Last week’s blog covered the first 9 of the “once saved, always saved” doctrine’s favorite Scriptures. We found flaws in their interpretation. We also gave a little of the doctrine’s meaning and history. Today we continue to examine their “proof” Scriptures for more doctrinal flaws.
10. I Corinthians 1:8: (Jesus) will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
OSAS adherents maintain that God’s confirming us to the end, and our blamelessness, are without conditions. So, they say, once saved, always saved. My response is, you must consider contexts of Scripture (remember #5 last week). What about Paul’s words in Colossians 1:22-23?
…to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel
Seems that being blameless has a condition attached to it, “IF you continue in the faith….not moved away.” There’s the word “IF” again. Unfortunately, some people didn’t hold fast to the faith; they grew discouraged, or tests (such as persecution) overwhelmed them. And they took the easy way out, abandoning the faith.
Another verse on the necessity of our “holding on” to the faith: I Timothy 6:12 says,
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
“Laying hold” on eternal life is again an aggressive action that you have to do to keep it. It’s a behavior, not just belief in the head; and look how it also involves “fight the good fight.”
Did you know the true Gospel includes belief + holding fast in many Scriptures? In I Corinthians 15:1-2, we find:
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
Believing “in vain,” or futilely, to no advantage, can only mean one thing—arriving at no belief at all. It means you believed, then you didn’t believe. Saved, then unsaved.
Along these lines, consider the parable of the sower. In Luke 8:6:
Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture.
Now a simple question is simply, “Did the seed remain dead, or did it come to life?” Obviously it came to life (It “sprang up;” dead things don’t do that). Then the question is, “Did it lose this life? The answer is obviously yes; “it withered away.” You have to agree that it had a life; it was short, but it had life—then lost it. I should also mention, you wither only when you are cut off from the Vine (John 15:6). They were alive in the faith until trials quickly came. Then they apparently left faith—and lost their life in Him—and withered. You must hold on during tribulations to keep salvation. So continuing salvation is conditional. That’s what all these verses are saying.
While we’re on the sower, consider Jesus’ explanation of the seed landing on rocky ground (Luke 8:13):
13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away
The Greek word “receive” is in many Scriptures used for people as a litmus for being saved—if you don’t “receive” His word, you’re unsaved, if you do, you’re saved (see John 3:11, 12:48). And it says “they believe for awhile.” The problem is, some after that are unable to endure to the end. They lose their salvation. This is further proved by the phrase “endures only for a while;” that’s an oft-repeated warning of ensuing spiritual death by Christ (Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, to cite just a couple of examples).
11. I Corinthians 11:29-32: For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world
OSAS adherents say, since God will always discipline His children to bring them back (and would even kill them before they go “beyond the pale” if necessary), that will guarantee our salvation. But does this say that God’s discipline always brings someone back? No, it doesn’t. Some people are too stiff-necked. Consider Jeremiah 32:33:
They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline.
Now if you argue again that those are Old Testament verses and not relevant to today, let me just ask you New Testament believers: Do any of you have kids that sadly didn’t respond to discipline? Do any of you have a child that, despite a mountain of prayers, is unsaved? Then really, the same story is true of New and Old; some people don’t respond to discipline. Let’s not make these verses say what they don’t say. You would now argue, “Well, while we’re on the subject, don’t you believe that “once a child, always a child; parents won’t disown a child.” I have comments on that later.
12. Hebrews 6:4-6: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
OSAS adherents say to us, “If you truly think that people can lose their salvation, you’d have to accept that it seems this is also saying, a person can never get salvation back once they walked away. But do you truly believe God is this way? Doesn’t that sound like a God who is too unforgiving, for that argument to be true?" Then they would say, “we have an argument for these verses that expresses God in a kinder light—we don’t believe this person was ever saved—he was close, but never saved. Being so close, and turning away, means he will never be saved—since he missed Christ at the best opportunity.” To that weak argument I respond by taking Scripture again in context. First, remember my comments above on the prodigal son; he got his salvation back. Also, check out the interesting case of Peter’s upcoming denial of Christ that Jesus foretold. In Luke 22:32, Jesus has informed him that he will be tested by Satan, and says to him (KJV):
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
This is a strange sentence, that Jesus would pray that his faith wouldn’t fail, then says “when you are converted”—suggesting a future need for Peter to be saved, so evidently his faith did fail--and then he got it back. The word “converted” is a genuine salvation Greek word, used as such in James 5:20:
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
So what we conclude is, Jesus is urging him to hold onto his faith. But then he didn’t want to just tell him flat out that he will fail; but Jesus knows of his denial and failure—and Jesus knows that Peter will re-commit his life to Christ, getting converted again, so he told him in an obtuse way that Peter didn’t catch on to. How else could you interpret this, with the words “when you are converted” to a person clearly already saved? Jesus is saying, Peter will lose his salvation, then be re-converted.
(Before we go on, I need to explain this: Jesus said he would pray that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. But Jesus’ prayer was not answered. How can that be, as He is the all-powerful God? Am I suggesting Jesus lacks almighty power in His prayer? No, the argument is answered another way. Consider II Peter 3:9:
The Lord is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
God’s fervent desire is that all would be saved. But the fact is, most people perish; so is God a failure? Does He lack power? Like Jesus, God’s desire doesn’t get answered like He wants. The answer is simple: God simply limits His power by granting us free will. It’s the same way with Jesus and Peter.)
Let’s get back to our point. I believe Hebrews 6:4-5 says this person got saved. But we don’t have to conclude what OSASers want us to conclude. Does he lose his salvation forever? Does that make God unforgivably mean? How do we explain this phrase “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” of Hebrews 6:6? In answer, this is a rare Scripture because it requires a history study to understand it. At that time, if a saved Jew wanted to abandon the Christian faith and be a Jew again, the synagogue would make him confess publicly that Christ was a criminal—thus, he would be confessing that Christ was operating under Satan. Attributing to Satan the clear work of the Holy Spirit, especially for those who were a living witness of His works, was probably an unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31-32). Proof of this idea is in the dark words of Hebrews 10:29. Look at the phraseology of what evil they have done by such a confession of apostasy:
Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
Thank God, such phrases don’t get said about most those who become unsaved. Most people have opportunity for repentance and re-obtaining salvation. So, this Hebrews example was a special narrow case for Jews during that time, not universal.
13. I Thessalonians 5:23-24: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.
14. Hebrews 10:14: For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
OSAS adherents read from I Thessalonians, “sanctify you completely,” “preserved blameless,” and “will do it,” and figure that these are jobs up to God only. But the word “may” creeps in, “may your whole spirit…be…blameless” It’s almost like Paul is pronouncing a blessing, some wishes on them rather than a doctrinal statement. And “may” is not a certainty. It’s not “you can be assured that.” So the verse is not “God only” since He is a God of certainty, not a God of “may”-be. The believer's free will makes it less certain, a "may." From Hebrews, you also must consider the phrase “those who are being sanctified;” it’s not as strong as “those whom He sanctifies,” which OSASers want. It leaves the door open for the believer’s action. As it so happens, folks…I have a Scriptural list of things they (or we) should do for sanctification. It just “happens” to be in the verses immediately prior to #13 above, I Thessalonians 5:11-22:
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another… recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love... Be at peace among yourselves…warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
I counted 19 verbs for us to do for sanctification! Yes, works for us to do! Let us also remember that Ephesians 2:8 and 9, supposedly all God’s grace—goes along with verse 10, things we should do:
For by grace you have been saved through faith… 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (takes effort on our part), which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (takes effort on our part)
Further proof on how we can’t lay back and shift all this effort to God is found when we look at many Scriptures, especially by Paul, on how the saints should be ready to do battle with Satan and his minions. We’re not just talking about losing a few crowns in heaven, or losing fellowship with God. No, that’s not a powerful enough motivator. We’re talking about battling to preserve our place in The Big One, heaven itself—versus hell. In Philippians 2:25 and II Timothy 2:3,4 the saints are soldiers. In Acts 20:24 and I Corinthians 9:24, saints are called runners in a marathon. In Matthew 20:1ff, we’re workers in a vineyard. In Ephesians 6:12, we’re wrestlers against the forces of darkness. In Acts 4:29, we’re slaves of God. All verses listed have to do with keeping our eternity on the line. And here’s one to memorize from Hebrews 12:3-4:
For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.
This says, we must endure suffering because Jesus suffered. But let’s not have our sin be the cause of our suffering. Let us resist sin to bloodshed if necessary, so that if we suffer, it is because we cleaved to the noble cause of standing up with Christ. We cannot get discouraged, saying, “Well, Jesus was God and had no “real” temptation, so how can I try to do it?” Let us remember, He was fully Man too. Let us never forget the extremes of pain that He knew was coming, and how He sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane—which physicians tell us is only possible in supreme agony. How can we, in the face of that Example, in the face of many Scriptures telling us to fight sin with all we have, continue to believe that sanctification is all up to God! Such a belief, spread for deception, will erode people’s desire (and need, for eternity!) to work at eradicating sin. Do you see the verbs in Hebrews here? “Resisted…striving.” Clear meaning there. Don’t go blind reading too many common-taters telling you to ignore what’s clearly said.
Lastly, in this section, consider another idea: What does Paul says about the possibility of losing his own salvation? Does that seem hard to believe? He was such a giant in the faith: How can anybody have any assurance if Paul didn’t? Well, read I Corinthians 9:27:
But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
The word “disqualified” comes from the Greek “adokimos,” which is properly translated, per Vine’s Dictionary, as “rejected; not standing the test.” The test is salvation. The same Greek word appears in Romans 1:28; I’ve emphasized the word that translates adokimos:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
What we get is, since men rejected God, God had to reject them. Man is then reprobate, and worthy of hell. Paul uses the same word about himself, as a motivator, I’m sure, and he knows its meaning. He is disciplining his body (actually, the Greek word says he is beating, or buffeting his body, to bring it into servitude—he is actively suppressing its desires so as to be more open to the Spirit’s desires). He does this because he doesn’t want to become rejected by God. So, folks, if Paul is striving for holiness, if he fears God this way, if he wants to abide in Christ every day, shouldn’t we? Of course we should. He knows what he might lose if he doesn’t. Do we?
Another insightful verse section on Paul’s lack of presumption about God is Philippians 3:10-14:
…that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain (doesn’t sound very self-assured) to the resurrection from the dead.12 Not that I have already attained (again! Is this guy worried, or what?), or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended (where’s the “we’ve got it already” that OSASers claim?); but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Despite my so-called humor, you hopefully get my point. Now I ask you, what would we give to be a spiritual giant like Paul? (Or would we decline that opportunity?) But look at the uncertainty he displays here: I suspect his striving, his humility, his lack of presumption, lack of assurance, his fear of God, actually made him more appropriate for His work. Or, if we don’t have those attributes worthy in God’s sight, how can we expect to do great things for Him?
NEXT WEEK: Conclusive Remarks on This Important Matter
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, “Conditional Security of the Believer”
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Examining the Flaws in the "Once Saved, Always Saved" Doctrine, Part 1 of 3
The “once saved, always saved” doctrine says: Once you accept Christ, and put your faith in Him for salvation from sin, you’re saved—permanently. Nothing you can do will break that bond. The doctrine began with Augustine, a Catholic theologian, but really got propagated under John Calvin in his famous treatise, Institutes. He asserted that man is totally depraved, i.e., unable to reach for God. But God, not because of anyone’s merits, arbitrarily chose certain people to be saved (and others, not chosen, to be damned forever). He was opposed by Michael Servetus, another theologian, who believed that man has a free will to choose God or not choose God. He is not predestined to hell or heaven before he is even born, as what Calvin said. When Servetus studied the Institutes, and returned the book to Calvin, he wrote notes criticizing certain points. Calvin, with his monumental ego and pride, determined that Servetus was now a dead man, since Calvin believed (and said so) that God moved him to write what he wrote. So as soon as Servetus arrived in Geneva, where Calvin ruled, Calvin gave the go-ahead to burn him at the stake. A horrible death. No trial. Today we would call that murder. As far as we know, Calvin never repented of that despicable act. Do murderers go to heaven? No. So the “once saved, always saved” doctrine not only sets forth God as capricious, but its founder was an unsaved murderer.
Now let’s talk about today. Once saved always saved (OSAS) adherents have a big problem—complacency. It’s the feeling that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. True, I may lose fellowship with God, and I may lose some rewards in heaven—but I will still go to heaven, which is the big thing I get to keep--because God in His Word has promised, that once I was saved, I’m always saved. No sinning that I do will keep me from heaven. Doesn’t that seem like a definition of complacency?
I should be frank with you: My purpose here is to prove that OSAS is wrong. Scriptures speak clearly that you must abide in Christ and pursue righteous behavior, or you will lose your salvation. A lot of people would be less confident and careful of their behavior (and less deceived about their eternal destiny) if they knew this. Of course, we can’t conclude a doctrine is wrong simply because some people are prone to complacency; that could be said about many religious doctrines. To prove a doctrine is wrong, you need Scripture. So let’s get to it.
Let’s go the hard way: we’ll cover some favorite OSAS verses, their “proof texts” that are numbered below—and explain how they don’t quite say what some people think. Then we’ll look at the other side of this argument, at other verses, which clearly say what a lot of people don’t want to hear.
1. Jude 24: Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling, And to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy
Because God is able to keep us from falling, does that mean we could never fall, as OSASers say this verseclaims? Don’t make the phrase about how He is “able to keep you from falling” say more than it’s saying. Consider Isaiah 26:3, which says:
You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You.
Thus God is able to keep us in perfect peace. But are we always in perfect peace? No, because our behavior betrays us; sometimes we aren’t thinking about God. So God has the capability (“is able”) to “keep us” in perfect peace (or to keep us from falling); but His success is dependent on our behavior! The simple fact is, we can reject God, fail to think about God, and fall on our own. Along those lines, what does it say only 3 verses earlier, Jude 21:
Keep yourselves in God's love…to bring you to eternal life.
Thus, “keeping” includes something for us to do—or fail to do. I conclude that you cannot argue that “keeping” is all God’s responsibility.
Now on the other key word in Jude 24: falling. How may man fail to keep God, and fall? Some people fall when trials come. Take a look at I Timothy 4:1:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.
The Greek word for “depart from” is “apostasia” which means apostasy from the faith. In Acts 21:21, the same Greek word is translated “forsake.” Now I maintain that it’s impossible to depart from or forsake something unless you were attached to it in the first place. And it is impossible to apostasize unless you were a believer in the first place. What does Hebrews 10:38-39 say to this?
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary says about the Greek for “draw back:” it’s “shrink back into unbelief.” The result of that is “perdition,” from Greek “apoleia,” a spiritual ruin. Perdition is hell. Again, you don’t draw back from something unless you were with it at first.
Some people fall because they gain power and are not ready for it; they fill up with pride. Consider I Timothy 3:1,6:
If a man desires the position of a bishop…not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
The Greek word for “novice” is a new convert, per Vine’s dictionary. So he was saved. But he could, with pride, fall into “the same condemnation as the devil.” The word “condemnation,” in Greek, is “verdict, resulting from an investigation.” It’s a final judgment. So he clearly has moved from being saved to being unsaved and bound for hell.
2. I Corinthians 5:1-5: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
OSAS adherents love to cite “that his spirit may be saved” in verse 5 to prove that this man has in the past been eternally saved, and even his adultery will not unsave him. My response is, don’t make the word “may” say more than it does. How do you think this man is saved now when verse 13 says: “Expel the wicked man from among you.” The same Greek word for “wicked” is used in Jesus’ quote in Matthew 13:49-50:
This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The word “wicked” is clearly an adjective for an unsaved person, which is what this adulterer is now. When Paul says, “..deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” he is saying, “Don’t pat one another on the back for your toleration; don’t sweet talk him about “saved people don’t do that.” Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an adulterer.” Paul is saying, flat out, Saved people don’t commit adultery. (I will have more to say on this later). And what about the phrase, “may be saved?” It doesn’t say “will remain saved,” does it—which would back OSASers claim? It’s really “maybe he’ll get saved.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a choice, and made the right move. He turned around, and then got saved. So perhaps, in I Corinthians, allowing Satan to have his way with him for awhile (as with the prodigal) may wake him up (or it may not)—he might turn around and get saved before he dies (or he might not). At least he won’t have any well-meaning Christians around him, deceiving him by “assuring” him and not speaking clearly about his unsaved behavior!
3. John 10:27-29:My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
Clearly “my sheep” are the beneficiary of this gracious treatment. But what are the characteristics to be one of His sheep? Belief? Getting born again? No, that’s not what Jesus said. What He did say was, you have to hear His voice, and you have to follow Him. And those verbs (hear, follow) are expressed in present, continuous tense—which means, an ongoing hearing and following. If you’re not hearing and not following, then you can’t say you’ll “never perish.” That’s what the verses said. They are conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.
4. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Here again, the word “believes” is in present, continuous tense. You must continue believing to have everlasting life. It’s not just a “one time I went forward, so I’m saved forever” deal. And the word “believes” is more than just “yes, I believe in my head that Jesus died for me and that’s all I have to show of our relationship.” Vine’s, an excellent expository dictionary of Greek words, says about the word believe, “to trust…reliance upon, not mere credence.” The words “reliance upon” suggests action. If it’s real belief, our hearts will be moved to action. Do we really contemplate the hell that our sins truly deserve; and then, in gratitude for deliverance, repeatedly ask Him what He wants us to do as His servants, how to keep from sinning, and to build treasures in heaven? Do we regularly seek a real relationship with Him?
I John really delves a lot into the real meaning of “believe.” Here’s just one example, I John 3:23-24a:
And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him.
So belief involves wanting to obey His commandment. That’s how we abide in Him. But what happens to those who don’t abide in Him? John 15:6 has the answer:
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
You would have to go through a lot of mental gyrations to “prove” that that verse isn’t speaking of hell. It is, folks. By reading carefully these verses, you should conclude that the commandment to love one another, and to abide in Him are necessary and wrapped up with the word “believe.” Since loving and abiding are not automatic, and require effort, real belief is thus conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.
5. Hebrews 13:5: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
This verse quotes from Deuteronomy 31:6 (part of Moses’ final words to the children of Israel):
….do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the LORD your God… will not leave you nor forsake you.
But then for context you need to peek 11 verses ahead. In Deut 31:16-17a, God gives His last words to Moses, warning him of Israel’s apostasy. It’s a hard word for Moses, and with much warning for us:
And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land…. and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.
Read that again: God forsook them! Because they forsook Him. Evidently the word "never" in the Greek (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the meaning we think it has. Now you can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a God of Law in the Old Testament; thank God for His dispensation of grace now.” But God is not a God of change. As James 1:17 says,
Every good gift and every perfect gift …comes down from the Father… with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
We do not have two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament too, don’t forget, is profitable for reproof, for correction in righteousness (II Tim 3:16), and we can learn a lot about Him in the Old Testament—and won’t have to unlearn them when we study the New! The point is this: The God who forsook His people in those days because they forsook Him, will do the same again now. The truth is: He will never leave you nor forsake you—IF you abide in Him. God help us to do so—but we have free will, and can forsake Him.
Further Word along this line is II Chronicles 15:2:
Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded… and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
Seems clear, does it not?
Now another thing you might cite about God never leaving us is “the great promises to Israel,” whereby God will do miraculous things for Israel in the End times, and those people will be redeemed, so God “never forsook them”—so evidently you think God didn’t mean what he said in Deuteronomy or II Chronicles. But the national promise to Israel is different than the promise to individuals. In the End times, those Jews will see Jesus as God, accept Him and are redeemed. But in Exodus those other Jews who rejected the spies’ good report rejected God’s promise, and died unbelieving in the desert. God didn’t change; different Jewish responses did.
Other “nation vs individual” verses that are abused are Romans 11:28-29:
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
OSASers love to select the words “election,” “gift” and “irrevocable,” giving themselves complacent assurance, but failing to place them in context. The fact is, the whole chapter 11 is about how God will gift the nation of Israel in His plan for the future.
Speaking of taking words out of context, yet another abused Scripture is Hebrews 10:12,14:
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,… 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
This is not about assurance for the believer; this Word is for the Hebrews, about how Jesus is our High Priest, comparing His offering His body as a sacrifice once for sin being sufficient for atonement, vs. priests in the Old Testament offering sacrifices annually that don’t take away sin. And please don’t assume that “those who are being sanctified” is all up to God. Sanctification depends on behavior. See #13 next week.
6. Colossians 2:13: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses
OSAS adherents cite this verse that God forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. But the verse does not specifically refer to future trespasses; keep in mind, Paul is, after all, talking about a past event (“has made alive”), their point of initial salvation. For an interesting comparison, take a look at II Pet 1:9:
But if anyone does not have them (speaking of fruits), he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins
Note that only past sins are cleansed upon initial salvation.
I think if Peter knew that he could cover future sins in this theological statement, he would’ve mentioned them—but he doesn’t. Another enlightening verse is I John 1:9:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John is writing this to people who are believers already, so it doesn’t make sense that we need to keep on confessing our sins to obtain forgiveness—if we’re already forgiven from future sins. John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. So I conclude the “all trespasses” in Col 2:13 is more likely referring to all trespasses up to the point of initial salvation—which was Paul’s subject matter. Not future sins.
7. I Pet. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who… has begotten us again…, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you
OSAS adherents will cite our inheritance, as a child of the King, that will never fade away. But this great passage of Scripture doesn’t say that we cannot annul the inheritance by disbelief or unrepentant gross sin. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 10:33:
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Definitely wrapped up in the word “disown” is losing one’s inheritance. So it is possible.
While I’m on this subject, I need to bring up another verse that’s misinterpreted by OSAS folks. It’s II Timothy 2:13:
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.
This is quoted often by OSAS teachers; their interpretation of God being “faithful” here is that He will accept our faithlessness and save us anyway. Their problem again is context. Take a look at the previous verse, II Timothy 2:12:
If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
Whoa, that says the opposite of what OSASers think 2:13 says. So, to resolve the apparent contradiction, let’s do what you seldom see teachers do—reconcile 2:12b and 2:13. First, you have to see how awful a sin being “faithless” is; it is not coincidentally connected to 2:12’s “denying” Christ. God many times calls faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took their faith and worship away from God, and were called adulterers. Now before you say, “we don’t do idols in modern society,” you need to expand the meaning of “idol.” It’s anything that we think about as #1 to us, without including our God in the experience. So if we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into that experience (such as making sure Jesus’ related commands are maintained); then spend a lot of time collecting, cooking, and eating food without seriously giving thanks; then socializing with friends without raising His name (or thinking about how to do so); or raising our kids without teaching them constantly about God—then I conclude that work, eating, friends, and kids all become idols. We’ve simply substituted modern idols for the ancient wood and stone. God should be a part of our life, like breathing—and it’s faithless to only worship Him on Sundays, then leaving Him out for the rest of the week. We’re just as guilty of substituting God out of our life as the Jews did. Where’s the insistence that we should “abide in Christ” in modern society? Have we watered down the meaning of “abiding?”
The second thing you do to reconcile these two verses in II Timothy is: Expand the definition of God’s being “faithful.” We assume that faithfulness is always positive. Not so. Check out Deuteronomy 7:9,10:
Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.
God is faithful by carrying out His promised curses on the unsaved, as well as loving the saved. If that’s hard to accept, it’s probably because we haven’t thought much about hell. We’re talking about fiery torment, continual pain, continual thirst, no contact with others (read Luke 16:19ff on these). And forever and ever…for eternity. Why not just for 50 years, or 100 years? Why not probation? Why not a second chance, or purgatory? Answer: God HATES sin more than we can imagine—and ultimately His hate will be faithful to His promise and carried out on the unrepentant sinner. Look at the evidence of His anger in the Deuteronomy verse above: God will repay him “to his face.” Now that’s a God with a grudge. A whole new meaning on II Timothy 2:13, is it not? If we are faithless to God, He will be faithful to carry out His promise, that the curse of our sin remains on us.
8. II Timothy 1:12: … Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
OSAS adherents claim that Jesus will do the work in guarding our salvation, so we are safe. But then why does Paul urge Timothy, two verses later, “Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” There certainly is a job we need to do to keep on guarding our salvation—and that’s again my point. Our behavior is involved. Another verse on this is Hebrews 10:23:
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
Doesn’t that suggest that our righteous behavior ("holding fast") is what’s needed to obtain God’s fulfillment of His faithful promise to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job for us to do. That’s what the verse says.
9. Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
The OSAS adherent says, “This is the way it is with all unbelievers; Jesus never knew them; it wasn’t that He knew them, then didn’t know them.” My response is, first of all, look at the virgins in Matthew 25. Some had no oil. Jesus has the bridegroom telling them “I do not know you (Matthew 25:11).” Now you know that all ten virgins were invited, so the bridegroom DID know them. I conclude that the phrase “I never knew you” is an idiom—He’s saying,” you are so far removed from me, it’s like I never knew you.” If they are unprepared, and have no oil (which probably means the Holy Spirit), they are far from Jesus. The verse clearly shows the opposite from OSAS: Be ready, be looking for your Lord! Or else you don’t go to heaven. Secondly, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his loving father to begin with, right? Then he became prodigal, walked away, and didn’t abide with his father any more. Then he sees the light, returns to his father, confesses his sin, and returns to good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24:
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’
So think…he was his son before, then he was dead (that’s the word Scripture uses), then he was alive again. He was home at first, then became lost, then was found. Seems pretty clear here, to make the parable speak—he lost his salvation, then regained it.
What additional valuable things do we learn in this prodigal parable, by the way? (1) We assume the father protected the son under his care (as illustrated in John 10:28), but the son had the free will to depart of his own volition. (2) The father’s great love for his son (enough to forgive him freely after his wild life, when he repented) did not prevent the son from becoming lost. What Jesus is clearly saying is, God the Father allows free will on this, even to the point of loss of life.
Finally, look again at Matthew 7:21, where those who are heaven-bound must “do the will of My Father.” That too says continuing salvation is contingent on behavior, which the prodigal didn’t do for awhile—and was unsaved for awhile.
NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
Now let’s talk about today. Once saved always saved (OSAS) adherents have a big problem—complacency. It’s the feeling that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. True, I may lose fellowship with God, and I may lose some rewards in heaven—but I will still go to heaven, which is the big thing I get to keep--because God in His Word has promised, that once I was saved, I’m always saved. No sinning that I do will keep me from heaven. Doesn’t that seem like a definition of complacency?
I should be frank with you: My purpose here is to prove that OSAS is wrong. Scriptures speak clearly that you must abide in Christ and pursue righteous behavior, or you will lose your salvation. A lot of people would be less confident and careful of their behavior (and less deceived about their eternal destiny) if they knew this. Of course, we can’t conclude a doctrine is wrong simply because some people are prone to complacency; that could be said about many religious doctrines. To prove a doctrine is wrong, you need Scripture. So let’s get to it.
Let’s go the hard way: we’ll cover some favorite OSAS verses, their “proof texts” that are numbered below—and explain how they don’t quite say what some people think. Then we’ll look at the other side of this argument, at other verses, which clearly say what a lot of people don’t want to hear.
1. Jude 24: Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling, And to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy
Because God is able to keep us from falling, does that mean we could never fall, as OSASers say this verseclaims? Don’t make the phrase about how He is “able to keep you from falling” say more than it’s saying. Consider Isaiah 26:3, which says:
You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You.
Thus God is able to keep us in perfect peace. But are we always in perfect peace? No, because our behavior betrays us; sometimes we aren’t thinking about God. So God has the capability (“is able”) to “keep us” in perfect peace (or to keep us from falling); but His success is dependent on our behavior! The simple fact is, we can reject God, fail to think about God, and fall on our own. Along those lines, what does it say only 3 verses earlier, Jude 21:
Keep yourselves in God's love…to bring you to eternal life.
Thus, “keeping” includes something for us to do—or fail to do. I conclude that you cannot argue that “keeping” is all God’s responsibility.
Now on the other key word in Jude 24: falling. How may man fail to keep God, and fall? Some people fall when trials come. Take a look at I Timothy 4:1:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.
The Greek word for “depart from” is “apostasia” which means apostasy from the faith. In Acts 21:21, the same Greek word is translated “forsake.” Now I maintain that it’s impossible to depart from or forsake something unless you were attached to it in the first place. And it is impossible to apostasize unless you were a believer in the first place. What does Hebrews 10:38-39 say to this?
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary says about the Greek for “draw back:” it’s “shrink back into unbelief.” The result of that is “perdition,” from Greek “apoleia,” a spiritual ruin. Perdition is hell. Again, you don’t draw back from something unless you were with it at first.
Some people fall because they gain power and are not ready for it; they fill up with pride. Consider I Timothy 3:1,6:
If a man desires the position of a bishop…not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
The Greek word for “novice” is a new convert, per Vine’s dictionary. So he was saved. But he could, with pride, fall into “the same condemnation as the devil.” The word “condemnation,” in Greek, is “verdict, resulting from an investigation.” It’s a final judgment. So he clearly has moved from being saved to being unsaved and bound for hell.
2. I Corinthians 5:1-5: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
OSAS adherents love to cite “that his spirit may be saved” in verse 5 to prove that this man has in the past been eternally saved, and even his adultery will not unsave him. My response is, don’t make the word “may” say more than it does. How do you think this man is saved now when verse 13 says: “Expel the wicked man from among you.” The same Greek word for “wicked” is used in Jesus’ quote in Matthew 13:49-50:
This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The word “wicked” is clearly an adjective for an unsaved person, which is what this adulterer is now. When Paul says, “..deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” he is saying, “Don’t pat one another on the back for your toleration; don’t sweet talk him about “saved people don’t do that.” Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an adulterer.” Paul is saying, flat out, Saved people don’t commit adultery. (I will have more to say on this later). And what about the phrase, “may be saved?” It doesn’t say “will remain saved,” does it—which would back OSASers claim? It’s really “maybe he’ll get saved.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a choice, and made the right move. He turned around, and then got saved. So perhaps, in I Corinthians, allowing Satan to have his way with him for awhile (as with the prodigal) may wake him up (or it may not)—he might turn around and get saved before he dies (or he might not). At least he won’t have any well-meaning Christians around him, deceiving him by “assuring” him and not speaking clearly about his unsaved behavior!
3. John 10:27-29:My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
Clearly “my sheep” are the beneficiary of this gracious treatment. But what are the characteristics to be one of His sheep? Belief? Getting born again? No, that’s not what Jesus said. What He did say was, you have to hear His voice, and you have to follow Him. And those verbs (hear, follow) are expressed in present, continuous tense—which means, an ongoing hearing and following. If you’re not hearing and not following, then you can’t say you’ll “never perish.” That’s what the verses said. They are conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.
4. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Here again, the word “believes” is in present, continuous tense. You must continue believing to have everlasting life. It’s not just a “one time I went forward, so I’m saved forever” deal. And the word “believes” is more than just “yes, I believe in my head that Jesus died for me and that’s all I have to show of our relationship.” Vine’s, an excellent expository dictionary of Greek words, says about the word believe, “to trust…reliance upon, not mere credence.” The words “reliance upon” suggests action. If it’s real belief, our hearts will be moved to action. Do we really contemplate the hell that our sins truly deserve; and then, in gratitude for deliverance, repeatedly ask Him what He wants us to do as His servants, how to keep from sinning, and to build treasures in heaven? Do we regularly seek a real relationship with Him?
I John really delves a lot into the real meaning of “believe.” Here’s just one example, I John 3:23-24a:
And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him.
So belief involves wanting to obey His commandment. That’s how we abide in Him. But what happens to those who don’t abide in Him? John 15:6 has the answer:
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
You would have to go through a lot of mental gyrations to “prove” that that verse isn’t speaking of hell. It is, folks. By reading carefully these verses, you should conclude that the commandment to love one another, and to abide in Him are necessary and wrapped up with the word “believe.” Since loving and abiding are not automatic, and require effort, real belief is thus conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.
5. Hebrews 13:5: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
This verse quotes from Deuteronomy 31:6 (part of Moses’ final words to the children of Israel):
….do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the LORD your God… will not leave you nor forsake you.
But then for context you need to peek 11 verses ahead. In Deut 31:16-17a, God gives His last words to Moses, warning him of Israel’s apostasy. It’s a hard word for Moses, and with much warning for us:
And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land…. and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.
Read that again: God forsook them! Because they forsook Him. Evidently the word "never" in the Greek (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the meaning we think it has. Now you can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a God of Law in the Old Testament; thank God for His dispensation of grace now.” But God is not a God of change. As James 1:17 says,
Every good gift and every perfect gift …comes down from the Father… with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
We do not have two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament too, don’t forget, is profitable for reproof, for correction in righteousness (II Tim 3:16), and we can learn a lot about Him in the Old Testament—and won’t have to unlearn them when we study the New! The point is this: The God who forsook His people in those days because they forsook Him, will do the same again now. The truth is: He will never leave you nor forsake you—IF you abide in Him. God help us to do so—but we have free will, and can forsake Him.
Further Word along this line is II Chronicles 15:2:
Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded… and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
Seems clear, does it not?
Now another thing you might cite about God never leaving us is “the great promises to Israel,” whereby God will do miraculous things for Israel in the End times, and those people will be redeemed, so God “never forsook them”—so evidently you think God didn’t mean what he said in Deuteronomy or II Chronicles. But the national promise to Israel is different than the promise to individuals. In the End times, those Jews will see Jesus as God, accept Him and are redeemed. But in Exodus those other Jews who rejected the spies’ good report rejected God’s promise, and died unbelieving in the desert. God didn’t change; different Jewish responses did.
Other “nation vs individual” verses that are abused are Romans 11:28-29:
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
OSASers love to select the words “election,” “gift” and “irrevocable,” giving themselves complacent assurance, but failing to place them in context. The fact is, the whole chapter 11 is about how God will gift the nation of Israel in His plan for the future.
Speaking of taking words out of context, yet another abused Scripture is Hebrews 10:12,14:
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,… 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
This is not about assurance for the believer; this Word is for the Hebrews, about how Jesus is our High Priest, comparing His offering His body as a sacrifice once for sin being sufficient for atonement, vs. priests in the Old Testament offering sacrifices annually that don’t take away sin. And please don’t assume that “those who are being sanctified” is all up to God. Sanctification depends on behavior. See #13 next week.
6. Colossians 2:13: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses
OSAS adherents cite this verse that God forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. But the verse does not specifically refer to future trespasses; keep in mind, Paul is, after all, talking about a past event (“has made alive”), their point of initial salvation. For an interesting comparison, take a look at II Pet 1:9:
But if anyone does not have them (speaking of fruits), he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins
Note that only past sins are cleansed upon initial salvation.
I think if Peter knew that he could cover future sins in this theological statement, he would’ve mentioned them—but he doesn’t. Another enlightening verse is I John 1:9:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John is writing this to people who are believers already, so it doesn’t make sense that we need to keep on confessing our sins to obtain forgiveness—if we’re already forgiven from future sins. John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. So I conclude the “all trespasses” in Col 2:13 is more likely referring to all trespasses up to the point of initial salvation—which was Paul’s subject matter. Not future sins.
7. I Pet. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who… has begotten us again…, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you
OSAS adherents will cite our inheritance, as a child of the King, that will never fade away. But this great passage of Scripture doesn’t say that we cannot annul the inheritance by disbelief or unrepentant gross sin. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 10:33:
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Definitely wrapped up in the word “disown” is losing one’s inheritance. So it is possible.
While I’m on this subject, I need to bring up another verse that’s misinterpreted by OSAS folks. It’s II Timothy 2:13:
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.
This is quoted often by OSAS teachers; their interpretation of God being “faithful” here is that He will accept our faithlessness and save us anyway. Their problem again is context. Take a look at the previous verse, II Timothy 2:12:
If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
Whoa, that says the opposite of what OSASers think 2:13 says. So, to resolve the apparent contradiction, let’s do what you seldom see teachers do—reconcile 2:12b and 2:13. First, you have to see how awful a sin being “faithless” is; it is not coincidentally connected to 2:12’s “denying” Christ. God many times calls faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took their faith and worship away from God, and were called adulterers. Now before you say, “we don’t do idols in modern society,” you need to expand the meaning of “idol.” It’s anything that we think about as #1 to us, without including our God in the experience. So if we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into that experience (such as making sure Jesus’ related commands are maintained); then spend a lot of time collecting, cooking, and eating food without seriously giving thanks; then socializing with friends without raising His name (or thinking about how to do so); or raising our kids without teaching them constantly about God—then I conclude that work, eating, friends, and kids all become idols. We’ve simply substituted modern idols for the ancient wood and stone. God should be a part of our life, like breathing—and it’s faithless to only worship Him on Sundays, then leaving Him out for the rest of the week. We’re just as guilty of substituting God out of our life as the Jews did. Where’s the insistence that we should “abide in Christ” in modern society? Have we watered down the meaning of “abiding?”
The second thing you do to reconcile these two verses in II Timothy is: Expand the definition of God’s being “faithful.” We assume that faithfulness is always positive. Not so. Check out Deuteronomy 7:9,10:
Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.
God is faithful by carrying out His promised curses on the unsaved, as well as loving the saved. If that’s hard to accept, it’s probably because we haven’t thought much about hell. We’re talking about fiery torment, continual pain, continual thirst, no contact with others (read Luke 16:19ff on these). And forever and ever…for eternity. Why not just for 50 years, or 100 years? Why not probation? Why not a second chance, or purgatory? Answer: God HATES sin more than we can imagine—and ultimately His hate will be faithful to His promise and carried out on the unrepentant sinner. Look at the evidence of His anger in the Deuteronomy verse above: God will repay him “to his face.” Now that’s a God with a grudge. A whole new meaning on II Timothy 2:13, is it not? If we are faithless to God, He will be faithful to carry out His promise, that the curse of our sin remains on us.
8. II Timothy 1:12: … Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
OSAS adherents claim that Jesus will do the work in guarding our salvation, so we are safe. But then why does Paul urge Timothy, two verses later, “Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” There certainly is a job we need to do to keep on guarding our salvation—and that’s again my point. Our behavior is involved. Another verse on this is Hebrews 10:23:
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
Doesn’t that suggest that our righteous behavior ("holding fast") is what’s needed to obtain God’s fulfillment of His faithful promise to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job for us to do. That’s what the verse says.
9. Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
The OSAS adherent says, “This is the way it is with all unbelievers; Jesus never knew them; it wasn’t that He knew them, then didn’t know them.” My response is, first of all, look at the virgins in Matthew 25. Some had no oil. Jesus has the bridegroom telling them “I do not know you (Matthew 25:11).” Now you know that all ten virgins were invited, so the bridegroom DID know them. I conclude that the phrase “I never knew you” is an idiom—He’s saying,” you are so far removed from me, it’s like I never knew you.” If they are unprepared, and have no oil (which probably means the Holy Spirit), they are far from Jesus. The verse clearly shows the opposite from OSAS: Be ready, be looking for your Lord! Or else you don’t go to heaven. Secondly, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his loving father to begin with, right? Then he became prodigal, walked away, and didn’t abide with his father any more. Then he sees the light, returns to his father, confesses his sin, and returns to good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24:
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’
So think…he was his son before, then he was dead (that’s the word Scripture uses), then he was alive again. He was home at first, then became lost, then was found. Seems pretty clear here, to make the parable speak—he lost his salvation, then regained it.
What additional valuable things do we learn in this prodigal parable, by the way? (1) We assume the father protected the son under his care (as illustrated in John 10:28), but the son had the free will to depart of his own volition. (2) The father’s great love for his son (enough to forgive him freely after his wild life, when he repented) did not prevent the son from becoming lost. What Jesus is clearly saying is, God the Father allows free will on this, even to the point of loss of life.
Finally, look again at Matthew 7:21, where those who are heaven-bound must “do the will of My Father.” That too says continuing salvation is contingent on behavior, which the prodigal didn’t do for awhile—and was unsaved for awhile.
NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Differences In Our Doctrine vs the Early Christians--Part 2 of 2
In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s lifestyle—and the resulting power God gave them that enabled many souls to saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher lifestyles:
First apostolic doctrine is: Obedience is essential to be called “saved.”
Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:
Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.
Say that from the pulpit today and you might be labeled a heretic, and not understanding “Biblical grace.” But all church fathers said the same thing. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4:
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live after the teachings of Christ. Thus they were fixed on obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:
Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity
Wait. Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? Is obedience that necessary? I thought this was covered by grace. Maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?
“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Do we hear that in sermons? No. Folks, the gospel that will save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience.
Second apostolic doctrine: A stress on real kindness to the poor; a realization that riches are a trap.
Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate when he got saved:
The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me. If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.
It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be rich thinking like that. Calling riches an “assailant.” Really?” But what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?
And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures..and obeyed what they said. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” It was Jesus who said, Riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: You poor guys; most of you are going to hell. It was Jesus who called His disciples to forsake everything they had, and live without a home, to follow Him.
If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, many lives in America could be saved instead of dying and waking up on the wrong side of eternity.
Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your faith is linked to your material possessions. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? Things can even get flipped totally upside down in false doctrine. But we like false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.
Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:
How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed, in another). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.
This, again, is extreme, suggesting for one thing that a passion for lust is just as bad as the adultery itself—but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word. Such as what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Just in case you were thinking that for a man to think about adultery should certainly not be criticized as lust “plenitude” (ie, equal to the act itself), I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter.
But the Tertullian quote looks more at the opposite side of the matter—the woman who shows off her body, inviting him to think of adultery. She is guilty too. (Warning: Not a good subject for discussion in today’s politically correct society.) Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, I Timothy 2:9, 10:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wanted modesty, let’s do modesty. The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were pure. Wouldn’t it be the supreme act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And not wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s a horrible (and dangerous) term to achieve in your dressing up for work.
We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if one were offered. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” At first, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…
Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones here, and particularly David Bercot, believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed for an answer. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our sincere reading. The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:
1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.
2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:
How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.
Thus, when two doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim its correctness when he has done it 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully explained by the early church fathers—especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you would be on a different path than most of today’s society? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”
3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.
Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.
Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998
First apostolic doctrine is: Obedience is essential to be called “saved.”
Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:
Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.
Say that from the pulpit today and you might be labeled a heretic, and not understanding “Biblical grace.” But all church fathers said the same thing. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4:
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live after the teachings of Christ. Thus they were fixed on obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:
Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity
Wait. Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? Is obedience that necessary? I thought this was covered by grace. Maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?
“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Do we hear that in sermons? No. Folks, the gospel that will save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience.
Second apostolic doctrine: A stress on real kindness to the poor; a realization that riches are a trap.
Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate when he got saved:
The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me. If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.
It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be rich thinking like that. Calling riches an “assailant.” Really?” But what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?
And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures..and obeyed what they said. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” It was Jesus who said, Riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: You poor guys; most of you are going to hell. It was Jesus who called His disciples to forsake everything they had, and live without a home, to follow Him.
If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, many lives in America could be saved instead of dying and waking up on the wrong side of eternity.
Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your faith is linked to your material possessions. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? Things can even get flipped totally upside down in false doctrine. But we like false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.
Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:
How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed, in another). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.
This, again, is extreme, suggesting for one thing that a passion for lust is just as bad as the adultery itself—but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word. Such as what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Just in case you were thinking that for a man to think about adultery should certainly not be criticized as lust “plenitude” (ie, equal to the act itself), I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter.
But the Tertullian quote looks more at the opposite side of the matter—the woman who shows off her body, inviting him to think of adultery. She is guilty too. (Warning: Not a good subject for discussion in today’s politically correct society.) Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, I Timothy 2:9, 10:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wanted modesty, let’s do modesty. The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were pure. Wouldn’t it be the supreme act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And not wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s a horrible (and dangerous) term to achieve in your dressing up for work.
We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if one were offered. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” At first, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…
Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones here, and particularly David Bercot, believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed for an answer. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our sincere reading. The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:
1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.
2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:
How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.
Thus, when two doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim its correctness when he has done it 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully explained by the early church fathers—especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you would be on a different path than most of today’s society? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”
3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.
Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.
Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998
Thursday, August 6, 2015
A New Kind of Christian? Part 1 of 2
The Church is fragmented into thousands of different sects and groups, so much so as to say, “There sure is an awful lot of interpretation of this Book out there.” Can we for sure say that “We don’t have the ability to be deceived, or come to a wrong doctrinal conclusion”? We should be humble enough to bow and pray, and say, “God, show me Your truth!” We naturally think our world view is right, and everybody should think like us. Compromise for the sake of unity is usually a good thing. That’s what Christ wanted, after all. Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a Church of Newport, let’s say? Like the churches in the book of Acts. But uniting churches is easier said than done.
Don’t people choose their denomination based on family history, or what their heart secretly wants to hear about God? What do people really want in a church? They say they want “something authentic, something real.” They dislike dead orthodoxy. They often are swayed by the “Emerging church” movement (see my blog). But the movement’s desire to have relevance causes them to “come down to the world’s level.” And books like “A New Kind of Christian” disavow too much of “old Christian.”
If people are really looking for authenticity, they should look again at the lifestyles and words of the Christians in the book of Acts. The Kingdom of God was so irresistible, so radical, that the people had one of two choices: Either join us, or persecute us. Just like Jesus said, You’re either my friend, or you’re my enemy. There’s no “gray area” with Christ. The Church, in Acts—it will make your heart pound when you read it. When you read it, don’t you have a longing in your heart to see church today like that? When you look at the radical nature of what God is doing through them, does it ever make your heart burn? Let’s examine their lives.
Acts 2:41-47: Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Acts 4:29-35: Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
Acts 5:12-16: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
Acts 8:35-39: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 9:32-35: Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. 33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately. 35 So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.
Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
Acts 14:8-10: And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.
Acts 16:25-31: But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 20:7-11: Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.
Let our hearts hunger for reality with Jesus Christ like they experienced. Look at His willingness to pour Himself out. People were so moved that they gave away their wealth, unreservedly; miracles were flowing, angels were appearing (other verses). It’s radical when you look into God’s heart for His people. Do we still believe what Jesus said—“You’ll do greater things than I have done”? Do we really believe that Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever? Or have you bought into doctrine that cynically says, “That was then: wake up, this is now.” Wouldn’t you just want to be in the early church? We didn’t mention about how leaders were losing their heads, that believers were persecuted and had to flee. In a couple of cases, church people were killed by the Holy Spirit for lying. That was an intense church. Would you have counted the cost and joined—or are you content to be comfortable? You know, our churches fall so short. You could argue that, hey, miracles are not the whole story, but doesn’t Scripture say that “these signs will follow those who believe.” (Mark 16:17).
What keeps it from happening in America now? Jesus might answer by saying, Do we really want to meet Him on His terms? Our lifestyle is quite different than that church. We don’t have their dedication. Are we hungry enough to pray for ten days straight? If anyone in the church is lacking, would we give up our food, would we all fast to feed them? Would we give up all of our excesses to meet those in need—do we have a heart to give like that?
Could it be that the reason for this difference is that our interpretation of doctrine is different than theirs? After all, doctrine and lifestyle go hand in hand. Doctrine is useless unless it transforms your life. You can think you believe something, but you only truly believe that which moves you to action. Do you believe that people are on their way to hell? To the extent that you actually believe that, you will intercede for the lost, your heart will break when you see people that don’t know the Lord, you’ll stand on the street corner and plead with people, or write a letter to an aunt that doesn’t know Him. You’ll hit your knees often.
To the extent that you believe in something, it changes your life.
What was it the apostles believed that made their lives so radical? Let’s call it “apostolic doctrine.” Let’s spend some time reading the early church fathers, whose lifestyles were the closest to theirs. These men bled and died for the faith too; they sat at the feet of the apostles, or only a generation removed. Let’s interpret Scripture as close as possible to what the fathers believed and wrote about. These guys must’ve had it right, the way they lived. When we see lifestyles like the book of Acts, then we know that apostolic doctrine was taught. We’ve layered on some weaknesses in the 2000 years since, I suspect. Let’s find them. Are we ready to admit we might be wrong on some points? Sure, they didn’t have modern technology; but they did it one better—they just read the Bible, over and over and over. In fact, they were the people who debated thoroughly and decided on what was Scripture in the first place. They took the words literally, they consulted no twisting commentary; their knowledge of other Scripture enabled them to place things in the proper context to explain seemingly contradictory passages. They didn’t have to fool with interpreting Greek—they spoke it, they knew it intimately. Here is their lifestyle, 125 AD, first from a new believer:
They do not bear false witness; nor do they covet what is not theirs. They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends.
Their women are pure as virgins and their daughters are modest; their men keep themselves from all unlawful unions and uncleanness. They go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. They love one another. They deliver their widows and orphans from those who would treat them harshly. He who has, gives to him who has not. They fast two or three days to supply the necessary food for the needy. They follow the commands of their Christ justly and seriously. Every morning and every hour they give thanks to God for His lovingkindness to them. If any righteous man passes from this world, they rejoice and give thanks to God.
Now from a non-believer:
They despise the temples, as dead houses; they reject the gods. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. Oh, wondrous folly…They despise present torments, although they fear those which are future. They fear to die after death, but they do not fear to die for the present. The larger portion are in want, are cold, are laboring in hard work or hunger. And God allows it. You do not visit exhibitions; you reject public banquets and abhor sacred contests…you assume you will rise again but refuse to live in the meanwhile. Cease from prying into the destinies of the sky. What is wrong with you?
Could the church of America be accused of that? No, frankly. The church today, in fact, is too often accused of hypocrisy, of embezzlement, of worldliness. Mostly, lukewarmness. The early church had a Holy Spirit-touched lifestyle. They won souls, they turned the world upside down. The secret was in their doctrine. It was different than ours.
NEXT WEEK: Three Doctrines the Early Church Had That Have Been Radically Changed in Today’s Church
Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, “A New Kind of Christian?” CD, Scroll Publishing
Don’t people choose their denomination based on family history, or what their heart secretly wants to hear about God? What do people really want in a church? They say they want “something authentic, something real.” They dislike dead orthodoxy. They often are swayed by the “Emerging church” movement (see my blog). But the movement’s desire to have relevance causes them to “come down to the world’s level.” And books like “A New Kind of Christian” disavow too much of “old Christian.”
If people are really looking for authenticity, they should look again at the lifestyles and words of the Christians in the book of Acts. The Kingdom of God was so irresistible, so radical, that the people had one of two choices: Either join us, or persecute us. Just like Jesus said, You’re either my friend, or you’re my enemy. There’s no “gray area” with Christ. The Church, in Acts—it will make your heart pound when you read it. When you read it, don’t you have a longing in your heart to see church today like that? When you look at the radical nature of what God is doing through them, does it ever make your heart burn? Let’s examine their lives.
Acts 2:41-47: Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Acts 4:29-35: Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
Acts 5:12-16: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
Acts 8:35-39: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 9:32-35: Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. 33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately. 35 So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.
Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
Acts 14:8-10: And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.
Acts 16:25-31: But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 20:7-11: Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.
Let our hearts hunger for reality with Jesus Christ like they experienced. Look at His willingness to pour Himself out. People were so moved that they gave away their wealth, unreservedly; miracles were flowing, angels were appearing (other verses). It’s radical when you look into God’s heart for His people. Do we still believe what Jesus said—“You’ll do greater things than I have done”? Do we really believe that Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever? Or have you bought into doctrine that cynically says, “That was then: wake up, this is now.” Wouldn’t you just want to be in the early church? We didn’t mention about how leaders were losing their heads, that believers were persecuted and had to flee. In a couple of cases, church people were killed by the Holy Spirit for lying. That was an intense church. Would you have counted the cost and joined—or are you content to be comfortable? You know, our churches fall so short. You could argue that, hey, miracles are not the whole story, but doesn’t Scripture say that “these signs will follow those who believe.” (Mark 16:17).
What keeps it from happening in America now? Jesus might answer by saying, Do we really want to meet Him on His terms? Our lifestyle is quite different than that church. We don’t have their dedication. Are we hungry enough to pray for ten days straight? If anyone in the church is lacking, would we give up our food, would we all fast to feed them? Would we give up all of our excesses to meet those in need—do we have a heart to give like that?
Could it be that the reason for this difference is that our interpretation of doctrine is different than theirs? After all, doctrine and lifestyle go hand in hand. Doctrine is useless unless it transforms your life. You can think you believe something, but you only truly believe that which moves you to action. Do you believe that people are on their way to hell? To the extent that you actually believe that, you will intercede for the lost, your heart will break when you see people that don’t know the Lord, you’ll stand on the street corner and plead with people, or write a letter to an aunt that doesn’t know Him. You’ll hit your knees often.
To the extent that you believe in something, it changes your life.
What was it the apostles believed that made their lives so radical? Let’s call it “apostolic doctrine.” Let’s spend some time reading the early church fathers, whose lifestyles were the closest to theirs. These men bled and died for the faith too; they sat at the feet of the apostles, or only a generation removed. Let’s interpret Scripture as close as possible to what the fathers believed and wrote about. These guys must’ve had it right, the way they lived. When we see lifestyles like the book of Acts, then we know that apostolic doctrine was taught. We’ve layered on some weaknesses in the 2000 years since, I suspect. Let’s find them. Are we ready to admit we might be wrong on some points? Sure, they didn’t have modern technology; but they did it one better—they just read the Bible, over and over and over. In fact, they were the people who debated thoroughly and decided on what was Scripture in the first place. They took the words literally, they consulted no twisting commentary; their knowledge of other Scripture enabled them to place things in the proper context to explain seemingly contradictory passages. They didn’t have to fool with interpreting Greek—they spoke it, they knew it intimately. Here is their lifestyle, 125 AD, first from a new believer:
They do not bear false witness; nor do they covet what is not theirs. They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends.
Their women are pure as virgins and their daughters are modest; their men keep themselves from all unlawful unions and uncleanness. They go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. They love one another. They deliver their widows and orphans from those who would treat them harshly. He who has, gives to him who has not. They fast two or three days to supply the necessary food for the needy. They follow the commands of their Christ justly and seriously. Every morning and every hour they give thanks to God for His lovingkindness to them. If any righteous man passes from this world, they rejoice and give thanks to God.
Now from a non-believer:
They despise the temples, as dead houses; they reject the gods. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. Oh, wondrous folly…They despise present torments, although they fear those which are future. They fear to die after death, but they do not fear to die for the present. The larger portion are in want, are cold, are laboring in hard work or hunger. And God allows it. You do not visit exhibitions; you reject public banquets and abhor sacred contests…you assume you will rise again but refuse to live in the meanwhile. Cease from prying into the destinies of the sky. What is wrong with you?
Could the church of America be accused of that? No, frankly. The church today, in fact, is too often accused of hypocrisy, of embezzlement, of worldliness. Mostly, lukewarmness. The early church had a Holy Spirit-touched lifestyle. They won souls, they turned the world upside down. The secret was in their doctrine. It was different than ours.
NEXT WEEK: Three Doctrines the Early Church Had That Have Been Radically Changed in Today’s Church
Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, “A New Kind of Christian?” CD, Scroll Publishing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)