Jesus taught us a strange and radical doctrine: that we are not to accumulate wealth. He made two commands that together form this doctrine. The doctrine is further supported in Acts and in the Pauline epistles. The first command I will cover here in Part I. It is found in Matthew 6:19-20:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Since the Greek for “treasures” means “concentration of wealth,” Jesus is clearly commanding us not to accumulate wealth assets on earth. This command is radical—and seldom preached. Dr. William MacDonald, late president of Emmaus Bible College, author of 84 published books, had this to say in his Believers Bible Commentary about these two verses:
“…contains some of the most revolutionary teachings of our Lord—and some of the most neglected. In verses 19-21 Jesus contravenes all human advice to provide for a financially secure future … This teaching forces us to decide whether Jesus meant what He said. If He did, then we face the question, “What are we going to do with our earthly treasures?” If He didn‘t (mean what He said), then we face the question, “What are we going to do with our Bible?””
Most Christians don’t even think about the real meaning of the Matthew verses; they are either reading their Bibles without asking the Holy Spirit for interpretation; or their pastors, when covering this Scripture, have distorted the teaching to make it more palatable--such as emphasizing our “attitude” about our possessions. The pastor simply only cares that we don't get obsessed with accumulating more wealth, or obsessed with protecting what we have. So they often tell us that our sin here is to “treasure in our heart” our possessions. Unfortunately, that severely changes the verse, detracting from its clear meaning of not accumulating assets; they "define" it to “not coveting,” a much more vague concept--and one easily dismissible by many nominal Christians--so, people conclude, "I'm not sinning if I'm not coveting." Thus, they say we can forget the radical demand of the verse. We get into a complacent mood (which we usually are). But the verse should be taken literally; it is simply a command not to lay up, or “store.” To preach that we need to look first at our heart to determine whether our possessions are our “treasure” is the exact opposite of what the verse says: as Jesus says in verse 21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Jesus knows (better than we do) that if our treasures are on earth, then the heart’s desire focuses on protecting it, and is avaricious as well.
For further proof, let’s go to Luke 12:16-20. Here is a man who simply wants to be a saver, an investor, then retire—normal godly traits, we assume. If we didn’t read verse 20 and following, we would assert that he is a model of wise behavior:
"The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17 He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.' 18"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." ' 20"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'
This man DIES, and we can read clearly the reason--he accumulates. Jesus' judgment is contained in v.20: "Who will get what you have prepared for yourself?" No other motivation is given for God's reaction. People assume he's complacent; well, in American middle class, who isn't? Maybe some people assume his sin was to eat, drink, and be merry. Not so stated. He has prepared for himself this wealth. Hmmm. God evidently does not see the virtue of “saving” as we see it (not a surprise, actually; see Isaiah 55:8). What was the sin of the rich man, that he was called a “fool?” Was it that he forgot to ask God’s advice on what to do with his riches? Was it his intent on laziness? His pride? Well, Jesus answers that question in the next verse. Did Jesus say, “So is he who forgets to seek counsel from God?” Or, “ so is he who is proud?” No; Jesus says in verse 21:
“So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
This is so clear as to be unassailable. Yet preachers everywhere twist the clear meaning into something smoother, more palatable--less radical. Let me emphasize this: His sin that made him a fool and paid with his life--was laying up treasure, accumulating wealth assets for himself and family--the same sin as quoted in Matthew 6 above. The verses point out a radical and definite command from Jesus to us. Will we obey that command, on faith? Meditate on what you're reading here. Let’s call this concept Jesus’ command to Non-Accumulate. Yes, this is a financial life-changing doctrine. I suspect that pastors generally don’t believe that non-accumulation is a genuine command. They say, “Jesus cannot be teaching us to be so imprudent. What if I lose my job? If I haven’t saved some wealth, what could happen to me and my family? They say, Jesus must be using allegory here; or, He doesn’t mean this for everyone at all times. So, since it is not a real command, I can ignore it.” Well, there are two answers to this train of thought. The first answer is: If it’s a command, it’s a command to obey, no questions asked. Our job is to obey it, not explain it away because it might leave us feeling insecure. Let's not forget--God loves us. And He knows--and can manipulate--the future better than us. We can’t always know why. We should have faith in a loving God as His children that He will sort out the repercussions of not saving to our best spiritual interest. The second answer is: Where is your faith in God’s power? Jesus knows our concern here and answers it only a few verses later—in Matthew 6:26 and 31-32:
Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?…So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
In other words, trust in God, not in yourself (your savings). Look, we all need to see God at work more, to know that He is real. What better way to experience this than seeing God rescue us, as when we obey His command, and we get into a financial tough spot? If He doesn’t rescue in a tight spot, maybe He is telling us: Hey, how did you get in that spot? If we got there by overspending, maybe we need to get less worldly in the use of our money and time. A second possibility may be that He wants to teach us not to buy an item yet—that would teach us patience, or maybe we would use such item to indulge in some sin, or idolize it, pulling us farther away from Him. In any of these, we get away from getting closer to Him and His will if we just reduce some savings to pay for the item. We should leave ourselves open to God speaking to us—which He can only do if we don’t just fall back on our savings or credit card, our own security, for rescue. Families with kids living with them should get their children involved too. First, you teach them giving--'til it hurts,' as they say. Then, say you're in a tight financial spot. Lost your job, say (hopefully through no fault of your own). If you and your kids actually plead with God and then see God rescuing you, or if your family sacrifices enough to do away with worldly desires and spend less and do a new budget, you—and the kids—are more likely, to see God's love for you in raining blessings and rescue down. From that personal touch from Him, you can, as a family, grow to being “sold out” for the Lord. Isn’t that where you want your family to be? What would really sell the kids—and do good for humanity—would be to use your extra cash to give to the needy (to be discussed in second blog) rather than add to savings. By even giving away your savings or extra cash above necessities, you test Him (Malachi 3:10). He will be happy to show that He is your security, not your reserve savings. We need to make sure that we are not insecure in Him. According to Psalm 37:25, you are not vulnerable to poverty if you are in the center of God’s will. You can’t be in that wonderful place by trusting in yourself rather than God.
Friday, May 29, 2020
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Flaws in the "Once Saved Always Saved" Argument (Part 3 of 3)
This is our wrap-up on this flawed doctrine that has pervaded the world. We’ll continue trying to take apart “once saved always saved” (or OSAS) proof texts. The first 14 flaws are in my first two parts. Please continue to read and pray.
15. Romans 4:6-8: just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
OSAS adherents maintain that the non-imputation (or non-charging) of sin is automatic and continuous, so we don’t have to worry about sins any more. Yes, God imputes righteousness at initial salvation apart from works, but we must persist in godliness. To prove that, we turn once again to Paul, who only two chapters later, spends a lot of time debunking the OSAS perversion. In Romans 6:6-13, he insists that the purpose of salvation is that “the body of sin might be done away with.” He asserts that we have “been freed from sin.” And that doesn’t mean freed from hell, it means freed from the proactivity of sin. Through the Spirit that He gives you, if you listen to Him, you can “present yourselves to God…and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” and not to “present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin.” Avoiding sin is one of the essences of worship! We should be continually presenting ourselves to God for holiness, and that job is on us. And, unlike what OSAS espouses, God’s purpose was to free us from sinning, not giving us a tool for not worrying about our sin.
16. Romans 8:35, 38-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? … 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
OSAS adherents say nothing can separate us from the love of God, so His love is unconditional. Well, these are great verses, that nothing outside of us can keep us from God. But the verses say nothing about how WE can forcibly remove ourselves from God. Also, I didn’t notice “persistence in sinning” on the list that can’t separate us. Read Isaiah 59:2:
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.
Will sins eternally separate us from God? Yes. In fact, Scripture has several lists of certain sins that are hell-bound, if we don’t repent. Revelation 21:8, for instance:
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
The issue we’re discussing is whether being born again once means we can forget about sin re-separating us from God. Their “proof” text above does not prove one way or another, since it fails to mention our giving way to sin, which CAN separate us from God. So it isn’t a proof text for that doctrine.
17. Colossians 1:21-22 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight…
OSAS adherents report that God is doing all the reconciling through Jesus to present us holy, blameless, and above reproach. Well, they forget the next verse completing the thought, verse 23:
…IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard.
There’s that important “if” that says we must continue in the faith, not allowing ourselves to be moved away from the hope of the gospel. This can be connected to another verse that should be considered to get the context, II Peter 3:14:
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless.
Certainly if no effort is required on our part to be without spot and blameless, as OSASers claim earlier, why are we urged to “be diligent” to become without spot and blameless? It just seems that over and over, Jesus has done His part to give it, and we are to do our part to keep it. Consider 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.
The Greek word for “strive,” agonizomai, is the word from which we get “agonize.” Have you agonized to maintain your faith and behavior, to keep it pure? Now compare that to Matthew 7:14:
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
OSAS is so easy a method for salvation, many will think they "find" heaven. But the fact is, as Jesus asserts, FEW will find heaven. Now let’s conclude this item with one more verse : Colossians 1:24—which is even more controversial:
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church
Now let me say, first, that this is not saying that Jesus’ sufferings lacked in providing us atonement to His Father for our past sins. But a little study on the Greek for “fill up” (antanapleroo) was interesting. The word suggests doing what we need to do “in our turn,” or doing it “corresponding to” another. Face it, to many unbelievers, we are Jesus to them—and our actions hopefully give such testimony. Many will hate that, so we may be persecuted. How we handle persecution is a testimony too. Doing our part of sacrifice is necessary to “fill” the Gospel to them, since many of them do not read or hear His Word. So this is not about atoning for sin. Here’s the meaning: Jesus was afflicted by His enemies. Now we, His body, will do our part in correspondence—suffering at the hands of His enemies. If, then, suffering is a necessary part of the gospel, and if Jesus did His part, then we must do our part so that nothing is lacking in the presentation of the gospel today, as there was nothing lacking when He was on the earth. Let us not allow the mistaken belief in “eternal security” to lead us into spiritual complacency or shrinking away from taking a stand and suffering as a result.
Let’s turn now to another segment of discussion. There are other favorite phrases OSAS adherents say, that are not based on a particular Scripture but are worth commenting on. One is: “eternal life is eternal. If you could lose it, it isn’t eternal life.” To that I argue, “eternal life will always remain eternal, but the persons who possesses it can change.” After all, eternal life existed before you ever “got on board.” And it will continue to exist if you happen to “get off the track.” So eternal life can’t change, but your possession of it can change.
OSAS adherents also like to say, “Scripture promises 'eternal salvation;' so I’m eternally secure.” But the only place that the phrase “eternal salvation” is used in Scripture is Hebrews 5:9, where it says:
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
There it is again, we must obey His commandments for eternal salvation.
Another favorite OSAS argument is “once a son, always a son; a child cannot be unborn.” Thus they argue that once you’re a child of God (a phrase used in Gal. 3:26), you will always be a child of God. But this is “reasoning from the natural to the spiritual” again, which is dangerous, as we proved before. My response is, did you know that an unsaved person (which is how we all start out once we become responsible for our sin) is a son of the devil? That’s proven in Matthew 13:38 and John 8:44. If then, “once a son, always a son,” then we’re stuck being a child of the devil forever! That’s how their logic follows, is it not? But, praise God, we can change eternal parentage—and, sadly, we can change it back.
OSAS believers also have a specific belief about the “seal of the Holy Spirit;” that it can’t be broken. But look at II Timothy 2:19 (ESV):
But God's firm foundation stands (this speaks of the church), bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
If the seal can’t be broken, why is there a warning to “depart from iniquity” attached to it? Because if we ignore the warning, and resume a wicked life, we have broken the seal, and are no longer saved, that’s why. Why attach a warning when there is no danger?
Most OSASers, whether they know it or not, are Calvinists, and believe that our “perseverance” to the end (the letter "P" in Calvin's "TULIP" myth) is solely up to God, so it’s a guaranteed deal that once we’ve expressed faith, we’ll make it. But think with me a minute: If perseverance is solely up to God, no one would ever fall away--because Scripture says God doesn’t want any to perish. As II Peter 3:9 says:
The Lord is not…. willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But as we’ve already read (see my previous blog), many do fall away (I Tim. 4:1). Plus, many wander from the faith, I Timothy 6:10:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
And check Matthew 24:10:
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other.
And read carefully I Corinthians 8:10-11, where a weaker brother (a saved person) has his faith destroyed by someone doing something that is offensive to his conscience:
For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
The word “perish” there is the same Greek word that we quoted in II Peter 3:9; it has eternal ramifications. As all these verses are saying, many people, for various reasons, do not persevere to the end, to their ultimate grief. So, again, Scripture is not what Mr. Calvin says.
Many OSASers are Calvinists in another way: They are “elected” by God, which to them means that even before they were born, God selected them to be saved. His irresistible grace, through His Spirit, wooed only His elected people into the fold. And since there was nothing they did by works to get in, there’s nothing they can do, even by “bad works,” to get out. Now the huge question is: Is Mr. Calvin’s definition of the Scriptural term “election” correct? The reason I’m questioning this is, it forces us to consider something really bad: what about the people that God doesn’t elect? According to this doctrine, supposedly His Spirit only woos the elect, there is nothing the “non-elect” can do to get in (since every person is totally depraved, we can only recognize salvation by the wooing of His Spirit). You have to conclude that, according to Calvinism, some people (the “non-elected”) are therefore guaranteed for hell! But doesn't that make God capricious and callous? Sorry, but I’d rather believe II Peter 3:9. I conclude that since a capricious God results from Calvin's definition of election, it must be wrong—but a lot of people are taking too much confidence in his definition of the word “elected.” They should consider the words in II Peter 1:5-10:
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble
Note that our effort for godly character makes our “election sure.” Again, this not a God-guarantee; it requires diligence, as this Scripture says, to make your calling sure. And note that perseverance is a character trait that we need to develop. Yep, takes work and yieldedness to the Holy Spirit.
If we love God, and want to see Him in heaven, we have to have holiness. Obviously the right attitude for holiness is hating evil. But in order to really hate evil enough to do something about it, it is necessary to have the fear of God. (It is possible to love God and to fear Him--these ideas are not opposites.) Some, however, who call themselves Christians do not have fear of God. Not having such fear, they feel free to practice sin and, by their activity, effectively deny God. But God, many times in Scripture, tells us that we actually need to fear Him (see my blog on it; the idea is Scriptural). It's also true that a love of God is not inhibited by a fear of God. If we love God, we won’t sin thoughtlessly. Instead, we will, in advance of a questionable activity, coldly study the devastating effects of what would happen if we perform a particular sin; what it does to our relationships, including our relationship to God. If we have coveted our time together with Him, and experienced the good feelings the Spirit gives us, and the reward of doing His will, we will want to keep that no matter what. We also want to think about how killing the sin-desire defeats Satan, God's enemy and our enemy--who arrogantly assumes he can beat us every time. Then we proactively avoid anything in our lives that might stimulate us toward that sin. If your sin is sexual, you would be willing to cut off some premium cable channels, a lot of movies, certain old friends, block the computer, possibly quit a job for another, not attend certain places to eat, go to the beach hardly at all. Extreme, right? But you haven’t come close to lopping off a limb (per Matthew 5:29-30). How much do you hate sin? We need to learn, over time, to hate sin. Look at the devastating effects of adultery in Proverbs 7:21-23:
With her enticing speech she caused him to yield; with her flattering lips she seduced him. 22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks, 23 Till an arrow struck his liver. As a bird hastens to the snare, He did not know it would cost his life.
If we read (and memorize) that verse enough til’ we really believe it, till it really sinks in, (“cost his life” could be eternal life), we will train our mind to hate the sin even more. If we see how it ruins the lives of those around us, we learn to hate the sin more yet. We vow over and over after such examples never to participate in it; we daily dedicate our bodies to the Lord. We discipline our thought life, too; why make our mind a toilet for God to look at? By hating evil we show God we are loyal and want to be pure like Him; we want to hate sin like Him; we just want to be like Him. Remember what Hebrews 12:14 says:
Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.
We do want to see the Lord, right?
Speaking of seeing the Lord, you know how He describes Himself? We all like to think it would be how He is a God of love. Well, as He shows Moses Himself in Exodus 34:6-7, He describes Himself thusly:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation
That last phrase makes Him look like the God of Grudges, doesn’t it? (He repeats the threat in Exodus 20:5). Is that what He wants us to remember Him by? Well, yes, and by explanation, I just use one word—“holy.” That’s what God is, along with loving us. His big issue in His loving heart is, how does He keep people from sinning (and ruining their lives)? Here’s an answer He came up with: He knows that everybody wants to protect their children from life’s hard knocks; what better fear motivator to right living than to threaten people that if you sin, God will carry out the punishment you caused on your children (who will follow you into sinning the same way), and your children’s children. That’s what the verse is saying.
Now people, if you don’t like seeing God this way, then you haven’t been hearing what this paper is trying to say. Yes, God is love. I don’t have to give you any verses on that; you hear them many Sundays. But you probably don’t hear that God hates some people, do you? So it says in Psalm 11:5:
The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
None of the phrase “hates the sin and loves the sinner” here. Unless you repent, God not only hates your sin, but He has to carry out judgment on you. What I’m trying to say is, if we don’t get a balanced view of God, we’ll develop a fatal case of complacency. Read this last set of verses below (where complacency about sin is taken as lukewarmness.) from Revelation 3:14-19:
These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
May God sink this deep in our hearts. We need to be zealous and hate sin, repenting from it—not just once, but regularly through our lives. For our eternity’s sake!
Acknowledgment: Dan Corner, Conditional Security of the Believer
15. Romans 4:6-8: just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
OSAS adherents maintain that the non-imputation (or non-charging) of sin is automatic and continuous, so we don’t have to worry about sins any more. Yes, God imputes righteousness at initial salvation apart from works, but we must persist in godliness. To prove that, we turn once again to Paul, who only two chapters later, spends a lot of time debunking the OSAS perversion. In Romans 6:6-13, he insists that the purpose of salvation is that “the body of sin might be done away with.” He asserts that we have “been freed from sin.” And that doesn’t mean freed from hell, it means freed from the proactivity of sin. Through the Spirit that He gives you, if you listen to Him, you can “present yourselves to God…and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” and not to “present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin.” Avoiding sin is one of the essences of worship! We should be continually presenting ourselves to God for holiness, and that job is on us. And, unlike what OSAS espouses, God’s purpose was to free us from sinning, not giving us a tool for not worrying about our sin.
16. Romans 8:35, 38-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? … 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
OSAS adherents say nothing can separate us from the love of God, so His love is unconditional. Well, these are great verses, that nothing outside of us can keep us from God. But the verses say nothing about how WE can forcibly remove ourselves from God. Also, I didn’t notice “persistence in sinning” on the list that can’t separate us. Read Isaiah 59:2:
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.
Will sins eternally separate us from God? Yes. In fact, Scripture has several lists of certain sins that are hell-bound, if we don’t repent. Revelation 21:8, for instance:
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
The issue we’re discussing is whether being born again once means we can forget about sin re-separating us from God. Their “proof” text above does not prove one way or another, since it fails to mention our giving way to sin, which CAN separate us from God. So it isn’t a proof text for that doctrine.
17. Colossians 1:21-22 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight…
OSAS adherents report that God is doing all the reconciling through Jesus to present us holy, blameless, and above reproach. Well, they forget the next verse completing the thought, verse 23:
…IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard.
There’s that important “if” that says we must continue in the faith, not allowing ourselves to be moved away from the hope of the gospel. This can be connected to another verse that should be considered to get the context, II Peter 3:14:
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless.
Certainly if no effort is required on our part to be without spot and blameless, as OSASers claim earlier, why are we urged to “be diligent” to become without spot and blameless? It just seems that over and over, Jesus has done His part to give it, and we are to do our part to keep it. Consider 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.
The Greek word for “strive,” agonizomai, is the word from which we get “agonize.” Have you agonized to maintain your faith and behavior, to keep it pure? Now compare that to Matthew 7:14:
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
OSAS is so easy a method for salvation, many will think they "find" heaven. But the fact is, as Jesus asserts, FEW will find heaven. Now let’s conclude this item with one more verse : Colossians 1:24—which is even more controversial:
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church
Now let me say, first, that this is not saying that Jesus’ sufferings lacked in providing us atonement to His Father for our past sins. But a little study on the Greek for “fill up” (antanapleroo) was interesting. The word suggests doing what we need to do “in our turn,” or doing it “corresponding to” another. Face it, to many unbelievers, we are Jesus to them—and our actions hopefully give such testimony. Many will hate that, so we may be persecuted. How we handle persecution is a testimony too. Doing our part of sacrifice is necessary to “fill” the Gospel to them, since many of them do not read or hear His Word. So this is not about atoning for sin. Here’s the meaning: Jesus was afflicted by His enemies. Now we, His body, will do our part in correspondence—suffering at the hands of His enemies. If, then, suffering is a necessary part of the gospel, and if Jesus did His part, then we must do our part so that nothing is lacking in the presentation of the gospel today, as there was nothing lacking when He was on the earth. Let us not allow the mistaken belief in “eternal security” to lead us into spiritual complacency or shrinking away from taking a stand and suffering as a result.
Let’s turn now to another segment of discussion. There are other favorite phrases OSAS adherents say, that are not based on a particular Scripture but are worth commenting on. One is: “eternal life is eternal. If you could lose it, it isn’t eternal life.” To that I argue, “eternal life will always remain eternal, but the persons who possesses it can change.” After all, eternal life existed before you ever “got on board.” And it will continue to exist if you happen to “get off the track.” So eternal life can’t change, but your possession of it can change.
OSAS adherents also like to say, “Scripture promises 'eternal salvation;' so I’m eternally secure.” But the only place that the phrase “eternal salvation” is used in Scripture is Hebrews 5:9, where it says:
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
There it is again, we must obey His commandments for eternal salvation.
Another favorite OSAS argument is “once a son, always a son; a child cannot be unborn.” Thus they argue that once you’re a child of God (a phrase used in Gal. 3:26), you will always be a child of God. But this is “reasoning from the natural to the spiritual” again, which is dangerous, as we proved before. My response is, did you know that an unsaved person (which is how we all start out once we become responsible for our sin) is a son of the devil? That’s proven in Matthew 13:38 and John 8:44. If then, “once a son, always a son,” then we’re stuck being a child of the devil forever! That’s how their logic follows, is it not? But, praise God, we can change eternal parentage—and, sadly, we can change it back.
OSAS believers also have a specific belief about the “seal of the Holy Spirit;” that it can’t be broken. But look at II Timothy 2:19 (ESV):
But God's firm foundation stands (this speaks of the church), bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
If the seal can’t be broken, why is there a warning to “depart from iniquity” attached to it? Because if we ignore the warning, and resume a wicked life, we have broken the seal, and are no longer saved, that’s why. Why attach a warning when there is no danger?
Most OSASers, whether they know it or not, are Calvinists, and believe that our “perseverance” to the end (the letter "P" in Calvin's "TULIP" myth) is solely up to God, so it’s a guaranteed deal that once we’ve expressed faith, we’ll make it. But think with me a minute: If perseverance is solely up to God, no one would ever fall away--because Scripture says God doesn’t want any to perish. As II Peter 3:9 says:
The Lord is not…. willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But as we’ve already read (see my previous blog), many do fall away (I Tim. 4:1). Plus, many wander from the faith, I Timothy 6:10:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
And check Matthew 24:10:
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other.
And read carefully I Corinthians 8:10-11, where a weaker brother (a saved person) has his faith destroyed by someone doing something that is offensive to his conscience:
For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
The word “perish” there is the same Greek word that we quoted in II Peter 3:9; it has eternal ramifications. As all these verses are saying, many people, for various reasons, do not persevere to the end, to their ultimate grief. So, again, Scripture is not what Mr. Calvin says.
Many OSASers are Calvinists in another way: They are “elected” by God, which to them means that even before they were born, God selected them to be saved. His irresistible grace, through His Spirit, wooed only His elected people into the fold. And since there was nothing they did by works to get in, there’s nothing they can do, even by “bad works,” to get out. Now the huge question is: Is Mr. Calvin’s definition of the Scriptural term “election” correct? The reason I’m questioning this is, it forces us to consider something really bad: what about the people that God doesn’t elect? According to this doctrine, supposedly His Spirit only woos the elect, there is nothing the “non-elect” can do to get in (since every person is totally depraved, we can only recognize salvation by the wooing of His Spirit). You have to conclude that, according to Calvinism, some people (the “non-elected”) are therefore guaranteed for hell! But doesn't that make God capricious and callous? Sorry, but I’d rather believe II Peter 3:9. I conclude that since a capricious God results from Calvin's definition of election, it must be wrong—but a lot of people are taking too much confidence in his definition of the word “elected.” They should consider the words in II Peter 1:5-10:
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble
Note that our effort for godly character makes our “election sure.” Again, this not a God-guarantee; it requires diligence, as this Scripture says, to make your calling sure. And note that perseverance is a character trait that we need to develop. Yep, takes work and yieldedness to the Holy Spirit.
If we love God, and want to see Him in heaven, we have to have holiness. Obviously the right attitude for holiness is hating evil. But in order to really hate evil enough to do something about it, it is necessary to have the fear of God. (It is possible to love God and to fear Him--these ideas are not opposites.) Some, however, who call themselves Christians do not have fear of God. Not having such fear, they feel free to practice sin and, by their activity, effectively deny God. But God, many times in Scripture, tells us that we actually need to fear Him (see my blog on it; the idea is Scriptural). It's also true that a love of God is not inhibited by a fear of God. If we love God, we won’t sin thoughtlessly. Instead, we will, in advance of a questionable activity, coldly study the devastating effects of what would happen if we perform a particular sin; what it does to our relationships, including our relationship to God. If we have coveted our time together with Him, and experienced the good feelings the Spirit gives us, and the reward of doing His will, we will want to keep that no matter what. We also want to think about how killing the sin-desire defeats Satan, God's enemy and our enemy--who arrogantly assumes he can beat us every time. Then we proactively avoid anything in our lives that might stimulate us toward that sin. If your sin is sexual, you would be willing to cut off some premium cable channels, a lot of movies, certain old friends, block the computer, possibly quit a job for another, not attend certain places to eat, go to the beach hardly at all. Extreme, right? But you haven’t come close to lopping off a limb (per Matthew 5:29-30). How much do you hate sin? We need to learn, over time, to hate sin. Look at the devastating effects of adultery in Proverbs 7:21-23:
With her enticing speech she caused him to yield; with her flattering lips she seduced him. 22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks, 23 Till an arrow struck his liver. As a bird hastens to the snare, He did not know it would cost his life.
If we read (and memorize) that verse enough til’ we really believe it, till it really sinks in, (“cost his life” could be eternal life), we will train our mind to hate the sin even more. If we see how it ruins the lives of those around us, we learn to hate the sin more yet. We vow over and over after such examples never to participate in it; we daily dedicate our bodies to the Lord. We discipline our thought life, too; why make our mind a toilet for God to look at? By hating evil we show God we are loyal and want to be pure like Him; we want to hate sin like Him; we just want to be like Him. Remember what Hebrews 12:14 says:
Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.
We do want to see the Lord, right?
Speaking of seeing the Lord, you know how He describes Himself? We all like to think it would be how He is a God of love. Well, as He shows Moses Himself in Exodus 34:6-7, He describes Himself thusly:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation
That last phrase makes Him look like the God of Grudges, doesn’t it? (He repeats the threat in Exodus 20:5). Is that what He wants us to remember Him by? Well, yes, and by explanation, I just use one word—“holy.” That’s what God is, along with loving us. His big issue in His loving heart is, how does He keep people from sinning (and ruining their lives)? Here’s an answer He came up with: He knows that everybody wants to protect their children from life’s hard knocks; what better fear motivator to right living than to threaten people that if you sin, God will carry out the punishment you caused on your children (who will follow you into sinning the same way), and your children’s children. That’s what the verse is saying.
Now people, if you don’t like seeing God this way, then you haven’t been hearing what this paper is trying to say. Yes, God is love. I don’t have to give you any verses on that; you hear them many Sundays. But you probably don’t hear that God hates some people, do you? So it says in Psalm 11:5:
The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
None of the phrase “hates the sin and loves the sinner” here. Unless you repent, God not only hates your sin, but He has to carry out judgment on you. What I’m trying to say is, if we don’t get a balanced view of God, we’ll develop a fatal case of complacency. Read this last set of verses below (where complacency about sin is taken as lukewarmness.) from Revelation 3:14-19:
These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
May God sink this deep in our hearts. We need to be zealous and hate sin, repenting from it—not just once, but regularly through our lives. For our eternity’s sake!
Acknowledgment: Dan Corner, Conditional Security of the Believer
Friday, May 22, 2020
Flaws in the 'Once Saved, Always Saved' Argument (Part 2 of 3)
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.
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, which defines blameless?
…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 (see last week). 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.
As to the idea of "continuing in" 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 some Corinthians believed, and he's warning them, hold fast and don't get to where you don’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 (i.e., "fall away"); this means ensuing spiritual death (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.
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. You can't be certain it's saying that; 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 the OSASers 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 (again). Since Peter was saved before his denial, this can only mean he lost that salvation when he denied Christ. 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 about Jesus' statement is this: 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 at the time he heard it. 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 a rabbit trail: Jesus said he would pray that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. But Peter didn't fail, so 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, under heavy peer pressure, wanted to abandon the Christian faith and be a synagogue-attending 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 in 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 universally the case.
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 the whole statement is Paul pronouncing a blessing, giving 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, leading to "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! While we're on the subject, let us also remember that Ephesians 2:8 and 9, supposedly all God’s grace—goes along with verse 10, things we should do. Take a look:
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 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 a committed sin that we do 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 this is 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 in print.
Lastly, in this section, consider another idea: What does Paul say 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 perfect 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, finally "gave them over." Man is then reprobate, and worthy of hell. Paul uses the same word about himself, as a motivator for him to stand up against the devil. He is disciplining his body (actually, the Greek word says he is beating, or buffeting his body), to bring it into servitude. We're not advocating flagellating here; Paul 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 like this, 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 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 become a spiritual giant like Paul? (Or would we decline that opportunity?) But look at the watchfulness and 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
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, which defines blameless?
…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 (see last week). 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.
As to the idea of "continuing in" 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 some Corinthians believed, and he's warning them, hold fast and don't get to where you don’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 (i.e., "fall away"); this means ensuing spiritual death (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.
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. You can't be certain it's saying that; 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 the OSASers 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 (again). Since Peter was saved before his denial, this can only mean he lost that salvation when he denied Christ. 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 about Jesus' statement is this: 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 at the time he heard it. 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 a rabbit trail: Jesus said he would pray that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. But Peter didn't fail, so 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, under heavy peer pressure, wanted to abandon the Christian faith and be a synagogue-attending 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 in 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 universally the case.
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 the whole statement is Paul pronouncing a blessing, giving 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, leading to "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! While we're on the subject, let us also remember that Ephesians 2:8 and 9, supposedly all God’s grace—goes along with verse 10, things we should do. Take a look:
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 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 a committed sin that we do 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 this is 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 in print.
Lastly, in this section, consider another idea: What does Paul say 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 perfect 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, finally "gave them over." Man is then reprobate, and worthy of hell. Paul uses the same word about himself, as a motivator for him to stand up against the devil. He is disciplining his body (actually, the Greek word says he is beating, or buffeting his body), to bring it into servitude. We're not advocating flagellating here; Paul 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 like this, 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 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 become a spiritual giant like Paul? (Or would we decline that opportunity?) But look at the watchfulness and 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
Monday, May 18, 2020
The Flaws in the "Once Saved, Always Saved" Argument
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). His theology was opposed by Michael Servetus, another theologian, who believed that man has the ability and the free will to choose God or not choose God. He is not predestined to hell or heaven before he is even born, which is what Calvin was saying. When Servetus studied the Institutes, and returned the book to Calvin, he wrote marginal notes criticizing certain points. Calvin, with his own 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 naively 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 "conspiracy to murder." As far as we know, Calvin never repented of that despicable act. Do unrepentant murderers go to heaven? No, as Scripture clearly points out. So the “once saved, always saved” doctrine not only sets forth God as capricious, but the doctrine's founder became an unsaved murderer.
Now let’s talk about today. The raw edges of this doctrine are kept out of public view. But Once saved always saved (OSAS) adherents and new converts are still reassured many times of their salvation once they make that leap of faith. That leads to a big problem—complacency. It’s an unavoidable theory that many of them unconsciously gradually assume that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. They may say, yes, 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 to you?
But the whole doctrine of OSAS is wrong Scripturally as well. The Bible speaks 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 more 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 verse claims? 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 (God) 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, and we are less than peaceful. 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.
This “keeping” involves our activity. Something for us to do—or fail to do. You cannot argue that directing people to “keep” in His will is all God’s responsibility.
Now on the other key word in Jude 24: falling. Aren't there many ways that we might not actively keep God first, and might 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 leaving 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 apostacize unless you were a believer in the first place. Then you did a bad choice; it might have taken time, little by little. You fell away. 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.39 But 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.” Thus, from belief to unbelief is possible. 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, but I emphasize he is a convert, per Vine’s dictionary. So he was recently 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 in verse 5. 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 50 and 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, and needs to be expelled. Why expelled?--another blog. Basically, it's to keep the Church pure--we must remove those who are known unsaved and in gross sin. 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 be nice in the name of forgiving love. Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an unrepentant adulterer.” Thus Paul is implying, 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 once he sees how Satan, the god of his flesh, treats him.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a final 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 about the characteristics of His sheep: 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 in the habit of hearing Him and not purposely following Him in your daily walk, 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? Maybe some of us, after that initial emotion, say "no" to these requirements.
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 commandments, and "abiding" in Him. First, have you sincerely tried to obey all the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount? 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 Him and abiding in Him 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 is actually a quote 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 unconditional meaning we think it has. (It has more of a "til' the unforeseen future"). 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 I argue back that 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 is part of Scripture, and all Scripture 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 in the 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 to use, as our model, “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, perhaps many 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. The point is, 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 of Romans 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 says nothing about perfect assurance for the believer; "those who are being sanctified" doesn't carry that level of guarantee. Also, 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. Don't forget: Sanctification depends on our behavior; and as anyone will tell you, we are not robotically forced into making perfect choices. Thus it is conditional. See an item on this 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 makes us alive and forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. It's wonderfully true that upon the point of salvation, God makes us alive, in part by giving us the Holy Spirit. But don't forget the Sower in Matthew 13: Some seed came alive, but under shallow soil died. Another point about forgiveness of sin: the verse does not specifically refer to initial salvation guaranteeing us forgiveness for future trespasses; Paul is, after all, focusing about a past event (“has made alive”), at initial salvation. It could be, that's all he meant. For additional light, 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
I think if Peter knew that he could include future sins in this 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 guaranteed forgiveness from future sins.
It would be safe to conclude that John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. Introspecting on today's sins at the end of the day in prayer would be a good part of abiding in Christ. It is an important part of Communion, right? 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, after all, the time period of 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 in making this assumption is not taking context into account. 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 except God. Say, 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 because God is not #1. 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's curse on His enemies is included, is it not, in His being faithful. He is faithful in fulfilling ALL promises. So, that means He 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--i.e., the curse of our sin remains on us. The opposite of what OSASers think.
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.” The deposit is our treasure in heaven. It's the same thing as "what I have entrusted to Him." Guarding it is our job. 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!’
First, to understand this, the word "know" and its derivatives mean salvation. Jesus seems to be saying, with the words "I never knew you," that the unsaved were in that condition permanently.
The OSAS adherent is trying to make the verses prove that you can't be "known" (saved) and then "not known" (become unsaved). So the OSASer says, about Matthew 7 above, “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 25:11. Some had no oil (oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit). In this salvation metaphor, Jesus has the bridegroom telling the virgins, "I do not know you.” Now, it's gotta be, since all ten virgins were invited, the bridegroom must have known them. So what does he really mean by the statement "I do not know you?"
I have to conclude that the phrase is an idiom—He’s really saying,” you are now so far removed from me in spirit (not having any oil), it’s like I never knew you.” I believe, furthermore, this is what Jesus is really saying in Matthew 7 above: When He says "I never knew you," He is saying, "your thoughts and actions became so far removed from me, it's like I never knew you." Thus, these verses are saying, our thoughts and actions need to be in His Spirit, so He will claim us in that day of judgement. Thus, they do not back the OSAS claim of how it's impossible to lose salvation.
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 the family and in his good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24 of the prodigal story, the words of the happy father:
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 relevant to us, as all parables tend to do—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 while he was 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. Note also that the father did not chase after the son. 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 first “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 lost, or dead--i.e., unsaved for awhile.
NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
Now let’s talk about today. The raw edges of this doctrine are kept out of public view. But Once saved always saved (OSAS) adherents and new converts are still reassured many times of their salvation once they make that leap of faith. That leads to a big problem—complacency. It’s an unavoidable theory that many of them unconsciously gradually assume that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. They may say, yes, 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 to you?
But the whole doctrine of OSAS is wrong Scripturally as well. The Bible speaks 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 more 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 verse claims? 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 (God) 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, and we are less than peaceful. 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.
This “keeping” involves our activity. Something for us to do—or fail to do. You cannot argue that directing people to “keep” in His will is all God’s responsibility.
Now on the other key word in Jude 24: falling. Aren't there many ways that we might not actively keep God first, and might 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 leaving 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 apostacize unless you were a believer in the first place. Then you did a bad choice; it might have taken time, little by little. You fell away. 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.39 But 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.” Thus, from belief to unbelief is possible. 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, but I emphasize he is a convert, per Vine’s dictionary. So he was recently 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 in verse 5. 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 50 and 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, and needs to be expelled. Why expelled?--another blog. Basically, it's to keep the Church pure--we must remove those who are known unsaved and in gross sin. 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 be nice in the name of forgiving love. Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an unrepentant adulterer.” Thus Paul is implying, 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 once he sees how Satan, the god of his flesh, treats him.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a final 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 about the characteristics of His sheep: 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 in the habit of hearing Him and not purposely following Him in your daily walk, 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? Maybe some of us, after that initial emotion, say "no" to these requirements.
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 commandments, and "abiding" in Him. First, have you sincerely tried to obey all the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount? 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 Him and abiding in Him 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 is actually a quote 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 unconditional meaning we think it has. (It has more of a "til' the unforeseen future"). 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 I argue back that 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 is part of Scripture, and all Scripture 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 in the 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 to use, as our model, “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, perhaps many 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. The point is, 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 of Romans 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 says nothing about perfect assurance for the believer; "those who are being sanctified" doesn't carry that level of guarantee. Also, 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. Don't forget: Sanctification depends on our behavior; and as anyone will tell you, we are not robotically forced into making perfect choices. Thus it is conditional. See an item on this 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 makes us alive and forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. It's wonderfully true that upon the point of salvation, God makes us alive, in part by giving us the Holy Spirit. But don't forget the Sower in Matthew 13: Some seed came alive, but under shallow soil died. Another point about forgiveness of sin: the verse does not specifically refer to initial salvation guaranteeing us forgiveness for future trespasses; Paul is, after all, focusing about a past event (“has made alive”), at initial salvation. It could be, that's all he meant. For additional light, 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
I think if Peter knew that he could include future sins in this 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 guaranteed forgiveness from future sins.
It would be safe to conclude that John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. Introspecting on today's sins at the end of the day in prayer would be a good part of abiding in Christ. It is an important part of Communion, right? 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, after all, the time period of 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 in making this assumption is not taking context into account. 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 except God. Say, 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 because God is not #1. 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's curse on His enemies is included, is it not, in His being faithful. He is faithful in fulfilling ALL promises. So, that means He 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--i.e., the curse of our sin remains on us. The opposite of what OSASers think.
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.” The deposit is our treasure in heaven. It's the same thing as "what I have entrusted to Him." Guarding it is our job. 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!’
First, to understand this, the word "know" and its derivatives mean salvation. Jesus seems to be saying, with the words "I never knew you," that the unsaved were in that condition permanently.
The OSAS adherent is trying to make the verses prove that you can't be "known" (saved) and then "not known" (become unsaved). So the OSASer says, about Matthew 7 above, “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 25:11. Some had no oil (oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit). In this salvation metaphor, Jesus has the bridegroom telling the virgins, "I do not know you.” Now, it's gotta be, since all ten virgins were invited, the bridegroom must have known them. So what does he really mean by the statement "I do not know you?"
I have to conclude that the phrase is an idiom—He’s really saying,” you are now so far removed from me in spirit (not having any oil), it’s like I never knew you.” I believe, furthermore, this is what Jesus is really saying in Matthew 7 above: When He says "I never knew you," He is saying, "your thoughts and actions became so far removed from me, it's like I never knew you." Thus, these verses are saying, our thoughts and actions need to be in His Spirit, so He will claim us in that day of judgement. Thus, they do not back the OSAS claim of how it's impossible to lose salvation.
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 the family and in his good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24 of the prodigal story, the words of the happy father:
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 relevant to us, as all parables tend to do—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 while he was 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. Note also that the father did not chase after the son. 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 first “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 lost, or dead--i.e., unsaved for awhile.
NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
Friday, May 15, 2020
Our Nation's Shame
This article appeared in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. This blog is short but not sweet.
“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.
“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.
Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder following a two-month trial in 2013, is currently serving a life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole. He was an abortion doctor based in Philadelphia, where state law prohibits the procedure beginning at 24 weeks gestational age. By his own admission, Dr. Gosnell regularly performed illegal late-term abortions, mostly on low-income minority women. In some cases he would induce labor, deliver live babies, and then kill them by snipping the backs of their necks with scissors.
Nick Searcy directed the film, based on a book of the same title by a married couple of investigative journalists from Ireland, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. In an essay last month, Mr. Searcy explained why he was drawn to the subject. “It is nearly impossible to find an adult person who does not have an opinion on the issue of abortion,” he wrote in National Review, “and yet how little we all know about it—how it is done, what the laws are surrounding it, how it is regulated, legislated, and practiced. I wanted to share that knowledge.”
Dr. Gosnell’s story may not change a single mind about abortion, yet the movie and book make an important contribution to a debate that continues to rage 45 years after Roe v. Wade. They offer a better understanding of what “abortion rights” mean in practice and a renewed appreciation of the tragic consequences that can result when politicians, public-health officials and the media put blind ideology ahead of basic human decency.
Dr. Gosnell had been performing illegal abortions for decades before law-enforcement officials stumbled upon him, and when they did, it was for reasons that had nothing to do with his abortion practice. In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern.
In their book, Ms. McElhinney and Mr. McAleer write that the Gosnell raid unveiled “a house of horrors.” The toilets were clogged with fetal remains. Cupboards contained jars with the severed feet of infants inside. In refrigerators and freezers, detectives found more discarded fetuses stored in milk cartons, water jugs, cat-food containers and Minute Maid juice boxes with the tops cut off to make the openings larger. Later, authorities would discover that Dr. Gosnell employed “assistants”—who had no medical training and were paid under the table—to sedate patients, conduct ultrasounds and administer labor-inducing drugs.
Dr. Gosnell’s story becomes even more upsetting when you realize how much sooner he should have been caught. State inspectors visited the clinic three times between 1989 and 1993. Each time they discovered that no registered nurses were on staff, as the law requires, yet permitted him to continue providing abortions. After Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1994, the state Department of Health stopped all routine inspections of abortion clinics.
Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way.
Once Dr. Gosnell’s trial began in 2013, it was the national media’s turn to ignore him. Fox News gave the trial significant attention, but few other major outlets did the same. The liberal press knew the story would cast a negative light on abortion, and that concerned them much more than bringing to justice a doctor who committed infanticide and routinely risked the health of women.
Ultimately, social media shamed the press into covering the trial, and you won’t be shocked to find out that interest in the story hasn’t lasted. Some outlets have refused to run ads for the film, and almost all major publications have declined to review it. Which also helps explain why I had so little company on Friday.
Article by Jason L. Riley, October 16, 2018
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Homosexuality Presents Arguments in Current Atmosphere
H
This
is a summary of a great sermon by Voddie Baucham, pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Houston,
Texas. This is on a delicate subject,
homosexuality. Those in favor of
homosexuality have four arguments often used to debate Christians. His sermon
is so logically done, I have summarized it in outline form.
·
Their
first argument we shall consider is that they say that Jesus never addressed
homosexuality. They say, “Since you’re a Christian, you’re a follower of
Christ, right? Then why make a big deal
out of something that Jesus never mentioned one time.” Christians have typically had a weak
response. Here’s your response: Jesus did address it!
a. In Matthew chapters 5
and 19, when He talked about marriage. He referred to Genesis 2, when God
established marriage was between a man and a woman—for the purposes of
procreation, illustration (of God’s marriage to the church), and sanctification
(to avoid promiscuity of the flesh). God is the author of marriage, not man;
and God is the One who defines marriage, not man. Therefore man does not have the right to
introduce the concept of same-sex marriage.
Such a union is not marriage; it goes against God’s law in Genesis
2.
b. Jesus is a member of
the Godhead. There is one God who has
existed eternally in three Persons—and all thoughts and actions of God’s
members are in perfect unity. The point is, Jesus was there at Sodom and
Gomorrah; He was raining down fire and brimstone. Jesus is the author of Leviticus, which calls
homosexuality an abomination (chapters 18 and 20). In order to say that Jesus had no opinion on
homosexuality, you have to argue that Jesus had a different opinion than the
Father. Or, He would have to change His
doctrine, since the Bible is a revelation of His doctrine on its sinfulness.
Either way, you’re talking about a breach in the Trinity—but such talk is heresy.
c. The Bible is one
story, not many, and is all perfectly inspired (infallible), and has one goal. So
if a book was written by Paul, it was written by God. You cannot separate Jesus from the words
given to Paul any more than you can separate Jesus from the Father or the Holy
Spirit. Those things written by Paul or
Peter never disagree with Jesus’ teachings. So, what did Christ’s apostles
teach? Try Romans 1:26-27:
Because
of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.
d. You’re assuming that
if Jesus didn’t speak on an issue, He approved of it. A flawed assumption. Jesus never spoke to the issue of pedophilia,
either. Are we supposed to believe that
He approved of it?
·
Their
second argument begins with a book. Authored
by Matthew Vines, called God and the Gay
Christian. He calls himself Reformed,
evangelical, and an inerrantist; he seems to hold to a careful exegesis. He claims that there are only six Bible
passages that have to be explained away for us to accept homosexuality. Specifically, he supports monogamous same-sex
relationships. His book is highly
favored even among young thinking Christians, and his idea has risen to the
point that this is lately the most popular argument they use against us, namely
this: That the writers of the Bible were really
addressing pederasty (popular in the Greek culture of the day), not
homosexuality. Pederasty is where heterosexual men used boys
for sex (the depravity is sick; imagine how they ruined the sexuality of those
poor boys). Supposedly Paul was saying, “How dare you heterosexual men engage
in this practice, which only homosexual men should engage in.” (Paul would have to be incredibly insensitive
to the boys’ sexuality to say that!).
Your response:
a. We question that any
person was born with a homosexual orientation in the first place, so Paul wouldn’t
have said that. Today, however, even
Christians increasingly accept that there IS such a thing as a “homosexual
orientation,” or that a person can call himself a “homosexual.” They’re
assuming there exists in some people an immutable biological characteristic. BUT,
there is no portion of the brain, upon autopsy, that can be so named. Nor in the genes. Nor in the pheromone study
either. So where is their proof? Mostly
in the testimony of the young men and women; they say, “I’ve known since I was
a small child…” Wait a minute; kids don’t
think about sex that way, they’re not sexually aware, not sexually
developed. That’s a lie—and we let
people get away with it.
i. The Bible does not
recognize such an orientation, either. I Corinthians 6 points out that people
who practiced it, by God’s grace, lost it.
This cannot be done with someone who really has a permanent orientation.
If that were the case, and you cannot make it go away, Scriptural advice would
be to restrain, or channel it. Think of
how Paul addressed the issue of sex in young men. Normal sex is of course an orientation. Paul said because of the persecution of the
day, they would ideally remain single; but because of their obvious needs
(their orientation), he suggested they get married so as to channel it within
marriage. He doesn’t suggest that they ask God to remove their natural sexual
desires, their orientation. That would not work, in most cases. But the point is, no Scripture reads that way
when it comes to homosexuality. It is
simply called perversity. The thing behind it is a rebellion against God and
past hatred against people—not a made-up orientation.
b. Finally, if we
approve homosexuality because it was their “orientation,” what do we do with
the pedophile, who also asserts he has “always been that way?” Do you want me to assume that’s his
orientation, too? Then you’d have to accept him like you want us to accept the
homosexual. Gee, what if my orientation
were violence? I ‘get off’ on that. So I beat my wife, but because it’s my
‘orientation;’ so you can’t judge me either. Or, let’s say my orientation is
promiscuity. As you can see, the logical
extension of this argument is ludicrous--it opens the door to waves of immoral
behavior. We supposedly should shrink back into the corner and say, “It’s a
sin, except where we feel deeply that we are oriented this way.” So, you get a pass; you don’t have to pay
attention to the Bible on this. Supposedly.
c. Even if we find a
homosexual gene, such an attitude that you want, as I just pointed out, still
leads to more sin because the Bible calls it sin, and that should be the end of
Christian speculation. Do not be guilty
of putting a hole in the definition of sin that the sinner can do whatever
without feeling shame or guilt—or the judgment of God. You want to give him no constraints? Will God judge you for that? Giving the homosexual excuses for his evil
behavior would pave his way to hell.
What God calls sin, on the Day of Judgment, He judges as sin, and he
will suffer the consequences that go with it.
Our enlightened reasoning does not change the ultimate penalty. Mr. Vines says there is only six passages of
Scripture that have to be explained away to get us to agree with him. A lie.
Every passage that deals with marriage, with sexuality, and there are
close to a hundred, have to be considered to formulate a proper doctrine on
this subject of homosexuality. Mr. Vines
seems too eager to excuse it.
d. If, in Romans 1, for
instance, all Paul was dealing with, supposedly, was pederasty, why does Paul
bring lesbian practices into the picture, too, in Romans 1? That’s not
pederasty.
e. We conclude that he
is simply not dealing with the topic of pederasty.
·
Their
third argument of our paper: The Beatles
theology: “All you need is love.” Since
love is the overarching ethic of the New Testament, they argue, if a same-sex
couple has love, it’s the height of the New Testament, and not wrong. Your
answer:
a. When the Pharisees
asked, “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?” Now, know that the first four Commandments,
the first table, express our vertical responsibilities to God; the fifth
through the tenth express our horizontal obligation towards men. When Jesus
replies that the greatest commandment is love towards God, in our heart, our soul,
and our mind, that covers the first Commandment table. Then when He says, “Love your neighbor as
yourself,” that’s a summary of the second table of the Law. Thus, when He was asked, “What’s the greatest
commandment?” He’s basically saying, ”I’m
going to have to say ‘1 through 4, followed closely by 5 through 10.’” But people carelessly read what He said and
mistakenly go, “See? He’s substituted
love for law: It’s love, not Law.” But, wait.
Since His ‘love’ is a summary of the Law, as we have just
shown, there is no war between love and the Law, as people imagine. As Paul says in Romans 13:8, ‘love fulfills
the Law.’ It is therefore a gross perversion that at homosexual marriages, some
read I Corinthians 13, the Love chapter. But look at Romans 13:6: “It (love) does not rejoice in
wrongdoing…” Thus, Biblical love must
never encompass homosexuality because homosexuality is by definition wrongdoing
in Scripture. Rejoicing in homosexuality is not love.
·
Their
final argument that we shall consider.
They accuse us of hypocrisy by asking “Why do you pick and choose?” The take-off for this argument is a series,
West Wing, in which a Christian woman was verbally ripped apart when she
brought up the “clobber passages” against homosexuality, mostly from the
Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).
The president sneers against her by saying, “I’m interested in selling
my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7; oh, and my chief of
staff insists on working on the Sabbath, but Exodus 35:2 says we should put him
to death…” and such like. As they’re
not-so-subtly pointing out, she constantly talks about one area of the Law but
ignores others—supposedly hypocrisy.
(By the way, we
should consider that Hollywood always keeps one eye on its conservative advertisers;
thus, for them to rip into the “Christian” like that on American TV is not a
good statement on where our society is heading.
Pastor Baucham preached this sermon two years ago, and look what we have
now! It is required, seemingly, to have
a very nice gay person in every new series, Tommy, 911, FBI, etc etc—and it
always helps to surrounded them by empathetic co-workers. Never is Scripture discussed, of course). TV is Ground Zero for the war to establish
homosexuality. It’s working, because in
a 2014 survey (sorry I couldn’t get any up-to-date) done by Pew Research,
adults, in total, who felt that homosexuality should be discouraged were only
31%; yet it was only slightly better among “Christians,” where a weak 38% felt
homosexuality should be discouraged. In any event, pro-homosexual groups are
actually marching their demonic soldiers into our ground, making an argument
from Scripture in their favor! Keep in mind, here, that our goal in our defense
is not just to win an argument on homosexuality; we want to bring the Gospel to
them. So, here is your reply.
a.
First,
you cast a bait--you quote Leviticus 18:22 among your scoffing co-workers: You shall not lie
with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Assume they will then jump and accuse us of “picking and
choosing” what Law to abide, what to ignore—and accuse us of being a
hypocrite. They think that they can win
this argument, but actually you have suckered them into a Biblical
discussion. Here is what you say
then: first, knock them down off their
moral high horse. You say “Everyone picks and chooses. You have chosen to
ignore Scripture on Leviticus 18, but how do you feel on Leviticus 19:11, which
says: ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one
another. Or, how about verse
13? ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor
rob him. You would agree with those verses, right?
You would pick with me on those, but do not choose on other verses in Leviticus
18 against homosexuality. So you do the
same thing you accuse me of doing, picking and choosing.
Yes, there are certain quotes in
Leviticus I don’t hold to--for good reason, actually, and there are quotes on
abomination that I do agree with. But
for you, there are certain things in Leviticus that you hold to, and a couple that you don’t. So you pick and choose like I do. The fact
is, you did not invent those ideas (about stealing or lying) of what’s moral; the
Bible did. So the Bible has shaped your
morality, whether you know it or not. You can, if you wish, claim the Bible is
not authoritative—but if you say that, that means you no longer believe that
lying is wrong, that robbery is wrong, etc.
This is what you’d have to do if you don’t want your morality to be
lined up with Leviticus.
b.
Now you say to them: “There is a difference between your picking
and choosing and my picking and choosing.
You probably don’t know why you pick and choose. But here’s why I do it”: With only a small amount of hermeneutics, you
could explain that there are three different types of Law. Moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. Moral law is the one that transcends time and
culture—they’re still true for all people in all places, and in all time. The
civil law was given to Israel to have them function as a culture. That was limited to their culture at that time;
it does not transcend to us. The ceremonial
law taught Israel how to worship; those things cannot be brought over either.
(Ed. Note: They are, though, useful for
symbols. You definitely should, in your
answer, point out that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law. You could point out, with a few specifics,
that His Passion fulfilled the Jewish Passover. If the Jews would notice, there
are also many symbols in Passover that are indicative of what Jesus did in His
suffering and crucifixion). To continue,
say: “Here’s an example of why
ceremonial law does not stand today: Since
Jesus was our once-for-all sacrifice for sin, there is no need to see His
sacrifice re-lived over every week, such as the Catholic priests do. It would be heretical for a Christian to
offer weekly sacrifices for sin, since it would be a denial that He has paid
the full price for our sin.” (By saying
these things, you’ve given the gospel, too!).
c. Quote I Timothy
1:8-11: But we know that the law is good if one uses it
lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person,
but for the lawless
and insubordinate, for the ungodly
and for sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is
contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. Reader, did you notice that Paul is listing
Commandments 1-9, in order, in those verses? Note, therefore, that the Law is
called “sound doctrine.” This is proof that the moral Law in Leviticus is
applicable for today’s New Testament Christian.
Also note, based on the underlined, that homosexuality is condemned
within that Law. Therefore it is also
part of the ethics of our New Testament life.
Thus a ban on homosexuality is consistent with the morality and ethics
of the Ten Commandments, as Paul (or, really, God) is saying. Remember that Mr.
Vines claimed that there were only six problem passages to get past to accept
homosexuality? Uh, this isn’t one of
them that he had in mind. Vines doesn’t
deal with the Ten Commandments. In
reality, when you consider what we’ve gone over—Jesus’ comments on marriage,
this passage, and so forth; there are double, triple obstacles for Mr. Vine to
worry about. He will be buried under the
contrary weight of evidence, folks.
d.
We can’t win the scoffer’s love by knocking
him off his high horse and then educating him on hermeneutics, etc. Remember, we’re not in this to win an
argument. We must win his soul for the
Lord. We do that by getting off the moral high horse that we just built for
ourselves. Offer him a face-saving, truthful testimony of your life. You want
to include, “You know why this is important to me? I know that I am a hypocrite. I’m a sinner in need of a Savior. Left to my
own devices, I would live in hypocrisy. I
am in need of a moral standard outside of myself. Otherwise, I would consider
things that I approve of as
being “moral” and things that I
disapprove of as being “immoral.” I
would become a law unto myself. So I
need to search objectively for what God says is righteous or unrighteous. Because I’ve admitted that to God, He will
have mercy—and I trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, Who kept the whole
Law where I could not. He could then
impute to me His righteousness, and He was willing to take on the penalty of
sin that I owed. I cannot stand before
you “holier-than-thou” because my salvation was obtained by the blood of the
Lamb, Who laid down His life for sinners such as me. He is my only hope to stand before God as
justified one day. My conversation with
you is just one beggar telling another beggar telling him where he found bread.”
With such words you might win the scoffer’s soul and achieve the greatest win
you can—a soul for the Lord!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)