reign of the Servants King) comes to mind, and Ryrie would be another.

By Anonymous, at 12/29/2008 5:53 PM
Rose,
Again with the Roman Catholic thingy? Can you say "genetic fallacy"?

Rose, can you exegetically break up what we see of the results of Christ's cross-work in Acts 26:18-20? Because of what He accomplished on the cross Paul was able to preach that man should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. Until YOU can show me exegetically that the opening of people's eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God can be separated from the experience of the forgiveness of sins then my position stands. Until YOU can show me that our having been translated into the kingdom of His Son does not translate into an experience as well as a position change, then my position stands. Until YOU can show me that having been crucified with Christ does not also work out experientially in the life of the believer, my position stands.

Jesus said that we are to preach repentance and remission of sins in His name to all nations.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 6:04 PM
Anonymous,
"An interesting sidelight- ''repent'' in Acts 2:38 is a command. We repent. We do it. And yet God gives rependents (Acts 11:18). This is analogous to believeing. ''Believe is a command (Acts 16:31). We do it. It is truely our faith (Romans 4:5...) And yet the whole of salvation, including faith, is the gift of God (Epgesians 2:8-9)."
"So Great Salvation", page 87, second paragraph down.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 6:23 PM
I misquoted Ryrie in the regeneration preceeds faith issue. I was wrong. I'm sorry. I retract that statement.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 6:27 PM
Rose, a plain reading of Mark 8:34-38 would show that portion of scripture was spoken to His disciples as well as people outside of His group of disciples. It is for all who would come to Him. It is a nonstarter to insist that the call to salvation and the call to discipleship are not one and the same. A plain reading of either the Great Commission or John 8:30-32 would suggest that they are one and the same.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 6:35 PM
Greetings your highness,:)

Your response to Mark at 1:45 today is very reasonable. You do a much better job and printing out your thoughts & sometimes mine than I could ever do.

Mark, Rose's last comment to you describes how I feel as well. It is not on purpose or meant to demean your thoughts. It is just how it comes across to someone who doesn't hold to (what we think) are unclear doctrines.

That is why I am conversing with you on this regeneration teaching you believe. In hopes that I can understand where you are coming from either in scripture or someone elses teaching from scripture and therefore have the possiblity to have my mind changed or again at least better understand your POV. Oh and thanks for continuing to converse with me.

mark pierson said...
Kris, you say " What I think Calvinist have done is turn total depravity into total inability.."

"No, that arrises exegetically. See Romans 8:7; John 3:19-21; Romans 3:9-19. If the Holy Spirit were convicting the world in the manner which you suggest would that not have been considered in the Romans 3:10-21 passage?"

I don't see 'exegetically' where these verses state inability. Romans 8:7 is talking about a believer who sets his mind on the flesh instead of the Spirit and therefore his "mind" is hostile. The verses in John just don't preach inablility to my understanding.

As far as the Holy Spirit convicting the world "in the manner which I suggest". I didn't suggest that... it is clear from the passage in John that is what He convicts the world of along with righteousness and judgment.

As far as the passage you quoted in Romans 3 the passage speaks for itself and unless a person believes what the passage is saying then they have no need to believe in Christ for righteousness.

You said:
"Man's hostility against God is aroused through the preaching of the cross. Would you say God the Holy Spirit's convicting of a person's unbelief in Christ is more efficacious in some more than others? Or, would you say that some are more sensitive to His convicting?"

I think efficacious & sensitive are the same thing.

you said:
"The calvinist maintains that all are dead in trespasses and sins and hostile to the truth, and equally so. It is only the election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit that separates the one so elected from the rest of hostile humanity; that elect one being convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement to come."

How come being dead in trespasses and sins means inablility to believe? Couldn't being dead in trespasses and sins just mean inability to do good just like the verses in Romans you quoted from Isaiah?

Thanks
Kris

By Kris, at 12/29/2008 6:44 PM
Kris,
Romans 8:7 is talking about an unregenerate person, as are verses 5-6,and 8. On the other hand verses 1 "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit", along with verse 4, 9, and 14 are talking about regenerate persons.

Romans 8:7 teaches that unregenerate people are hostile to God.

John 3:19-20 shows man's love for sin in preference of love for the light.

I don't just teach inability, but, and more so, unwillingness. Man is hostile to his Creator. He loves his sin,and is not at all interested in knowing Him.

Again, Romans 3:9-20 would have made some mention of some sort of preveniant grace if such was available to all.

It is man's hostility and hatred of God that must be dealt with.

Please try again to answer my question about whether or not God's convicting the sinner is more efficacious for some more than others? Or would you say some are more sensitive than others?

Surely you weren't hoping I'd be satisfied with the answer you gave. Why do some respond while others do not?

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 7:29 PM
Rose,
why is it that your old friends did not want to hang with you anymore after you'd been saved a while??????

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 8:30 PM
Rose, Kris, Alvin, Anon -
We all share the same salvation. You have holy desires for God like reading and studying His word; praying; witnessing; attending church and loving the saints therein. In short you are living repentant faithful lives. Why? Christ's crosswork. The result of His crosswork is a new creation; which you all are. You have gone through trials and tribulations and have stayed faithful; again, signs of the new creation.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 8:36 PM
Rose,
That whole "trading for grace" thing...Hmmm. Can you show where *I* have taught that. I'll try not to be offended...

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 8:50 PM
This is where things can get ugly. To be honest I think you're building a straw man in order to knock him down. I'll stick around a little longer. But please don't keep that up. I lose respect for people who insist on doing these things.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 8:57 PM
Mark,

I will comment on your last comment first & respond to the other later.

I disagree that Christ crosswork is why people seem to do all the things you listed. JW, LDS, & 7 day Adventers all do these things also. I believe most of their followers are not new creation or born again. Which is even another reason we can't judge a believer by their works.

Christ's crosswork propiated our sins & only those who believe in Him for eternal life are new creations in Him.

By Kris, at 12/29/2008 9:09 PM
Kris,
I was pointing to you and the people here on this blog and illustrating that the new birth is evident in you all as in the Calvinist. I was trying to show that the salvation experience is the same between Calvinists and non calvinists. The only difference is in the theory of how it came about.

Please try to stay on track here.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:15 PM
"Christ's crosswork propiated our sins & only those who believe in Him for eternal life are new creations in Him."

Preaching to the chior here? Was I supposed to disagree? Do you really understand L/S, or are you just going by what the Hodges system says we believe?

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:19 PM
A truely regenerate person will show a changed life. The Colossian and Thessalonican churches came to believe and went on to experience practical sanctification in the midst of severe trials. Why? The work of the Spirit. He brought about that new lifwe within even during the worst of persecution. Why in their lives, but not others?

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:25 PM
The regeneration experience comes under heavy fire with you people and your system. What a shame.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:30 PM
Mark,

You missed what I was saying. You cannot look at all the things you listed that we or anyone else does and determine they are born again

I do agree that we are saved the same way, through faith, how that actually happens is what our discussions are leading to.

By Kris, at 12/29/2008 9:32 PM
I was not looking at those things to determine whether you are saved or not. I know some people here personally. I've seen their trust in Jesus alone for salvation. I was giving you and the rest the benefit of the doubt that you have the same experience as those that I know here. I know the testimony of some, and I see the accompannying evidences.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:38 PM
Kris
Jesus Christ is my only hope of salvation. I was saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Works did not justify me, nor did they improve my standing before God. If you and Rose don't believe that then I'm sorry.

By mark pierson, at 12/29/2008 9:41 PM
Mark,

Your former question on responding. I said earlier both efecous & sensitive are the same. I may be slow but I thought that question the first time was put out there for a trap to catch a person in a Calvinist forest. But it does no good to set a trap for a non Calvinist in a calvinist forest because he doesn't dwell in that forest to begin with. :)

By Kris, at 12/29/2008 9:46 PM
Mark,

I have never questioned your faith. If you say you have believed in Chtist that is proof enough for me. It's your system that demands more proof.

By Kris, at 12/29/2008 9:51 PM
Hi Rose

Alistair Begg on his radio program on June 2nd 2005.

He’s talking about Jesus talking about striving to enter by the narrow way.

When the challenge comes make every effort to see your entering through the narrow door Luke 24.
Instead of the believer saying well this is a great word for mister so and so five seats along the row. This is a tremendous evangelistic message that’s what the person is thinking. He’s saying loved ones this is your message. Instead of thinking about the person five rows down think about yourself.

Jesus says, Alistair make sure you are striving to enter the narrow gate because it’s by your continuance that you give evidence of the day and time when I grabbed a hold of you is reality and not spurious.

I believe that Mark is counting on the fact that he is a new creation in Christ so as a result he will enter through the narrow gate and prove that he is one of the elect.

I don’t believe that being a new creation in Christ has anything to do with believing in Jesus for His gift of eternal life but is a result from it. I believe at the moment I believed Jesus promise I knew I would never perish and I had eternal life based solely on Jesus promise. I know that I still am in this body of flesh and just like Paul have to continuously discipline my body and bring it into subjection. I know in the new man I cannot sin at all. And when I do sin it’s the old man of flesh that is expressing itself.

I don’t believe the Calvinist who believes in perseverance of the saints because of their system can have assurance at the moment they believe that they will never perish and have eternal life solely on Jesus promise. Their system calls for more evidence then just simple faith in Jesus promise but also the evidence of a changed life. As my cousin has stated “the proof is in the pudding.” This sounds good but it’s NOT childlike faith but subjective faith. That is why the Calvinist MUST look at his life for evidence of proof that his faith is not spurious but real.
And that is where I believe the Calvinist has missed the boat, Jesus calls for the faith of a child that He will fulfill His promise to the one who simply believes in Him for it. The Calvinist calls for more then the simple act of faith because of his man-made system.

Just some thoughts….

alvin

By alvin, at 12/29/2008 11:45 PM
Greetings Rose!

Kris says, "It's your system that demands more proof."

Some more than others as there are different opinions among L/S.

Changed lives. Ephesians 2 gives us a look at God's plan for having saved us in the first place. We were created for good works and to be a dwelling place of God. It is said there that this building "grows into a holy temple in the Lord". I don't see any evidence here of one going off into a state of being unresponsive to the leadings of the Spirit. THAT notion is manmade and can't be supported by scripture.

By mark pierson, at 12/30/2008 7:21 AM
'round and'round we go... time for this one to get off the merry-go-round.

Sister Rose, love ya much - Bye!

By mark pierson, at 12/30/2008 7:24 AM
Hi Rose,

I know I'm coming into this very late in the conversation, but Kris said something that I see many on the FG side of things say. And it doesn't hold true.

Kris said to Mark: "I have never questioned your faith. If you say you have believed in Chtist that is proof enough for me. It's your system that demands more proof."

Any time someone implies or states that someone else's salvation is based on works, than they are questioning that person's faith. So then, it is NOT true that if a person says they have believed in Christ that it is proof enough for anyone. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of these conversations.

It's not to slight you, Kris, not in the least. I understand why you would say it and why others might say it, but in the end, it's not true.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Ten Cent, at 12/30/2008 9:22 AM
I left this comment on Mark's blog and want to put it here FYI:

Dear Mark,
I am so sorry. You mistook my comment regarding the Roman Catholic system. The ONLY reason I brought that up was because I know you and I both disagree with it. I do not think your are like the Catholics. They do not believe in regeneration preceding faith.

I probably should have broken that comment up into two parts. I had two points.

The first was just to explain what I mean by "cheap grace." I was pointing to the Catholic system as an example of that. I know that the FG position has been called "cheap grace" but I just think that it is a tag better placed on a view that you "trade something for grace," like the Catholic view. I brought up the Catholics because I thought that was a system you and I could both agree was wrong. I was trying to find common ground with you. I meant it when I said I did not want to offend you! :~)

Secondly, I was trying to let you see that I understand in your view, with your Regeneration Preceeding Faith (RPF), that you do not have a "trade for grace" - but that someone like me, who does not believe in RPF, might see it that way. You believe that the committment/surrender is a gift just like everything else. I was trying to understand your view and see how you justify it through RPF. I was also trying to help you see how someone like me can have a difficulty digesting it because I don't have RPF in my "grid."

I did not mean to offend you - just the opposite.

I am sorry for the mistake.

By Rose~, at 12/30/2008 9:33 AM
Ten Cent,
You're wrong. :~)

Questioning someone's current theology doesn't mean you are questioning their profession of faith.

If I read where someone cuurently holds a theology that states that works or change of life or mind has to accompany faith to PROVE one's salvation, that doesn't mean that I think that person doesn't in their heart of hearts know they're saved. I know there are plenty of people who hold to perseverance theology but yet know they are saved. For example, someo who has an inconsistent view - this happens all the time. Say I am holding to this view that we are talking about, yet I am stalwartly convinced of Sola fide. I also know in whom I have believed. I know I have placed my faith in Christ. then I wander and get involved in alcoholism and pornography... ir gluttony and jealously... whatever terrible and obvious sinful ifestyle we can think of... and I spiral down into some bad habits that are not refecting my theology - my persevernace theology. Yet my Sola Fide trumps my POS and I know I am saved regardless of my current failings.

I am convinced that this would be the case with most of the LS people that I know.

Then again, as many testify, there are those who seriously question and trouble over their salvation because they aren't evidencing it "enough" - which is the operative word, don't you think? "Enough" is very subjective.

By Rose~, at 12/30/2008 9:45 AM
Hi Rose,(greeting you)
I am amazed that you allow Alvin to go on and on and yet I post something from Spurgeon that is about as long and you erase it....are you afraid the readers might see fault in what is posted here by free gracers by what Spurgeon said?

By Anonymous, at 12/30/2008 10:25 AM
Hi Rose,

Bad habits are not what's in view here. What's in view are the implications of statements that imply or overtly state that someone else is trusting in their works for their salvation, either in part or in whole. If that statement is turns out to be true, then the person in question is not saved, right? And the person who made the remarks would then be looking at proof that the other is really saved and effectively calling that salvation into question.

For instance, several catholic friends that I have would claim to believe in Christ for their salvation. Is that enough? Or are their other things that I look for to know for sure if they have trusted Christ and are merely misguided in their theology?

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Ten Cent, at 12/30/2008 10:35 AM
I wonder who will get to post the 200th comment?

I bet she's waiting with her flask and sandwitches beside her, sweating profusly as we enter into the 190's.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/30/2008 1:25 PM
Hi Rose

Ten Cent, what do you mean Rose lets me go on and on. I’ve only made two post in the last forty-four! If anyone is going on and on it’s Mark! Of course my two are filled with much to chew on, maybe you need to read them again. . .Ha!Ha! As far as your Catholic friends believing in Christ. It depends on what you mean by believing in Christ. A good question to ask them is “Why should God guarantee you will spend eternity with Him?” That should tell you what they are putting their trust in. I had a Catholic friend at work who believed that eternal life was a free gift, anyway that’s what he said. But then he told me he wanted to teach Sunday school at his Catholic church. I explained to him the Catholic church believed that faith alone in Christ alone was a heresy, and had put a curse on anyone who teaches it. Then he got scarred because he didn’t want a curse on him. But I told him I ‘d much prefer the Catholic curse then God’s curse on me. I showed him I think it was “The Council of Trent” and the anathema put upon a person who taught that. Anyway there was some kind of disconnect in my friends mind because he thought that teaching would be just fine taught in a Catholic church. When they’re whole system is against a free gift, just as I believe Calvinism is too. Any man-made system is against a simple act of faith in Jesus for His gift of eternal life. For some reason these systems want to interpret the simple child like verses like John 3:16 by the more difficult verses to understand. Instead of the other way around, I think it’s because mans intellect wants to rule. They want a systematic system that makes sense to the human intellect. They think nothing is really free, so they don’t believe Jesus would really give a free gift to someone without that someone being a slave to Him in return. If these systems would take John 3:16 at face value instead of wanting to change it to fit there own systems. They would know that God loves the WHOLE world and provided for EVERYONE. And that the one who simply believes IN JESUS FOR HIS GIFT,will never perish and has eternal life. I guess that’s just too simple for them. That’s what I loved about Zane Hodges he started at the simple premise that John 3:16 was true! And then waited for God to give him insight into the more difficult verses. Because he knew they had to harmonize with John 3:16 that Jesus really had taken care of the sin of the world so He could freely give eternal life to ANYONE who simply took Him at His word. The Calvinist has to change world to mean the elect, and whosoever to mean just the elect. And then of course God has to pour the water down their throat because their dead like a rock. So then God has a robot who will love Him, and the rest they will all glorify Him by burning in hell forever . . . .too bad so sad!!!

alvin

By alvin, at 12/30/2008 1:54 PM
Hi Alvin,

I'm afraid it wasn't me that made the comment about the length of your comments.

Thanks for your input about what to say to my catholic friends. In fact, you have proven the point of my first comment. If I ask my friends, "Why should God guarantee you will spend eternity with Him?", then I'm calling into question whether or not they are saved. I'm probing to figure out if they believe how I believe. I'm suspicious that their theology is wrong.

So, for Kris to say, "If you say you have believed in Chtist that is proof enough for me. It's your system that demands more proof.", it's not true. It's not enough proof for someone to say they believe in Christ. If it were, then there would be no reason to probe and see if their theology matches my own.

For some, and they would be wrong, they would look to their works for proof. "Am I doing good things more than I'm doing bad things?" That is a righteousness of works. The proof is not in the works, the proof is in the object of your faith.

All systems look for proof, it's just what kind of proof is where the difference comes in.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Ten Cent, at 12/30/2008 2:14 PM
Hi Rose

Hi Ten Cent, I’m sorry it was Anonymous who said I go on and on. I need to get the sleep out of my eyes first . . .HaHa!!!!

By alvin, at 12/30/2008 2:17 PM
Hi all,

If I read Antonio right here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17392026&postID=5004019800673521004

All the RC has to do is affirm that he believes that Jesus is the Christ (which I believe that Rome does) and such belief, without any other, shows that he, the RC, is born of God. What need we of further evidence?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,

By Colin Maxwell, at 12/30/2008 2:35 PM
If we really care about people were going to find out what they are trusting in to save them. We know that biblical language saves no one because anyone can twist it to mean what he or she wants it to. It’s biblical truth that saves. So if we care enough for a persons eternal destiny we will explain to them what Jesus meant by what He said. For instance the word “save” in Acts 16:31 to one person because of their denomination could mean “in a state of grace,” but not really saved. We need to take them to places like John 3:16,17 to show them what Jesus meant by what He said. That to be saved is to have eternal life, therefore they will never perish.

alvin

By alvin, at 12/30/2008 2:45 PM
Greetings, Ten Cent.

Please read all of MY comments here. I have not "implied" or "stated" that Mark's salvation is based on works.

However I don't see how it can be denied that a SYSTEM that holds to a perseverance to the end of life here on earth theology can keep from raising questions of the initial faith of a believer if and when that believer has fallen for however length of time.

Remember I said the system questions the faith not I.

My statement that I have never questioned Mark's salvation should stand with the same degree of reliability has Mark's statement of faith in Christ for eternal life.

And I have not nor am I probing Mark to see if his faith in Christ is real here on this blog.

Misguided theology is exactly what the Galatians were facing in Paul's letter to them. The Galatians were saved, Paul never questioned that. He was greatly concerned they would fall from living by grace to living by works.

Thanks for listening.
Kris

By Kris, at 12/30/2008 3:05 PM

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask Hungry/6 - Jodie The Stumbling Block - Bobby Sanc's Blog - Michele

Friday, December 12, 2008

A Thoroughly LS Sermon

209 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele