Those who view faith as a gift interpret man’s condition, described in Ephesians 2:1 as “dead in trespasses and sins,” as a total inability to respond to God in a positive way. But that phrase describes man’s total separation from God, not his inability to respond to God. Sinful man is totally separated from God and therefore without eternal life. Man retains the image of God to some degree; it was severely marred in the fall, but not totally destroyed. Acts 10:2 describes Cornelius before he came to know Jesus Christ as Savior as a devout man who feared God, gave alms, and prayed to God (and God heard his prayers! Acts 10:31). In Acts 17 the Athenians did not have the proper object of faith but worshiped idols. Paul encourages them to seek to know their “unknown God” which of course is Jesus Christ. Men can seek God in their unsaved state as God draws them (John 6:28-29, 44-45).
Another theological problem with the view of faith as a gift of God is that it misunderstands the nature of faith. Faith is not (as they claim) a divine energy, a special power, or an infused dynamic. That confuses faith with the power of the Holy Spirit. Faith is simply faith. It means that one is convinced or persuaded that something is true so that there is a personal appropriation of that truth. There is not a special kind of faith for eternal salvation. There is only a special object of faith—Jesus Christ. The kind of faith one might have in Buddha is no different from the kind of faith that one can have in Jesus. The only difference is the object: Buddha does not save; Jesus saves. To make faith the power of salvation is to confuse faith with the Holy Spirit. According to Ephesians 2:8 grace is the grounds of salvation and faith is the means by which we appropriate that grace. Properly speaking we are not saved by faith, but through faith.
To show that faith is not a meritorious work, the Bible contrasts faith in Christ with meritorious works in both Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:4-5. Faith means exactly that we can do nothing for our salvation. We can only receive salvation as a gift. Faith is like an empty hand that simply accepts a gift.” ~Dr.Charlie Bing, GraceLife Ministries (excerpt from full article provided at the link)
Dr. Charlie Bing: Is Faith in Jesus Christ a Gift of God? << Click
Thanks Jack for your timely posting of Dr. Charlie Bing’s article. I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. In the article, Dr. Bing also points out the fallacy of the LS/Calvinist position that misinterprets Ephesians 2:8-9. LS/Calvinists frequently cite that text as a “proof” that faith is a gift from God, YET, they wrongly exegete the passage, diverting or ignoring the gender of the Greek [is this an intentionally dishonest act?]. Dr. Bing explains from the same article that Jack mentioned above:
“It is claimed that the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ refers to ‘faith’ as a gift of God (the words ‘it is’ are not in the original language, but are supplied by the translation as shown by the brackets). But ‘that’ cannot refer to ‘faith’ (nor to ‘grace’) because in the original Greek it would have to be in the feminine gender. But ‘that’ is neuter which shows that the best antecedent is the concept of salvation by grace.”
Jack, those who view faith as a gift from God err grammatically, logically and theologically. They also create another gospel and redefine grace.
To borrow from an old adage, some people would rather climb a tree to embrace a false doctrine than stand on the ground and believe the truth.
Anyone holding onto this error should be avoided as a source of Biblical teaching and viewed as an opportunity for personal evangelism.
Bruce,
Wonderful addition to the Bing excerpt. Excellent explanation!!
In Jesus eternally, Jack
John,
As a child, I was a family victim of Calvinism which I abandoned for atheism at about college age. I thank the Lord someone saw me as an “opportunity for evangelism.” At age 35 I heard the Gospel and trusted Jesus Christ alone as my Savior. I thank the Lord that there were some Believers who cared enough to simply share Christ with me.
Tragically today we see Christians and falsely religious folks who call themselves Christians, pleading for behavioral “salvation” by works (Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists) who pretend to care but confuse the clear Gospel of God’s Grace. They are either blind to Truth or simply pretend to care for the eternity of folks around them.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
“Faith is not (as they claim) a divine energy, a special power, or an infused dynamic. That confuses faith with the power of the Holy Spirit. Faith is simply faith.” It seems people do this with grace as well. Does anyone have some quotes of Lordship proponents claiming that either faith or grace are some kind of special power given to us by God?
Hi Jim,
Not so much from the LSers, but I’ve often heard the term “faith force” coming from the Word-Faith preachers like Kenneth Copeland, Frederick Price, Kenneth Hagin, et. al. Of course, this is a false and unbiblical teaching that indicates that through drumming up enough faith you can twist God’s arm, so to speak, to accomplish great feats, get healthy, become rich—you know the drill.
Jim, I’ve seen repentance defined as given to us by God. This is common in LS and Calvinist teaching.
Jim F., regarding grace as an infused element, Clear Gospel Campaign has this:
The Doctrine of “Infused,” “Sovereign,” or “Irresistible” Grace. We believe that the fundamental meaning of “grace,” from the Greek word “charis,” is the disposition of a giver to offer something freely, out of the beneficence of the giver, its closest equivalent term in Hebrew being “hesed,” God’s loyal and unconditional love. We note that, throughout the progressive history of the church, the very meaning of grace was transformed from its lexical roots into a sensual quality or an ethereal vitalizing element (e.g. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Part 1 of the Second Part, “Treatise on Grace,” questions 109-114). Through this progressive distortion, bizarre and complex schemes of “grace” have been developed, including “prevenient grace,” “actual grace,” “common grace,” “effectual grace,” “sovereign grace,” “sanctifying grace,” and “irresistible grace.” We observe from church history that the corruption of “grace” into an ethereal vitalizing substance, though often starting with the seemingly “innocuous” view that “grace” vitalizes the lost sinner to belief in Christ, deteriorates, almost inevitably, to the belief that the effects of grace, being sovereign or irresistible, will ultimately empower man to “repent of his sins,” to perform certain acts of righteousness, and/or to “persevere to the end” in faith and good works. Finally, we observe that the frequent conclusion of this heresy is that, if permanent and significant lifestyle changes are not manifest in the life of a sinner, God’s “grace” was never received.
As a consequence, we believe that such a corruption of the meaning of the word “grace” historically portends a grave likelihood, if not a virtual certainty, of a theological system deteriorating into a system of salvation by “Christ plus works,” (Romans 11:6-7, Ephesians 2:8-9), the very opposite meaning of the word “Grace.”
I found the following quote from a 1999 article from John Piper: “Faith is a gift from God, so that no one may boast. Or, as Romans 12:3 says, so that we will not think too highly of ourselves. The last bastion of pride is the belief that we are the originators of our faith.” It seems that He and others do truly refer to faith as something given specifically to those who they call the elect. This takes away from the total importance of the object, that being Christ alone.
Jim F., interesting quote – it constitutes another gospel – in order to believe, one must believe that he can’t believe.
The Philippine jailor would have been told “Wait and see if God grants you faith in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”
John 3:16 would say “whosoever receives belief in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”
John 6:29 would say “…This is the work of God that ye receive belief in Him who hath been sent.”
This “misinterpretation” is idiotic beyond belief! In fact, it is disbelief!
Jim F and John,
John Piper is simply quoting Calvinist teaching which he believes and teaches. He is a doctrinaire Calvinist — and it is shocking (when put in the context of John’s note) that reasonable folks believe it. But the apostate religion of John Calvin is spreading like wildfire through many main-line churches – through ignorance and intent.
In Christ eternally, Jack
Jack, the thing I wonder about is cause and effect. Do people accept false gospels because they misinterpret scripture or do people misinterpret scripture because they accept false gospels? I guess both.
I agree with you John, it is both. It is like the ongoing cycle of deception since the serpent deceived Eve. The devil used enough of God’s words in order to twist them and trap Eve in his deception. Many people today are being trapped by false teachers spreading false gospels. Not all who teach false things at times are of the devil because we know that even Christians can be deceived, especially for a time. Believers have a responsibility to properly and carefully handle the Word of truth. There is the idea in scripture that things will generally progress for the worse as far as the majority of the world goes. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in 2 Tim 4:2-4 comes to mind.
2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
John,
We agree, it is both — but I believe it goes beyond that
1) Prestige of a large “active” church, regardless of doctrine.
2) Prestige of offering/gaining personal responsibility and power in the church.
3) Being born into a false doctrine family.
4) Swayed by a marriage partner.
5) A big church is “good for business.”
6) Cozy “church family.”
In many of those cases, the doctrine of the church is irrelevant or unknown.
And there are probably many more reasons — all of which really fall into your premise of “both,” either or.
I have family members who adhere to Calvinist doctrine for many of those reasons. They will not consider Biblical free Grace – as they have their own definition of Grace — and they like being “chosen for salvation.” For some reason it is easier for some to believe the lie than the Truth of Jesus Christ.
Despite that, I love all of those sweet family members dearly and pray for them daily.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Upon the recommendation of a friend, I looked into the beliefs of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). I was dismayed at the false teachings, cloistered in grace. Among them are:
1. Faith is a gift from God, nurtured through reading of the gospel and through sacraments
2. There is no eternal security. They believe salvation can be lost through neglect of faith, including sacraments. See Q&A below:
Q. Many Christians believe the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” – that once we’re born again, we can never lose our salvation. I know as confessional Lutherans we believe Christians can forfeit their salvation, as 1 Corinthians 10:12 warns. But others contend that really the Corinthians had just fallen out of fellowship with God, but they hadn’t lost their salvation. They argue: Can someone who is born, become unborn? My question is, can a person who has truly been born again, become spiritually unborn?
A. People who have been born can die. People who have been born again can die again. The Bible speaks often of people who have fallen from faith. The Bible says both that people can fall from faith and that God will keep us safe. We have to let both of these truths stand.
Among the many passages about this are Galatians 5:4 and Matthew 13:18-22. These passages do not say that the people who fall are just out of fellowship for a while, it says they have fallen from grace. We have to remain with what the Bible says, not with what our theory requires. See also Hebrews 6:4-6.
3. Salvation can be lost through sin – not sin, per se, but because the Holy Spirit will leave you. See Q&A, quoted below:
Q. If a person deliberately goes on sinning, is that person still saved? How long can a person continue in the sin before salvation is lost?
A. Strictly speaking, what causes a person to lose his or her salvation isn’t the sin, per se, but the loss of the Holy Spirit with his gift of faith in Jesus as Savior (Romans 8:9-14). In Scripture God doesn’t set a time limit for how long a person can continue in deliberate sin before faith and salvation are lost. Scripture simply urges us to turn away from our sin, trust God’s forgiveness, and take up the battle against sin every day so that this won’t happen to us.
Salvation can be lost; but lost salvation can also be restored. (The case of King David is instructive here—see 2 Samuel 11 and 12.) A person who trusts that God forgives sin because of the atoning work of Jesus has God’s gift of salvation—no matter what he or she did beforehand or how long the sin continued.
Thanks John,
What falsehood! What you just shared illustrates the ugly side of the false teaching of faith being a gift. They say that if God can give it then he can take it away. I think they need to go back to a basic definition of eternal life. If a believer with eternal life can die spiritually then there is no such thing as eternal life and it makes a mockery of God and the Bible.
Jim F., agree. By the way, in his article “The Terms of Salvation”, Chafer said something that perplexes me:
“Apart from the new birth, the unsaved ‘cannot see the kingdom of God’ (John 3:3), their minds are blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:3-4), and they can exercise faith toward God only as they are enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8).”
Is Chafer saying that faith is the gift of God?
John,
Chafer could have been talking about illumination that help the person understand the truth of the gospel but I think the way he said it might well mean that he was implying that faith is a gift because it is tied into salvation. I’d have to spend more time looking into what he said more closely.
I noticed that earlier he also said the following:
“Much has been written on previous pages regarding the overwhelming testimony of the Bible to the utter inability and spiritual death of the unsaved. They are shut up to the one message that Christ is their Savior; and they cannot accept Him, the Word of God declares, unless illuminated to that end by the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is not a possession of all men but is imparted specifically to those who do believe (Eph 2:8).” I’m not comfortable with the last line especially. “Saving faith” is imparted? And to those who believe (have faith)?
Chafer had some good things to say but I also had trouble with this part. “Every feature of man’s salvation from the divine election in past ages and on through successive steps—the sacrifice of the Savior, the enlightenment by the Spirit, the immediate saving work of God in its manifold achievements, the keeping work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the delivering work of the Spirit, the empowering work of the Spirit, and the final perfecting and presenting in glory—is all a work so supernatural that God alone can effect it, and, therefore, the only relation which man can sustain to it is to trust God to do it.” That doesn’t sound right really. I would change and clarify that quite a bit. It almost comes across as a total Calvinist thing to say minus the Lordship part.
Jim F., thanks for your insights. I had very similar thoughts when I read some of this.
John and Jim F,
Interesting observations about Lewis Sperry Chafer.
Just as a quick thought without too much detail, my friend Dr. Richard (Dick) Seymour taught Systematic Theology at Florida Bible College (my Alma Mater) and he used Chafer’s “Systematic Theology” as the text. I believe I recall Dick mentioning that he found some ever-so-slight Calvinist tendencies in Chafer’s writings and tried to teach around it. Later, he started writing his own “Systematic Theology” text to use instead. Not sure he ever finished or had it published.
Both of you have brought out what only few others have noticed (or dared to say) that was a problem with Chafer’s teaching. Of course, that teaching does not “make” Chadfer a Calvinist but I believe those errors may have influenced and confused a lot of students — and it shows in some graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary. However, not all Dallas Grads were so influenced. There have been many great Dallas grads who are straight anti-Calvinist teachers, Ron Shea or Clear Gospel Campaign is one great example.
Great work and analysis!! We must always remember, souls are at stake!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I have been reading the material on your website. This is like manna from Heaven. For so long I have had so many questions. If I cannot earn my salvation, how can I lose it? It is a logical inconsistency. Yet, there are many who are quick to say that I can lose it. They yell and pound their fists, speaking hellfire and damnation into my life if I struggle with my fallen nature.
So, I have prayed and prayed and He has led me here, through a circuitous and sometimes tortuous route. But here I am. And this is like the pure, sweet water that flows freely from the throne of the Most High.
I have been refreshed and invigorated; filled with love for the Lord Jesus and the Father’s ineffable gift of pure love. Thank you so very much, my beloved brothers (and sisters, I assume) in Christ. Thank you.
Dennis, welcome! I am delighted that you are here. You may have already read the booklet by Dr. Tom Cucuzza called “The Permanence of Salvation”, but if not, I heartily encourage you to read it and share it. Please see below:
http://expreacherman.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cucuzza-the-permanence-of-salvation.pdf
Dennis,
We welcome you to our discussions.
Your note is so very encouraging to us here at ExPreacherMan.com. Our mission is to share the clarity of the Gospel of God’s Grace — and expose those who would change it into “another gospel” which is no Gospel at all. (Galatians 1:7-8)
We will pray for your continued encouragement in God’s Word and also invite you to continue participating in our discussions.
As you illustrate, it is a lonely world out there when we are surrounded and intimidated by those who would pervert God’s Word. You will find many like-minded friends here at ExP who have experienced (and still are) just what you described.
We will pray for you and likewise will appreciate your prayers for us individually, this ministry and our “virtual” fellowship of discerning believers in God’s free salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
John and Jim F,
In my note mentioning my friend Dr. Richard Seymour, I should point out that with all of his discernment in many things theological, John found a quote from Spurgeon on one of Seymour’s works. I thought it only fair to post Seymour’s answer (inadequate in my mind) to the challenge of him quoting an apostate like Spurgeon:
I noted that Acts 20:28 does not address the question at all but in Titus 1:12,13, as we see in the quoted verses below, we are told to rebuke the false teachers sharply, not praise them as “great quotes” or endorse them as words to which “we should give attention.”
Dr. Seymour is still a dear friend and Brother in Christ but on this we disagree. Therefore, I would not recommend that book or any other books in which he may give credence to or acknowledge without rebuke, teachers like Spurgeon who preach abominable error. That is a shame because I would like to give a blanket approval to Seymour’s works, but without checking each work, I cannot.
Is error excusable? Possibly because we are all human and make mistakes but we should acknowledge it as a mistake, not justify it. I am happy my recorded and printed sermons from 40+ years ago are not available today because no doubt I could have misspoken or recommended questionable folks. But I have grown in grace and knowledge of God’s Word and would be happy to acknowledge and correct any errors I have made. Thankfully I did not write a book that needs correcting.
However, I know I can give a blanket approval and endorsement to the works, teaching and preaching of a Bible scholar like our friend, Dr. Tom Cucuzza. And Tom would be the first to acknowledge and be willing to correct an error in theology or judgment if one were discovered. We love you Tom and hope I did not put words in your mouth.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Jack, thanks for pointing this out.
I think it is a shame when people whos life’s work is proclaiming the Gospel undermine their witness by favorable references to guys like Spurgeon.
After escaping the pernicious lies of LS and accepting God’s Grace through Christ Jesus, I spent a lot of time reading information on so-called free grace websites. When I would read their often glowing references to Spurgeon, it naturally made me want to read some of his work. Then, once I did, I was extremely confused.
Promoting Spurgeon while trying to preach Grace is like putting salt on a slug and then trying to rinse it off.
Thanks John,
I know what you endured before and have after you trusted Christ as your Savior. But thankfully your experience has given you a very keen and rare sense of Discernment which we appreciate.
And, yes, as a child, we put salt on a snail, (slug carrying its own house) And indeed — the salt made them quickly disintegrate and dissolve before our very eyes. The damage was done — you simply cannot wash off the salt from a dissolved pile of snail mucous. That is sorta like favorably recommending Spurgeon — the damage is done.
Way back in the late 60s and early 70s and maybe even since, I may very well have quoted Spurgeon. But my excuse would be that in those days there was no internet – no search engine to find and dig into sermons and quotes from such as Spurgeon. We often took the word of those whom we trusted and if the quote or the message did not contradict scripture, it was OK (much like Seymour’s reasoning). I think today, Grace teachers have no excuse except ignorance of whom they quote.
Years ago in one of my very first web articles, January, 2006, I quoted the philosopher Socrates:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2006/01/08/of-blogs-and-language/.
Later I worried that others may think I endorsed his philosophy over or equal to God’s Word. Maybe mentioning Socrates is not as bad as endorsing Spurgeon because my article was directed to a dear unsaved, secular, very intellectual friend. (He never responded). Also it may be OK since Socrates is not idolized in “religious” circles as the “Prince of Preachers.”
In Jesus eternally, Jack
I am a big fan of lewis chafer great free grace preacher no lordship salvation I do not believe he was a calvinist do you and are you a big fan of chafer jack ? thanks mike t
Mike,
I have not read or studied much about Chafer. See my comment above as well as John’s and Jim F before that:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2012/09/16/theological-problems-with-faith-as-gods-gift/#comment-14195
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
The root of every doctrine that comes out of Calvinism centers upon one claim: man is so depraved that he is unable to choose God for himself. If that is disproved then all of Calvinism is disproved. There are verses in the bible that sometimes seem to support Calvinism, but if they do, they are in contradiction to God’s attributes. And through Jack’s blog, I’ve come to understand that these assertions like faith is God’s gift, LS, regeneration precedes faith, etc. all revolve around man not being able to choose God for himself. And nowhere in scripture does it say that man is not able to believe through his free will. It is only implied by them through misuse of Ephesians 1, Titus 3, etc.
Jack, I do have two questions for you. In the Old Testament, every time the Holy Spirit fell/came upon someone, he did supernatural miraculous things. I heard R.C. Sproul argue that if that same Holy Spirit lives inside believers, how can there not be any change at all? I know he is basically arguing that there must be evidence that one is saved, but can you just touch upon what you think about what he is saying?
Another question is on 2 Timothy 2:25 where Paul says “may God grant them repentance…”. Since it is established that repentance involves man’s change of mind, and not God forcing a man to repent, how is this verse within its context interpreted? All men have the opportunity/ability to repent, so I would like to ask you for your help on this.
Thanks,
Dime.
Mike, I think Chafer wrote some good things and some that are confusing. Chafer was staunchly against commitment salvation, public confession for salvation and asking for salvation, but a little fuzzy (in my opinion) on man’s ability to respond to the Gospel. One of the better Chafer articles is called “Preaching the Gospel in its Accuracy”. See link below:
http://duluthbible.org/files/Publications/Grace%20Family%20Journal/GFJ%201998%20PDF/GFJ%201998%2001%20Jan%20Feb/GFJ%201998%2001%20Preaching%20The%20Gospel%2000%20Chafer.pdf
Dime,
Jack and I will answer these questions jointly:
Your first question reads:
“In the Old Testament, every time the Holy Spirit fell/came upon someone, he did supernatural miraculous things. I heard R.C. Sproul argue that if that same Holy Spirit lives inside believers, how can there not be any change at all? I know he is basically arguing that there must be evidence that one is saved, but can you just touch upon what you think about what he is saying?”
Answer from Jack:
The Holy Spirit came upon OT folks for special reasons and purposes only and then He was taken away. In our dispensation, we are indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit at belief, never to leave.. But the miracles and sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were primarily for the Jews, would gradually disappear (1 Corinthians 13:1-10) until:
1 Cor. 13:10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Some believe “that which is perfect” applies to Christ’s first advent or resurrection, others the beginning of the Church and others the completion of Scriptures. I am not cast in stone where I land — but all have been completed – which should be a valid point.
From Bruce:
Dime, based upon and building upon what Jack said in his response to you, and applying it to your quotation from Sproul, I would say that Sproul can be indicted for making a false analogy (in terms of the indwelling of the Spirit) between an Old Testament follower of God and a present day believer in Christ, the latter, as Jack indicated, having the constant ongoing never-to-leave presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling him personally. Having devised this inaccurate comparison in his own thinking, Sproul uses his comparison to attempt to support his brand of Lordship Salvation teaching. Not only is his analogy flawed, but so are his conclusions. As we have spoken about on other posts, when LS advocates set themselves up as fruit inspectors, the resulting questions and problems are manifold. Examples:
1. How long must one serve the Lord consistently to be considered “a genuine believer?”
2. Are any periods of backsliding ever allowed? If so, for how long?
3. Who sets the standards of behavior? Other sinners? For LS advocates like Francis Chan, failure to support the poor, or failure to live some contrived radical over-the-top existence for God would relegate someone to the scrap heap of the lukewarm. According to Chan, guess where all of the lukewarm end up?
4. What about changes of heart in a young believer not evident to those outside but certainly known by God, such as remorse over sin or the desire to overcome addictions.
5. What about biblical examples of men who were certainly backsliders for long periods of their lives, but, nevertheless, are declared in Scripture to be believers: Samson, Lot, David, Solomon, Peter and Jonah come to mind quickly.
Question 2:
Another question is on 2 Timothy 2:25 where Paul says “may God grant them repentance…”. Since it is established that repentance involves man’s change of mind, and not God forcing a man to repent, how is this verse within its context interpreted? All men have the opportunity/ability to repent, so I would like to ask you for your help on this.
Thanks, Dime 10/4/12
This question was answered well, by Jack, on another discussion at Expreacherman:
Dear – - – - -,
Thanks so much . . . .
I noted one thing in your note that I want to explore. You said that “God grants repentance.” Repentance is a change of mind for which the individual is responsible, not God. That phrase “God grants repentance” is not in the Authorized KJV Bible but it is in the ESV Bible (a Calvinist favorite) and the NIV (error prone), both of which we have proven to be, in many cases, interpolated, inaccurate and misleading. Calvinist John Piper uses that phrase from his ESV to justify his false “salvation” message of election, “God grants repentance for some.” In the KJV (2 Timothy 2:25) the correct wording is “God gives repentance,” which in this particular context (in the Greek didomi) means “to suffer or allow.” God, by His Grace, allows us to change our mind (repent) about a myriad of things. Repentance to believe in salvation by Grace in Jesus Christ alone being one of the greatest and that is our responsibility. But God also allows us to change our minds daily about many things Biblical as we grow in Grace and learn His word – as you so beautifully illustrate in your personal life.
——, thanks again and I appreciate your discernment and passion for the Truth. That is rare. We thank the Lord we have many folks here at ExPreacherMan who care deeply and comment regularly about Biblical discernment.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack