In a recent “Grace Talk” we clarified some of the teaching from Dan’s recent series from 1 John entitled, “Are you Safe?” The question came up regarding how does a person know for sure that they really are saved. Really, the whole question of the eternal security of the believer can only be answered by going ahead and asking the question, “who is a believer?” In other words, it’s not “can I lose my salvation?” The real issue is, “am I really saved in the first place?”
The position of the leaders of Grace Fellowship is in keeping with the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of God with the Saints (the “P” in TULIP). Since it is an act of God to regenerate the sinner who is dead in sin making him or her ABLE to exercise their wills to embrace the truth of the Gospel, and since this act of God is an exercise of HIS Sovereign electing will, those who embrace Christ as savior do so by the will and power of God. That which God empowers (“he who began a good work in you…”), God maintains (“…will be faithful to complete it in you”). This doesn’t mean that a Christian never sins. Nor does it mean that a Christian won’t fall into egregious sin for perhaps an extended period of time. What it means is that God will not allow that person to remain in a state of open rebellion for the rest of their lives. God will, by his hand of discipline, persevere with the backsliding believer and in so doing, He will eventually restore that believer.
This leads to the question, what if a person professes Christ at some time in their life and subsequently falls away, never to be restored–even denying the Lord at the very end–Is that person saved? Our contention (and we believe this to be the biblical position) is that person was never saved in the first place.
Well, what about their profession of faith? What about their recitation of the sinner’s prayer? What about their trip down the aisle to pray at the altar? What about their baptism? What about that time they asked Jesus into their hearts? What about that time they taught a Sunday School class? The “what-abouts” are nearly endless.
I think that the confusion at this point is the result of the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved”. This doctrine argues that once a person professes faith in Jesus, he is eternally secure in his salvation and–even if he commits complete apostasy (“falls away”) and vocally rejects Jesus Christ–will still go to heaven, for he is “once saved, always saved.” Many who hold this position argue that God will even “take the fallen believer out” if it gets too bad. They point to Ananias and Sapphira as well as the the Corinthian believers who died because of abuses of the Lord’s Supper.
Ultimately, God knows who are His and who are not. The apostle John teaches in 1 John that we can be pretty sure that if someone denies that Jesus came in the flesh that he is not “for” Christ, rather he is “anti-Christ”. Of course, this is in light of the prevailing false doctrines of John’s day. To John, a believer’s security rested in his having TRULY accepted the TRUE Christ. The way a person could test this was by comparing his life to that of Christ himself. Is there any resemblance? If the answer is “no” then John would say that the “professed” believer has failed the test.
The bottom line is, true believers will not finally lose their faith since faith itself is a gift of God in the first place.
I have already been down this road and back up a few times.
I will say that for those that embrace this doctrine completely, (I’m not totally there yet) there is a great danger of being arrogant and judgmental toward others. This will only turn more people away. The tendency of some church leaders is to use this doctrine to get people “in line” with the program out of fear that they are not really saved. This is how they keep control.
No leaders at GF fall into this category but it is something that we should be aware of and sensitive to.
Christians can fall into sin, and only God knows if this person is to come back since they are really saved or not.
Our job is unconditional love for those people to encourage while showing them the err of their ways. Just as Christ did. Either they are believers that need to come back, or ones that need to know Christ for the very first time.
Our job is to love them to repentance and leave it to God to do His work.
I heard an old preacher say once that he would rather scare someone into heaven than to see them go giggling into hell. Thats a funny line, but a very sad approach.
We can’t save anyone ourselves, so lets love one another, bear each others burdens, let the world know we are genuine by demonstrating this love, and leave the work of regeneration or repentance/renewal to God. This is more fulfilling to me personally than getting overly concerned with who is saved and who is not based on how long or far someone falls. Again, love these people and let God do His work in their lives and in ours.
That begins by getting involved in each other’s lives as a body more frequently, and the willingness to be vulnerable and open to each other.
Since school has started we have all gotten a little too busy and a little distant as we focus on our own lives.
Let’s change that shall we?
So we are we getting started? 😉
So when are we getting started? 😉
I hate the lack of grammar checkers when I copy and paste!
For starters…I am up for lunch later in the week if you are. Or we can meet at the campfire on Friday at the Millers.
I agree with you that many of us are way too busy and way too programmed.
We need to try to (here is a weird solution)intentionalize being spontaneous. Lunch with one another…a quick call to see if a family wants to meet at McDonalds or go to a movie. Just spontaneous fellowship or service to one another…but intentional. That might be a good place to start.
C.A., your comments are spot on. I too fear becoming “the Frozen Chosen”. I’m currently reading Hosea in preparation for the Thanksgiving brunch and God is very clear that he HATES and DESPISES their feasts and their worship since it is from presumptuous hearts. The people of Israel believed that they were “safe” from any kind of judgment simply because of their “identity” as Israel.
I pray that I (we) never become so complacent that we too become arrogant as you have warned.
By the way, that old preacher…I heard him once too. He was speaking at a little church outside of town in 1982 when I was in college. He told the college students in attendance that they should be giving at least a tenth of the money they were receiving from home from their parents. He said, and I quote, “if you don’t do it, yer gonna go to the bad place!”
Old brother Leonard wasn’t too subtle.
Hey Ken,
I haven’t checked blogs in quite a while. I agree whole-heartedly with everything but your view of ‘once saved always saved.’ You hit in on the head with:
In other words, it’s not “can I lose my salvation?” The real issue is, “am I really saved in the first place?”
Why can’t ‘once saved always saved’ deal with the same issue? I have no problem with accepting the ‘once saved’ position, because I, too, believe that 1 John 2:19 deals with those who fall away by addressing the real question stated above. (Were they really saved before they ‘fell away’?)
Look forward to seeing everyone after church! Thanks for your insightful comments on the perseverance of the saints.
How would you explain Hebrews 6: 4-6? It is clear that those referred to in this passage as “falling away” were at first good christians, genuinely converted, enlightened, partakers of the Holy Spirit, and having tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come! Does this not describe a truly converted christian?
Hmmmm, M.R. Gray…are we related by marriage?
Great question. I’ll attempt to answer by first answering your last question, “Does this not describe a truly converted christian?”
My answer would depend upon the way you interpret the passage. Some scholars would say that the individual in question could in no way be a truly converted Christian. Why? Because the promises of Jesus that none of his own would be “snatched from his hand”. Also, Paul says that “He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it…” Therefore, a truly converted Christian would be “sealed” by the Holy Spirit and could therefore never fall so far as to be lost again. Those who hold to this position would interpret the individual in this passage to be a “make-believer” rather than a true believer.
Others scholars would interpret the passage to be a “hypothetical” warning. The hypothetical aspect stems from the writer’s confidence of better things in the reader’s case (v. 9). This confidence points to the previous verses as the scary aspect of a scheme of redemption that does NOT include the sealing of the believer by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Still others, of course, see this passage as proving the possibility of a Christian “losing” his or her salvation. Of course, this passage presents problems for the Arminian in that this passage teaches that those who fall away CANNOT be restored! If you choose to embrace this passage as your proof text for Christians losing their salvation then you must also embrace the words “impossible…to be brought back to repentance.”
I am convinced that salvation is a work of God from the beginning to the end (Jesus is the author and perfector of my faith). Since it is His work, by His Sovereign choice, then I cannot logically find any way that I can thwart the Sovereign will of God. As such, I would embrace either of the first two interpretations of Heb. 6 that I explain above.
Yes, we are related by marriage.
I was cleaning off my desk the other day and found the letter you guys sent to everyone last year. I went to your web site and saw your blog. I read it and of course you know that I did not agree with your reasoning. I believe you know where we all stand on these issues. I wondered, after reading your Churches statements on various issues such as leadership, baptism, communion,and etc., why you would not just say that you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God and that within it lies everything that man needs to know about God’s plan for man’s salvation and that you would say “we speak were the bible speaks and we are silent where the bible is silent”. Why would you need to go into lengthly dissertation to explain the “Churches” views on various subjects. This almost looks like you are trying to justify your beliefs.
I love and admire you. I have always been in awe of your abilities and your knowledge especially when I first met you (and even today). I was so happy that my sister had found someone that was a member of the church. I’m not certain but I’m pretty sure you were baptized for the remission of your sins and it is hard for me to understand how or why you would take certain stands now in regards to baptism, communion, perseverance of the saints, instrumental music or to put it more bluntly why you would take on calvinistic views. From what I can ascertain these beliefs are to satisfy those that are not ready to let go of worldly things or to justify something amiss in their salvation. Wasn’t it a break a way from the Catholic church having its beginning sometime around the 15th or 16th century.
If you believe that you are saved and are walking in the light and have love for one another why would you even contemplate whether someone can fall from grace or not unless it is a loved one.
The way I look at it is if you are correct in your beliefs then I am saved in my condition but if you are wrong and are preaching another gospel other than which Paul and the Apostles preached then you are a false teacher. I for one want to hear “Well done thy good and faithful servant” and to be certain that is what I will hear I am going to do everything in my power to emulate Jesus and to follow the instructions written down for us by writers inspired by the Holy Spirit. I want to find that One Church that Jesus died for and I want to be a part of it. We all want you to be a part of it as well and would love to sit down with our bibles and discuss these issues further. Just remember that it is not only your eternity that is at stake but your family and your friends.
I firmly believe this and I know you know that I am sincere. I remember you guys in my prayers and want us all to be together one day in eternity. I would ask you if you think we are wrong in our beliefs and if so are we lost? If so then I want you to show us how we are wrong and what we have to do to be saved.
I look forward to hearing from you soon and of course I look forward to seeing you all over the holidays.
Love
Mark
Sounds like a fun family holiday at the Rutherford’s.
After that you can discuss Bush’s Presidency, the role of micro-evolution in God’s creation, and whether Frosted Mini Wheats are an adult or a kid’s cereal. 😉
Hey all! Let me introduce you to my brother-in-law, Mark. A great guy. A huge Alabama fan. And probably the nicest person on the planet! This is shown by his ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I appreciate that.
Mark, thanks for taking time to read the material on the site and for sticking your neck out on the blog.
I do know you are sincere. So please, take a few minutes and address the Hebrews passage and how you might disagree with my interpretation of it. If this is a proof text that a Christian can lose his salvation, then doesn’t it follow that it would be impossible for him to regain it?
I look forward to an “open Bible” dialogue.
Hey Mark!
Welcome to the Grace Fellowship Blogs. You don’t know me so I just wanted to let you know that my comments are tongue in cheek. I have many questions regarding your last post but I don’t want to interupt the conversation any further.
Ken, just as suggestion of symantics, would it be better to ask the question … “If this is a proof text that a Christian can forfeit his salvation, then doesn’t it follow that it would be impossible for him to regain it?”
P.S. I have Arminian friends that embrace the idea that once forfeited, salvation cannot be restored.
Ken,
There are many so-called proof texts that not only say you can lose your salvation (assuming you can actually “have it” while you are on this earth), but more appropriately, that you had better persevere in the faith or you will never have salvation. I will provide a list of scriptures that support this position below. Let me first address your question about Hebrews 6:6. Does it imply that some people lose their salvation without hope of restoration? No, it does not imply, it plainly states it! Is this a stretch or in any way out of line with the rest of scripture? No! Look at what it says in 2 Peter 2:20-21:
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
The argument that a person cannot thwart the will of God is good reasoning, but God created man in His image and the world according to His rules. We must reason in order to understand what we are reading, but when the Bible says something plainly, we should just accept what it says and that we cannot necessarily conform everything to our understanding or to a particular man-made doctrine. Hebrews 6:6 is part of one lump that is the gospel. Here is some more gospel in no particular order, that says to me and I think to anyone that reads it without the filter of your doctrine, that security of salvation comes only through perseverance:
Hebrews 10:23-31
Galatians 5:4
1 John 3:6-9
1 Tim 5:8
1 Th 3:5
Mat 24:9-13
Mat 24:42-51
Luke 8:13
Luke 8:14
Mat 7:21-23
1 Cor 9:23-27
Heb 3:12
Heb 12:12-17
Philippians 2:12
1 Peter 5:8-10
2 Peter 1:10-11
2 Peter 3:14
2 Peter 2:1
2 Peter 3:17
1 Timothy 4:1-2
1 Timothy 4:15-16
2 Tim 4:10
2 The 2:8-17
In fact, I would argue that most of the epistles are concerned with correcting error and keeping Christians from “losing their salvation.”
I am very frustrated given the situation with my kids, but I don’t mean to cause hurt. We love you and we are always praying for you.
Jose
Jose,
I would say that the ASSURANCE of our salvation comes only through perseverance (on our part). But I cannot agree with you that my perseverance secures my salvation. Why? Because God would have to “dumb down” his expectations for me to have any semblance of security at all. We tend to, in our feeble attempts to persevere, create “keepable” laws and therefore build a false sense of security. Because I attend church every time the doors open, or because I have a daily quiet time, or because I give certain amounts of money, or because I embrace a certain form of doctrine, etc., then I’m persevering. If this then becomes, for us, the basis upon which we are justified or the basis upon which we believe we maintain our justification, then we have fallen into legalism.
You quoted Gal. 5:4. This passage teaches exactly what I’m saying. When we rely upon our obedience to a system for our justification (no matter what that system), then we “fall away from grace”–the only basis that any of us can stand justified before God.
No. Security is in the hands of God. My actions subsequent to my profession of faith have no power over God. They may very well prove the false nature of my profession but they don’t “force” God to “rethink” His Sovereign choice.
I’m sorry you’re frustrated. You and I have always had fruitful discussions and I am open to face-to-face time whenever you’d like.
Brotherly,
Ken
Dear Ken,
I recently read your article posted, and I also believe that we are related through marriage. But yet, I am disturbed at your comments. We both know the basic hermeneutics. But for other readers sake, I will list a few of the most important rules to Bible interpretation.
1. Keep it in context.
2. Who wrote it and why?
Are we not free-will agents? Is it my decision to follow Christ? Has God chosen those few already who will go to heaven, and everyone else is just out of luck? Or did Christ die for the entire world? Is God so Sovereign in His will as to let me make my own decisions, or am I a robot that, when it is my time, I will “make that decision” to live for Christ? How are we saved? What are we to do to receive salvation? You mentioned the sinner’s prayer. Where in the Bible does it mention that? For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that prayer saves us? Does faith not require action?
You replied to a comment from Hebrews. Was it not in Hebrews 11 that the writer thoroughly explains that faith requires action? “By faith Abel offered…” “By faith Noah prepared…” “By Faith Abraham obeyed”. Why? Because it is through these examples that in chapter twelve, the writer encourages us to “run (action) the race”. In regards to your comments on Hebrews 6:4-6, how can anyone with any knowledge of Bible interpretation even remotely come to the conclusion that this passage is not talking about Christians?
The entire book of Hebrews was written to Christians who had fallen back into Judaism. The writer is explaining to them that Christ is better than angels, the old law, the priests, the sacrifices, etc. Paul is definitely talking to Christians because he says in 5:12 “For though by this time you ought to be teachers…” Why? Because they had been converted truly. How do we know that? 6:4-6. “Once enlightened…tasted the heavenly gift…have become partakers of the holy spirit…tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.”
What does all this mean? What does it mean to be enlightened? To come to a knowledge of the truth. How? John 8:31-31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” How does the truth make us free? It sets us free from the bondages of sin. Were not the Christians in Ephesus true believers? Paul said in 1:18 that their eyes were “enlightened”. How did they taste the heavenly gift? Either one of two things. They knew of the spiritual blessings that were found in Christ Jesus, or they had partaken of the body and blood of Christ in Communion. How did they come partakers of the Holy Spirit? They had repented, and were “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” and they received the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
You stated that because we are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, that we cannot fall from the grace of God. Why then, did Paul state in that same very book to not “grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption”? 4:30. Does the word “sealed” mean that it can never be taken away? When you seal a jar of honey, can you not also take the lid away and unseal it? Absolutely. You also stated that no one can snatch us out of his hand. In Romans 8:35-39, Paul tells very plainly that nothing and no one is able to separate us from the love of Christ, not death, Satan, persecution, but there is one thing that is able to separate us from the love of Christ, which is one of the sub points that Paul is trying to make: We can separate ourselves from the love of Christ.
No one can snatch us from the hand of Christ, but we can get up and walk away. Rom. 12:1-2 says to present our bodies as living sacrifices. What is the problem with a living sacrifice? It can get up and walk away. What about in Luke 15? The Lost sheep left the flock. The Prodigal Son, who was apart of the family, left the home. In both we acknowledge that they were restored, but they both strayed. Back to Heb. 6. The verse says, “if they fall away”, or more rightly translated, “having fallen away.” Why is it impossible to renew them to repentance? Because they have hardened their hearts and had turned back to Judaism, and also because they would be going through the same process of being “re-converted.”
They are crucifying the Son of God again and are putting Him to open shame. How? Because when we are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), we go back to the cross symbolically, reenacting the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6). How? Because when we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death. We are raised from the water just as He was raised from the dead. We are walking in newness of life. He said when we die to sin, we are no longer slaves of sin and should not walk therein. Why? Because there is the temptation of falling back into sin. Why was Paul even talking about that? Because there were those who were abusing grace, and Paul tells them that when they die to sin through baptism, they must try to live righteously. Why? Because when we come to a knowledge of the truth, or have been enlightened, and we live in rebellion towards God, it is impossible to renew to repentance because:
What did that passage just say? It says that this person has trampled the blood of Christ which sanctified him. What does it mean to be sanctified? To be set apart, just like a Christian. Is this a “make-believer”? No. It is a Christian, a true Christian, who has wavered in his faith and has taken hold of his sinful living again. Sometimes we struggle in our Christian walks. Sometimes we get off path. But, as the Lord taught, when we have been overtaken in sin, we must repent, and change, avoiding that way of life, so that we don’t perish (Luke 13:3). Can we be lost once we have contacted the blood of Christ? Yes. Does that mean that we were not a true believer? Absolutely not. Show me one place in the Bible that says that those who were written to by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. were not true Christians who struggled with sin just like we do and I will change.
But, until you can prove your “doctrine” with the Word of God, all it holds is opinion, and is not binding upon anyone else, and should in no way be taught to anyone else as doctrine, and defile Jesus’ name. We must do and speak everything in the name of (authority of) Jesus Christ (Col. 1:17), and if it is not of the authority of Jesus, we cannot think it, and we must change it.
Sorry for the lengthy article, but I must speak to you the “whole counsel of God” regarding this matter. And there is still yet much more to be said. May we all live to please God, and therefore we do not have to worry about being lost.
Eric Gray
Ken,
Sorry I have not been able to get respond sooner but I do not have internet at home, refusing to pay for dial-up network, as we are so far removed from the mainstream that we actually get the Grand Ole Opry on Tuesday evening now.
Back to your interpretation and if I believe that if “then fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”.
Yes, I believe it is exactly as it is stated by the Hebrew writer. But let us make sure that we both agree that the epistle was written to Christian who were formally Jews and to encourage them to remain steadfast and not to forsake or neglect their faith in the face of adversity of persecution. If you agree then why was it written if there was no danger of them losing their salvation?
Let us go back to the impossiblity of being renewed again to repentance. With whom does the impossibility lie?
Let me suggest that the impossibility lies with the individual for nothing is impossible for God. Then why would the Hebrew writer make mention of it? Could it be that a person would fall so far that it would be impossible for them to be renewed again? Would this be something akin to “hardening of the heart”? I think that such would be the case.
Mark
Yikes!
Eric, please forgive me, but that’s REALLY hard to read. Is there a main point or two you can call out from all that?
Ken – were you there the day they taught “How To Respond To In-Laws With Love, Grace, and Truth — With The Whole Church Watching” in Elder School?
It came right before “How To Evade Wild Beasts In The Coliseum.” 😉
Like the good doctor said, “I just want to tell you: Good luck. We’re all counting on you.”
Eric,
Your response is long and you touch on so many things. I have limited time so I will attempt to address some of your points in pieces as I can.
I’m certainly well aware of the principles of hermeneutics as are most of those who read this public blog. One of my favorite teachers, Greg Koukl, says, “never read a Bible verse”. This is good advice that we would all do well to heed.
You ask, “are we not free-will agents?” Then you launch into the tired old “am I a robot” argument. If you do some research, you’ll find that any theologian worth his salt, who embraces reformed theology, would repudiate such a notion. There is a clear tension between the apparent free-will choices of men and the obvious Sovereign will of God. Don’t you see the tension in the Bible, for example, when Joseph tells his brothers, “you intended it for evil, but God intended it for good”? Or what about when Peter, addressing the Jews at Pentecost, clearly condemns them for putting Jesus to death yet, at the same time, states clearly that it was God’s intended purpose? You can chalk it up to “foreknowledge” all you want but I have one simple question, When did God LEARN that I would put my trust in Jesus as my savior?
You asked a strangely worded question, “Is God so Sovereign in His will as to let me make my own decisions…?” Are you intending to communicate that God is only partially Sovereign? Paul deals with this same line of questioning in Romans 9. His answer is quite sublime, “who are you, O man, to talk back to God?”
As to the Hebrews 6 interpretation, this has been exercised for centuries. I have put forth my position in a previous post and I’ll let that suffice.
Eric, my greatest disagreement with my former beliefs, when I argued from the same standpoint as you, is the basis of my justification. Simply put, I once believed that I was justified by my obedience. In other words, my justification was procured and secured by my faithful obedience to the New Testament Law. But praise be to God that He opened my eyes, primarily through the study of Galatians and Romans, to see that my justification was procured and secured by obedience alright, but NOT MY obedience. I have no righteousness to offer. My works are to God like filthy rags. I can’t even keep the first commandment.
Since I know that God, in His Sovereignty, learns nothing, I am humbled to recognize that before there was time, Jesus died for me. An eternity before I made my first “free-will” choice to obey, Jesus knew my name and my destiny. In my old way of thinking I just stopped my ears at such a notion. In my old way of thinking I wanted to take the responsibility for my salvation. I was proud of my obedience. Then Paul told me that by law shall no man be justified. What I once considered gain, I should now count as loss.
When you and Jose argue “security through obedience” it grieves me to hear professed followers of Christ take such a position. It seems to make sense but it invariably leads to (or stems from) legalism–true legalism–the belief that justification is the result of obedience to law. In Galatians, Paul calls this an accursed doctrine.
You can argue all day long, quoting Scripture verses until you’re blue in the face. But if you miss this–that justification is by grace through faith in Christ’s obedience alone–then we will never see eye-to-eye.
Ken, you talk of your former days of believing. How I long that you would return to those days, not only for your sakes, but for your children. I agree with you that God is so Sovereign that he knew before the foundation of the world what would happen. But that in no way changes the fact that I have to make a choice to follow after Christ. I am reminded of the song, “I have decided to follow Jesus.” What does the Scripture say? “If any man desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” Does this not require action? Does faith not require obedience, which requires action? You argue the “same ole argument” about faith not coming from your obedience. You also say the same things that I have heard many times, and will hear throughout my entire life: Legalistic. If that is what you consider holding tightly to God’s word, then throw out those words all day. But the fact still remains that James said, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” (2:26). Does the Bible contradict itself? Absolutely not. Therefore, you cannot say that faith does not require action. It is not about my righteousness, I agree, because grace is a free gift from God. But, if I say that I have faith, and do nothing about it, i am just like a dead man. James says, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” Because we have faith, we have to act upon it. This action is humble obedience to all of God’s commands. This includes the entire Word of God. You noted that you studied a lot from Galatians and Romans to help you understand about faith, but do not forget the other twenty-five books in the new testament that also tell us how to live by faith, what faith is, and how to obtain faith. Faith requires action. It is not based upon my righteousness, but my faith and obedience to God is based upon my actions. “Even the demons believe–and tremble!” I return to one of my original arguments. You stated, “that justification is by grace through faith in Christ’s obedience alone…” In Romans 5, Paul speaks of this justification by faith through Christ Jesus. But why, then, did he mention in Chapter 6 that we are baptized into Christ’s death, rising to walk in newness of life? If we are to be born-again Christians, living by faith, how do we receive that cleansing power? Only through baptism as we are buried to sin just as Christ was buried. But that is an action. Baptism requires me to do something. “Faith without works (action) is dead.”
Spew! Ptui! Blechhh!
That’s the sound of me spitting out all those words you put in my mouth!
Read my words: I clearly said that I made a choice to follow Christ 27 years ago. I never said otherwise. I make choices all the time. Unlike some who CHOOSE (hehe) to ignore it, I embrace the tension brought on by God’s Sovereignty and my apparent “free will”.
You somehow read me to say that “faith doesn’t come from obedience”. Huh? Eric, please go back and see that I belabored the point that JUSTIFICATION doesn’t come from MY obedience. My obedience is a byproduct of my faith. And my faith is a gift from God.
If you read my original post on this thread then you will see that I wholeheartedly agree with James that faith without works is dead. James isn’t speaking about a faith that suddenly ceases to justify, he is speaking of mere professions of faith. How else could he use the example of the “faith” of demons? Theirs is a “faith” that is dead–powerless to save.
Eric, it’s clear from your post that you believe that you are justified by your obedience to the command to be baptized. Let this put to rest any doubts in your mind about what I believe. I think that position is legalism–justification by obedience to law. Paul says in Gal. 1:9 that such doctrine is accursed. I will not “return” to such doctrine.
Why don’t you try this? Go through the book of Galatians and replace each instance of “circumcision” with “obedience”.
Ken,
Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion. In response to your recent comments back to me, I did not mean to imply that we could secure our salvation by perseverance in good works. Salvation comes by faith. I also agree with you that ultimately, security is in the hands of God. I was trying to address your doctrine on security, not on doctrine as it relates to faith versus works. What I was trying to say is that the only security we can have is to run the race with all our heart (or through special revelation if God were to speak directly to us). Even the apostle Paul did not count himself as secure! 1 Cor 9:26-27 is one of the scriptures in my previous message:
26 Therefore I run in such a way,
as not without aim; I box in such
a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and
make it my slave, so that, after I
have preached to others, I myself
will not be disqualified.
Paul was confident, but he was not complacent. He trained hard. It is clear that Paul is saying that even he could be disqualified with regard to salvation. Can you imagine what Paul would have said or done to someone teaching once-saved-always-saved to the Corinthians?
With regard to your concern for me being caught up in salvation by works, consider Cornelius. Cornelius was so good that his prayers and alms came up before God as a memorial. Wow! But Cornelius would have gone to Hell if it had not been for God intervenomg and a man who went to tell Cornelius what he had to do to be saved. (Acts 10:14). The fact that someone had to go tell Cornelius what to do in order to be saved clearly indicates that Cornelius was in an unsaved condition despite his awesome good works. Oops. Now I have done it. I said he had to do something to be saved… hmmm, the Bible does say that but I hope its clear that I am not suggesting the Bible teaches salvation by works, but it does teach that works and faith go hand-in-hand.
Even regarding faith, I do not believe it is possible to save yourself by your own faith because “there is none who understands, none who seeks for God” (Romans 3:11). The credit belongs to God. I think I could easily give you a long list of scriptures in which the Bible clearly teaches that salivation is by faith, but I want to get back to the topic I originally wrote you about.
You read Gal 5:4 back at me in your previous email, but you did not address the part about being severed from Christ. The central question we were looking at is security of salvation. I contend it is a man-made doctrine that is contradicted by many scriptures. And not to pick a verse, but there were 20 or so other verses to which you did not respond in my previous message, along with all the context that accompanies them. Some of the verses were Jesus Himself speaking. The gospel is one. You can build complex theories about salvation and security, but your doctrine crosses the line of what is taught in the Bible when you say believers cannot “lose their salvation.” That is the once-saved doctrine in sheep clothing. Please consider/respond to all those scriptures I sent you in my previous message.
Okay, I cannot help but comment on your other comments on obedience/works. I agree that it was the obedience of Christ that saves us, not ours. But how? Are we not required to follow Christ? The Bible teaches that disobedience will condemn us. Since you have so much understanding from Romans, how do you interpret the self proclaimed purpose/mission that Paul plainly states in Romans 1:5:
5 through whom we have received
grace and apostleship to bring
about the obedience of faith among
all the Gentiles for His name s
sake,
Or what does Paul say that Christ accomplished through him in Romans 15:18:
18 For I will not presume to
speak of anything except what
Christ has accomplished through
me, resulting in the obedience of
the Gentiles by word and deed,
Paul clearly has some big expectations around obideince. The reason Paul was so careful in Romans to make it clear that salvation is by faith is that he preceded it in Romans with obedience and he also said some stuff (Romans 2:5-10) that might cause you to accuse him of being a legalist if you did not consider the whole gospel:
5 But because of your stubbornness
and unrepentant heart you are
storing up wrath for yourself in
the day of wrath and revelation of
the righteous judgment of God,
6 who will render to each person
according to his deeds:
7 to those who by perseverance in
doing good seek for glory and
honor and immortality, eternal
life;
8 but to those who are selfishly
ambitious and do not obey the
truth, but obey unrighteousness,
wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and
distress for every soul of man who
does evil, of the Jew first and
also of the Greek,
There is that perseverance thing again in verse 7. It is throughout the gospel. It is hard not to bump into it. Yet, we know from considering the entire gospel that Paul is not a legalist even though he surely teaches perseverance, obedience and baptism in relation to salvation.
I am really worried about folks there being taught to believe that Mark 16:16 does not say that faith and baptism are required for salvation. It is perfectly ok and Biblical to teach that salvation is by faith and not by works, but it is wrong to teach them to disregard what the Bible plainly states because you cannot reconcile it with your doctrine. I believe all of these seeming difficulties can be clarified without throwing away any part of the Bible. It may take some work and I think we need to focus on one thing at a time, so perhaps if you are willing, we can get into and stay focused on the details around what the Bible says about the Security question first, and then come back to obedience, baptism, etc.. I know you are busy, but perhaps we can continue our dialog a little bit at a time.
Thanks again,
Jose
Jose, just so I know where your coming from — I’m pretty sure I know Eric’s G’s point of view — are you saying that based on Mark 16:16, the physical act of baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation?
While I don’t subscribe to that, I’ve always been curious about the attributes of faith. I was just thinking of Luke 22:31-34 where Jesus prays that Peter’s faith would not fail. I don’t think He was referring to the denial itself but the idea of Satan breaking Peter’s faith in general. Hmmmmm.
Eric,
I’m confused. It almost sounds like the whole disconnect here is that you think Christians need to be baptized, but so far as I know, Ken affirms the practice of baptism as well.
When you said,
… what did you mean by that?
Ken,
One of my greatest fears is letting our religious discussions dividing us as a family. Please do not misunderstand me: I love you as my uncle. We are a family, and we always will be. But, just as so many times, people disagree on Biblical issues, and thanks be to God that we have opportunities to discuss such things that we both can come to a better knowledge of the truth. Let me clarify just a few things. First of all, I never intended my arguments to mean that I can earn my own salvation. Salvation is from God, and grace is a free gift that I do not deserve because I am a filthy sinner. To answer Hugh’s question, what I was discussing when I stated that the only way we can receive that cleansing power is to be immersed into a watery grave of baptism for the remission of our sins. The Bible clearly says that baptism is essential to our salvation in Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, John 3:3-5, and 1 Peter 3:21. Particularly, 1 Peter 3:21 clearly states, “There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)…” Why does baptism cleanse our conscience? Because it washes away our sins. How do we clean ourselves everyday? We take a bath or shower in water. How can our souls be cleansed from sin? By water baptism. Let me also state this. Baptism is not a merited work. Baptism is a work of God. It is God who washes away my sins, not because of the act that I am doing, necessarily, but because He loves me so much as to send His Son to die for me. It is not what I think I should do, it is what God has said in His Word. Baptism is Biblical, and it is permeated throughout the entire New Testament. If it is mentioned so many times, doesn’t that mean that it carries some kind of importance? This action, does in no way of my own righteousness, justify me. God is the justifier, but if I act according to His purpose, then He justifies my soul. But Ken, it is just as you stated, my faith from God requires obedience. I think we both agree on this point. I think that somewhere we misread each other and i apologize for that. To clarify my second point: Ken, we both agree that we can know that we have salvation. But I disagree with you on the simple fact that you stated that those who had fallen away were “make-believers.” I have never read that in the Bible, and I believe that is where our entire argument started. I can do nothing apart from God and His word. It is God who saves, justifies, and decides who are the true believers. But please show me, from the Bible, where it tells that those who had fallen away, who once knew the truth, were “make-believers” and we will agree. But, until then, I must take the Bible stand. I cannot agree with you unless it comes from God’s Holy Word. And, for clarification, you mentioned in your original article about the sinners prayer. Do you believe in it, and if so, where in the Bible does it give us the authority to do so? Thank you for your time.
Eric
Eric,
I appreciate the kind tone of your posts. I also appreciate your willingness to stick your neck out especially knowing that the majority of the readers of this blog would vigorously disagree with some of your viewpoints.
As Hugh pointed out, I absolutely embrace baptism as a Christian rite. Read the common questions section of our website:
http://forgodsfame.org/explore/commonquestions.php
I wrote the entry regarding baptism. Notice that I differentiate between justification and sanctification. Really the only philosophical difference we have on baptism is its role in JUSTIFICATION. Eric, I won’t put words in your mouth. Let me just ask you, do you believe that when you stand before God in judgment that He will declare you righteous because you obeyed His command to be baptized? Do you believe that the washing away of sins is only given upon the condition that you obey God’s commandment to be baptized?
As to some people having the appearance of being believers but are actually “make-believers” I would cite 1 Jn. 2:18-19 as well as Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds (tares).
Finally. I don’t teach people to recite the sinner’s prayer. Many believers do lead people in such a prayer. I prefer to lead people to repent of their sins and to publicly demonstrate their commitment by water baptism. I think that if a person is truly “cut to the heart” he/she won’t need to be led in such a prayer. They will approach God on their own.
I understand that some evangelicals treat the sinner’s prayer in the same way that you apparently treat baptism–that is, as the demarcation point where one goes from being lost to being saved. I would reject this use of the sinner’s prayer on the same grounds as I reject baptism as the basis for justification.
Jose,
Just a quick question and I will address the rest of your post later…
John 13:14 says, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.”
Do you regularly practice this ritual with real water and real towels on real feet? Or does this activity represent a deeper truth?
Thanks for the clarification, Eric…
…but I can see that Ken was right: your view is going to meet some opposition ’round these parts.
But hey, so long as God’s truth is the goal, we have nothing to fear. We can disagree on ideas all day long and still “love one another deeply, from the heart.” The Lord’s commandment is to love Him and to love people — not to love our ideas.
Put another way, whether I’m wrong and you’re right, or if you’re wrong and I’m right, it changes nothing: we are still commanded to love one another.
With that said…
The point of yours that I would take issue with is where you said, “Why does baptism cleanse our conscience? Because it washes away our sins. How do we clean ourselves everyday? We take a bath or shower in water. How can our souls be cleansed from sin? By water baptism.”
I’m not in a spot to do a full-on Bible study at the moment (and it would be too long to publish here anyway), but it seems to me that the weight of Scripture — from the earliest sacrificial laws to the final judgments of the apocalypse — tells us that it is the blood of Christ that washes away our sins, not the water of baptism.
Is it your contention that the blood of Christ is inadequate to wash away our sins — that the water of baptism must be added?
And quickly, to address the passages you cite:
Acts 2 doesn’t really do any “heavy lifting” toward a soteriology of baptism, does it?
Romans 6 says we were “baptized into… death,” not water — and it goes on to say “we were buried therefore with him by baptism into death” (6:4), “we have been united with him in a death like his” (6:5), and “our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing” (6:6). So if you’re going to use Romans 6 to establish the works that must attend our faith, you’re going to have a lot of funerals going on.
John 3 is like Acts 2 in this regard – it’s hardly an explicit commandment to be baptized. It certainly relevant, but you’ve got some more work to do if you’re going to argue from the Nicodemus passage.
1 Peter 3 is interesting. Taken at face value, v. 21 (“Baptism…now saves you”) closely ties baptism with salvation in what seems to be a causative sense. However, the second half of the verse predicates the whole thing on the resurrection, so it doesn’t establish that baptism accomplishes that the cross did not.
I have no interest in being wrong, but I admit I could be mistaken. God is not glorified by a wrong understanding of the work of His Son, so I engage you as much to perfect my understanding as yours or anybody else’s — because it is in that clear picture of who He is that His glory is fully shown.
Thanks for the opportunity to search these things out!
Let me answer Ken’s questions first, and then I will refer to Hugh’s questions. Ken, in referring to the passage that you mentioned in 1 John 2:18-19. This passage refers to the antichrists. Now, to my knowledge, the antichrists were those who were trying to destroy the church from within. Are you referring to “make-believers” as antichrists? Would you please elaborate and explain?
Now, to answer your question reguarding baptism. I will answer your question about standing before God in judgment. God will not justify me because I have been baptized. God will save me because He is merciful. If He were to give justice, I would be condemned to hell no matter what I did. But, nevertheless, because He loved me and you so much, we have the opportunity to be saved. Well, the obvious question then comes, “What must I do to be saved?” Before I enter this entire discussion, I want you to understand that I do not believe that it is any act that I do that saves me, it is God! But, He has laid out in Scripture some things that must be done, that are His works, that I must follow through with.
In John 3, Jesus is talking with Nicodemus, and Jesus tells him in verse 3, “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” and again in verse five, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus explained verse three in verse five. So, if I want to enter the kingdom of God, I have to do something. God will not declare me to be righteous, He will tell me, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” So, are there things that I must do to obtain that inheritance in heaven? Yes. How do I know that? Because Jesus just told me and you to do so. So what does it mean to be born again? 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” Now, if Jesus said in order to enter the kingdom of God I must be born again, and Paul said that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, then when I am in Christ, I have been born again, because I am a new creation in Christ. Now, how do I “get” in Christ? In Galatians, Paul has been discussing the purpose of the Law. It was a tutor to bring us to Christ. In chapter 3:24, Paul says, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Hew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Let’s logically work through this to answer the question, How to I “get” into Christ. We both agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. It plainly stated that we are justified by faith. Through faith we are sons of God in Christ Jesus. Now, the problem is in the next verse. The Bible says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So, the logical answer of how to get into Christ is to be baptized into Him. The Bible has spoken.
Now, is baptism the only thing that a believer must do? Absolutely not. A believer also must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), Repent (Luke 13:3,5), Confess (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10), Be baptized into Christ (Mark 16:15-16), Live faithfully (Rev. 2:10), partake of the Lord’s supper, attend the church services, etc. But Mark 16:16 is an interesting verse. It says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Does that not state that belief (faith) and baptism go hand in hand? You cannot have one without the other. If I do not follow all of the Lord’s commands, then He will not save my sinful soul. I can do nothing apart from Jesus Christ. These things that He has laid out are so simple. Yet, it is not those things that saves me, it is God. But, Jesus told me to do them, and therefore I must obey His commands. So, to answer your question, does baptism justify me? NO. God does. But I also must have faith, repent, confess, be baptized, live faithfully, etc. They are all things that Jesus Himself commanded. Can we refute the words of Christ? John 14:15, Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” So please do not think that i regard baptism the same way some view the sinner’s prayer. But, the Bible clearly states that these things must be done. One is not more important than the other. The only reason I speak of baptism more is because we both agree that we must believe, repent, and confess. I hope that all of this makes sense, and that it does not seem legalistic. All that I have said comes from the Word of God. And I have not abused the text whatsoever. Everything has been kept in its context.
To answer Hugh’s question, it is the blood of Christ that washes away our sins, but it is in the belief, repentance, confession, and baptism that helps us contact spiritually the blood of Christ. In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, it says Jesus will come “in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not oby the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What is the gospel? 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according the the Scriptures…”
How do I obey the gospel, which is the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ? Romans 6:3-6 tells us how to do so. “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Chrst Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so w also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 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.” It is not until we have arisen from the water that we have become new. It is not until we have buried that old man that we have become a new man. Therefore, it is not until we have been under that water that we can contact the blood of Christ because it takes us back to the cross. It is through baptism that we reenact the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-6). That is the logical conclusion. And I never stated that baptism accomplishes what the cross did not. Baptism is a part of God’s work. Baptism is a spiritual crucifixion. Baptism allows me to reenact what my Lord did for me. What a blessing to be able to connect with Jesus in such a way.
Ken/Hugh
Are we saved before our sins are forgiven?
How are our sins forgiven?
What did Peter tell the multitude on the day of Pentecost when they asked “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”?
Why did he tell them to “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?”
Verse 41 of this same chapter in Acts states, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized: and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” Skipping to verse 47 we read, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
What did Paul tell the Jerusalem mob? Did he not relay to them his experience on the road to Damascus. In Acts chapter 22 Paul tells us what Ananias tells him to do, “and now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
With Love
Mark
Eric – I’m not passing you over, it’s just that I can begin to respond to Mark’s post more readily. Stay tuned!
You asked, Are we saved before our sins are forgiven? I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’ve never really thought through the precise sequence there. It’s tough in a lot of ways because you’re dealing with an event in the past that applies to a future state, so the whole business of sorting out God’s timeline and resolving all the temporal and sequential references gets confusing fast.
It also depends on what you mean by “saved.” One could say that none of us have been “saved” yet because the thing we are saved from hasn’t happened yet. On the other hand, one could mean that “to be saved” is “to enter into justification.” So… it’s tricky. Where are you going with that?
How are our sins forgiven? The precise mechanism remains a mystery to me, but I know that the sine qua non is the atoning death of Christ on the cross. Exactly how God does the math on that to come up with good news for me is something I can only hope to understand, but I’m confident I have more to learn.
Furthermore, I view the sinner’s spiritual condition as utterly dead… powerless… unable to accomplish anything. Therefore, the sinner has no role in the mechanics of his own salvation. Put another way, I do not supply a “cause” that produces my salvation as its “effect.”
Your further questions out of Acts are good ones and I’ll have to return to them later – it goes to the question of “what’s the deal with baptism, anyway?” I’m not well-read on that subject, but my knee-jerk reaction is that nobody would submit to baptism who refused to follow Christ. Much as the signers of the Declaration of Independence were essentially signing their death warrants, so a first-century Christian was marking himself for death by submitting to baptism.
… but I could be wrong.
Eric G, you say “If I do not follow all of the Lord’s commands, then He will not save my sinful soul.” Let me just ask how you think any of us are doing on these commands of Jesus?
Do not be angry with your brother. Matt. 5:21-26
Do not look lustfully upon a woman. Matt. 5:27-30
Do not take an oath. Matt. 5:33-37
I would have thought that Jesus’ interchange with the “The Rich Young Ruler” (Matt. 19:16-26) would have forever done away with the idea of a fallen man keeping the Lord’s commandments faithfully.
In the same paragraph, you say “But, Jesus told me to do them, and therefore I must obey His commands.” I agree. The difference comes in on the implied “or else…”. You say something like “or else He will withdraw His grace and leave me to perish.” I say “and when I fail, I become even more aware of the richness of His grace.”
Why else would Paul even ask the rhetorical question “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” in Romans 6:1 unless the reader was to understand him as saying that under grace we were no longer justified by avoiding sin. The beauty of it is that the follower of Christ obeys out of love for his Lord, not for fear of retribution. “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1)
I’ve got one more question to help me understand this view…
How do you view regeneration?
Does anything actually happen? If so, is that reversed when one “loses his salvation?” Does the Holy Spirit vacate? (1 Cor. 3:16) Does the person go back to being a slave to sin instead of a slave to righteousness? (Rom. 6:17) Do the Scriptures become foolishness to him once again? (1 Cor. 2:10-14) Does the person put back on the old things that had passed away? (2 Cor. 5:17)
Sorry to have to come back piecemeal, but such is life.
Eric G: I asked you “Is it your contention that the blood of Christ is inadequate to wash away our sins — that the water of baptism must be added?”
You answered:
First, I’ve emphasized two parts of your response that, to me, seem to be contradictory. In the first place you say that without the water of baptism, the blood of Christ is useless. In the second, you say that baptism adds nothing. Am I misunderstanding you?
Second, to my original question — I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’m asking — can I conclude that you mean that the blood of Christ alone is inadequate for the washing away of sins, and that the water of baptism is necessary in order for Christ’s blood to do its work?
Hugh,
It is the blood of Christ that cleanses sin. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. But it is through baptism that one contacts the cleansing. I know no other way of explaining it. God saves, but He has laid out simple acts of obedience that the sinner must to do obtain that salvation. And to answer your second question, the blood of Christ is adequate to cleanse our sins. Hebrews 10:10, 14 says, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” The Bible clearly states that the blood of Jesus was sufficient to atone for sins. But, just as in the Old Testament, something had to be done in order to receive that atonement, such as offering sacrifices, so we must do the same. We must submit our entire being to Jesus Christ. Romans 12:2 says to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” So acting out of faith is nothing new. Baptism is such an act out of faith to receive the atonement. Just as we have to take the step to believe, and to repent, and to change, and to confess, so we must also take the step to obediently submitting our lives to our Lord in baptism, signifying that we are putting to death the old man, no longer living to sin, but now living for Him who died for us (Romans 6). Now, to respond to Eric Farr’s comments. I never want to be accused of being legalistic. Submitting to God in obedience is very Biblical, and I do not appreciate the condescending tone that you are displaying. If you want to travel down that road, then you may do so. But all I ask is that you respect me for being a stuious learner of the Bible, and to debate my remarks in a sensible way. I understand that there are not many who read this that agree with me. That does not bother me. You would feel the same in my position. But at least I am willing to stand for the Word and to debate it, and I think that that alone demands a little respect. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). If I don’t keep His commandments then I do not love Him. Therefore, He will not allow me to enter the land of rest. Paul was addressing those in Romans who were living like hellions six days of the week, and who would “ask for forgiveness” after they committed the act knowingly and purposefully. Now, Paul does ask the rhetorical question, but what does it mean to live in sin? Did John not also write, “For if we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7)? So, if I am living faithfully, but I mess up, then I still have that forgiveness. But, if I am living rebelliously, just like the prodigal son in Luke 15, who was apart of the house, or family, and I leave to a far country, then I can still come back to God and He will still forgive me. But I did state that I can leave God’s household, or leave the flock of God. I have yet to be shown from the Bible in detail from Ken or anyone else where the idea of Perseverance of the Saints is a Biblical idea. As the writer of the article, it is the author’s responsibility to show FROM SCRIPTURE where the idea is seen in the Bible. It is not in just writing a scripture down, but explaining how it ties in to the idea. And then come along readers like myself and a few others who read the article, disagree, and show FROM SCRIPTURE how the idea does not exist in the Bible. You can attack my argument all day long with opinion, but until you show me or anyone else who reads this blog where you find it in the Bible, no one should regard it as anything else other than OPINION! The Word of God is the ultimate authority, and I have written everything from it. The author has not. Therefore, until that time when the author can show, in detail, to prove his point thoroughly, and not think that everyone will just agree with him because he said it, no one should regard it as truth. I know that I am being very blunt, but I get tired of being referred to as legalistic or inferior in my knowledge of the Word of God when I have done nothing less than proclaim it to you. God has given us His Word, and all things that pertain to life and godliness. Use it wisely, and do not abuse it. If you are going to write an article, be definite, thorough, and prove your point from the ultimate source.
Eric
Just for the information of all the readers of this blog, I went back and viewed the original article that was posted by Ken, and there was not one single Scripture quoted to defend this idea. What kind of doctrine cannot be backed up with the Word of God? You can answer that one.
Eric G, relax. I was going to crack a joke about “getting in over your head” with this whole baptism thing, but that probably wouldn’t be helpful.
Some advice about these blogs: don’t try to draw content out of what you think somebody’s tone is. If you think you’re reading something written between the lines, ask. If somebody hit you with a low blow, they’ll get called on it and they’ll owe you an apology.
*ahem*
When you say, “The Bible clearly states that the blood of Jesus was sufficient to atone for sins. But, just as in the Old Testament, something had to be done in order to receive that atonement, such as offering sacrifices, so we must do the same,” there are some problems there.
Here’s the argument:
1. To be sufficient is to lack nothing necessary to have full effect.
2. The Bible clearly states that the blood of Jesus was sufficient to atone for sins.
3. Therefore, the blood of Jesus lacks nothing necessary to have the full effect of atoning for sins.
How, then, would you argue that the blood of Christ is sufficient, but that action is still required for the atonement to be effective?
And how does the OT system of sacrifices have anything to do with the response required of those redeemed by Christ? Isn’t that the whole point – that Jesus was the sacrifice, once for all?
Eric, I’m not seeing the condescending tone in comments, but in any case I’m sorry that they came across that way. My questions were not meant to show disrespect. I think they are legitimate questions raised by the view you are putting forth.
Eric,
You misunderstand my point. I apologize if I read between the lines. Is everyone going to heaven, no matter how they live? Will those who deny the existence of God go to heaven? Do we have to believe in Jesus Christ to be the Son of God? Do we have to repent of sins? Are not those actions that we do towards the goodness of God? If so, then it is just like I stated. Faith requires obedience. My obedience does in no way affect the blood of Christ. It is still sufficient to atone for my sins. But, answer this, because evidently I haven’t: What are we to do to receive that cleansing blood of the Lamb of God? Does it not require action to receive atonement, justification, reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness, etc.? And I used the OT system of sacrifices as an example, that in order for the people to receive the atonement, they had to do something.
Eric
My apologies; I may think better of this one, but here goes…
No, you haven’t shown that from Scripture. You’ve registered your disagreement, and now we’re looking into what is being disputed. You’ve cited verses as if they were magic spells. That’s not showing anything from Scripture.
First of all, you haven’t made an argument, you’ve offered objections and counter-claims. Second, you object to the use of opinion. I don’t think I’ve offered opinion and called it refutation, but Eric, whether that’s true or not… is that your opinion?
I agree, but that’s just my opinion.
This seems to be the sticking point, Eric. We find ourselves in a dispute about what the Word of God actually means. What is the authority by which we grasp that meaning? We argue (in the classical sense), we reason, and we debate. We take sides, and see what survives the examination. This is what I meant in my earlier post — we love people, not ideas, so that we can subject our ideas to ruthless scrutiny.
Never make absolute claims, Eric. That’s going to take some serious backup to make that one stick. Ken ain’t perfect, but neither are you.
It’s a blog, man!
Do you think everyone should agree with you that Ken thinks “everyone will agree with him because he said it,” just because you said it?
Only the guilty flee when no one pursues, chief. What you’re saying — it never happened. Ken identified some legalistic ideas, but if you insist on identifying yourself with those ideas, that’s your problem. And inferior? I’m the one going on about how I could be wrong about all of this.
Let’s keep this much straight: this is about ideas. It’s not about you, it’s not about Ken, your dad, your aunt, your family situations, and it’s certainly not about me.
Sorry for the intensity. If I have spoken in error, I’m ready to apologize and retract it.
Hugh,
Where did all of that come from? Those remarks were not at you, they were referring to what Mr. Farr replied. I never said that I was perfect. But, as teachers of the Word, it is our responsibility to treat the word of God as something that is sacred, and worthy of our examination. If the idea is worth posting, then it is worthy of Biblical support. Can you refute the word of God? No. Can you argue that I posted anything that did not have Biblical support? If so, then I am sorry, and I will change it. But if we are going to consider such ideas as these, then we desperately need to have God’s word to cite from. My opinion is worth nothing. God’s word is worth everything. But, can you argue that an idea such as Perseverance of the Saints needs to be backed up with scripture? If we are going to teach something as truth, we need the Truth to say it. I want to know more about this idea, and until it is presented in a fashion from God’s word, I do not think the idea is given justice. We are all students of the Bible. As students, we need to learn more about it. How can we learn from something when the Scriptures are never given reference? That is my point. Show me in the Bible where this idea exists, and then it is not opinion. Until then, how else can we view it? I am not responding to bash the idea. I am responding to debate it. If you do not like my ideas, then say so and I will quit pouring out my time and thoughts. Until then, let’s come to the truth!
Eric
Eric,
It seemed like you had your sights on Ken more than Eric (or me). But that’s neither here nor there… it was just bugging me that when I picked up on this thread it was three guys taking issue with Ken, and at the first hint of challenge, you cried foul.
…not to mention the fact that Ken had to respond gracefully and truthfully and publicly to what could be variously viewed as either a family dispute or a theological debate or both or more. That’s a lot of stuff for anybody to navigate. I think what pushed me over the top was the extreme standard you imposed on Ken, when it seemed clear to me that you fell short of it yourself.
Like Forrest Gump said, “That’s all I got to say ’bout that.”
Moving along…
You invited me to “argue that [you] posted anything that did not have Biblical support.” That’s where I’m going, but one step at a time…
The first step in the argument is to make sure I understand your claim. Let me see if I have this right: you’re claiming that justification is predicated on the blood of Christ and water baptism.
Assuming I have that right, two things (at least) follow:
1. Justification is not accomplished solely by the blood of Christ.
2. Justification is not accomplished solely by water baptism.
I agree wholeheartedly with #2. It’s the first point that I would want to dispute on a Scriptural basis.
Before I go any further, let me know if I’ve understood you correctly — sort of a “so far, so good” test.
David,
With regard to whether I think the physical act of baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation, I have to say that I do not know. I think baptism is required for salvation because the Bible clearly states that, but the Bible does not state that it is the physical act itself. I find plenty of examples of the physical act in the Bible, and I am not going to try to improve or disregard the physical baptism taught in the Bible. I need to study it some more but I like what one of the other fellows said about physical baptism being the means to contact the blood of Christ.
What I am certain is wrong is to teach that baptism is not required for salvation. Even if you claim error in the Bible and throw out Mark 16:16, there are way too many other scriptures that associate baptism and salvation. Several of them were covered in the posts above so I will not expound unless you disagree and want me to show you a list of scriptures.
I have an idea that I have been toying with that might explain some of the seeming difficulties around the baptism scriptures. There are two central parties at a baptism, the baptist and the believer (or the Master and the slave). I suspect the baptism referred to in Mark 16:16 is baptism of the Holy Ghost (God taking possession) and I know from observation as well as from the Bible (e.g., the stories of Cornelius and the Samaritans in Acts) that the Holy Ghost may or may not come at the same time as the physical baptism.
I think I agree with you on Luke 22:31-34. The Bible talks about measures of faith (Romans 12:3). Jesus had unlimited faith (John 3:34), but we will come up short, so we need the grace of God to make up the difference. Alhtough his faith faltered or was insufficient, Peter was not faithless. Note that he also did not have the Holy Ghost at that time. I think faith = works in the sense that whatever I believe, I act upon. As Matthew Henry would say, faith is not a naked mental ascent. Peter’s faith after he got the Holy Ghost was noticeably different.
Jose
Ken,
About foot washing, I agree that there is a deeper meaning. I understand and agree with your point. So as long as you agree that the deeper meaning of baptism is required for salvatoin, you do not have to wash my feet. Seriously, how do you propose to do the “deeper” baptism?
On a practical basis, Jesus probably would expect the disciples to wash each others feet. Jesus taught that we should not put ourselves above others and this was a practical thing they did in those days. And it was very real. Our Lord humbled himself and carrierd out the act. He could have just told the disciples the principle. He did not have to actually do it. Why did he?
So let us agree that baptism is necessary, and for what we shall do about baptism, let us just do what the apostles did, ok? And we need to talk about baptizing in the name of Jesus someday. Before that, let us go back and focus on the scriptures dealing with security. Then we can get into what the Bible teaches about baptism if you like.
PS – I am going to have to go through the actual foot washing ritual on Christmas eve. Ugh! But I am sure it will be good for my sole, I mean my soul 🙂
Jose
Jose,
As I’ve told you before, you and I are right together on baptism. I believe it is necessary for a believer to obey the Lord’s command to be baptized. I teach that all the time. I baptized two of my own children. I’ve baptized other believers as well.
I reject the notion that obedience to the command to baptism is a pre-requisite to justification. Please read my entry on baptism in the common questions section of this website.
Thanks also for the kind way in which you present your disagreements.
Eric Gray,
I was away from email all day yesterday. Let me make a few points before I continue with our discussion.
You have said in your posts that you are tired of being called a legalist, etc.
Eric, please look at your first post. You said that I “defile Jesus’ name” by my “doctrine”. I think it’s safe to assume that you are calling me a false teacher. Those are harsh words. I’ve heard it before so I don’t get angry. I just plow forward. I humbly suggest you do the same and not be angered when people label you in a certain way.
I did, in fact, imply that your position is legalism. I was careful to define the word. Legalism is the belief that I stand justified by obedience to laws/commands. Many people will misuse the word and apply it to anyone who has scruples. I am limiting its usage in this discussion to the concept of justification.
No matter how much you try to dodge it, you continue to assert that we only come into contact with the justifying power of the blood of Jesus is through obedience to the command to be baptized in water. It quacks like a duck.
You must acknowledge the Sovereignty of God and election in the question of justification. Jesus told Nicodemus that “unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom…” The word for “see” is “oidos”. Look in your lexicon and you’ll see that “oidos” means to recognize or to comprehend. Every one of the guys who have taken issue with you have struggled with the whole concept of God’s Sovereignty in salvation. They have all landed on the position that God chooses those whom He will ultimately save. Why? So they can be absolved of any responsibility to do anything? Absolutely not. I know these guys and they are hard workers in the Kingdom of God. They are all diligent to study the Scriptures, to teach their children to obey the commands of Jesus (including baptism!), and to preach the Gospel to the lost.
We are all sinners saved by grace. We love the Lord and we want to bring Him glory. Just because we don’t interpret the Scriptures as you do doesn’t change that. Let’s disagree but continue friendly dialogue (and you have often been very kind).
Also, you said that I didn’t use any biblical references in my first post. Please recognize that my first post was a clarification of a question which stemmed from a long series of expository lessons on 1John. Listen to the series, “Are You Safe” if you are so inclined and you will see. This is a blog. It is a forum for discussion and, in my use of it, has a context which connects it to issues in our congregation.
So are you promoting the doctrine of, and I use it in the denominational sense of the term, not the way that I see the word, “Predestination,” “Election,” and “Chosen of God,” in the sense that God hand-picked those who would be saved, that He decided before the foundation of the world who would go to heaven, individually speaking, and not referring to the church as a whole? Did God decide mine and your salvation, and decide those who would go to hell?
Once again, I have been misunderstood. I thought that I stressed the point that it is God who saves, but I guess I need to say it again. IT IS GOD WHO SAVES! But, if you would be so inclined, answer this question for me as well. Is there anything that I have to do to accept the cleansing power of Jesus blood in my life, to let God take control, and to become a son of God and a fellow heir with Christ? If so, what? If not, why?
Eric Gray
Yes. I believe God chose, before the foundation of the world, those who would be saved–and of course that refers to the church since only the church will be saved.
I asked you “when did God come to know that you would choose to trust in Jesus for your salvation?” Your answer will go a long way in determining just how far apart we are on this.
I don’t think I misunderstood you at all. You plainly state that one cannot “receive” atonement until one makes the step of obedience (water baptism). This would make justification conditional upon YOUR obedience. right?
What do I have to do to receive justification? Only one thing, sin. It is God who justifies.
I know this is foreign to your thinking but hear us out. You may find that there is more biblical evidence for my position than you’ve considered before.
Ken – could you clarify what you meant by “What do I have to do to receive justification? Only one thing, sin. It is God who justifies.”
I think I know what you mean, but it’s worth unpacking it a little.
Ken,
I agree that God did choose His people to be saved. But do you but a numerical number on that, do you view it as an individual picking, or as the church as a whole? I did not quite understand your answer. But I do not understand your view of justification. Can I be justified apart from obedience? Will I be saved if I never accept the blood of Christ to cleanse my sin? Answer that one question and we will have made progress. I have asked you before, but did not receive a clear answer. I understand that your view that it is God who saves. I AGREE WITH YOU. But I want to know how you feel about man’s response toward God’s love. What does man have to do?
Eric – I can’t answer for Ken, obviously, but here’s how I’d try:
You asked, “Can I be justified apart from obedience?”
It depends on how you understand “apart” in the context of cause and effect.
If you’re asking, “Can I be justified (the cause) apart from obedience (the effect of the cause),” then I’d say yes.
If you’re asking, “Can I be justified (the effect) apart from obedience (the cause),” then I’d say no.
True justification will certainly bear fruit, starting with repentance. But the fruit follows justification.
Think of it this way. If obedience can be thought of as the fruit of the Spirit, then it is the work of the Spirit (regeneration) that produces that fruit. An apple doesn’t grow a tree under it – the tree comes first.
Let me try to say it another way: obedience is contingent upon justification. Justification is not contingent upon obedience.
Did I help clear things up or make this hopelessly confusing?
Ken,
Please clarify something for me? What do you believe one has to do to be saved?
I know you are very busy and may not have time for what may appear to be a ridiculous question but one that I feel will help me to understand where we all stand.
Thanks
Hey Mark.
I understand that what we represent as Reformed Theology is somewhat confusing sometimes but we honestly believe that it is what the Bible teaches. It is the only theological position IMHO which deals honestly and sufficiently with the Sovereignty of God as it relates to salvation. I have continuously asked Eric to tell me when God learned that he would trust Him for his salvation? It was when I tackled this question that I began to shed some of the “baggage” of my traditionally held views.
So to answer your question…what must I do to be saved? My answer to an unbeliever would be much the same as yours. Assuming that the person has been convicted of sin (he wouldn’t ask such a question unless he were), I would lead him to repent of his sin and to ask God for forgiveness. I would also lead him to be baptized by water immersion.
Too bad it’s not as easy to nail down a definition of “saved” as you seem to think it is. The Bible says that I WAS saved (past), I am BEING saved (present), and I WILL BE saved (future).
Eric asked what I needed to do in order to receive justification. My answer was simply, “sin”. I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that justification is monergistic (i.e. it is a work of God alone and requires no help on my part). My sin (which I definitely do) makes me a candidate for justification. It is God’s Sovereign electing will that makes me a recipient of justification. I believe this is what is taught in John 3:3, John 6:44-65, Acts 16:14, Rom. 8:28-30, and Eph. 2:5-10 among others.
As Hugh so eloquently put it, “true justification will certainly bear fruit…” This is what I’d refer to as sanctification which, unlike justification, is synergistic and involves my cooperation. So if you’re talking about sanctification when you ask “what did you do to be saved?” then I’d answer almost word-for-word what you would answer.
Eric,
This thread has gone in so many directions but I want to be diligent in responding. I’m not one to duck or evade but the number of questions is growing exponentially.
As to 1 John 2:18-19, John does in fact refer to those who were “anti” Christ. Whatever their particular form of doctrine, they were against Christ. Apparently they were once part of the inner circle of the apostles but had subsequently left this position to pursue their false doctrines. Although they were on the “inside”, John says that they weren’t REALLY “of us” or else they would have remained on the inside. Would it not be logical to conclude that John believes that “make believers” populate the church (just as Jesus said in the parable of the wheat and weeds) having an appearance of being saved (with us) but not really being “of us”? One could also infer from this passage that if they were true believers then they would not have left. The clear implication is that a true believer will not ever leave (at least for good). How is this possible? It is only possible if God were to persevere with those whom He knows are truly His own. Look at John 17:6ff.
The crossfire is getting a little hard to follow here, but I am going to try to address Eric G’s questions directed to me from the post from Thursday, December 15, 2005 @ 17:32 PM that begins and ends with ‘Eric.’
No. Believers will go to heaven because of Christ’s imputed righteousness. (Rom 1:17; 3:22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21) Everyone else will perish as just wages for their sin. (Rom. 6:23)
No. No follower of Christ will not deny his Lord. Denying the existence of God is an indication that he is not a follower of Christ. (Matt. 10:33)
I assume you mean to ask something like “Do we have to believe that Christ is the Son of God?” I’d answer essentially the same as the last question.
On it’s face I’ll answer yes. God commands us to repent of our sins (Acts 17:30; Rev 2:5,16; 3:3); therefore, we have to. I sense that you mean for this to be associated with the prior question about going to heaven. In that case I’ll answer yes and no. One must repent of his sin to turn to Christ. This is what we usually mean by conversion to Christ. One cannot turn to Christ without turning from his sin. Now, if you mean must one repent of each and every sin or go to hell, then I’d answer no. I would propose that anyone who thinks that this is possible does not appreciate the magnitude of his sin. (See 2 Cor 7:10)
I would probably not define them as actions. I don’t generally think of beliefs as actions.
Here I guess it depends on what you mean by “Faith requires obedience.” As Hugh and Ken have both put forward, I am persuaded that the Scriptures teach that faith produces obedience. Obedience is neither a component of faith nor is faith contingent on obedience. Faith is logically and chronologically prior to obedience. Since obedience is the fruit of faith, lack of obedience may be a sign of a lack of faith. This was James’ point in James 2:14-26. If your faith produces no works it is not the kind of faith that saves.
Just as litmus paper turns red when dipped into an acidic solution, genuine fruit is the result of the type of faith that justifies. Neither the litmus paper nor its color make the solution acidic, they just indicate a prior truth.
I would still like to hear how one should understand the process of regeneration as it relates to moving in and out of salvation. Does one become unregenerated? Or do regenerate people go to hell?
Ken,
We do not agree on baptism. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. That is what the Bible teaches about baptism. Please see Mark 16:16. If you have a problem with Mark 16:16 being included in the Bible, I can easily show you many scriptures that indicate that baptism is required for salvation. Saying that baptism is required but not a prerequisite makes no sense to me.
I did read you explanation in ‘Is water baptism required for salvation’ in the Common Questions. You said that justification is the work of God alone. Then you called in to question the justification of one who refuses baptism. If it is the work of God alone, and it is not a prerequisite for salvation, how can one refuse it or why would that matter? Yes and no is not a basis for doctrine.
I suspect the difficulty here lies in the definition of salvation. At the root of this is the doctrine of Security of Salvation (this was the original discussion above). It is logical that you would have a problem accepting baptism as a prerequisite for salvation if you believe in Security of Salvation. However, the Bible clearly teaches perseverance, not the perseverance in the TULIP doctrine, but that you must persevere in faith or you will not be saved (refer to the list of scriptures I sent you).
If I am not understanding the Bible, I am open to instruction. I am eager to study the scriptures with you. I see you started a new posting on another subject. Perhaps we can come back to Security someday.
Jose
Jose,
Yes. We definitely disagree on baptism.
You said,
All I can say is please read the article in the Common Questions again. Therein I differentiate between justification which is monergistic and sanctification which is synergistic. I can’t be more clear.
If you claim that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, then do you also claim that water baptism is a prerequisite for regeneration (being born again)?
Jose, you wrote:
Put logically:
1. To be justified is to be a follower of Christ.
2. Followers of Christ must be baptized.
3. Therefore, one who is justified must be baptized.
What is not being offered is something like this:
1. To be baptized is to be a follower of Christ.
2. To be a follower of Christ is to be justified.
3. Therefore, to be justified, one must first be baptized.
Just to be clear – the part in italics here is what I’m arguing against.
See the difference? In the first place, baptism is a logical consequence of justification. In the second place, justification is a logical consequence of baptism.
For my part, I affirm the former and reject the latter. I suspect Ken would agree.
So when the justification of one who refuses baptism is called into question, it makes sense: baptism is a consequence of justification. If a person persists in refusing baptism, then it’s fair to conclude that such a person is not following Christ, and therefore, not justified.
If, on a particular occasion, a person will not be baptized, it does not necessarily mean he is not following Christ — but I’d still be concerned and want to know why.
Here is another way of putting it…
Oak trees produce acorns.
This tree refuses to produce acorns.
This tree must not be an oak tree.
This does not mean that an oak tree is not an oak tree until it produces acorns.
Ken,
I explained my issues with your explanation in the Common Questions about Baptism from both a logical and scriptural point of view. I don’t see how your response opens the scriptures to me. I know you disagree with me, but show me how the Bible teaches something different, or show me perhaps how I am misunderstanding the scriptures.
I suspect the reason you think its clear may relate to something Hugh said that sounds like Justification = Salvation. Where do you get that from the Bible?
Thanks,
Jose
Jose,
If someone were to ask me what they must do to be saved, I would tell them to repent of their sins, trust Jesus to be their righteousness, and be baptized in water in obedience to Jesus’ commandment.
The theological nuances are something to be discussed down the road. So I really don’t see what problem you have with my teaching.
Ken,
That sounds great.
I look forward to doing a more thorough study on baptism with you someday, examining what the scriputres say about the promise and perseverance as it relates to salvation.
I will join the discussion in some of your other postings if I may. I hope its not a bother.
Thank you,
Jose