Examining the 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. But Paul, only two chapters later, spends a lot of time debunking that idea. 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 freedom to sin and not worry about it.

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 “sins” 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 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? 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, many will "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 laziness 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! Sorry, but I’d rather believe II Peter 3:9. I conclude that since a capricious God results from this 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 the context of the word “election” and “sure” is not a God-guarantee; it requires diligence, as 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. Note the negative side of that idea: apostates do not have fear of God. Not having such fear, they feel free to practice sin and 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, coldly study the devastating effects of what would happen with a particular sin on our lives; 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, our real enemy--who arrogantly assumes he can beat us every time. Then we proactively avoid anything in our lives that might stimulate 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, 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 this “hates the sin and loves the sinner” here. Unless you repent. 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

Examining the 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. But do you truly believe God is this way? Doesn’t that sound like a God who is too unforgiving, for that argument to be true?" Then they would say, “we have an argument for these verses that expresses God in a kinder light—we don’t believe this person was ever saved—he was close, but never saved. Being so close, and turning away, means he will never be saved—since he missed Christ at the best opportunity.” To that weak argument I respond by taking Scripture again in context. First, remember my comments above on the prodigal son; he got his salvation back. Also, check out the interesting case of Peter’s upcoming denial of Christ that Jesus foretold. In Luke 22:32, Jesus has informed him that he will be tested by Satan, and says to him (KJV):

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

This is a strange sentence, that Jesus would pray that his faith wouldn’t fail, then says “when you are converted”—suggesting a future need for Peter to be saved, so evidently his faith did fail--and then he got it back. The word “converted” is a genuine salvation Greek word, used as such in James 5:20:

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

So what we conclude is, Jesus is urging him to hold onto his faith. But then he didn’t want to just tell him flat out that he will fail; but Jesus knows of his denial and failure—and Jesus knows that Peter will re-commit his life to Christ, getting converted again, so he told him in an obtuse way that Peter didn’t catch on to. How else could you interpret this, with the words “when you are converted” to a person clearly already saved? Jesus is saying, Peter will lose his salvation, then be re-converted.

(Before we go on, I need to explain a rabbit trail: Jesus said he would pray that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. But Jesus’ prayer was not answered. How can that be, as He is the all-powerful God? Am I suggesting Jesus lacks almighty power in His prayer? No, the argument is answered another way. Consider II Peter 3:9:

The Lord is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

God’s fervent desire is that all would be saved. But the fact is, most people perish; so is God a failure? Does He lack power? Like Jesus, God’s desire doesn’t get answered like He wants. The answer is simple: God simply limits His power by granting us free will. It’s the same way with Jesus and Peter.)

Let’s get back to our point. I believe Hebrews 6:4-5 says this person got saved. But we don’t have to conclude what OSASers want us to conclude. Does he lose his salvation forever? Does that make God unforgivably mean? How do we explain this phrase “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” of Hebrews 6:6? In answer, this is a rare Scripture because it requires a history study to understand it. At that time, if a saved Jew, under heavy peer pressure, wanted to abandon the Christian faith and be a Jew again, the synagogue would make him confess publicly that Christ was a criminal—thus, he would be confessing that Christ was operating under Satan. Attributing to Satan the clear work of the Holy Spirit, especially for those who were a living witness of His works, was probably an unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31-32). Proof of this idea is in the dark words of Hebrews 10:29. Look at the phraseology of what evil they have done by such a confession of apostasy:

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Thank God, such phrases don’t get said about most those who become unsaved. Most people have opportunity for repentance and re-obtaining salvation. So, this Hebrews example was a special narrow case for Jews during that time, not universal.

13. I Thessalonians 5:23-24: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.
14. Hebrews 10:14: For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

OSAS adherents read from I Thessalonians, “sanctify you completely,” “preserved blameless,” and “will do it,” and figure that these are jobs up to God only. But the word “may” creeps in, “may your whole spirit…be…blameless” It’s almost like Paul is pronouncing a blessing, 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, a "may." From Hebrews, you also must consider the phrase “those who are being sanctified;” it’s not as strong as “those whom He sanctifies,” which OSASers want. It leaves the door open for the believer’s action. As it so happens, folks…I have a Scriptural list of things they (or we) should do for sanctification. It just “happens” to be in the verses immediately prior to #13 above, I Thessalonians 5:11-22:

Therefore comfort each other and edify one another… recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love... Be at peace among yourselves…warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

I counted 19 verbs for us to do for sanctification! Yes, works for us to do! 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:

For by grace you have been saved through faith… 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (takes effort on our part), which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (takes effort on our part)

Further proof on how we can’t lay back and shift all this effort to God is found when we look at many Scriptures, especially by Paul, on how the saints should be ready to do battle with Satan and his minions. We’re not just talking about losing a few crowns in heaven, or losing fellowship with God. No, that’s not a powerful enough motivator. We’re talking about battling to preserve our place in The Big One, heaven itself—versus hell. In Philippians 2:25 and II Timothy 2:3,4 the saints are soldiers. In Acts 20:24 and I Corinthians 9:24, saints are called runners in a marathon. In Matthew 20:1ff, we’re workers in a vineyard. In Ephesians 6:12, we’re wrestlers against the forces of darkness. In Acts 4:29, we’re slaves of God. All verses listed have to do with keeping our eternity on the line. And here’s one to memorize from Hebrews 12:3-4:

For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 

This says, we must endure suffering because Jesus suffered. But let’s not have our sin be the cause of our suffering. Let us resist sin to bloodshed if necessary, so that if we suffer, it is because we cleaved to the noble cause of standing up with Christ. We cannot get discouraged, saying, “Well, Jesus was God and had no “real” temptation, so how can I try to do it?” Let us remember, He was fully Man too. Let us never forget the extremes of pain that He knew was coming, and how He sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane—which physicians tell us is only possible in supreme agony. How can we, in the face of that Example, in the face of many Scriptures telling us to fight sin with all we have, continue to believe that sanctification is all up to God! Such a belief, spread for deception, will erode people’s desire (and 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 said.

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, I’m sure, and he knows its meaning. He is disciplining his body (actually, the Greek word says he is beating, or buffeting his body, to bring it into servitude.  We're not advocating flagellating here; he is actively suppressing its desires so as to be more open to the Spirit’s desires). He does this because he doesn’t want to become rejected by God. So, folks, if Paul is striving for holiness 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 what?), or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended (where’s the “we’ve got it already” that OSASers claim?); but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Despite my so-called humor, you hopefully get my point. Now I ask you, what would we give to 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”

The Nashville Statement, and Let's Not Try So Hard to Love People to Hell

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood released The Nashville Statement, a new Christian doctrinal missive on modern sexuality, Tuesday. Since its release, there’s been much controversy and confusion on the subject.Here is what you need to know.

The Nashville Statement, which was written by the members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a Louisville-based organization formed in 1987, is a Christian organization’s response to modern sexuality and how sexuality should be viewed through a biblical lens.

The statement expresses concern at the deteriorating reliance on God and faith and is comprised of 14 points covering issues from abstinence to traditional marriage to transgenderism — all based on a biblical understanding of human sexuality.

 “As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian,” the statement’s preamble begins, “it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being.”

 “We are not our own,” it continues. “Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be.”

● Article 1 affirms that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman and says the institution is to be held as sacred as God’s relationship with His church. It goes on to say that homosexual or polygamous relationships were not designed by God, and thus, are not of God.

● Article 2 condemns infidelity and relationships outside the parameters of a Christian marriage.

● Article 3 states that Adam and Eve were created distinctly male and distinctly female and in God’s image, meaning that, despite their differences, men and women are equal in dignity and worth.

● Article 4 reiterates that differences between genders are what make God’s human creation unique and “are meant for human good and human flourishing.”

● Article 5 says that the differences between male and female reproductive organs are what determine the distinctions between the male and female genders and that “physical anomalies” or “psychological conditions” do not nullify God’s design for the two genders.

● Article 6 affirms that all men and women were created in God’s image and are equal in God’s eyes — including those born with a “physical disorder of sex development” Such disorders, the article says, do not make those afflicted incapable of obeying and walking with Christ.

● Article 7 tackles homosexual and transgender self-conceptions and states that male and female are designated only by God, for His holy purposes, according to Scripture.

● Article 8 says that same-sex attraction does not put “a person outside the hope of the gospel.”

● Article 9 condemns sexual immorality — whether heterosexual or homosexual — as a result of sin’s distortion of God’s intended purity and marital covenant.

● Article 10 states that approving transgenderism or homosexuality is sinful and a “departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.”

● Article 11 reminds Christians to speak the truth about sexuality in love to both men and women alike and to avoid speaking in a way that dishonors God’s design of His children.

● Article 12 speaks of God’s transformative power to change lives, professes that Christ can enable His followers to fight sinful desires those walking on a sinful path is absolute, and declares that God’s grace can forgive all sexual sins.

● Article 13 says that God’s grace enables people to forsake transgenderism and understand that they have been divinely created as male or female and that there is a “God-ordained link” between biological sex and gender self-conception.

● Article 14 affirms that Christ’s death and resurrection provides the opportunity for forgiveness of all sins and that no sinner is beyond God’s reach for salvation.

Who signed the Nashville Statement?

● John Piper, pastor, author, and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary
● Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
● Francis Chan, best-selling author and pastor
● Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
● Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
● Dennis Rainey, founder and former president of FamilyLife
● Thom S. Rainier, president and CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources
● Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom
● Paul Nyquist, president of Moody Bible Institute

Others who signed the statement include Christian professors, authors, pastors, speakers, CEOs, magazine editors, counselors, and more.

Nashville, Tennessee, Mayor Megan Barry blasted the statement in a Tuesday tweet.  “The so-called ‘Nashville Statement’ is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.”

Civil rights activist DeRay McKesson wrote, “The God I know does not support the #NashvilleStatement.”

Pastor John Pavlovitz had a vulgar reference for the Nashville Statement. He wrote, “I have my own statement on the #Nashville Statement. It could be lots of words but honestly I could probably narrow it down to just a finger.”

Additionally, The Human Rights Campaign decried the statement as “a tool to discriminate against LGBTQ people.”  They added, “Faith should be welcoming and accepting.”

Greg Carey, Professor of the New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary, even penned an essay for The Huffington Post, in which he effectively called the Nashville Statement irrelevant.

“Why draft a big statement, and why publicize it?” Carey asked. “The answer is simple. Pretty much nobody cares what [the Christian right thinks] anymore. The day is past when the media seeks out right wing preachers to weigh in on social values. Their public audience shrinking, their public presence waning, and their credibility shot to hell, the Christian right needs attention.”

Despite these, the articles contained in the Nashville Statement are a simple declaration of Christian orthodoxy on human sexuality, sin, sexual orientation, and identity.

Those Christians who penned, signed, and distributed the statement are, like many Christians, unanimous in their belief that the Bible is the absolute Word of God and that, according to the Bible, God declares sexual immorality — to include homosexuality, transgenderism, infidelity, and more — sinful.

In the Bible, God has also stated that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and that any sexual relationship outside of the bonds marriage is sinful.

However, if you read the entire statement, nowhere does it call for governmental, societal, or even religious intervention against those who disagree with the missive — it simply expresses the Bible’s views and offers God’s love and acceptance for all, regardless of their human behaviors.

Matt Walsh’s Take

Outrage erupted this week when a group of Evangelical leaders released what is being called the Nashville Statement..

I am thrilled that this was published and I applaud the Christian leaders who signed it. The basic principles espoused are right, good, and fundamental. They’re rooted in Scripture and consistent with what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years.

The Nashville Statement is, in a word, redundant. But its redundancy by no means renders it unnecessary. To the contrary, though these concepts are as old as time and well known to any half-serious Christian, we live in a society where they must be shouted from the rooftop again and again and again. Every Christian leader, if he is to consider himself a Christian leader, must be clear and unequivocal. Many Christians could not tell you how their own pastors feel about this subject, because they’ve never once heard it addressed (I have attended many such churches). This is a shame and a scandal, and it explains why many of those same Christians eventually come to the conclusion that matters of sexual morality are unimportant, and a Christian is free to decide for himself what is acceptable and what is not.

St. Paul proclaimed that he is “not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,” yet a significant number of pastors, priests, and Christian scholars have revealed themselves to be profoundly ashamed of it. So, as the throngs of unbelievers lash out at the signers, these “progressive” Christians peeked out of their hiding places to admonish those who wrote it and those who agree with it for their lack of “love.” They sensed another opportunity to score points with the world by condemning Biblical truths as “unloving,” and they took it, like they always do.

As just one example, an alleged priest named Father James Martin responded with some sweet and sappy declarations of his own, meant to counteract the terrible and bigoted Nashville Statement. He proclaimed that “LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know” and that “God loves LGBT people,” etc. Yes, obviously it’s true that God loves LGBT people, but the clear insinuation is that one cannot believe God loves LGBT people and also affirm Biblical teachings on sexual morality. He sets up a false choice between love and truth. This is the game that Satan plays in our culture, and men like James Martin are more than happy to be his pawns in it.

Indeed, the Martins of the world are far more dangerous than blatant heretics. To my knowledge, Martin has never flat out said that the Bible is wrong in its teachings on sexual morality. Rather, he shouts down any conversation about sexual morality by insisting that God loves gay people, as if anyone has disagreed with that notion. This is the most common method employed by the “Christian leaders” who wish to pervert and destroy Christianity from within. Instead of publicly contradicting Christian teachings about sexuality and gender, they simply refuse to discuss the subject except to proclaim that God loves everyone regardless of what they do in the bedroom. This is supposed to be the “loving” approach.

It isn’t.

It’s the coward’s approach. The traitorous approach. The selfish approach. The most efficient approach for ensuring that as many people as possible remain in their sin as they slide into Hell. I won’t call it hateful. It’s worse than hateful. It’s indifferent. What most defines “progressive” Christianity is its utter indifference to the fate of human souls. It abandons sinners to their sin. It leaves them in their confusion and intentionally feeds into the lies they tell themselves.

It is perhaps the worst thing that has happened on Earth since the Fall, because it has packed Hell so full that I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a waiting list to get in the door. The greatest things become the worst when they are corrupted. Satan was the highest angel in Heaven before he became the ruler of Hell. Christianity — stripped of its truth, refashioned to encourage the very sins Christ died to free us from — turns into a kind of elevator transporting souls quickly and directly into the eternal fire. Loving? This sort of “love” will be little comfort down there.

The Nashville Statement is truly loving because it is truly Christian. It is a thousand times more loving than any pointless, crowd pleasing sermon about tolerance and inclusivity. In relaying a few fundamental truths in a plain and uncompromising way, it loves by shedding light into the darkness. That, after all, is what love ought to do. There is no other kind of love.

Acknowledgement:  Glenn Beck and Matt Walsh

Examining the Flaws in the "Once Saved, Always Saved" Argument" (Part 1 of 3)

The “once saved, always saved” doctrine says: Once you accept Christ, and put your faith in Him for salvation from sin, you’re saved—permanently. Nothing you can do will break that bond. The doctrine began with Augustine, a Catholic theologian, but really got propagated under John Calvin in his famous treatise, Institutes. He asserted that man is totally depraved, i.e., unable to reach for God. But God, not because of anyone’s merits, arbitrarily chose certain people to be saved (and others, not chosen, to be damned forever). His theology was opposed by Michael Servetus, another theologian, who believed that man has a free will to choose God or not choose God. He is not predestined to hell or heaven before he is even born, as what Calvin said. When Servetus studied the Institutes, and returned the book to Calvin, he wrote notes criticizing certain points. Calvin, with his monumental ego and pride, determined that Servetus was now a dead man, since Calvin believed (and said so) that God moved him to write what he wrote. So as soon as Servetus 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 theory's founder was 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 are still reassured many times of their salvation once they make that emotional leap.  That leads to a big problem—complacency. It’s the feeling that many of them unconsciously develop that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. True, they may say, 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. Scriptures speak clearly that you must abide in Christ and pursue righteous behavior, or you will lose your salvation. A lot of people would be less confident and 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 will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You.

Thus God is able to keep us in perfect peace. But are we always in perfect peace? No, because our behavior betrays us; sometimes we aren’t thinking about God. So God has the capability (“is able”) to “keep us” in perfect peace (or to keep us from falling); but His success is dependent on our behavior! The simple fact is, we can reject God, fail to think about God, and fall on our own. Along those lines, what does it say only 3 verses earlier, Jude 21:

Keep yourselves in God's love…to bring you to eternal life.

Thus, “keeping” includes something for us to do—or fail to do. 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. How might man fail to keep God, and fall? Some people fall when trials come. Take a look at I Timothy 4:1:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

The Greek word for “depart from” is “apostasia” which means apostasy from the faith. In Acts 21:21, the same Greek word is translated “forsake.” Now I maintain that it’s impossible to depart from or forsake something unless you were attached to it in the first place. And it is impossible to apostacize unless you were a believer in the first place. Then 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, 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 since it is publicly known and nothing has been done about it. 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 and say “saved people don’t do that” (such as people do that for "discipline."  Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an unrepentant adulterer.” Paul is saying, flat out, Saved people don’t commit adultery. (I will have more to say on this later). And what about the phrase, “may be saved?” It doesn’t say “will remain saved,” does it—which would back OSASers claim? It’s really “maybe he’ll get saved.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a choice, and made the right move. He turned around, and then got saved. So perhaps, in I Corinthians, allowing Satan to have his way with him for awhile (as with the prodigal) may wake him up (or it may not)—he might turn around and get saved before he dies (or he might not). At least he won’t have any well-meaning Christians around him, deceiving him by “assuring” him and not speaking clearly about his unsaved behavior!

3. John 10:27-29:My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

Clearly “my sheep” are the beneficiary of this gracious treatment. But what are the characteristics to be one of His sheep? Belief? Getting born again? No, that’s not what Jesus said. What He did say was, you have to hear His voice, and you have to follow Him. And those verbs (hear, follow) are expressed in present, continuous tense—which means, an ongoing hearing and following. If you’re not 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?

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. 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 and abiding are not automatic, and require effort, real belief is thus conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.

5. Hebrews 13:5: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

This verse quotes from Deuteronomy 31:6 (part of Moses’ final words to the children of Israel):

….do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the LORD your God… will not leave you nor forsake you.

But then for context you need to peek 11 verses ahead. In Deut 31:16-17a, God gives His last words to Moses, warning him of Israel’s apostasy. It’s a hard word for Moses, and with much warning for us:

And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land…. and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.

Read that again: God forsook them! Because they forsook Him. Evidently the word "never" in the Greek (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the unconditional meaning we think it has. Now you can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a God of Law in the Old Testament; thank God for His dispensation of grace now.” But God is not a God of change. As James 1:17 says,

Every good gift and every perfect gift …comes down from the Father… with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

We do not have two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament too, don’t forget, is profitable for reproof, for correction in righteousness (II Tim 3:16), and we can learn a lot about Him in the Old Testament—and won’t have to unlearn them when we study the New! The point is this: The God who forsook His people in those days because they forsook Him, will do the same again now. The truth is: He will never leave you nor forsake you—IF you abide in Him. God help us to do so—but we have free will, and can forsake Him.

Further Word along this line is II Chronicles 15:2:

Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded… and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.

Seems clear, does it not?

Now another thing you might cite about God never leaving us is “the great promises to Israel,” whereby God will do miraculous things for Israel in the End times, and those people will be redeemed, so God “never forsook them”—so evidently you think God didn’t mean what he said in Deuteronomy or II Chronicles. But the national promise to Israel is different than the promise to individuals. In the End times, those Jews will see Jesus as God, accept Him and are redeemed. But in Exodus those other Jews who rejected the spies’ good report rejected God’s promise, and died unbelieving in the desert. God didn’t change; different Jewish responses did.

Other “nation vs individual” verses that are abused are Romans 11:28-29:

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

OSASers love to select the words “election,” “gift” and “irrevocable,” giving themselves complacent assurance, but failing to place them in context. The fact is, the whole chapter 11 is about how God will gift the nation of Israel in His plan for the future.

Speaking of taking words out of context, yet another abused Scripture is Hebrews 10:12,14:

But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,… 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

This is not about assurance for the believer; this Word is for the Hebrews, about how Jesus is our High Priest, comparing His offering His body as a sacrifice once for sin being sufficient for atonement, vs. priests in the Old Testament offering sacrifices annually that don’t take away sin. And please don’t assume that “those who are being sanctified” is all up to God. Sanctification depends on behavior. See item #13 next week.

6. Colossians 2:13: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses

OSAS adherents cite this verse that God forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. But the verse does not specifically refer to future trespasses; keep in mind, Paul is, after all, talking about a past event (“has made alive”), their point of initial salvation. For an interesting comparison, take a look at II Pet 1:9:

But if anyone does not have them (speaking of fruits), he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins

Note that only past sins are cleansed upon initial salvation.

I think if Peter knew that he could cover future sins in this theological statement, he would’ve mentioned them—but he doesn’t. Another enlightening verse is I John 1:9:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John is writing this to people who are believers already, so it doesn’t make sense that we need to keep on confessing our sins to obtain forgiveness—if we’re already forgiven from future sins. John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. So I conclude the “all trespasses” in Col 2:13 is more likely referring to all trespasses up to the point of initial salvation—which was Paul’s subject matter. Not future sins.

7. I Pet. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who… has begotten us again…, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you

OSAS adherents will cite our inheritance, as a child of the King, that will never fade away. But this great passage of Scripture doesn’t say that we cannot annul the inheritance by disbelief or unrepentant gross sin. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 10:33:

But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Definitely wrapped up in the word “disown” is losing one’s inheritance. So it is possible.

While I’m on this subject, I need to bring up another verse that’s misinterpreted by OSAS folks. It’s II Timothy 2:13:

If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

This is quoted often by OSAS teachers; their interpretation of God being “faithful” here is that He will accept our faithlessness and save us anyway. Their problem again is context. Take a look at the previous verse, II Timothy 2:12:

If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

Whoa, that says the opposite of what OSASers think 2:13 says. So, to resolve the apparent contradiction, let’s do what you seldom see teachers do—reconcile 2:12b and 2:13. First, you have to see how awful a sin being “faithless” is; it is not coincidentally connected to 2:12’s “denying” Christ. God many times calls faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took their faith and worship away from God, and were called adulterers. Now before you say, “we don’t do idols in modern society,” you need to expand the meaning of “idol.” It’s anything that we think about as #1 to us--but without including our God in the experience. So if we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into that experience (such as making sure Jesus’ related commands are maintained); then spend a lot of time collecting, cooking, and eating food without seriously giving thanks; then socializing with friends without raising His name (or thinking about how to do so); or raising our kids without teaching them constantly about God—then I conclude that work, eating, friends, and kids all become idols. We’ve simply substituted modern idols for the ancient wood and stone. God should be a part of our life, like breathing—and it’s faithless to only worship Him on Sundays, then leaving Him out for the rest of the week. We’re just as guilty of substituting God out of our life as the Jews did. Where’s the insistence that we should “abide in Christ” in modern society? Have we watered down the meaning of “abiding?”

The second thing you do to reconcile these two verses in II Timothy is: Expand the definition of God’s being “faithful.” We assume that faithfulness is always positive. Not so. Check out Deuteronomy 7:9,10:

Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.

God is faithful by carrying out His promised curses on the unsaved, as well as loving the saved. If that’s hard to accept, it’s probably because we haven’t thought much about hell. We’re talking about fiery torment, continual pain, continual thirst, no contact with others (read Luke 16:19ff on these). And forever and ever…for eternity. Why not just for 50 years, or 100 years? Why not probation? Why not a second chance, or purgatory? Answer: God HATES sin more than we can imagine—and ultimately His hate will be faithful to His promise and carried out on the unrepentant sinner. Look at the evidence of His anger in the Deuteronomy verse above: God will repay him “to his face.” Now that’s a God with a grudge. A whole new meaning on II Timothy 2:13, is it not? If we are faithless to God, He will be faithful to carry out His promise--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.” There certainly is a job we need to do to keep on guarding our salvation—and that’s again my point. Our behavior is involved. Another verse on this is Hebrews 10:23:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Doesn’t that suggest that our righteous behavior ("holding fast") is what’s needed to obtain God’s fulfillment of His faithful promise to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job for us to do. That’s what the verse says.

9. Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

The OSAS adherent says, “This is the way it is with all unbelievers; Jesus never knew them; it wasn’t that He knew them, then didn’t know them.” My response is, first of all, look at the virgins in Matthew 25. Some had no oil. Jesus has the bridegroom telling them “I do not know you (Matthew 25:11).” Now you know that all ten virgins were invited, so the bridegroom DID know them. I conclude that the phrase “I never knew you” is an idiom—He’s saying,” you are so far removed from me, it’s like I never knew you.” If they are unprepared, and have no oil (which probably means the Holy Spirit), they are far from Jesus. The verse clearly shows the opposite from OSAS: Be ready, be looking for your Lord! Or else you don’t go to heaven. Secondly, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his loving father to begin with, right? Then he became prodigal, walked away, and didn’t abide with his father any more. Then he sees the light, returns to his father, confesses his sin, and returns to good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24 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 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 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

Differences in Our Doctrines vs. the Early Christians (Part 2 of 2)

In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s lifestyle—and the resulting power God gave them that enabled many souls to saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher lifestyles:

First apostolic doctrine is: Obedience is essential to be called “saved.”

Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:

Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.

Many would say you are not understanding “Biblical grace.” But all the early church fathers said the same thing as Justin Martyr. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4:

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live after the teachings of Christ. Thus they were fixed on relationship of love and obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:

Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity

Wait. Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? Is obedience that necessary? I thought this was covered by grace. Maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?

“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Do we hear that in sermons? Not in most churches. This means, the gospel that will truly save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience.

Second apostolic doctrine: A stress on real kindness to the poor; a realization that riches are a trap.

Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate and gave them away when he got saved:

The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me. If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.

It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be rich thinking like that." Well, that's not his goal.  Riches got in the way of his calling for Christ, so he dispensed with them.  Ratianal, actually.  Whoa, you may say, "Calling riches an “assailant.” Really?” But what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures..and obeyed what they said. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” It was Jesus who said, Riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: You poor guys; most of you are going to hell. It was Jesus who called His disciples to forsake everything they had, and live without a home, to follow Him.

If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, many lives in America could be saved instead of dying and waking up on the wrong side of eternity.

Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your faith is linked to your material possessions. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? Things can even get flipped totally upside down in false doctrine. But we "like" false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.

Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:

How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed., in another). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.

This, again, is extreme, suggesting for one thing that a passion for lust is just as bad as the adultery itself—but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word. Such as what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Just in case you were thinking that for a man to think about adultery should certainly not be criticized as lust “plenitude” (ie, equal to the act itself), I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter.

But the Tertullian quote looks more at the opposite side of the matter—the woman who shows off her body, inviting him to think of adultery. She is guilty too. (Warning: Not a good subject for discussion in today’s politically correct society.) Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, I Timothy 2:9, 10:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wanted modesty, let’s do modesty. The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were pure. Wouldn’t it be the supreme act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And not wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s a horrible (and dangerous) term to achieve in your dressing up for work or school.

We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if such a weapon were offered to them. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” In the earliest churches, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…

Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones here, and particularly David Bercot, believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed for an answer. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our sincere reading.  The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:

1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.

2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:

How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.

Thus, when two doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim he is correct when he has done it 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully explained by the early church fathers—especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you would be on a different path than most of today’s society? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”

3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.

Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998