An Apparent Contradiction Resolved by Placing "Works" in Context

 Here is a conundrum.  What do you do with this?

 On the one hand, here are some verses, Romans 4:2-5: 

 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.  ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

 

The verses seem to say, works has no place in salvation (his believing was “accounted to him for righteousness”).

 

 On the other hand, you have these verses, James 2:21-24:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Whoa, these verses (using the same Gen. 15:6 base, even) seem to say, Abraham was saved (“justified”) by faith PLUS WORKS.  James says “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

Are these saying there are two different methods of salvation, to obtain heaven?  If you really believe in inspiration of Scripture, that’s not possible; since it would cause confusion, especially on such an important issue. 

It doesn’t seem to help that Scripture has backup for each of these seemingly conflicting views, too.

Added Scriptures that seem to say, “Works Has No Place” in Salvation”

Ephesians 2:8-9a:  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves. It is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

II Timothy 1:9:  Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:5:  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Now, how about the other view? Here are verses that seem to say,

 “Salvation is Faith Plus Works”

Matthew 7:24-27: “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: ²⁵ and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

²⁶ “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: ²⁷ and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

Hebrews 10:26-27, 29:  For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries…²⁹ 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?

I John 2:3-5:  Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ⁵ But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

What do we do when we have two parts of the New Testament, that seem to say the exact opposite thing?  Let’s first look at how Martin Luther “resolved” this dilemma. His solution was to say, and I quote him, “Some New Testament books have precedent over other books. They’re not all on the same level.” That would be a surprise to people today who say they believe every word of Scripture is important—see II Tim. 3:16, “ALL Scripture is inspired.” When he translated the Bible into German so the common people could read it, he included prefaces to each book and a New Testament preface as well.  In those prefaces, he indicated his favorite books—books that agree with his Reformation salvation theology, I might add.  Here’s a few things he said in those prefaces, translated.   “John’s Gospel and Saint Paul’s Epistles, especially…Romans, and Saint Peter’s first Epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought rightly to be the first books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most.”

But this instruction was anti-Scriptural.  It gets worse: “John’s Gospel is the one understandable, true, chief gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of Saint Paul and Saint Peter far surpass the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.” 

Does that seem rather bold, downgrading three Gospels?  But folks, these three Gospels are where you read more of the words of Jesus Christ.  The Teacher of all Scripture, all of which is for our education, was God.  God wanted us to read the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, which was only contained in Matthew. His prophecies that he quoted from the Old Testament, showing where they were fulfilled in Jesus, was an important mode of evangelism--for us today as well.  That desirable explanation of Old Testament was not in John, which Luther liked so much—it was in Matthew, the one that he disparaged. 

He continues, “Saint James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”  What hubris, to say: “Throw away James; it’s not gospel.”  But James was already decided, over a thousand years before; the early church fathers had made the final decision that James was God-inspired Scripture. So, shall we make up our own “Bible?” Luther didn’t like some New Testament books, again, because they differed from his salvation theology, which was “have faith, or believe, in Jesus as the Christ.” His key phrases included “sola gratia,” or “by grace alone;” and “sola fide,” or “by faith alone.” He didn’t like to confuse the issue about works after you got saved; he was afraid of being “too Catholic” by doing that.

In the introductions to Hebrews and Revelation, he degraded them as well, and said that they were not apostolic.  Well, we suspect that’s because these books also didn’t agree with his salvation theology. Hebrews (see 10:26-29 above) has those verses that say that if we sin willfully (those verses imply AFTER you are saved), and insulted the Spirit of grace, we will be bound for hell. And in Revelation, in the seven letters to the churches, what does Jesus say first each time? “I know your works.” Just to note a relevant set of verses, look at 2:18, addressed to one church:

…you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. ²¹ And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. ²² Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. ²³ I will kill her children (certain church members included) with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

So it does seem that works following salvation are important to God, does it not?

Getting back to James, “the book of straw;” did you know that the oldest Bible we have, the oldest complete Bible that is bound as a book, the order of the books is different than in our Bibles? In today's versions, when you get through with Acts, you go right to Romans.  But in the oldest Bible we have, when you get through with Acts, guess which book you’ll go to – the book of James. The switch in order to lift Romans and demote James is because of Luther.

So we conclude that Luther’s solution to the “contradictions” that we brought up at the beginning, is to avoid books, and verses that are contrary.  Pick and choose.  This is called “proof-texting,” and not an honest way of making theology.

We could learn much from secular courts--they have the honest approach here.  If they are studying a document to resolve a dispute, they don’t focus on just part of a document and ignore the rest; they examine the whole of it so as to construe it as a whole without reference to any one part more than another. Another approach courts take is to see if a word is being used in a particular sense in one paragraph but in a different sense in another one, because the same word can have different meanings.  For instance, look at this sentence: “Tom ran fast to reach Tim who is stuck fast in the ice.” Same word “fast,” but two entirely different meanings—so, how do we know which meaning for a verse?  Look at their context. That means reading the whole Bible—avoiding partiality.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if Paul said Abraham was not saved by works and James says he was saved with the help of works, the two men are using the word “works” in two different senses.  So, if the document doesn’t give a direct definition of the word, we should look at the context.

What’s the context of James? When he uses the term “works”, what is James talking about? Or I should say, what is the Holy Spirit talking about here? Read James 2:14-16:

What does it profit my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace. Be warmed and filled,' but do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. With the word “works,” James is talking about acts of love, acts of faith, acts of obedience, acting to avoid sin. It dovetails with Matthew 25, when Jesus tests who are saved-you cannot avoid vv 44-46:

⁴⁴ “Then they also will answer Him (Jesus), saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ ⁴⁵ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

James is saying, I suggest, that without works, as proof of salvation, (there are many other such proofs required elsewhere in all the New Testament) you will not remain saved.

Now let’s look at Paul: What’s his meaning of works? Well, what’s the context of his letters? The background of all of them can be discerned.  Acts 15:1 reveals the big issue that surrounded much of Paul’s ministry.

And certain men (Jews who thought they accepted this new Christianity) came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom of Moses, you could not be saved.”

In verse 5 it says: Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, the Gentiles and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.' ”

Jewish Law was given by God; it was a big issue. You have these Gentiles suddenly coming in, claiming they understood some of the Old Testament can be ignored, and yet for 1500 years in Jewish history the way to God was to the Law of Moses--so naturally they want to include that in this new Christianity.  In Galatians, I won’t quote it, but read chapter 2 sometime. It is so clear that the issue is, Paul has preached to these Galatians that they can come into the church so they can be saved without being circumcised, without keeping the Law (i.e., Moses’ Law). But what happens? Some men came from Jerusalem and next thing you know, they’re telling them, “You guys have got to keep the (Jewish) Law. You must be circumcised.” Shall we put Moses’ Law on them?  This was putting a pretty heavy burden on them—not only circumcision, but every one of the other 613 commandments in the Old Testament. So works, to Paul, means "circumcision" and keeping the Jewish Law.

So there you have it:  two meanings to the same word. That helps to reconcile the “conundrum.” Luther, however, decided to ignore James and go with Paul. But putting James “under the rug” is no way to solve this. James is correct in insisting works—pruning, fruit, sanctification—are necessary. (I have a series of blogs; one is named “Do Peter, Paul and James disagree with Jesus?,” that cover this in more detail).

People don’t care enough about context; they like to go straight to Romans on where works doesn’t seem to belong. I suggest a conspiracy of seeking the lazy way out. When reading chapter 4, they prefer Luther’s definition of “works”--by saying to themselves, “ignore works. I’m good with God since I got saved last week. My latest sins shouldn’t cause me any grief.”  But…but…what about all those other verses that don’t agree? It amazes me; how can you just ignore Romans 2 and 3, which lay out the context for chapter 4?   Paul, in chapter 2, is talking to the Jews.  He says,

Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the Law, and make your boast in God and know his will and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness.

 The Jews were feeling superior to the Gentiles, saying, “We’ll tell you the way to do things because we know the Law and you don’t.” But Paul admonishes that thinking by saying: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded by what Law, of works? No, but by the law of faith.

This is the context to Romans 4. When the Bible says, “We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” the “works of the law” means the dead works of the Mosaic Law—they didn’t have to follow those works. (PS: I will capitalize “Law” when Paul uses it from now on—earlier Greek texts did not capitalize anything. Translators that got around to capitalizing later, made a mistake, I think, by not separating Moses’ Law with a capital letter “L”).

But this is my point:  The meaning of "works" is different in the minds of the two Apostles. Paul’s is clearly not the kind of works that James is talking about.

For more on Paul’s use of the term “works,” you go to Ephesians. it’s the same thing, trying to straighten out the Jewih approach to Christianity. In fact, it affects his whole ministry because he has the same issue every town he goes to--the Jews are always on the scene (they tracked him), and wanted the Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses. The church fathers figured this out; there was nothing complicated then.  Everyone understood the proper use of works for 1500 years, but Luther comes along in 1517 and says, “No. He’s saying that God doesn’t want you to try to be good, just have the faith of Jesus and His righteousness will be imputed to you anyhow.”  Well, he took it too far; he has, in effect, wiped out works completely.  This was wrong.

So we come to the resolution of our problem:  Salvation is faith, but faith has a commitment tied in.  Works of love and obedience will follow, IF you are truly saved, as the James quartet of verses pointed out. Your pastor should spend a lot of time discussing this additional commitment in sermons. He should explore each sin, giving the evil effects—now and into eternity—for ignoring it. We need this kind of indoctrination. We have a tendency to want to sin, but we must stomp it out. Reading Scripture daily, praying daily, all help to maintain our love relationship with our Lord. THIS IS REQUIRED for salvation (I just don’t have the space to explain further in this blog).

Big “IF” here.  You cannot begin the process of going to heaven with works.  Any effort you make to reform yourself, by yourself, to get “brownie points” with God, will fail. Any effort to say “I did enough to earn heaven,” is pride--and God hates pride. Without Christ in you, such an effort only results in newer sins, like judgmentalism and pride. No, you begin the process by faith--understanding from Scripture how Christ died to relieve you from the grip of the hell we deserve, AND will remove us from the shackles of recurring sins in our life-- Jesus made you continually acceptable to God IF you walk in Him. You must accept Christ as Lord of your life, to be saved at the end. His Lordship requires that we love His saving us, we are His for life, and eager to follow His commands, which we believe are best for our life.  By His death for you, He redeemed you and owns you—if you claim to be saved.  Jesus says several times that we must obey Him. Sure, our efforts will be imperfect—but He does require that we be “pruned,” that we “grow,” that we “bear fruit,” that we abide, that we are on a mission to sanctification.  Some of His decisions are hard, or strange; they may lead us to sacrifice, or to build patience; but thereby you build fruits of the Spirit. This is much easier than the failures before you knew Christ.  The Holy Spirit and your brothers and sisters in the faith will keep you on the narrow path. (Committing to fellow believers is important).

The problem with people is, they assume “getting saved” is a one-shot deal. Pastors emphasize initial salvation, but not the long-haul maintenance. Most of us can cite the date of our salvation. But truth is, salvation is not a sprint; it’s a marathon.  People don’t want to believe it, but remember the verse that says Few are saved (it’s in Matthew 7, the degraded Gospel). I suspect most people will be surprised who enter hell. If you don’t read Scripture, how will you know His commandments in the New Testament? Do we think little of God during the week? Then how can we say we love Him? When you first fell in love, did you only think of your love-interest on one day a week? That’s not love, I say. In the three books of John, loving Him is also explained as necessary—not as an option.

True, if you died right after exercising faith in Jesus, you would go to heaven.  But assuming you continue living, you must have a loving, faith-relationship to Our Lord.  If you become enmeshed in the world, emphasizing materialism, you could lose salvation (see the Sower parable).  With proper repentance from a serious sin, and carry that out in your behavior, you could regain your salvation. That reminds me:  a word for those “once saved, always saved” pastors: you leave the mistaken impression on proselytes that faith is the only thing, or even that faith is enough.  Do not assume that everyone’s appreciation of God is so strong from the get-go that they will “naturally, out of love” do good works. The Holy Spirit will see to it, you say.  But life is free choices, and we still have the sin-nature.  We’re supposed to suppress it, but we may choose not to.  I’ve seen too many people who managed to distort or ignore Scripture, so they never think five minutes about what their Lord wants them to do—but they still think they’re saved.  This theology not only is wrong because of verses above, but it was never followed by our church fathers. It has too often a bad result:  People get complacent, they often minimize sin.  Maybe they haven’t really followed what Jesus bluntly said in the Gospels about salvation (such as Matthew 5-7).  How many people who initiated divorce are in church, having never reconciled that with God, who think they are saved? Jesus repeatedly says, we must have mercy, we must forgive, we must help the poor. These are obedience. Sin goes far beyond the Ten Commandments. Sins of omission count.

Our capacity for self-deception is so great that maybe we should frequently introspect by ourselves, asking the Holy Spirit’s help. God can be stricter than we realize.

And, yes, we will have uncertainty about our salvation some days, after a terrible sin. Don’t hide from God. Confess it. David’s psalms address that. We sin without even knowing it because we are inured. Well, even Paul had uncertainty. We all have bad days; but if we go to Him, because we developed a love for Him, knowing that He loves us, we can get back on the path of growth quickly and grow on.

Modern "Christian" pastors have a new take:  "Yes, you made the prayer of taking Jesus in your heart.  So you're saved.  Yes, you can do works and try not to sin; they're not necessary for heaven, but doing them will give you more fellowship or crowns with God, which is nice; and doing them will improve your life, make you more joyful.  That's the reason you do them." Folks, this is un-Scriptural.  Their version of "salvation" often does not address the necessity of growth, or sanctification. They don’t speak of repentance or confession, beyond initial salvation, how bad our sins are, and how great God is to rescue me. It almost never speaks of hell, and the requirements of the Kingdom, and Lordship, and the real meaning of Redemption. 

I’ll bet this is new stuff to you, but I have many more blogs that look at this important doctrine of salvation from other angles.  I pray you’ll read them.  Obviously first read Scripture yourself.  Try this idea:  Read the Gospels. When Jesus says something about heaven or hell, or makes a command, keep a list of these. If you have an open mind, you’ll be surprised at the conclusions you draw.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, AIC meeting, March 2015, Indiana

 

 

Radical Truth #2: Jesus Commands That We Give Our Excess Away to the Truly Needy

 

As I indicated in the first "Radical Truth " blog, there are two commands by Jesus that form this radical doctrine, and I’ve only covered one, pointing out that Matthew 6:19-21 clearly tells us not to accumulate excess assets:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven….

The other command is in Luke 12:33. In the NIV it is very plain:

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

These verses, despite being in different Gospels, are on the same subject (proof: note the "thief" and “moth” illustration in both) in giving us God's will regarding money and assets. So here is our combined doctrine: In Matthew 6, we were told not to accumulate wealth assets. Now, if we have been accumulating wealth assets, the Luke verse tells us to what to do with them; we are to sell them—and give the money to the poor. This doctrine will radically change how you handle your finances—if you’re interested in obeying every command of Jesus, and really WANT to have treasure in heaven.

But when I mention this doctrine to church folks, they get quiet and mildly uncomfortable, evidently not excited about building treasure in heaven. Overall, based on dollars given, versus income, it seems the plain fact about America is this: There are a lot of middle-class people who call themselves Christian who really don’t care about giving serious money to the poor. (They may give sporadically to the U.S. poor, dropping a few dollars into a jar; but I’m referring to the worldwide poor, those who die tragically early, without clean water or enough to eat, or in refugee camps, or suffering from easily preventable disease). It's also true that most peoples' giving will go to their church, so lots of it gets spent boosting the church facility and the programs and salaries. But not much flows from the church to the worldwide poor.

Do the images of starving folk bother church people?  Does anybody in a Christian group say, “In my daily prayers the Holy Spirit is definitely beating me up about something—how many of these poor people worldwide dying every day from malnutrition or sickness could have been, or could be, my brothers or sisters by getting saved later on in life? It just blows my mind that I could actually save their lives but I’m wasting my money on the unnecessaries instead. Let’s get together and discuss fasting on occasion and living frugally and pool the savings and give it to them. We could save lives!” Music to our Lord’s ears! But rare.  Very rare.

American “Christians,” wake up! Consider again Luke 12:16-21, covered in Part 1 of this study, about what happens to a man whose sin was "he lays up treasure for himself:"

“The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’ 21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Are we that rich fool? Could God be angry at us--maybe even eternally angry--because we just want to keep it in the family (that is, earthly families), lay back and retire?  We consume it, we stock it up, and are not thinking much about helping the poor, or what "treasures in heaven" even means. Read Luke 16:19-25:

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell[a] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.

The rich man is in the bad side of hades, flames and excruciating pain and all, so don’t you think Jesus wants to tell us how to avoid that, or what major sins were that got him there? Of course, Jesus wants us to know! Are you going to say, “Well, we don’t know--because Jesus doesn’t say." On such an important issue, paradise vs hades, is God going to be silent? That doesn't make sense. But when you look hard, the ONLY conclusion is, the rich man is in hades because he had no compassion for the suffering poor man, the only other person in the story. The problem is, he knew the man was there, “at his gate.” But he walked right by him whenever he left home, and whenever he returned. But he didn’t help him. Well, are we churchgoers in America a step above this today? Maybe you’ll say, “None of these poor folks are at my door.” But they’re on your TV, they’re on the internet; you may even get calls from charities on the phone or in your mail. That means they are at your "gate." Do you walk by too?  Will you end up, surprised as this man was, at the same horrible final destination?

Jesus makes another related radical statement in Matthew 19:23:

Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

He even stresses the point by saying it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples were shocked at hearing that; they assumed (as we tend to do) that getting wealth is proof that God loves you. Jesus says completely the opposite. Jesus is really saying wealth will almost certainly distract you, obsess you, wrap your time up in material possessions, and tear you away from God so much that it's more likely you won’t make it to heaven. Think about that. That really makes gathering riches like gathering venomous snakes; here you are, making wealth as a precious goal, when in fact it will hurt you. (I’m not saying a high income is a curse. I’m saying plowing it into personal non-necessary expenditures and excessive savings is a curse).

Would you work hard and grasp something if you knew it would almost wipe out your chance at heaven? You’d think, “Nooo way.” But we do that very thing when we desire wealth. Now of course you might say, throughout this paper, “No problem; I’m not rich, in fact I have credit card debt, so I don't have a problem with this verse.” Well, in the Big Picture, almost all Americans are rich. We are the richest society, by far, in all of world history—in fact, our poorest 5% are richer than India’s richest 5% even now, to just give one perspective. So, you who are reading this—even if you’re middle class, even just below middle class, in America—you’re rich by world and historic standards. If you have credit card debt, it simply means you not only spent what God has lavishly given you, but you overspent and have not saved for short term emergencies. (There is no problem with saving a reasonable amount set aside for short term emergencies).  The big problem with our relative wealth is, we tend to be sinfully callous about the horrible lives that many people live.

Many Christians who don't give, rationalize by saying those people got there because they're lazy, or they haven't got proper goals for their lives. But how far do you want to take that argument?  Will you let them suffer malnutrition because we think they'll just waste money?  Really?  If you're rationalizing that their corrupt governments will prevent gifts of food from going to the poor people, so "I won't give," that's mostly a lie:  It's a proven fact that most governments will allow safe transport of gifts to the proper destination--unless the government is coldly practicing genocide (which doesn't happen often).  It may have been a bad farm year, it may be that government's ideas about how to run the economy were wrong, it may be that water is compromised for some reason. But should we let the people suffer from someone else's incompetency?  Maybe you decide not to give to a Communist country or a Muslim country thinking that's patriotic to the U.S.  These are enemies; letting them die, that'll teach them a lesson!  That sounds like stupid revenge.  But which does Jesus require regarding enemies--revenge, or love?  Let's not cop out, or rationalize our way out of this sacrifice for the Lord.  If you “follow” Jesus, look at what He did; He gave to the people who were disabled, people who had no hope, the low end of the income scale--since nobody else cared. He even kissed Judas.

But when you don't give from your excesses, you are deceived into thinking a deadly thought--that you’re already fine with God, and you rationalize that more giving won't get you any more 'good with God.'  Faith does it, not works, right? But in reality, you’ve drifted away from His commandment.   You become complacent, you drift away from needing God.  You could get to a dangerous place--no longer a branch feeding off the Vine for spiritual life (per John 15). And what happens to non-abiding branches? What happens to lukewarm people? They go to the fire or are vomited out of the body. Remember, Jesus said in Matthew 7:14:

“...narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” 

When you really meditate on these verses, how the few get to heaven, and how it's even harder for the rich to get to heaven, you get the radical idea that the odds are stacked against Americans going to heaven. Our relative wealth falls under the severe warning of Matthew 19:23 above. So, if few people make it to heaven, even fewer rich people make it, could a large number of us be self-deceived into thinking we’re going to heaven when we aren’t? Consider His warning in 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.

And what is "the will of My Father?"  Love, mercy, justice, and--When you consider America--giving. The truly worldwide poor deserve a chance at evangelism; they could be your sisters, your brothers!  Those that you gave money for spreading the Word, or money you gave that saved their lives, are your treasure in heaven.

It takes a lot of faith to give away excess income, and also to liquidate excess assets and give away that money too.  But that's what He wants.  May God help us to do His will.

 

A Radical Truth: Jesus Taught That We are Not to Accumulate Wealth

 

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 is to “treasure in our heart” our possessions. Unfortunately, that severely changes the verse, detracting from its clear meaning of not accumulating assets; they "redefine" the phrase to “not coveting,” a much vaguer concept--and one easily dismissible by many nominal Christians--so, people conclude, "I'm not sinning if I'm not coveting."  Thus, they don't think about 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 it grows 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?'

God put this man to death!  What's the reason? Jesus' judgment is contained in v.20: "Who will get what you have prepared for yourself?" He has valued treasures on earth, which he cannot keep in eternity; he places no value in treasures in heaven. Readers guess that the reason is, he's complacent about the future.  Well, accumulating leads you to complacency; the real fault is the accumulating.  Maybe some people assume his sin was to eat, drink, and be merry.  Not so stated.  Note that 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).

So we conclude, what was the sin of the rich man?  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.”

Not having "Riches toward God," is the same as not having "treasures in heaven."  We're speaking of giving away to charity, to missions, to church, to needy people. It doesn't say that making your kids rich is "rich toward God," by the way.

These verses are 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, either.) People 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. Even if it doesn't make sense, we should obey.  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, or spending money on some sin, maybe He is telling us, and that's the only way He can get our attention.  Most of us 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 further away from Him. In any of these, if we just reduce God's pressure by tapping our savings to pay for the item, we haven't learned anything or gotten closer to the Lord.  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 about 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 cut away with expenses on worldly desires, and you 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.

 

Flaws in the Once Saved Always Saved Doctrine (Part 4)

 

Flaws in the Once Saved Always Saved Doctrine (Part 4)

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. Many flaws are in my first three parts.  Please continue to read and pray.

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 for the saved sinner, God does not impute (or “charge”) sins they commit. They further maintain that this non-imputation 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 (Romans 6), spends a lot of time debunking the OSAS perversion. In Romans 6:6-13:

 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. ⁷ For he who has died has been freed from sin. ⁸ Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, ⁹ knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. ¹⁰ For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. ¹¹ Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

¹² Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. ¹³ And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

 

 He insists that the purpose of joining in a relationship with Christ is that “the old man was crucified with Him,” so that “the body of sin might be done away with.” He asserts that we have “been freed from sin.” That does NOT mean “freed from punishment, even if I continually sin as before.” What that should mean to you, is how you were trapped in sin behavior when unsaved, but now, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you can escape the trap of sinning. So it means free from the continuation of sinful behaviors. Through the Spirit that He gives you, if you listen and obey; 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.

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, if we disobey as before, treating your “salvation experience” as an insurance policy. Remember John 15, says that we must show fruit. You are a “new creation…old things have been passed away.” If you don’t change your life and repent of sin on a regular basis, and show change, then were you really “saved”—as in saved from sin, first of all. fact, New Testament 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, sorcnnerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

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 last part of v. 22, as well as the next verse completing the thought.  Verse 23 says you are above reproach IF:

…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 as well, 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, as “fill up” might suggest. 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 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). 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 to the public. 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 their destination.” 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,” which is dangerous. My response on their level is, did you know that an unsaved person (which is how we all start out our lives from the day that we become responsible for our sin) is a child 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—if you assume 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 a person that he looked up to, 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. Note also that our election is NOT "sure" (or certain) without deeds like those indicated.  And note that perseverance is a character trait that we need to develop. Yep, takes works and being yielded 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 opposite-- a love of God is not inhibited by a fear of God--see my blog on the subject; the idea is Scriptural). 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.  It's also true that 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. First and most important, we need to ask ourselves, does it dishonor God? Also, 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, and make us sin. 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 not to attrnd, 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. (Unrepentant, that could be eternal life).

If we read (and memorize) that verse enough til’ we really believe it, till it really sinks in, 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). Yet that’s what He wants us to remember Him by. Mercy and judgment. 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 that He loves)? 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

 

Flaws in the 'Once Saved, Always Saved' Argument (Part 3)

 In the last two weeks, we covered many 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. We counteracted their Scriptures that seem to contradict with other Scriptures. But it was solved by placing Scriptures in context. Today we continue to examine their “proof” Scriptures.

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. 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. 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” suggests a drowning swimmer who stretches his last bit of strength and grasps the lifesaver, gripping it firm—knowing that if he lets go, he will die. That should be the feeling we get for God’s offer of eternal life. “Fight the good fight” is another aggressive action that you have to do. It’s a behavior, not just belief in the head.

Did you know the true Gospel includes both "belief and 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, can only mean one thing—not following belief with works that evidence the Spirit is within you, and motivating you to produce fruit—then you are “holding fast.” It means some Corinthians believed, and he's warning them, hold fast to your salvation, and don't get to where your belief is just a lazy mental assent. So it’s possible to be saved, then unsaved.

On the sower again, 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 initially saved—if you don’t “receive” His word, you’re unsaved; if you do, you’re saved (see John 3:11, 12:48). But then it says, “they believe for a while.” The problem is, some people are unable to endure to the end. They lose their salvation (i.e., "fall away"); this means spiritual death (Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, to cite just a couple of examples). They "fall away" from a faith they were attached to.  When attached, saved; when fall away, become unsaved.

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, “this seems to be saying, a person can never get salvation back once they walked away. But 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. Then the hardened his heart.”

To that argument I respond by first, asserting that we believe it's possible to get re-saved.  Remember my comments in a previous blog on the prodigal son; he was a son, went away, “dead” as the father testified. then reconciled back with his father again.

Secondly, I believe Hebrews 6:4-5 says this person initially got saved. (How else would you be “partakers of the Holy Spirit?”) 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-spirited? How do we explain this phrase “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance?”  In answer, it requires a history study to understand it. At that time, if a Jew got saved, he would be thrown out of the synagogue. Let’s say, under heavy peer pressure, he 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 unsaved people. Most people have opportunity for repentance and re-obtaining salvation. So, this Hebrews example was a special narrow case for Jews during that time—it is not a universal rule.

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.

And Hebrews 10:14: 

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

OSAS adherents read from I Thessalonians, God will “sanctify you completely,” “preserved blameless,” and “will do it,” and figure that these are jobs up to God only. But the word “may” crept 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’s job only” since He is a God of certainty, not a God of “may”-be. The believer's free will then must be an expectation.  That makes it less certain, leading to "may."

From the Hebrews verses, you also must consider the phrase “those who are being sanctified.” It’s not as strong as “those whom He sanctifies,” which OSASers would like to see. It leaves the door open for the believer’s will—who maybe doesn’t do works of sanctification. 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 the I Thessalonians verses above. I am speaking of 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 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 us resist sin to bloodshed if we are tested; we must kill sin; we must cleave to the noble cause of standing up with Christ. We cannot get discouraged, saying, “Well, Jesus was God, so He 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 to do! Such a belief, spread for deception, will erode people’s desire 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.

Reprobate means "not standing the test."  It comes from the same root as "probate," which we get "probation" (a test for the former prisoner to acclimate to society).  Since men, under test, rejected God, God had to reject them. Finally, after many such failures, "God 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 kill its worldly lusts.  We're not advocating flagellating here; but Paul is actively suppressing the flesh's 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! Paul doesn’t feel much OSAS), 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.

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 conditionality 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 God’s 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: Concluding verses that contradict “Once Saved, Always Saved”

Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, “Conditional Security of the Believer

 

 

FLAWS IN THE ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED PART 2 of 4

 

I hope you read part 1 last week, where I began an argument against the Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) theology. We continue on with that. I hope you see the importance of this: It’s really often a matter of heaven or hell for a person’s ultimate destiny. We begin with my third argument of how Scripture sees problems with OSAS, namely:

PUT VERSES IN CONTEXT BEFORE YOU GET DECEIVED INTO A WRONG THEOLOGY BASED ON A SINGLE VERSE—OR “CHERRY PICKING” VERSES, KEEPING THOSE YOU LIKE AND IGNORING CONTRARY VERSES

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.”

You can see why OSAS adherents love this verse. 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 10 verses ahead. In Deut 31:16-17a, in God's final words to Moses, from the same speech, no less, God is warning him of Israel’s apostasy (abandoning the faith). 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" (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the unconditional meaning we think it has. (It has more of a "til' the unforeseen future" meaning).   In that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy, he is agreeing with the idea that God will never forsake you—unless you forsake Him first. Now you can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing your belief is “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a vindictive God of Law in the Old Testament; but 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). 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 has to include this: 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.

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 31:16 or II Chronicles 15. 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.

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?

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

But this Man (Jesus), 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.

Despite the words “He has perfected forever” sounding like assurance for the believer, "being sanctified" is not always in the passive sense, thinking that God sanctifies me with no effort on my part. Fact is, you must desire to be sanctified. If you have no such desire, you are not saved.  Just one example—proof that our behavior is involved: I Thessalonians 4:3:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

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, and gives us the Holy Spirit.  But don't forget context: In the Sower in Matthew 13, some seed came alive, but under shallow soil. It later died. Suggesting that salvation may, under pressure, die. So it would not be permanent. Another point is about forgiveness of sin: does the verse specifically guarantee us forgiveness for all future trespasses? Paul is, after all, focusing about a past event (“has made alive”), at initial salvation. It could be, that he meant all trespasses to that point were forgiven.  Because if we later go apostate, and deny Christ, does simply believing this verse says what we hope it says protect us? No; you have to confess and repent, and rejoin with Christ before you can be forgiven. Some people don’t do that,  as we have seen, and end up losing their salvation.  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 why do 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, in context with other Scriptures, 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 each day in prayer, and telling the Lord that we will do better, would be a good part of abiding in Christ.  It is an important part of Communion, right? (PS:  God is not so strict that He would not forgive if we haven’t confessed because we honestly forgot some).  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. Future sins are not covered by the “get out of jail free card.”

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 love 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—that’s what “He cannot deny Himself” also means.”  Well, dream on, un-Scripturally. 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, considering that "denying Him" would be "faithless," 2:12 says the result of our faithlessness is that He will deny us. And we would clearly lose the inheritance. Taking the two verses together, this means 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 on purpose connected to 2:12’s denying Christ—and has such a punishment of hell, if unrepentant.. God many times calls faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took their love 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 in practical importance to us, instead of God. Say, we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into that experience; then spend a lot of time with food: cooking, and eating 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, or even considered, in any of them. 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 still "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: What does God mean when it says He “cannot deny Himself?”  We assume that if God is “faithful,” it is always positive for us. 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--to Himself. To His integrity. He is faithful in fulfilling ALL promises He makes.  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. Think for a moment on how bad that is--and God created it.  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 (and certain sinners, Psalm 5:5 and Proverbs 6:16, 19) more than we can imagine—and ultimately His wrath 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.

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.”  Guarding it is also 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," “without wavering,”) is what’s needed to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job for us to do. That’s what the verse says.

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 is trying to make the verses prove that you can't be saved and then unsaved.  So the OSASer says, about Matthew 7:23 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, yes, look at the virgins in Matthew 25:11. Jesus seemingly has the bridegroom telling the virgins, "I do not know you.”  But since all ten virgins were invited and well-known, the bridegroom must have known them. So what does he really mean by the statement "I do not know you?"  The phrase is an idiom—a phrase that is peculiar to a culture. When Jesus says "I never knew you," He is saying, "your thoughts and actions became too much like the world; you are so far removed from me, it's like I never knew you." The emphasis on oil and preparedness could mean that those that were unprepared had no Holy Spirit, a symbol of which is oil. See I Samuel 16:13. He has changed His opinion on their invite, because they lost the Holy Spirit. The Spirit left them when their choices were of the world. 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.

In further proof, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his loving father, right? (Symbols of the saved person and God).  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. That means, he was home at first, then became lost, then came back. Seems pretty clear here, to make the parable relevant to us, as all parables tend to do—he lost his salvation, then regained it.

A note: 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 walking away, and 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.

NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE

Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security